We disagree with Kenneth Gillingham and colleagues' contention that the rebound effect — in which greater consumption offsets the energy saved by increasing efficiency — is exaggerated (Nature 493, 475–476; 2013). We and others have shown rebound effects as large as 60% (see, for example, M. Frondel et al. Energy Econ. 34, 461–467; 2012).
In our view, energy-efficiency standards are among the least cost-effective ways of lowering carbon emissions (see H. Allcott Am. Econ. Rev. 101, 98–104; 2011). For example, the costs of the US Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard are more than ten times higher than a petroleum tax that induces the same reduction in oil consumption (R. W. Crandall J. Econ. Persp. 6, 171–180; 1992). This is mainly because of the rebound effect: the standard actually encourages driving by marginally lowering its cost, unlike a tax.
The greater cost-effectiveness of a tax could be undermined by coupling it with an efficiency standard, as Gillingham et al. suggest, because of interaction effects between the two.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Frondel, M., Vance, C. Don't belittle the rebound effect. Nature 494, 430 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/494430c
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/494430c
This article is cited by
-
Re-examining hybrid methodologies for estimating residential rebound effects
Energy Efficiency (2019)
-
Feedback and Behavioral Intervention in Residential Energy and Resource Use: a Review
Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports (2018)