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 is one criticism of the government's support for energy-efficiency improvements in Michigan?
The results varied so widely between participants that it was impossible to measure the program's effectiveness. Some participants discovered that the changes ended up raising their home heating and cooling expenses. The total cost of home improvements was more than twice as much on average as the savings they would produce. By trying to make improvements to so many homes, the government ended up doing poor-quality work that reduced cost savings.
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 is one criticism of the government's support for energy-efficiency improvements in Michigan?
A. The results varied so widely between participants that it was impossible to measure the program's effectiveness.
B. Some participants discovered that the changes ended up raising their home heating and cooling expenses.
C. The total cost of home improvements was more than twice as much on average as the savings they would produce.
D. By trying to make improvements to so many homes, the government ended up doing poor-quality work that reduced cost savings.
Answer: