Climate Change Begins at Home: Small Steps to Cut Greenhouse Emissions Can Lead to Big Results

A new study shows how household improvements, such as better insulation, could cut U.S. carbon emissions by more than 7 percent

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.


American homes and their energy consumption account for nearly 40 percent of U.S. emissions, 626 million metric tons of carbon in 2005 alone. But 33 simple actions—ranging from improving the insulation to carpooling—could cut those annual carbon emissions by 123 million metric tons. That savings would more than entirely offset emissions from petroleum refineries, iron and steel works, and aluminum smelters combined.

"We did a careful analysis of the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from changes in energy use by households. We did this by considering not only the hypothetical reduction that would occur if everyone undertook each action but by looking at what is behaviorally realistic," explains ecologist and sociologist Thomas Dietz of Michigan State University, one of the authors of the study laying out the possibilities in this week's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "A substantial amount of energy use in U.S. households is wasted, and there have been successful programs to eliminate that waste."

Based on this analysis of potential emissions-cutting measures—as well as the success of programs to inspire them—weatherizing homes as well as properly maintaining heating and cooling systems could save more than 37 million metric tons of carbon. Boosting average fuel efficiency in 50 percent of cars from 20.8 miles per gallon to 30.7 mpg—and there are at least 26 vehicles available today that would do that, ranging from compact cars to sport utility vehicles—would save roughly 30 million metric tons. Carpooling, energy-efficient appliances and equipment, and even changing the temperature on washing machines and water heaters also add to the effect. And if 25 percent of drivers went back to driving 55 miles per hour on the highway, nearly eight million metric tons of carbon could be avoided each year by reducing fuel consumption 21 percent.

"People are busy, and when you gasp at your energy bill or at the gas pump you don't know what part of that bill is paying for something you want—like heating, cooling and transportation—and what part of it is just wasted," Dietz says. "We need to make it easier for people to make the links and, for some things, like weatherization, help with the up-front costs."

Similar efforts on a regional scale, such as the Hood River Conservation Project, convinced some 85 percent of possible participants to better weatherproof their homes through a mixture of financial incentives, mass media campaigns and other interventions. And the recent national "cash for clunkers" program for trading in old cars for newer, more efficient vehicles was highly popular "because the money was available up front and not as a tax rebate months later," Dietz says. "The paperwork was done by the dealerships not the car buyers, and it was well publicized by the dealers and, we think, by word of mouth,"  he adds.

Similar efforts to promote solar power in New Jersey, for example, have largely failed because they involve significant paperwork, delays in collecting financial incentives, and incomplete or hidden information. Similarly, programs to weatherize homes as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as the federal stimulus package, may fail because they are not widely known and feature an incentive in the form of a tax credit that could take up to a year to collect. "We have neglected behavioral sciences research on energy since 1980," Dietz notes. "Consumer preferences aren't a given, [or] else there wouldn't be a multibillion dollar advertising industry."

Perhaps the simplest change to make is eliminating so-called "standby" electricity, or the energy needed to run devices, such as televisions, even when they are turned off. The emissions associated with that wasted power amount to an average of more than 94 kilograms of carbon per year for every one of the 111 million households with electricity in the U.S.—more than 10 million metric tons of carbon nationwide every year. A simple power strip that can be flicked off would eliminate all of that.

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