Some conservatives turned off by helping the environment

[_EAllusion]

Here's a blog post on what turns out to be a pretty fascinating study:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/ ... vironment/

It turns out that a % of conservatives, all things being equal, will become less likely to purchase an item if it is branded as helping the environment in some way. Even if things aren't equal - with the more environment friendly item being more cost-effective due to energy efficiency for example - there's still a negative effect on purchasing habits. Take away the environmentally-friendly branding and the effect disappears. On the one hand, this isn't incredibly surprising given what is known in cognitive science about how beliefs associate. On the other hand, the fact that conservatives, on average, are more likely to find helping the environment to be a repellent idea simply because it is associated with the activism of their political enemies is awfully appalling. Is this what we've come to?

[_Tarski]

Here's a blog post on what turns out to be a pretty fascinating study:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/ ... vironment/

It turns out that a % of conservatives, all things being equal, will become less likely to purchase an item if it is branded as helping the environment in some way. Even if things aren't equal - with the more environment friendly item being more cost-effective due to energy efficiency for example - there's still a negative effect on purchasing habits. Take away the environmentally-friendly branding and the effect disappears. On the one hand, this isn't incredibly surprising given what is known in cognitive science about how beliefs associate. On the other hand, the fact that conservatives, on average, are more likely to find helping the environment to be a repellent idea simply because it is associated with the activism of their political enemies is awfully appalling. Is this what we've come to?

yes

[Guest]

Here's a blog post on what turns out to be a pretty fascinating study:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/ ... vironment/

It turns out that a % of conservatives, all things being equal, will become less likely to purchase an item if it is branded as helping the environment in some way. Even if things aren't equal - with the more environment friendly item being more cost-effective due to energy efficiency for example - there's still a negative effect on purchasing habits. Take away the environmentally-friendly branding and the effect disappears. On the one hand, this isn't incredibly surprising given what is known in cognitive science about how beliefs associate. On the other hand, the fact that conservatives, on average, are more likely to find helping the environment to be a repellent idea simply because it is associated with the activism of their political enemies is awfully appalling. Is this what we've come to?

Precisely. Goods that confer ideologically fashionable moral status, such as electric cars, have no relevance whatsoever to the climate dynamics of planet earth, would not exist without taxpayer subsidization, and represent a vast waste of financial and human resources. Most similar boutique commodities and goods that fall under the rubric of "green" or "sustainable" (like "organic" vegetables) are of the same kind.

the fact that conservatives, on average, are more likely to find helping the environment to be a repellent idea simply because it is associated with the activism of their political enemies is awfully appalling.

What's really appalling are intellectually dishonest, shamelessly contrived misrepresentations of the philosophy of others in this manner. There is very little that is called "green" or that is promoted as "environmentally friendly" that is anything more than an attempt to make a buck from the Kultursmog generated by the environmental movement, i.e., its political activism.

And there isn't anything "green" that isn't political.

[_EAllusion]

The environmentally-friendly branding wasn't calling it "green." It was the same product with the phrase "Protect the environment" on it. The exact same product with the same data did worse among conservatives when that label was added. Otherwise, it was preferred even when it was more expensive. The labeling itself, believe it or not, is more likely to be a turnoff to self-identified conservatives. Even if the claim wasn't true, which wouldn't make any sense in the rubric of the experiment, it shouldn't have a negative impact unless that association is repellent.

[_cinepro]

Personally, I'll usually buy the energy-efficient or "green" option if there isn't a huge drop in effectiveness or jump in price (just this morning I bought incandescent light bulbs for my office, which I've always done because I can't work under CFLs, but I use CFLs in the general areas of my building).

But in thinking about it, I can see how "environmentalism" could have become so polarizing over the years that some conservatives would be put off by the idea. Interestingly, groups such as the Boy Scouts are pretty gung-ho about conservation, so it's not a totally foreign idea to conservatives.

[_Molok]

Rush Limbaugh says the Green movement is a communist plot regularly, so this doesn't really surprise me.

[_ajax18]

It might be the same price, but how do I know that isn't because we're paying higher taxes to artificially deflate the price? The cost could be hidden and I wouldn't even be aware of it. For the record, I've always taken the extra time to sort our trash to be recycled when I moved to an area where I had the choice. I can afford that.

I disagree with those who think being the world leader in environmentalism is worth saddling our companies with so much regulation that they can't compete with China. Nonglobal environmental regulations will only cause those who follow them unnecessary economic hardship in my opinion. It doesn't change the outcome for anyone if only a few countries participate. Liberals would disagree with that and since they're making the rules, yeah, I'm skeptical.

[_Droopy]

The environmentally-friendly branding wasn't calling it "green." It was the same product with the phrase "Protect the environment" on it. The exact same product with the same data did worse among conservatives when that label was added. Otherwise, it was preferred even when it was more expensive. The labeling itself, believe it or not, is more likely to be a turnoff to self-identified conservatives.

Of course it is, because the connotation here is with "green" ideology and politics, and all that traditionally implies. The term itself generates a psychological reference connecting the product to a wide range of deeply repellent political and philosophical concepts and attitudes.

Even if the claim wasn't true, which wouldn't make any sense in the rubric of the experiment, it shouldn't have a negative impact unless that association is repellent.

But it is to conservatives, and for very good reasons, as I've outlined above.

[_Droopy]

Interestingly, groups such as the Boy Scouts are pretty gung-ho about conservation, so it's not a totally foreign idea to conservatives.

Yes, "conservation" is a well understood and wholly accepted concept to conservatives, and I've always, since childhood, considered myself a conservationist. My love of nature, the sense of awe at its grandness and complexity, and belief in the concept of stewardship virtually guarantees that position. I do not consider myself an "environmentalist," however, and conservation, as I understand and support it, is most patently not environmentalism.

[_Droopy]

Rush Limbaugh says the Green movement is a communist plot regularly, so this doesn't really surprise me.

A major aspect of the Green movement is, yes, socialism/communism displaced and re-emergent as radical environmentalism (otherwise known colloquially among conservatives and libertarian critics as "watermelon" environmentalism).