Application of LED Bulbs for Solving Climate Change - Term Paper Example

Application of LED Bulbs for Solving Climate Change Contents 0 Introduction 3 Background 3 2.0 Climate Change and Energy Consumption 4 2.1 The Place of LED Bulbs in Climate Change and Energy Consumption Discourse 5 3.0 The Behaviour-Technology Argument 6 4.0 The economics-behaviour argument 9 5.0 Conclusion 14 6.0 Reference 16 1.0 Introduction In the contemporary world, expert and non- expert minds have been drawn to debates on climate change due to the potential negative effect it possess. Climate change debate has been around for centuries due to human dependency on reliable climate and the continued indication that this reliability is being endangered (Von Storch and Stehr, 2006). The apocalyptic nature, extreme conditions, droughts, floods and storms stimulated concerns over climate change. Apart from the regulatory frameworks such as Smart grids that are able to create efficiency by monitoring consumer behaviour within the electricity networks (Clastres, 2011), LED bulbs have also been presented as part of the solution to continued climate change (Humphreys, 2008). However, even as the bulb in itself is an important appliance to save energy it is important for the discussion to shift to how users are adopting the application of LED bulbs. Background Therefore, behaviour change should be in the centre of climate change and specifically the adoption of LED bulbs for it to effectively contribute to the overall environmental conservation efforts (Hobson, 2006). Hobson (2008) asserts that the ethical nature of how individual consumers think is important in the discussions concerning climate change. Paterson and Stripple (2010) claim individuals can contribute to the governing of climate change by undertaking specific actions to solve the problem by for instance incorporating the concept of Carbon foot printing which enables them to keep track of their pollution levels. Hobson (2008) notes the gap existing between knowledge and action has prevented realizations of potential benefits from environmental friendly initiatives. Many people have pro-environmental values but they fail to transform their knowledge into action due to barriers. These include uncertainty over the reality of risks posed by climate change, mistrust of the data presented by scientists and governments, social comparisons around conservation efforts by other people and feelings that actions by individual households will not be enough to reverse the damages (Slocum, 2004a). Therefore, Hobson (2008) asserts policies on climate change should focus on removing barriers through efforts such as public education, access to ‘green’ goods and infrastructure alterations. Slocum (2004a) notes climate change discourse should localize the effects of global warming so that everyone realises the need to conserve energy. The author uses the example of polar bear which is an important source of food and clothing to the aboriginals in Canada as well as for tourist attraction. Having a policy that resonates well with the people is the best way to make them undertake the necessary behaviour change as a solution to climate change. Slocum (2004a) asserts that energy conservation efforts such as implementation of light bulb policies by cites such as Minneapolis have failed to contextualize the reasons for energy conservation since they do not explicitly mention climate change in their policies. Slocum (2004a) points out that the effects of climate change, which are not visible in many of the USA cities, are competing with other more pressing matters such as crime and housing. These realities make people not to consider climate change issues among aspects of their lives that require urgent immediate response of the locals. 2.0 Climate Change and Energy Consumption Climate change is a phenomenon that takes place when the long-term weather patterns are altered which in most cases is through human activities. Human activities that cause climate change are those that revolve around releasing compounds that increases the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although these gas naturally occur in the atmosphere to balance the level of heat on earth, realising more greenhouse gases results in global warming as more gas is trapped (Pielke, Wigley and Green, 2008; Allen, Frame, Huntingford, Jones, Lowe, Meinshausen, N., and Meinshausen, M., 2009). Literature that draws attention to climate change insist on human activity as being the core contributor to global warming with particular interest being on releasing water vapour, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and ozone into the atmosphere. Of compounds released into the atmosphere, CO2 is the most damaging with scientists noting global increase that is rapid and escalating. The increase of CO2 has been blamed on burning of fossil fuels consumed by motors, electric power plants and homes heated with gas or oil (Allen, Frame, Huntingford, Jones, Lowe, Meinshausen, N., and Meinshausen, M., 2009). The realization of human activities as being at the centre of climate change has led to calls for interventions to curb the situation before it becomes unmanageable. Of greater concern is the consumption level of human beings especially when such consumption is made possible by machines that release more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere (Levidow, 2013). Cutting down on this consumption have presented as a way of reducing the rate of climate change. Focus on consumption has not only focused on large multinational companies, but also on households and individuals since they are also perceived as contributors to climate change (Gardner and Stern, 2008). Households can contribute to environmental protection initiatives in a number of ways such as insulating homes to prevent heat loss through walls, roofs and windows, replacing lights and appliances with efficient models and changing old boilers with energy efficient ones. 2.1 The Place of LED Bulbs in Climate Change