The

Short
List
The Most
Effective Actions
U.S. Households
Can Take to Curb
Climate Change
By Gerald T. Gardner and Paul C. Stern
 The U.S. Congress, presidential candidates, lobbyists,
and political commentators have focused much of their attention lately

on the need for policies to limit the United States’ contribution to climate

change. They promote and debate cap-and-trade systems, stricter automo-

bile fuel economy standards, investments in renewable energy and “clean

coal,” and other policies to change the behavior of energy and manufactur-

ing corporations. The debates presume that these policies will reverberate

through the entire economy, and their advocates seem willing to wait—in

some cases for decades—for that to happen.

These policy discussions have been strangely silent about a huge reservoir

of potential for reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate change that

can be tapped much more quickly and directly.1 U.S. households account for

about 38 percent of national carbon emissions through their direct actions, a

level of emissions greater than that of any entire country except China and

larger than the entire U.S. industrial sector.2 By changing their selection and

use of household and motor vehicle technologies, without waiting for new

technologies to appear, making major economic sacrifices, or losing a sense

of well-being, households can reduce energy consumption by almost 30

percent—about 11 percent of total U.S. consumption.3

©DZAREK/SHUTTERSTOCK
 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 householder’s
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 householder’s 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
LEFT TO RIGHT: © MILKOS/SHUTTERSTOCK; © ISTOCKPHOTO/WEBPHOTOGRAPHEER; © ISTOCKPHOTO/CURT_PICKENS; © ISTOCKPHOTO/MCCAIG; © ISTOCKPHOTO/FOTOIE
14 ENVIRONMENT
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?
Beliefs about Climate Change
and Energy Conservation
Research on public attitudes and opin-
ion on climate change and energy con-
servation indicates that a near-majority
or majority of Americans believe that
climate 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
Households lack accurate and
actionable information on
how best to achieve potential
energy savings.
change. In early 2008, majorities report-
ed that they are using less energy at home
and buying energy-efficient appliances,
and a near majority reported using less
gasoline.6 Thus, most U.S. residents want
to make behavioral changes that reduce
their greenhouse gas emissions and many
believe they are doing so.
The most extensive research on what
consumers believe about the energy-
saving potential of household actions was
conducted around the energy crises of the
late 1970s and early 1980s. For example,
a team at Michigan State University asked
WWW.ENVIRONMENTMAGAZINE.ORG
400 randomly selected Michigan residents
how much they paid per year in home ener-
gy bills, which actions could save on these
costs, and how much they believed they
could save by each action.7 Their responses
were compared with the estimates of home
energy specialists. Householder and expert
estimates often diverged, sometimes by
a factor of four. Householders empha-
sized highly visible actions that can reduce
energy 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-
ed how much energy these actions could
save. Average householders saw most of
the potential for energy savings in curtail-
ment—cutting back on normal and desired
activities—whereas the energy experts saw
the greatest potential in efficiency—invest-
ing in home equipment that lowers energy
costs 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
Carter—who took energy efficiency seri-
VOLUME 50 NUMBER 5
ously—once 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
of 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
does little to counteract the idea that
saving energy is mainly about curtail-
Advice often reinforces
householders’ misconceptions
about how much impact their
actions have on the environment.
ment. Further, this information is not in
a form that is likely to lead to action. For
example, Al Gore’s 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
on mainly technological solutions. Spe-
cific individual and household actions
appeared only briefly, superimposed on
the credits at the end of the film. Given
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008
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-
ent 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-
cated 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
go [a]round the country and I meet people,
they say to me, ‘Look, if we knew what we
could do to make a difference to helping the
planet, then we would do it.’”12
