Lightbulbs and politics

[fskimospy]

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/04/26/1218453110

While most of the outcomes of this study are in the 'no duh' category, one really sticks out. Basically consumers were given a choice between CFL light bulbs and regular ones at various price points. When price, etc was equal, everyone chose basically the same light bulb. (no duh, right?)

The interesting part came from when a 'save the environment' sticker was put on some of the light bulb packaging. In this case conservatives were less likely to purchase it even when all other things were equal. Conservatives were willing to subvert their own preferred purchase in order to demonstrate their dislike for anti-carbon emissions ideology. In a light bulb that nobody will use but them. That nobody else will even notice they were using. To their financial detriment.

That is mighty irrational.

In P&N this devolved into people linking images of Mike Haggar pile driving a shark. Can we do better here than the new Ballad of Mike Haggar?

 

[Jaskalas]

"Save the environment" is a partisan message in this country. No one should be surprised by it. You clearly feel it shouldn't be, but the solutions are always seen as vast overreaching government initiatives that curb "freedoms" and raise costs.

As I mentioned in P&N, the banning of incandescent light bulbs is seen quite negatively among conservatives. It injected more partisanship on the subject and in the end people just want to stick a finger at their opponents.

 

[smackababy]

I feel as though you are trying to imply something is wrong with the Mayor of Earth pile driving a shark... I can not take the rest of your argument seriously now. JK. >_>

I think the issue is conservatives (in this particular case, liberals do it as well) feel as though by purchasing environmentally friendly products they are being dishonest to their ideology. And since the financial detriment of a light bulb being slightly more expensive really isn't much of a detriment, they are okay with this. I also think some stigma for environmentally friendly products still lingers in people's mind from them being less in quality. Freon is a great example. The substitute, at the time Freon was outlawed in the US, was not nearly as efficient.

I'd like to see a study done with something more costly than light bulbs. I think those results would be more telling. Sadly, cars wouldn't be a great example because most people have some ill conceived brand bias because somebody once said X brand is crap and Y brand is good in the 1980s.

 

[CrackRabbit]

I'm the type of person where it comes down to money, if buying an 'Earth friendly' bulb is going cost me the least amount of money overall (cost of bulb + electricity to run it) I'll get it.
I replaced most of the lighting in my house from incandescent to CFLs after I moved in, the cost of running up to 6 75 watt lamps vs 6 15 watt lamps just in my living room is worth the cost savings in electricity alone.
This is also why I'm happy that LED bulbs are coming down in price, they eliminate the downsides of CFLs (Mercury, warm up time, shorter lifespan) and use the same or less electricity.

 

[cwjerome]

A bit irrational... I suppose. It's also a pretty loaded or partisan slogan, and a superficial and one at that. Personally, if I see stuff like that in any form it turns me off a little. STFU and let me buy what I want using my own reasoning you over-manipulating advertisement. It's almost as if "Save the Children!" was on the box. It's a shame that leftwing environmental cliches have made some people knee-jerk away from things even when there is some good to it.

 

[smackababy]

I'm the type of person where it comes down to money, if buying an 'Earth friendly' bulb is going cost me the least amount of money overall (cost of bulb + electricity to run it) I'll get it.
I replaced most of the lighting in my house from incandescent to CFLs after I moved in, the cost of running up to 6 75 watt lamps vs 6 15 watt lamps just in my living room is worth the cost savings in electricity alone.
This is also why I'm happy that LED bulbs are coming down in price, they eliminate the downsides of CFLs (Mercury, warm up time, shorter lifespan) and use the same or less electricity.

I replace with the CFLs when whatever is in it burns out. I don't go out and 'upgrade', but I am not overly concerned about my utility bill. Last month, I think mine electricity bill was $25. I do want some of the LEDs, but not really for power savings. I just like the technology, but the current price is a bit more than I'd be willing to replace everything with.

 

[kia75]

"Save the environment" is a partisan message in this country. No one should be surprised by it. You clearly feel it shouldn't be, but the solutions are always seen as vast overreaching government initiatives that curb "freedoms" and raise costs.

As I mentioned in P&N, the banning of incandescent light bulbs is seen quite negatively among conservatives. It injected more partisanship on the subject and in the end people just want to stick a finger at their opponents.

But why is saving the environment partisan now when it wasn't in the past?

When leaded gasoline was banned there wasn't an uproar. Heck, Conservatives started the park service to conserve nature. The conservation movement shares the same base word as Conservatives.

