Do Energy-Efficient Appliances Encourage Individuals to Consume More Energy?
A blogger, commenting on my recent editorial about the wasteful nature of Missouri’s green tax rebate program, recently expressed skepticism that promoting the purchase of energy-efficient appliances may also encourage individuals to consume more energy.
In the second part of his post, he links to an article on Slate that cites a study analyzing electricity consumption patterns in the wake of government policy intended to “nudge” consumers into using less energy. First and foremost, this study is not relevant to my argument. In the case of Missouri’s green rebate program, which is what I discussed in my commentary, individuals receive a cash rebate when they buy energy-efficient appliances. The study cited in the Slate article looks at a case in which the electricity company simply sent its customers a home energy report that included charts and a list of tips on how to improve energy efficiency. The program considered by this study included neither a financial incentive, nor an upgraded appliance. The only conclusion that I would feel comfortable making from the study is that pamphlets do little to influence individual behavior. The study suffers from additional shortcomings, as well. For example, I disagree that a change of 1 percent or 3 percent is significant. This variation could be attributable to multiple other variables, such as a change in the price of energy or a seasonal change in the weather. The study also did not prove that the customers it identified as “liberals” reduced their energy consumption as a result of the home energy reports. Again, this reduction could have stemmed from any variety of other factors. Furthermore, because the percentage change and the sample size are both so small, a completely different result could conceivably be selected from the raw data.
According to a report published by Peter Huber and Mark Mills at the Manhattan Institute, the claim that we can meet future energy demand through conservation and efficiency is a myth. They provide evidence that, despite dramatic gains in energy-efficiency, aggregate energy consumption has increased over history:
The American economy has experienced massive efficiency gains: for each unit of energy, we produce more than twice as much GDP today than we did in 1950. Yet during that period of time, our national total energy consumption has tripled. Paradoxically, when it comes to energy, the more we save, the more we consume. [...]
“Efficiency fails to curb demand because it lets more people do more, and do it faster—and more/more/faster invariably swamps all the efficiency gains,” Peter Huber and Mark Mills state in The Bottomless Well. Or, as Huber characterized this “efficiency paradox” in a 2001 Forbes column: “More efficient jet engines … cheaper tickets … more passengers … more jets in the air.” The same holds true for cars, lightbulbs, power plants, and everything else that uses energy.
Furthermore, an economic moral hazard problem is often associated with buying green products. Energy-efficient appliances make doing dishes and laundry cheaper, which subsequently encourages individuals to use these appliances more frequently than they had before. Increases in energy efficiency mean that there is a decreased need for the existing energy supply, which leads to a reduction in the cost of energy, consequently shifting the demand curve for energy to the right. Similarly, there is evidence that owning a fuel-efficient car encourages people to drive more. A person could become less inclined to turn off light bulbs when they are more efficient, just as a person could be more inclined to run his washing machine or his dishwasher when it is not full.
You’re right, the study isn’t relevant to your argument…I used it as the focal point for talking about another study.
And come on, can I get you to refer to me by name as opposed to “a blogger”?
Comment by Eapen Thampy — April 26, 2010 @ 3:16 p.m.
Today is a good day, I think, to be snarky on the Internet.
1. You say that “an economic moral hazard problem is often associated with buying green products.”
The meme you are looking for is “moral licensing”.
2. The Heritage Foundation, Reason Foundation, Cato Institute, and the Foundation for Economic Education agree on something? Stop the presses.
Now that you’ve studied Jevons’ Paradox and the Khazzoom–Brookes postulate, I assume you will be on board for a carbon tax?
Comment by David C. Miller — April 26, 2010 @ 4:54 p.m.
Isn’t not citing someone by name borderline plagiarism? I mean, I couldn’t turn in a research paper that say “An author…”
Comment by Steve Alter — April 26, 2010 @ 5:57 p.m.
David, moral license is similar to moral hazard, but distinct in terms of the form of rationalization used by an actor.
Steve, you’re kidding, right? Plagiarism entails passing somebody else’s work off as your own; this blog entry does nothing even remotely approaching that. Different ballpark, different universe.
You could certainly turn in a research paper that mentioned “an author” in the body, if it were followed by a footnote or endnote providing a citation. In a blog entry, a hyperlink serves as a citation.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — April 26, 2010 @ 6:09 p.m.
I thought moral hazard occurs when a decision-maker is insulated against the costs of losing a bet and therefore takes more risks than is optimal. Moral license is when performing a good action gives you karmic brownie points to spend on performing a bad action later.
Comment by David C. Miller — April 26, 2010 @ 6:50 p.m.
In the blogosphere, it’s a simple matter of politeness to recognize people and the work you’re referencing by name. I’m sorry you don’t feel the same way.
Comment by Eapen Thampy — April 26, 2010 @ 11:23 p.m.
You’re not exactly in a position to lecture anybody about politeness.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — April 27, 2010 @ 1:05 a.m.
It’s not my fault the Show-Me Institute hired someone to blog about subjects they weren’t willing to even do basic research on. At the very least we can establish a reciprocal standard here that I’m defending and you’re not–I directly reference the people and the work that I discuss.
Comment by Eapen Thampy — April 27, 2010 @ 8:08 a.m.
