Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Conservatives less likely to buy eco-friendly lightbulbs


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

    The loud atheist minority drummed Tim Tevo out of the NFL.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,263 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 12:12 AM

http://grist.org/cli...o-waste-energy/

A study out Monday 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 lightbulb or an efficient compact florescent bulb (CFL), 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.

What a bunch of fuging assholes :)

#2 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hari kari for amari

  • ALL-PRO
  • 21,675 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 06 May 2013 - 01:09 AM

the republicans need teddy roosevelt back. hell even nixon was a conservationist to an extent, NHPA in 1966 was huge

 

now they are the party of waste and exploitation and unfettered greed, yay america



#3 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,384 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 01:44 AM

we, the spiteful



#4 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,483 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:00 AM

They are much more expensive, and in my experience, don't last as long.



#5 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,086 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:28 AM

I started switching to LED last year. All are still going strong. Have noticed a dip in energy costs. CFL won't be around much longer once LED becomes more reasonable. No worries about the mercury inside them and the kids either.



#6 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,585 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:31 AM

the republicans need teddy roosevelt back. hell even nixon was a conservationist to an extent, NHPA in 1966 was huge

now they are the party of waste and exploitation and unfettered greed, yay america


Teddy would be run out of the Republican party even quicker than he was back in the day.

No room for tree huggers or enemies of the job creators.

#7 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,086 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:37 AM

As much as they beat off to the memory of Reagan, he would not last in today's republican party either.



#8 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,985 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:46 AM

I thought most conservatives were farmers or bee keepers therefore they rise with the sun and go to sleep at dusk.
Less nergy consumption and eat grass fed beef.

#9 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,770 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 07:04 AM

I don't think the Amish vote.



#10 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 17,481 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 06 May 2013 - 07:09 AM

I started switching to LED last year. All are still going strong. Have noticed a dip in energy costs. CFL won't be around much longer once LED becomes more reasonable. No worries about the mercury inside them and the kids either.

 

ditto.  I only had to break one CFL and have to try to clean it up to convince me to make the switch. 

 

I'm about 80% LED.

 

LED is just better technology than CFL anyway.  Their longevity is consistent with what their labeling says and they don't dim noticeably over time.



#11 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,770 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 07:21 AM

If God wanted us to use LEDs he would not have given Edison the idea for the carbon monofilament in his dreams.



#12 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,767 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 07:30 AM

It's because maybe some of us look at that packaging and laugh when CFLs packaging tells you it contains mercury.

 

http://www.ecy.wa.go...ight_bulbs.html

 

It's like the whole Ben and Jerry's dioxin controversy in the late 90s.  Ben and Jerry's preaching their "Eco-pint" packaging while the entire time having dioxin levels 2000 times what was allowed in treated drinking water. 

 

Want to make a difference?  Buy LED. But I'm not ready to completely outfit my entire house with LED.  Can't afford it as some incandescents have lasted years.  And for a while the LEDs threw off a shade of light I didn't particularly care for.  They have vastly improved, and I will be replacing some from time to time but I'm in no hurry. 

 

I also have some CFLs too.  Does the CFL with the "uber planet-saving" garb have an Hg on the box?



#13 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,767 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 07:32 AM

Maybe the real idiots are the ones that accept eco/planet saving advertising while being competely ignorant of which is truly more harmful to their home. 



#14 catfang

catfang

    Senior Member

  • ALL-PRO
  • 6,624 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:20 AM

I hate the light of CFLs. I have them at the office and hate them.  The last thing I want is that same light at home.  That said we do have CFLs in locations where they make sense (where lights are on - or off - for extended periods) like outdoor lights.  Frequent on-and-off locations are hard on CFLs and they don't last much longer than incandescent.  I'm all about LED but waiting for price to drop a little more.  I'm going to try halogen in the meantime. They are a little more efficient than incandescent (not much) but at least it's something until LED price drop. 



#15 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,086 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:52 AM

The term "Mad Hatter" came about from hat makers soaking their materials in mercury to make them more of a felt. The mercury soaked in to their skin and drove them insane eventually.

 

 

Fact.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com