behavioral changes for energy saving

8/14/2019 Behavioral Changes for Energy Saving

1/13

TheShort

ListThe MostEffective Actions

U.S. HouseholdsCan Take to CurbClimate ChangeBy Gerald T. Gardner and Paul C. Stern


2/13

The U.S. Congress,


3/13

Potential savings of this magnitude

have existed for at least three decades.4

It is therefore reasonable to ask why the

potential remains largely unfulfilled and

what can be done to achieve it. Lack of

financial incentives may be one answer,

but as the analysis in this article shows,

much of the unfulfilled potential for

reduction is achievable at low-, no-, or

negative-cost. Other partial explanations

include difficulties in financing expen-

sive home retrofits, limited ability of

renters to change energy use in owners

buildings, and the average householders

limited amount of time and attention.5

All these explanations are important and

deserve policy attention if potential sav-

ings are to be realized.

Perhaps crucially, however, house-

holds lack accurate, accessible, and

actionable information on how best to

achieve potential savings through their

own steps. From a householders per-

spective, a desire to reduce carbon

emissions, even combined with knowl-

edge that doing so has net financial and

environmental benefits, is insufficient

to yield effective action unless that per-

son knows which actions will produce

the benefits. Available evidence indi-

cates that although many householders

are motivated, they lack the necessary

knowledge to act. Moreover, their beliefs

about which actions are most beneficial

are often mistaken, and the most readily

available sources of behavioral advice

are not helpful.

When strategies are proposed for

households, they often appear in laundry

list format, giving little or no priority to

effectiveness. It is easy for households

that want to cope with rising gasoline

prices and heating and cooling bills to

respond by taking small actions under the

impression they are saving energy, while

they are actually making a negligible dent

in their personal energy consumption.

What are the most effective actions that

households can take to save energy, and

how can policymakers at all levels help

households achieve these savings?

eliefs about Climate Changeand Energy Conservation

Research on public attitudes and opin-

ion on climate change and energy con-

servation indicates that a near-majority

r majority of Americans believe that

limate change is real, that it is caused

by human action, that reduced energy use

is part of the solution, and that personal

actions can contribute to reducing climate

hange. In early 2008, majorities report-

d that they are using less energy at home

and buying energy-efficient appliances,

and a near majority reported using less

asoline.6 Thus, most U.S. residents want

to make behavioral changes that reduce

their greenhouse gas emissions and many

believe they are doing so.

he most extensive research on what

onsumers believe about the energy-

saving potential of household actions was

onducted around the energy crises of the

late 1970s and early 1980s. For example,

a team at Michigan State University asked

00 randomly selected Michigan residents

how much they paid per year in home ener-

y bills, which actions could save on these

osts, and how much they believed they

ould save by each action.7 Their responses

were compared with the estimates of home

nergy specialists. Householder and expert

stimates often diverged, sometimes by

a factor of four. Householders empha-

sized highly visible actions that can reduce

nergy use if repeated regularly, such as

lowering winter thermostat settings and

turning off lights, and they overestimated

the potential energy savings from these

actions. Respondents were far less likely

to name actions with higher energy-saving

potential but low visibility, such as install-

ing storm windows, and they underestimat-

d how much energy these actions could

save. Average householders saw most of

the potential for energy savings in curtail-

entcutting back on normal and desired

activitieswhereas the energy experts saw

the greatest potential in efficiencyinvest-

ing in home equipment that lowers energy

osts without sacrificing desired energy

services. Comparable recent data are not

available, though some researchers are

beginning to revisit the topic.8

Much in the political culture has rein-

forced the equation of energy conserva-

tion and sacrifice. During the energy cri-

sis of the late 1970s, President Jimmy

arterwho took energy efficiency seri-

Households lack accurate and

actionable information on

how best to achieve potential

energy savings.

LEFT TO RIGHT: MILKOS/SHUTTERSTOCK; ISTOCKPHOTO/WEBPHOTOGRAPHEER; ISTOCKPHOTO/CURT_PICKENS; ISTOCKPHOTO/MCCAIG; ISTOCKPHOTO/FOTOIE

14 ENVIRONMENT WWW.ENVIRONMENTMAGAZINE.ORG VOLUME 50 NUMBER


4/13

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008 WWW.ENVIRONMENTMAGAZINE.ORG ENVIRONMENT 15

uslyonce appeared on national televi-

sion calling for energy conservation while

seated in a sweater by a fireplace. President

Ronald Reagan was widely quoted as say-

ing, Energy conservation means being

too cold in the winter and too warm in

the summer!9 Similarly, Vice President

Dick Cheney belittled energy conservation,

saying that Conservation may be a sign

f personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient

basis for . . . energy policy.10

Available Information:Mixed Signals

The media information most readily

available to the American public today

oes little to counteract the idea that

saving energy is mainly about curtail-

ment. Further, this information is not in

a form that is likely to lead to action. For

xample, Al Gores well-known movie

An Inconvenient Truth emphasizes the

seriousness of the global climate crisis,

argues that it can be solved with present

and foreseeable technology, and says that

all citizens can play a meaningful role in

the solution. But it does not offer more.