An informal survey of books and arti-
cles 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
of recommended actions. For example,
The Live Earth Global Warming Sur-
vival Handbook,13 the 160-page “official
companion to the Live Earth Concerts,”
offers 77 “essential skills to stop climate
change” 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.”
WWW.ENVIRONMENTMAGAZINE.ORG
The 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.
There are many other such examples.15
When people are faced with a laundry
list of advice, they may feel confused and
overwhelmed, and consequently take no
action, or they may carry out one or two
actions—probably the easiest to remember
and perform. However, the behaviors that
are easiest to remember and perform, for
example, turning out lights when leaving
rooms, tend to have minimal impact on cli-
mate change. Thus, long and unranked lists
of 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
much impact their actions are having
on 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
essential skill #14: “Green Your Home,”
which includes installing or upgrading insu-
lation and buying Energy Star appliances).
The reader can judge the appropriateness
of the remaining essential skills, includ-
ing, compost your kitchen waste using
worms (#13), build a bat house (#44),
and “if all else fails…buy a camel” (#68).
Similarly, only five of Time’s 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
ENVIRONMENT 15
check your tires) involve actions that the message repeatedly through multiple The Most Effective Actions
increase energy efficiency. The emphasis is media outlets, using sources that are cred-
not being put on the most effective actions. ible to target audiences.16 Where possible, A behavioral analysis of U.S. energy
The failures of past communication cam- the messages should arrive when audience consumption yields a short, ordered list
paigns for energy conservation and the members are poised to make choices about that shows the most effective immediate
failures and successes of public health the issue the message addresses (for exam- and low- or no-cost actions individuals
communication show that it is much more ple, in public health, in the doctor’s office and households can take, as well the most
effective to focus campaigns on a very or at the cigarette counter). A necessary effective actions with higher initial costs.
small number of specific actions that can first step is to identify which actions are the Although this analysis is new, the method
make a real difference and disseminate most effective. used to conduct it is not.17 The analysis,
based on U.S. government statistics, is pre-
Table 1. Percentage of total U.S. individual/household energy sented in terms of energy consumption and
conservation rather than carbon emissions
consumed by end use, ranked in order of magnitude, 2005
and reductions. However, 84.9 percent of
End use Percent total energy consumed in the United States
Transportation and 86.0 percent of energy consumed by
Private motor vehicles 38.6 U.S. individuals and households results
Air travel 3.4 from carbon-emitting fossil fuel combus-
tion. Further, carbon emissions and energy
Mass transportation and other 1.4
consumption are highly correlated by eco-
Subtotal 43.4 nomic sector: households and individuals
In-home uses (excluding transportation) consume 21.7
Space heating 18.8 percent of total U.S. energy and generate
21.1 percent of total U.S. carbon emis-
Air conditioning 6.2
sions; industries consume 32.4 percent of
(Space conditioning subtotal 25.0) total energy and generate 28.3 percent of
Water heating* 6.5 total carbon emissions; commercial and
Lighting 6.1 service establishments consume 17.8 per-
cent energy and generate 17.7 percent of
Refrigeration and freezing 4.3
carbon; and all transportation consumes
Electric (heating elements, small 3.9 28.1 percent energy and generates 32.9
appliances, and small motors)
percent of carbon.18
Clothes washing/drying* 2.5
Color TVs 2.5 Energy Consumption by Sector
Cooking 1.5
Households and individuals, at home
Computers 0.6
and in nonbusiness travel, consume 38.0
Propane and natural gas (swimming 0.5 percent of total energy in the United States,
pool heaters, grills, and lamps) more than the industrial sector alone (32.5
Dishwashers 0.2 percent), and the commercial/service (17.8
Other 3.0 percent) and nonhousehold transportation
Subtotal 56.6 (11.7 percent) sectors combined.19 The per-
centage for households and individuals has
Total 100.0
increased from 32.4 percent in 2000.20
*
Hot water for “Clothes washing” is included under “Water heating.”
NOTE: Please see Environment’s Web site, www.environmentmagazine.org, for a
description of calculation strategies and methods and a complete list of sources.

16 ENVIRONMENT WWW.ENVIRONMENTMAGAZINE.ORG VOLUME 50 NUMBER 5

Energy Consumption
by End Use
Table 1 on page 16 shows the estimat-
ed percentage of total energy consumed
by American individuals and house-
holds for different end uses in 2005,
divided 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
dishwashers. This contrast draws imme-
diate 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 18–19 presents the
energy-saving potential of 27 different
actions individuals and/or households can
take. The actions were drawn from a survey
of popular guides mentioned above, includ-
ing An Inconvenient Truth, as well as gov-
ernment 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
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008
miles-per-hour). Actions in the right
column involve adopting more energy-
efficient equipment or installing or
maintaining efficiency-boosting modi-
fications to existing energy equipment
(for example, buying a more fuel-
efficient motor vehicle and keeping
one’s motor vehicle in tune and its tires
correctly inflated).
As noted at the bottom of Table 2, the
estimates 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
Messages about the seriousness of
global warming have a poor track
record of producing measurable
behavioral change by themselves.
household energy consumption can be
saved by upgrading the attic insulation.
Efficiency versus Curtailment
A comparison of energy saved by
curtailment and by increased efficiency in
Table 2 reveals that efficiency-improving
actions generally save more energy—and
reduce carbon emissions more—than
curtailing use of intrinsically inefficient
equipment. 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
or errand trips, and altering driving habits
WWW.ENVIRONMENTMAGAZINE.ORG
in an existing gasoline-inefficient motor
vehicle. This general finding challenges
the belief that energy savings entail
curtailment and sacrifice of amenities.
Not only is efficiency generally more
effective than curtailment, but it has
the important psychological advantage
of requiring only one or a few actions.
Curtailment actions must be repeated
continuously over time to achieve their
optimal effect, whereas efficiency-
boosting actions, taken infrequently
or only once, have lasting effects with
little need for continuing attention and
effort. 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
one saves energy for its useful life, while
turning down the thermostat at night
requires establishing a new behavioral
habit or purchasing and learning to
operate 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
energy-efficient equipment often provides
a good financial return on the initial cost,
few people compare the return on energy
efficiency with the returns from a savings
ENVIRONMENT 17
 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 other Up to 4.2 Buy a more fuel-efficient 13.5
person automobile (30.7 vs. 20 mpg
EPA average-adjusted
composite)
Alter driving (avoid sudden Up to 3.2 Get frequent tune-ups, 3.9
acceleration and stops) including air filter changes
Combine errand trips to one- Up to 2.7 Buy low-rolling resistance tires 1.5
half of current mileage
Cut highway speed from 70 to Up to 2.4 Maintain correct tire pressure 1.2
60 mph
Inside the home
Heating and air
conditioning
Heat: Turn down thermostat from 2.8 Heat: Install/upgrade attic Up to 5.0
72° F to 68° F during the day insulation and ventilation1
and to 65° F during the night
A/C: Turn up thermostat from 0.6 A/C: Install/upgrade attic Up to 2.0
73° F to 78° F insulation and ventilation1
Subtotal 3.4 Up to 7
Heat: Install a more efficient 2.9
heating unit (92 percent
efficient)
A/C: Install a more efficient 2.2
A/C unit (SEER 13 or EER 12)
Subtotal 5.1
Heat: Replace poor windows Up to 2.8
with high-efficiency windows
A/C: Replace poor windows Up to 0.9
with high-efficiency windows
Subtotal Up to 3.7
Heat: Caulk/weather-strip home Up to 1.9
A/C: Caulk/weather-strip home Up to 0.6
Subtotal Up to 2.5
Space conditioning subtotal Up to 18.3

18 ENVIRONMENT WWW.ENVIRONMENTMAGAZINE.ORG VOLUME 50 NUMBER 5

 Table 2, continued
Curtailment Energy saved (percent) Increased efficiency Energy saved (percent)
Water heating
Turn down water heater 0.7 Install a more efficient water 1.5
thermostat from 140° F to 120° F heater (EFS .7 unit)
Lighting
Do not leave one 60-watt bulb 0.5 Replace 85 percent of all 4.0
on all night incandescent bulbs with equally
bright compact fluorescent bulbs
Replace two 100-watt kitchen 0.3
bulbs with 75-watt bulbs
Refrigeration/freezing
Turn up the refrigerator 0.5 Install a more efficient unit 1.9
thermostat from 33° F to 38° F (replace a 19–21.4 cubic feet
and the freezer thermostat from top-freezer unit bought between
–5° F to 0° F 1993 and 2000 with a new
Energy Star unit)
Clothes washing and drying
Change washer temperature 1.2 Install a more efficient washer 1.1
settings from hot wash, warm (replace a 2001 or older non–
rinse to warm wash, cold rinse Energy Star washer with a new
Energy Star unit)
Line-dry clothing (do not use 1.1
dryer) 5 months of the year
Color TV
Watch 25 percent fewer hours 0.6 Purchase (or trade in) 52” 1.3
of TV each day Projection HD TV instead of a
48” Plasma HD TV
1
Roughly 80 percent of older homes are underinsulated, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. “Save Hundreds on
Energy 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 the
action. 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 also
installed. The estimates in the “Increased Efficiency” column assume that consumers replace old equipment when 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 by using the more efficient equipment is cancelled out by the energy used to manufacture the new
equipment. Data for electric heating elements, small appliances, and small motors could not be disaggregated for further
analysis.
Please see Environment’s Web site, www.environmentmagazine.org, for a description of calculation strategies and methods
and a complete list of sources.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008 WWW.ENVIRONMENTMAGAZINE.ORG ENVIRONMENT 19

account or mutual fund. Also, it can be
quite difficult for an individual to estimate
Table 3. The Short List: Percentage of current total
the return—and even if it is financially U.S. individual/household energy consumption potentially
attractive, funds are still necessary to make saved, by action effectiveness
the purchase. Moreover, most people do Action Energy saved (percent)
not keep homes or motor vehicles for their
For all individuals and households
entire useful lives, so they may pay the full
Immediate low-cost/no-cost actions
cost of efficiency improvements without
getting the full return. With rental housing, Transportation
efficiency improvements must typically be 1. Carpool to work with one other person Up to 4.2
purchased by the owner, while the renter 2. Get frequent tune-ups, including air filter 3.9
receives the savings. These considerations changes
indicate that there are significant psycho- 3. Alter driving (avoid sudden acceleration and Up to 3.2
logical, economic, and institutional barri- stops)
ers to improved energy efficiency that are
4. Combine errand trips to one-half current Up to 2.7
not present for curtailment. In the current mileage
policy context, individuals and households
5. Cut highway speed from 70 to 60 mph Up to 2.4
are left to find ways to overcome these
barriers. Finally, curtailment and efficiency 6. Maintain correct tire pressure 1.2
do not represent an “either-or” choice. In Potential savings subtotal Up to 17.6
motor vehicle and some in-home energy Inside the home
uses, some curtailment actions can pro-
1. Lighting: Replace 85 percent of all 4.0
vide significant immediate savings and
incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent
should not be overlooked. Thus, house- bulbs
holds can benefit from the most effective
2. Space conditioning: 3.4
actions of both types. Table 3 on pages
Heat: Turn down thermostat from 72° F to
20–21 presents a simple guide for con- 68° F during the day and to 65° F at night
sidering both curtailment and efficiency- A/C: Turn up thermostat from 73° F
increasing actions. to 78° F
3. Clothes washing: Use only warm (or cold) 1.2
wash, cold rinse setting
The Short List of Effective
Potential savings subtotal 8.6
Actions
Potential savings subtotal for nine Up to 26.2
Examination of Table 2 reveals a small actions listed
number of practical actions individu- For all individuals and households
als and households can take to achieve Longer-term, higher-cost actions
the greatest savings of energy and car- Transportation
bon emissions. Table 3, based on Table 1. Buy low-rolling resistance tires 1.5
2, prioritizes actions in a few simple
2. Buy a more fuel-efficient automobile (30.7 13.5
categories. It stands in contrast to com-
vs. 20 mpg EPA average-adjusted composite)
mon laundry lists by providing a short,
prioritized, accurate, accessible, and Potential savings subtotal for two actions 15.0
actionable list of the most effective house- listed
hold actions to help limit climate change.

