Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Domestic uptake of green energy promoted by opt-out tariffs


Motivating individuals to choose energy from sustainable sources over conventionally produced power constitutes one of the biggest policy challenges for societies1,2. Here we present the results of a randomized controlled trial in Germany that tested the impact of default rules (that is, a type of ‘nudging’) on voluntary purchases of ‘green’ energy contracts that entirely stem from renewable resources. Setting the default choice to more expensive ‘green’ energy (that is, where consumers have to actively opt out if they do not want it) increased purchases of such nearly tenfold. Furthermore, county-level political preference for the green party uniquely predicted behaviour in the absence of the nudge, suggesting that default setting potentially overrules motivational aspects of green energy purchases. In follow-up experiments, we provide further evidence that the effect does not seem to be driven by unawareness. Summarizing, the present research provides an example of using behavioural science3,4,5,6,7,8,9 for climate change mitigation and shows alternatives to the use of subsidies or other economic incentives.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Basic website layout in control (left) and experimental (right) treatments.
Figure 2: The impact of the default nudge on purchases of ‘green’ energy.
Figure 3: Interaction of regional ‘green party’ approval and experimental treatment.


  1. Bolderdijk, J. W., Steg, L., Geller, E. S., Lehman, P. K. & Postmes, T. Comparing the effectiveness of moral versus monetary motives in environmental campaigning. Nature Clim. Change 3, 413–416 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pallak, M. S. & Cummings, N. Commitment and voluntary energy conservation. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2, 27–31 (1976).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Allcott, H. Social norms and energy consumption. J. Public Econ. 95, 1082–1095 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Allcott, H. & Mullainathan, S. Behavior and energy policy. Science 327, 1204–1205 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B. & Griskevicius, V. A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J. Consum. Res. 35, 472–482 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Costa Dora, L. & Kahn, M. E. Energy conservation “nudges” and environmentalist ideology: Evidence from a randomized residential electricity field experiment. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 11, 680–702 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Yale Univ. Press, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ferraro, P. J., Miranda, J. J. & Price, M. K. The persistence of treatment effects with norm-based policy instruments: Evidence from a randomized environmental policy experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. Pap. Proc. 101, 318–322 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ferraro, P. J. & Price, M. K. Using non-pecuniary strategies to influence behaviour: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Rev. Econ. Stat. 95, 64–73 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. DellaVigna, S. Psychology and economics: Evidence from the field. J. Econ. Lit. 47, 315–372 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Johnson, E. J. & Goldstein, D. G. Do defaults save lives? Science 302, 1338–1339 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D. & Madrian, B. C. The importance of default options for retirement saving outcomes. Soc. Secur. Policy Change Environ. 176, 167–195 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cronqvist, H. & Thaler, R. H. Design choices in privatized social-security systems: Learning from the Swedish experience. Am. Econ. Rev. 94, 424–428 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brown, C. L. & Krishna, A. The skeptical shopper: A metacognitive account for the effects of default options on choice. J. Consum. Res. 25, 529–539 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Camerer, C., Issacharof, S., Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T. & Rabin, M. Regulation for conservatives: Behavioral economics and the case for ‘asymmetric paternalism’. Univ. Penn. Law Rev. 151, 1211–1254 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson, E. J., Bellman, S. & Lohse, G. E. Defaults, framing, and privacy: Why opting in is not equal to opting out. Mark. Lett. 13, 5–15 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Smith, N. C., Goldstein, D. G. & Johnson, E. J. Choice without awareness: Ethical and policy implications of defaults. J. Public Policy Mark. 32, 159–172 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Aquino, K. & Reed, A. II The self-importance of moral identity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83, 1423–1440 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mischel, W. in Personality at the Cross-Roads: Current Issues in Interactional Psychology (eds Magnusson, D. & Endler, N. S.) 333–352 (Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T. & Gosling, S. D. Amazon’s mechanical turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Psychol. Sci. 6, 3–5 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J. & Ipeirotis, P. G. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 5, 411–419 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bovens, L. in Preference Change: Approaches from Philosophy, Economics, and Psychology (eds Yanoff, T. G. & Hansson, S. O.) 207–220 (Springer, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kőszegi, B. & Rabin, M. A model of reference-dependent preferences. Q. J. Econ. 121, 1133–1165 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank the energy supplier for the collaboration and opportunity to embed the experiment in their webpage. Data and name are subject to non-disclosure. This research has benefited from research assistance by A. Fix and M. Schumann, who have been honour thesis students within this larger research project. We are grateful for comments from L. Goette, A. Ockenfels, M. Feinberg and R. Willer as well as the feedback of audiences at HEC Lausanne, London School of Economics, University of Geneva, University of Cologne, and Stanford University. Financial support by the German Research Foundation (DFG) is gratefully acknowledged by S.L. through the research-fellowship programme (LO 1826/1-1) and by both authors through the research unit programme (FOR1371: ‘Design and Behavior: Economic Engineering of Firms and Markets’).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



F.E. and S.L. designed the research question; F.E. managed data collection in collaboration with our industry partner. F.E. prepared data analysis to discuss with S.L.; S.L. drafted the manuscript; F.E. provided feedback to manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Lotz.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ebeling, F., Lotz, S. Domestic uptake of green energy promoted by opt-out tariffs. Nature Clim Change 5, 868–871 (2015).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing