Behaviour change as a driver for climate change mitigation has both merits and limits, according to this study.
Article explores offsets and reinforcements according to table 1 in the article: (quoted).
|Rebounds (financial resources)||Spillovers (moral resources)||Time-use rebounds (temporal resources)|
|Offsets the initial energy savings||Positive rebound
(e.g. if cycling is less expensive than car travel, more money is available to spend on a long-distance vacation)
(e.g. if cycling is less carbon intensive than car travel, this may ‘licence’ a decision to take a long-distance vacation)
|Positive time-use rebound
(e.g. if cycling takes less time than car travel, more time is available to spend watching television)
|Reinforces the initial energy savings||Negative rebound
(e.g. if cycling is more expensive than car travel, less money is available to spend on an long-distance vacation)
(e.g. if cycling is less carbon intensive than car travel, this may reinforce a personal commitment to avoid long-distance vacations)
|Negative time-use rebound
(e.g. if cycling takes more time than car travel, less time is available to spend watching television)
Quote from the abstract: “[This paper] concludes that: first, rebound effects can erode a significant proportion of the anticipated energy and emission savings from sufficiency actions; second, that such actions appear to have a very limited influence on aggregate energy use and emissions; and third, that downshifting should reduce energy use and emissions, but by proportionately less than the reduction in working hours and income.”