The film spent only its last few minutes

n mainly technological solutions. Spe-

ific individual and household actions

appeared only briefly, superimposed on

the credits at the end of the film. Given

interest-driven campaigns to minimize

the threat, messages about the serious-

ness of the problem may be important to

motivate people to act rather than deny

the threat, but such messages have a

poor track record of producing measur-

able behavioral change by themselves.11

The public needs more direct and coher-

nt advice concerning household and indi-

vidual actions. The demand for such advice

is commonplace and appears to be increas-

ing. We see the following anecdote repli-

ated often: British Prime Minister Gordon

Brown commented in an interview during

the Live Earth Concert in July 2007, Peo-

ple are asking, What can I do? When I

o [a]round the country and I meet people,

they say to me, Look, if we knew what we

ould do to make a difference to helping the

planet, then we would do it.12

An informal survey of books and arti-

les that offer individual advice shows

that it is usually offered in forms that

are unlikely to lead to effective action.

Most typical are long and unranked lists

f recommended actions. For example,

The Live Earth Global Warming Sur-

vival Handbook13 the 160-page official

ompanion to the Live Earth Concerts,

ffers 77 essential skills to stop climate

hange in a rather complex and unranked

format. Similarly, a Time magazine cover

story in April 2007,14 reviews 51 Things

We Can Do to Save the Environment.

he 51 things, which range from chang-

ing light bulbs to compact fluorescents

(CFL) to ditching your mansion for a

smaller house, are not ordered by impact.

here are many other such examples.15

When people are faced with a laundry

list of advice, they may feel confused and

verwhelmed, and consequently take no

action, or they may carry out one or two

actionsprobably the easiest to remember

and perform. However, the behaviors that

are easiest to remember and perform, for

xample, turning out lights when leaving

rooms, tend to have minimal impact on cli-

ate change. Thus, long and unranked lists

f behaviors are likely to be ineffective at

best and may even be counterproductive, if

they lead people to feel satisfied that they

have done their part after accomplishing

very little.

Moreover, the advice often reinforces

householders misconceptions about how

uch impact their actions are having

n the environment instead of counter-

ing them. Only three of the 77 essen-

tial skills to stop climate change in The

Live Earth Global Warming Survival

Handbook involve efficiency-increasing

actions (essential skill #3: changing from

incandescent to CFL light bulbs; essential

skill #6: Green Your Ride, which includes

keeping your tires properly inflated; and

ssential skill #14: Green Your Home,

which includes installing or upgrading insu-

lation and buying Energy Star appliances).

he reader can judge the appropriateness

f the remaining essential skills, includ-

ing, compost your kitchen waste using

worms (#13), build a bat house (#44),

and if all else failsbuy a camel (#68).

Similarly, only five of Times 51 things

(change your light bulbs; ask the experts for

an energy audit of your home; check the

label; cozy up to your water heater; and

Advice often reinforces

householders misconceptions

about how much impact their

actions have on the environment.


5/13


6/13


Energy Consumption

by End Use

Table 1 on page 16 shows the estimat-

d percentage of total energy consumed

by American individuals and house-

holds for different end uses in 2005,

ivided into travel and in-home sectors.

End uses are ranked within the sectors

from most to least energy-consuming.

The majority of energy is consumed

for only two purposes: to run private

motor vehicles and to heat and cool

homes. Relatively little energy is used

for cooking and running computers and

ishwashers. This contrast draws imme-

iate attention to private motor vehicles,

space conditioning, and a few other end

uses like water heating and lighting;

households can have the greatest impact

by saving energy in these areas, both in

terms of overall energy use and in reduc-

ing carbon emissions.

Conservation Potential of 27

Different Actions

Table 2 on pages 1819 presents the

nergy-saving potential of 27 different

actions individuals and/or households can

take. The actions were drawn from a survey

f popular guides mentioned above, includ-

ingAn Inconvenient Truth, as well as gov-

rnment Web sites and other scientific and

technical sources. Within end uses, conser-

vation actions are ordered from greatest to

least conservation potential.

The actions in Table 2 are divided

into two general categories. Actions in

the left column involve curtailing the

use of existing energy equipment, that

is, using equipment less frequently or

intensively (for example, cutting motor

vehicle highway speeds from 70 to 60

miles-per-hour). Actions in the right

olumn involve adopting more energy-

fficient equipment or installing or

maintaining efficiency-boosting modi-

fications to existing energy equipment

(for example, buying a more fuel-

fficient motor vehicle and keeping

nes motor vehicle in tune and its tires

orrectly inflated).