and Energy Consumption Discourse When exploring how to cut down on energy that goes into lighting, there have been various mechanisms that have been suggested including switching off the light when not in use and using light bulbs with low energy consumption which goes into general eco-efficiency practices (Hobson, 2006). The use of LED bulbs as a measure against climate change is a result of research into how to cut down on the amount of energy used in generation of electricity. The focus on LED bulbs in energy conservation has been informed by data such as that presented by Humphreys (2008) that present electricity generation as the main source of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. Humphreys (2008) note lighting consumes one-fifth of the generated electricity. The high level of energy consumption in lighting can be attributed to usage of lighting appliances that consume more energy and are therefore not efficient to meet the current need for a reduction in the energy use. Based on the research that lighting using LED has a potential of reducing the overall energy consumption on lighting by at least 50 percent which will result in consumption of approximately one-tenth of all electricity generated. This reduction in energy consumption becomes significant when considered in the context of overall energy consumption where universal adoption of LED lighting will potentially result in the reductions of approximately 10 percent in fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions from power stations. Among the challenging aspect that hinders adoption of LED bulbs in lighting is the cost of purchasing the appliance (Humphreys, 2008). However, the cost of adopting this technology is reducing significantly, as production technology improves over time. Additionally, the cost of installing LED bulbs should not be conceived in purchasing but also against the overall cost of not adopting the new technology. It is thought that even when the cost of purchasing and installing these new technology might be high, the overall cost of using older technologies such as fluorescent tubes and compact fluorescent lamps as experience in climate change might be higher (Stern, 2007). Therefore, for a sustainable future, adoption of LED bulbs becomes a cheaper investment than paying of climate change the price through extreme weather conditions. 3.0 The Behaviour-Technology Argument Technology has continued to play a central in the climate change discourse either through local interventions that affect particular households to massive investments such as geoengineering which is about restructuring the earth to mitigate certain consequences of atmospheric pollution(Galaz, 2012; Matthews and Caldeira, 2007)to weather and climate modification efforts that includes cloud seeding (Fleming, 2006). This views about the ability of technology to solve climate change been based on a wider discussion about technology being the solution or cause of climate change. Based on this view, technology cannot guarantee a sustainable future since technological developments that resulted in industrialisation resulting in the extraction of coal, gas and oil (Kellogg, 1987). Consequently, technology that exposes the world to climate change by enabling the utilization of fossil fuel stored in the earth therefore making it a cause of the problem rather than a solution (Dornburg et al., 2010). Szerszynski, Kearnes, Macnaghten, Owen, and Stilgoe, (2013) have also argued that technological solutions to climate change such as Solar radiation management are bound to fail due to lack of support from citizens who are sceptical about future use and the challenges posed on the processes and institutions of liberal democracy. Pielke, Wigleyand Green (2008) claim the current rate of climate change means there is a need for greater advances in energy technology if atmospheric pollution is to be stabilised. However, continued technological development has a potential of creating sustainable practices that will reverse the damages to the atmosphere. The stabilised level of greenhouse level in the atmosphere can only be achieved when the amount of concentration of the dangerous gases in the atmosphere does not interfere with climate system (Schneider and Mastrandrea, 2005; Allen et al., 2009). The advantages of technological advancement calls for humanity to develop a sustainability framework that allows for continued exploitation of resources but combined with conservation efforts. Introduction of LED bulbs to solve the problem of climate change is part of technological discoveries that contributes to the conservation efforts. Hobson, (2006) note human dependency on technology reinforces behaviour that promotes wastage of resources. However, the author also notes a number of positive results that the Australian society has benefitted from due to the exploitation of technological solutions to the problem of climate change. (Tietenberg, 2009) explores the role played by technology in climate change discourse based on the Eco-modernisation efforts, which calls for voluntary adoption of home appliances that promote efficiency and desirability. Although this initiative has resulted in the conservation of energy, Hobson, (2006) claims the question remains how many “green citizens” (320) have this technologies produced? It is important for climate change initiatives to explore such questions given the people in many cases act with an objective of achieving rational ends and construct meaning through the material world. However, use of technological solutions e.g. LED bulbs leads to questions about behaviour change as to whether they are a viable solution because it raises the question whether having such technology can bring behaviour change in the way consumers act on climate change issues (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). Users of the LED bulbs maintain or even increase consumption due to the psychological effect of realizing that the gargets they use is consuming less