The risks associated with climate change, resource scarcity, overreliance on fossil fuels, rising fuel prices and the threats to national securities are all compelling reasons for finding alternative/greener energy sources as well as for reducing our energy consumption. For the demand side, energy efficiency has been the main strategy utilised so far; in buildings, this often means a focus on technologies capable of delivering the same or better levels of comfort, with less energy. In the last decade, however, there has been an increasing awareness that technology and engineering alone do not deliver the expected energy savings, often because of the ‘misuse’ and/or ‘abuse’ of such energy efficient technologies from building users. Hence, greater attention is being paid to occupant behaviour, both in research and policy circles. The role of behaviour and behaviour change within the context of energy reduction can be grouped under two themes/strategies: (1) Ensuring that existing and new energy efficient technologies are adopted, and used appropriately; (2) Exploring to what extent people are willing to ‘conserve energy’ by using less of a product and/or accepting lower comfort levels. These two themes were partly captured in the title of a recent international Conference held in Oxford: Behave 2014 – Paradigm Shift: From Energy Efficiency to Energy Reduction through Social Change. Yet even at this Conference there was a prevalence of papers focused around the energy efficiency paradigm and the question: to what extent people should be nudged, persuaded or coerced into conserving energy? was not, in my view, adequately touched upon or debated. This is perhaps unsurprising, when considering that asking people not to aspire to high comfort levels may be unappealing for policy makers. In fact, many communication and public relations companies specialising in sustainability and climate change highlight the need for ‘positive messages’, avoiding gloomy pictures or end of the world scenarios, focusing instead on positive/happy stories and on what people can do (as opposed to what they should not do) – ideally also referring to additional benefits arising from saving energy. This is a very appealing notion, but also one with hidden complexities. The rebound effect is a fairly well-known potential side-effect of energy efficiency, where the financial savings arising from the new technology/service can incentivise greater use of the technology/service itself (e.g. greater indoor temperatures arising from home insulation), or lead to lower energy prices, which in turn can increase energy use. Whilst the question of whether rebound effects can altogether outweigh any savings arising from energy efficiency is being debated, clearly these effects should be minimised. This, however, can be difficult if the trade-offs between comfort and energy use are not adequately acknowledged. On the contrary, many energy saving interventions are ‘sold’ to the public on the basis of added benefits, such as saving money and greater thermal comfort – as in the case of home insulation measures. Inevitably, these approaches can embed expectations for higher thermal comfort, regardless of the fact that greater levels of comfort, whilst perhaps desirable, may in fact not be needed in some cases. The need to disambiguate the trade-offs between comfort and energy is apparent in the findings of a recent randomised controlled trial aiming to test whether tailored advice from a ‘trusted messenger’ on how to use heating controls can reduce energy consumption. The study, commissioned by the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), found that the use of in-home advice or informative leaflets within social housing did not significantly