Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Commentary

Politics shapes individual choices about energy efficiency

Thomas Dietz, Christina Leshko, and Aaron M. McCright
PNAS June 4, 2013 110 (23) 9191-9192; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1307484110
Thomas Dietz
aEnvironmental Science and Policy Program, Department of Sociology, Animal Studies Program, Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: tdietz@msu.edu
Christina Leshko
bDepartment of Sociology, Environmental Science and Policy Program and Animal Studies Program, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aaron M. McCright
cLyman Briggs College, Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48864
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

See related content:

  • Political ideology and energy efficiency
    - Apr 29, 2013
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Addressing climate change effectively will require policy actions by both government and the private sector. However, individuals’ actions matter as well. Individuals’ consumption decisions can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions (1) and political support from citizens is necessary (although not sufficient) for implementing policy. Until now, most research has treated environmentally significant consumption and political support for the environment as separate issues (2). However, as Gromet et al. make clear in PNAS, merging these robust but separate streams of research can provide useful insights (3). They show that political orientation—where one falls on the spectrum from liberalism to conservatism—influences both support for energy-efficiency policy and the decision to purchase an energy-efficient product.

Politics of Policy Support

Well-funded campaigns have questioned the toxicity of lead, the health risks of tobacco, the effects of acid precipitation on ecosystems, and most recently, the reality of climate change (4, 5). The result has been delay in adopting public policy to address these problems. Conservatives have been the most receptive to questioning the reality of climate change so that over the last decade, the link between conservatism and climate change denial has strengthened (6, 7).

Scientists are frustrated by the strong effect of politics on public views about climate change. However, we acknowledge that many lay citizens have neither the time nor the scientific background to assess climate change research. Instead, many people rely on trusted sources of information. Public trust in the scientific community remains high, although it is becoming polarized, with trust declining among conservatives (8). However, political messages signaling a lack of scientific consensus may effectively bypass trust in science; if scientists don’t agree, then trust in science is irrelevant.

Gromet et al. (3) show that conservatives don’t support energy efficiency when it is framed as a means of reducing carbon emissions. Survey respondents seem to be

Gromet et al. remind us that policy support and consumer decisions depend not only on facts, but also on values.

sending a political signal about climate change in their answers to questions about energy efficiency. When views on climate change were taken into account, conservatism actually led to greater support for energy independence and reducing energy costs. Thus, conservatives are not opposed to energy efficiency per se; rather, they are opposed to energy efficiency linked to climate change. This parallels a similar finding by Whitfield et al., whereby environmentalism leads to greater support for nuclear power, but only when mistrust of the institutions that manage nuclear power is taken into account (9).

Politics of Consumer Choice

Individuals affect the climate via their roles both as consumers and as citizens (2). About 38% of overall United States greenhouse gas emissions are from direct energy consumption by United States households (1). Additional emissions are embedded in the consumption of food, water, and other materials. Decades of research suggest that there is an energy-efficiency gap; it would be in the economic interest of households to consume less energy than they do. The gap is a result of decision-making processes that deviate substantially from standard models of utility maximization (10, 11) and from policies that are intended to promote efficiency, but that are poorly designed (12).

Gromet et al. (3) show one kind of deviation from conventional utility maximization: including political considerations in consumption choices. When a product—a compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulb in their experiment—had a “Protect the Environment” label, political moderates and conservatives were less likely to purchase it than when no environmental signal was given. Labeling did not affect the odds of a purchase by liberals. However, political orientation had an influence only when there was a substantial price difference between an energy-efficient and a conventional product. When both incandescent bulbs and CFLs had identical prices, the more efficient product was almost always preferred regardless of political orientation or environmental label.

There is a logic to these decisions. It is hard to calculate if a difference in initial price between a conventional and a CFL bulb is balanced by lower operating costs of the CFL bulb. In the equal-price situation, no calculation was needed: the more efficient product was seen as more desirable by nearly everyone. However, when there is a premium to be paid for efficiency, signaling a product as “green” may make some consumers skeptical about its economic payoff and perhaps also increase the salience of the symbolic value of the purchase.

What Next?

Gromet et al. (3) raise important questions about the interplay among values, political views, and the decisions we make as citizens and consumers. Like any initial integration of two distinct literatures, Gromet et al.’s work calls for replication and raises important questions. Do their results generalize to different sorts of environmentally consequential choices and to different political cultures? Can we develop a more integrative theory of environmentally significant behaviors? Linking the role of consumer and citizen is an initial step toward such a theory (2). Values, beliefs, norms, personal identity, trust, and political ideology each have been shown to influence environmental decision-making (13⇓–15). How do these factors work together in shaping decisions? How are these effects conditioned by socio-demographic characteristics, such as sex, ethnicity, and education? How do social networks influence environmental decision-making, and how are networks in turn shaped by our tendency to seek like-minded individuals and avoid those who differ from us (16, 17)?

Are there other kinds of consumer choice where political orientation and values are important? We know that ideology and gender are strongly related to views about environmental and technological risk (18). Perhaps ideology and related values, norms, beliefs, trust, and identities influence both risk behaviors and support for risk-reduction policies broadly. Smoking, dietary choices, and the use of motorcycle helmets and automobile seat belts might provide a rich test bed for examining how our roles as consumers and as citizens intersect.

The implications of Gromet et al.’s (3) results for policy are suggestive, but further work is warranted before we develop policy design principles (12). Should environmental benefits be mentioned in campaigns to promote energy efficiency? Although Gromet et al. found a negative effect of such labels for conservatives when price difference was large, they found no effect when the prices for the two alternative products were equal. Thus, sound design of energy efficiency programs and other proenvironmental actions should take into account the price differences at which environmental signaling becomes important. Price matters, but it is not all that matters (11). And although environmental labeling did not increase the purchase probability of energy-efficient bulbs for those on the left, in this case the label may not have an impact because the environmental benefits of CFLs are well known. Perhaps green labeling would encourage purchases by liberals and others when product features are less well known (19). Then green labeling may increase purchase probability for some and decrease it for others. Effective policy design would have to assess the net impact of environmental signaling by taking into account both the sizes of the labeling effects and the sizes of the populations positively and negative affected.

Finally, Gromet et al. remind us that policy support and consumer decisions depend not only on facts, but also on values (3). Public discourse on climate change is usually framed as a debate about facts, especially about the state of the science (5, 20). But often our disagreements arise from differing values and interests. In the face of such conflict, our best course forward is to identify actions that are acceptable to multiple—and even conflicting—interests and values. We are unlikely to come to such agreements unless we analyze and discuss the concerns that underpin our conflicts. The science of climate change cannot be limited to an understanding of the biophysical earth system; it must also examine the human concerns that drive and will be affected by climate change, and help us to find mechanisms by which we can engage both the facts and our diverse values and interests.

Acknowledgments

The authors' research drawn on for this commentary was funded in part by Michigan AgBio Research of Michigan State University, the Michigan State University Office of the Vice President for Research, and Graduate Study and National Science Foundation Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Grant 1123762.

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: tdietz{at}msu.edu.
  • Author contributions: T.D., C.L., and A.M.M. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • See companion article on page 9314.

