New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

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

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe