Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

How the ‘rebound effect’ could eat away at the green gains from electric vehicles

News Feed
Wednesday, September 11, 2024

alexfan32/ShutterstockThe transport sector produces around 19% of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions. About 85% of transport emissions come from road vehicles burning fossil fuels. In Australia’s Emissions Projections 2023, transport emissions are expected to rise from 2023 under the baseline scenario, returning to pre-pandemic levels. As the projected uptake of electric vehicles increases from 2030 to 2035, transport emissions are expected to fall. While these projections are promising, the reality is more complex. Our new research has explored often-overlooked factors such as the rebound effect. It’s the phenomenon where energy-efficiency gains, such as those from electric vehicles, can lead to an increase in overall use. We have already seen this effect at work in other nations that led the way in adopting electric vehicles. Fortunately, we also have evidence of how to manage the rebound effect to achieve the expected green gains from electric vehicles. The rebound effect is widespread When something becomes more efficient, cheaper or easier to use, people tend to use more of it. This can partially (and sometimes significantly) offset the expected benefits of greater efficiency. The rebound effect has been well-documented in relation to many large-scale green initiatives, especially home energy-efficiency improvements when homes are retrofitted with better insulation or heating and cooling systems. With lower heating and cooling costs, some households then keep their homes at higher comfort levels for longer. This offsets some of the intended energy savings. In the case of vehicle electrification, as cars become cheaper to own and run, people may end up driving more often or for longer distances. We are already seeing this in some countries. A study from Stockholm, Sweden, during early stages of electric vehicle adoption found drivers made more trips and relied more heavily on their cars than non-EV users. The study participants generally perceived electric vehicles as being more eco-friendly than using public transport. Drivers may also increase their speed and acceleration, knowing their vehicle is more fuel-efficient and driving has become cheaper. One study found a 20.5% rebound effect in journey speed for electric vehicles. This reduced the expected energy savings. How much impact does this effect have? Studies have found that if evaluations of environmental benefits ignore rebound effects, these benefits may be overstated by about 20% for reduced vehicle use and around 7% for reduced electricity use. Other studies have predicted more moderate effects. You might ask, so what if travellers go longer distances? Aren’t electric vehicles still zero-emission? While they produce no tailpipe emissions, longer distances increase their environmental footprint in other ways. More driving uses more electricity. If it comes from fossil fuels, it produces carbon emissions. The manufacturing and disposal of electric vehicle batteries generate significant emissions too. More driving leads to more road congestion and non-exhaust emissions from tyres and brakes. In other words, zero-emission driving isn’t the whole picture. Despite the rebound effect, electric vehicles will still have significant environmental benefits. But just how big these benefits are depends on how the vehicles are used. What is the psychology behind this effect? Understanding rebound behaviours is key to minimising the gap between expected and actual environmental benefits. Research shows that while people may adopt pro-environmental behaviours, such as driving electric vehicles, they don’t always make rational, purely cost-driven decisions. It has been suggested factors like moral licensing — the idea that people feel entitled to behave less sustainably after making a green choice — drive this phenomenon. More recent research has provided evidence that moral licensing is not the whole picture. Instead, environmental attitudes and demographic factors — such as age and gender — play a bigger role in determining subsequent climate-friendly behaviour. Younger men are least likely to behave in a climate-friendly manner. Older people and women are more likely to behave in sustainable ways. Personal and social norms play a role in how people respond to energy-efficient technologies, but not always in expected ways. Pro-environmental values — where individuals genuinely care about their impact — are the most effective in preventing rebound effects. People with these values are more likely to adjust their consumption mindfully. However, social norms can have the opposite effect. In some cases, people may adopt energy-efficient products like electric vehicles to meet societal expectations, but this can lead to what’s called compensatory behaviour. Feeling they’ve “done their bit”, they may justify using the vehicle more often. Or they might switch from public transport to driving. What’s the solution? Incentives and policies to promote electric vehicles are largely effective in cutting carbon emissions but can have unintended consequences. The low running costs of these vehicles, along with incentives like toll or tax exemptions, may encourage more driving. This often happens at the expense of public transport, cycling and walking. Such incentives could also contribute to increases in vehicle ownership or city traffic. Lack of knowledge about the full environmental impact of the choices they make can make people more susceptible to such unintended effects. When consumers are better informed, unintended consequences such as the rebound effect tend to diminish. Raising awareness and providing targeted information could help counter behaviours that undermine the benefits of electric vehicles. In the global push to combat climate change, simply reducing vehicle tailpipe emissions won’t be enough. To truly minimise transport’s impact, we must adopt a holistic approach that addresses the entire life cycle of vehicles—from production and use to disposal. Milad Haghani receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Hadi Ghaderi receives funding from the iMOVE Cooperative Research Centre, Transport for New South Wales, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Victorian Department of Transport and Planning, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, IVECO Trucks Australia limited, Innovative Manufacturing Cooperative Research Centre, Victoria Department of Education and Training, Australia Post, Bondi Laboratories, Innovative Manufacturing Cooperative Research Centre, Sphere for Good, Australian Meat Processor Corporation,City of Casey, 460degrees and Passel.David A Hensher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

