From Unidisciplinary to Multidisciplinary Rebound Research: Lessons Learned for Comprehensive Climate and Energy Policies

This article presents how the rebound phenomenon has evolved from only being considered from a neoclassical economic perspective to include several other disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and industrial ecology. The intention is to show how different theoretical perspectives contribute to the scientific discourse about rebound effects. We summarize key findings from the various disciplinary strains of research and highlight new research questions and needs that arise. We discuss strengths and limitations of the expansion toward multidisciplinary rebound research and suggest that a further expansion toward transdisciplinary research could be valuable. We identify the “micro-macro discrepancy” and the “cause-effect relativity” as two general challenges that have to be taken into account when rebound research becomes increasingly multi- and transdisciplinary. In the final section of the article, we present lessons learned from multidisciplinary rebound research for policies and measures that aim to mitigate rebound effects. The main finding of this article is that if policymakers aim to make climate and energy policies as “rebound-proof” as possible, findings from both energy economics and multidisciplinary rebound research have to be taken into account.DFG, 325093850, Open Access Publizieren 2017 - 2018 / Technische Universität Berli

Two Contrasting Scenarios for a Zero-Emission Future in a High-Consumption Society

The Paris agreement on climate took effect on 4 November 2016. The agreement plans on holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. This paper compares an ecological modernisation (EM) development path with a degrowth development path, using urban and land-use planning impact on housing and transportation as cases. The two positions (EM and degrowth) agree on the need for a fundamental reduction in climate gases but disagree on which strategies should be pursued. EM transitions do not challenge the values associated with the capitalistic market economy and believe that policies, such as the right-price signals, should nudge producers and consumers in an environmentally benign direction. Conversely, degrowth rejects the EM belief in green growth, and holds that it will not be possible to decouple the economy from environmental loads to the necessary extent if the economy keeps growing. We conclude that we need a fundamental transformational change in society, i.e., a steering away from the growth ideology, and pursue policies that introduce maximum housing standards and limit mobility to succeed with the goals of the Paris agreement

Human health as a motivator for climate change mitigation: results from four European high-income countries

Invoking health benefits to promote climate-friendly household behavior has three unique advantages: (i) health co-benefits accrue directly to the acting individual, they are “private goods” rather than public ones; (ii) the evidence base for, and magnitude of health co-benefits is well-established; and (iii) the idea of a healthy life-style is well-engrained in public discourse, much more so than that of a climate-friendly life-style. In previous research, assessing the influence of information on health effects on people's motivation to adopt mitigation actions, health co-benefits for the individual were typically confounded with collective health co-benefits, for example from pollution reduction. The present research aims to overcome this limitation by providing information on individual health co-benefits that are unconditional on the actions of others (direct health co-benefits). We report effects of this kind of health information on stated willingness to adopt mitigation actions as well as on simulation-based carbon emission reductions in a pre-registered experimental setting among 308 households in 4 mid-size case-study cities in 4 European high-income countries: France, Germany, Norway and Sweden. For each mitigation action from the sectors food, housing, and mobility, half of the sample received the amount of CO2equivalents (CO2-eq) saved and the financial costs or savings the respective action generated. The other half additionally received information on direct health co-benefits, where applicable. For households receiving information on direct health co-benefits, we find a higher mean willingness to adopt food and housing actions, and a greater proportion very willing to adopt one or more mitigation actions (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.1, 3.12); and a greater simulated reduction in overall carbon footprint: difference in percent reduction -2.70%, (95% CI -5.34, -0.04) overall and -4.45%, (95% CI -8.26, -0.64) for food. Our study is the first to show that providing information on strictly unconditional, individual health co-benefits can motivate households in high-income countries to adopt mitigation actions

Barriers, emotions, and motivational levers for lifestyle transformation in Norwegian household decarbonization pathways

Meeting the Paris Agreement targets requires strong near-term climate change mitigation in all sectors of the economy. Increasing demand-side emission abatement efforts is one important area to pursue, yet there are significant barriers that must be overcome in order to realize its potential. We ask: What barriers may be hindering deep emissions reduction at the household level? What kinds of levers are available to achieve emission reductions? Based on an original and extensive qualitative dataset, our in-depth study of households in Bergen, Norway, shows that individuals perceive they are confronted with considerable individual, economic, and infrastructural barriers that prevent them from taking deep mitigation actions. Our results however also suggest that some barriers can be overcome with motivational levers such as the availability of more sustainable alternatives, support networks and by the positive emotions felt when having a positive impact on the environment. Other barriers are more difficult to overcome, pointing to the overarching lesson from our study that households will need to be forced or incentivized beyond voluntary efforts to achieve rapid and comprehensive decarbonization. The current policy approach, aimed mostly at nudging for voluntary mitigation actions, is wholly inadequate to achieve significant emission reductions. Our study indicates that households are open for increasingly including more “sticks” into climate policymaking. While there are significant challenges to individuals taking stronger mitigation action, these can be overcome by strengthening government policies targeting the patterns and, importantly, volumes of household consumption

It starts at home? Climate policies targeting household consumption and behavioral decisions are key to low-carbon futures

Through their consumption behavior, households are responsible for 72% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, they are key actors in reaching the 1.5 °C goal under the Paris Agreement. However, the possible contribution and position of households in climate policies is neither well understood, nor do households receive sufficiently high priority in current climate policy strategies. This paper investigates how behavioral change can achieve a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in European high-income countries. It uses theoretical thinking and some core results from the HOPE research project, which investigated household preferences for reducing emissions in four European cities in France, Germany, Norway and Sweden. The paper makes five major points: First, car and plane mobility, meat and dairy consumption, as well as heating are the most dominant components of household footprints. Second, household living situations (demographics, size of home) greatly influence the household potential to reduce their footprint, even more than country or city location. Third, household decisions can be sequential and temporally dynamic, shifting through different phases such as childhood, adulthood, and illness. Fourth, short term voluntary efforts will not be sufficient by themselves to reach the drastic reductions needed to achieve the 1.5 °C goal; instead, households need a regulatory framework supporting their behavioral changes. Fifth, there is a mismatch between the roles and responsibilities conveyed by current climate policies and household perceptions of responsibility. We then conclude with further recommendations for research and policy

Denying bogus skepticism in climate change and tourism research

This final response to the two climate change denial papers by Shani and Arad further highlights the inaccuracies, misinformation and errors in their commentaries. The obfuscation of scientific research and the consensus on anthropogenic climate change may have significant long-term negative consequences for better understanding the implications of climate change and climate policy for tourism and create confusion and delay in developing and implementing tourism sector responses