Courtesy Gromet
MORE.....
Posted on 05/05/2013 4:57:10 AM PDT by 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.....
“The reason is that most conservatives have researched the “green” label and found, in most cases, it is used as a) a sales gimmick...”
That is the thinking of a real scientist. How could Wharton researchers not do the additional data collection necessary to identify these plausible, even obvious, alternative explanations? If I were speaking directly to the researchers, I might ask them if it isn’t reasonable that conservatives are more intelligent and aware of the nature of advertising labels and its (lack of a) relationship with actual product quality.
Why does the left label us this way … when they leave trash everywhere they go … they are destroying the planet not guys like me.
I’m a conservative, and live off grid ... I have 12 solar panels for 1440 watts; I’ve owned enough L16 batteries to make a German U-Boat commander green with envy; a 4024 Trace inverter to convert from DC to AC; I live within my means and don’t litter or pollute intentionally. I believe in non-GMO seeds, clean water and at one time even owned a diesel rabbit pick-up that I ran bio-diesel if it could be found. [hate the smell of the petro-diesel]
If I voted for Berry I’d be a respected earth friendly person welcomed into their Ecotopia, my land would be considered a model of their vision for the world … but since I own a self-defense weapon, it would be called a “compound” so they blindly hate my independence.
“...half of my salary goes to pay taxes so missing links to sit on their ass all day and collect welfare or warm the chairs in government offices, so my Green(tm) options are limited.”
You make a very important point. Societies that pay more in taxes or otherwise have low discretionary income are less environmentally clean, less innovative, and generally miserable places to live. The green movement and green parties of the world are very likely to create dirtier, less healthy environments.
Make NPVgreen > NPVconventional and make the green stuff work with the same convenience, reliability, and performance as the stuff that we know and like.
Your comment reminds me of PBS show on recycling:
What exactly happens after we smugly put our items in the “recycle bin”?
So they tried to trace it and it varied. Some items, I think paper and glass, had a pretty decent process for reuse. Aluminum (and other base metals) were the best, which is why the FREE MARKET pays people enough to pick up contains and turn them in.
But plastic was very interesting - and it is very hard to recycle (at least according to that show). About all they could find was that the plastic got bundled up and then put on a huge ship and sent to Taiwan. They could not figure out what happened after that. But since Taiwan actually paid for the plastic, one can probably assume they simply burn it for fuel.
But to the skinny, scrawny-faced, liberal in New York City, WHO CARES, for he did his part to SAVE THE WORLD.
And even that won't change the amount of oil purchased by other countries from the cesspools that hate the United States and the West, ie, the Islamderthals. Oil is a fungible commodity.
Amen.
I, a CONSERVative, am just doing my part of conserving energy I assume.
Funny, here in Silicon Valley, the fastest, most obnoxious, most rude, and most dangerous drivers are always driving Mercedes, BMW, Audi, and Prius! They’ll zoom up next to you and squeeze left in front of you, even though there’s a quarter mile clear behind you. They’ll cut you off every chance they get.
Or, I am conservative with my energy use as opposed to the more liberal users of energy.
That’s precisely why I’ve got a stash of hundreds of 60W, 75W and 100W incandescent bulbs. I smugly used 3 of the 60s yesterday and felt damn good about it.
I purchase LED light bulbs because they work well and though more expensive last longer use significantly less electricity. I was put off by the push to force everyone to buy crap florescent bulbs that take several seconds to warm up before reaching peak brightness which seemed to be the drive of the legislation banning incandescent bulbs.
As a conservative I don’t like having my options limited by nanny state government. The global warming bs certainly doesn’t help but I’ve never thought highly of environment nuts. Granted some positive things have came from their efforts but that good is largely dwarfed by the damage they have done to the economy and energy industry. Also most of the benefits from the green movement would’ve naturally came about on their own out of the best interest of companies. A hot energy inefficient processor for example would not cut it in the world of the smart phone/tablet.
The green movement has always had a core of misanthropy and that it is being used to justify horrors such as population control, restricted use of energy resources, and vast growth in government reach and taxation are all good reasons to be suspect of green initiatives of any kind. That said I will be happy to buy any product that works as well as the non green version for a good price that is justified by the benefit to me but never for some misguided feel good nature religion bull crap.
In the winter, I would highly recommend incandescent bulbs. They help reduce my heating bill. They are 100% efficient. Five percent of the energy they use goes towards lighting my house. The other 95% goes towards heating it. 100% efficient!
These are Par 38 Floods for our Museum headquarters. Also saved replacement costs for Halogen bulbs of about $500 as the tend to fail every two years. Flame me once....shame on me.. well. Nobody really knows how long these bulbs will last. Some folks say 50,000 hours.
That and steal hundreds of billions from us in taxes at gunpoint to “invest” in their utopian unicorn dreams. That never gets accounted for in retail price of the green toys.
We just remodeled our kitchen and were forced by the local government to spend about $3,000 on LED recessed lights we didn’t want or need. Conventional fixtures would have run way under $1,000.
I drive a car that gets ~38 MPG, it's also heavy... and 30 years old. 
It's also a diesel that was made by GM doing a retrofit of their existing gasoline engine (ie it wasn't actually designed for diesel).
So when the car companies say crap like their small, light cars are good because they get 35 MPG it kinda pisses me off.
I would hook a goose-neck trailer full of coal to it and take a road trip through California.
Nuke the gay whales! Gee get it right.
It is tough in the beginning to pay for the LED’s. Just watch your light bill go way down. Also LED’s last a long time.
Some of the government idiots become useful idiots without realizing certain benefits accrue to the citizenry.
It is a Conservative Ideal to Conserve
Conservatives are Rational Ecologists
Conservatives are Good Stewards
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.