(00:01):
Well, I'm in over my head. No one told me, trying to keep my footprint small was harder than I thought it could be. I'm in over my head. What do I really need? Trying to save the planet over someone, please save me trying to save the planet over someone. Please save me.

(00:25):
Welcome to in over my head. I'm Michael Bartz. My guest today is Dr. David Font Vivanco. Dr. Font Vivanco is an environmental scientist by training and holds a Ph.D. in industrial oncology from Liden university. During his Ph.D., he studied the environmental rebound effects from transport innovation, and he later addressed rebound effects from environmental policy during a Marie Currie fellowship at university college, London, he has published around 20 peer-reviewed manuscripts on rebound effects and is among the top 10 most productive researchers on this topic. Welcome to uni over my head, David.

(00:55):
Thank you Michael, for having me.

(00:57):
So in talking about the just transition, we covered poverty inequality, and this got me thinking about money and how our spending affects the environment. While looking into this topic, I was introduced to the idea of rebound effects. It was something I found quite interesting and I thought it would apply to the larger conversation. So I'm looking forward to delving into this topic with you to start with what exactly is the rebound effect?

(01:17):
So the rebound effect, it's actually a collection of specific individual effects. So I like to refer to rebound effects in the plural. However, they all share a very basic core. So rebound effects can be understood as the unintended consequences of efficiency improvements, which are mediated by behavioural responses. So this is a very abstract definition, which probably we could expand with an example, but that's essentially the core idea. We generally start with a change in inefficiency, which it's not really strictly limited by energy efficiency. You can talk about any sort of efficiency. Although energy was the, let's say the most popular topic studied in, this field. So let's say you change the lighting of your house. So you have incandescence light bulbs. You wanna change be more energy-efficient, you install LED lights, okay. That can be understood as an efficiency change because you now get the same energy service using less energy.

(02:24):
However, the issue is that because you use less energy, you also spend less on energy. So you have some savings. This induces certain behavioural mechanisms related to prices, for example, and then this can lead to an increase in the use of this service. So it is possible that because you perceive this service as being cheaper than you react to this fact, by consuming more of it. So there you have both the efficiency and the behavioural response. And then the interesting bit is the unintended consequences because the rebound effect relates to our expectations and the actual effectiveness of it. And then the difference between the two, it's what we calculate. And then we report as being a, a rebound effect of any given magnitude

(03:15):
And for energy efficiency. Could it be negated entirely by rebound effects?

(03:21):
Yes, this is what we call the backfire effect. The idea is that instead of having any energy savings at all, you end up consuming more energy than the baseline. We also call it the gems paradox. There was an economist William Stanley Jevons, who essentially argued that as we were more efficient in using coal, we would end up using more coal instead of less coal. Of course, he couldn't really prove that, but that was his theory. This is a very extreme case of rebound effect. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. And when it happens, it's very important that we understand why does it happen, but also if it matters at all, because in my field, there's been this strong focus on calculating the number, the actual number of the rebound effect. Normally it's expressed in a percentage. So a hundred percent means no savings at all.

(04:18):
50% would be you get half of what you predicted. So we were so focused on calculating this number, that very few people stop the thing, whether it matters at all. And the truth is it really depends. You can have a backfire effect and it could be totally fine. If you look at the broader sustainability issue, for example, if you have low-income households and then you do some sort of efficiency improvement, you improve the insulation of the house. That's a way to fight energy poverty. And the rebound effect can, can be higher than a hundred percent. It can backfire, but still, you're giving energy services, basic essential services for people who need them. And in that case, if I am to look at sustainability, which focuses on environmental, but also economic and social impacts to me, I would say that if we use rebound to fight energy poverty, I don't have much of a problem with that.

(05:21):
Would there be an example you can think of where backfire would actually have negative consequences?

(05:27):
It is possible that you induce economic savings on households who are already well off. We did this study on subsidies, on electric cars in the UK. And what we found is that essentially because electric cars are already cheaper than combustion cars over the life cycle of the vehicle, you were essentially subsidizing something that was already cheaper than the alternative. So in practical terms, what happened is that you were giving subsidies to households who clearly can afford an electric car. And what this cost is that you induced a rebound effect, which was significant on top of that, it didn't have much of a social impact because we are talking about mostly people who didn't really need it. It was about changing the perception of the cost of the car, but the cost itself of the car was already cheaper. So in this case, we have a situation where you're just giving money away and that's not very efficient.

(06:34):
And so those subsidies weren't helping promote the sale of the car to a larger group. I guess?

(06:41):
They were promoting to an extent sales of electric cars, but we found out that there were cheaper, more effective ways to do the same. You could have improved the charging infrastructure. And according to our model, you would've gotten the same results, spending less resources. So in a way I can understand the politics of doing it, but that's a good example of just simply giving away money. I mean, that's what you're doing. You could have done it in a much more efficient way if you just run some, some numbers as we did.

(07:13):
And so you talked a little about politics there, so you think it was more of just a perception thing that it looked better to have subsidies than to do something else.

(07:21):
I think it's, it's from a political point of view subsidies are very attractive. It's much harder to deal with systemic issues like charging infrastructure and the price of electricity and, and so on. So I can understand the logic of going for subsidies, even if it's not the most effective measure.

(07:43):
And so we're talking all about money, how are our spending habits impacted by the rebound effect?

(07:50):
So actually, if I go back to my definition, a rebound effect only happens if you had some expectations and then you find out these expectations were not met, then you have a rebound effect. And that's what we researchers calculate. And we publish papers. I do not think households keep track of these sort of things. So even if they are part of this game, let's call it, they are affected by rebound effects in one way or another. I don't think we households should focus too much on, on rebound effects. I think there is a larger issue, which is our footprint and where does it come from? Because if we have a good understanding of the footprint that we have and where it comes from, then that solves both the issue of any potential rebound effects, but also your just regular normal spending. So I think that's a more let's say or focused, focused-oriented approach to it.

(08:56):
Okay. So yeah, it's not something that we necessarily consciously think about the rebound effects, and that would make sense that I guess we can't necessarily affect it. But I think just in talking about this and, and getting an idea about how our actions as a society are impacted by these changes, I, I think about back to your lighting example, how yes, lights are more efficient, but now there are L E D lights in everything, and now we actually have more lights and that was an unattended consequence. And so I'm wondering if you can speak a bit about that if perhaps is there a way that maybe our personal behaviour lowering our footprint, is there a way that we can do that intelligently to try to kind of negate the waste that's happening?

(09:38):
So if we go back to the example of changing your, your lightning system and just putting L E D lights, perhaps you did that to improve your carbon footprint and then unintendedly, you ended up with some additional resources, some additional money, then you can do whatever you want with that. So we are constantly doing that in the sense that we are constantly striving to become more and more efficient as individuals, as society, et cetera. So that happens on a daily basis. We just become more and more efficient. And as we become more efficient, this is rewarded as additional effective income for us. Now, the question is, should we be mindful of that? Should we keep track of every single efficiency improvement we do in our lives and be mindful of the consequences in terms of additional effective income? I personally think that's very complex. I think it's good to be mindful of the fact that our real effective income increases and then our footprint will increase. However, I personally think that the rebound effect is something that's particularly useful in a very specific context of designing policy and doing impact assessment of policy. However, as you go to the more micro side of things to individuals and households, I think the concept becomes not so useful.

(11:15):
No, that that makes sense. And I guess my thinking is like you mentioned the policy side of things, like obviously whoever implemented that subsidy for electric cars thought that that would be the best thing to do because people would think that that was effective being aware of this whole situation makes people more informed, what sort of things can people do to lower their environmental footprint?

(11:36):
Right. So that's a more interesting approach. I think it's more direct and people can understand that. So I think we are recently getting more direct and clear messages about where our footprint originates. So if, if I open my Twitter, I can see bolder statements about the impacts of red meat car use flying. That's relatively new to have a big players, the important institutions be clear about what are the hotspots of our consumption in terms of footprint. And I think it's great to keep it that way. Focus on a small set of products with a high footprint. And let's just work on that from the consumer side of things. And then as you go to a more macro level, then let's have a conversation about rebound effects and this kind of let's say more systemic issues.

(12:43):
Yeah. And I guess from my perspective, obviously because of this show, I think it is still a very complicated issue as far as how we can effectively reduce our footprint and what works and what doesn't. What other ways does the rebound effect influence our lives?

(12:57):
So the rebound effect, what it does, even if we are not aware of it, is that as we become more efficient in using energy services and all other kinds of services, we are inadvertently becoming a bit richer. We are often not aware of this, but our effective income increases as we become more efficient. We are very mindful of efficiency as that. That's a natural thing. When we plan to go somewhere, we look for the optimal route. We also calculate what's the price of getting there with public transport, or maybe I should grab up a cap. So we are constantly making decisions that make our life more efficient and that what it does, it rewards us with additional income, not absolute income, but effective income because we are still earning the same. So the rebound effect, it's a very interesting way to connect efficiency with consumption because it's what it actually it's about.

(14:04):
As we become more efficient, this is rewarded with the ability to consume more. And we love it because that's the natural thing to do. Just love that system in which we are rewarded. But if we are looking to reduce our footprint, that becomes an issue because we have more and more money and our money have consequences, whatever you do with it, it will have some sort of impact on your footprint. And it's good to have an education about what's the impact of our money because whether it comes from rebound or not, we need to have an understanding of what can we do with our money. And what's the relationship between our expenditures and our footprint.

(14:48):
Yeah. Cuz my understanding is that yes, so we've saved on certain parts of our lives. So now we're going to spend that money on other things, which also has an environmental impact. Would you recommend people who just saved all their money?

(15:01):
I mean, that would be an option. As I said, whatever we do with the money, it will have some sort of consequence. If you explore every single option available, you will see that every single one has an impact on your footprint. If you spend the money, it will increase your footprint. If you put your money on a savings account, the bank will loan more money to other people to buy stuff or to make an investment. If you buy some stocks, you're just essentially giving money to whoever sold the stock to you. If you decide to just keep your money under your pillow, that could slow a bit when it's called speed of money. So how fast money changes hands. But at some point someone will notice and then will print more money. So you could do a number of things. It's good to have an understanding of what's the consequences of each. But I think it's very naive to think that you just put your money in a savings account and it has absolutely no footprint first because you will spend it in the future. Maybe inflation doesn't really play in your favour, but you are triggering certain mechanisms that will cause consumption somewhere else.

(16:21):
Yeah. And that makes sense back to your earlier point about how we just adjust to the current situation. So if things are cheap and easy, we're gonna buy more things. If we have money somewhere, we're going to use it or someone else is going to use it. And you know, I think about myself in the tiny house, that's kind of a physical constraint that we live in a small space so that we can't accumulate as many things. And I've been quite public about living with less and, and having less money. And I've talked with some of my other guests about voluntary simplicity. So just living a simpler life, would you say that maybe working less or just having less money would lower our environmental impact of how we use our money?

(17:00):
I think that could be an option. I mean, certainly, if you reduce your income, you will have less money to spend on stuff. So you will lower your footprint for sure. The question is looking at the economy as a whole, what's gonna happen if you decide to work half the time because the company could just hire someone else to make up for your time. So it's not clear to me that it's gonna be a straightforward solution to reduce. Maybe you reduce your footprint, that the question is it's our footprint as a society gonna be reduced, but it's certainly it's a conversation that we need to have because it's at the core of our problems, like our consumption, the fact that it's never enough for us, we are always on the lookout to just buy more and more stuff. And it's good to have that conversation about things like degrowth theories and working less and spending more time with our friends and family. I think that's great. I don't think there's enough evidence to clearly make a statement about the actual consequences, of doing these things.

(18:17):
Yeah. And for me, it's about walking my talk and living in the tiny house, living more simply, that's something that works for me and hopefully inspires people and what they do with that, that's up to them. So this show is about empowering citizens to take action on the climate crisis. So we've touched a bit on some of these aspects, but what can people do when it comes to the rebound effect and those larger societal shifts to effectively take action?

(18:44):
So I think that the bebound effect, it's a topic that it's not very well known, so it's good to have an education out there. It's great that people start asking questions such as the ones you are asking me, Michael, and it's good to make the connection between action between how are we becoming more efficient in our daily lives and what are the repercussions in terms of our consumption. It's great that people ask themselves these questions and I think this could affect their behaviour and therefore reduce their footprint. I mean, if you are mindful of the fact that you are living your lights on because now it's cheaper or because you feel better about doing it, if you are mindful that this kind of mechanism exists, you will effectively lower your footprint. I think we have to keep working on what I think it's the core issue, which is identifying the hotspots of our consumption in terms of our footprint and just tackle those specific hotspots or specific products, specific services that drive our footprint. So I think both approaches are very compatible, so lower your footprint, no matter what, and be mindful of the relationship between efficiency and consumption, which is the rebound effect. And we, as individuals should know about it and act on it.

(20:18):
Great. Yeah, I would recommend they listen to the show be they're already doing that. They're educating themselves now cuz they're listening. So keep listening to the show and then take action, is what David is saying. great. Well, that's very helpful, David, thanks so much for coming on the show. This has been very educational.

(20:34):
It was my pleasure, Michael.

(20:36):
Well, that was my talk with David. I found it interesting how the rebound effect affects our lives in unintentional ways. And I appreciated how we talked about education and lowering our footprints in the most effective ways. Cuz that's really what it's about. And don't forget to check out our website, www.inovermyheadpodcast.com. There are other shows I've been on and pictures of the tiny house. So that's fun. Well, that's all for me. I'm Michael Bartz. Here's the feeling a little less in over our head when it comes to saving the planet. We'll see you again soon. In over my head was produced and hosted by Michael Bartz original theme song by Gabriel Thaine. If you would like to get in touch with us email info@inovermyheadpodcast.com. Special thanks to Telus STOURYHIVE for making this show possible.

(21:22):
I'm trying to save the planet. Oh, will someone please save me?