conservatives reaction to energy efficiency promotion is to use more energy

[cali]

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.

<snip>

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/04/how-do-you-get-conservatives-buy-energy-efficient-products/5435/

[Buzz Clik]

1. When everything gets politicized, this is the natural result.

It happens on both sides, and shows a distinct lack of thinking.

[cali]

2. How is promoting energy efficiency or the science of climate change,

politicizing them? Maybe I'm being blind to it, but I see the politicization of both as coming from the right and from corporate interests What, specifically, has the left done to politicize energy efficiency or the science of climate change? Aside from that both are political issues- which is not the same thing as politicizing them.

What issues does the left politicize. I'm drawing a blank which may well be do to my political bias.

[Buzz Clik]

6. My response of "both sides" was not necessarily strictly about energy.

However, the left automatically rejects anything to do with fossil fuels. Example: for at least a decade, we have been pushing getting away from coal in power plants and turning to natural gas as a cleaner alternative. Fracking comes along producing abundant natural gas, and you would be hard-pressed to find one person on the left looking for a way to find an acceptable solution to the balance between environmental stresses of fracking and the enormous benefits of natural gas. Any time I voice this concern, I am labeled as an industry whore.

Another, even better, example is the hysteria concerning genetically modified crops. The left has labeled these crops as Frankenfoods with modest opposition to this characterization. Citing scientific studies disputing these claims and requests for credible references supporting the claims has gotten me labeled as shill for Monsanto.

Yeah, politicization occurs on both sides.

[hobbit709]

3. Conservative response to anything is to double down.

[Honeycombe8]

4. Why would someone think conservatives "should have a natural inclination toward conservation"?

That's an odd statement. Since conservatives are all about non-government, total individual freedom, anti-belief in global warming, self-involved, "I got mine, who cares about yours," they would not be inclined toward conservation, is my view.

My far right family members are not just against, but HOSTILE toward hybrid cars, fluroescent bulbs, recycling, or anything that is considered green. That's sissy, tree-hugger stuff!

[denverbill]

7. That's because they aren't conservatives.

Conservatives should favor frugality, and they don't. They should favor a cautious, go-slow approach, and they don't.

[Honeycombe8]

8. Conservatives don't favor frugality. Think Romney, Gingrich, Bush....

They are all about if you got it, it's yours to do with what you want, no matter how extravagant. "That's what Liberty is all about!" they would say. Concern for the environment, stewardship of the earth, is not in their platform or thought process.

They are not in favor of go-slow approaches, when it's a matter of concern for them. BIG tax cuts, not small incremental ones. Go to war right now, don't wait for a true consensus. BIG cars and trucks, if that's what you want.

[Berlum]

5. Bizarro Bachman (R)

"Where cartoons? Where not funny animals? Bizarro want smash stuff. No want cartoons!"

- Bizarro Bachman (R)

[dawg]

9. It's like they're proud of being ignorant.