Talk:Rebound effect (conservation)

A Bit Misleading

This article contains the following paragraph:

Economists tend to believe that, for the economy as a whole, the long term rebound effect for more fuel-efficient technologies is higher than 100%; if this is the case, the invention of technologies that improve fuel efficiency may paradoxically increase energy use.[2]

The reference is to Steven Sorrell (2007). "The rebound effect: An assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings from improved energy efficiency". UK Energy Research Centre. But that document contains the following paragraph in the introduction:

The available evidence for all types of rebound effect is far from comprehensive. The evidence is better for direct effects than for indirect effects, but even this focuses on a small number of consumer energy services, such as home heating and personal transportation, within developed countries. Both direct and indirect effects appear to vary widely between different technologies, sectors and income groups and in most cases they cannot be quantified with much confidence. However the evidence does not suggest that improvements in energy efficiency routinely lead to economy-wide increases in energy consumption.

So while it's true that if the rebound effect is more than 100%, the invention of technologies that improve fuel efficiency could increase energy use, the very document referenced says there is no evidence to suggest that improvements lead to increases in energy consumption! Why would economists tend to believe the rebound effect is greater than 100% if there is no evidence to support that belief? Pelkabo (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the paragraph to better reflect the source. LK (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Jevons paradox

How exactly is this article's subject different from the above article? They seem to be discussing exactly the same thing to me, perhaps from a slightly different angle. A merge seems appropriate (the summary of this article there is only slightly smaller than this whole article). Richard001 (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose a merge. Jevon's Paradox is an article about a historical observation made by a famous 19th century economist, and the theoretical insights in economics that it generated. Although related, this is obviously different from the use of the term 'rebound effect' in conservation. lk (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Jevons' paradox is that the rebound can be more than 100%; this article is about the rebound, regardless of size. The Jevons' paradox applies to all kinds of phenomena, while this page is about its effect specifically on conservation. While related, I would tend to keep them apart. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should have a separate article simply about 'that the rebound can be more than 100%'. What are some other kinds of phenomena? Could you provide an example(s)? Richard001 (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The rebound effect treats all cases of resource efficiency compensation, no matter if they are less or more than 100 %. A rebound effect of more than 100% is also called "backfire". The backfire-phenomonen is the case corresponding to the Jevons paradox (>100%). The rebound effect is more general than the Jevons paradox, and the Jevons paradox is a subset of the rebound effect. However, the Jevons paradox is much older better known than the rebound effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.79.182 (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Rebound effect (conservation) and Jevons paradox should be kept separate. There is a growing body of energy efficiency literature which mentions the Rebound effect, and discusses its practical implications, and so this is a notable topic which deserves a separate page. Jevons paradox has a different slant on things, as it is mainly about economic theory, but it also deserves a separate page. However, probably Jevons paradox and Khazzoom-Brookes postulate should be merged as they both relate to the economic theory of resource use. Johnfos (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear consensus to keep the articles separate. If there are no objections, I will remove the merge tag from both articles. lk (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Rebound is a real phenomenon, the Jevons effect is not, so two entries seem necessary. But this one is unsatisfatory. It is not clear what 'demand' in the first two paragraphs refers to and the references are poor. From memory, the first paper is actually be Greene, Greening and DiFiglio. It also contains some dubious economics. The third paper is the sort of thing a bureaucrat produces for non-specialists to a deadline. The author swallows Jevons whole and doesn't even note that his 'evidence' applies strictly to the UK. Paper 4, by Roy, appears not to have been read by the people who cite it. His example of the introduction of solar lanterns in India has got preciselty nothing to do with efficiency and everything to do with giving poor people a free resource.

I think a completely new article is required.

Scepticc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scepticc (talk • contribs) 21:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

New Article

It has been reaised in the Jevons paradox argument that a completely fresh new article is required here. I am currently completing a masters degree on the rebound effect and will upload a new article in the coming weeks. If anyone has important contributions they would like to make, please comment here.Murrayck (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A new article about what? Are you saying you're planning to rewrite the article? It's not at all clear. Richard001 (talk) 07:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I mean rewrite the article. Murrayck (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Richard (and other interested people), I have a new article ready to post. If you would like to cast your eyes over it, you can at reboundeffect.blogspot.com Murrayck (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look at your article. Some comments: 1) It needs to be copyedited for grammer and spelling. 2) There is good information on the current page that you have left out. Eg. the exact relationship of price elasticity of demand to the rebound effect. You should try to incorporate this page rather than just replace. 3) This situation "1. The actual resource savings are more than the potential savings. This would occur were there are no cost savings or the higher costs to more efficient technologies." is not theoretically possible and should be removed. lk (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Lawrence. Regarding your second point, yes, the direct effect is closely related to the price elasticity for the particular good/service in question. I mention this briefly because it is only a small feature of the direct effect only, which is inseparable from the other component effects. The elasticity discussion can of course be extended. Also, a negative rebound effect is a theoretical possibility. A Giffen good would have a negative direct effect. The total economy wide effect can be negative if the new efficient technology is more costly. Not only will the consumption of the good decrease, but consumption of other goods may decrease due budget constraints and the higher costs of that one good. (this point is raised in this report pp 4, 5, 33, and 50 http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/Downloads/PDF/07/0710ReboundEffect/0710ReboundEffectReport.pdf)Murrayck (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Murray, I agree that for a Giffen good, a lower price from improved efficiency would lower demand, and so lead to a more than expected drop in resource demand. However, Giffen goods are extremely rare, if they exist at all. There's been some discussion in the econ literature about the actual existence of a Giffen good. It exists in theory, but AFAIK no one has actually found an actual confirmed case of a Giffen good. AFAIK, in most discussions of the rebound effect, only two possibilities are discussed. The normal case when the rebound is positive but less than 100%, and the extreme case when rebound is more than 100%. I think we should stick with that.

I'm afraid I don't understand your second point, if the new tech is more efficient, shouldn't it be cheaper? Or do you mean that it is more efficient in use, but requires a more costly up front cost, then I can see what you mean. Note that in that case, it may not actually save resources, as the upfront cost means the new technology is resource intensive to implement. Also, is this case relevant? Cause if a new technology is actually more costly, no one would actually use it.

Or do you mean the case where there is a government mandate to use a new cleaner technology that is more expensive? In that case, yes, that would slow down the economy, and would probably reduce resource use. However, I won't call that a rebound effect. It's more like a tax effect. The mandate to use a more expensive technology is equivalent to a tax on using the cheaper technology.

I think we should define clearly what we mean by the rebound effect. In economics, it essentially means only the direct elasticity effect on demand. I've seen it encompass a more broad concept in policy white papers and magazine articles. But we should state right up from what rebound effect refers to.

BTW, can I get some idea about your training? Are you coming from a econ, poli-sci or engineering background?

lk (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lawrence. Yes the Giffen good debate is another issue entirely, but if theoretically possible, means that negative rebounds are also theoretically possible. The document I linked in my last post is that most comprehensive overview of rebound effects I have found. In the energy economics literature, rebound effects are not limited to the direct effect (price effect), but incorporate indirect and economy wide effects. The direct effect from the elasticity of demand for the final good/service is just one (and mostly the smallest) component. Yes, a new technology should be cheaper, or it wouldn't be adopted. And if it is more expensive, then yes, it is using more resources. What I mean is what you raise later, that cleaner technology is more expensive. This is definitely still known as a rebound effect. Taxes themselves are subject to rebound effects. A carbon tax would raise a lot of funds that government would then spend - this expenditure would then offset the intended carbon reductions by stimulating demand elsewhere. My research has estimated such a carbon tax rebound at around 24%. I have uploaded images to my blog now, which I would include in the WIkipedia article. My background/training - I am an environmental economics research student at QUT in Brisbane, Australia, and have worked previously in the property development industry and studied engineering for a couple of years before that. My current thesis title is New insights into rebound effects: Theory and empirical evidence. If you would like, I can email you a copy in its current form.Murrayck (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right in that the rebound effect shouldn't be understood in only the strict sense (as only the direct price effect). However, we should probably add a sentence or two about the difference between the strict sense of the term and the broader meaning. Please do go ahead and post your article. I'll help fill in after it's up. cheers, lk (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I had hoped that you would copyedit, wikify and incorporate before posting. <grimace> Anyways, I've cleaned up somewhat. Have a look. lk (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Externality

You use the term Externality almost as a synonym for resource use or environmental exploitation. This is an incorrect use. Externality specifically refers to the 3rd party effects of any economic transaction. If you reduce the consumption of a product, you can reduce the environmental damage from it, but you cannot reduce the existence of the externality, as the externality exists in either the production or consumption of the product.

E.g. Suppose that coal heating causes air pollution (which is a negative externality associated with coal use). A tax on coal would reduce coal use, and reduce air pollution. However, it would be incorrect to say that a tax on coal would reduce the negative externality associated with coal use, since if you burn coal, you still produce air pollution. The negative externality is still there. lk (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lawrence. The article looks much better. Thank you. It is my first post, and as you can see, my wikifying skills are just as poorly developed as my language skills.

Regarding the term externality, I feel it must be included here somewhere. Yes, I understand that the externality still exists from resource consumption. But for many economists, a reduction in resource consumption is not a justification alone for market intervention, and the subsequent pursuit of efficiency and conservation measures.

If all energy sources were renewable, I assume the push for efficiency and conservation would be limited. It is the existence of the negative environmental externality from fossil fueled energy generation that is the underlying target of such measures.

Many of the studies I cite calculate the rebound effect for carbon emissions, so clearly these are the focus of conservation efforts. You can definitely calculate rebound effect in terms of any resource or externality embodied in final goods and services.

What are your thoughts? Maybe a separate sentence would make the differentiation between the two more clear.Murrayck (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to when you use the term externality. I gather that you mean a negative externality, but do you specifically mean pollution or global warming? It seems that you have something else in mind as you speak about renewable vs non-renewable energy sources. Note that just because a resource is non-renewable doesn't mean that externality exists. For example, if I have a chocolate cake that I can't replace, I can still decide to sell it, and there would be no externality. An externality only exists if 1) you can identify some otherwise unrelated group that would be significantly affected, and b) this third party group cannot organize and bargain with the buyers or sellers to monetize the effect. Example being a factory that spews pollution into a river that eventually poisons ocean fish consumed by consumers in other countries. The factory cannot be identified, and the consumers cannot self organize to sue or otherwise bargain with the factory owners. lk (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My example was probably not clear. The terms renewable/non-renewable were used to differentiate two alternative means of resource production - one that produces externalities in the form of greenhouse gas emissions, and one that does not (or less so). If where are just concerned about energy, then we miss the important point that energy from different sources may or may not produce negative environmental externalities. In the case of electricity conservation, the rebound effect for energy may be 25%, but for greenhouse gases, it may be a lot less, as the energy will come from a variety of sources, not just coal (in the case of Queensland). Does that make my point any more clear?Murrayck (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Resource use is often associated with some negative externality (water pollution for wood-pulp mills, global warming for coal & petroleum). Efficiency enhancing technological progress would reduce the negative effects from these externalities. Unfortunately the rebound effect means that the reduction of the negative effects (eg. pollution, global warming) would be less than may be expected if consumption remained at a constant level. lk (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by 'at a constant level', but otherwise yes. A particular externality may result from the use of a various different resources. By using one resource more efficiently in an effort to reduce the externality (by reducing resource consumption), you may get a rebound effect that increases consumption of other resources that also produce that negative externality (as well as the resource that was the focus of the technology). Therefore it is necessary to differentiate whether the rebound effect is in terms of a particular resource, or type of externality (most often used in the literature is carbon emissions).Murrayck (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from now. Petrol use has the negative externality of CO2 emissions and global warming, but so does coal and natural gas use. A tax to reduce use of any one will increase use of the others, and so you would get an indirect rebound effect. This needs to be spelled out in more detail. I'm afraid it's not at all clear from the article as it now stands. lk (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes on 27 February

Pfhenshaw,
I've reverted the changes you made as IMO the changes do not improve the article. Firstly, the language is confusing and ungrammatical (eg."has to do with stimulating either regional or global economic growth as a multiplier of impacts of all kinds" and "Growth has accumulative financial and environmental benefits and harms over time.") Secondly, the changes do not follow the guidelines in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. eg. only the title of the article and synonyms are to be bold, and only once for each term near the beginning of the article. And thirdly, your definition of 'macro-economic rebound effects' is unsourced, and appears to me to be ideosyncratic, as it doesn't follow any source that I know of. You have added only one source – a document about economic decoupling and decoupling indicators, that does not directly address the issue of rebound effects. As such, your additions appear to me to be original research LK (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted Pfhenshaw's most recent changes, partly because of the comments included at the top of the article which is not the correct place for them. Such comments belong here, on the discussion page. I'm not knowledgeable enough to directly comment on the validity of the changes he would like to make to the article, but simply adding the changes back in along with a snarky comment is not the way to go about it. Please read the Wikipedia rules on Edit warring. If you'd like your changes added, please come discuss them here first and we'll work towards achieving consensus. Cecilkorik (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Pfhenshaw, let's keep the discussions here.

Apart from grammar and style issues, I've got two fundamental problems with what you are trying to add. 1) The academic community is still debating the size of the rebound effect. It is not clear at all that increases in technological efficiency necessarily lead to increased use. You seem to want to emphasize that it must do so. 2) You contend that the theory doesn't take into account the macro rebound, and that current theory doesn't understand what is going on – such an argument is fundamentally WP:OR. We're supposed to report current theoretical and empirical findings, not our opinion that current theory is wrong.

And actually, my reading of the literature is that economists are pretty clear theoretically about what's going on, and have incorporated the macro-rebound into their thinking. It's just unclear exactly what the size of the various effects are. Economists tend to believe that the total rebound effect tends to greater than 100% over the long run, whereas environmentalists tend to believe that its negligible.

LK (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cecil & LK, Your complaints that I insert a banner at the top saying that the following paragraphs of legitimate content have been repeatedly erased by others, could be easily fixed, no? You could erase that banner, and edit the text instead of erasing it! Instead you repeat the squashing of the content. It seems to have been your choice to engage in that, not mine. You can easily fix it. Erase only the top paragraph and edit the text without destroying the intent to be informative for the general reader on a critical issue. Why our economic solutions have been consistently multiplying our economic problems is a big question, of course. Just let's make sure we say we recognize that it's a big question. --Pfhenshaw (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Much as I applaud your efforts to enlighten the masses that technological efficiency gains will not help conservation efforts (a view I subscribe to myself), I must insist that any new edits be reliably sourced. Particularly, your view that 'macro-changes are unmeasurable and are not understood' is, I believe, false. And the current sources back that up. LK (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

LK, I actually agree entirely with you on that detail, and was only phrasing the matter so as to avoid the details in a short paragraph. The macro effects are not easily measurable in the same way micro-effects are, is all. Aggregate measures are very well founded method for measuring aggregate effects, if less certain about direct causation. It's the individual causes for macro effects, and the paths of causation, that flow through markets and independent development processes that are harder to trace. Would you propose a way to have readers understand that the normal 'reverse effect' of technology improvement is a multiplier of impacts? The physical scientists are all saying the prospect of the global warming we are on track to shortly have is consequences too dire to contemplate. The great majority of public policy solutions for warming, though, are to stimulate growing energy impacts with improved technology efficiency, believing it will reduce impacts. Doesn't that seem to represent something of a misunderstanding that should be made as clear as possible in some simple way? That's my general interest. My personal interest is really only to eventually be able to get paid for the work I'm trained to do instead of having all the popular movement people dismiss my efforts because they're off in some fantasy world of thinking that all micro causes have the same macro effect...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfhenshaw (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Things we can agree on

