Ragnar E. Lofstedt questions whether the Government's public awareness campaign to cut energy consumption for environmental reasons is hitting home.
The UK is one of the few nations in Europe that is self-sufficient in energy. Hence, unlike its major industrial competitors such as Germany, there has been little incentive to save energy either in the industrial or domestic sectors. For almost a decade from the Conservatives advent to power in 1979, the mainstay of UK energy thinking was a market-driven policy, best summed up by then Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson when he said that people and companies would save energy if its price was set sufficiently high.
Then, in 1988, there was a change of policy. The government suddenly wanted to become green and shed Britain's tarnished image as the "Dirty man of Europe". So what happened?
Ministers undertook to implement the 1990 environment White Paper, Our Common Inheritance, promising to stabilise carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom by the year 2005 if its main competitors followed suit. No longer would energy conservation be driven simply by market forces, but it would be encouraged in the public and commercial sectors through public awareness campaigns, energy-efficiency schemes for low-income households and subsidies on energy-saving appliances.
In 1992 the Government signed and ratified the convention on climate change at the United National Conference on Environment and Development. The UK was thus committed to stabilising carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000 (instead of 2005). The significance of this treaty was heightened when prime minister John Major personally endorsed the new target.
A detailed report was published outlining the Government's plans. It proposed a six-point environmental strategy that included the following: * The formation of a trust that would subsidise energy-saving measures such as buying energy-efficient boilers. The trust would be supported by a special energy conservation charge of approximately 1.5 per cent (the so called E factor) on all consumers bills * A public-awareness campaign entitled "Helping the Earth Begins at 榴莲视频" in which the Government encouraged homeowners to save energy as a way of combating the greenhouse effect * Adding 17.5 per cent VAT to gas and electricity bills to encourage consumers to use less energy * Revising building standards to make new homes more energy efficient; for example, from next month all new homes will be required to have double glazing * A campaign to improve energy efficiency in central and local government and public sector buildings * Increasing petrol and diesel duties by 5 per cent a year to cut down on vehicle use.
The Government estimated that these measures would result in savings of around 10 million tons of carbon by the year 2000, which could counter the projected rise in carbon dioxide from road traffic .
But things have not gone as planned. Many of the carbon-dioxide reduction strategies have been unsuccessful. The Government was unable to impose full VAT on fuel due to public opposition and parliamentary revolt. The UK gas and electricity regulators, Clare Spottiswoode of OFGAS and Stephen Littlechild at OFFER, have both rejected incorporating the "E" factor on to energy bills, with the result that the Energy Savings Trust has run up a Pounds 400 million deficit. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution also doubts whether an annual 5 per cent increase in real terms on fuel duties will be enough to lead to the carbon-dioxide savings the Government projects (2.5 million tonnes carbon).
The Government is, however, still optimistic. A couple of weeks ago Environment Secretary John Gummer announced that the UK will meet its CO2 targets because the switch from coal to natural gas fired generation plants had gone much quicker than planned. However, some environmental observers are critical of the Government's claims.
One of the more interesting schemes to help stabilise carbon dioxide emissions is the "Helping the Earth Begins at 榴莲视频" campaign, which has a budget of Pounds 6.2 million. According to the Government's own data, this campaign has led to 94 per cent of adults being aware of global warming and 76 per cent understanding that it is linked to energy use in the home.
However, a study by the Liberal Democrats has shown that the campaign has been relatively ineffective, with so few people responding that each inquiry cost the taxpayer Pounds 197.
I recently completed a pilot study based on 200 random telephone interviews in Edinburgh and Bournemouth to see whether the public is willing to save energy for environmental reasons. Early studies showed that although the public was concerned about the environment, on the whole people did not make a link between their own energy consumption and environmental destruction.
My study found that people are more concerned about the price of energy than about whether its consumption leads to environmental destruction. Of the 200 respondents, two-thirds indicated that they consciously tried to save energy. Sixty-five per cent did so for economic reasons, while only 22 per cent did so for environmental ones. Additionally, 40 per cent of respondents said that they are saving more energy in the home now than before because of VAT on electricity and gas. Finally 50 per cent would save more energy if prices rose further.
One possible explanation for this sensitivity to energy price is the issue of fuel poverty. The social-welfare net is much less developed in the UK compared with other north European countries such as Sweden or Denmark and, as a result, many poor households cannot afford to heat their homes adequately during cold winter months.
A worrying factor indicated by my study was that the majority of the price-sensitive respondents indicated that if prices rose they favoured harsh energy conservation measures such as reducing indoor air temperatures over installing more insulation. In the UK there is not much room for further indoor air temperature reduction. The country already has the lowest winter indoor temperatures in Europe, with an average of 16 degrees centigrade. Any further reduction is likely to lead to health problems caused by mould and mildew or even to hypothermia.
As only 22 per cent of the respondents said they saved energy for environmental reasons it can reasonably be concluded that they do not connect their own energy consumption with environmental damage. This was confirmed through a series of questions about the greenhouse effect that showed that although 95 per cent of respondents were aware of it they believed that its primary causes were cars, the ozone layer and spray cans. If these findings were to be replicated in a larger sample, then they would cast serious doubt on the validity of Government data on the success of its campaign. This would be unsurprising considering that previous research conducted in Sweden and the United States has demonstrated the problems of using public information campaigns to encourage energy conservation in the home.
The results of my pilot study do also suggest that less energy will be saved through voluntary household energy conservation measures than the Government estimates. This is because it seems that the public is not making the link between energy and the environment, and because the price incentive has virtually disappeared: gas prices have fallen in real terms over the past ten years, and OFFER's new price control formula will lead to future electricity price falls.
So what are the implications for domestic energy conservation policy in the UK? Should the Government stop funding public awareness campaigns? Should it reassess its energy conservation policy? Although more detailed studies with larger sample sizes are needed before firm conclusions can be made, the results do seem to indicate that ministers need to place greater emphasis on technical energy conservation measures and legislation on, for instance, higher appliance efficiency standards. The Government does appear to be heading in this direction with its recent announcement that it is to lower VAT on insulation materials and the move to override OFGAS's objections to using gas revenues to fund the energy savings. It is also considering supporting legislation in the form of a private member's Bill - a reversal of its stance when a similar Bill was proposed last year. The Government is thus moving toward a combination of market mechanisms and state legislation.
However, this is not to say that public awareness campaigns are not needed. The public still has to understand that there are many ways to save energy in the home other than simply switching off the lights when leaving a room. In fact, in order for the majority of technical energy conservation measures (such as purchasing a fuel-efficient gas boiler) to be successful, the public must understand the economic and environmental benefits involved. If the Government is serious about meeting its carbon-dioxide targets it needs to proceed with a combination of technical energy conservation measures and a well thought-out public awareness campaign.
The author is lecturer in geography, the centre of environmental strategy, University of Surrey.