On energy efficiency, conservation, and the behavioral economics of Republicans

I’ve been working on a response to Christine Harbin’s op-ed on Missouri’s green energy sales tax holiday over at the Show-Me Institute. This paragraph particularly stood out to me:

…Acquiring a more fuel-efficient new appliance could also encourage the purchaser to wash dishes and laundry more frequently than before, which means that the overall decrease in energy usage may be much smaller than anticipated — or could even increase. If usage does drop as a result of sanctioned purchases, however, the reduction in overall Missouri energy usage will still be minimal at best unless every Missouri resident purchases a new appliance during the week that rebates are offered.

The assertion that the consumers might respond to increased energy efficiency of course is not a new one, and there is some empirical backing for that claim. This study conducted with Opower suggests that political affiliation may play a role in how consumers respond to these programs. Specifically, conservatives seem to be the single group that increases their energy consumption in spite of (or maybe to spite) efforts to increase the conservation of energy:

In a study evaluating the program’s effectiveness, Opower researchers compared power use before and after the HER reports began arriving, and further compared this change with a group of control households that never received the reports. On average, the HER households reduced their consumption in the months that followed by a little less than 2 percent. Not bad, but probably not enough to save the planet.

Working with the same utility as Opower, Costa and Kahn matched up information on the households in the pilot study to data on political affiliations and a database of past charitable giving to environmental organizations. The economists found that the 2 percent average decline in energy use obscured significant differences in the responsiveness of different types of households to the conservation message. Registered Democrats who give to environmental organizations and live near other liberals reduced their consumption by 3 percent. For liberals who started out as heavier-than-average consumers, the reduction was almost 6 percent. Republicans who live in conservative neighborhoods (and hence had no neighborly pressure to conserve) and had no record of giving to environmental organizations actually increased their consumption by 1 percent.

Why would some energy-conscious Republicans all of a sudden become power hogs? One explanation is that many conservatives don’t believe that burning energy harms the planet, so when they learn that they’re better than average, they become less vigilant about turning the lights off. That is, they’re simply moving closer to what they now know is the norm (what psychologists call the boomerang effect). Costa and Kahn also look for guidance from the patron saint of right-wing fundamentalists, Rush Limbaugh, who encouraged his listeners to turn on all their lights during Earth Hour. Costa and Kahn suggest that ardently right-wing electricity customers might respond to paternalistic nudges by burning more energy, just to thumb their noses at Big Brother.

H/T: MarginalRevolution.

About these ads
Tagged , , ,

4 thoughts on “On energy efficiency, conservation, and the behavioral economics of Republicans

  1. Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by eapenthampy: On energy efficiency, conservation, and the behavioral economics of Republicans http://bit.ly/cR0w3Y

  2. Caitlin says:

    Where is that three paragraph block quote from? I clicked on the link “this study” and it didn’t lead anywhere, and the link “study” linked to a study, but it did not contain those paragraphs (as far as I could tell, it never once mentioned “Opower” or “Rush Limbaugh.”) I’m assuming that means you found it elsewhere? (Or else the “this study” link is just broken?)

    Maybe that link will help elucidate it for me, but I wasn’t sure what your thesis was here. You don’t disagree with what Chrissy said? You just wanted to bash conservatives? Just curious.

  3. Eapen Thampy says:

    The study link was broken but is now fixed. Christine Harbin seems have figured out a simple way to track the paragraph by googling it, would have lead you to a Slate article. I’ll replicate the link here to avoid further confusion: http://www.slate.com/id/2251658

  4. Eapen Thampy says:

    As far as bashing conservatives, anyone who takes Rush Limbaugh seriously is, well, you know…judge for yourself: http://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: