Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 04/23/2011 11:17:44 AM PDT by presidio9
You might think that those who are skeptical (or downright intransigent) on a CO2 basis for global warming are bigger wasters of energy or greater polluters than those who accept climate science.
Not so. Skeptics are just as green. Their reasons may simply be different.
In 2008, Ed Maibach and colleagues did a survey (Who's 'Greener', Democrats Or Republicans?) and found that percentages of people concerned about our climate future to varying degrees were about what you would expect; on the fringes were outright deniers that pollution could be bad on one side and on the other side were people who believe anything advocacy groups like Union of Concerned Scientists tell them. In the middle were varying levels of skepticism and acceptance and that has likely gone up and down as issues like ClimateGate (and UN claims about 50 million people in a global warming Exodus by 2010) came to the fore or new studies showing melting ice came around.
So why wouldn't skeptics be less environmentally considerate? As discussed in Were Republicans Smart All Along? They Accept Climate Change But Not Global Warming disbelieving a CO2 basis for global warming does not mean lack of concern about the environment, it's more that climate scientists and journalists chose to become cheerleaders for global warming - and that was never going to win hearts and minds when it came to good policy decisions. Skeptics still care, they just aren't convinced the other side is caring about the right thing.
Stephanie Pappas at LiveScience recently caught up with Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale University Project on Climate Change, who helped with the 2008 survey, and he noted all of the groups, from outright skeptics to true believers, conserved energy at the same rates.
"The dismissive are conserving energy and saving energy as much as anyone else," Leiserowitz told LiveScience. "It's about thrift, conservation. These are core American values."
Why? To some, conserving energy is saving money, to some, it is dislike of OPEC dictators who control much of the oil supply. It doesn't matter why, the fact is they do it. Insisting that people not only act the right way but truly believe is religion, not public policy, so doing the right thing is good enough.
Environmental advocacy groups have shrilly insisted they are being outspent and that is why they have lost ground publicly. That was never true, not even close, but it brought in donations because activists wanted to believe it, much like they want to believe they're the only ones who conserve energy or care about nature. Matthew Nisbet, associate professor of communication at American University in Washington DC but more famous here for his staunch advocacy of framing science (cynical opposition to our belief that people out there are smart, they just don't like being deceived or manipulated) did a study and showed that not only were advocacy groups not outspent, even the more generous agreement to accept environmental group statements for how much they spent on global warming ad campaigns was well beyond what detractors were able to mobilize.
Instead of lamenting a money cause for skepticism, the onus is back on climate science to rein in silly kooks who think they are trying to help and become trusted guides for the public once again. But, no, the commentary on Nisbet's work from the usual suspects is that it wasn't peer-reviewed (it's an analysis of money spent - yet the Himalayas are melting passed IPCC 'peer review' just fine, even though it was a comment from a magazine article printed as fact) while Joseph Romm of ClimateProgress.org panics and claims opponents of climate legislation outspent environmentalists 8 to 1 and thinks that because other true believers also don't like Nisbet's analysis it must be flawed. Logical fallacies make lousy science.
I'm not a big fan of his framing stance but Nisbet is right on this one. Because climate change is an issue that impacts all of us, it has to be acted on by all of us. So why people use less energy or tackle charge is basically irrelevant - stopping terrorism, saving money, caring about Sierra Club - what is important is that they do.
I emit less CO2 by breathing very shallowly.
A tale of two houses
House #1 A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than ! the ave rage American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.
House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds ; geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer! The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.
~~~~~
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville , Tennessee ; it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore;
HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas ; it was the residence the of the former President of the United States , George W. Bush.
An "inconvenient truth".
What angers me the most is that the warmers’ religious beliefs about climate become public policy, and that we who do not subscribe to those beliefs are forced to pay more for access to natural resources or lose choices in how we make use of those resources as a result.
THis article could alternatively have been written as: “Global Warming Alarmists Consume Just as Much Energy as Skeptics”.
Al Gore and many of his well heeled friends live large, CO2-wise.
Few climate conservatives waste energy because they don’t believe in conspicuous consumption even if they have the means.
But I also take issue with the idea that those of us who are not warmers are just as good at “saving the planet” as the warmers. The average warmer loves to celebrate BS like “Earth Hour” or “Earth Day.” For 25 hours, they turn off the lights, turn down the heat, and do all the things us normal people do all the time because energy is so expensive.
...let me help
Global Warming Believers do no more to Conserve Energy than their Skeptical Counterparts
This is my choice. I am not being "Green" and I have no wish to push my lifestyle on my neighbors. I really don't think a lot about what my neighbors do, I am rather busy.
It is my personal opinion that people who spend a lot of time worrying about what other people do with their time and money need to get a hobby. As always, I suggest needlepoint.
Wasn't the subject supposed to be about how skeptics conserve as much as believers?
I gave up ironing!!
Allow me.
WARMERS ARE GUILTY OF BLASPHEMY, KILLING THE EARTH.
It pays to be frugal
Because glow-bull warming skeptics like myself want to SAVE MONEY, that’s why I conserve. Plus, I clean up because it’s unsightly to see trash.
The more these liberals piss me off with this earth day crap, the more the I do the REVERSE of what they want me to do.
The reason for the “surprise” results showing similar energy use between the opposing groups is not that skeptics are conserving. What they aren’t looking at is the utter contempt for their own message that global warming advocates have in their daily lives. Other than the symbolism of driving their Prius around the left doesn’t care enough about their cause to change their lives so as to create any discomfort. Sacrificing is for the great unwashed masses — the little people in fly over country. The simple fact is that our “betters” who are telling us how much energy to use aren’t conserving either.
But...but...but , Algor buys "carbon credits" from himself to offset his
unquenchable desire to consume energy while profiting off
preaching restraint to the hoi polloi.
However, since I heard he's splitting from his wife, he probable won't
be "Clamping Tipper to the electrodes and zapping her across the
rec room every night". /Steyn
>I choose to live in a small, tightly built house because there is less to clean, less to maintain and it costs less to keep us comfortable.
Same here. It’s my GF who is the anti-environment nut here LOL. I learned since I was 18 living alone that the more you own stuff, the more hassle it is to haul it when you move...and the more to clean.
Like in my previous post, I conserve because it saves me money and clean up because it’s right thing to do....NOT because “mother Gaia” commanded me to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.