The Happiness-Energy Paradox: Energy Use is Unrelated to Subjective Well-Being

Abstract

Earth’s per capita energy use continues to grow, despite technological advances and widespread calls for reduction in energy consumption. The negative environmental consequences are well known: resource depletion, pollution, and global warming. However many remain reluctant to cut energy consumption because of the widespread, although, implicit, belief that a nation’s well being depends on its energy consumption. This article systematically examines the evidential support for the relationship between energy use and subjective well-being at the societal level, by integrating data from multiple sources, collected at multiple levels of government, and spanning four decades. This analysis reveals, surprisingly, that the most common measure of subjective well-being, life satisfaction, is unrelated to energy use -- whether measured at the national, state or county level. The nil relationship between happiness and energy use is reminiscent of the well-known Easterlin Paradox, however the causal mechanisms responsible to each remain in question. We discuss the possible causes for the Happiness-Energy paradox and potential policy implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    The concept of subjective well being (SWB) has been well-studied, for recent reviews see Diener (2009) and Diener et al. (2013). It is now widely recognized in this field of study that SWB is a broad multidimensional concept that unifies such popular concepts as (affective) happiness, and life satisfaction. Because it is a multidimensional concept, a complete measurement of all aspects of SWB requires collecting a large set of measures from each subject. Most broad-scale research in this field aims to measure the cognitive dimension of SWB, i.e., life satisfaction, because of its general domain (necessary for cross-comparisons), and established validity and reliability (see, Diener et al. 2013). We follow the standard practice in this area, and make use only empirical data and use life-satisfaction as our measure of SWB.

  2. 2.

    As argued later, only developing nations could improve SWB through greater energy consumption, but across the developed world, the relationship between energy consumption and SWB is nil.

  3. 3.

    This is known as saturation, first mentioned with respect to human development by Martinez and Ebenhack (2008).

  4. 4.

    The series code is TERPB, and further information is available at https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_use/notes/use_technotes.pdf

  5. 5.

    Total residential electricity consumption has two components: (A) validated Quarterly Fuel and Energy Report (QFER) retail sales/delivery data and (B) self-generation. Electricity Consumption = retail sales + self-generation. Retail sales: electricity amounts delivered from the grid and consumed by the customer. Self-generation: electricity produced and consumed on-site by the customer (for example, parking lot roofs covered with PV panels). Self-generation only contributes to total consumption and not to total sales.

  6. 6.

    Parts of California, notably Los Angeles, are often argued as examples of wasteful suburbanization, yet Los Angeles new homes are much smaller than average (https://www.laweekly.com/news/how-the-size-of-the-typical-la-home-has-grown-over-the-years-7364336).

  7. 7.

    Notably, Central and Eastern Europe have been suburbanizing recently (Stanilov and Sýkora 2014).

  8. 8.

    While we believe the the behavioral explanations are pivotal, there are other potential explanations. For instance, access to technology may affect the threshold energy level needed to meet core human needs.

  9. 9.

    Primary energy use (before transformation to other end-use fuels) in kilograms of oil equivalent, per capita from World Development Indicators accessed through https://www.google.com/publicdata. SWB data come from Frey and Stutzer (2002) and Easterlin et al. (2012)--note that Chinese SWB slightly increased in last several years. Also note that in the US both energy use per capita and SWB remain flat over past four decades (using GSS data and above measure of energy use). We provide additional analyses in supplementary material.

References

  1. Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., Goulder, L., Daily, G., Ehrlich, P., Heal, G., Levin, S., Mäler, K.-G., Schneider, S., Starrett, D., et al. (2004). Are we consuming too much? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18, 147–172.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Asensio, O. I., & Delmas, M. A. (2015). Nonprice incentives and energy conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, E510–E515.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ashkanasy, N. M. (2011). International happiness: A multilevel perspective. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25, 23–29.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Attari, S. Z., DeKay, M. L., Davidson, C. I., & De Bruin, W. B. (2010). Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 16054–16059.

    Google Scholar 

  5. BEA. (2014). Table 2.8.5. Personal consumption expenditures by major type of product, monthly. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

  6. Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2011). International happiness: A new view on the measure of performance. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25, 6–22.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Buman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 917–927.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Carter, J. (1977). Proposed energy policy. Public Broadcasting Service.

