Appraisal of policy instruments for reducing buildings’ CO2 emissions

Dear ETP,

I want to report on an article I recently read for another class - coursework fidelity is not my strong suit. Please accept my sincerest apologies for crossing any taboo student/course relationship boundaries.

The article surveyed 60 policy evaluation reports from 30 countries in an attempt to assess which policy instruments are the most appropriate and cost-effective in reducing CO₂ emissions (i.e. energy consumption) from buildings. Twenty policy instruments were addressed in the report, listed below:

Control and regulatory instruments	Economic and market-based instruments	Fiscal instruments and incentives	Support, information and voluntary action
Appliance Standards Building codes Mandatory labeling and certification Procurement regulations Energy efficiency obligations and quotas Mandatory demand-side management	Energy performance contracting Cooperative procurement Energy efficiency certificate schemes Kyoto protocol flexible mechanisms	Taxation (on CO2 or household fuels) Tax exemption/reductions Public benefit charges Capital subsidies, grants, subsidized loans	Voluntary certification and labeling Voluntary and negotiated agreements Public leadership programs Awareness raising, education, information campaigns Mandatory audit and energy management requirement Detailed billing and disclosure programs

There were originally only three categories: Regulatory, Economic, and Voluntary. Economic incentives were then divided into Fiscal and Market-based categories, the first involving actual financial transfers, the latter involving only market forces. Now, take a minute to review the 20 incentives and guess the top five most effective in reducing GHG emissions, in general and in terms of cost-effectiveness ($US/ton CO₂ saved).

…

… (take your time)

…

Are you ready for the winners? Where do we energy policy mongers need to focus our energies, if you will? According to the study, appliance standards, building codes, tax exemptions/reductions, labeling, DSM programs, and energy-efficiency obligations are the breadwinners. In short, regulatory instruments were generally the most effective. Another take home point from the article: no single instrument can capture even a large share of effective and low-cost mitigation. The answer is a combination of regulatory, fiscal/market-based and informational-related instruments.

Do the conclusions make sense? I’d say so. We humans are a dim lot and it is in our best interest to have many problems taken care of for us behind the scenes. ‘Raising awareness’ does very little, but changing the things we spend our money on, whether we know it or not (appliance standards, building codes, DSM programs, product labeling), and changing the amount of money we have to spend (tax exemption/reductions) will drive us in the right direction.

Source: Ürge-Vorsatz, et al. (2007) Appraisal of policy instruments for reducing buildings’ CO₂ emissions. Building Research & Information 35(4), 458-477.

To the reggae festival I go,

Brent