energy. Further, effective use of LED bulbs will depend on the ability of the technological advancement to guarantee sustainable future. Hobson (2006) notes the importance of technology in redirecting human actions even when they do not change their behaviour. Therefore, introduction of energy conservation technologies such as the LED bulbs do not require behaviour change but sustainable usage for them to solve the problem of climate change. Hobson (2006) consider machines as being able to automatically translate human behaviour into ecofriendly outcomes. This means that users’ actions will contribute to the conservation efforts even when they are not consciously aware. Therefore, introduction of new technologies such as LED bulbs to solve the problem of climate change should not mean immediate behaviour change. Initial implementation of this technology presents a chance for users to reduce consumption levels with adjustments in behaviour following later. Another area of consideration in the behaviour of the consumers towards new technologies can be on the basis of acceptance or rejection of the technology. There have been instances when consumers have refused to explore other alternatives that might be available to them even when the cost has new technology was low. In the quest to solve the problem of climate change, proposed solutions can be welcomes only when the consumer has made a full assessment of consequences of implementing the technology based on their economical, political or ethical views. Stephens, Hansson, Liu, de Coninck and Vajjhala (2011) note the example of nuclear energy in USA to highlight how public resistance influence exploitation of new technology. Many consumers base their perception of the nuclear energy technology on other negative outcomes such as weaponization of the technology. Therefore, the success of LED bulb as part of the solution to the problem of climate change will depend on the public perception through weighing of benefits against any political, economic or ethical considerations that might convince them against adoption. This acceptance can be achieved through creation of higher level awareness generated using the media as part of opinion shapers in the climate change discourages (Thøgersen, 2006). 4.0 The economics-behaviour argument Jaffe, Newell, and Stavins (2005) note environmental policies are externalities in the climate change initiatives since it is the society that actually pays the cost of pollution which is caused by industries. Therefore, due to the need to protect their revenues, firms will not want to actively participate in climate change initialise. Until environmental policies minimize the externalities by making polluters pay the cost of environmental pollution, they will not participate in the climate change discourse. Apart from refusing to fund climate change initiatives, industries continue to pollute environment by choosing to produce high polluters based on their low cost of productions and therefore higher profit margins (Thalerand Sunstein, 2008). Companies have continue to tie participation in environmental conservation to economic implications, therefore choosing the lane which promise higher economic returns. Therefore, the use of LED bulbs to solve the problem of climate change will only be effective if the polluters are forced to pay for the cost of environmental pollution. This is where regulatory efforts by relevant authorities become important in reinforcing the use LED bulbs. Regulations that call for everyone to adopt energy conservation initiatives to solve the problem of climate change will need reinforcement to ensure even those who do not bear the cost of pollution implement initiatives such as LED bulbs to solve the problem of climate change. In the contest of climate change discourse, Slocum (2004b) and Soper (2007) note neoliberal states in contemporary world perceive citizens as consumers therefore, using political powers to control consumption. Slocum (2004b) gives the example of the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) framework where citizens can be brought into conversations about climate change. State participation in climate change can get wider support from the citizens through initiatives that saving money. The introduction of LED bulbs as a solution to climate change can follow the perspective noted by Slocum (2004b) where consumers are encouraged to adopt the practice as a means to cut down on their consumption levels. Encouraging users to shift to the LED bulbs on the basis of reducing their energy bill is an effective measure to tackle climate change as users will always be attracted to initiatives that save them money. Introducing the LED bulbs as an initiative that is meant to save money has a higher chance of attracting support from users and therefore leads to the necessary behaviour change to adopt the ne practise. State participation in climate change can also be in from of subsidies to both the consumer and the industries. Introduction of LED bulbs to solve the problem of climate change has a chance to successful especially given the readiness of states to fund such programmes. Jaffe, Newell and Stavins (2005) note the connection between cost of subsiding technology that reduces greenhouse gases and political will of the government. According to Jaffe and colleagues, assert that the government would rather take part in funding projects that are aimed at cutting down green gases than impose costs on industry activities that emit the gases. Due to both political and economic implications of focusing on emissions, focus on climate change has shifted to technological efforts which have a higher political support. Levidow (2013) reiterates the difficulty of concentrating climate change efforts the industry level by insisting neoliberalism has provided an avenue for industries to continue with emissions. However, through such initiatives such as carbon-pricing system where carbon credits makes it possible for major polluters to pay for rights to pollute