“Green” consumption—no solution for climate change

By E. Alfredsson. 2004

209 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Environmental Engineering, Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/67ea74ab06f1f15d6d3488c87dc8d5ed10c5ecf0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Environmental Engineering

In Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

Citations in the corpus

A Systematic Review of Digital Behaviour Change Interventions for More Sustainable Food Consumption (2019, background): “These include, for instance, behaviour to reduce food waste; switching to a “climate-friendly” food diet [6]; changing practices around food purchases such as replacing car trips to a distant hypermarket with biking to a local supermarket or walking to a neighbourhood grocery store [7,8]; changes in”
Country Differences in Sustainable Consumption: The Case of Organic Food (2010, background): “…the activities and motivations of individual consumers are more obtrusive than the effects of macro and structural factors, both research and policy in the area of sustainable consumption have an unfortunate individualistic and individualizing bias (e.g., Alfredsson 2004; Schaefer and Crane 2005).”
Climate policy through changing consumption choices: Options and obstacles for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (2014, unknown): “…pattern without changes in consumption level, such as changes in diets (Stehfest et al., 2009a), travel modes (Girod et al., 2012) or expenditure (Alfredsson, 2004) Low GHG consumption (product improvement) GHG Emissions category Consumption category Buying the same item – no change in…”
Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for U.S. households with input-output analysis. Part 2: Simulation (2013, result): “Our indirect rebound estimates are likely to be lower than those of prior indirect rebound studies (Alfredsson, 2004; Chitnis et al., 2012; Druckman et al., 2011; Freire-Gonzalez, 2011; Girod and de Haan, 2010;Murray, 2011; Nässén and Holmberg, 2009) because of our focus on the U.S., which…”
A new approach to measuring the rebound effect associated to energy efficiency improvements: An application to the US residential energy demand (2015, background): “In addition, it should be pointed out that our results are even lower than those obtained in several papers -such as Lenzen and Dey (2002), Alfredsson (2004) or Mizobuchi (2008)- that also get large direct and indirect rebound effects, even reaching effects larger than 100%, i.e. backfire outcomes.”
Household carbon emission research: An analytical review of measurement, influencing factors and mitigation prospects (2015, unknown): “Saner et al.’s (2013) LCA model, for example, is used to assess the emissions of household consumption of housing and transportation in Switzerland; Alfredsson (2004) uses LCA to calculate the energy and CO 2 intensities of Swedish household consumption to obtain the total energy requirements and CO”
Methods to empirically estimate direct and indirect rebound effect of energy-saving technological changes in households (2011, background): “One way to estimate this effect is through the “re-spending” effect of income produced by savings on energy consumption (Sanne, 2000; Chalkley et al., 2001; Alfredsson, 2004; Druckman et al., 2010; Freire-González, 2011).”
Who rebounds most? Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for different UK socioeconomic groups (2014, background): “Lenzen and Dey (2002) Australia 150 Efficiency & sufficiency Food; heating GHGs Direct and embodied 45–123% Alfredsson (2004) Sweden 300 Sufficiency Food; travel; utilities CO2 Direct and embodied 7–300% Brannlund et al.”
Energy requirements of consumption: Urban form, climatic and socio-economic factors, rebounds and their policy implications (2013, background): “…is highly relevant when green consumerism advocates some sort of ‘shopping our way out of environmental problems’ – which does not live up to its promise if dealt with in a perspective formally incorporating the indirect or embodied energy requirements of consumption (Alfredsson, 2004).”
Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for U.S. households with input–output analysis Part 1: Theoretical framework (2013, methodology): “…marginal spending patterns using income elasticities from consumption data and couple them with anEEIO model to measure indirect rebound effects from conservation or ef ﬁ ciency activities (Alfredsson, 2004; Chitnis et al., 2012; Druckman et al., 2011; Girod and de Haan, 2010; Murray, 2011).”
Technological innovation, energy efficient design and the rebound effect (2007, unknown): “…consumption in the short term of 10% to 20%, these reductions are soon outpaced due to rising levels of consumption, caused by even modest growth (1% to 2% per annum) in income (Alfredsson, 2004).”
What if consumers decided to all 'go green'? Environmental rebound effects from consumption decisions (2013, unknown): “Existing studies typically do not control for this in their models, meaning that unlikely behaviour such as cost savings from electricity conservation being spent on more electricity is a common outcome (Alfredsson, 2004; Brannlund et al., 2007; Druckman et al., 2011).”
Why achieving the Paris Agreement requires reduced overall consumption and production (2018, background): “Research on the effect of more sustainable patterns has, however, shown that, while greener production systems often do result in less carbon- and materials-intensive market offerings, these gains are outpaced by increased volumes as incomes grow (Alfredsson 2004).”