The Energy Grid Blog is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them The rebound effect, in which efficiency gains are nullified by increased usage, is almost certainly to blame for rising transportation-sector emissions in much of the world, but not in the United States, it seems. The 1908 Model T, to use one widely cited example, got 25 miles per gallon, which is about the same or even better than the average family sedan coming off the assembly lines today.
The reasons are two-fold.
First, consumers are forever demanding more power, in the form of torque and acceleration, from their cars. Just as important, however, is the lack of incentives for the automobile to invest in efficiency. Electric and even hybrid technologies are decades old, but we're still waiting for a mass-production electric car from Detroit. Gasoline has been too cheap to worry about and largely still is. It's axiomatic that if fuel costs were to rise significantly, we would start to see a major push for improved efficiency. The close correlation between the rollercoaster of demand for the Toyota Prius and the price of gasoline last summer is a case in point.
So until we can sit back and look at a decade or two of real increases in average fuel efficiency, we can't assume that the rebound effect is applicable at all, at least when it comes to American car culture. Further complicating matters is the fact that the rebound effect does not take into account limiting factors on how much people can or need to drive. How much more time behind the wheel is available to the average driver?
Thanks to sophisticated and affordable information technology, work time is gobbling up ever more personal time, and I would argue that there is a very real maximum amount of time most of could find to drive. If that maximum isn't too far from current levels, then we have a great opportunity to mandate increased efficiency and reduce emissions.
As for the opposite end of the limit -- the minimum -- that presents real opportunity regardless of the social factors or the veracity of the rebound effect.
Jonas asks "What are the options to reduce energy consumption in the transport sector...?" Like just about every other sector, the largest room for improvement is not supplied by switching fuels or redesigning the technology. No, the cheapest and fastest way to bring down energy consumption rates is, as the American poet Gary Snyder said, "Stay put."
Wanderlust will forever be part of the human psyche and few learning experiences match those that come with travel to a foreign land. But international air travel only accounts for something like 3% of global carbon dioxide emissions (although per mile, it's almost as bad as a single-passenger car). So that's not where the biggest savings can be made.
For that we need to look at the daily commute. And there we have enormous opportunities for reductions. Telecommuting remains a vast untapped resource. IBM long ago discovered that employees who can work from home are generally more productive, happier and stick around longer than those forced to do the same thing from an office. Today's broadband connections and cloud computing applications make telecommuting a no-brainer for managers throughout our service-oriented information-based economy.
In addition to improving the quality of life in suburbs, exurbs and rural communities, which would be better able to support small markets and other services that commuters obtain elsewhere, we could save billions of gallons of gas. One estimate puts it at 9.7 billion gallons a year in the U.S. alone, which is something like three years of total global consumption.
That's the comparatively low-hanging fruit. Congresspeople have floated bills that would provide tax credits for companies and employees who take part in telecommuting, but basically it's a zero-net-cost strategy. We can also reduce transportation emissions by making mass-transit more affordable and more comprehensive, although that does run into money. Most environmentalists are in love with subways, but buses, if they're run on clean fuels, are less expensive and more flexible. And of course, in the more temperate parts of the planet, there's always the bicycle.
So don't forget about hybrids, fuel cells, algae-grown biofuels and electric cars. There will always be need for fuels and therefore always a need for cleaner alternatives. But the biggest and cheapest ways to cut transport's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is to stay close to home in the first place.
Environment
Technology
Comments
And of course, in the more temperate parts of the planet, there's always the bicycle.
Whaddya mean, temperate?
All jesting aside, you make an excellent point. Similar arguments were laid out by Peter Tertzakian in his most recent book "The End of Energy Obesity".
Posted by: Brian D | July 14, 2009 4:00 PM
In addition to improving the quality of life in suburbs, exurbs and rural communities, which would be better able to support small markets and other services that commuters obtain elsewhere, we could save billions of gallons of gas. One estimate puts it at 9.7 billion gallons a year in the U.S. alone, which is something like three years of total global consumption.
I'm sorry, can you clarify that?
Posted by: Moderately Unbalanced Squid | July 14, 2009 7:40 PM
Ah, snowbiking.