20 ENVIRONMENT WWW.ENVIRONMENTMAGAZINE.ORG VOLUME 50 NUMBER 5

 The first nine actions in Table 3 can be
Table 3, continued
taken with little or no initial monetary cost.
Action Energy saved (percent) Six of the actions involve curtailment; three
For homeowners: Inside the home (getting frequent tune-ups, mantaining cor-
Immediate low-cost action rect tire pressure, and using CFL bulbs)
involve efficiency increases. Individuals or
1. Space conditioning: Caulk/weather-strip Up to 2.5
home
households who can do all nine actions can
potentially save up to about one-quarter
Immediate higher-cost action of their total direct energy consumption
1. Space conditioning: Install/upgrade attic Up to 7.0 and a roughly comparable proportion of
insulation and ventilation1 carbon emissions. The next eight actions,
Potential savings subtotal for two actions Up to 9.5 all involving efficiency increases, gener-
listed ally require greater initial expense than
Longer-term, higher-cost actions the first nine. Buying one of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency’s top 20 fuel-
1. Space conditioning: Install a more efficient 2.9
heating unit (92 percent efficiency) efficient motor vehicles, or installing or
upgrading attic insulation can save more
2. Space conditioning: Install a more efficient 2.2
energy than any of the other actions in the
A/C unit (SEER 13 or EER 12 units)
table. The eight higher cost, efficiency-
3. Refrigeration/freezing: Install a more 1.9 increasing actions together can potentially
efficient unit (replace a 19–21.4 cubic foot save up to about one-third of total indi-
top-freezer unit bought between 1993 and
vidual/household energy consumption and
2000 with a new Energy Star unit)
carbon emissions. Individuals or house-
4. Water heating: Install a more efficient water 1.5 holds who can take all 17 listed actions
heater (EFS .7 unit)
can potentially cut their consumption and
Potential savings subtotal for four 8.5 emissions by half.
actions listed Table 3 is a guide to priority setting,
Total potential savings for all six Up to 18.0 not a prediction. Although the savings
homeowner actions listed2 estimates are only approximations, they
1
Roughly 80 percent of older homes are underinsulated, according to the U.S. can help households differentiate between
Department of Energy. “Save Hundreds on Energy Costs,” Consumer Reports, high- and low-impact actions. Readers
October 2007, 27. can consider the first item in each cat-
2
Approximately 67 percent U.S. households owned their homes in 2005. egory to be the most energy-saving action
possible and give it top priority if it has
NOTES: The potential savings listed in this table apply only to individuals and
households that have not already taken the action. Adding up savings across
not already been taken and is possible
actions can overestimate aggregate savings because of interactions between to take. By going item-by-item down
some actions. For example, the energy saved by caulking/weather-stripping a the table, householders are guided to
home will be less if a more fuel-efficient furnace is also installed. The estimates in where the greatest potential savings lie for
the “Increased Efficiency” column assume that consumers replace old equipment them specifically. The table gives proper
when it wears out rather than discarding functioning equipment. If consumers attention to relevant efficiency-increas-
replace equipment before the end of its useful life, part of the energy they save by ing actions, which are often overlooked
using the more efficient equipment is cancelled out by the energy used to by individuals and households and given
manufacture the new equipment. short shrift in popular guides to action.
Please see Environment’s Web site, www.environmentmagazine.org, Notes for It should be emphasized that actual sav-
Table 3, for data entry sources. ings may be greater or less than Table 3

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008 WWW.ENVIRONMENTMAGAZINE.ORG ENVIRONMENT 21

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?
The sum of savings estimates for the 17
actions—58.2 percent—is an overestimate
for several reasons. First, it applies only to
Efficiency-improving actions
generally save more energy
than curtailing use of intrinsically
inefficient equipment.
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 equipment’s 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 suggest
that aggregated nationwide adoption of all
22 ENVIRONMENT
the actions not yet taken in Table 3 would
yield a decrease of about 30 percent in U.S.
individual and/or household energy con-
sumption and carbon emissions—still a huge
potential.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
detailed analysis. Such an analysis can be
provided by an energy audit that includes
calculations based on the household’s actu-
al home and one of the household “carbon
calculators” now available. However, good
energy audits, which are conducted by
professional auditors, are expensive, and
carbon 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
effort, individual and household behavior
can 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
can do to reduce their energy use and
carbon footprints. National policy should
develop and validate simple guides, such
as Table 3, and disseminate them using
WWW.ENVIRONMENTMAGAZINE.ORG
established communication principles. It
should also include making more nuanced,
household-specific information widely
available—for example, by supporting the
provision of credible, convenient, and low-
cost household and travel energy audits
and carbon calculators. Improvements to
existing appliance certification and label-
ing programs (to compare products in
different classes or find the most efficient
Energy Star appliances more easily) and
new rating and labeling systems for the
energy cost of ownership of new homes
are also desirable initiatives. Federal, state,
and local governments and various non-
governmental organizations can carry out
these initiatives. As with current appliance
labeling programs, federal agencies can
develop and validate information about
manufactured equipment and provide for
its distribution by businesses to consum-
ers. Local governments and consumer
organizations might be best for providing
assurance about the quality of private ener-
gy auditors and the vendors and installers
of household energy technology.
But information alone—even much
more useful information than is currently
available—is not enough to induce behav-
ior change, especially for many efficiency
increases that involve significant initial
monetary costs. There are major barri-
ers 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
options 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-
conditioning efficiency can yield major sav-
VOLUME 50 NUMBER 5
ings, but many households lack the funds
needed to make the investments. Renters
cannot install such upgrades, and buyers of
existing or newly built homes usually can-
not choose the efficiency of heating and air-
conditioning equipment and insulation.
Even when people can afford major
efficiency improvements, many may be
inhibited by the logistical difficulties of
arranging and scheduling the multiple
contractors that may be needed to install
space-conditioning equipment, insulation,
and storm windows and doors. Even low-
or no-cost actions compete for people’s
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
of hiring someone to find the most cost-
effective savings opportunities, contract for
the needed work, and ensure its quality. Few
households are in this position, and people
know it intuitively. Research conducted
during the last U.S. energy crisis in the late
1970s demonstrates that the difficulty and
inconvenience of identifying and taking
effective energy-saving steps was a major
barrier to action, even when utility compa-
nies offered to rebate households a majority
of the cost of major home retrofits.24
Multicomponent programs are needed
to encourage energy savings, especially
when the initial costs are nontrivial. Edu-
cation and information are important, and
ideally should include household-specific
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008
information, such as professional home
energy 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
creative possibilities exist in this sector,
including incentives targeted to interme-
diaries; 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-
gy cost of ownership. Convenience and
credibility enhancements, such as provid-
ing free and trustworthy energy audits and
lists of approved contractors and help in
securing low-cost financing and inspection
of completed work, can be very important
for overcoming the nonmonetary barriers
to cost-effective investments in energy
efficiency. Programs that offered this sort
of one-stop shopping during the energy
crisis 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-
grams from the early 1980s found that
financial incentives to reduce up-front
costs motivated more households to
retrofit, but the strongest results by far came
when incentives were combined with non-
financial interventions that strongly market-
ed the programs and made it convenient for
households to take advantage of the incen-
tives. These nonfinancial features were
critical even with the strongest financial
incentives, which were offered under the
U.S. Department of Energy’s Bonneville
Power Administration’s 20-month Interim
Residential Weatherization Program from
1982–83. Seven participating utility com-
panies in the Pacific Northwest offered an
WWW.ENVIRONMENTMAGAZINE.ORG
identical package of home energy audits
and financial grants to participating home-
owners 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
year, but there was tremendous variation
across the utilities, with rates ranging from
1.4–19.3 percent per year, depending on
how a utility marketed and implemented
its version of the program—a difference
between getting all the homes retrofitted in
about 70 years or 5 years.26
Community-based efforts that use infor-
mal social networks to help spread the
word—for example, neighborhood coopera-
tion in a campaign to caulk and weather-strip
homes—can make multicomponent pro-
grams more effective.27 Finally, there is room
for regulatory approaches, such as tightening
standards for energy equipment, especially
home insulation and water-heaters where
energy efficiency is a major but invisible
product attribute.
Rapidly rising prices for oil and other
energy 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
not 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
benefit—even if they want to. Achieving
change quickly and effectively depends
on combining information, incentives, and
other policy approaches with sensitivity to
how householders think and the many fac-
tors that influence their choices.
ENVIRONMENT 23
Gerald T. Gardner is professor emeritus of psychology
at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. His areas of
expertise include how behavioral science applies to the
understanding of global and regional environmental
problems and human behavior and public policy. He
may be reached at ggardner@umich.edu. Paul C. Stern
is director of the Committee on the Human Dimensions
of Global Climate Change at the National Research
Council, 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 pstern@nas.edu. Gardner and Stern first collaborated
on research in 1979–1980 when they were both visiting
research fellows at the interdisciplinary Program on
Energy and Behavior at Yale University’s Institution
for Social and Policy Studies. They acknowledge the
great benefits to their research and general outlook they
received from participation in the program.
This article is the work of the authors. It does not
represent 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 greenhouse
gas.” S. Pacala and R. Socolow, “Stabilization Wedges:
Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years
with Current Technologies,” Science 280, no. 5686 (13
August 2004): 968–72.
2. “Global Carbon Emissions, By Country,” BBC
News, 7 December 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi
/in_depth/629/629/7133036.stm (accessed 5 May 2008).
3. S. Nadel, A. Shipley, and R. N. Elliot, “The
Technical, Economic and Achievable Potential for
Energy-Efficiency in the U.S.—A Meta-Analysis of
Recent Studies,” Proceedings of the 2004 ACEEE
Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Pacific
Grove, CA, 22–27 August 2004, http://www.aceee
.org/conf/04ss/rnemeta.pdf (accessed 5 May 2008);
D. Pimentel et al., “US Energy Conservation and
Efficiency: Benefits and Costs,” Environment,
Development and Sustainability 6, no. 3 (2004): 279–305;
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).
4. P. C. Stern and G. T. Gardner, “Psychological
Research and Energy Policy,” American Psychologist
36, no. 4 (1981): 329–42; G. T. Gardner and P. C.
Stern, Environmental Problems and Human Behavior
(Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1996), 253–76; and
G. T. Gardner and P. C. Stern, Environmental Problems
and Human Behavior, 2nd Edition (Boston, MA: Pear-
son Custom Publishing, 2002), 253–76.
5. Gardner and Stern (2002), note 4, pages 74–124.
6. P. Aldous, “Global Warming: The Buck Stops
Here (Special Report),” New Scientist 194, no. 2609 (20
June 2007): 16–19; A. Leiserowitz, American Opinions
on Global Warming: Summary (New Haven, CT:
Yale University School of Forestry & Environmental
24 ENVIRONMENT
Studies, 2007), http://environment.yale.edu/news
/Research/5310/american-opinions-on-global-warming
-summary/ (accessed 20 June 2008); Pew Research
Center for the People & the Press, A Deeper Partisan
Divide Over Global Warming (Washington, DC: Pew
Research 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-
ing Worries (Washington, DC: Gallup, 2008), http://www
.gallup.com/poll/106660/Little-Increase-Americans
-Global-Warming-worries.aspx (accessed 20 June 2008);
and P. Novelli, What Are Americans Thinking and
Doing about Global Warming? Results of a National
Household Survey (Fairfax, VA: Center of Excellence
in Climate Change Communication Research, George
Mason University, 2008), including unpublished results
from this survey, http://www.porternovelli.com/site/pdfs
/PN_GMU_Climate_Change_Report.pdf (accessed 20
June 2008).
7. W. Kempton, C. Harris, J. Keith, and J. Weihl,
“Do Consumers Know ‘What Works’ in Energy Con-
servation?” Marriage and Family Review 9, no. 1/2
(1985): 115–33.
8. Edward W. Maibach, professor, Center for Cli-
mate Change Communication, George Mason Univer-
sity, 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
936A35753C1A966958260 (accessed 12 July 2008).
10. D. Hickman, “Conservation Doesn’t Enrich
Cheney’s 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
4, chapter 9.
12. C. Morton and G. Lean, “Live Earth: One
Big Gesture for Humans, One Giant Problem for the
Earth,” The Independent (UK), 8 July 2007, http://www
.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/live
-earth-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 Warming
Survival Handbook (New York: Rodale Press, 2007).
14. “51 Things We Can Do to Save the Environment:
The Global Warming Survival Guide,” Time, 9 April
2007, 69–100.
15. Two other examples are M. O’Neill, “84 Ways
You Can Help the Planet” The Boston Globe Sunday
Magazine, 18 November 2007, 50; and J. Javna, S.
Javna, and J. Javna, 50 Simple Things You Can Do to
Save the Earth, Revised Edition (New York: Hyperion
Books, 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 Environmental
Issues,” in T. Dietz and P. C. Stern, eds., New Tools for
Environmental Protection: Education, Information and
Voluntary Measures (Washington, DC: New Academic
Press, 2002): 105–24.
17. Stern and Gardner, note 4; Gardner and Stern
(1996), note 4, chapter 10; and Gardner and Stern
(2002), note 4, chapter 10.
WWW.ENVIRONMENTMAGAZINE.ORG
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 February
2008), see Tables 2.1b, 2.1e, 2.1f, and 3. Please see
Environment’s Web site, environmentmagazine.org,
Additional Information on Table 1 of this article for
additional sources.
19. U.S. government statistics and databases,
including those of the Environmental Protection Agen-
cy (EPA), DOE, and Department of Transportation
(DOT), almost always treat transportation energy
consumption and greenhouse gas production in a
single block and do not distinguish travel for house-
hold purposes from travel for business (industrial
and commercial) purposes. Our strategy for statisti-
cally dividing transportation energy into individual/
household and nonindividual/household portions is
described in a note to Table 1. U.S. Department
of 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 Bureau
of Transportation Statistics, DOT, National Transpor-
tation Statistics 2007 (Washington, DC, 2007), http://
www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_
statistics, (accessed 12 February 2008).
20. Gardner and Stern (2002), note 4, page 258.
21. Nadel, Shipley, Elliot, note 3; Pimentel et al.,
note 3; and U.S. Greenhouse Gas Abatement Mapping
Initiative, note 3.
22. J. P. Padgett, A. C. Steinemann, J. H. Clarke,
and M. P. Vandenbergh, “A Comparison of Carbon
Calculators,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review
28 (2008): 106–15.
23. Gardner and Stern (2002), note 4, pages 74–124.
24. 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
2008); and P. C. Stern et al., “The Effectiveness of
Incentives for Residential Energy Conservation,” Evalu-
ation Review 10 (1986): 147–76.
25. P. C. Stern, J. S. Black, and J. T. Elworth, Home
Energy Conservation: Programs and Strategies for
the 1980s (Mount Vernon, NY: Institute for Consumer
Policy Research, Consumers Union Foundation, 1981);
NRC, note 24, chapter 3; and Stern et al., note 24.
26. NRC, note 24, chapter 3; D. I. Lerman and B.
H. Bronfman, Process Evaluation of the Bonneville
Power Administration Interim Residential Weather-
ization Program, ORNL/CON-158 (Oak Ridge, TN:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory); and Stern et al.,
note 24.
27. Gardner and Stern (2002), note 4, pages 125–74.
®
VOLUME 50 NUMBER 5