Here at the Show-Me Institute we focus on ideas, not people. I’m sorry if that upsets you, Eapen, but put-downs and personal attacks are not the way to get yourself cited in the future, and they are not Show-Me Daily’s style. Chrissy linked to your article, giving our readers the opportunity to read your post if they so choose.
Comment by Caitlin Hartsell — April 27, 2010 @ 8:21 a.m.
So is that a no?
Comment by Eapen Thampy — April 27, 2010 @ 8:43 a.m.
Sarah Brodsky’s posts at Show-Me Daily have been consistently excellent. On the other hand, correcting the leaps of logic and methodological weakness contained in your responses would be a full-time job in itself, which is why, as often as I’ve been tempted to wade into that morass, I haven’t taken more than a glancing stab at it.
Hyperlinks without full explanatory attribution are common in the blogosphere, both here and elsewhere. I count nine authors other than yourself linked to within this entry who are also unnamed. Fortunately, anybody who wishes can read those sources for themselves by following the links provided.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — April 27, 2010 @ 10:19 a.m.
Seriously, Eric? Defend that statement. The truth is that defending Sarah Brodsky’s posts mean defending statements like “there is no research on this subject” when in fact there is literature going back 20-30 years, and statements like “Parents as teachers should be doing x, y, and z” when a simple search of the PAT website provides evidence that PAT does precisely that. I don’t deny that I’m as fallible as anyone else and welcome criticism on those merits.
If you disagree with my analysis, check out the other commentors on Sarah’s PAT posts, who are unanimously in agreement that her work is not excellent and severely misrepresents the substance of what PAT does.
Comment by Eapen Thampy — April 27, 2010 @ 10:33 a.m.
More plagiarism!!!
Assorted links
Tyler Cowen
1. Breaking your back.
2. Visualizing economics.
3. The structural forces behind current unemployment.
4. Peter Leeson on trial by battle.
5. Good interview with Anthony Bourdain.
Comment by ZOMG — April 27, 2010 @ 10:40 a.m.
There rarely is consensus in the scholarly world; historians cannot even agree on events that happened in the past. Just because you disagree with someone’s analysis does not mean that it is wrong. The blog is a forum for discourse, not a scholarly policy study.
It is very unprofessional to call out another scholar who is entirely unrelated to this post in the comments. It is also an ad hominem fallacy that does an argument no favors. Christine’s work (and Sarah’s, though you don’t agree) stands up on its own. She followed typical internet blog parlance, and, as Eric noted, linked to multiple authors in the blog post without listing each individually. (As many blogs are apt to do, and something we do often.)
Comment by Caitlin Hartsell — April 27, 2010 @ 11:28 a.m.
Let me note that this entire discussion would have been avoided if you’d simply cited me in the way I requested.
Comment by Eapen Thampy — April 27, 2010 @ 11:59 a.m.
It might be commonplace to cite people without direct attribution, but it is not commonplace to say no to people who ask you to cite them in a particular way.
Comment by Eapen Thampy — April 27, 2010 @ 12:00 p.m.
lolz u mad
Comment by ZOMG — April 27, 2010 @ 12:52 p.m.
You asked to be cited within the comments, after the piece was already published. It is not commonplace to change published posts unless there is an error, and there is no error. If any Show-Me scholar in the future ever decides to respond to your criticisms of or attacks on their work, your request will be duly noted, though that will probably just translate into silence on the topic altogether. Again, the Show-Me blog is about ideas, not individual people.
Personally, I think if one is going to criticize someone’s inaccurate critique, it appears more professional to not call the author out by name. To do so can come across as a personal attack. Christine’s post was about the analysis, not you.
Comment by Caitlin Hartsell — April 27, 2010 @ 1:23 p.m.
It is commonplace to change published posts after they are published and note the edits. Check out marginalrevolution.com as an example of a blog that does this frequently.
Comment by Eapen Thampy — April 27, 2010 @ 1:39 p.m.
Christine, if none of this appeals to your sense of reason and courtesy, let me please remind you of the disclaimer that’s been posted on my blog since day 1. It reads in part:
”Please use the work I’ve presented here with respect and courtesy and in good faith. You are free to republish posts for non-profit educational use only and with proper citation.”
http://ducksandeconomics.wordpress.com/about/
My reading is that the good faith clause covers linking to posts as well as publishing their explicit content.
Comment by Eapen Thampy — April 27, 2010 @ 2:05 p.m.
Is Eapen obsessed with Sarah Brodsky?
Comment by Gail — April 27, 2010 @ 3:58 p.m.
Is Eapen obsessed with Christine Harbin?!?
Comment by ZOMG — April 27, 2010 @ 4:15 p.m.
Is eapen obsessed with getting attention?
Comment by Lauren — April 27, 2010 @ 6:04 p.m.
I certainly understand being obsessed with Christine Harbin. She is just delightful! (Note – the author of this comment is happily married and not obsessed with said blog poster. He merely understands how single men with an interest in public policy could be. That is all.)
Comment by ZOMG 2 — April 28, 2010 @ 1:04 a.m.
In my opinion, the best way to stop a bully is to ignore him…
Comment by Alyssa Curran — April 28, 2010 @ 3:48 p.m.