When Energy Efficiency Backfires: Behavioral Rebound Effects Offset Carbon Savings in Mercantile Buildings

Raising indoor temperature setpoints is widely promoted as a practical way to reduce cooling-related energy demand in commercial buildings, yet its net carbon impact becomes uncertain once behavioral rebound effects are considered. This study develops an integrated carbon-accounting framework to evaluate the climate implications of summer indoor temperature increases of 1–3 °C in U.S. mercantile buildings. The framework combines operational energy savings from reduced cooling demand with consumption-driven emissions arising from longer customer dwell times and increased consumer spending under improved thermal comfort conditions. Carbon outcomes are quantified using sector-level electricity data and the USEEIO emission factor for retail trade. The results reveal a clear imbalance: operational carbon savings range from 0.21 to 0.64 Mt CO2, whereas consumption-driven emissions range from 3.37 to 21.90 Mt CO2, yielding a consistently positive net carbon impact of 3.16–21.26 Mt CO2 across all scenarios. A break-even analysis indicates that only 1.30–3.89 billion USD in additional spending is sufficient to offset the operational savings. The findings remained robust across alternative behavioral and carbon-accounting specifications; a 10,000-iteration Monte Carlo analysis produced positive net carbon impacts in every simulation (median 8.54 Mt CO2; P(NCI > 0) = 1.00). Overall, the results suggest that temperature-based efficiency measures may overstate their climate benefits when behavioral responses are ignored, highlighting the importance of incorporating rebound effects into building energy assessments and commercial climate policy.