What has happened between the past 50 years that makes conservatives spite the planet when previous conservatives were for saving it in the past? When did the traditional message of taking care of what you have become anti-conservative and liberal? Not shitting where you eat should be something that everyone, regardless of political persuasion should be for, yet now to want clean forests to camp in, canyons to ride your horses in, and clean lakes to fish in means you're a librul pinky commie who hates America.

 

[smackababy]

But why is saving the environment partisan now when it wasn't in the past?

When leaded gasoline was banned there wasn't an uproar. Heck, Conservatives started the park service to conserve nature. The conservation movement shares the same base word as Conservatives.

What has happened between the past 50 years that makes conservatives spite the planet when previous conservatives were for saving it in the past? When did the traditional message of taking care of what you have become anti-conservative and liberal? Not shitting where you eat should be something that everyone, regardless of political persuasion should be for, yet now to want clean forests to camp in, canyons to ride your horses in, and clean lakes to fish in means you're a librul pinky commie who hates America.

It is mostly because "saving the environment" means more stringent regulations on production. That almost always increases costs for companies and they can't "pass the savings" on to consumers without bad PR. Lobbying is less costly. Buying votes is relatively cheap compared to having to put up with new regulations every few years.

 

[Jaskalas]

Not shitting where you eat should be something that everyone, regardless of political persuasion should be for, yet now to want clean forests to camp in, canyons to ride your horses in, and clean lakes to fish in means you're a librul pinky commie who hates America.

Perhaps the point is we're not talking about such things anymore. When today's "Save the environment" movement condemns the incandescent light bulb people get testy. None of those other measures involved that.

 

[smackababy]

Perhaps the point is we're not talking about such things anymore. When today's "Save the environment" movement condemns the incandescent light bulb people get testy. None of those other measures involved that.

The reality is no longer is the "save the environment" movement about going out and cleaning up parks or beaches. It is about coming up with new regulations and laws that force Coca-Cola to come up with new materials and packaging that instantly biodegrades so when the average consumer throws it into the lake it doesn't harm the fish. It is not about personal responsibility for the environment; it is about forcing companies to spend more money, make less profits, and possibly stifle innovation for some feel good legislation that still has Joe Blow throwing his soda cans in the ocean.

Where does it stop? Forcing people to buy certain types of light bulbs because one is more energy efficient? Forcing people to only be allowed to use so much power each month? Forcing people to only own a certain number of lamps and run them a certain number of hours between designated times? All of those measures reduce the carbon footprint of each household and 'save the environment'.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Perhaps the point is we're not talking about such things anymore. When today's "Save the environment" movement condemns the incandescent light bulb people get testy. None of those other measures involved that.

Perhaps because the damage being caused by electricity generation isn't as obvious as the Cuyahoga River catching on fire, mass deforrestation, or sea creatures covered in oil.
The technology behind incandescent bulbs is over a century old and has improved very little within that time, and are grossly inefficient for the light they provide.
CFLs are a stepping stone to reduce the amount of damage done by reducing the need for more generation until an even better solution (LEDs) can be brought down to a price to not be prohibitive to consumers.

 

[Screech]

copypaste of my PN post:

A company that puts a viewpoint on some political issue on its product, even if that product is identical, would seem more likely, logically, to support that side of said issue, perhaps even to the point of donating money in its support.

If you don't support that viewpoint, why would you donate money to your opponents?

If I could buy a chicken that said "bush and cheney 2000" or one that didn't, why would I take the risk that I am donating money to my political opponents when I can buy an identical one that does not outwardly appear to carry that risk?

Seem pretty logical to me tbh.

 

[ivwshane]

Basically the study says conservatives can be manipulated by a sticker. Only the buying habits of the conservative changed because of a sticker.

My guess is that the "made in the USA" sticker also would manipulate them even if everything else was equal (both products were made in the USA, same packaging except one had a sticker and one didnt).


Would I call that irrational? No but it does highlight how easily they can be manipulated.

 

[Screech]

Basically the study says conservatives can be manipulated by a sticker. Only the buying habits of the conservative changed because of a sticker.

My guess is that the "made in the USA" sticker also would manipulate them even if everything else was equal (both products were made in the USA, same packaging except one had a sticker and one didnt).

Hell, I'd be more inclined to buy a made in the usa product than one that is not (at the same price).....of course, the one that is not is probably going to be half the cost :\

 

[ivwshane]

Hell, I'd be more inclined to buy a made in the usa product than one that is not (at the same price).....of course, the one that is not is probably going to be half the cost :\

That wasnt my point. If you take the same product and put a sticker on it that says "made in the USA" my guess is that the conservative would buy the one with the sticker in it where as for everyone else it wouldn't change their buying habit.

Stickers manipulate conservatives whether their behavior is justified or not doesnt matter.

 

[cwjerome]

But why is saving the environment partisan now when it wasn't in the past?

Combination of eco-kooks going full retard and extreme profit before anything else mentality of businesses.

 

[cwjerome]

Basically the study says conservatives can be manipulated by a sticker. Only the buying habits of the conservative changed because of a sticker.

Seriously?

I think it has to do a little more with the message conveyed than the fact there's a sticker on a box

 

[ivwshane]

Seriously?

I think it has to do a little more with the message conveyed than the fact there's a sticker on a box

Of course! But it has little to do with the product itself

 

[EagleKeeper]

Seriously?

I think it has to do a little more with the message conveyed than the fact there's a sticker on a box

Stickers manipulate people.

Data filtering allows assignment of people into groups.

Liberals may think they are smarter. They are, from their POV.
Yet, they can also be manipulated.

Everything is based on the message intended and the presentation.

Using the CFl example and discounting the bias of the OP and linked article:

CFLs are stated to be better.
Yet they also have mecury in them, making them harmful to dispose of.
They are also more costly.
They take longer to get going.
They burn out quickly when used ons dimmer.

It may be that the benefits of CFL are not so clear as the liberal thinks and tbe conservative is aware of such.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Al Gore has annoyed a lot of people by preaching carbon abstinence from his mansion and private jet. It's human nature for those people to vote against him with their wallet.

If I saw an "approved by PETA" or "Westboro Baptists like this product" sticker on something I'd be less likely to buy it too. Money isn't the only thing that determines my purchases.

 

[fskimospy]

Stickers manipulate people.

Data filtering allows assignment of people into groups.

Liberals may think they are smarter. They are, from their POV.
Yet, they can also be manipulated.

Everything is based on the message intended and the presentation.

Using the CFl example and discounting the bias of the OP and linked article:

CFLs are stated to be better.
Yet they also have mecury in them, making them harmful to dispose of.
They are also more costly.
They take longer to get going.
They burn out quickly when used ons dimmer.

It may be that the benefits of CFL are not so clear as the liberal thinks and tbe conservative is aware of such.

It is bizarre that you would declare the article and the OP biased while so clearly misrepresenting what they both said. Did you not read them very carefully? If the conservatives were aware of the additional environmental issues behind CFLs that should be present regardless of whether or not there is a sticker present were that to actually be a concern of theirs.

BTW this dovetails with other research that showed conservative households to sometimes INCREASE their energy consumption in response to requests to conserve energy.

 

[theevilsharpie]

BTW this dovetails with other research that showed conservative households to sometimes INCREASE their energy consumption in response to requests to conserve energy.

This.

While the study was focused on the effects of environmental branding in the U.S., it more broadly serves to illustrate today's "us vs. them" political culture, where people engage in self-destructive behavior for the express purpose of spiting an opposing political ideology (no matter how tenuous the link).

You can even see observe on AT. Just search the forums for "Prius" and observe the irrational hatred that so many people have for hybrid vehicles, and the equally hilarious arguments that they use to justify that hatred.

Also, while the study only tip-toed around it, I'll just say it: the phenomenon the researchers observed is a uniquely right-wing characteristic.

 

[woolfe9998]

Perhaps the point is we're not talking about such things anymore. When today's "Save the environment" movement condemns the incandescent light bulb people get testy. None of those other measures involved that.

So why the outcry about incandescent light bulbs all the sudden? As Kia pointed out, they banned leaded gasoline which was cheaper than unleaded and conservatives didn't complain. So what is it about incandescent bulbs, other than lower cost, that conservatives are so attached to?

 

[cwjerome]

So why the outcry about incandescent light bulbs all the sudden? As Kia pointed out, they banned leaded gasoline which was cheaper than unleaded and conservatives didn't complain. So what is it about incandescent bulbs, other than lower cost, that conservatives are so attached to?

Things have become more polarized and partisan in the last 20 years. And I'm not sure conservatives are attached to incandescent bulbs... some of them are probably more irritated with some of the more extreme environmental agendas and take that frustration out by not buying things with stickers on them that say "Save the environment!"

 

[ivwshane]

So why the outcry about incandescent light bulbs all the sudden? As Kia pointed out, they banned leaded gasoline which was cheaper than unleaded and conservatives didn't complain. So what is it about incandescent bulbs, other than lower cost, that conservatives are so attached to?

I'm not going to lie, I prefer regular bulbs to CFL's for many reasons. Dimmability with existing switches, color, warm up time, physical appearance. And while there are CFL's that address some of those issues none address all of them.

The same can be said of LED bulbs. Although LED bulbs are getting better they still lack things like output angle, color temp (they are getting close) and they are still pretty expensive.