The rebound effect is overplayed

Increasing energy efficiency brings emissions savings.


Introduction:

Buy a more fuel-efficient car and you will spend more time behind the wheel. That argument, termed the rebound effect, has earned critics of energy-efficiency programmes a voice in the climate-policy debate, for example with an article in The New York Times entitled 'When energy efficiency sullies the environment'.

The rebound effect idea — and its extreme variant the 'backfire' effect, in which supposed energy savings turn into greater energy use — stems from nineteenth-century economist Stanley Jevons. In his 1865 book The Coal Question, Jevons hypothesized that energy use rises as industry becomes more efficient because people produce and consume more goods as a result.

The rebound effect is real and should be considered in strategic energy planning. But it has become a distraction. A vast academic literature shows that rebounds are too small to derail energy-efficiency policies. Studies and simulations indicate that behavioural responses shave 5–30% off intended energy savings (see 'Bounce back'), reaching no more than 60% when combined with macroeconomic effects.

There is ample scientific evidence to diminish undue concern about rebounds and bolster support for energy-efficiency measures.

Full text: "Energy policy: The rebound effect is overplayed"

Featured Articles

View All

Coalbed methane is an underappreciated problem of global steel production. While cutting methane emissions in the steel supply chain will not produce green steel overnight, it could reduce the sector’s emissions by the equivalent of a billion tons of carbon annually, and at little cost.

25 Sep 25