Advertisement

Non-technical Aspects of Household Energy Reductions

  • Patrick MoriartyEmail author
  • Damon Honnery
Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history

Abstract

Domestic energy forms a significant part of total energy use in OECD countries, accounting for 22 % in the USA in 2011. Together with private travel, domestic energy reductions are one of the few ways that households can directly reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Although domestic energy costs form a minor part of average household expenditure, the unit costs for domestic electricity and natural gas vary by a factor of 4 and 5, respectively, among OECD countries, and per capita use is strongly influenced by these costs. Other influences on domestic energy use are household income, household size, residence type (apartment/flat vs. detached house), and regional climate. Numerous campaigns have been carried out in various countries to reduce household energy use. A large literature has analyzed both the results of these studies and the general psychology of pro-environmental behavior, yet the findings often seem to conflict with the national statistical data.

The authors argue that the rising frequency of extreme weather events (especially heat waves, storms, and floods), together with sea level rises, is likely to be a key factors in getting both the public and policy makers to treat global climate change as a matter of urgency. Costs of domestic energy are likely to rise in the future, possibly because of carbon taxes. But such taxes will need to be supplemented by other policies that not only encourage the use of more efficient energy-consuming appliances but also unambiguously support energy and emission reductions in all sectors.

Keywords

Australia Barriers to conservation Carbon taxes Climate extremes Conflicting policies Domestic energy consumption Ecological citizenship Electricity use Energy conservation context Energy costs Energy efficiency Energy performance rating Environmentally friendly modes European Union (EU) Extreme weather Fossil fuel reserves Fossil fuel depletion Gross national income (GNI) Household expenditure Household size Household income Income inequality Information provision Involuntary environmentalists Japan Moral licensing National statistical data Natural gas use Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Personal carbon trading Pro-environmental behavior Refrigerators Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) Smart houses Social context Social cost of carbon Social marketing Social psychology Space heating Structure of domestic energy costs Unintended consequences United Kingdom Urban density Urban heat island United States 

Abbreviations

ABS

Australian Bureau of Statistics

EIA

Energy Information Administration (US)

EJ

Exajoule (1018 J)

EPR

Energy performance rating

EU

European Union

GHG

Greenhouse gas

GJ

Gigajoule (109 J)

GNI

Gross national income

Gt

Gigatonne (109 tonne)

IEA

International Energy Agency

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IT

Information technology

MWh

Megawatt-hour (106 W-hour)

NG

Natural gas

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

ONS

Office for National Statistics (UK)

