This just in, Conservatives like money. Perhaps Liberals just don't have any money to want to save? I do think that there's another discussion to be had about how people feel differently on certain issues, are we wired for certain ideologies?
Recycle? Check. Energy efficient lightbulbs? Check Energy efficient heating/cooling? Check Bike instead of drive? Check Just took one of those "Measure Your Carbon Footprint" quizzes. Came in at 8.7. The average American is at 27. Sorry, what were you saying again?
I'm not all that sure what point the article is trying to make. Conservation is a fairly conservative position to take. But doing that on a personal level doesn't mean much when most of our pollution is industrial based. Not saying people shouldn't follow Garamet's example, but for me the point of activism isn't about changing personal behavior. That's just the tip of the iceberg.
I just turned the AC down 3 degrees. I look forward to garamet nominating me for the Nobel prize in Climate Scientology.
Like the plastic grocery bag bans. Don't incentivize the companies that make the bags to use biodegradable plastic; penalize the consumer, who then brings their own bags to the store and has to buy extra bags for trash instead of repurposed grocery bags. Consumer pays more; manufacturer wins. Do fewer bags end up as litter? Who knows?
But remember, there are no Republicans on WF, just "not Republicans." Also, isn't it interesting that the headline is about "Conservatives," but the graphs are broken down by Libertarian, Independent, Democrat, and Republican? I guess Rightforge will now claim that "Libertarian" and "Independent" actually mean "Conservative."
Good thread. As well as controlling for income I'd also like to see it controlled for home ownership. If for instance liberals tend to be younger, poorer and more urban than likely their home ownership rates will be different. Could just be coincidence, or due to the far right echo chamber making a huge deal about it but light bulbs are one thing a renter would actually have control over. Could be part of why that one goes far Dem. More after dinner on the Think Global, Act Local Left Right divide.
(To Steve, to think of a better title) Sort of like how more affluent countries are better environment, it stands to reason that more affluent people can buy fancy light bulbs, or at Whole Foods with their reusable bags. Affluence and wealth, not regulation may be better drivers of environmental efficiency. Also, buying fancy light bulbs =/= banning old light bulbs. Everyone likes saving money, but when you frame the argument as a mandate, you automatically lose people, not mention punish poor people. Dem/Rep is a relative description anyway, Democrats around here have gun racks and go to church. Sort of like how @Krieg learned he was a fascist when he came over from Yakima. Three years ago I sat in on a seminar with Joel Salatin, the farmer from Food Inc. Someone asked what the biggest misconception about his organic, grassfed, all local farming system was. "That it's all hippies" he replied " "80% of our clientele would identify as Tea Party" Anecdotal? Yeah, but there's more diversity out there than a lot of us realize.
Discussions of light bulbs are just arguing around the edges. What's really happening is much bigger and the economic changes are going to be far more pervasive. Just read a review of a fascinating sounding book: Windfall. The premise is that by following the money, we can see what is actually happening to the climate. It points out the opportunities for investment, who will win, who will lose. http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-24/profit-from-global-warming-or-get-left-behind.html We as consumers, we barely register in our ability to interfere with the building juggernaut. And then, perhaps most interesting, regarding the deniers:
That would be a far better point if we weren't subsidizing alternate energy the way we are. Yes, investing in Solyndra was a hell of a deal, if you were one of the chosen winners. Wind power doubly so! Is there money to be made on climate change? Yeah, so why the need to throw government money at it if the changes are so obvious? @steve2^4 Define conspicuous consumption, $50-100K electric cars? My $13K geo thermal heat pump? Not against them, but that's certainly wealth opening the market, and starting the process that will eventually lead to more affordable options.
You should read the review. That's not really what the book is about, but more about the kind of stuff you talk about -- figuring out what land will become more farmable and buying it, etc. As for Solyndra and such, the subsidies are really designed to favor the wealthy and upper middle class. Solar panels are going up all over my neighborhood, partly because people want to help the environment, partly because they hope to save money long-term on electricity, and especially because there are currently tax incentives for putting them in. I didn't jump on that bandwagon because my roof is shaped and angled in such a way that I don't have enough viable surface area for the number of panels required to make good on the investment. But I did put in a subsidized high efficiency furnace. I don't think poor people are able to take advantage of these deals.
The light bulbs thing was actually pushed by GE, hoping to sell more of the more expensive CFL bulbs they manufacture. So the government gladly created a monopoly for them by banning the cheap bulbs they didn't want to produce anymore. Nice to know that your government is in the pocket of big business, isn't it? And all under the guise of being "green."
Okay, so got busy and it took me a while to get back to this. I think that while both the left and the right can be environmentalists, there are a couple of places where speaking in general terms the left and the right have serious philosophical differences that lead to different reactions in terms of the environment. Scale of the Problem. Generally speaking the left sees Climate Change and other environmental issues (ocean acidification, loss of biodiversity etc) as much more a catastrophic and immediate problem than those on the right. This cause them to THINK BIG and to also be willing to be more coercive (when you believe the fate of future generations is a stake, what sacrifice is too great?). Local Resident v Global Citizen. I think that generally speaking people on the right are more likely to define themselves by their family/location/state/region whereas those on the left see themselves as part of a larger whole. In many ways I think those on the right are actually MORE active and involved in helping out their local areas than those on the left. On the same side I see those on the left donating more time and effort on 'larger' issues. Conservation v Preservation. I think that many on the left don't see conservation as environmentalism. This is a blind spot as it alienates a large segment of the right which would be natural allies. We don't have to put the world in a glass box to make sure it survives for future generations. There is a way for us to use the natural resources of this planet without abusing it. Duck hunters care a whole lot about wetlands, fishermen a whole lot about reefs and oxygen levels, farmers a whole lot about top soil and water waste, etc. etc. When those on the left don't recognize this they pick a fight and set us all up for failure.
^Was it the know-it-all repetition, or the self-important tone? WF software doesn't like charts, so struggle through the data, it's not hard. Country #s 9, 10 and 16 are dying, not growing. But still. Go America !! Personally, I live with a relatively very small carbon footprint, have done since forming habits living on a boat from 1994 to 2004, but I won't vote for policy (like the atrocious CAFE that drives the nations standards) that has negative implications on RL and growth etc, and yet does almost nothing to improve the purported ills - often failing to even help alleviate the symptoms.
I'm pretty conservation-minded, both in terms of the energy I use and trying to avoid a larger human footprint on the planet. I think my main reason for both is efficiency of resources, including space. In other news, I am now an "ivory tower" PhD working in part for the oil and gas industry. Funny how life works out.
So have we determined who the ostensible "conservatives" are in those graphs? Are there any data on how Tea Party members compare to more mainstream Republicans?
I've actually seen this play out locally. As I've mentioned I'm a director on the local soil conservation board. I've sat in state level meetings and heard the caterwalling when it's mentioned we should align with the EPA, Sierra Club or Ducks Unlimited on certain political issues. The concerns aren't without merit, but it's usually decided to keep your enemies closer. Point is, those groups are insular too, no doubt raising a fuss about us in their meetings. Recently to their credit, the higher ups have been proactive in engaging with, and taking those organizations on tours to see conservation methods, water concerns, etc. They've sealed the deal with a meal in a picturesque renovated building which you may be familiar with.
