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

In Another Climate and Money Withdrawal, US Pulls Out of Climate Damage Compensation Fund

The Trump administration has told world financial institutions that the U.S. is pulling out of the landmark international climate Loss and Damage Fund

Formalizing another withdrawal from both climate and foreign aid programs, the Trump administration has told world financial institutions that the U.S is pulling out of the landmark international climate Loss and Damage Fund.Climate analysts Monday were critical of the Treasury Department's decision to formally pull out from the fund designed as compensation for damage by polluting nations to poor countries especially hurt by the extreme storms, heat and drought caused by the burning of coal, oil and gas. A Treasury official said in a letter last week that the U. S. board members of the fund were resigning but gave no reason for the withdrawal.“It’s a great shame to see the U.S. going back on its promises," said Mohamed Adow, founder of Power Shift Africa and a veteran of United Nations climate negotiations. "This decision will result in great suffering for some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world. These people have contributed the least to the climate emergency they are now living through.”The Treasury did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.When the fund was agreed upon in 2022, then-President Joe Biden pledged that the U.S., the world's biggest historic carbon dioxide emitter, would contribute $17.5 million. A dozen countries that have polluted less — Australia, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom — and the European Union have pledged more than the U.S.The two biggest pledges — $104 million — came from Italy and France. As of January, the Loss and Damage Fund had $741.42 million in pledges, according to the United Nations.“The Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Loss and Damage Fund is yet another cruel action that will hurt climate vulnerable lower income nations the most," said Rachel Cleetus, policy director of the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The richest nation and the world’s biggest contributor to global heat-trapping emissions is choosing to punch down and walk away from its responsibility toward nations that have contributed the least to the climate crisis and yet are bearing an unjust burden from it.”Poorer nations, often in the global south, had long framed the fund as one of environmental justice. It was an idea that the U.S. and many rich nations blocked until 2022, when they accepted the creation but insisted it was not reparations.“Three long decades and we have finally delivered climate justice,” Seve Paeniu, the finance minister of Tuvalu, said when the UN climate negotiations established the fund. “We have finally responded to the call of hundreds of millions of people across the world to help them address loss and damage.”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

Transportation secretary rescinds Biden memos prioritizing infrastructure resilience to climate change

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy rescinded memos from the Biden administration prioritizing infrastructure resilience to climate change, according to a Monday press release. According to the press release from the department, the announcement about the rescinding came from Duffy on Monday. The department said the memos “displaced the long-standing authorities granted to States by law, added...

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy rescinded memos from the Biden administration prioritizing infrastructure resilience to climate change, according to a Monday press release. According to the press release from the department, the announcement about the rescinding came from Duffy on Monday. The department said the memos “displaced the long-standing authorities granted to States by law, added meritless and costly burdens related to greenhouse gas emissions and equity initiatives.” The Trump Transportation Department also put forth a memo of its own dated last Friday in which it called the memos “controversial” and asked for their rescinding. Webpages for the memos on the Federal Highway Administration’s (FWHA) website are both currently displaying “Page Not Found.”  According to a Government Accountability Office report from 2022, one of the memos from 2021 had aims including pushing for states to “invest in projects that upgrade the condition of streets, highways and bridges and make them safe for all users” and “modernizing” those same pieces of infrastructure to make the transport network “more sustainable and resilient to a changing climate.” An archived version of the other memo, which is from 2023, also states that the FWHA would carry on with focusing on “infrastructure that is less vulnerable and more resilient to a changing climate.” The 2021 memo was also superseded by the 2023 memo. Duffy said in the release that his department “is getting back to basics — building critical infrastructure projects that move people and move commerce safely.”  “The previous administration flouted Congress in an attempt to push a radical social and environmental agenda on the American people,” he continued. “This was an act of federal overreach. It stops now.”

Study Says Climate Change Will Even Make Earth's Orbit a Mess

A new study finds that climate change is already causing all sorts of problems on Earth, but soon it will be making a mess in orbit around the planet too

Climate change is already causing all sorts of problems on Earth, but soon it will be making a mess in orbit around the planet too, a new study finds.MIT researchers calculated that as global warming caused by burning of coal, oil, gas continues it may reduce the available space for satellites in low Earth orbit by anywhere from one-third to 82% by the end of the century, depending on how much carbon pollution is spewed. That's because space will become more littered with debris as climate change lessens nature's way of cleaning it up.Part of the greenhouse effect that warms the air near Earth's surface also cools the upper parts of the atmosphere where space starts and satellites zip around in low orbit, That cooling also makes the upper atmosphere less dense, which reduces the drag on the millions of pieces of human-made debris and satellites.That drag pulls space junk down to Earth, burning up on the way. But a cooler and less dense upper atmosphere means less space cleaning itself. That means that space gets more crowded, according to a study in Monday's journal Nature Sustainability.“We rely on the atmosphere to clean up our debris. There’s no other way to remove debris,” said study lead author Will Parker, an astrodynamics researcher at MIT. “It’s trash. It’s garbage. And there are millions of pieces of it.”Circling Earth are millions of pieces of debris about one-ninth of an inch (3 millimeters) and larger — the width of two stacked pennies — and those collide with the energy of a bullet. There are tens of thousands of plum-sized pieces of space junk that hit with the power of a crashing bus, according to The Aerospace Corporation, which monitors orbital debris. That junk includes results of old space crashes and parts of rockets with most of it too small to be tracked.“There used to be this this mantra that space is big. And so we can we can sort of not necessarily be good stewards of the environment because the environment is basically unlimited,” Parker said. But a 2009 crash of two satellites created thousands of pieces of space junk. Also NASA measurements are showing measurable the reduction of drag, so scientists now realize that that “the climate change component is really important,” Parker said.The density at 250 miles (400 kilometers) above Earth is decreasing by about 2% a decade and is likely to get intensify as society pumps more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, said Ingrid Cnossen, a space weather scientist at the British Antarctic Survey who was not part of the research. Cnossen said in an email that the new study makes “perfect sense” and is why scientists have to be aware of climate change's orbital effects “so that appropriate measures can be taken to ensure its long-term sustainability.”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

What Kind of Workout Clothes Are Best for the Environment?

Every fabric has an environmental cost. Here’s how to make informed choices.

Chances are, your favorite exercise attire is synthetic, made from petroleum-based fibers like nylon, spandex and polyester. Materials that don’t exactly scream “climate friendly.”Natural fibers have issues, too: Growing cotton can use huge amounts of water and pesticides, the sheep that give us wool emit methane, and processing bamboo can produce a lot of pollution. Altogether, the apparel and footwear industries account for more than 8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.So if you want to keep your body fit while also keeping the planet healthy, what should you do?Consider recycled fibersThere’s a lot of plastic polluting our lands and waters. Some companies have capitalized on that, melting down plastic waste and extruding it into yarn.Karen Leonas, a professor of textile sciences at North Carolina State University, said those materials could be a good choice for workout clothes.“Any time you can find something that contains recycled fibers, that’s definitely a plus,” she said. “Whether you’re looking at climate, water, solid waste or even social sustainability issues.”Lewis Perkins, president of the nonprofit Apparel Impact Institute, also said he liked recycled fibers. But he cautioned that they’re a “transitional solution,” as he believes the ultimate goal should be reducing the prevalence of single-use plastic in the first place.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

America's Butterflies Are Disappearing At 'Catastrophic' Rate, Study Says

The number of the winged beauties down 22% since 2000, according to new research.

WASHINGTON (AP) — America’s butterflies are disappearing because of insecticides, climate change and habitat loss, with the number of the winged beauties down 22% since 2000, a new study finds.The first countrywide systematic analysis of butterfly abundance found that the number of butterflies in the Lower 48 states has been falling on average 1.3% a year since the turn of the century, with 114 species showing significant declines and only nine increasing, according to a study in Thursday’s journal Science.“Butterflies have been declining the last 20 years,” said study co-author Nick Haddad, an entomologist at Michigan State University. “And we don’t see any sign that that’s going to end.”A team of scientists combined 76,957 surveys from 35 monitoring programs and blended them for an apples-to-apples comparison and ended up counting 12.6 million butterflies over the decades. Last month an annual survey that looked just at monarch butterflies, which federal officials plan to put on the threatened species list, counted a nearly all-time low of fewer than 10,000, down from 1.2 million in 1997.Many of the species in decline fell by 40% or more.David Wagner, a University of Connecticut entomologist who wasn’t part of the study, praised its scope. And he said while the annual rate of decline may not sound significant, it is “catastrophic and saddening” when compounded over time.“In just 30 or 40 years we are talking about losing half the butterflies (and other insect life) over a continent!” Wagner said in an email. “The tree of life is being denuded at unprecedented rates.”The United States has 650 butterfly species, but 96 species were so sparse they didn’t show up in the data and another 212 species weren’t found in sufficient number to calculate trends, said study lead author Collin Edwards, an ecologist and data scientist at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.“I’m probably most worried about the species that couldn’t even be included in the analyses” because they were so rare, said University of Wisconsin-Madison entomologist Karen Oberhauser, who wasn’t part of the research. Haddad, who specializes in rare butterflies, said in recent years he has seen just two endangered St. Francis Satyr butterflies — which only live on a bomb range at Fort Bragg in North Carolina — “so it could be extinct.” Some well-known species had large drops. The red admiral, which is so calm it lands on people, is down 44% and the American lady butterfly, with two large eyespots on its back wings, decreased by 58%, Edwards said. Even the invasive white cabbage butterfly, “a species that is well adapted to invade the world,” according to Haddad, fell by 50%. “How can that be?” Haddad wondered.Cornell University butterfly expert Anurag Agrawal said he worries most about the future of a different species: Humans.“The loss of butterflies, parrots and porpoises is undoubtedly a bad sign for us, the ecosystems we need and the nature we enjoy,” Agrawal, who wasn’t part of the study, said in an email. “They are telling us that our continent’s health is not doing so well ... Butterflies are an ambassador for nature’s beauty, fragility and the interdependence of species. They have something to teach us.”Oberhauser said butterflies connect people with nature and that “calms us down, makes us healthier and happier and promotes learning.”What’s happening to butterflies in the United States is probably happening to other, less-studied insects across the continent and world, Wagner said. He said not only is this the most comprehensive butterfly study, but the most data-rich for any insect.Butterflies are also pollinators, though not as prominent as bees, and are a major source of pollination of the Texas cotton crop, Haddad said.The biggest decrease in butterflies was in the Southwest — Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Oklahoma — where the number of butterflies dropped by more than half in the 20 years.“It looks like the butterflies that are in dry and warm areas are doing particularly poorly,” Edwards said. “And that kind of captures a lot of the Southwest.”Edwards said when they looked at butterfly species that lived both in the hotter South and cooler North, the ones that did better were in the cooler areas.Climate change, habitat loss and insecticides tend to work together to weaken butterfly populations, Edwards and Haddad said. Of the three, it seems that insecticides are the biggest cause, based on previous research from the U.S. Midwest, Haddad said.“It makes sense because insecticide use has changed in dramatic ways in the time since our study started,” Haddad said.Habitats can be restored and so can butterflies, so there’s hope, Haddad said.“You can make changes in your backyard and in your neighborhood and in your state,” Haddad said. “That could really improve the situation for a lot of species.”Follow Seth Borenstein on X at @borenbearsThe 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.

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.