"Austerity" Plan: Efficiency and Waste Reduction Do Not Equate to Austerity

Winter is coming. To prepare for it, the government has announced its austerity plan^[1] on October 6. Called “Every Action Counts,” The goal is to reduce our energy consumption by 10% within two years (which amounts to approximately 150 TWh in savings compared to 2021). It’s true that France has never talked so much about energy since the last oil crisis, but let’s not forget that we are enduring, once again, our dependence on fossil fuels—particularly Russian gas—as well as a lack of planning for our energy system (low-carbon energy sources and reduced consumption).

Government Confusion Over the Term "Sobriety"

1. Simplicity does not mean efficiency

To address the climate challenge, we have three options available to reduce our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions:

Effectiveness and the moderation both contribute to a discount of the consumption energy, a goal set by the government.

Let's take a closer look at the moderation because it has several nuances. It aims to promote moderation in our excessive energy use: a change in behavior, practices, or lifestyle that leads to a reduction in energy consumption. It can be divided into three categories^[2] :

• anti-waste : Identify energy savings resulting from practices that do not actually serve any purpose (e.g., turning off the heat, lights, or appliances when no one is present)
• personal frugality : reduce consumption on an individual level (e.g., limit purchases to essentials, buy secondhand instead of new, wear a sweater at home in the winter)
• collective restraint : Organize our society to encourage changes in behavior (e.g., subsidize agroecology rather than agriculture that uses synthetic fertilizers and pesticides that emit GHGs and other pollutants, developing infrastructure to prioritize walking and cycling in cities, and making it mandatory for any item intended for sale to be easily repairable)

All of these measures are complementary and necessary toward achieving the Paris Agreement. Some are rather consensual such as the fight against waste; others lead us to to debate because our organizational structures require profound changes. Some are based on the technology or the technical ; others will require that The government sets the rules for collective action.

Framing the challenge ahead in this way empowers citizens to take ownership of the actions we’ll take tomorrow. However, the government conflates all these levers in what it has called its “sobriety plan”:

It seems essential to use the right vocabulary to set a clear course—both in the short term (this winter) and the long term (the climate crisis)—in order to help the French people understand this issue clearly.

2. In its confusion, the government focuses mainly on waste reduction and efficiency

When we take a closer look at the “austerity” measures proposed by the government, we notice thatAbout three-quarters of them are actually measures to reduce waste and improve efficiency. It's not not of course a surprise because these levers tap into psychological mechanisms consensual. Everyone agrees that we shouldn’t heat an empty building or replace an old light bulb with an LED. Furthermore, the government has focused primarily on businesses rather than households, which are far fewer in number and therefore easier to mobilize.

This plan is a first step, but it doesn't go far enough

1. Other measures have already been well documented

Ahead of the presentation of the energy conservation plan, the négaWatt association^[3] proposed a about 50 measures to achieve a 10% reduction in energy consumption particularly in the residential and commercial building sectors, which account for 45% of France's total energy consumption over a two-year period^[4].

The proposals were selected because they were realistic and applicable not only to act quickly, but also to view moderation—in all its nuances—as an essential long-term tool. For each proposal, the energy savings were figures, and the implementation requirements, whether human or technical, qualified.

We compared the level of ambition of the government’s energy conservation plan with that of the plan proposed by négaWatt. Within the same scope, comparable to that of the négaWatt study^[5], we identified measures that are also included in the government’s energy conservation plan. In some cases, these measures covered a narrower scope. For example, the 110 km/h speed limit on highways is proposed only for government employees using their official vehicles for non-urgent business trips. We then recalibrated négaWatt’s energy savings figures to reflect the scope covered by the government’s proposal. Finally, no significant measures that had not been proposed by négaWatt were identified, except for the 15-day shift in the start and end dates of the heating season, where possible and when outdoor temperatures permit.^[6].

If this approach were taken, the impact of the energy conservation plan’s measures would amount to only 60% of the energy savings achieved by the measures proposed by négaWatt (i.e., 35 TWh per year instead of 60 TWh). We're nowhere near that.

Several significant measures proposed by négaWatt are missing from the plan, resulting in a significant loss of potential energy savings.

It should also be noted that the measures in the energy conservation plan are sometimes vague and often lack specific figures. For example, the government has adopted the measure proposed by négaWatt—which involves installing flow restrictors on faucets and showerheads in homes—but it does not specify the operational details, the types of homes targeted, or the expected energy savings. For these measures, we have taken a conservative approach by assuming 100% of the energy savings quantified by négaWatt.

2. A plan that doesn't measure up to the challenge

We can commend the widespread adoption of the concepts of energy efficiency and waste reduction, the collaboration with various stakeholders, and the robust communication plan.

Nevertheless, several weaknesses have been clearly identified.

First, the procedure is based, for the most part, on the volunteer work. The government proposes eco-friendly actions but does not transform the collective framework to structurally facilitate them. Conclusion: no guarantee of results, with a permanent prisoner’s dilemma. (Without collective rules, individuals generally maximize their own interests at the expense of the common good. For example, they will oppose a tax on their airline ticket even though measures are needed to reduce air traffic overall.)

And yet, Many stakeholders are waiting:

• 58% of French men and women fully understand that we will need to change our lifestyles, and 64% of them are willing to accept these changes if they are distributed fairly among all members of our society^[7].
• The companies we work with express this sentiment as well. Why not pay more for energy and GHG emissions—but only if competitors are on an equal footing, and there is long-term stability and predictability?

The bogeyman often cited is the loss of personal freedom (the ability to fly, drive a car, or heat one’s home with fossil fuels), but The war in Ukraine is already depriving us of some of that freedom, and even more so when we rely on our car or our gas furnace.

The government has far more tools at its disposal than simply calling for volunteers. And it’s already doing so. It provides incentives by subsidizing insulation. It enforces compliance by banning the replacement of oil-fired boilers.

Second, certain actions related to Efficiency measures and waste reduction initiatives can be quickly implemented to achieve a 10 to 20 percent reduction in energy consumption^[8]. There's nothing illogical about starting with the easiest part But shouldn't we be taking action on all fronts if we want to reach the -10% target more quickly? And in the longer term, we will need to achieve a reduction of about 50% by 2050^[8]. Shouldn't we so to begin the profound transformations of our societies that necessarily take longer to take effect? That would have the advantage of allowing us to prepare for future crises, and thus avoid suffering.

The prime minister proclaimed, ""Energy efficiency doesn't mean producing less.". A minor misunderstanding At first glance: individual and collective frugality does indeed lead to the production of fewer material goods. There’s no doubt about it—physics tells us so.^[8]. And That doesn't mean going back to using candles, but simply being smarter so as not to waste energy and materials. In a sharing and reuse economy, we use more work but fewer natural resources and less energy. For example, Decathlon recently launched a experimentation aimed at offering a subscription rather than one-time purchases of items. With this With a subscription, you can borrow a variety of products all year round, by promising to take good care of them and bring them back. No more tennis rackets sitting in the basement for 20 years. Decathlon collects it when it is no longer in use, reconditions it, and returns it to the general supply. And It's a win-win for everyone and the planet, with a profitable model and more high-quality services.

A term that comes up frequently in the government’s public relations campaign is “the hunt for waste.” But upon closer inspection, Isn't the real waste of energy the fact that we've organized our lives in such a way that we have to get around in a ton of metal and buy two-thirds of our clothes just to never wear them?^[9] ? That’s a lot of energy. To put it in perspective, it takes the equivalent of the annual energy output of a 230 m² solar farm to manufacture a single car, and 120 m² to produce a car’s fuel for one year.^[10].