LIBERAL WITH THE THERMOSTAT: Overall, households reduced their energy consumption by about 2 percent after feedback. But Republicans households only reduced their energy use by 0.4 percent, economists say.
Image: New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance
Political ideology helps determine whether homeowners respond to voluntary energy conservation programs, two University of California, Los Angeles, economists have found.
In a study published last month on the National Bureau of Economic Research website, Dora Costa and Matthew Kahn concluded that providing feedback on energy use can actually backfire with some conservatives.
Costa and Kahn merged utility data from 80,000 homes with corresponding voter registration and donation records. The economists found that a Democratic household with green bona fides -- paying for electricity from renewable sources, donating to environmental groups and living in a neighborhood of fellow liberals -- will reduce its consumption by 3 percent in response to feedback.
Meanwhile, a Republican household that doesn't adhere to environmental behaviors will actually increase its consumption by 1 percent. The households that received home energy reports reduced their consumption by about 2 percent overall, but the Republican subset of this group reduced their energy use by 0.4 percent.
About half of the homeowners in the study received home energy reports from OPOWER, a company that contracts with utilities to compare homeowners' energy use with that of neighboring homes of comparable size. Homeowners earn smiley faces if they use less energy than their neighbors. The reports also suggest efficiency improvements, such as installing solar panels or cleaning air conditioner filters.
More Republicans get 'room to improve'
Some California homeowners received bar charts showing the kilowatt-hours they used, comparing it to their most efficient neighbors and then to their average neighbors. Those who scored high received two smiley faces. Those in the medium range got one. And low-ranking energy consumers got this message in bold black letters: ROOM TO IMPROVE. But they also received some money-saving tips.
Based on their usage, a more efficient air conditioning system could cut their energy use in half. If they installed solar panels on their rooftops, the annual return could be 11 percent, probably better than the return on many conservatives' stock portfolios.
The economists speculate that some conservatives may react angrily at being told to save energy, while others may realize their energy use is lower than average and increase it to match perceived norms. Other tactics may be needed to get conservatives to conserve.
"One solution is to tailor messages to different groups," Costa said in an e-mail. "But another possibility is that at some point we may need to make the hard choices of taking costlier actions to lower electricity consumption."
Do conservatives shun voluntary restraint?
"These costly choices," she explained, "could either be raising prices, which has the advantage of not just reducing current consumption but also of making houses built in years of high energy prices more energy efficient, or of imposing stricter building codes."
Costa and Kahn also published another paper last month analyzing the reasons behind California's energy efficiency achievements in the residential sector. Since 1973, residential consumption has remained nearly flat in California, while Americans overall have increased their consumption by 50 percent.
For homes built after 1983, when energy prices have risen, improved building codes have helped to keep consumption flat. But other factors, like rising incomes, increased home sizes and migration to warmer areas, defy the results.
See what we're tweeting about
11 Comments
Add CommentMaybe Republicans are just better off and so more likely to spend even more money on electricity when shown how low the charges are and how little the conservation efforts yield. In any case, not every action a person takes is taken with politics in mind even when presented with a politically biased message. If you want people to be concerned about saving electricity, just raise the prices. That's how markets work. Jawboning is a rather ineffective economic tool.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA different study released last year revealed that Republicans are more likely to kick your dog when you're not looking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI haven't seen conservative Republicans get angry over messages and inducements to conserve energy. They're just Hell-bent on destroying the Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's beyond me how so many things can be said without stating anything about the demographics of those 80,000 outside political affiliation. Let alone a link to the actual research article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"while others may realize their energy use is lower than average and increase it to match perceived norms"
The thought that conservatives would intentionally spend more for the sole purpose of being normal is absurd.
"Other tactics may be needed to get conservatives to conserve."
Great idea! How about we get that lovely government to handle it for us by taxing only conservatives more. That way we know for sure, not only are they providing many high paying jobs who's taxes can be appropriated to misguided services but are also paying more out of their individual incomes! Then, this is the best part, lets waste it all on people that want more in their live but aren't willing to work for it. (Veruca Salt anyone?)
At least do it right if your going to blatantly rant about a political party.
It's beyond me how so many things can be said without stating anything about the demographics of those 80,000 outside political affiliation. Let alone a link to the actual research article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"while others may realize their energy use is lower than average and increase it to match perceived norms"
The thought that conservatives would intentionally spend more for the sole purpose of being normal is absurd.
"Other tactics may be needed to get conservatives to conserve."
Great idea! How about we get that lovely government to handle it for us by taxing only conservatives more. That way we know for sure, not only are they providing many high paying jobs who's taxes can be appropriated to misguided services but are also paying more out of their individual incomes! Then, this is the best part, lets waste it all on people that want more in their live but aren't willing to work for it. (Veruca Salt anyone?)
At least do it right if your going to blatantly rant about a political party.
I didn't see that study David, but I did see the one that showed the average Republican had an IQ twenty points lower than the average Democrat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is science? Ever see a picture of Thomas Friedman's or Al Gore's home. Guess they are closet Republicans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just read Costa and Kahn's paper, and I wonder if the author of this article bothered to read more than the abstract and conclusion. The econometric analysis was for >35K homes, not 80K, and they were only able to get political affiliation for half of those 35K homes (and the data is only as recent as from the 2000 election). On top of that, their conclusions in the paper - the ones highlighted by this article - are built on data from the highest use homes, i.e. <50% of the sample.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven this cherry-picking of data and what seems like an incomplete description of their methodology, the claims seem dubious. What's that famous quote about statistics?
Perhaps we could use household energy consumption data to predict the outcome of elections.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNever before has it been so easy to tag a conservative: conservatives really do appear to be the jackass sociopaths we always suspected they were.
They tested conservatives and their ability to change when other things change and they were far slower to change when needed than dems. Maybe their lower IQ might be working here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe test was simple, click on the correct place. The place was moved and it took cons several clicks to adjust to the change which dems took far less time to switch to changing choices.
Well, for one thing this jackass sociopath lives in an older, less energy efficient home, which is likely to correlate with being an older person, which also correlates with having conservative values.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy wife and I live in a community that fastidiously recycles and we have always sorted the outgoing junk religiously, even though I strongly suspect that the actual ecologic and economic value of doing so is probably imaginary and may be a net loss. But it appeals to my sense of order, so I do it.
The question of the day is whether the USA can convert to a non-fossil fuel economy in as little as three decades without losing jobs. The jobs might be lost because the alternative replacements for carbon fuels are actually much, much more expensive and costly to maintain than is presently being touted. This much higher cost has to come out somewhere and it will reveal itself in a dramatically lower standard of living--i.e. fewer personal vehicles with shorter ranges and diminished hauling capacity, a colder house in the winter, a warmer house in the heat of summer, a tepid hot tub, and much higher energy costs for all manufacturers and businesses.
Fossil fuels are an amazing bonanza of relatively portable and inexpensive energy. Their environmental problems are way over-blown or, in the case of manmade global warming, an exaggeration so egregious as to mimic an outright lie. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas but as a serious climate factor it has been over-accused and condemned by a political lie machine.
No nation has ever as a matter of policy set out to lower its own standard of living and reduce the material progress that provides both human comforts and increased production ability of many new goods and services that humanity has not been able to afford over most of our history.
Eventually, green technology may make it on its own merits. At the present, any city that tries to make it on huge wind mills and solar power alone will be desperately begging for money and subsidies constantly. The claim that fossil fuels are also subsidized is only trivially true. Fossil fuels are so energy dense that they quickly repay all investment.
BP definitely should have used two blow out valves and it should have had better standby emergency fixes available. Those are technical problems and they are not insurmountable.