As noted at the bottom of Table 2, the

stimates are for individuals or house-

holds that have not already taken the

actions. Therefore, they should be inter-

preted as in the following example: If

a household now lacks adequate attic

insulation, then up to 7 percent of total

household energy consumption can be

saved by upgrading the attic insulation.

Efficiency versus Curtailment

A comparison of energy saved by

urtailment and by increased efficiency in

able 2 reveals that efficiency-improving

actions generally save more energyand

reduce carbon emissions morethan

urtailing use of intrinsically inefficient

quipment. For example, buying and

maintaining a highly fuel-efficient vehicle

saves more energy than carpooling to

work with another person, lowering top

highway speeds, consolidating shopping

r errand trips, and altering driving habits

in an existing gasoline-inefficient motor

vehicle. This general finding challenges

the belief that energy savings entail

urtailment and sacrifice of amenities.

Not only is efficiency generally more

ffective than curtailment, but it has

the important psychological advantage

f requiring only one or a few actions.

urtailment actions must be repeated

ontinuously over time to achieve their

ptimal effect, whereas efficiency-

boosting actions, taken infrequently

r only once, have lasting effects with

little need for continuing attention and

ffort. For example, carpooling requires

a separate action for every trip, but

replacing a low-fuel economy vehicle

with a fuel-efficient one saves energy

automatically on every trip. Replacing an

inefficient furnace with a highly efficient

ne saves energy for its useful life, while

turning down the thermostat at night

requires establishing a new behavioral

habit or purchasing and learning to

perate a programmable thermostat.

Most efficiency-increasing actions

require a purchase, offsetting their advan-

tage of simplicity, whereas most curtailment

actions have no financial cost. Although

nergy-efficient equipment often provides

a good financial return on the initial cost,

few people compare the return on energy

fficiency with the returns from a savings

Messages about the seriousness ofglobal warming have a poor track

record of producing measurable

behavioral change by themselves.


7/13


Table 2. Estimated percentage of total U.S. individual/household energy consumption

that can be saved by 27 actions, by action type, 2005

Curtailment Energy saved (percent) Increased efficiency Energy saved (percent)

Transportation

Motor vehicle use

Carpool to work with one otherperson

Up to 4.2 Buy a more fuel-efficientutomobile (30.7 vs. 20 mpg

EPA average-adjustedcomposite)

3.5

Alter driving (avoid suddenacceleration and stops)

Up to 3.2 Get frequent tune-ups,including air filter changes

3.9

Combine errand trips to one-half of current mileage

Up to 2.7 Buy low-rolling resistance tires .5

Cut highway speed from 70 to60 mph

Up to 2.4 Maintain correct tire pressure .2

Inside the home

Heating and airconditioning

Heat: Turn down thermostat from72 F to 68 F during the dayand to 65 F during the night

2.8 Heat: Install/upgrade atticinsulation and ventilation1

Up to 5.0

A/C: Turn up thermostat from73 F to 78 F

0.6 A/C: Install/upgrade atticinsulation and ventilation1

Up to 2.0

Subtotal 3.4 Up to 7

Heat: Install a more efficientheating unit (92 percentefficient)

2.9

A/C: Install a more efficient

A/C unit (SEER 13 or EER 12)

2.2

Subtotal 5.1

Heat: Replace poor windowswith high-efficiency windows

Up to 2.8

A/C: Replace poor windowswith high-efficiency windows

Up to 0.9

Subtotal Up to 3.7

Heat: Caulk/weather-strip home Up to 1.9

A/C: Caulk/weather-strip home p to 0.6

Subtotal Up to 2.5

Space conditioning subtotal Up to 18.3


8/13


Table 2, ontinued

Curtailment Energy saved (percent) Increased efficiency Energy saved (percent)

Water heating

Turn down water heaterthermostat from 140 F to 120 F

0.7 Install a more efficient waterheater (EFS .7 unit)

1.5

Lighting

Do not leave one 60-watt bulbon all night

0.5 eplace 85 percent of allincandescent bulbs with equallybright compact fluorescent bulbs

.0

Replace two 100-watt kitchenbulbs with 75-watt bulbs

0.3

Refrigeration/freezing

Turn up the refrigeratorthermostat from 33 F to 38 Fand the freezer thermostat from5 F to 0 F

0.5 Install a more efficient unitreplace a 1921.4 cubic feetop-freezer unit bought between993 and 2000 with a newnergy Star unit)

1.9

Clothes washing and drying

Change washer temperaturesettings from hot wash, warmrinse to warm wash, cold rinse

.2 Install a more efficient washerreplace a 2001 or older nonnergy Star washer with a newnergy Star unit)

.1

Line-dry clothing (do not usedryer) 5 months of the year

1.1

Color TV

Watch 25 percent fewer hoursof TV each day

0.6 Purchase (or trade in) 52Projection HD TV instead of a

8 Plasma HD TV

1.3

1

Roughly 80 percent of older homes are underinsulated, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Save Hundreds onEnergy Costs, Consumer Reports, October 2007, 27.