PCT

Personal carbon trading

PEB

Pro-environmental behavior

RCP

Representative Concentration Pathway

SBJ

Statistics Bureau Japan

SCC

Social cost of carbon

UHI

Urban heat island

UN

United Nations

References

  1. Ackerman F, Stanton EA (2012) Climate risks and carbon prices: revising the social cost of carbon. Available at (http://dx.doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2012-10)Google Scholar
  2. Attari SZ, DeKay ML, Davidson CI et al (2010) Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(37):16054–16059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2012) 2009–10 household expenditure survey: summary of results. ABS, Canberra, Cat No 6530Google Scholar
  4. Bohr J (2014) Public views on the dangers and importance of climate change: predicting climate change beliefs in the United States through income moderated by party identification. Clim Chang. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1198-9Google Scholar
  5. Booth C (2009) A motivational turn for environmental ethics. Ethics Environ 14(1):53–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BP (2014) BP statistical review of world energy 2014. BP, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook D (2012) How smart is your home? Science 335:1579–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corner A, Randall A (2011) Selling climate change? The limitations of social marketing as a strategy for climate change public engagement. Glob Environ Chang 21:1005–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corrado V, Mechri HE (2009) Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis for building energy rating. J Build Phys 33(2):125–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis SJ, Caldeira K (2010) Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:5687–5692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Groot JIM, Steg L (2009) Mean or green: which values can promote stable pro-environmental behavior? Conserv Lett 2:61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Delmas MA, Fischlein M, Asensio OI (2013) Information strategies and energy conservation behavior: a meta-analysis of experimental studies from 1975 to 2012. Energy Policy 61:729–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dietz T (2014) Understanding environmentally significant consumption. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(14):5067–5068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dissou Y, Siddiqu MS (2014) Can carbon taxes be progressive? Energy Econ 42:88–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Druckman A, Jackson T (2008) Household energy consumption in the UK: a highly geographically and socio-economically disaggregated model. Energy Policy 36:3177–3192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2013) 2009 RECS survey data. Accessed on 18 Jun 2014 at (http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/#sf?src=‹ Consumption Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS)-b1)
  17. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2014) Annual energy outlook 2014. US Department of Energy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Gifford R, Nilsson A (2014) Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review. Int J Psychol. doi:10.1002/ijop.12034Google Scholar
  19. Gromet DM, Kunreuther H, Larrick RP (2013) Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:9314–9319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2013a) CO2 emissions from fuel combustion: highlights, 2013th edn. IEA/OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  21. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2013b) Key world energy statistics 2013. IEA/OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacobson MZ, ten Hoeve JE (2012) Effects of urban surfaces and white roofs on global and regional climate. J Clim 25:1028–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jagers SC, Martinsson J, Matti S (2014) Ecological citizenship: a driver of pro-environmental behaviour? Environ Polit 23(3):434–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kleerekoper L, van Esch M, Salcedo TB (2012) How to make a city climate-proof, addressing the urban heat island effect. Resour Conserv Recycl 64:30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Larivière I, Lafrance G (1999) Modelling the electricity consumption of cities: effect of urban density. Energy Econ 21:53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marshall M (2013) Transforming earth. N Sci 220 (2938):10–11Google Scholar
  27. McCoy D, Lyons S (2014) Better information on residential energy use may deter investment in efficiency: case study of a smart metering trial. MPRA paper no. 55402. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/55402/
  28. Merritt AC, Effron DA, Monin B (2010) Moral self-licensing: when being good frees us to be bad. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 4(5):344–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moriarty P (2002) Environmental sustainability of large Australian cities. Urban Policy Res 20(3):233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2011) Rise and fall of the carbon civilisation: resolving global environmental and resource problems. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2012) Chapter 51. Reducing personal mobility for climate change mitigation. In: Chen W-Y, Seiner JM, Suzuki T, Lackner M (eds) Handbook of climate change mitigation. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2013) Greening passenger transport: a review. J Clean Prod 54:14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2014) Future earth: declining energy use and economic output. Foresight 16(6):1–18Google Scholar
  34. Newell RG, Pizer WA, Raimi D (2014) Carbon market lessons and global policy outlook. Science 343:1316–1317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Office for National Statistics (ONS) (UK) (2013) Household energy consumption in England and Wales, 2005–11. Accessed at http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_321960.pdf
  36. Office for National Statistics (ONS) (UK) (2014) Expenditure on household fuels 2002–2012. Accessed at http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/expenditure-on-household-fuels/2002---2012/sty-energy-expenditure.html
  37. Pilkington B, Roach R, Perkins J (2011) Relative benefits of technology and occupant behaviour in moving towards a more energy efficient, sustainable housing paradigm. Energy Policy 39:4962–4970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Revesz RL, Howard PH, Arrow K et al (2014) Improve economic models of climate change. Nature 508:173–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Starkey R (2012) Personal carbon trading: a critical survey. Part 1: equity. Ecol Econ 73:7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Statistics Bureau Japan (SBJ) (2014) Japan statistical yearbook 2014. Statistics Bureau, Tokyo, Available at http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/nenkan/index.htm Google Scholar
  42. Steemers K (2003) Energy and the city: density, buildings and transport. Energy Build 35:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Steg L (2008) Promoting household energy conservation. Energy Policy 36:4449–4453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K et al (eds) (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. CUP, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  45. Sunikka-Blank M, Galvin R (2012) Introducing the prebound effect: the gap between performance and actual energy consumption. Build Res Inf 40(3):260–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tabi A (2013) Does pro-environmental behaviour affect carbon emissions? Energy Policy 63:972–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tiefenbeck V, Staake T, Roth K et al (2013) For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign. Energy Policy 57:160–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Turaga RMR, Howarth RB, Borsuk ME (2010) Pro-environmental behavior: rational choice meets moral motivation. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1185:211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M et al (2011a) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Chang 109:5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Vuuren DP, Stehfest E, den Elzen MGJ et al (2011b) RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2°C. Clim Chang 109:95–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wikipedia (2014) Climate change opinion by country. Accessed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country
  52. World Bank (2014) GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$). Available at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD
  53. Yang J, Wang Z, Kaloush KE (2013) Unintended consequences: a research synthesis examining the use of reflective pavements to mitigate the urban heat island effect. Arizona State University National Center of Excellence for SMART Innovations. Accessed at http://www.asphaltroads.org/assets/_control/content/files/unintended-consequences-1013.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DesignMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations