12 C. JENSEN ET AL.
capita GHG emissions continues. This finding is supported by Bjørn
et al. (2018), who find that if levels in consumption-related demand are
not lowered, technological development will not deliver the requirements to meet the climate goals set out in the Paris Agreement. Problem
framings that understand energy use and consumption as a result of technological efficiency and incremental lifestyle (behaviour) changes thus
have seemingly limited potential to achieve the needed fundamental
changes in energy demand levels.
According to the ENERGISE typology of energy problem framings (Jensen et al. 2017), two main types of problem framings are often
employed within current sustainable energy consumption initiatives
(SECIs), technology-orientated or behaviour-orientated. Consequently, a
majority of initiatives either take technological development or changes
in individual behaviours as the main drivers of change.
What does this look like in practice? A typical example of a SECI
underpinned by a technological problem framing would be if energy
use related to, for example, heating is solely (or at least primarily)
understood to be a matter of optimising heating systems. optimisation
could also include a focus on providing (technical) labelling for heating systems so that the ‘consumer’ can easily navigate between different settings in terms of energy efficiency. Such SECIs, however, do not
explicitly challenge the extent and duration for which people heat their
homes, nor would they fundamentally challenge any notions related
to maximum or minimum temperatures. SECIs within this framing
category would therefore not explicitly challenge what is understood
to be appropriate levels of indoor comfort in different contexts and
situations.
A general illustration of a SECI underpinned by a behaviour change
type of problem framing might go a bit further than relying on energy
efficiency labelling of products. often this expanded approach puts
emphasis on providing more information about why it is good for the
consumer to choose an efficient heating system, or why the consumer
should turn down their thermostat. Information provided may focus on
monetary incentives or it may address ecological consequences of not
choosing the most energy efficient option. It does however not challenge socially shared norms around heating, or what it means to feel
‘comfortable’.
capita GHG emissions continues. This finding is supported by Bjørn
et al. (2018), who find that if levels in consumption-related demand are
not lowered, technological development will not deliver the requirements to meet the climate goals set out in the Paris Agreement. Problem
framings that understand energy use and consumption as a result of technological efficiency and incremental lifestyle (behaviour) changes thus
have seemingly limited potential to achieve the needed fundamental
changes in energy demand levels.
According to the ENERGISE typology of energy problem framings (Jensen et al. 2017), two main types of problem framings are often
employed within current sustainable energy consumption initiatives
(SECIs), technology-orientated or behaviour-orientated. Consequently, a
majority of initiatives either take technological development or changes
in individual behaviours as the main drivers of change.
What does this look like in practice? A typical example of a SECI
underpinned by a technological problem framing would be if energy
use related to, for example, heating is solely (or at least primarily)
understood to be a matter of optimising heating systems. optimisation
could also include a focus on providing (technical) labelling for heating systems so that the ‘consumer’ can easily navigate between different settings in terms of energy efficiency. Such SECIs, however, do not
explicitly challenge the extent and duration for which people heat their
homes, nor would they fundamentally challenge any notions related
to maximum or minimum temperatures. SECIs within this framing
category would therefore not explicitly challenge what is understood
to be appropriate levels of indoor comfort in different contexts and
situations.
A general illustration of a SECI underpinned by a behaviour change
type of problem framing might go a bit further than relying on energy
efficiency labelling of products. often this expanded approach puts
emphasis on providing more information about why it is good for the
consumer to choose an efficient heating system, or why the consumer
should turn down their thermostat. Information provided may focus on
monetary incentives or it may address ecological consequences of not
choosing the most energy efficient option. It does however not challenge socially shared norms around heating, or what it means to feel
‘comfortable’.