In America, a whopping 38 per cent of energy is consumed by private households - far more than is consumed by the entire industrial sector. Now, in a new article for
Environment magazine, a pair of US-based psychologists have published a list of the most effective ways for households to reduce their energy consumption.
Gerald Gardner and Paul Stern argue that most (American) people believe in the idea that human activity is responsible for climate change, and most people are motivated to reduce their energy use. But they say that thanks to a lack of clear information on the most effective ways to reduce energy consumption, many people engage exclusively in activities, such as turning off lights, or turning down the thermostat, that while highly visible, are actually relatively ineffective.
Part of the problem is that many campaigns strive to increase people's motivation, without giving adequate information on what behaviours to change. High profile publications like "The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook" have tended to produce checklists of green behaviours without giving any indication of which steps will have the most impact.
In general, Gardner and Stern say that curtailing certain activities - the idea that we must make sacrifices to save the planet - is generally ineffective. By contrast, taking active steps to become more energy efficient will lead to much larger reductions in energy use.
"...efficiency-improving actions generally save more energy — and reduce carbon emissions more — than curtailing use of intrinsically inefficient equipment. For example, buying and maintaining a highly fuel-efficient vehicle saves more energy than carpooling to work with another person, lowering top highway speeds, consolidating shopping or errand trips, and altering driving habits in an existing gasoline-inefficient motor vehicle. This general finding challenges the belief that energy savings entail curtailment and sacrifice of amenities. Not only is efficiency generally more effective than curtailment, but it has the important psychological advantage of requiring only one or a few actions. Curtailment actions must be repeated continuously over time to achieve their optimal effect, whereas efficiency-boosting actions, taken infrequently or only once, have lasting effects with little need for continuing attention and effort."
With rising fuel prices and the credit crunch, the publication of this article is certainly timely. It also seems that the U.K. government may be on the right tack, seeing as they've
announced today a scheme to fund half the cost of insulation for all households.
Gardner and Stern's list is broken down into separate categories, taking into account that while costly actions might be more effective, there is also a need for people to know the relative effectiveness of cost-free or low cost actions.
- For individuals/households, the most effective low cost/short-term green behaviour in relation to transportation is to share car journeys or "carpool"; in relation to the home, it's to replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs.
- For longer-term benefits, with a higher financial cost, the most effective action in relation to transport is to buy low-rolling resistance tyres. The next most effective action is to buy a more fuel-efficient car. The latter action is complicated by the issue of whether one's current car is still useable. If it is, then the energy cost of producing the new car counts against any gains.
- Finally, for home-owners (as opposed to tenants who can't really do these things), the most effective low-cost/short-term action is to weather strip the house, while the most effective, but more costly, longer-term action is to buy a more efficient heating system.
For the full list of 17 actions, see the
original article. By some estimates, if people complete the whole list, they'll cut their energy use by a half.
--
Link to full text (open access) of article: "The Short List: The Most Effective Actions U.S. Households Can Take to Curb Climate Change".
Link to the Energy Saving Trust, a UK-based organisation who provide advice on saving energy.
译文:
最后，有一个明确的指导，你就可以用最有效的方法影响气候变化
在美国，高达38%的能源是被私人家庭所消耗----这远远大于整个工业部分的消耗比例。现在，在环境杂志的一篇文章里，两个美国心理学家公布了一些家庭降低能源消耗最有效的方法。
杰拉尔德。加德纳与保罗。斯特恩表明，大部分美国人认为人类活动是气候改变的主要原因，而且大多数人也积极的去降低他们的能源消耗。但这两个心理学家认为，由于缺少关于有效减少能源消耗方法的确切信息，许多人能做的仅仅是一些显而易见的小事，比如关灯，调低恒温器。事实上，这些是没有多大用处的。
问题产生的部分原因是，很多希望提高人们积极性的活动并没有给出足够的信息指导人们该如何去做，例如这本引人注目的《全球变暖生存手册》。它曾经列出一张环保行为清单，但却没有给出任何一点关于哪个方法影响最大的信息。
总的看来，杰拉尔德。加德纳与保罗。斯特恩认为一些被限制的行为，还有我们认为为拯救地球而必须做出牺牲的想法是没有效果的。相比之下，采取一些主动的行为去更有效的利用能源，将可以减少更多的能源消耗。
通常，提高有效利用率的方法比减少使用效率低的设备更能从本质上节约能源并减少碳排放。例如，购买拥有一辆高效能的省油汽车比和其他人合伙用车，降低公路最高时速，结伴购物或是办事旅行，或是改变驾驶低效的机动车辆的习惯更能节省能源。
这个发现挑战着以前要节约能源就必须限制和牺牲人们喜爱之物的想法。效率不仅比限制更有效，而且在心理方面有更重要的意义，它只要求做到一种或是某一些行为。为了达到理想的效果，限制行为必须不断地重复去做，而提高效率的方法只需要偶尔或只是一次，只要一点持久的关注和努力就可以得到长久的效果。
随着能源价格的上涨和信贷紧缩，这篇文章的发表无疑是及时的。而看起来英国政府的方针也是正确的，今天，他已宣布一项计划，为所有家庭的隔热设备补贴一半的资金。
考虑到花费性方法的效果可能更好，杰拉尔德。加德纳与保罗。斯特恩的方法可细分为不同的类别，但人们也有必要了解免费和低消费方法的相关效果。
. 对个人/家庭而言，交通方面最有效的低消费/短期环保方法是与人分享汽车旅行或合伙用车；在家里，则是用紧凑型荧光灯泡代替白炽灯。
. 至于长远效益，要更多的经济支出，交通方面最有效的方法是购买低滚动阻力轮胎。另一个方法是买一辆更高效的省油汽车，而这又是一个很复杂的事，因为现在不知道这样的汽车是否可用。如果这样的汽车具有可用性，那么生产这样一辆汽车的能源花费却又大于它能节省的。
. 最后，对于有家庭的人（相对于那些不能做这些事的房客们），最有效的低花费/短期做法是给房子安装风雨条，而最有效的方法但也是花费最高的长期做法是买一套效能好的供暖系统。
要完整了解17个做法，请查看原文。据一些人估计，如果人们可以全部做到这17点，那么他们将可以节省一半的能源开支。
链接到全文文章：“清单：，美国家庭可采取的最有效的影响气候变化的方法”
链接到能源节约机构---一个为节约能源提供建议的英国组织