NOTES: The potential savings listed in this table apply only to individuals and households that have not already taken theaction. Adding up savings across actions can overestimate aggregate savings because of interactions between some actions.For example, the energy saved by caulking/weather-stripping a home will be less if a more fuel-efficient furnace is alsoinstalled. The estimates in the Increased Efficiency column assume that consumers replace old equipment when it wears outrather than discarding functioning equipment. If consumers replace equipment before the end of its useful life, part of theenergy they save by using the more efficient equipment is cancelled out by the energy used to manufacture the newequipment. Data for electric heating elements, small appliances, and small motors could not be disaggregated for furtheranalysis.

Please see Environments Web site, www.environmentmagazine.org, for a description of calculation strategies and methodsand a complete list of sources.


9/13


quite difficult for an individual to estimate

the returnand even if it is financially

attractive, funds are still necessary to make

the purchase. Moreover, most people do

not keep homes or motor vehicles for their

entire useful lives, so they may pay the full

cost of efficiency improvements without

getting the full return. With rental housing,

efficiency improvements must typically be

purchased by the owner, while the renter

receives the savings. These considerations

indicate that there are significant psycho-

logical, economic, and institutional barri-

ers to improved energy efficiency that are

not present for curtailment. In the current

policy context, individuals and households

are left to find ways to overcome these

barriers. Finally, curtailment and efficiency

do not represent an either-or choice. In

motor vehicle and some in-home energy

uses, some curtailment actions can pro-

vide significant immediate savings and

should not be overlooked. Thus, house-

holds can benefit from the most effective

actions of both types. Table 3 on pages

2021 presents a simple guide for con-

sidering both curtailment and efficiency-

increasing actions.

The Short List of EffectiveActions

xamination of Table 2 reveals a small

number of practical actions individu-

als and households can take to achieve

the greatest savings of energy and car-

bon emissions. Table 3, based on Table

2, prioritizes actions in a few simple

categories. It stands in contrast to com-

mon laundry lists by providing a short,

prioritized, accurate, accessible, and

actionable list of the most effective house-hold actions to help limit climate change.

Table 3. The Short List: Percentage of current total

U.S. individual/household energy consumption potentially

saved, by action effectiveness

Action Energy saved (percent)

For all individuals and households

Immediate low-cost/no-cost actionsTransportation

1. Carpool to work with one other person Up to 4.2

2. Get frequent tune-ups, including air filterchanges

3.9

3. Alter driving (avoid sudden acceleration andstops)

Up to 3.2

4. Combine errand trips to one-half currentmileage

Up to 2.7

5. Cut highway speed from 70 to 60 mph Up to 2.4

6. Maintain correct tire pressure 1.2

Potential savings subtotal Up to 17.6

Inside the home

1. Lighting: Replace 85 percent of allincandescent bulbs with compact fluorescentbulbs

.0

2. Space conditioning:Heat: Turn down thermostat from 72 F to68 F during the day and to 65 F at nightA/C: Turn up thermostat from 73 Fto 78 F

3.4

3. Clothes washing: Use only warm (or cold)

wash, cold rinse setting

1.2

Potential savings subtotal 8.6

Potential savings subtotal for nine

actions listed

Up to 26.2

For all individuals and households

Longer-term, higher-cost actions

Transportation

1. Buy low-rolling resistance tires 1.5

2. Buy a more fuel-efficient automobile (30.7vs. 20 mpg EPA average-adjusted composite)

13.5

Potential savings subtotal for two actions

listed

15.0


10/13


The first nine actions in Table 3 can be

aken with little or no initial monetary cost.

ix of the actions involve curtailment; three

getting frequent tune-ups, mantaining cor-

ect tire pressure, and using CFL bulbs)

nvolve efficiency increases. Individuals or

ouseholds who can do all nine actions can

otentially save up to about one-quarter

f their total direct energy consumption

nd a roughly comparable proportion of

arbon emissions. The next eight actions,

ll involving efficiency increases, gener-

lly require greater initial expense than

he first nine. Buying one of the Environ-

ental Protection Agencys top 20 fuel-

fficient motor vehicles, or installing or

pgrading attic insulation can save more

nergy than any of the other actions in the

able. The eight higher cost, efficiency-

ncreasing actions together can potentially

ave up to about one-third of total indi-

idual/household energy consumption and

arbon emissions. Individuals or house-

olds who can take all 17 listed actions

an potentially cut their consumption and

missions by half.

Table 3 is a guide to priority setting,

ot a prediction. Although the savings

stimates are only approximations, they

an help households differentiate between

igh- and low-impact actions. Readers

an consider the first item in each cat-

gory to be the most energy-saving action

ossible and give it top priority if it has

ot already been taken and is possible

o take. By going item-by-item down

he table, householders are guided to

here the greatest potential savings lie for

hem specifically. The table gives proper

ttention to relevant efficiency-increas-

ng actions, which are often overlooked

y individuals and households and given

hort shrift in popular guides to action.

It should be emphasized that actual sav-ngs may be greater or less than Table 3

able 3, continued

Action Energy saved (percent)

For homeowners: Inside the home

Immediate low-cost action

. Space conditioning: Caulk/weather-strip

home

Up to 2.5

Immediate higher-cost action

. Space conditioning: Install/upgrade atticinsulation and ventilation1

Up to 7.0

Potential savings subtotal for two actions

listedUp to 9.5

Longer-term, higher-cost actions

. Space conditioning: Install a more efficientheating unit (92 percent efficiency)

2.9

. Space conditioning: Install a more efficient/C unit (SEER 13 or EER 12 units)

2.2

3. Refrigeration/freezing: Install a moreefficient unit (replace a 1921.4 cubic footop-freezer unit bought between 1993 and000 with a new Energy Star unit)

.9

. Water heating: Install a more efficient waterheater (EFS .7 unit)

.5

Potential savings subtotal for four

actions listed

8.5

otal potential savings for all six

homeowner actions listed2Up to 18.0

1 Roughly 80 percent of older homes are underinsulated, according to the U.S.epartment of Energy. Save Hundreds on Energy Costs, Consumer Reports,

October 2007, 27.2 Approximately 67 percent U.S. households owned their homes in 2005.

OTES The potential savings listed in this table apply only to individuals andhouseholds that have not already taken the action. Adding up savings acrossctions can overestimate aggregate savings because of interactions betweenome actions. For example, the energy saved by caulking/weather-stripping a

home will be less if a more fuel-efficient furnace is also installed. The estimates inhe Increased Efficiency column assume that consumers replace old equipmenthen it wears out rather than discarding functioning equipment. If consumers

replace equipment before the end of its useful life, part of the energy they save byusing the more efficient equipment is cancelled out by the energy used tomanufacture the new equipment.

Please see Environments Web site, www.environmentmagazine.org, Notes forable 3, for data entry sources.


11/13


indicates. For example, someone who uses

more fuel than the average motorist will

save more purchasing a more fuel-efficient

vehicle than the estimate suggests; someone

who uses less fuel than the average motor-

ist will save less. Also, much less potential

exists to save energy in households that have

already made many of the changes com-

pared with households that have made few

or no changes.

How Much Can Households

Save?

he sum of savings estimates for the 17

actions58.2 percentis an overestimate

for several reasons. First, it applies only to

households that have not taken any of the

actions listed. Second, savings from dif-

ferent actions are connected. For example,

the energy saved by caulking and weather-

stripping a home will be less if a more

fuel-efficient furnace is also installed. Third,

estimated savings from increased efficiency

assume that consumers buy motor vehicles,

refrigerators, and furnaces at the end of the

old equipments useful life. If consumers

discard usable equipment, part of the energy

they save by using the more efficient equip-

ment is cancelled out by the energy used to

manufacture the new equipment. For many

households, then, total potential savings are

much less than half. Policy analyses suggestthat aggregated nationwide adoption of all

the actions not yet taken in Table 3 would

ield a decrease of about 30 percent in U.S.

individual and/or household energy con-

sumption and carbon emissionsstill a huge

otential.21

A household that wants a more accu-

rate estimate of the energy and carbon-

reducing potential of these actions in its

unique situation will need a much more

etailed analysis. Such an analysis can be

rovided by an energy audit that includes

alculations based on the households actu-

al home and one of the household carbon

alculators now available. However, good

nergy audits, which are conducted by

rofessional auditors, are expensive, and

arbon calculators, in addition to requiring

time and effort to complete, are of unde-

termined and questionable reliability and

validity at present.22

What Policy Can Do

Without a concerted national policy

ffort, individual and household behavior

an only go so far. Part of national policy

for limiting climate change should make

accurate, credible, and actionable informa-

tion widely available on what households

an do to reduce their energy use and

arbon footprints. National policy should

evelop and validate simple guides, suchas Table 3, and disseminate them using

stablished communication principles. It

should also include making more nuanced,

household-specific information widely

availablefor example, by supporting the

provision of credible, convenient, and low-

ost household and travel energy audits

and carbon calculators. Improvements to

xisting appliance certification and label-

ing programs (to compare products in

ifferent classes or find the most efficient

nergy Star appliances more easily) and

ew rating and labeling systems for the

nergy cost of ownership of new homes

are also desirable initiatives. Federal, state,

and local governments and various non-

overnmental organizations can carry out

these initiatives. As with current appliance

labeling programs, federal agencies can

evelop and validate information about

anufactured equipment and provide for

its distribution by businesses to consum-

rs. Local governments and consumer

rganizations might be best for providing

assurance about the quality of private ener-

y auditors and the vendors and installers

f household energy technology.

