{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e","title":"Time, Consumption and Everyday Life Practice, Materiality and Culture","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":null,"requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e","id":"1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e","uuid":"1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e","title":"Time, Consumption and Everyday Life Practice, Materiality and Culture","normalized_title":"timeconsumptionandeverydaylifepracticematerialityandculture","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":null,"isbns":[],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":236,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Time%2C%20Consumption%20and%20Everyday%20Life%20Practice%2C%20Materiality%20and%20Culture","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e/search"},"page":{"printed_page":72,"pdf_page":75,"physical_index":75,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"7e18576873baac022b9e7a17cc67ca6c51f6fb828c66b2051d82635f0e95e7c2"},"chapter":"List of Tables and Figures","content":"What have been the responses to blackouts and more generally to the difficult business of keeping supply running smoothly? After the 2003 heatwave, French organizations were heavily criticized for their habitual, mechanistic response (Lagadec 2004). But beyond such emergencies, recent power shortages also tell a story of considerable and creative effort to encourage people to change habits and consume less. ‘If you sing in the shower, choose shorter songs’ was a slogan during the 2003 electricity shortfall in New Zealand. In Japan, preparing for the summer peak in the same year, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry set up an ‘energy-saving team’ of 1,350 women headed by a popular actress, who visited shops and companies to encourage them to set air-conditioners at higher temperatures and adopt other energy-saving measures (IEA 2005: 61).\n\nThe success of such strategies has varied significantly. Energy savings in France in 2003 were 0.5 per cent. In Brazil, two years earlier, the figure was 20 per cent. Whereas the French case points to the stickiness of habits, Brazil tells a tale of elasticity within vulnerability. Brazil depends for 80 per cent of its electricity on hydropower, making it extremely vulnerable to droughts, like the one in 2001. By May 2001 it was apparent that only serious reduction in energy use could save the country from repeated blackouts. The shortage lasted for ten months. The government responded with a stick-and-carrot policy. It combined mandatory energy savings (rationing) with a national awareness campaign and a mix of penalties and incentives. The biggest savings were in the public sector – street lighting alone dropped by 35 per cent. The commercial sector reduced its demand by 15 per cent – raising temperatures in cooling systems as well as introducing more efficient lighting systems and switching to gas-based equipment. But a good deal of the reduction came in private households. The government distributed over 5 million fluorescent lamps to the poor. However, it was affluent households with higher energy use which showed the main savings: households using more than 100 kWh/month dropped their energy consumption by 20 per cent, whereas those using less than 100 kWh/month did not change at all. Customers who used between 201 and 500 kWh but failed to meet the target of reducing their demand by 20 per cent were subject to temporary interruption. And they had to pay 50 per cent extra (IEA 2005: 24–30).\n\nHow were such targets implemented, and how much disruption to everyday life did they involve? The available evidence, such as the reports compiled by the International Energy Agency, is of an aggregate kind and unfortunately says little about how such savings were absorbed by particular consumers in their daily activities. Some of these dynamics, however, can be inferred. Poorer households found it much harder to lower their already moderate energy use. Households with greater demand also had greater elasticity for change. They achieved this in part by using existing technologies less, like air-conditioning, in part by changing the mix of consumer durables in use: middle-class households switched off their freezers. This alone amounted to a saving of 100 kWh/month. Ironically, the elasticity provided by freezers had been the result of another, earlier form of economizing behaviour. In the high-inflation 1980s and early 1990s it made good sense to invest in frozen food at the beginning of each month. Presumably, the arrival of the freezer led to fewer, more concentrated shopping trips, while unplugging it accelerated the rhythm. The response of Californians in the wake of the 2001 electricity crisis affords a point of contrast, in spite of a similar reward/incentive scheme. Here unplugging the second refrigerator was extremely rare (4 per cent). People were more likely to watch less TV (12 per cent), unplug their computers (15 per cent) or turn off the air-conditioner (30 per cent) and lights (62 per cent) (IEA 2005: 38).\n\n72\n\n• Frank Trentmann","previous_page":71,"next_page":73}