I think the best way to go forward is to hash out here first what we agree on, and how the article should change. From what I gather, what you think is not made clear, and what you want to emphasize is:

1. The total rebound effect is hard to measure as it includes both macro and micro effects. Currently research into effect sizes only measures micro effects. Macro effect sizes are almost impossible to measure.
2. If the total rebound effect is more than 100%, then trying to reduce use by improving technological efficiency is futile. (I would add here that if rebound is >100%, the only way to control use is by taxation or other gov controls.)

I agree that the article should move in that direction. However, I suggest first adding to the body of the article before editing the lead, as the lead is supposed to summarize the body. So changing the lead without first changing the body is going about things backwards.
A good start would be to talk about petroleum prices, and how high petroleum prices in the 1970s slowed growth (stagflation), and low petroleum prices in the 1990s spurred growth. And how an improvement in fuel efficiency technology is similar to lower petroleum prices, and will therefore increase economic growth leading to more use.
Another track is to emphasize the use of pigouvian taxes (aka green taxes) to control fuel use, and how if rebound is large, only pigouvian taxes can reduce fuel use. However, we have to keep NPV balance by reporting that governments and many environmentalists believe that rebound is significantly <100%, no matter how wrong headed we personally may think that is.
LK (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Good article for reference

Nice article, missing a few things though. Someone should put in this article by Horace Hering. --Darx9url (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Rebound effect only applies to exogenous increases in efficiency

One of my blog readers pointed me to this article, and I made the following

The rebound effect is straightforward supply and demand: if for some exogenous reason, there is an improvement in energy efficiency leading to a reduction in the price of energy services, then the volume of services demanded will increase. The net effect on energy demand can go either way.

But if an increase in energy efficiency is the result of adopting costly energy saving measures as a result of a tax or regulatory requirement, the cost of energy services will rise, reducing demand and reinforcing the initial reduction in energy use. That's WP:OR of course, but I'm concerned that the article obscures this elementary but important point. JQ (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I took the freedom to add to the main text another suggested solution: "eco-efficient value creation" in design and engineering. At our Delft University of Technology this design approach is becoming rather popular: students feel that they can contribute to sustainable development in a way that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joost Vogtländer (talk • contribs) 11:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Clutter and confusion

I can see that a lot of work has gone into this article, but the result is not good, as there is a lot of clutter and confusion. For example, doesn't the Jevon's paradox and the rebound effect apply only to energy efficiency and not energy conservation? And yet "Rebound effect (conservation)" is the title of the article and the two terms are used almost interchangably in the text. Johnfos (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I see notable authors such as Lovins and Schipper are referred to in this article, which is good, but I think the main messages of these authors is being missed.

Lovins puts forward three reasons why rebound effects are small, including: "no matter how efficient your house or washing machine becomes, you won’t heat your house to sauna temperatures, or rewash clean clothes". [1] A couple of colleagues of Lovins have written an article here [2] .

Schipper edited the 2000 special issue of Energy Policy on Rebound, and believes that "the Jevon's Paradox has limited applicability today". He says "Jevons wasn't wrong about nineteenth century Britain, but the young and rapidly growing world that Jevons lived in no longer exists. Most economists and efficiency experts, after studying modern energy use, have come to similar conclusions." [3] -- Johnfos (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

And the recent article in Nature needs to be discussed (see [4]). These sources suggest that the rebound effect has been overestimated in the past.

On the basis of these concerns I'm adding a couple of tags to the top of the article. Johnfos (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Time has marched on and probably the kindest thing is for this article to be redirected, which I have done. Johnfos (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

There has been little change in the academic literature about this issue in the last five years. The rebound effect is still an active area of research, but conclusions have not much changed in the last five years. That the rebound effect may have been overestimated in past studies does not mean that it does not exist. Definitely premature at best to write of this topic. Google scholar search for papers on the rebound effect since 2008. LK (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Lawrence, updating the article is one relatively small issue, although the Schipper's perspective needs to be in the article. Schipper edited the 2000 special issue of Energy Policy on Rebound, and believes that "the Jevon's Paradox has limited applicability today". He says "Jevons wasn't wrong about nineteenth century Britain, but the young and rapidly growing world that Jevons lived in no longer exists. Most economists and efficiency experts, after studying modern energy use, have come to similar conclusions." [5]

The bigger issue, as you have said elsewhere is that "the paradox applies only to technological improvements that increase technical efficiency". So it seems Jevon's paradox and the rebound effect apply only to energy efficiency and not energy conservation. And yet "Rebound effect (conservation)" is the title of the article and the two terms are used almost interchangably in the text, leading to a lot of confusion.

I won't be taking this to AfD, but it is disappointing to see articles of such poor quality being displayed on WP. Johnfos (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Johnfos here, most of the articles are not of high quality and are not considered legitimate within academia or most energy scholars. Instead, despite the “rebound effect,” everything I’ve seen has led me to believe energy efficiency is still the best option we should pursue, first. Here are a few authoritative studies, whose methods I find sound, that seem to support this conclusion. The first is from the IEA and reviews global energy efficiency programs, finding that they save energy more cheaply than any other source of electricity. Those savings are real and tangible, and the study finds that the so called rebound effect had a minimal occurrence across the countries surveyed. The second is from ORNL classifying the savings (financial and energy) of state energy efficiency programs. Again, these savings only accrue because there was no found rebound effect, which would have negated the savings. The third is from the National Academies on the value of the Energy Star program. These along document pretty massive EE savings that are not prone to the rebound effect. These links should work for all three, email me if they don’t and I can send you PDFs:

http://www02.abb.com/db/db0003/db002698.nsf/ca7e93ab03030d22c12571380039e8fc/0912873430b22467c12571da0032d460/$file/the+experience+with+energy+efficiency+policies+and+programmes+in+iea+countries.pdf

http://weatherization.ornl.gov/publications.shtml (you want Schweitzer, Martin and Tonn, Bruce, An Evaluation of State Energy Program Accomplishments 2002 Program Year)

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309074487 Bksovacool (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

The introduction says: The rebound effect is generally expressed as a ratio of the lost benefit compared to the expected environmental benefit when holding consumption constant.[1] For instance, if a 5% improvement in vehicle fuel efficiency results in only a 2% drop in fuel use, there is a 60% rebound effect (since (5-2)⁄5 = 60%). The 'missing' 3% might have been consumed by driving faster or further than before. Is this not a contradiction? Femkemilene (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Lange's comment on this article

Dr. Lange has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"Super conservation (RE < 0): the actual resource savings are higher than expected savings – the rebound effect is negative. This occurs if the increase in efficiency reduces costs." The last sentence here is very vague and, in general, it is the reduced cost of undertaking the task that leads to a rebound effect. I would just delete the sentence or have something that states this scenario is not expected to happen.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Lange has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Corrado Di Maria & Ian Lange & Emiliya Lazarova, 2014. "A Look Upstream: Electricity Market Restructuring, Risk, Procurement Contracts and Efficiency," Working Papers 2014-12, Colorado School of Mines, Division of Economics and Business.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Farsi's comment on this article

Dr. Farsi has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

I propose refering also to : Herring, H., Sorrell, S., 2009. Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Consumption: The Rebound Effect. Palgrave.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Farsi has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Sylvain Weber & Mehdi Farsi, 2014. "Travel Distance and Fuel Efficiency: An Estimation of the Rebound Effect using Micro-Data in Switzerland," IRENE Working Papers 14-03, IRENE Institute of Economic Research.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)