Health and Conservation Reminders Cut Consumer Energy Use

Households that got weekly messages about the lower pollution they generated via efficiency cut energy use much more than did residents who were told how much money they were saving. Cynthia Graber reports

 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


It’s obvious that, say, turning the lights off saves money. But being reminded that using less energy saves money may not be the most effective way to motivate consumer efficiency. Instead, citing environmental and health benefits appears to an even bigger influence. That’s according to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Omar I. Asensio and Magali A. Delmas, Nonprice incentives and energy conservation]

Air pollution from coal and natural gas plants has a demonstrated impact on childhood asthma and cancer. But that point has not been well communicated as part of a conservation effort.

So scientists monitored 118 Los Angeles apartments. The residents received access to real-time information on household energy consumption, down to the level of individual appliances.

For slightly more than three months, half the households received weekly updates comparing their energy use to their most energy-efficient neighbors, along with the related cost savings. The other group received weekly messages about the emissions and pollution they generated, and the resulting health impacts.

The cost savings group did not change their behavior significantly. But the group that received the health and environmental information reduced consumption by 8 percent compared to the control. And in households with children, the effect was even stronger: they reduced their use by a whopping 19 percent.

Research has shown that behavioral changes alone could lead to a 20 percent reduction in energy consumption, reducing carbon emissions by some 123 million metric tons each year. Seems like it could be possible to mount a major conservation effort based on the right regular reminders.

—Cynthia Graber

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Cynthia Graber is a print and radio journalist who covers science, technology, agriculture, and any other stories in the U.S. or abroad that catch her fancy. She's won a number of national awards for her radio documentaries, including the AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Award, and is the co-host of the food science podcast Gastropod. She was a Knight Science Journalism fellow at MIT.

More by Cynthia Graber

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe