The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Missing carbon reductions? Exploring rebound and backfire effects in UK households
Abstract
Households are expected to play a pivotal role in reducing the UK's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the UK Government is encouraging specific household actions to help meet its targets. However, due to the rebound effect, only a portion of the GHG emission reductions estimated by simple engineering calculations are generally achieved in practice. For example, replacing short car journeys by walking or cycling reduces consumption of motor fuels. But this frees up money that may be spent on, for example, purchasing extra clothes or flying on vacation. Alternatively, the money may be put into savings. Since all of these options lead to GHG emissions, total GHG savings may be less than anticipated. Indeed, in some instances, emissions may increase--a phenomenon known as 'backfire'. We estimate that the rebound effect for a combination of three abatement actions by UK households is approximately 34%. Targeting re-spending on goods and services with a low GHG intensity reduces this to a minimum of around 12%, while re-spending on goods and services with a high GHG intensity leads to backfire. Our study highlights the importance of shifting consumption to lower GHG intensive categories and investing in low carbon investments.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The rebound effect: Microeconomic definitions, limitations and extensions
Sorrell, S., & Dimitropoulos, J. (2008) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.013 · Cited by 889
Self-citationThe Khazzoom-Brookes postulate and neoclassical growth
Saunders, H. D. (1992) · The Energy Journal · doi:10.5547/issn0195-6574-ej-vol13-no4-7 · Cited by 665
Public acceptability of personal carbon trading and carbon tax
Bristow, A. L., Wardman, M., Zanni, A. M., & Chintakayala, P. K. (2010) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.021 · Cited by 230
Cited by
Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy
Bocken, N. M. P., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C., & van der Grinten, B. (2016) · Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering · doi:10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124 · Cited by 4,002
Scientists’ warning on affluence
Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T., & Steinberger, J. K. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y · Cited by 1,085
The Rebound Effect and Energy Efficiency Policy
Gillingham, K., Rapson, D., & Wagner, G. (2016) · Review of Environmental Economics and Policy · doi:10.1093/reep/rev017 · Cited by 672
Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels?
York, R. (2012) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1451 · Cited by 554
Values, identity and pro-environmental behaviour
Gatersleben, B., Murtagh, N., & Abrahamse, W. (2014) · Contemporary Social Science · doi:10.1080/21582041.2012.682086 · Cited by 499
Metadata
- Authors
- Druckman, A., Chitnis, M., Sorrell, S., & Jackson, T.
- Venue
- Energy Policy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-06
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 3572-3581
- ISSN
- 0301-4215 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2128871727
- Cited by
- 388
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 11.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Missing carbon reductions? Exploring rebound and backfire effects in UK households. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.058
- The paper
- Druckman, A., Chitnis, M., Sorrell, S., & Jackson, T. (2011). Missing carbon reductions? Exploring rebound and backfire effects in UK households. Energy Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.058
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.