  9. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). If we are so rich, why aren’t we happy? American Psychologist, 54, 821–827.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Diener, E. (2009). Well-being for public policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (Eds.). (2003). Culture and subjective well-being. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Diener, E., Inglehart, R., & Tay, L. (2013). Theory and validity of life satisfaction scales. Social Indicators Research, 112, 497–527.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dietz, T. (2014). Understanding environmentally significant consumption. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 5067–5068.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dietz, T. (2015). Altruism, self-interest, and energy consumption. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 1654–1655.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dietz, T., Rosa, E. A., & York, R. (2009). Environmentally efficient well-being: Rethinking sustainability as the relationship between human well-being and environmental impacts. Human Ecology Review, 16, 114–123.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., & Speck, J. (2001). Suburban nation: The rise of sprawl and the decline of the American dream. Macmillan.

  17. Dumas, L. J. (1987). The overburdened economy: Uncovering the causes of chronic unemployment, inflation, and national decline. Berkeley: Univ of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Easterlin, R. A. (1974): “Does economic growth improve the human lot?” in Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honor of Moses Abramovitz, ed. by P. A. David and M. W. Reder, New York: Academic Press, Inc., vol. 89, 98–125.

  19. Easterlin, R. A., McVey, L. A., Switek, M., Sawangfa, O., & Zweig, J. S. (2010). The happiness–income paradox revisited. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 22463–22468.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Easterlin, R. A., Morgan, R., Switek, M., & Wang, F. (2012). China’s life satisfaction, 1990–2010. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 9775–9780.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Energy Information Administration. (2008). Emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ferreira, S., Akay, A., Brereton, F., Cuñado, J., Martinsson, P., Moro, M., & Ningal, T. F. (2013). Life satisfaction and air quality in Europe. Ecological Economics, 88, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Frank, R. H. (2004). How not to buy happiness. Daedalus, 133, 69–79.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Frank, R. H. (2005): “Does Absolute Income Matter,” in Economics and Happiness, ed. by L. Bruni and P. L. Porta, Oxford University Press, New York.

  25. Frank, R. (2012). The Darwin economy: Liberty, competition, and the common good. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 402–435.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gandelman, N., Piani, G., & Ferre, Z. (2012). Neighborhood determinants of quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 547–563.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Giannetti, B. F., Agostinho, F., Almeida, C. M., & Huisingh, D. (2015). A review of limitations of GDP and alternative indices to monitor human well-being and to manage eco-system functionality. Journal of Cleaner Production, 87, 11–25.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hopkins JS (2017). A small town in Pennsylvania has been ripped apart by a new gas plant. There are lessons to be learned from what’s happened in Jessup. City Lab, Nov 20.

  30. Inman, M. (2014). The fracking fallacy. Nature, 516(7529), 28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jorgenson, A. K. (2014): “Economic development and the carbon intensity of human well-being,” Nature Climate Change.

  32. Jorgenson, A. K., & Givens, J. (2015). The changing effect of economic development on the consumption-based carbon intensity of well-being, 1990–2008. PLoS One, 10, e0123920.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jorgenson, A. K., Alekseyko, A., & Giedraitis, V. (2014). Energy consumption, human well-being and economic development in central and eastern European nations: A cautionary tale of sustainability. Energy Policy, 66, 419–427.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 16489–16493.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. P., & Sarin, R. (1997). Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 375–405.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kallis, G. (2011). In defence of degrowth. Ecological Economics, 70, 873–880.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kallis, G., Kerschner, C., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2012). The economics of degrowth. Ecological Economics, 84, 172–180.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kasser, T. (2003). The high price of materialism. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Knight, K. W., & Rosa, E. A. (2011). The environmental efficiency of well-being: A cross-national analysis. Social Science Research, 40, 931–949.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lamb, W. F., & Steinberger, J. K. (2017). Human well-being and climate change mitigation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 8(6), e485.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Li, Y., Guan, D., Tao, S., Wang, X., & He, K. (2018 May 20). A review of air pollution impact on subjective well-being: Survey versus visual psychophysics. Journal of Cleaner Production., 184, 959–968.

