SEARCH THIS SITE

Learning from Khazzoom and Brookes

21/7/2009

Rory Bergin, head of sustainability and innovation at consultancy HTA, explores the paradox of energy policy.

The wonderfully named Khazzoom–Brookes postulate ‘suggests’ that energy efficiency measures sometimes result in an increase in the use of energy. The economists Daniel Khazzoom and Leonard Brookes came to this conclusion by analysing the effort made to reduce the use of a resource, specifically oil after the oil crises in the 1970s, and the success or failure of the effort. In that case efforts to reduce oil consumption resulted in an increase.

The effect had been analysed previously by William Stanley Jevons in 1895. He studied the effect of increasing efficiency in coal–burning steam engines, and found that a more efficient engine which used less coal did not reduce the amount of coal being used. A more efficient engine increased the number of engines being used because they were cheaper to run, and hence the amount of coal being consumed rose by a factor of 10. The Khazzoom–Brookes postulate argues that if the inefficient engines had been left alone, then the costs of use would have remained high and the number of engines in use would have remained low.

Policy versus practice

Let‘s fast forward to 2009. We are engaged in massive programmes of energy efficiency in the UK, or planning for them. We will spend billions of pounds between now and 2020 installing smart meters, partially to improve the information about energy efficiency to residents. The CERT (Carbon Emissions Reduction Target) programme is spending several billions of pounds on home insulation and boiler upgrades. The Department of Energy and Climate Change has consulted on energy efficiency programmes aimed at offering whole house energy efficiency measures to every household by 2030.

What is happening to UK domestic energy use during this period? Is it falling or rising? In the period from 1970 to 2006 our average UK SAP rating lifted from around 20 to around 50, an increase in efficiency of two and a half times. The expectation would be that our energy requirements would have fallen in line with this. In fact the opposite is the case. In the same period our domestic energy use has increased by 18%, not decreased. The trend currently for 2007–2009 is a decrease due to the underlying economic problems, but that is likely to be reversed with a return to economic growth. We all have short term memories when it comes to penny pinching measures.

Our electricity use in the period 1970 to 2006 has increased by 62%, mainly due to our love of consumer electronics, and a failure to use energy efficient light bulbs. Although lighting energy use has finally started falling by a measly 1% a year, this saving is far outstripped by a combined rise in the use of power for consumer electronics, ICT and cooking. The last one is probably due to the influence of dozens of celebrity chefs who have us sweating over the hob to produce that perfect meal instead of putting pre–prepared food into the microwave. We may be healthier as a result, but we are also using more energy.

Cost versus carbon

What is the lesson from this? Are we spending our money on energy efficiency foolishly? Well we may be doing just that if what we are trying to achieve is carbon reductions. Increasing the energy efficiency of our homes will save us money, and will reduce fuel poverty, but it is unlikely to save on carbon emissions. History tells us that the emissions we save will be emitted by some other means. Our continuing love of gadgetry and consumer electronics will continue to grow and compensate for the savings we make in heating energy. What Khazzoom Brookes tells us is that we cannot depend on many small actions happening in every household to deliver a national energy target. There are too many other factors in the equation. The rise and fall of energy prices, the increasing availability of must–have gadgetry, individual views on comfort and hygiene all have an impact on energy use.

Does this mean that there is no room for carbon emission savings from households? No, there are many opportunities for realistic savings, but we need to be realistic in our expectations of where they will come from, and how far they will take us. Energy is a bit like water, it will take the easiest route out of the tank, if we stop up one leak, water will find the next one. We need to ensure that we are simultaneously tackling the emissions from household ICT and entertainment devices, and that there is clear evidence displayed with appliances about their energy use. If my car tax is related to my engine size, perhaps my TV licence should be related to the size of my screen and its energy use.

The broader view

On a wider note we need to think about how to change the energy using culture we live in, in the same way that we have tackled smoking, for example. Driving a gas guzzler needs to become socially unacceptable and having solar panels on your roof needs to be seen as the behaviour of a good citizen.

Some people argue that the surest way to deal with household emissions is to take the emissions out of the energy production in the first place, and by producing renewable energy we can free ourselves from the concern about how much energy we use. This suggests that there is such a thing as a free lunch, and if there is anything we should have learned by now from climate change it is that there is an environmental cost to everything.

Sources and links

www.hta.co.uk to find out more about the design-led multi-disciplinary consultancy for housing and regeneration.

www.rorybergin.wordpress.com to follow Rory Bergin's blog.