Australian households want to reduce their energy consumption and help address climate change, but the high cost of green technologies and the constraints of renting are standing in the way, according to new research from Charles Darwin University.
The findings come as the residential sector accounts for 26 per cent of global electricity consumption and 17 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions, making household energy behaviour a critical lever in the fight against climate change.
The CDU study surveyed residents across Darwin and Palmerston in the Northern Territory, examining electricity use patterns and attitudes toward energy-efficient technologies.
Given the region’s tropical climate, air conditioning dominates residential power demand, accounting for around 45 per cent of electricity use.
Nearly all respondents, 96 per cent, reported owning and using air conditioning, underlining its necessity in one of Australia’s hottest cities.
The research revealed a notable tension between environmental values and financial capacity, particularly among lower-income residents.
Around 84 per cent of low-income respondents agreed or strongly agreed that renewable energy was essential to combating climate change.
Yet more than half of that same group were unwilling to pay more for it.
Middle-income households reflected similar patterns, while high-income households showed greater alignment between belief and willingness to act, with about 68 per cent prepared to pay more for renewable energy.
Housing tenure emerged as one of the most significant fault lines in the data.
Only 34 per cent of respondents owned their homes, with the remainder renting.
That distinction had a measurable impact on energy behaviour.
Homeowners were willing to pay more for renewable energy at a rate of 70 per cent, compared with 47 per cent of renters.
Of seven energy-saving practices examined in the study, renters were more likely only to turn off appliances when not in use.
Homeowners were more likely to engage in the remaining six practices, including washing clothes in cold water, using high-efficiency appliances, and setting air conditioning temperatures between 24 and 26 degrees Celsius.
Lead author Riasad Amin, a PhD candidate with CDU’s Northern Institute, said renters typically have a more limited scope to install efficiency upgrades, modify cooling systems, or invest in residential energy technologies.
In Darwin’s high-demand tropical climate, those tenure-related differences shape the options available to households for managing energy use.
Amin noted that the barriers faced by renters and lower-income households are consistent with international evidence showing that landlord-tenant split incentives, limited capital access, and weaker regulatory standards in rental housing systematically constrain energy-efficiency investment.
He argued that policy responses need to move beyond single-focus approaches.
Programs built solely around cost savings risk overlooking other motivational drivers, while approaches grounded only in moral responsibility can penalise households that lack the means to act.
International evidence suggests energy-efficiency programs work best when they combine environmental responsibility with tangible benefits such as improved comfort, more stable energy costs, and greater household control over energy use.
The study, The efficiency divide: Housing constraints on energy-saving practices in Darwin, Australia, was published in the journal Energy Research and Social Science.
