The energy industry is using a "net-zero hero" narrative shifting blame to consumers

[Skye Jacobs]

Editor's take: The energy sector has embraced the term "net-zero hero," which refers to actions consumers take to help the environment, such as installing solar panels or buying an electric car. It's little wonder the sector favors this term because, as new research shows, focusing on consumer actions allows it to downplay its own responsibility for reducing carbon emissions.

The energy sector's narrative of individual responsibility in combating climate change is being challenged by new research from the University of Sydney. The study, which analyzed hundreds of public reports and media releases from the Australian energy industry, reveals a pervasive storyline promoting the concept of a "net-zero hero" – an individual consumer who can significantly impact climate change through personal choices and actions.

Associate Professor Tom van Laer, an expert in the influence of storytelling on behavior at the University of Sydney Business School, led the research. His analysis, spanning 2015 to 2022, examined material from 44 Australian energy market entities, including energy providers, non-governmental organizations, and policymakers.

The research uncovered a consistent message across the energy sector: consumers can play a pivotal role in saving the planet by making thoughtful choices. These actions include purchasing eco-friendly vehicles, turning off appliances, using off-peak hot water, and installing solar panels. The narrative suggests that by understanding, monitoring, and managing their energy consumption, individuals can make a meaningful difference.

Australia leads developed nations in per-capita greenhouse gas emissions at 14.51 tonnes per person, with the energy sector accounting for nearly half of the country's total emissions. The United States follows closely behind at 13.64 tonnes per person. Globally, the energy sector consumes the largest share of energy, using over one-third of the world's fuel supply.

However, van Laer argues that this narrative, while seemingly aspirational, overlooks the broader context of essential corporate and regulatory changes. By creating a "mythical market" of small-scale energy consumers – where everyone supposedly contributes equally to total emissions – the energy sector minimizes the accountability of larger entities that have a far more substantial environmental impact.

He cautions that without adequate support systems, consumers may struggle to fulfill the role of a net-zero hero. Furthermore, the overwhelming responsibility placed on individuals could lead to feelings of helplessness and disengagement rather than empowerment.

Australia leads developed nations in per-capita greenhouse gas emissions at 14.51 tonnes per person, with the energy sector accounting for nearly half of the country's total emissions. The United States follows closely behind at 13.64 tonnes per person. Globally, the energy sector consumes the largest share of energy, using over one-third of the world's fuel supply.

Van Laer argues that instead of placing an unrealistic burden on individual consumers, efforts should focus on addressing the systemic changes necessary for a genuine environmental impact.

Permalink to story:

The energy industry is using a "net-zero hero" narrative shifting blame to consumers

 

[RudyBob]

Oil, Natural Gas, Nuclear and Coal. My heroes

 

[NumberNine]

Most large corporations, if diagnosed as a human being based on their behaviors and core beliefs, perfectly fit the DSM psychiatric profile of psychopaths. Anti-social behavior, narccisism, manipulation, systematic application of influence, lack of empathy, and accountability avoidance, among so many other classic high level leadership traits.

 

[SRB]

Most large corporations, if diagnosed as a human being based on their behaviors and core beliefs, perfectly fit the DSM psychiatric profile of psychopaths. Anti-social behavior, narccisism, manipulation, systematic application of influence, lack of empathy, and accountability avoidance, among so many other classic high level leadership traits.

What you mean, is that in an age of scapegoating, cancel culture, and virtue signaling, they have adopted an "every man for himself" mentality where doing the right thing is considered "not good enough" as well as socially out of date.

Add to that that society and the government both no longer believe in doing things for the greater good, you get pointless wind farms and solar farms that kill wildlife on a grand scale, and dollar for dollar cost multiples more to manufacture and maintain and you have the mess we're in. Not to mention, no one talks about the energy and raw materials, (much less the carbon footprint) it takes to make and construct these "green" devices.

Perhaps, instead of jumping on the latest fad because of the future promise or perceived virtue of method x, y, or z, we go back to letting the market decide on the facts instead of funding due to fear mongering and social pressure.

Or is the real problem is that these thing would never get off the ground if left on their own to succeed because they are not yet practical.

 

[NotYourITguy]

We need way more focus on making it profitable to install and use clean energy sources. And it must be done with positive reinforcement only, not fines and penalties that raise costs for consumers.

NASA is a great example of a public entity that does help with technology development. Solar panels owe a lot to NASA and its contractors. I'd rather see tax dollars going into tech development rather than being wasted in lawsuits against polluters. One is a permanent fix, the other is a short-term bandaid.

 

[veLa]

What you mean, is that in an age of scapegoating, cancel culture, and virtue signaling, they have adopted an "every man for himself" mentality where doing the right thing is considered "not enough.

Oh yeah, companies have always done the right thing. This behavior is incredibly new. Just ask Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz about the 1930s through 1940s era in Europe. They were super ethical back then. It's just the times we live in, I guess. /s

 

[brucek]

I'm having trouble following a single sentence in this article. The energy industry exists to sell energy to consumers. If consumers buy less of it the sellers will produce less of it. Positioning the energy industry as being an entirely separate consumer unto itself makes no sense.

Is the article maybe trying to tell us it takes 130 "raw" units of energy to deliver 100 units of energy to consumers? Understanding the inefficiencies in production is interesting but again it's most logical to conceptually charge all 130 of those units to the end user who wants to consume the 100.

And I don't know what individual would feel dis-empowered to learn they may have at least a few levers to pull to decide on their own use. Indeed I think there's a strong appetite for that in that there are definitely consumers who choose to pay extra for what they believe are "greener" forms of energy.

 

[opckieran]

I was always under the impression that any sort of manufacturing process required energy, even if the intended product of said manufacturing was energy itself. Not just energy, but resources, which themselves are gathered, refine, and assembled through their own individual processes, again requiring the use of energy. At the end of the day, the only way to *truly* reduce emissions is to in fact reduce consumption.

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

I was always under the impression that any sort of manufacturing process required energy, even if the intended product of said manufacturing was energy itself. Not just energy, but resources, which themselves are gathered, refine, and assembled through their own individual processes, again requiring the use of energy. At the end of the day, the only way to *truly* reduce emissions is to in fact reduce consumption.

Well, you can make the process of producing anything more efficient; that of course leads to less emissions while maintaining the same amount of consumption. And obviously different sources of energy will produce different kinds & amounts of any given pollutant.

 

[NotYourITguy]

Well, you can make the process of producing anything more efficient; that of course leads to less emissions while maintaining the same amount of consumption. And obviously different sources of energy will produce different kinds & amounts of any given pollutant.

Except when you go out of your way to spend billions of dollars on "green" stuff that would not otherwise be built at all. Is emitting thousands of tons of CO2 to do new construction worth it if the alternative is simply not spending billions on a jobs program for unneeded buildings?

 

[pnntmp]

OMG "net-zero hero" ... seriously?
We should put environmental idiocy on pause for a while ... like 100 years.

Solar panels and electric cars are environmentally neutral, at best. Electric cars do not run on clean energy somehow magically coming from outer space, they use electricity mostly generated from burning fossil fuels.

We should once and for all get rid of the "net zero" lunacy.
The society will not survive even a month of "net zero" before collapsing into chaos, I have no idea why some people keep pushing for this to happen as soon as possible.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

Well, you can make the process of producing anything more efficient; that of course leads to less emissions while maintaining the same amount of consumption. And obviously different sources of energy will produce different kinds & amounts of any given pollutant.

Except such added efficiency of transporting/transmitting energy has an added cost - literally it costs more money which drives up the cost of the energy being delivered to the end consumer. Is doubling the cost of electricity and gasoline worth 10% less lost energy along the way? Most people would say no.

Regardless, everything has tradeoffs. This is why a free market works better (as such price changes are automatically accepted or not by individuals, and companies adapt to their customers or die) than in-expert government officials trying to "fix" things to the "best" way.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

This research will have zero impact on policy. The entire point of climate change policy is to control the behavior of the masses of individuals. Companies may or may not be gone after for carbon depending on their contributions to government and the whims of the government at the time.

 

[brucek]

Electric cars do not run on clean energy somehow magically coming from outer space, they use electricity mostly generated from burning fossil fuels.

This is true. However, it's also true that the electric company's main power plant is able to include a lot more sophisticated gizmos for increased efficiency and reduced emission than an individual vehicle internal combustion engine can.

That still leaves a lot of big picture territory uncovered though (I.e., battery production, disposal, etc) so I'm not so much debating your main point, just specifically pointing out that the fuel burning in the car is in fact different from the fuel burning in the power plant.

