Abstract
We argue that a primary focus on energy efficiency may not be sufficient to slow (and ultimately reverse) the growth in total energy consumption and carbon emissions. Instead, policy makers need to return to an earlier emphasis on “conservation,” with energy efficiency seen as a means rather than an end in itself. We briefly review the concept of “intensive” versus “extensive” variables (i.e., energy efficiency versus energy consumption) and why attention to both consumption and efficiency is essential for effective policy in a carbon- and oil-constrained world with increasingly brittle energy markets. To start, energy indicators and policy evaluation metrics need to reflect energy consumption, as well as efficiency. We introduce the concept of “progressive efficiency,” with the expected or required level of efficiency varying as a function of house size, appliance capacity, or more generally, the scale of energy services. We propose introducing progressive efficiency criteria first in consumer information programs (including appliance labeling categories) and then in voluntary rating and recognition programs such as ENERGY STAR. As acceptance grows, the concept could be extended to utility rebates, tax incentives, and ultimately to mandatory codes and standards. For these and other programs, incorporating criteria for consumption, as well as efficiency, offers a path for energy experts, policymakers, and the public to begin building consensus on energy policies that recognize the limits of resources and global carrying capacity. Ultimately, it is both necessary and, we believe, possible to manage energy consumption, not just efficiency, in order to achieve a sustainable energy balance. Along the way, we may find it possible to shift expectations away from perpetual growth and toward satisfaction with sufficiency.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The phrases “intensive variable” and “extensive variable” are more commonly used in the physical sciences than in the social sciences. For example, many thermodynamics texts discuss the distinction in an introductory chapter.
Figure 6 shows GDP in constant (2002) dollars. The data exclude GDP and employment related to manufacturing, construction, mining, and agriculture. Energy use per employee is obviously a more meaningful metric for some types of commercial buildings (offices, and perhaps retail and schools) than for warehouse or public assembly buildings with intermittent or highly varying occupancy, but a breakdown by building type was beyond the scope of this paper. Finally, a comparison of 1992 and 2003 CBECS data shows that floor space per worker has declined in most types of commercial buildings, averaging −7% for the sector as a whole, so the roughly constant trend in primary energy per employee is even more noteworthy.
Even though stratification could theoretically be used in high-ceiling spaces as a strategy to reduce summer cooling requirements (while increasing them in winter), the overhead placement of air supply ducts and occupant ignorance about proper use of ceiling fans for summer comfort cooling versus winter de-stratification tend to make high ceilings a net energy penalty rather than an advantage, even in cooling-dominated climates.
There are a number of degrees of freedom to achieve a given HERS score. But when other parameters were varied, all pointed to lower efficiency requirements in the larger house.
According to an Energy Star press release (10/05), “Currently there are more than 2,500 home builders who have constructed more than 400,000 Energy Star qualified homes, including close to 10 percent of the new housing starts in 2004.”
Refrigerator-freezers are first subdivided into styles based on defrost type, freezer location and door type, and then capacity within 2-ft3 categories.
The actual range of FTC-reported clothes washer data is even larger; the ratios cited here are based on eliminating a few outliers which may represent reporting or recording errors.
References
Baker, L. (2004). Great big green monster mansions. Salon.com July 7, 2004. Retrieved August 20, 2004 from http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/07/07/green_big_houses/index.html.
Binswinger, M. (2001). Technological progress and sustainable development: what about the rebound effect? Ecological Economics, 36(1), 119–132, July.
Birol, F., & Keppler, J. H. (2000). Prices, technological development and the rebound effect. Energy Policy, 28(6/7), 425–432.
California Energy Circuit. (2004). “Livin’ large causes demand to surge in Inland Empire.” Retrieved August 20, 2004 from. http://www.californiaenergycircuit.net/
City of Aspen, Colorado. (2002). Adoption of the 1999 Aspen/Pitkin Energy Conservation Code, as Amendments to the City Building Code, Section 8.20.020. Retrieved September 20, 2004 from http://www.bpcnet.com/codes/aspen/_DATA/Title_8/20/020.html, August 13.