the environment or in some cases even gain subsidy to do so (Levidow, 2013; Sentance, 2009). Hale and Dilling (2011) present ethical criticism of geoengineering based on the fact that allowing ocean fertilization is against human moral standing which motivate the rejection of any form of environmental pollution since such efforts are conducted as a means of avoiding the original and emissions that are still taking place. It is therefore appropriate for climate change initiatives to focus on consumption since the government is more willing to fund research in this area. Scientists have also shifted their attention geoengineering as alternative efforts such as Carbon capture and storage (CCS) that do not focus on cutting down on emission but on mitigating the effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Gibbins and Chalmers, 2008; Bäckstrand, Meadowcroft and Oppenheimer, 2011). Jaffe, Newell and Stavins (2005: 169) claim government focus on improving technologies that aim at offering solutions to the problem of climate change because of being “focused and costs are dispersed, giving rise to favourable political–economic conditions.” Consequently, technological initiatives such as the installation of LED bulbs in households have a higher chance of being successful since concentration is at the consumer end and not at the production end which faces higher change of resistance due to high political and economic interests (Stephens, Hansson, Liu, de Coninck and Vajjhala, 2011). Local authorities also have their role to play in the climate change discourse as they have impact on the energy consumption by their municipality or cities. Slocum (2004a) notes the these authorities such as in Salt Lake City and Los Angeles should play their roles in presenting solutions for climate change not because of the reimbursement of funds spent on this initiative but based on the experience of local people in the who are exposed to the consequences of environmental pollution and changes in climate. Conservation efforts that present air pollution in terms of what locals readily experience have a higher impact. Therefore, for the LED bulbs to contribute to climate change, policies should explicitly inform users of the environmental gains from this usage. These efforts should include such impacts as childhood asthma and other respiratory conditions that are as a result of taking in polluted air so that the concerned agencies can local climate change and therefore effect user behaviour change. Wapner and Willoughby (2005) warn that environmental conservation at the consumer level is bound to fail since reduction in consumption level at one level makes resources available to other levels of consumption therefore no real result is achieved. According to Wapner and Willoughby (2005) when people reduce consumption through conservation of available resources, the resources conserved are redirected to other sectors and therefore overall level of consumption does not reduce. This is true of the LED bulbs, which based on their technological capabilities are able to conserve energy in households that use them. The question becomes, what happens to the energy that is conserved when the new technology is introduced? Wapner and Willoughby (2005) use the example of savings where money placed in financial institutions are made available to other individuals and organizations. Therefore, even when the users cut down on consumption and then save money in financial institutions such as banks, this money are made available through financing other areas of consumption. Unless people save money in their house, saving money in financial institutions means redirecting consumption as the funds will be available as loans. Consequently, if the use of LED bulbs as a solution to climate change is not accompanied other supporting frameworks of conservation, energy saved through this technology will still be used at other levels of consumption such as heating large quantities of water for various domestic uses (Strang, 2005). This is because energy saved through the use of LED bulbs will be made available to alternative uses in areas such as manufacturing. Based on the recommendation made by Wapner and Willoughby (2005) any effective measure to reverse climate change should focus on both the extraction of raw materials and at the consumption level as opposed to the current objective of cutting down on consumption only. Therefore, energy saved by LED bulbs should translate into a reduction in raw materials used to generate energy but not to transfer the benefit to other sectors for the new technology to solve the problem of climate change. In tackling the economics-behaviour arguments surrounding climate change, it is important to note that players in this sector are the governments or state, industries and consumers. Each of these groups will act in accordance with their interests in the climate change debate especially with a view of incurring the lowest cost. However, the state mediates all the underlying interests due to its cohesive power that can result incompliance to the agreed upon and implemented systems. Therefore, the government acts through various interventions such as use of force, monitoring compliance of regulatory measures and through offering incentives such as subsidies (Kolk and Pinkse, 2004). These actions undertaken by the government ensures a balance between economic needs of consumers and the industries with the need to ensure sustainability through the climate change initiatives such as the installation of LED bulbs to reduce energy consumption (Paterson, and Stripple, 2010). 5.0 Conclusion Behaviour interacts with both technology and economics to inform adoption of policies aimed at solving the problem of climate change. Consumers, the state and industries which in this case are the polluters have been found to behave in ways that protect their interests when adopting climate change initiatives which will consequently affect how LED bulbs are used. Consumers have been found to be aware of climate change and consequences on the environment but in some cases fail to act as some do not want to invest in these initiatives. Lack of action has been found to have a relation with Scepticism on the extent of human action that causes climate change and the ability of new technology to solve the problem has also been determined among reasons why new technology might not be embraced by consumers. Polluters have been found to be reluctant to act on climate change since they do not pay the cost of pollution. Industries will put their economic interests before climate change initiatives since their aim is to protect profit margins. This is where governments enter climate change discourse through measures such as regulations and subsidies to ensure adoption accountability of polluters. Technology has also been shown not to have a greater influence on behaviour change of consumers since no behaviour adjustment is required for the technology to be effective. When implementing climate change initiatives, people rely on technology to modify their actions into eco-friendly. This is because however individuals act; thus, using technology that solves the problem of climate change means their actions are automatically becomes environmental friendly. Therefore, using technologies such as LED bulbs to solve the problem of climate change does not depend on behaviour change but on consistency and cost implications in which the technology is put to use. 6.0 Reference Allen, M. R., Frame, D. J., Huntingford, C., Jones, C. D., Lowe, J. A., Meinshausen, M., &Meinshausen, N. (2009) Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature, 458(7242), 1163-1166. Bäckstrand, K., Meadowcroft, J., & Oppenheimer, M. (2011) The politics and policy of carbon capture and storage: framing an emergent technology. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 275-281. Dornburg, V., van Vuuren, D., van de Ven, G., Langeveld, H., Meeusen, M., Banse, M., ...& Faaij, A. (2010) Bioenergy revisited: key factors in global potentials of bioenergy. Energy & Environmental Science, 3(3), 258-267. Fleming, J. R. (2006)The pathological history of weather and climate modification: Three cycles of promise and hype. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 37(1), 3-25. Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2008) The short list: The most effective actions US households can take to curb climate change. Environment: science and policy for sustainable development, 50(5), 12-25. Galaz, V. (2012) Geo-engineering, Governance, and Social-Ecological Systems: Critical Issues and Joint Research Needs. Ecology & Society, 17(1). Gibbins, J., & Chalmers, H. (2008) Carbon capture and storage. Energy Policy, 36(12), 4317-4322. Jaffe, A. B., Newell, R. G., &Stavins, R. N. (2005)A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy. Ecological Economics, 54(2), 164-174. Hale, B., &Dilling, L. (2011) Geoengineering, ocean fertilization, and the problem of permissible pollution. Science, Technology & Human Values, 36(2), 190-212. Hobson, K. (2006) Bins, bulbs, and shower timers: on the ‘techno-ethics’ of sustainable living. Ethics Place and Environment, 9(3), 317-336. Hobson, K. (2008) Reasons to be cheerful: thinking sustainably in a (climate) changing world. Geography Compass, 2(1), 199-214. Humphreys, C. J. (2008). Solid-state lighting. MRS bulletin, 33(04), 459-470. Kellogg, W. W. (1987) Mankinds impact on climate: The evolution of an awareness. Climatic Change, 10(2), 113-136. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental education research, 8(3), 239-260. Kolk, A., &Pinkse, J. (2004) Market strategies for climate change. European Management Journal, 22(3), 304-314. Levidow, L. (2013) EU criteria for sustainable biofuels: accounting for carbon, depoliticising plunder. Geoforum, 44, 211-223. Matthews, H. D., &Caldeira, K. (2007) Transient climate–carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(24), 9949-9954. Paterson, M., &Stripple, J. (2010)My space: governing individuals’ carbon emissions. Environment and planning. D, Society and space, 28(2), 341. Pielke, R., Wigley, T., & Green, C. (2008) Dangerous assumptions. Nature, 452(7187), 531-532. Sentance, A. (2009) Developing transport infrastructure for the Low Carbon Society. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 25(3), 391-410. Slocum, R. (2004a) Polar bears and energy-efficient light bulbs: strategies to bring climate change home. Environment and Planning D, 22, 413-438. Slocum, R. (2004b) Consumer citizens and the Cities for Climate Protection campaign. Environment and Planning A, 36(5), 763-782. Schneider, S. H., &Mastrandrea, M. D. (2005) Probabilistic assessment of “dangerous” climate change and emissions pathways. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(44), 15728-15735. Stern, N. (Ed.). (2007) The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. Strang, V. (2005) Common Senses Water, Sensory Experience and the Generation of Meaning. Journal of Material Culture, 10(1), 92-120. Szerszynski, B., Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, P., Owen, R., &Stilgoe, J. (2013) Why solar radiation management geoengineering and democracy won’t mix. Environment and Planning A, 45(12), 2809-2816. Thaler, R. H., &Sunstein, C. R (2008) Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Thøgersen, J. (2006) Media attention and the market for ‘green’ consumer products. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(3), 145-156. Tietenberg, T. (2009). Reflections—Energy Efficiency Policy: Pipe Dream or Pipeline to the Future? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 3(2), 304-320. Wapner, P., & Willoughby, J. (2005) The irony of environmentalism: the ecological futility but political necessity of lifestyle change. Ethics & International Affairs, 19(3), 77-89. VonStorch, H., &Stehr, N. (2006) Anthropogenic climate change: a reason for concern since the 18th century and earlier. GeografiskaAnnaler: Series A, Physical Geography, 88(2), 107-113. Read More