Låt hjärtat vamed!

Nu har vi tjatat om energisparande och energieffektivitet i över 35 år och ändå har vi kvar en jättepotential som vi inte har utnyttjat. Jo det är sant att tekniken har förbättrats och att vi är effektivare idag så fenomenet är både försvarligt och förklarligt, men vi måste ändå komma längre - och det är bråttom. Enligt IEA skall merparten av minskningarna i utsläpp av växthusgaser hämtas från effektivisering. Det är rationellt, ekonomiskt och klokt, men just sådana argument är de som vi använt under så lång tid och med så lite resultat.

Jag har försökt fokusera på detta skifte i argumentation dels i en ledarkolumn i Energirådgivarnas medlemsblad Dialog, och dels i en kolumn i EndsEurope (text återgiven nedan). Vi måste göra förändringarna inte bara därför att hjärnan förklarar dem utan också därför att hjärtat längtar efter dem. Annars når vi nog aldrig det stora genombrottet.

——————————————————————————————
Energy efficiency: time for a new approach

It is time to be more specific on the narrative for energy efficiency. We have lived with two ways of motivating people to be energy efficient for more than 35 years.

Both of them made sense once, but their best-before-date has passed. They repel more than they attract and, worse, they lead to negative thoughts.

The first narrative was created in a time of dire necessity. Born out of the first oil crisis, it was about conservation and sacrifice. OECD countries faced oil shortages and there was a collective understanding that we had to give up a bit of our comfort for some time. It was a time of warfare.

The second narrative, which is still the dominant one, is that of efficiency. Most often communicated with slogans such as ?win-win? or ?do more with less?, this is far more correct than the first one, not least because it indicates that we are still misusing resources.

It is quite puzzling to see supply curves for energy efficiency with negative costs. Are people really content with spoiling resources? Or do they not believe in perfect markets and the gospel of general equilibrium?

The undeniable facts are that we still have a huge untapped potential for energy efficiency, and that we need to exploit it fast. According to the IEA?s latest analysis, more than half of greenhouse gas mitigation has to come from end-use efficiency.

Energy efficiency, even if widely deployed, might not be enough. We may have to think about energy sufficiency. This calls for a new way of ?marketing? the message. It is time to shift the narrative.

The next narrative must be about comfort, modernity, coolness, values ? terms that will communicate energy efficiency not through necessity or rationality but by describing the way things should be for a sustainable society. The fact that a similar shift is taking place in the business landscape is of great help.

Technology allows us to provide energy services in more sophisticated ways. For example, advanced ICT provides control at our fingertips; better design can make energy-saving equipment more functional and beautiful at the same time; supply solutions in miniature scale are available for photovoltaic or wind installations on roofs and in gardens.

Energy efficiency can be delivered by businesses that are far removed from the old centralised utilities, which traditionally tend to put technology first. These new businesses are rather service providers putting customer service first. They will market their products accordingly.

Energy efficiency should be desirable, comfortable and natural. It should be delivered on people?s doorstep by someone they recognise and like. Energy efficiency should be built into the installations as well as into the perception of a good and decent living. It is time for this third narrative to take off.

By Hans Nilsson, IEA demand-side management programme

Klandra inte spegeln om Du inte gillar bilden

Då och då kommer det kraftig kritik mot de energiscenarier som till exempel IEA publicerar i sina årliga skrifter. Som senast den här från en organisation som heter Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) och har skrivit en rapport med det klatschiga namnet “Off Track”.

The International Energy Agency has wrongly guided governments into decisions about oil, gas and coal use that are inconsistent with the long-term climate objectives of the Paris Agreement

Men är det sant? Är det IEA som vilseleder? Så här förklarar IEA hur scenarierna konstrueras (jämför med bild nedan)

- New Policies Scenario of the World Energy Outlook broadly serves as the IEA baseline scenario. It takes account of broad policy commitments and plans that have been announced by countries, including national pledges to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and plans to phase out fossil-energy subsidies, even if the measures to implement these commitments have yet to be identified or announced.

- Current Policies Scenario assumes no changes in policies from the mid-point of the year of publication (previously called the Reference Scenario).

- 450 Scenario sets out an energy pathway consistent with the goal of limiting the global increase in temperature to 2°C by limiting concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to around 450 parts per million of CO2.

Två av de scenarier som presenteras är alltså reflexioner av vad som händer i världen och det som är på väg att hända till följd av de beslut som fattats i olika beslutsorgan (länder, samarbetsorganisationer mm). Det är bilder INTE rekommendationer!

Om vi inte gillar det vi ser måste vi kanske rätta till de egna anletsdragen. Men klandra inte spegeln!

 

Läs mer

Månadsindelade arkiv