How Do You Get Conservatives to Buy Energy Efficient Products?

The Atlantic Cities ^ | 4/30/2013 | Tim McDonnell

[raybbr]

Back in 2011, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) declared war on energy-efficient light bulbs, calling "sustainability" the gateway into a dystopic, Big Brother-patrolled liberal hellscape. When the lights went off during Beyoncé’s halftime set at the last Superbowl, conservative commentators from the Drudge Report to Michelle Malkin pointed blame (erroneously) at new power-saving measures at New Orleans’ Superdome. And one recent study found that giving Republican households feedback on their power use actually encourages them to use more energy.

Why do conservatives, who should have a natural inclination toward conservation, have a beef with energy efficiency? It could be tied to the political polarization of the climate change debate.

A study out in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined attitudes about energy efficiency in liberals and conservatives, and found that promoting energy-efficient products and services on the basis of their environmental benefits actually turned conservatives off from picking them. The researchers first quizzed participants on how much they value various benefits of energy efficiency, including reducing carbon emissions, reducing foreign oil dependence, and reducing how much consumers pay for energy; cutting emissions appealed to conservatives the least.

The study then presented participants with a real-world choice: With a fixed amount of money in their wallet, respondents had to "buy" either an old-school light bulb or an efficient compact florescent bulb, the same kind Bachmann railed against. Both bulbs were labeled with basic hard data on their energy use, but without a translation of that into climate pros and cons. When the bulbs cost the same, and even when the CFL cost more, conservatives and liberals were equally likely to buy the efficient bulb. But slap a message on the CFL’s packaging that says "Protect the Environment," and "we saw a significant drop-off in more politically moderates and conservatives choosing that option," said study author Dena Gromet, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business.

The chart below, from the report, shows how much liberals and conservatives value each argument for efficiency: While liberals (gray) valued all three equally, conservatives (white), were significantly less moved by and most at odds with liberals over the carbon-saving argument.

Courtesy Gromet

MORE.....

[savedbygrace]

The only “green” things I use right now are those stupid curly light bulbs. I hate the light they give out, but they are saving me money and they do last a very long time. In fact, the only bulb I’ve had to replace was dead right out of the box. The first one I screwed in nearly 5 years ago is still working.

But the light they give out bugs the tar out of me.

[muawiyah]

NUKE THE WHALES!!!!

[gore_sux]

I was in a Target store yesterday and decided I needed some light bulbs. Walking down the aisle, I discovered my only choices were $30 CFL bulbs made by GE or $45 LED bulbs made by GE. I make a good living but I decided I couldn’t afford to change my bulbs and certainly wasn’t going to give GE any business. It’s sickening to me that changing a burnt out bulb has devolved into a major investment. I honestly don’t know how people with lower incomes are surviving today.

[Pollster1]

I don’t trust liars, which most conservatives consider a reasonable position, so we have a logical reaction to products advertised as “green”. If the manufacturer needs to resort to a tenuous connection between my choice of light bulb and a polar bear drowning, they may also be overstating other aspects of the green choice. If I can see straightforward data that show the CFL or LED bulb will save me money, or trouble (that LED bulb at 20’ that I’ll probably never replace again is well worth it!), then I’m all for it. If they need to make things up, “buy this bulb or half of Bangladesh will drown”, then I need to check their claims even more carefully, if I consider their product at all.

[MV=PY]

Anyone with a brain can figure out that it’s better to use less energy. We throw less crap in the air that we breath and the price of energy won’t go up if we don’t have to build that next power plant.

I think conservatives balk because conserving energy has a small benefit for the individual. The benefit is collective. The mindset to do something for the collective (give up a freedom for the common good) is repulsive to me, but it is central to the thought process of the progressive (to the extent that they think).

Most “conservative/liberal” arguments boil down to whether you believe in freedom for the individual or you want to make decisions for the collective good.

[Fire_on_High]

Because a lot of the efficient products SUCK! And out of the ones that aren’t terrible outright, many don’t cover the full range of uses the product they “replace” did, like the light bulbs.

I don’t mind the extra second or two of warm up in exchange for much less heat, but I’m in GA so that’s a valuable plus to me. Someone who wants it to keep a well house from freezing or warm chicks would find the product I’m delighted with to be completely unsuitable, even tho they both put out light.

Both of the things I mentioned are actual points Freepers have made, btw. Not everyone wants a light bulb purely for light, and not everyone views a cooler bulb as a wonderful improvement!

[muawiyah]

When it comes to fluorescent lights about 90% of American lighting has been provided with them since they were trundled out in the early 1950s.

That's because almost all of our lighting requirements are at work in offices and factories, or in schools. Home lighting is a small fraction of the total ~ about 5%.

Then, there's private home water usage, the Algore by himself used a year's supply just for a single picture.

I do not trust people who want to mess with home lighting or toilet flushing!

Congress should be forced to stick to their own business ~

[slowhandluke]

and can be bought at a reasonable price.

Correct-o-mundo!

The conservative knows that it's the entire life cycle that counts, and energy used in manufacture drives a lot of the price of everything. If something is cheap, then not a lot of energy went into the making of it.

[Jabba the Nutt]

Yes, and one more thing, we hate having thie cr*p shoved down our throats. Well, two more things. we hate the lies and cr*p served up with a sense of moral superiority that is wholely unearned.

I for one, avoid doing business with companies that push this cr*p, because if they lie about this, what else are they lying about and two, if they think I'm stupid enough to buy their products, not on the basis of usefulness, quality and price, but on "green" propaganda, I don't do business with companies that insult me. Also, they must think their products can't compete, except for "green" cr*p. The other guy's products are probably better.

[Koblenz]

I get "green" products when they save me money or time. I use CFL bulbs in a few places, particularly in places that are a real pain to change, like high on the ceiling. CFLs also use less energy and produce less heat. Don't use them everywhere but do use them in some places. But I like to be able to choose CFLs or LEDs or incandescent. It should be my decision, since I pay the electric bill.

I did get a Nest thermostat a few months ago, in an effort to not use so much heating oil to heat my house. It's a nice device, and seems to do a good job, but I installed in late Feb so unsure if it's really saved much yet. But on vacation, you can turn the heat down, and turn it back up when you're an hour away from home, so that's got to be worth something.

[DJ Frisat]

"As a conservative I’m always looking for ways to conserve or save but I also want products that work and can be bought at a reasonable price."

Bingo. Sums up my feelings exactly. And throw in a little 'I don't like being forced to be told what to buy', while you're at it.

A year ago, I installed two new light fixtures in my kitchen. Each uses six 13-watt CFL bulbs. These are wonderful, we're told, because they'll outlast incandescent bulbs by YEARS!

They began to burn out at 4 months. ALL TWELVE OF THEM EXPIRED BEFORE THE FIRST YEAR! In the store where I purchased the fixtures --- LOWES --- replacements cost 6 to 8 bucks EACH, because they have a 'special' base, unlike the common screw-in base. (Hmmmmm.. think 'screw' is the operative word...)

Oh, now I'm told that CFL bulbs shouldn't be turned on and off frequently. Shortens their life cycle. Swell, so we're encouraged to 'conserve energy' by leaving the lights on longer, instead of turning them off when not needed.

[Thebaddog]

I tried working with green suppliers for work and they were all goofs. It was like they were from Venus and resistant to any competitive urges whatsoever. And they’re all out of business now.

[UCANSEE2]

I also refer to the Honda Prius as the Smug-mobile.

[Maceman]

The answer to the author’s question is simple: “Make a rational argument.”

But a better question is: “How do you get progressive leftists to BUY A FREAKING CLUE?”

[Jabba the Nutt]

I honestly don’t know how people with lower incomes are surviving today.

You get more money on welfare than you do if you're a sucker, who works.

[a fool in paradise]

We have 75MPH highways again in Texas. Pious drivers won’t go that fast on the highway (even if the cars may be capable of it). How do they handle at high speeds? Vibrate and rattle? Are they susceptible to wind shear? Too scary to contemplate crashing in one at high speeds?

[Fire_on_High]

Even better....”Make a product that ppl want.”! Offer some personal benefit that appeals enough for a person to decide “I want this, not that.” when they’re in the store looking to purchase.

If a product doesn’t have any pluses that make at least a segment of the population look at it and realize that it fits their needs or wants, it need to die.

[a fool in paradise]

I had 2 lights burn out above my bathroom sink this last week. The bulbs each lasted over 15 years.

But no, that makes too much sense to stay with what works.

[FreedomPoster]

How Do You Get Conservatives to Buy Energy Efficient Products?

Show us a 3-5 year simple payback. This isn’t that hard, and conservatives buy on logic not emotions.

In a previous life, I did energy studies for commercial and institutional buildings. Lighting energy was an important aspect of this, and I know how to run the numbers. I’m a master at figuring out all the screwy stuff electrical utilities do, to make their commercial rates difficult to understand. Figuring payback on a residential rate is a piece of cake.

Back to the issue at hand: I have a number of lights that run very, very few hours a year. As a for-instance, I have a crawl space that gets used for some overflow storage that has four porcelain base screw in fixtures with 100W A19 lamps (regular light bulbs). They *might* be on 10 hours a year. 20 if I have a project that requires stringing wire or running pipe across the crawl space. There is no way a compact fluorescent light bulb pays back in this scenario, let alone an LED light bulb. But yet, all-knowing government has told me I must have the CFL or better, no more 100W A-lamps for you!

Needless to say, I have a good stockpile of them down there.

[yldstrk]

Conservatives know that it is cheaper to buy the gas to keep your old car going than spend 35K on some dopey excuse for a golf cart