Social Constraints to Eco Efficiency: Refrigerators and freezers - SIFO

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4technological fix to gain momentum. During our research, however, another obstacle becamevisible: Product resurrection and afterlife inside and outside the household.The replacement decisionRespondents that reported that they had exchanged fridge or freezer were asked why theydecided to replace the old one.Table 2. Reasons for replacing old product. PercentRefrigerator FreezerObsolescence of quality (old product did not work anymore or 67 68was worn out)Obsolescence of function (old product lacked vital new functions) 4 2Psychological obsolescence (old product did not fit in or was 13 10unfashionable, respondent wanting something new)New consumer needs (like old product having the wrong size, or 16 20household split up due to divorce)100/N= 640 100/N=365In general, it seems as if consumers are reluctant to exchange products that work. In thesurvey, stereos were the exception. The technological change from vinyl to CD-technologymade as many as 44% of respondents to report obsolescence of function as the reason for thereplacement decision, but no such change has occurred in the fridge-freezer field. To a largedegree, this means that the present technical lifespan of white goods more or less determinethe delay of the efficiency revolution. And, as the aforementioned LCA of washing machinereplacement and energy use indicates, this might actually be rather acceptable from anenvironmental point of view. When efficiency improvements are quite modest and indirectenergy is systematically underestimated, this slow product exchange makes sense. To worktowards increasing product durability stands out as a sensible approach to more sustainableconsumption, even when we consider products that consume energy in the use phase.Product afterlifeThe main concern here, however, is another – rather more serious - constraint or obstacle tothe efficiency revolution; a constraint that not only slows down improvements but even worksagainst it (at least significantly undermines its results). In the survey, we raised the question ofwhat consumers did with the old product, if it still worked at the time of replacement buying.Table 3. What happened to the old product? Percent.Refrigerator FreezerIt was sold 16 16Salvation Army, Flea market etc. 5 3Given to family or friends 24 25Placed in cabin, basement etc 21 11Thrown, delivered at retailers’ etc. 20 23Other 15 23Total 101/N=265 101/N=155Even if numbers here are rather small, the tendency is overwhelming. A minimum of 66% ofrefrigerators that worked when the household bought a new one is disposed of in a way thatprolongs its life. At least 17% of exchanged refrigerators and 8% of the freezers seem to be inuse as cold appliances after the acquisition of the new product. Real numbers are likely to be
5bigger, because both “delivered at retailers” and “other” might also include afterlife. Thismeans that to a large degree, energy efficient appliances add to the appliance population,instead of replacing inefficient ones.This is a kind of consumer behaviour that seriously threatens the perceived benefits of theefficiency revolution. The introduction of energy efficient cold appliances will contribute tothe growth, not the reduction, of domestic energy use for cold appliances as long as thispattern prevails. The beneficial effects of the efficiency revolution are delayed until the nextexchange of the no. one fridges or freezers, when today’s appliances are relegated tobasement or cabin service. Unless we intervene in the market, i.e. by paying for taking oldproducts out of service, we might seriously delay the expected improved energy efficiency ofconsumption.The strange phenomenon here is that under “normal” conditions the exchange rate for coldappliances seems to fit rather well with the pace of technical improvement, but that themechanical simplicity of these products makes some of them extremely durable. This createsa situation where two solutions are rather acceptable from an environmental point of view:In the first instance the consumer keeps the product, after the point of optimalexchange, where savings in use energy makes up for the losses in indirect energy. Thediscrepancy between empirical and hypothetical energy use widens, but this happens ratherslowly. The household uses more energy than necessary, but the excess consumption isprobably not dramatic.In the second instance the old product is replaced by the new and improved product,hopefully at a point where direct energy use rather quickly makes up for the added use ofindirect energy. Even if this is not the case, because the exchange was not done anywherenear the optimal point, the empirical energy overuse is again not really dramatic.The observed pattern, however, is environmentally very undesirable. Instead of the technooptimist’svision of an immediate factor two improvement for cooling and freezing energyconsumption, we almost get a factor two worsening in a number of households for anindeterminate number of years.Deep ecology, technology and sociologyThis material is not sufficient to decide any sort of debate between radical environmentalistsdemanding radical measures in order to adjust consumption and life styles on one hand andtechnical “fixers” on the other. The race between improved technology and increasedconsumption is unfinished and looks different in different consumption areas. Cars seem toget more and more efficient per weight unit, but they weigh more and more, they drive morekilometres and their number increase.So, when environmentalists tend underestimate the potential of ecologically improvedtechnology, the engineers seem to underestimate the problems of implementation. This littlestudy of white goods consumption and exchange rates in Norway shows that introduction ofimproved technology gets rather complicated and unpredictable when we move fromtechnical-economical models and into thick social reality; without making that into anargument against technical improvements.Technological improvement fools the environmentalist. Sociology fools the technician.
Page 1 and 2: ESA Conference; Torun, September 05
Page 3: 3energy efficiency improvement for

Social Constraints to Eco Efficiency: Refrigerators and freezers - SIFO

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?