Domestic Energy Conservation in a Cold Climate

Chapman, Tony

Abstract

In 1992 the British Government made a commitment at the Rio Conference to reduce CO2 emissions to the levels recorded for 1990 by the year 2000. This represents about a 6% cut of around 15 million tonnes a year. This objective is unlikely to be met. Currently, about 28% of CO2 emissions come from households and a very significant reduction in CO2 could be achieved if the energy efficiency of dwellings was improved. This article will show that the odds have been consistently set against the prospect of a planned deployment of energy saving measures under the current administration and considers the prospects of improvement under a Labour Government.

This article reveals the resistance to change by the status driven consumer behaviour of Britain's householder and the profit orientation that blinds industry to ecological crisis. The lack of government's action to promote energy saving measures, or provide funds to achieve its stated aims in the reduction of CO2 is predicated upon the inter‐relationship between consumer behaviour and industrial lobbying. The analysis will show that ‘policy initiatives’ are halfhearted at best and serve to promote only the ‘image’ of an administration which is concerned for the environment. The arguments that follow are based on a sociological analysis of the transformation of domestic consumption in the twentieth century and proceeds from the view that it is not possible to reverse expectations on the comfort, leisure, facility and functionality of the household. In this context it assesses the prospects for change under a new administration.

Citation

Chapman, T. (1996). Domestic Energy Conservation in a Cold Climate. Policy Studies, 17(4), 299-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442879608423715

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Online Publication Date: Nov 26, 2007
• Publication Date: 1996
• Deposit Date: Aug 13, 2020
• Journal: Policy Studies
• Print ISSN: 0144-2872
• Publisher: Taylor and Francis Group
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 17
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 299-314
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01442879608423715
• Public URL: https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1264093