 

[scoffer]

I saw a very interesting video a couple of weeks ago. Apparently, Australia is soon going to be in deep **** concerning energy production prices. They have too much solar energy by the sound of things. Great during the day, of course. They have plenty of natural gas -but they're exporting most of it! (For the $$$ of course). So much so, that they are actually having to import it at the same time...(huh???).... And though it's quite a complicated problem -basically, their energy prices are going through the roof(no pun intended). It's a question of balance.........which they haven't got - mainly due, probably, to incompetent politicians. (Whoda thought.........) LOL

 

[matthisd]

And I don't know what individual would feel dis-empowered to learn they may have at least a few levers to pull to decide on their own use. Indeed I think there's a strong appetite for that in that there are definitely consumers who choose to pay extra for what they believe are "greener" forms of energy.

True, and I do, and I (try to) raise my children to take an ethical stance with their consumption. But it is true that all of my effort will amount to peanuts, if large corporations and governments are not forced into doing the same. Previous examples are separating paper, organic and plastic trash, and greenhouse gas propaganda. A majority of the plastic trash part of that equation is not recycled, it gets dumped for cents on the dollar (or euro) in Asian and African countries (from where a shocking amount ends up in the ocean). At the same time, the money (saved by doing old-style production) goes to amassing wealth and paying for propaganda research to gaslight the population into ignoring climate change. And all that results in a generation of disillusioned workers and voters who, unfortunately rightly, distrust government and research because part of it was used against them in the past. The individual makes a difference, but when only the individual tries, the windmills won't budge.

 

[matthisd]

I was always under the impression that any sort of manufacturing process required energy, even if the intended product of said manufacturing was energy itself. Not just energy, but resources, which themselves are gathered, refine, and assembled through their own individual processes, again requiring the use of energy. At the end of the day, the only way to *truly* reduce emissions is to in fact reduce consumption.

If all those industries had installed wind turbines or solar panels or geothermal generators twenty years ago, we would probably not be increasing our emissions every year. And imagine how efficient that technology would be now with an additional twenty years of R&D behind it... all those corporations might even be saving money today.

 

[matthisd]

Solar panels and electric cars are environmentally neutral, at best. Electric cars do not run on clean energy somehow magically coming from outer space, they use electricity mostly generated from burning fossil fuels.

Except a single power plant will always be more efficient than 100,000 cars each burning its own little power plant...

 

[matthisd]

Except such added efficiency of transporting/transmitting energy has an added cost - literally it costs more money which drives up the cost of the energy being delivered to the end consumer. Is doubling the cost of electricity and gasoline worth 10% less lost energy along the way? Most people would say no.

Regardless, everything has tradeoffs. This is why a free market works better (as such price changes are automatically accepted or not by individuals, and companies adapt to their customers or die) than in-expert government officials trying to "fix" things to the "best" way.

Partly that is due to the fact that we started on this road about 30 years late. The first mention of industrial climate change actually goes back to a hundred years ago and the first reliable data to show it is from the 80s. Had we started slowly then, we would have felt little to no effect on prices and would be far ahead now. We all decided to accept the propaganda (including me thinking that somehow nuclear is worse than clouds of smoke, everyone makes mistakes ).

But put all that aside and let's assume either that climate change is not happening, is not going to be so bad or isn't going to hurt me anyway. That coal fire plant next to my city is polluting my immediate environment. That is increasing the risk of asthma and lung cancer for me and my children. Same for the diesel car driving past me on the street. I don't even need climate change for solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal and wave power to be better and safer for me and my family. So... why not?

And the economics? Solar panels already crossed the line to being the cheapest form of energy available (which makes sense, considering the sun actually does most of the work for us). So... why not?

 

[noblody]

And the economics? Solar panels already crossed the line to being the cheapest form of energy available (which makes sense, considering the sun actually does most of the work for us). So... why not?

The main problem with wind, solar is that it is available when it is available, not when it is needed. Also nuclear reactors can't be modulated much so their output is kind of fixed. The challenge is to make solar and wind behave like a thermoelectric power plant. We could make solar a bit more linear by adding storage, but that increases the price and carbon footprint. It also does not solve the low availability for long periods of time. Temperate climates and up have low sun availability during autumn and winter and long intervals without sun. So, in effect, for now we can't displace the use of thermoelectric plants, only reduce the usage. But low usage of a plant makes energy more expensive so, in the end, the presence of "cheap" solar power makes the energy mix overall more expensive. Even though I'm in favor of green energy for the same reasons you enumerated, we have to admit that it is not a simple feat, and power companies do not have a magic wand to fix carbon emissions.

 

[AnilD]

Love the idea of installing solar panels to do my part and I get why they focus on consumers—it’s an empowering message—but we can’t ignore that the biggest emissions come from industrial and energy giants. A real solution would combine individual efforts with major regulatory and corporate accountability.

 

[p51d007]

As someone that was born in the 50's, the "pollution" of the 60's to early 70's (USA) was terrible! Some days you couldn't see buildings a couple blocks away. It's MUCH better now. If you are really concerned about pollution and on and on, talk to China & India. Up until the 80's, the USA was on it's way to real energy independence, but then the movie "The China Syndrome" was released and everyone went nuts about "bad" nuclear energy.

 

[matthisd]

The main problem with wind, solar is that it is available when it is available, not when it is needed. Also nuclear reactors can't be modulated much so their output is kind of fixed. The challenge is to make solar and wind behave like a thermoelectric power plant. We could make solar a bit more linear by adding storage, but that increases the price and carbon footprint. It also does not solve the low availability for long periods of time. Temperate climates and up have low sun availability during autumn and winter and long intervals without sun. So, in effect, for now we can't displace the use of thermoelectric plants, only reduce the usage. But low usage of a plant makes energy more expensive so, in the end, the presence of "cheap" solar power makes the energy mix overall more expensive. Even though I'm in favor of green energy for the same reasons you enumerated, we have to admit that it is not a simple feat, and power companies do not have a magic wand to fix carbon emissions.

There are definitely hurdles to overcome. My impression is that most of those hurdles are human, not technical. Take Germany as an example. Massive solar and wind expansion since 2010 did not increase prices dramatically, but rose very quickly following the cutoff of Russian gas. As long as solar and wind is cheap enough, increased costs of other sources can be mitigated. A modern grid can accommodate more fluctuation and distribution across a continent to ensure you are always connected to an area with sun or wind. You are totally right that some base stable source is needed, and while we can make use of oil, coal and gas as a minimal backup, there are so many other options: tide generators, geothermal, hydroelectric, and my favourite... thermal storage. That last one uses the technically simplest form of energy storage we currently have and would "only" require more solar power due to conversion loss. Its all a question of timescale for development, which continues to be the biggest issue...

 

[noblody]

There are definitely hurdles to overcome. My impression is that most of those hurdles are human, not technical. Take Germany as an example. Massive solar and wind expansion since 2010 did not increase prices dramatically, but rose very quickly following the cutoff of Russian gas. As long as solar and wind is cheap enough, increased costs of other sources can be mitigated. A modern grid can accommodate more fluctuation and distribution across a continent to ensure you are always connected to an area with sun or wind. You are totally right that some base stable source is needed, and while we can make use of oil, coal and gas as a minimal backup, there are so many other options: tide generators, geothermal, hydroelectric, and my favourite... thermal storage. That last one uses the technically simplest form of energy storage we currently have and would "only" require more solar power due to conversion loss. Its all a question of timescale for development, which continues to be the biggest issue...

Not living in Germany, but internet sources indicate a significant increase in energy prices. Average monthly electricity wholesale price more than doubled from 30-40 to over 80 euro/MWh. Thermal storage looks interesting. I read it could be used as a possible way to "modulate" power output from nuclear powerplants, but that was something, like for solar towers on the order of hours. What is the possible storage time: hours, days, months? Is it economically feasible to store energy from summer till winter?

 

[matthisd]

Not living in Germany, but internet sources indicate a significant increase in energy prices. Average monthly electricity wholesale price more than doubled from 30-40 to over 80 euro/MWh. Thermal storage looks interesting. I read it could be used as a possible way to "modulate" power output from nuclear powerplants, but that was something, like for solar towers on the order of hours. What is the possible storage time: hours, days, months? Is it economically feasible to store energy from summer till winter?

Yeah those price hikes were intense, but actually due to geopolitical decisions to cutoff Russian natural gas. You could debate whether doing that, or Germany becoming dependent on a single source for 80% of its energy needs, was the bigger mistake, but either way the issue was not renewables. And prices are back to just above where they were before the gas import problems. Again, not saying there are no challenges, but mostly not those that get politicized.

Longterm thermal storage is definitely possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_thermal_energy_storage

I have stayed in several houses in Germany that rely on local thermal storage. The heating system stores heat under the house during the summer and during off-peak price times during the winter, and the heat is extracted when needed. It is a slow system, so the heater needs a few hours to properly get going, but that makes it efficient and reduces costs.

Our biggest problem in Germany is not the tech, it’s the politics. But that is partly due to people not informing themselves much past 30s TikTok videos and sensationalist headlines. I’ve spoken to several installers who try to explain why heat pumps are the best option for their wallet, but most people don’t listen because they bought into the rhetoric.