But information aloneeven much

ore useful information than is currently

availableis not enough to induce behav-

ior change, especially for many efficiency

increases that involve significant initial

onetary costs. There are major barri-

rs to change, in addition to knowledge,

which must be overcome, even among

people who know which actions to take

and would like to take them.23 For exam-

ple, many equipment choices are shaped

by intermediaries, such as builders and

repair personnel who offer equipment

ptions to households when their atten-

tion is focused on other things, such as

kitchen design or the need to replace a

water heater quickly. Actions like upgrad-

ing home insulation and furnace and air-onditioning efficiency can yield major sav-

Efficiency-improving actionsgenerally save more energy

than curtailing use of intrinsically

inefficient equipment.


12/13


ings, but many households lack the funds

needed to make the investments. Renters

annot install such upgrades, and buyers of

xisting or newly built homes usually can-

not choose the efficiency of heating and air-

onditioning equipment and insulation.

Even when people can afford major

fficiency improvements, many may be

inhibited by the logistical difficulties of

arranging and scheduling the multiple

ontractors that may be needed to install

space-conditioning equipment, insulation,

and storm windows and doors. Even low-

r no-cost actions compete for peoples

limited time and attention.

Many believe that higher energy costs

will cause households to economize by

investing in energy efficiency. But house-

holds historically have not responded to

price signals by making anywhere near

all the energy-efficiency investments that

are economically efficient. A major rea-

son is the cost of information in time

and effort required to estimate the actual

returns on investment and to find the best

products, vendors, lenders, and installers. A

large organization can save enough money

through energy actions to recoup the cost

f hiring someone to find the most cost-

ffective savings opportunities, contract for

the needed work, and ensure its quality. Few

households are in this position, and people

know it intuitively. Research conducted

uring the last U.S. energy crisis in the late

1970s demonstrates that the difficulty and

inconvenience of identifying and taking

ffective energy-saving steps was a major

barrier to action, even when utility compa-

nies offered to rebate households a majority

f the cost of major home retrofits.24

Multicomponent programs are needed

to encourage energy savings, especially

when the initial costs are nontrivial. Edu-

ation and information are important, andideally should include household-specific

information, such as professional home

nergy audits and energy comparisons for

particular choices a consumer is facing.

Financial incentives to reduce the ini-

tial costs of upgrading to energy-efficient

products are also important, and many

reative possibilities exist in this sector,

including incentives targeted to interme-

iaries; loan subsidies, deferred-payment

loans, and rebates for home retrofits; and

alterations in policies for mortgage and

auto loans that take into account the ener-

y cost of ownership. Convenience and

redibility enhancements, such as provid-

ing free and trustworthy energy audits and

lists of approved contractors and help in

securing low-cost financing and inspection

f completed work, can be very important

for overcoming the nonmonetary barriers

to cost-effective investments in energy

fficiency. Programs that offered this sort

f one-stop shopping during the energy

risis of the late 1970s were attractive to

households because of these assurances,

but these campaigns might have been

more successful if they aggressively mar-

keted themselves and if stronger financial

incentives were available.25

A review of home energy retrofit pro-

rams from the early 1980s found that

financial incentives to reduce up-front

osts motivated more households to

retrofit, but the strongest results by far came

when incentives were combined with non-

financial interventions that strongly market-

d the programs and made it convenient for

households to take advantage of the incen-

tives. These nonfinancial features were

ritical even with the strongest financial

incentives, which were offered under the

U.S. Department of Energys Bonneville

Power Administrations 20-month Interim

Residential Weatherization Program from

198283. Seven participating utility com-panies in the Pacific Northwest offered an

identical package of home energy audits

and financial grants to participating home-

wners paying, on average, 93 percent of

the cost of recommended retrofits. Eligible

households installed the recommended ret-

rofits at an average rate of 5.3 percent per

ear, but there was tremendous variation

across the utilities, with rates ranging from

1.419.3 percent per year, depending on

how a utility marketed and implemented

its version of the programa difference

between getting all the homes retrofitted in

about 70 years or 5 years.26

ommunity-based efforts that use infor-

al social networks to help spread the

wordfor example, neighborhood coopera-

tion in a campaign to caulk and weather-strip

homescan make multicomponent pro-

rams more effective.27 Finally, there is room

for regulatory approaches, such as tightening

standards for energy equipment, especially

home insulation and water-heaters where

nergy efficiency is a major but invisible

product attribute.