Consumers Union. (2006). Comments of Consumers Union of the US, Inc. to the Federal Trade Commission “Energy Labeling, Project No. R511994” 16 C.F.R. Part 305. Washington, DC. Jan. 13. Retrieved March 10, 2006 from http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/energylabeling/519870-00017.pdf
County of Marin [California]. (2002). Single family dwelling energy efficiency ordinance—Marin County, California. Retrieved September 20, 2004 from http://www.co.marin.ca.us/EFiles/BS/AgMn/02_1022/html/Item-17-ord.pdf
Diamond, R. and Moezzi, M. (2004). Changing trends: A brief history of the U.S. consumption of energy, water, beverage and tobacco, published in the Proceedings of the 2004 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, DC, August, 2004.
Herring, H. (2006). Energy efficiency—a critical view. Energy, 31(1), 10–20.
Howarth, R. B. (1997). Energy efficiency and economic growth. Contemporary Economic Policy, XV(4), 1–9.
Meier, A. (2000). Living in a carbon constrained world. Home Energy, March/April 2000.
Moezzi, M. (1998). The predicament of efficiency. Proceedings of the 1998 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Washington, DC: ACEEE.
Moezzi, M., & Diamond, R. (2005). Is efficiency enough? Towards a new framework for carbon savings in the California residential sector. California Energy Commission PIER report, Sacramento, California. LBNL Report-58580.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratories. (2005). Indicators of energy intensity in the United States.” Retrieved March 10, 2006 from http://intensityindicators.pnl.gov/
Prahl, D. (2000). Analysis of energy consumption, rating score, and house size. Washington, DC: U.S. Green Building Council.
Princen, T. (2005). The logic of sufficiency. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Rudin, A. (2000). Why we should change our message from ‘Use energy efficiently’ to ‘ Use less energy’. Proceedings of the 2000 ACEEE summer study on energy efficiency in buildings. Washington, DC: ACEEE.
Siderius, H.-P. (2004). The end of energy efficiency improvements=The start of energy savings?! Proceedings of the 2004 ACEEE summer study on energy efficiency in buildings. Washington, DC: ACEEE.
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. (2002). Energy conservation program for consumer products. 10CFR430—PART 430. Retrieved March 20, 2004 from http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/10cfr430_02.html
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (2006). US Statistical Abstract.” Retrieved March 20, 2006 from http://www.census.gov/statab/www/
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. (2004). Annual Energy Review. “Table 2.1a Energy Consumption by Sector, Selected Years, 1949–2004.” Retrieved March 20, 2006 from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec2_4.pdf
U.S. Federal Trade Commission. (2006). Appliance energy data. Listings for refrigerators and freezers as of May 1, 1006. Retrieved March 20, 2006 from http://www.ftc.gov/appliancedata
U.S. Green Building Council. (2005). Rating system for pilot demonstration of LEED for Homes Program. Version 1.72. Retrieved March 20, 2006 from http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=147
White House. (2002). “Global change policy book.” Washington, DC. Retrieved March 20, 2006 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.html, February.
Wilhite, H., Lutzenhiser, L., Shove, E., & Kempton, W. (2000). Twenty years of energy demand management: We know more about behavior but how much do we know about demand? Proceedings of the 2000 ACEEE summer study on energy efficiency in buildings. Washington DC: ACEEE.
Wilhite, H., & Norgard, J. S. (2004). Equating efficiency with reduction: A self-deception in energy policy. Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 6, November 2004, pp. 991–1009 (19).
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank our colleagues Kathryn Janda and Alan Meier, who provided thoughtful review comments on earlier versions of this paper and our two anonymous reviewers, who added enormous value in clarifying our arguments.
This work was funded by the US Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231 and the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research Program. The views expressed in this paper are solely the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the funding institutions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Harris, J., Diamond, R., Iyer, M. et al. Towards a sustainable energy balance: progressive efficiency and the return of energy conservation. Energy Efficiency 1, 175–188 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-008-9011-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-008-9011-0