Home improvements such as using insulation and energy-efficient windows to lower heating and air-conditioning bills can greatly affect quality of life for low-income families. In 2014, researchers at New York's Columbia University interviewed 20 renters and homeowners in a low-income community in New York City before and after helping those people make energy-efficiency upgrades to their homes. The researchers found cold and heat caused not only extreme physical discomfort but health problems as well. Increased heating costs in winter months also used up so much of people's budgets they were forced to reduce their calorie intake. Additionally, poor air quality due to reduced air-conditioner use can increase the risk of illness. People whose homes were upgraded reported greater physical and mental ease, as well as energy savings of around 30 percent, averaging $20-$60 per month. Despite these benefits, a study by University of Chicago economists was critical of the cost-effectiveness of government programs that provide money for energy-efficiency upgrades for low-income households. Around 7,500 households in Michigan were given an average of $5,000 worth of free upgrades as part of a larger energy-efficiency program. The researchers found that the measures reduced the households' energy consumption by about 10-20 percent each month. However, these savings would amount to an average of just $2,400 over the lifetime of the upgrades--in other words, less than half the amount of the initial investment. The study also highlighted another issue regarding energy-efficiency programs. It had long been believed that low-income earners tended not to participate because they were unaware of the programs' existence. In the University of Chicago study, however, an intensive marketing campaign consisting of thousands of telephone calls and home visits raised the Michigan program's participation rate by only a few percentage points. The great expense and effort required for such a tiny effect indicates that it may be time to look for a new approach to improving living conditions among low-income earners. What do we learn about low-income earners from the Columbia University study?
They tend to believe that energy-efficiency upgrades to their homes are most costly than they really are. They are forced to reduce their spending on food because of the high cost of heating in winter. They spend far less money on heating in winter than they spend on air conditioning in summer. They spend an average of 30 percent less on heating and cooling than people with middle or high incomes.
Question: Home improvements such as using insulation and energy-efficient windows to lower heating and air-conditioning bills can greatly affect quality of life for low-income families. In 2014, researchers at New York's Columbia University interviewed 20 renters and homeowners in a low-income community in New York City before and after helping those people make energy-efficiency upgrades to their homes. The researchers found cold and heat caused not only extreme physical discomfort but health problems as well. Increased heating costs in winter months also used up so much of people's budgets they were forced to reduce their calorie intake. Additionally, poor air quality due to reduced air-conditioner use can increase the risk of illness. People whose homes were upgraded reported greater physical and mental ease, as well as energy savings of around 30 percent, averaging $20-$60 per month. Despite these benefits, a study by University of Chicago economists was critical of the cost-effectiveness of government programs that provide money for energy-efficiency upgrades for low-income households. Around 7,500 households in Michigan were given an average of $5,000 worth of free upgrades as part of a larger energy-efficiency program. The researchers found that the measures reduced the households' energy consumption by about 10-20 percent each month. However, these savings would amount to an average of just $2,400 over the lifetime of the upgrades--in other words, less than half the amount of the initial investment. The study also highlighted another issue regarding energy-efficiency programs. It had long been believed that low-income earners tended not to participate because they were unaware of the programs' existence. In the University of Chicago study, however, an intensive marketing campaign consisting of thousands of telephone calls and home visits raised the Michigan program's participation rate by only a few percentage points. The great expense and effort required for such a tiny effect indicates that it may be time to look for a new approach to improving living conditions among low-income earners. What do we learn about low-income earners from the Columbia University study?
A. They tend to believe that energy-efficiency upgrades to their homes are most costly than they really are.
B. They are forced to reduce their spending on food because of the high cost of heating in winter.
C. They spend far less money on heating in winter than they spend on air conditioning in summer.
D. They spend an average of 30 percent less on heating and cooling than people with middle or high incomes.
Answer: