Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Brunel University MG3113 Consumers and Sustainability Week 26 2015
Transcript of Brunel University MG3113 Consumers and Sustainability Week 26 2015
In conservation, energy economics and green marketing, the rebound effect (or take-back effect) refers to the behavioral or other systemic responses to the introduction of new technologies, or other measures taken to reduce resource use. These responses tend to offset the beneficial effects of the new technology or other measures taken. While the literature on the rebound effect generally focuses on the effect of technological improvements on energy consumption, the theory can also be applied to the use of any natural resource. The rebound effect is generally expressed as a ratio of the lost benefit compared to the expected environmental benefit when holding consumption constant. For instance, if a 5% improvement in vehicle fuel efficiency results in only a 2% drop in fuel use, there is a 60% rebound effect. The 'missing' 3% might have been consumed by driving faster or further than before.
The existence of the rebound effect is uncontroversial. However, debate continues as to the size and importance of the effect in real world situations. There are three possible outcomes regarding the size of the rebound effect:
The actual resource savings are higher than expected – the rebound effect is negative. This is unusual, and can only occur in certain specific situations (e.g. if the government mandates the use of more resource efficient technologies that are also more costly to use).
The actual savings are less than expected savings – the rebound effect is between 0% and 100%. This is sometimes known as 'take-back', and is the most common result of empirical studies on individual markets.
The actual resource savings are negative – the rebound effect is higher than 100%. This situation is commonly known as the Jevons paradox, and is sometimes referred to as 'back-fire'.
Governments and environmental groups often advocate research into higher fuel efficiency as the primary means of energy conservation. Economists tend to believe that, for the economy as a whole, the long term rebound effect for more fuel-efficient technologies is higher than 100%; if this is the case, the invention of technologies that improve fuel efficiency may paradoxically increase energy use.
S = A/N. Translation? The sustainability performance (S) of an organization is a measure of its actual impacts (A) on the carrying capacities of vital capital, relative to its normative impacts (N) on the carrying capacities of the same capital.
S=A/N (The Sustainability Quotient)
Triple bottom line
More on Peak Oil
MODULE CODE MG3113
You should follow me on Twitter: @opencarbon
The role of businesss in global challenges of environmental sustainability
Technology, inovation and design
Resource productivity and efficency
Life cycle assessment
Closed loop production
Switch to renewable energy
Better use of water
Stop the damage
New market opportunities
Change in management organisation and thought
Re-engineer products to be reuseable
Change in packaging
Life cycle assessment
7 sins of Greenwashing
Bring and use markers- highlight what is important
Tell a story
Read the entire section, then go answer the question
Study the presentations
Do Google searches on the subjects I told you to study
TED talk on sustainability
Don't worry be Crappy
Let 100 Blossom
Churn Baby Churn
Sustainable Consumption 8/10
Close Loop 1/10
Tripple Bottom Line 5/10
Ecological Footprint 1/10
Disruptive Innovation 8/10