View Abstract

References

  1. ↵
    1. Dietz T,
    2. Gardner GT,
    3. Gilligan J,
    4. Stern PC,
    5. Vandenbergh MP
    (2009) Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(44):18452–18456.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Stern PC
    (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56(3):407–424.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    1. Gromet DM,
    2. Kunreuther H,
    3. Larrick RP
    (2013) Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:9314–9319.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Michaels D
    (2008) Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health (Oxford Univ Press, New York).
  5. ↵
    1. McCright AM,
    2. Dunlap RE
    (2010) Anti-reflexivity: The American conservative movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory Cult Soc 27(2–3):100–133.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Hamilton LC
    (2010) Education, politics, and opinions about climate change: Evidence for interaction effects. Clim Change 104(2):231–242.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. McCright AM,
    2. Dunlap RE
    (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol Q 52(2):155–194.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Gauchat G
    (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. Am Sociol Rev 77(2):167–187.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Whitfield SC,
    2. Rosa EA,
    3. Dan A,
    4. Dietz T
    (2009) The future of nuclear power: Value orientations and risk perception. Risk Anal 29(3):425–437.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Attari SZ,
    2. DeKay ML,
    3. Davidson CI,
    4. Bruine de Bruin W
    (2010) Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(37):16054–16059.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Dietz T,
    2. Stern PC,
    3. Weber E
    (2013) Reducing carbon-based energy consumption through changes in household behavior. Daedalus 142(1):78–89.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Vandenbergh MP,
    2. Stern PC,
    3. Gardner GT,
    4. Dietz T,
    5. Gilligan JM
    (2010) Implementing the behavioral wedge: Designing and adopting effective carbon emissions reduction programs. Environmental Law Reporter 40(6):10547–10554.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Dietz T,
    2. Fitzgerald A,
    3. Shwom R
    (2005) Environmental values. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:335–372.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Schultz PW,
    2. Nolan JM,
    3. Cialdini RB,
    4. Goldstein NJ,
    5. Griskevicius V
    (2007) The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol Sci 18(5):429–434.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Bidwell D
    (2013) The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy. Energy Policy 58:189–199.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Henry AD,
    2. Prałat P,
    3. Zhang CQ
    (2011) Emergence of segregation in evolving social networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(21):8605–8610.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Taylor WW,
    2. Lynch AJ,
    3. Schechtler MG
    1. Frank KA,
    2. Maroulis S,
    3. Belman D,
    4. Kaplowitz MD
    (2011) The social embeddedness of natural resource extraction and use in small fishing communities. Sustainable Fisheries: Multi-Level Approaches to a Global Problem, eds Taylor WW, Lynch AJ, Schechtler MG (American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD).
  18. ↵
    1. McCright AM,
    2. Dunlap RE
    (2011) Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Glob Environ Change 21(4):1163–1172.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Cohen MA,
    2. Vandenberg MP
    (2013) The potential role of carbon labeling in a green economy. Energy Econ 34(Suppl 1):S53–S63.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Dietz T
    (2013) Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 10.1073/pnas.1212740110.
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Politics shapes individual choices about energy efficiency
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Energy efficiency and politics
Thomas Dietz, Christina Leshko, Aaron M. McCright
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jun 2013, 110 (23) 9191-9192; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1307484110

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Energy efficiency and politics
Thomas Dietz, Christina Leshko, Aaron M. McCright
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jun 2013, 110 (23) 9191-9192; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1307484110
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 110 (23)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Article Classifications

  • Social Sciences
  • Sustainability Science

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Politics of Policy Support
    • Politics of Consumer Choice
    • What Next?
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Abstract depiction of a guitar and musical note
Science & Culture: At the nexus of music and medicine, some see disease treatments
Although the evidence is still limited, a growing body of research suggests music may have beneficial effects for diseases such as Parkinson’s.
Image credit: Shutterstock/agsandrew.
Large piece of gold
News Feature: Tracing gold's cosmic origins
Astronomers thought they’d finally figured out where gold and other heavy elements in the universe came from. In light of recent results, they’re not so sure.
Image credit: Science Source/Tom McHugh.
Dancers in red dresses
Journal Club: Friends appear to share patterns of brain activity
Researchers are still trying to understand what causes this strong correlation between neural and social networks.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Yeongsik Im.
Yellow emoticons
Learning the language of facial expressions
Aleix Martinez explains why facial expressions often are not accurate indicators of emotion.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Goats standing in a pin
Transplantation of sperm-producing stem cells
CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing can improve the effectiveness of spermatogonial stem cell transplantation in mice and livestock, a study finds.
Image credit: Jon M. Oatley.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490