Does energy efficiency save energy? The debate and its consequences
This paper considers the debate in the UK and the USA on some economists' claims that improving energy efficiency will lead to a greater energy consumption (than would have otherwise occurred), a concept termed the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate. It analyses the criticisms of this claim and of the responses, particularly of the concept of [`]dematerialization'. The paper attempts to tackle the paucity of empirical evidence in the UK by looking at long-term trends in efficiency and use with respect to UK public lighting. Finally, it focuses on the views of two economists, namely Len Brookes and William Rees, who both accept the postulate but have differing views and policies on measures to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Brookes believes in free-market solutions, whereas Rees puts forward a vision of a sustainable future based on ecological tax-reform and reafforestation.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 63 (1999)
Issue (Month): 3 (July)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/bibliographic|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:63:y:1999:i:3:p:209-226. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.