    Google Scholar 

  42. MacKay, D. (2008) Sustainable energy-without the hot air, UIT Cambridge.

  43. MacKerron, G., & Mourato, S. (2009). Life satisfaction and air quality in London. Ecological Economics, 68, 1441–1453.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Martinez, D. M., & Ebenhack, B. W. (2008). Understanding the role of energy consumption in human development through the use of saturation phenomena. Energy Policy, 36(4), 1430–1435.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mazur, A. (2011). Does increasing energy or electricity consumption improve quality of life in industrial nations? Energy Policy, 39, 2568–2572.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mazur, A. (2013). Energy and electricity in industrial nations: The sociology and technology of energy. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mazur, A. and E. Rosa (1974): “Energy and life-style.” Science (New York, NY), 186, 607.

  48. Meyer, W. B. (2013). The environmental advantages of cities: Countering commonsense antiurbanism. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., Lamb, W. F., & Steinberger, J. K. (2018). A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nature Sustainability, 1(2), 88.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Oswald, A. (2014): “Keynote II,” 2014 well-being and Public Policy Conference at Hamilton College.

  51. Oswald, A. J., & Wu, S. (2009). Objective confirmation of subjective measures of human well-being: Evidence from the U.S.A. Science, 327, 576–579.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Pachauri, R. K., Allen, M. R., Barros, V. R., Broome, J., Cramer, W., Christ, R., ... & Dubash, N. K. (2014). Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (p. 151). IPCC.

  53. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Pretty, J. (2013). The consumption of a finite planet: Well-being, convergence, divergence and the nascent green economy. Environmental and Resource Economics, 55, 475–499.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Smil, V. (2005) Creating the twentieth century: Technical innovations of 1867–1914 and their lasting impact. OUP Catalogue.

  56. Soytas, U., Sari, R., & Ewing, B. T. (2007). Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions in the United States. Ecological Economics, 62, 482–489.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Stanilov, K., & Sýkora, L. (2014). Confronting suburbanization: Urban decentralization in postsocialist central and Eastern Europe. John Wiley & Sons.

  58. Steinberger, J. K., & Roberts, J. T. (2010). From constraint to sufficiency: The decoupling of energy and carbon from human needs, 1975–2005. Ecological Economics, 70(2), 425–433.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Stern, D. I. (2011 Feb 1). The role of energy in economic growth. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences., 1219(1), 26–51.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Stern, D. I., & Kander, A. (2012 Jan). The role of energy in the industrial revolution and modern economic growth. The Energy Journal., 1, 125–152.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Stern, N., Peters, S., Bakhshi, V., Bowen, A., Cameron, C., Catovsky, S., Crane, D., Cruickshank, S., Dietz, S., & Edmonson, N. (2006). Stern review: The economics of climate change. London: HM treasury.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Stiglitz, J., A. Sen, and J. Fitoussi (2009) Report by the Commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Available at www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr.

  63. Veblen, T. (2005a): Conspicuous consumption, vol. 38, ePenguin, New York.

  64. Veblen, T. (2005b). The theory of the leisure class; an economic study of institutions. New York: Aakar Books.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Veenhoven, R. (2014). Livability theory. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, 3645–3647.

  66. Winfrey, E. M. V. (2013) Is more always better? The nonlinear relationship between energy consumption and well-being. Ph.D. thesis, Georgetown University.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank anonymous reviewer for pointing out that the relation between energy use and SWB is very similar to the relation between economic growth and SWB (i.e., the Happiness Paradox).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn.

Ethics declarations

This material has not been published in whole or in part elsewhere; the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication in another journal; all authors have been personally and actively involved in substantive work leading to the manuscript, and will hold themselves jointly and individually responsible for its content.

Conflict of Interest

No conflict of interest declared.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 337 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Okulicz-Kozaryn, A., Altman, M. The Happiness-Energy Paradox: Energy Use is Unrelated to Subjective Well-Being. Applied Research Quality Life 15, 1055–1067 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-019-09719-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Energy use
  • Energy consumption
  • Energy intensity of economy
  • Sustainability
  • Happiness
  • Life satisfaction
  • Subjective well-being (SWB)