There’s a risk that the belief that electric vehicles are much greener results in owners driving more often or faster, or using cars instead of public transport.

alexfan32/Shutterstock

The transport sector produces around 19% of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions. About 85% of transport emissions come from road vehicles burning fossil fuels.

In Australia’s Emissions Projections 2023, transport emissions are expected to rise from 2023 under the baseline scenario, returning to pre-pandemic levels. As the projected uptake of electric vehicles increases from 2030 to 2035, transport emissions are expected to fall.

While these projections are promising, the reality is more complex. Our new research has explored often-overlooked factors such as the rebound effect. It’s the phenomenon where energy-efficiency gains, such as those from electric vehicles, can lead to an increase in overall use.

We have already seen this effect at work in other nations that led the way in adopting electric vehicles. Fortunately, we also have evidence of how to manage the rebound effect to achieve the expected green gains from electric vehicles.

The rebound effect is widespread

When something becomes more efficient, cheaper or easier to use, people tend to use more of it. This can partially (and sometimes significantly) offset the expected benefits of greater efficiency.

The rebound effect has been well-documented in relation to many large-scale green initiatives, especially home energy-efficiency improvements when homes are retrofitted with better insulation or heating and cooling systems. With lower heating and cooling costs, some households then keep their homes at higher comfort levels for longer. This offsets some of the intended energy savings.

In the case of vehicle electrification, as cars become cheaper to own and run, people may end up driving more often or for longer distances. We are already seeing this in some countries.

A study from Stockholm, Sweden, during early stages of electric vehicle adoption found drivers made more trips and relied more heavily on their cars than non-EV users. The study participants generally perceived electric vehicles as being more eco-friendly than using public transport.

Drivers may also increase their speed and acceleration, knowing their vehicle is more fuel-efficient and driving has become cheaper. One study found a 20.5% rebound effect in journey speed for electric vehicles. This reduced the expected energy savings.

How much impact does this effect have?

Studies have found that if evaluations of environmental benefits ignore rebound effects, these benefits may be overstated by about 20% for reduced vehicle use and around 7% for reduced electricity use. Other studies have predicted more moderate effects.

You might ask, so what if travellers go longer distances? Aren’t electric vehicles still zero-emission? While they produce no tailpipe emissions, longer distances increase their environmental footprint in other ways.

More driving uses more electricity. If it comes from fossil fuels, it produces carbon emissions.

The manufacturing and disposal of electric vehicle batteries generate significant emissions too.

More driving leads to more road congestion and non-exhaust emissions from tyres and brakes.

In other words, zero-emission driving isn’t the whole picture.

Despite the rebound effect, electric vehicles will still have significant environmental benefits. But just how big these benefits are depends on how the vehicles are used.

What is the psychology behind this effect?

Understanding rebound behaviours is key to minimising the gap between expected and actual environmental benefits.

Research shows that while people may adopt pro-environmental behaviours, such as driving electric vehicles, they don’t always make rational, purely cost-driven decisions. It has been suggested factors like moral licensing — the idea that people feel entitled to behave less sustainably after making a green choice — drive this phenomenon.

More recent research has provided evidence that moral licensing is not the whole picture. Instead, environmental attitudes and demographic factors — such as age and gender — play a bigger role in determining subsequent climate-friendly behaviour. Younger men are least likely to behave in a climate-friendly manner. Older people and women are more likely to behave in sustainable ways.

Personal and social norms play a role in how people respond to energy-efficient technologies, but not always in expected ways. Pro-environmental values — where individuals genuinely care about their impact — are the most effective in preventing rebound effects. People with these values are more likely to adjust their consumption mindfully.

However, social norms can have the opposite effect. In some cases, people may adopt energy-efficient products like electric vehicles to meet societal expectations, but this can lead to what’s called compensatory behaviour. Feeling they’ve “done their bit”, they may justify using the vehicle more often. Or they might switch from public transport to driving.

What’s the solution?

Incentives and policies to promote electric vehicles are largely effective in cutting carbon emissions but can have unintended consequences.

The low running costs of these vehicles, along with incentives like toll or tax exemptions, may encourage more driving. This often happens at the expense of public transport, cycling and walking. Such incentives could also contribute to increases in vehicle ownership or city traffic.

Lack of knowledge about the full environmental impact of the choices they make can make people more susceptible to such unintended effects. When consumers are better informed, unintended consequences such as the rebound effect tend to diminish.

Raising awareness and providing targeted information could help counter behaviours that undermine the benefits of electric vehicles.

In the global push to combat climate change, simply reducing vehicle tailpipe emissions won’t be enough. To truly minimise transport’s impact, we must adopt a holistic approach that addresses the entire life cycle of vehicles—from production and use to disposal.

The Conversation

Milad Haghani receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Hadi Ghaderi receives funding from the iMOVE Cooperative Research Centre, Transport for New South Wales, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Victorian Department of Transport and Planning, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, IVECO Trucks Australia limited, Innovative Manufacturing Cooperative Research Centre, Victoria Department of Education and Training, Australia Post, Bondi Laboratories, Innovative Manufacturing Cooperative Research Centre, Sphere for Good, Australian Meat Processor Corporation,City of Casey, 460degrees and Passel.

David A Hensher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

A Breakdown of Major EPA Deregulatory Moves Around Water, Air, Climate

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin on Wednesday announced nearly three dozen deregulatory moves that he said would spur the U.S. economy by rolling back rules that have unfairly burdened industry

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin on Wednesday announced nearly three dozen deregulatory moves that he said would spur the U.S. economy by rolling back rules that have unfairly burdened industry. Many of the moves would affect landmark regulations aimed at protecting clean air and water.Here's a look at some of the 31 regulatory changes Zeldin announced: Reconsider power plant emissions standards The Biden administration set limits on planet-warming emissions from existing gas and coal-fired power plants – a major step in the administration’s effort to reduce greenhouse gases from the heavily polluting energy sector. Trump has long opposed such tough, climate-friendly limits and has instead promoted oil and gas development. Zeldin said the agency would reconsider the Biden administration standards to avoid constraining energy production. Reconsider toxic emission limits on power plants Coal plants emit toxic metals like mercury and the Biden administration issued a rule to severely limit those pollutants. Officials at the time said technology had progressed enough for these plants to do better. The EPA on Wednesday said nearly two dozen states had sued, arguing the rule was costly and a major burden, especially to coal plants. They also considering offering industry a two-year compliance extension while officials reconsider the rule. Reconsider wastewater rules for coal and other power plants Hazardous metals like mercury and arsenic end up in the wastewater of steam-powered electric generating power plants like coal. These can have serious health effects including increasing cancer rates and lowering childhood IQ scores. The Biden administration tightened regulations of this wastewater. The EPA said it will revisit those “stringent” rules that are costly to industry and therefore may raise residential energy bills. New uses for oil and gas wastewater Currently, treated wastewater generated from oil and gas drilling can be used in limited ways in certain western lands, such as for agriculture. Environmentalists say there can be a broad range of contaminants in the wastewater, some of which might not be known. The EPA said it will reconsider those rules and look at how the treated water could be used for other purposes like cooling data centers, fighting fires and other ecological needs. They say the current rules are costly, old and don’t reflect the capabilities of modern treatment technologies. ​​Reconsider petrochemical emergency planning The Biden administration tightened safeguards against accidents for industrial and chemical plants that millions of people live near. The agency’s risk management program added planning and reporting requirements for facilities and forced some to implement new safeguards. Accidents at these plants can be severe – a 2019 explosion at a Texas facility, for example, forced tens of thousands to evacuate, for example. Industry associations have criticized parts of the rule, such as requirements to publicly report sensitive information.Zeldin said Biden administration officials “ignored recommendations from national security experts on how their rule makes chemical and other sensitive facilities in America more vulnerable to attack.” The EPA is reconsidering the rule. Reconsidering greenhouse gas reporting requirements The EPA said it was reconsidering its mandatory greenhouse gas reporting program, which requires thousands of major industrial polluters to tell the agency about its emissions. Zeldin said the “bureaucratic government program” costs hundreds of millions of dollars and doesn’t help air quality. Until now, the EPA said the data helped businesses compare their emissions to competitors and find opportunities to reduce them and lower costs. Reconsider light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicle regulations Zeldin vowed to review his agency’s emissions standards for cars and trucks, calling the tightened emissions rules the “foundation for the Biden-Harris electric vehicle mandate.” Nothing the Biden administration implemented required automakers to make and sell EVs or for consumers to buy them. Loosening standards would allow vehicles to emit more planet-warming greenhouse gases, but many automakers have already been investing in making their vehicles more efficient. Reconsider 2009 Endangerment Finding and regulations that rely on it The scientific finding, under the 2009 Clean Air Act, determined that planet-warming greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. It has been at the core of the nation’s action against climate change. Trump had already directed the EPA to consider the finding’s “legality” in an executive order. Experts say the impacts of climate change on human health and the environment are already clear, and that upending the finding would be devastating. Reconsideration of technology transition rule This program enforced strict rules to reduce the use of hydrofluorocarbons, highly potent and planet-warming greenhouse gases used in refrigerators, air conditioners, heat pumps and more. HFCs, as they are known, are thousands of times more powerful than carbon dioxide and leak through equipment that uses compressed refrigerants. Dozens of countries around the globe have pledged to slash their use and production of the chemicals. Ending ‘Good Neighbor Plan’ This rule was intended to limit air pollution by restricting power plant smokestack emissions, and those from other industrial sites, across 11 states. Eliminating it would especially impact downwind neighborhoods that are burdened by pollution from ground-level ozone, or smog, that is out of their control. However, the Supreme Court had already put a hold on the rule last summer, ruling that states challenging it were likely to prevail. Reconstitute Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee These seats have long been politicized given how influential they can be in setting national environmental policy. The board reviews “the quality and relevance of the scientific and technical information being used by the EPA or proposed as the basis for Agency regulations” and agency research programs. Congress directed the agency to establish the board to provide the Administrator science advice in 1978. The committee can give “independent advice” to the agency’s Administrator specific to the nation’s Ambient Air Quality Standards. Reconsider Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards Power plants and industrial facilities release particulate matter, or soot, that can easily pass through a person’s lungs and into their bloodstream. Last year, the Biden administration tightened standards regulating soot in response to scientific research indicating existing regulations were insufficient. At the time, the EPA estimated its stronger regulations would save thousands of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of asthma and lost workdays annually. The Trump administration’s EPA says these regulations are “a major obstacle” for companies and that the U.S. has low levels of soot. Reconsider national emission standards for air pollutants for American energy and manufacturing These EPA standards apply to pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer, birth defects or other serious health problems, such as asbestos and mercury. Industrial facilities are required to follow strict standards to monitor, control and limit the amount of these chemicals they release into the air. Restructure the Regional Haze Program For decades, this EPA program has required states to reduce pollution that threatens scenic views in more than 150 national parks and wilderness areas, including in the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. Zeldin said that the U.S. has made strides in improving visibility in national parks and that the program is being used as justification for shutting down industrial facilities and threatening affordable energy. Overhauling ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ The social cost of carbon is an EPA tool to weigh the economic costs and benefits of regulating polluting industries by putting a price tag on climate-warming carbon dioxide emissions – set at $190 per ton under the Biden administration’s EPA. That calculation is used in cost-benefit analyses, and was intended to account for greenhouse gas emissions’ impacts including natural disasters, crop damage, health problems and sea-level rise. Under the first Trump administration, carbon was pegged at around $5 per ton. An executive order Trump signed on his first day in office directs the EPA to consider eliminating this calculation entirely to advance his “Unleashing American Energy” policy. Prioritizing coal ash program to expedite state permit reviews and update regulations After coal is burned, ash filled with heavy pollutants including arsenic, lead and mercury is left behind and typically stored in giant pits under federal regulation. The EPA says it is now seeking to rapidly put regulation “more fully into state hands,” which environmental groups fear could lead to weaker standards. Last year, the Biden administration closed a gap that had allowed companies to avoid responsibility for cleaning up inactive coal ash pits – a policy that environmental groups say could now be repealed.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org. Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Trump’s FBI Moves to Criminally Charge Major Climate Groups

The FBI is moving to criminalize groups like Habitat for Humanity for receiving grants from the Environmental Protection Agency under the Biden administration. Citibank revealed in a court filing Wednesday that it was told to freeze the groups’ bank accounts at the FBI’s request. The reason? The FBI alleges that the groups are involved in “possible criminal violations,” including “conspiracy to defraud the United States.”“The FBI has told Citibank that recipients of EPA climate grants are being considered as potentially liable for fraud. That is, the Trump administration wants to criminalize work on climate science and impacts,”  the capitol hunters account wrote Wednesday on X. “[A]n incoming administration not only cancels federal grants but declares recipients as criminals. All these grantees applied under government calls FOR ENVIRONMENTAL WORK, were reviewed and accepted. Trump wants to jail them.“The Appalachian Community Capital Corporation, The Coalition for Green Capital, and the DC Green Bank are just some of the nonprofits being targeted. “This is not fraud. This is targeted harassment,” Capital Hunters continued. “The idea of criminalizing community climate work wouldn’t have originated at the FBI - it likely comes from EPA director Lee Zeldin, who today cut all EPA’s environmental justice offices, which try to reduce pollution in poor and minority communities.”Zeldin’s order eliminates 10 EPA regional offices as well as the headquarters in Washington, D.C.

The FBI is moving to criminalize groups like Habitat for Humanity for receiving grants from the Environmental Protection Agency under the Biden administration. Citibank revealed in a court filing Wednesday that it was told to freeze the groups’ bank accounts at the FBI’s request. The reason? The FBI alleges that the groups are involved in “possible criminal violations,” including “conspiracy to defraud the United States.”“The FBI has told Citibank that recipients of EPA climate grants are being considered as potentially liable for fraud. That is, the Trump administration wants to criminalize work on climate science and impacts,”  the capitol hunters account wrote Wednesday on X. “[A]n incoming administration not only cancels federal grants but declares recipients as criminals. All these grantees applied under government calls FOR ENVIRONMENTAL WORK, were reviewed and accepted. Trump wants to jail them.“The Appalachian Community Capital Corporation, The Coalition for Green Capital, and the DC Green Bank are just some of the nonprofits being targeted. “This is not fraud. This is targeted harassment,” Capital Hunters continued. “The idea of criminalizing community climate work wouldn’t have originated at the FBI - it likely comes from EPA director Lee Zeldin, who today cut all EPA’s environmental justice offices, which try to reduce pollution in poor and minority communities.”Zeldin’s order eliminates 10 EPA regional offices as well as the headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Wildfires are complicating cancer care: Study

Wildfires and other climate-induced weather extremes are posing an increased threat to cancer patients by shifting their treatment trajectories and access to care, a new study has determined. Patients recovering from lung cancer surgery within an active wildfire zone required longer hospital stays than those in areas that had no such blazes, scientists reported in...

Wildfires and other climate-induced weather extremes are posing an increased threat to cancer patients by shifting their treatment trajectories and access to care, a new study has determined. Patients recovering from lung cancer surgery within an active wildfire zone required longer hospital stays than those in areas that had no such blazes, scientists reported in the study, published on Wednesday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. These lengthier stays could be due to the reluctance of healthcare providers to discharge patients to a hazardous environment, housing instability or safety issues — or due to the unavailability of routine post-op care, staff shortages or shuttered rehab centers, according to the study. "There are currently no guidelines for protecting the health and safety of patients recovering from lung cancer surgery during wildfires in the United States,” lead author Leticia Nogueira, scientific director of health services research at the American Cancer Society, said in a statement. “In the absence of guidelines, clinicians might resort to improvisational strategies," Nogueira added, noting that doing so serves to "better protect the health and safety of patients during wildfires.” The complex nature of post-operative recovery from lung cancer procedures coupled with wildfire disasters pose considerable threats to patient health, beyond exposure to smoke, the authors stressed. For example, they pointed to factors like water and soil contamination, evacuation orders while handling mobility and cognitive challenges, disruptions in pharmacy and grocery hours and changes in transportation accessibility. Nogueira and her colleagues studied data available via the National Cancer Database for individuals 18 years or older who received a lobectomy or pneumonectomy for stages 1 to 3 lung cancer between 2004 and 2021. They then evaluated differences between the length of stay for wildfire-exposed patients — those hospitalized in a Presidential Disaster Declaration area between the dates of surgery and discharge — and unexposed patients treated at the same facility during a non-disaster period. The results revealed that patients exposed to a wildfire disaster had hospital stays that were on average two days longer: 9.4 days in comparison to 7.5 days. That two-day difference, which applied to patients across all stages of cancer, could take a toll on U.S. healthcare systems, as hospital stays nationwide cost about $1,500 per day, according to the study. As climate change continues to intensify and extend wildfire season, the researchers urged healthcare institutions to adapt and improve their clinical and disaster preparedness strategies for specific patient populations. These tactics, the authors continued, must also account for environmental influences. "This study is just the tip of the iceberg showing how extreme weather may be impacting patients with chronic illnesses," senior author Amruta Nori-Sarma, deputy director of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health's Center for Climate Health and the Global Environment, said in a statement. "As the wildfire season gets longer and more intense, and wildfires start affecting broader swathes of the U.S. population, health care providers need to be ready with updated guidance that best protects their patients’ health," Nori-Sarma added.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.