It's the Simple Things: Household Climate Adaptation in the UK

“Household energy consumption is a motor of substantial production of greenhouse gas emissions and thus a central arena of climate mitigation policies”

~ Schaffrin & Reibling (2015)

Figure 1) Steps to achieving a low-carbon household

Continuing my analysis of the UK, a fundamental issue with the domestic climate mitigation lies in the divergent household incomes – dictating ‘disparity in energy use’ and ability to change ‘household energy practices’ (Schaffrin & Reibling, 2015).

Under the UKs ‘liberal welfare regime’, low-income households ‘devote a higher share of their income’ despite significantly LESS energy consumption, placing them at high risk of ‘energy poverty’ (Schaffrin & Reibling, 2015)!

For a developed country, this situation seems very backwards to me and poses the question: How are we meant to achieve low-carbon households amongst inequality?

Perry et al (2008) present the interesting idea of a Locally Integrated Energy Sector (LIES). Used to reduce local carbon footprints and tackle CO₂ production and energy waste, LIES works by integrating local renewable energy sources i.e. ‘wind, solar cells, heat pumps’ etc, with ‘excess heat and power available from local industry’, transferring heat ‘from one process to another via a carrying medium’ i.e. steam.

To me, this sounds like a practical method which reduces CO₂ emissions and increases energy efficiency in both domestic and industrial settings.

However, various obstacles stopping the adoption of LCZ (low- & zero-carbon) technologies and ‘energy efficiency measures’ in households remain (Caird et al., 2014):

• Loft insulation: ‘loss of storage or space’
• Energy-efficient lighting: poor ‘colour quality, brightness, warm-up time’
• Upgrading and installation barriers for renters and low-income households
• ‘high up-front costs’
• ‘lack of information’
• ‘hassle and disruption'

And, as if by magic, the argument FOR financial incentives and financial penalties on ‘inefficient technologies’ - suggesting their ‘phasing out and prohibition’ - is reborn (Caird et al., 2014). Perry et al (2008) also argue that government policies should be aimed at the ‘high-consuming group’, as opposed to standardising across high- and low-income households. I also think that the energy efficiency of older properties should be prioritized, reintroducing the government grant due to the extra expense.

But, what happened to cycling, walking, using public transport and car sharing?!

We should focus less on encouraging the installation of LCZ technologies and more on the simple, low-cost and low-effort ‘energy saving actions’ which EVERYONE can do to reduce household consumption (Attari et al., 2011).

• Turn your heating down & wear an extra jumper
• Reduce the washing machine’s temperature settings
• Close doors and curtains to keep heat in

After all, household adaptations are ‘in practice voluntary undertakings’, so surely it makes sense to start small (Dannevig et al., 2012)?