Rapidly rising prices for oil and other

nergy products highlight the need for sav-

ings for householders and policymakers

alike. But households still do not know

what actions best achieve these needed

savings, and public policies currently do

ot provide the needed support to turn

household awareness into effective action.

If we apply and build on the lessons of

the energy crises of the 1970s and early

1980s, individuals and policymakers can

act more effectively now. For many under-

standable reasons, people do not necessar-

ily act in their best financial interest or in

ways that yield the greatest environmental

benefiteven if they want to. Achieving

hange quickly and effectively depends

n combining information, incentives, and

ther policy approaches with sensitivity to

how householders think and the many fac-tors that influence their choices.


13/13


Gerald T. Gardner is professor emeritus of psychology

at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. His areas ofexpertise include how behavioral science applies to the

understanding of global and regional environmental

problems and human behavior and public policy. Hemay be reached at [email protected]. Paul C. Stern

is director of the Committee on the Human Dimensions

of Global Climate Change at the National ResearchCouncil, where he has worked since 1980. His research

interests include environmentally significant individual

behavior, environmental risk assessment and manage-ment, and problems of the commons. He may be reached

at [email protected]. ardner and Stern first collaborated

on research in 19791980 when they were both visitingresearch fellows at the interdisciplinary Program on

Energy and Behavior at Yale Universitys Institution

for Social and Policy Studies. They acknowledge thegreat benefits to their research and general outlook they

received from participation in the program.

his article is the work of the authors. It does notrepresent conclusions of the National Research Council

except where explicitly cited in the notes.

NOTES

1. This article focuses exclusively on carbon dioxide

because it is the dominant anthropogenic greenhousegas. S. Pacala and R. Socolow, Stabilization Wedges:

Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Yearswith Current Technologies, Science 280, no. 5686 (13

August 2004): 96872.

. Global Carbon Emissions, By Country, BBCNews, 7 December 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi

/in_depth/629/629/7133036.stm (accessed 5 May 2008).

. S. Nadel, A. Shipley, and R. N. Elliot, The

Technical, Economic and Achievable Potential forEnergy-Efficiency in the U.S.A Meta-Analysis of

Recent Studies, Proceedings of the 2004 ACEEE

Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, PacificGrove, CA, 2227 August 2004, http://www.aceee

.org/conf/04ss/rnemeta.pdf (accessed 5 May 2008);

D. Pimentel et al., US Energy Conservation andEfficiency: Benefits and Costs, Environment,

Development and Sustainability 6, no. 3 (2004): 279305;

and U.S. Greenhouse Gas Abatement Mapping Initiative,Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at

What Cost? (Washington, DC: McKinsey & Company,

2007), http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/US_ghg_final_report.pdf (accessed 4 May 2008).

. P. C. Stern and G. T. Gardner, Psychological

Research and Energy Policy, American Psychologist36, no. 4 (1981): 32942; G. T. Gardner and P. C.

Stern, Environmental Problems and Human Behavior(Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1996), 25376; andG. T. Gardner and P. C. Stern, Environmental Problemsand Human Behavior, 2nd Edition (Boston, MA: Pear-

son Custom Publishing, 2002), 25376.

5. Gardner and Stern (2002), note 4, pages 74124.

6. P. Aldous, Global Warming: The Buck StopsHere (Special Report),New Scientist194, no. 2609 (20

June 2007): 1619; A. Leiserowitz,American Opinions

on Global Warming: Summary (New Haven, CT:Yale University School of Forestry & Environmental

Studies, 2007), http://environment.yale.edu/news

/Research/5310/american-opinions-on-global-warmingsummary/ (accessed 20 June 2008); Pew Research

enter for the People & the Press, A Deeper Partisan

Divide Over Global Warming (Washington, DC: PewResearch Center for the People & the Press, 2008),

http://people-press.org/report/417/a-deeper-partisan

divide-over-global-warming (accessed 20 June 2008);F. Newport,Little Increase in Americans Global Warm-

ng Worries (Washington, DC: Gallup, 2008), http://www

.gallup.com/poll/106660/Little-Increase-AmericansGlobal-Warming-worries.aspx (accessed 20 June 2008);

nd P. Novelli, What Are Americans Thinking and

Doing about Global Warming? Results of a NationalHousehold Survey (Fairfax, VA: Center of Excellence

in Climate Change Communication Research, George

ason University, 2008), including unpublished resultsfrom this survey, http://www.porternovelli.com/site/pdfs

/PN_GMU_Climate_Change_Report.pdf (accessed 20

une 2008).

7. W. Kempton, C. Harris, J. Keith, and J. Weihl,

Do Consumers Know What Works in Energy Con-

ervation? Marriage and Family Review 9, no. 1/21985): 11533.

. Edward W. Maibach, professor, Center for Cli-

ate Change Communication, George Mason Univer-ity, personal communication, 23 June 2008.

9. A. Lewis, Abroad and at Home: Paying for

Reagan,New York Times, 5 October 1990, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEEDB113BF

36A35753C1A966958260 (accessed 12 July 2008).

10. D. Hickman, Conservation Doesnt Enrichheneys Energy Friends, USA Today, 14 May 2001,

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists

/wickham/2001-05-07-wickham.htm.

11. For a review, see Gardner and Stern (2002), note

, chapter 9.

12. C. Morton and G. Lean, Live Earth: OneBig Gesture for Humans, One Giant Problem for the

Earth, The Independent (UK), 8 July 2007, http://www

.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/liveearth-one-big-gesture-for-man-one-giant-problem-for

the-earth-456414.html (accessed 2 March 2008).

13. D. de Rothschild, The Live Earth Global WarmingSurvival Handbook(New York: Rodale Press, 2007).

14. 51 Things We Can Do to Save the Environment:

he Global Warming Survival Guide, Time, 9 April007, 69100.

15. Two other examples are M. ONeill, 84 Ways

You Can Help the Planet The Boston Globe SundayMagazine, 18 November 2007, 50; and J. Javna, S.

avna, and J. Javna, 50 Simple Things You Can Do to

Save the Earth, Revised Edition (New York: HyperionBooks, 2008).

16. Gardner and Stern (2002), note 4, chapters 3 and

10; and T. W. Valente and D. V. Schuster, The Public

Health Perspective for Communicating EnvironmentalIssues, in T. Dietz and P. C. Stern, eds.,New Tools for

Environmental Protection: Education, Information and

Voluntary Measures (Washington, DC: New AcademicPress, 2002): 10524.

17. Stern and Gardner, note 4; Gardner and Stern

1996), note 4, chapter 10; and Gardner and Stern2002), note 4, chapter 10.

18. Figures are preliminary for 2006. Derived

from Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S.Department of Energy (DOE), Annual Energy Review

2006, DOE/EIA-0384 (2006) (Washington, DC, 2007),

http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/ (accessed 14 February008), see Tables 2.1b, 2.1e, 2.1f, and 3. Please see

Environments Web site, environmentmagazine.org,

dditional Information on Table 1 of this article fordditional sources.

19. U.S. government statistics and databases,

including those of the Environmental Protection Agen-y (EPA), DOE, and Department of Transportation

DOT), almost always treat transportation energy

onsumption and greenhouse gas production in aingle block and do not distinguish travel for house-

hold purposes from travel for business (industrial

nd commercial) purposes. Our strategy for statisti-ally dividing transportation energy into individual/

household and nonindividual/household portions is

escribed in a note to Table 1. U.S. Departmentf Labor, National Household Travel Survey 2001

Database) (Washington, DC, 2007), http://nhts.ornl

.gov/ (accessed 1 January 2008); EIA, note 18; EIA,DOE, Annual Energy Outlook 2007, DOE/EIA-0383

2007) (Washington, DC, 2007), http://www.eia.doe

.gov/oiaf/aeo/, (accessed 15 February 2008); and Bureauf Transportation Statistics, DOT, National Transpor-

ation Statistics 2007(Washington, DC, 2007), http://

ww.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_tatistics, (accessed 12 February 2008).

0. Gardner and Stern (2002), note 4, page 258.

1. Nadel, Shipley, Elliot, note 3; Pimentel et al.,ote 3; and U.S. Greenhouse Gas Abatement Mapping

Initiative, note 3.

2. J. P. Padgett, A. C. Steinemann, J. H. Clarke,nd M. P. Vandenbergh, A Comparison of Carbon

alculators,Environmental Impact Assessment Review8 (2008): 10615.


4. National Research Council (NRC),Energy

Efficiency in Buildings: Behavioral Issues (Washington,DC: National Academies Press, 1985), http://www.nap

.edu/catalog/10463.html (accessed 14 January

008); and P. C. Stern et al., The Effectiveness ofIncentives for Residential Energy Conservation,Evalu-

tion Review 10 (1986): 14776.5. P. C. Stern, J. S. Black, and J. T. Elworth,Home

Energy Conservation: Programs and Strategies for

he 1980s (Mount Vernon, NY: Institute for Consumer

Policy Research, Consumers Union Foundation, 1981);RC, note 24, chapter 3; and Stern et al., note 24.

6. NRC, note 24, chapter 3; D. I. Lerman and B.

H. Bronfman, Process Evaluation of the BonnevillePower Administration Interim Residential Weather-

zation Program, ORNL/CON-158 (Oak Ridge, TN:

ak Ridge National Laboratory); and Stern et al.,ote 24.


behavioral changes for energy saving

Documents