2 FRAMING THE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY CHALLENGE …
11
Framing Typology, that highlights different dimensions and aspects of
the problem framings most commonly used (‘technology-orientated’ and
‘individual behaviour-oriented’) as well as of problem framings that are
much less used (‘everyday life oriented’ and ‘systems oriented’). The latter we argue can offer insights into how social, cultural and institutionalised aspects of energy consumption can be investigated and challenged as
part of the efforts of reducing energy consumption levels.
Common energy probLem framings
It is widely acknowledged that environmental and climate change policies often build on dominant paradigms of economics and psychology.
This means that the theories of change embedded in many policies pave
the way for the assumption that climate change problems are a result of
individual actions, which can be changed by addressing attitudes, behaviours and choice (Shove 2010). This is often operationalised in strategies
that attempt to shift people’s choices away from unsustainable or inefficient products towards more sustainable or efficient products, primarily
through information and the promotion of (energy) efficient products
(Spurling et al. 2013). As Labanca and Bertoldi (2018: 496) state, such
strategies often assume that solutions can be ‘surgically removed and
replaced by other solutions, seamlessly entering the social tissue where
they are installed, without causing any change but reduction in energy
inputs’.
Although technological innovation can bring about significant
efficiency potentials, these may only be realised if appropriate economic instruments are applied simultaneously, so that gains from efficiency strategies are not just directed towards other unsustainable areas
(Christensen et al. 2007; Shove 2017). This means that if energy efficiency strategies are applied without addressing and potentially disrupting systems of interacting, unsustainable practices that generate high
levels of energy demand, the energy demand problem is not addressed
but potentially only shifted, instigating a possible rebound effect.
As Southerton and Welch (2018) highlight, required reductions in
consumption-related emissions cannot be achieved through marginal
lifestyle changes and technical efficiencies. While the environmental
impact of economic outputs has been reduced in advanced economies,
the relationship between growth in per capita income and growth in per
11
Framing Typology, that highlights different dimensions and aspects of
the problem framings most commonly used (‘technology-orientated’ and
‘individual behaviour-oriented’) as well as of problem framings that are
much less used (‘everyday life oriented’ and ‘systems oriented’). The latter we argue can offer insights into how social, cultural and institutionalised aspects of energy consumption can be investigated and challenged as
part of the efforts of reducing energy consumption levels.
Common energy probLem framings
It is widely acknowledged that environmental and climate change policies often build on dominant paradigms of economics and psychology.
This means that the theories of change embedded in many policies pave
the way for the assumption that climate change problems are a result of
individual actions, which can be changed by addressing attitudes, behaviours and choice (Shove 2010). This is often operationalised in strategies
that attempt to shift people’s choices away from unsustainable or inefficient products towards more sustainable or efficient products, primarily
through information and the promotion of (energy) efficient products
(Spurling et al. 2013). As Labanca and Bertoldi (2018: 496) state, such
strategies often assume that solutions can be ‘surgically removed and
replaced by other solutions, seamlessly entering the social tissue where
they are installed, without causing any change but reduction in energy
inputs’.
Although technological innovation can bring about significant
efficiency potentials, these may only be realised if appropriate economic instruments are applied simultaneously, so that gains from efficiency strategies are not just directed towards other unsustainable areas
(Christensen et al. 2007; Shove 2017). This means that if energy efficiency strategies are applied without addressing and potentially disrupting systems of interacting, unsustainable practices that generate high
levels of energy demand, the energy demand problem is not addressed
but potentially only shifted, instigating a possible rebound effect.
As Southerton and Welch (2018) highlight, required reductions in
consumption-related emissions cannot be achieved through marginal
lifestyle changes and technical efficiencies. While the environmental
impact of economic outputs has been reduced in advanced economies,
the relationship between growth in per capita income and growth in per