Posted by: Mike | July 15, 2009 8:53 AM
I also recognize a striking consistency between James' thoughts on the rebound effect with Peter Tertzakian's in "The End of Energy Obesity". But I think that Tertzakian looks more broadly about the rebound effect. Irrespective of the question whether the theoretical maximal time available for driving has been reached by the average American driver, fuel savings resulting from automobile mileage efficiency gains often "rebound" into increased fuel consumption in the non-driving sphere. This is a crucial point. Tertzakian points out how efficiency-generated fuel savings translate into higher disposable income for the beneficiary of the savings who, in turn, uses that money in another fuel consuming activity such as longer vacation flights, larger homes, etc. When a nation's overall fuel consumption and emissions are being examined, the rebound effect should be interpreted as a phenomenon that reaches well beyond just the individual's driving habits and extends into his/her whole economic behavior.
Posted by: Seb G | July 15, 2009 12:01 PM
You make a verry good point, difficult to understand in parts, but very good none the less.
Posted by: Hanna K | July 15, 2009 1:23 PM
Let me put it simpler: If you save money because you buy a fuel efficient car, the rebound effect dictates that you will likely put that saved money where it too consumes energy (bigger house, more flying, etc.). Although one expects that the push for better fuel mileage will lessen our fuel consumption, the rebound effect says that this is not necessarily so.
Therefore, the economic effects of automobile fuel efficiency cannot be understood when viewed in isolation from the economic behavior of the actual drivers. This idea is part of a compelling argument for placing a gradually increasing price on carbon emissions. This makes fuel efficiency improvements not just "aspirational" but "obligatory" and undercuts the intractability of the rebound effect (although I don't think Tertzakian in his book The End of Energy Obesity advocates for a carbon tax).
I quote below Wikipedia on "Jevon's Paradox" (which is basically the "rebound effect") to make this counter-intuitive idea clearer still:
"In economics, the "Jevons Paradox" (sometimes called the Jevons effect) is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used, tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource. It is historically called the Jevons Paradox as it ran counter to popular intuition. However, the situation is well understood in modern economics. In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given output, improved efficiency lowers the relative cost of using a resource – which increases demand. Overall resource use increases or decreases depending on which effect predominates."
Posted by: Seb G | July 16, 2009 3:00 PM
To other commenters - awesome winter biking links! It really isn't hard to ride in the snow and ice.
Posted by: george.w | July 18, 2009 10:59 PM
Possible solution:
Blow up half the bridges (selected randomly). I am only slightly making this up.
Get serious about legislation. Someone I know just traded in a gas guzzling SUV for another gas guzzling SUV and got a thousand bucks for "upgrading" to a car that uses less gas. Sure, it uses less gas, but seriously......
Four day work week.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 20, 2009 7:48 PM
I second the four day workweek.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 21, 2009 12:42 AM
The star of the new TV show "Mental" is a cyclist, but otherwise, there's very little depiction in entertainment of people using bicycles for transportation. I'd love to see scenes of the hero stuck in traffic, while his sidekick cycles on past his car to save the day.
Posted by: george.w | July 21, 2009 8:29 AM
What is the obsession with power from our cars? Most of the time I see people screeching from one stop light to the next. Do we need this power? Please...I drive an 97 Sentra, 1.6L Engine that gets over 32mpg City and near 40 Hwy. It's in great shape, runs perfectly and beats out most hybrids for mpg.
My friends make fun of me for having the same car for over 12 years...that is unheard of these days. But I don't have a valid reason for getting a new car.
Thanks for the post!
Posted by: Electronic Cigarette | July 22, 2009 4:34 PM
@#11
"I don't have a valid reason for getting a new car"
Hey man this is America, you don't need a valid reason for getting a new car! Just ask all your friends.
Posted by: Viking | July 28, 2009 10:56 PM
There is an angle to leverage the current economic problems for environmental (and lifestyle) gain I haven't seen mentioned yet.
Many many companies are looking at alternatives to laying off workers. Real layoffs (as opposed to those used as an excuse to fire high paid labor and hire cheaper workers) are expensive for many companies in the long run. Skilled workers cost money to train, and new workers don't have the same retention as long-timers. Furloughs and cutting hours (the best form being salaried workers voluntarily taking a lower commitment, but staying salaried) are becoming pretty popular 'less bad' alternatives to layoffs.
Less than 5 day work weeks, telecommuting for some jobs, and generally more flexibility are a very attractive choice compared with a pink-slip, even if they come with less total hours/commitment and less money. Some tax credits and information/PR from the government encouraging these alternatives could go a long way.
Posted by: travc | August 7, 2009 6:35 AM