This document discusses the ethics of nudging for sustainable energy consumption. It addresses common objections that nudging is paternalistic and reduces autonomy, but argues this is less valid for energy consumption due to infrastructure factors outside individual control. Nudging could increase autonomy by helping consumers align choices with preferences like renewable energy. The document outlines how infrastructure, limited choices, social norms, and consumer preferences support nudging for sustainable energy goals like shifting to wind and solar. Nudging uses defaults that influence choices in ways judged to make people better off.

1. Dias 1
The Ethics of Nudging for
Sustainable Energy Consumption
T.J. Kasperbauer, 6/30/2016
University of Copenhagen

2. Main Objections to Nudging
1. Paternalistic
2. Reduce autonomy and agency
Less convincing in the case of energy
consumption

3. Why not?
1. Infrastructure outside of individual control
2. Fewer choices with energy consumption
Massively Architectured

4. Why not?
1. Infrastructure outside of individual control
2. Fewer choices with energy consumption
3. Energy consumption strongly influenced by
external factors
4. Consistent with consumption preferences

5. Sustainable Energy Consumption
• Shift in sources
- E.g., wind and solar instead of oil and coal.
• Reduction in consumption

7. Nudges
• Participants asked to imagine that they had moved to
another town. Choice between renewable energy sources
and a cheaper non-renewable.
• People go with the default, even if alternative is cheaper.
Pichert D, Katsikopoulos KV (2008) Green defaults: information presentation and
pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 63–73.

8. Nudges

9. 1. Broad Infrastructure

10. 1. Broad Infrastructure

12. Renewable electricity generation (EIA 2015 Energy Outlook)

13. Possible scenarios 2013-2040 (EIA 2015 Energy Outlook)

14. EU renewable electricity generation (EU 2015 Energy Union)

15. 2. Narrow Infrastructure
• Consumers have little control over energy source
- Zero choice of source in 33 American states
- Little difference between providers
- Usually limited choices (e.g., percentage solar or wind)

17. 2. Narrow Infrastructure
• Consumers have little control over energy source
- Zero choice of source in 33 American states
- Little difference between providers
- Usually limited choices (e.g., percentage solar or wind)
• Buildings and appliances consume about a third of
energy.

18. 3. Situational factors
• Social norms more effective than information
about consumption or energy-efficiency
• Also more effective than reminding people of pro-
environmental values

19. 3. Situational factors
Allcott, H., & Rogers, T. (2014). The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral
interventions: Experimental evidence from energy conservation. American
Economic Review, 104, 3003-37.

20. Bollinger, B. & Gillingham, K. (2012). Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic
panels. Marketing Science, 31, 900–912.

22. 4. Energy preferences
• Greendex (2014): Sustainable consumption on the rise
globally.
• 75-78% of Americans believe benefits of solar and
wind outweigh their risks (Harris poll, April 2015). 34%
for coal.
• 66% of Americans plan to take steps to improve the
energy efficiency of their homes (HomeServe 2016)
• 50-90% in U.S. and Europe willing to pay more for
“green” energy (Pichert & Katsikopoulos 2008)

23. • Opt-in reduces participation in the Smart Grid
program (Toft, Schuitema, & Thøgerson 2014)
- Opt-out same level of participation as free choice

24. EU public support for R&D (EU 2015 Energy Union)

25. Nudging “tries to influence choices in a way
that will make choosers better off, as
judged by themselves.”
Thaler and Sunstein, Nudge

26. Conclusions
• Yes, nudges are paternalistic. So are alternatives.
- This is how massive architecture works
• No, energy nudges do not reduce autonomy and
agency. Might increase!