Lightbulbs and politics

[theevilsharpie]

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 don't think this is a good comparison.

Banning incandescent lights is a government overreach. CFLs and other alternatives to incandescent are more reliable and cost less to operate in the long term, and they were already very popular among businesses and individuals. There was no need for the government to get involved, because market forces were already shifting toward more efficient alternatives to incandescents.

On the other hand, leaded gasoline was cheaper than unleaded, so there was no real incentive to use it other than among the environmentally conscious. The government was justified in banning it, because unleaded fuel would have never gained market acceptance otherwise.

 

[irishScott]

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?

It's irrational to refuse to financially support a company that doesn't agree with your political views?

It's like a liberal saying: I ate at chik-fil-a, but then I learned about their political donations and stopped because I don't want to financially support that.

Breaking News! Political messages help determine purchase decisions!

 

[fskimospy]

It's irrational to refuse to financially support a company that doesn't agree with your political views?

It's like a liberal saying: I ate at chik-fil-a, but then I learned about their political donations and stopped because I don't want to financially support that.

Breaking News! Political messages help determine purchase decisions!

I was unaware that a company pointing out an obvious feature of their product was similar to a business repeatedly and explicitly stating their views and donating to political action groups that enforced those views.

Toyota regularly touts the carbon friendliness of its auto line. Do you take that to mean that Toyota routinely engages in political activity that you disagree with? In fact, most major corporations in the US routinely point out environmental benefits of their work if they exist. Are all of these also engaging in this political activity? What standard are you using to determine this?

 

[ivwshane]

It's irrational to refuse to financially support a company that doesn't agree with your political views?

It's like a liberal saying: I ate at chik-fil-a, but then I learned about their political donations and stopped because I don't want to financially support that.

Breaking News! Political messages help determine purchase decisions!

Yes and as I recall the right then went out a bought a ton of food from them, should the left now go out a buy a ton of CFL bulbs in protest of the rights protest? That seems irrational to me.

 

[theevilsharpie]

It's irrational to refuse to financially support a company that doesn't agree with your political views?

It's like a liberal saying: I ate at chik-fil-a, but then I learned about their political donations and stopped because I don't want to financially support that.

Breaking News! Political messages help determine purchase decisions!

This study isn't about politically motivated boycotts. Those are well-represented on both sides of the spectrum. This study about people engaging in behavior that is against their best interests because engaging in rational behavior violates their political identity in their mind.

An appropriate analogy would be a liberal getting pregnant and then getting an abortion, solely because doing so would piss off conservatives.

 

[ivwshane]

I was unaware that a company pointing out an obvious feature of their product was similar to a business repeatedly and explicitly stating their views and donating to political action groups that enforced those views.

Toyota regularly touts the carbon friendliness of its auto line. Do you take that to mean that Toyota routinely engages in political activity that you disagree with? In fact, most major corporations in the US routinely point out environmental benefits of their work if they exist. Are all of these also engaging in this political activity? What standard are you using to determine this?

That's a good point and also illustrates the mental gymnastics the right will do in order to justify their behavior and in this particular case they have to make some pretty big assumptions for those justifications and that too is irrational.

 

[irishScott]

I was unaware that a company pointing out an obvious feature of their product was similar to a business repeatedly and explicitly stating their views and donating to political action groups that enforced those views.

Toyota regularly touts the carbon friendliness of its auto line. Do you take that to mean that Toyota routinely engages in political activity that you disagree with? In fact, most major corporations in the US routinely point out environmental benefits of their work if they exist. Are all of these also engaging in this political activity? What standard are you using to determine this?

I'm using the standard that "save the environment" is as politicized as anything in the US. You may not think of it as a political issue, and I may not think of it as a political issue, but others do. They see such a slogan and link it to their political enemies.

Don't get me wrong I wouldn't give two shits about a "save the environment" sticker; I like reducing my carbon footprint, gives me a warm fuzzy feeling and saves a little money if done right. But there are those who think the whole "save the environment" movement is just an over-hyped political agenda rather than an important, practical issue. Naturally these people would be disinclined to support said "agenda."

And yes, driving a Prius is as much a political statement as an environmentally sound purchasing decision, whether the owner of the Prius thinks so or not.

 

[ivwshane]

An appropriate analogy would be a liberal getting pregnant and then getting an abortion, solely because doing so would piss off conservatives.

Or a liberal going on welfare and purposely not looking for work just to piss off the right.

 

[ivwshane]

And yes, driving a Prius is as much a political statement as an environmentally sound purchasing decision, whether the owner of the Prius thinks so or not.

And what political message does a hybrid SUV owner make?

 

[theevilsharpie]

Or a liberal going on welfare and purposely not looking for work just to piss off the right.

That works too.

 

[irishScott]

This study isn't about politically motivated boycotts. Those are well-represented on both sides of the spectrum. This study about people engaging in behavior that is against their best interests because engaging in rational behavior violates their political identity in their mind.

An appropriate analogy would be a liberal getting pregnant and then getting an abortion, solely because doing so would piss off conservatives.

I buy American-made products over other options because they are American-made, usually to my financial detriment. From any rational perspective, it's against my best interests, as what little money I contribute to said corporations is unlikely to keep them around in and of itself.

I do it in the name of Patriotism. Irrational? Maybe, but I doubt it'll be enough to start any threads. Which goes back to my point about the politicization of "save the environment."

 

[irishScott]

And what political message does a hybrid SUV owner make?

Libertarian. They want to have their cake and eat it too, but at the end of the day are just fooling themselves. /sarcasm

 

[smackababy]

I buy American-made products over other options because they are American-made, usually to my financial detriment. From any rational perspective, it's against my best interests, as what little money I contribute to said corporations is unlikely to keep them around in and of itself.

I do it in the name of Patriotism. Irrational? Maybe, but I doubt it'll be enough to start any threads. Which goes back to my point about the politicization of "save the environment."

Are you trying to imply it is irrational to support (or not support) a company by voting with your wallet? Seems to me like quite a lot of people in the PC gaming forum are irrational for boycotting EA products.

 

[smackababy]

Libertarian. They want to have their cake and eat it too, but at the end of the day are just fooling themselves. /sarcasm

I thought the message was "I want to ride like a suburban soccer mom, but not have the ability to tow anything."

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't think this is a good comparison.

Banning incandescent lights is a government overreach. CFLs and other alternatives to incandescent are more reliable and cost less to operate in the long term, and they were already very popular among businesses and individuals. There was no need for the government to get involved, because market forces were already shifting toward more efficient alternatives to incandescents.

On the other hand, leaded gasoline was cheaper than unleaded, so there was no real incentive to use it other than among the environmentally conscious. The government was justified in banning it, because unleaded fuel would have never gained market acceptance otherwise.

It's a fair argument but also a double edge sword. If CFL's really are more reliable and cost less to operate then conservatives shouldn't care if incandescents get banned because they wouldn't have purchased them anyhow. Why concern yourself about a government regulation which doesn't affect you? Yes, I know the answer is ideology. It's always ideology.

There's another answer to the question anyway. There was a time in this country when conservatives were not dead set against any and all government regulations pertaining to the environment. Nowadays if government is doing something that thing is presumed to be wrong.

 

[RampantAndroid]

It's a fair argument but also a double edge sword. If CFL's really are more reliable and cost less to operate then conservatives shouldn't care if incandescents get banned because they wouldn't have purchased them anyhow. Why concern yourself about a government regulation which doesn't affect you? Yes, I know the answer is ideology. It's always ideology.

Because people view climate change as being a political statement. Frankly, so do I to some degree. However, I unlike the people in this article realize that while I may think climate change is some truth mixed with a lot of BS, that consuming less energy, burning less coal and gasoline and creating less waste is a good thing, regardless of the sticker on the label.

At the same time, I abhor FLs and CFLs because of the mercury and such in them. I prefer LEDs that are not PWM.

 

[irishScott]

Are you trying to imply it is irrational to support (or not support) a company by voting with your wallet? Seems to me like quite a lot of people in the PC gaming forum are irrational for boycotting EA products.

On an individual level, it usually is. If EA makes a quality game (or at least a game you like) and you Boycott it anyway due to their DRM practices, you're technically hurting yourself and accomplishing nothing.

Now if we start talking about collective interest and collective action, things change.

 

[theevilsharpie]

On an individual level, it usually is. If EA makes a quality game (or at least a game you like) and you Boycott it anyway due to their DRM practices, you're technically hurting yourself and accomplishing nothing.

There's nothing irrational about behaving in a way that supports your political beliefs, but that's not what this study is about.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that anti-DRM beliefs are considered a liberal viewpoint. Modifying your analogy, this would be like you purchasing a DRM-encumbered game, despite having no use or interest in the game or any personal stake in its success, solely because you believe it would piss off a liberal.

 

[smackababy]

Because people view climate change as being a political statement. Frankly, so do I to some degree. However, I unlike the people in this article realize that while I may think climate change is some truth mixed with a lot of BS, that consuming less energy, burning less coal and gasoline and creating less waste is a good thing, regardless of the sticker on the label.

At the same time, I abhor FLs and CFLs because of the mercury and such in them. I prefer LEDs that are not PWM.

While climate change is something that is happening, I have yet to see any data suggesting that the impact humans are having on it is so great we need to heavily regulate everything to 'save the environment.' I agree that companies should be held accountable for pollution such as toxic waste disposal, oil spills, and such but forcing them to make most costly (because CFLs cost more than than traditional light bulbs, I can only assume they cost more the manufacture) solution that would have a small effect on the environment. If climate change debate was really that important we would have real education on the benefits of nuclear power and new reactor technology instead of fear being spread. They would also be expressing the importance of upgrading America's terrible power grid and the amount of energy lost due to such.

Saving the environment is pure political posturing. It happens on both sides of the argument.

There's nothing irrational about behaving in a way that supports your political beliefs, but that's not what this study is about.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that anti-DRM beliefs are considered a liberal viewpoint. Modifying your analogy, this would be like you purchasing a DRM-encumbered game, despite having no use or interest in the game or any personal stake in its success, solely because you believe it would piss off a liberal.

Except that is not what this demonstrates. If anti-DRM were liberal beliefs, the analogy would be that a game was released as 'DRM free' and the normal DRM laden version, conservatives would NOT support the anti-DRM, despite it having possible minor impacts on the playability of said game.

 

[chucky2]

How does the study know that conservative leaning people haven't been bit by similar "green" or "ecologically friendly" products in the past and are just gun shy about yet another product, and instead, do the prudent thing and pick the old standby that they know works?

 

[smackababy]

How does the study know that conservative leaning people haven't been bit by similar "green" or "ecologically friendly" products in the past and are just gun shy about yet another product, and instead, do the prudent thing and pick the old standby that they know works?

Because that conclusion does not support the agenda of painting conservative leaning people as irrational, illogical ideologists who care more about hurting liberals than saving $0.75 a year on energy.

 

[theevilsharpie]

How does the study know that conservative leaning people haven't been bit by similar "green" or "ecologically friendly" products in the past and are just gun shy about yet another product, and instead, do the prudent thing and pick the old standby that they know works?

The researchers controlled for that by offering the exact same product with and without the "green" marketing on the label, and found that conservatives were more likely to purchase the product if it lacked the "green" branding.

 

[RampantAndroid]

While climate change is something that is happening, I have yet to see any data suggesting that the impact humans are having on it is so great we need to heavily regulate everything to 'save the environment.' I agree that companies should be held accountable for pollution such as toxic waste disposal, oil spills, and such but forcing them to make most costly (because CFLs cost more than than traditional light bulbs, I can only assume they cost more the manufacture) solution that would have a small effect on the environment. If climate change debate was really that important we would have real education on the benefits of nuclear power and new reactor technology instead of fear being spread. They would also be expressing the importance of upgrading America's terrible power grid and the amount of energy lost due to such.

Saving the environment is pure political posturing. It happens on both sides of the argument.

I completely agree - and this one reason why I hate CFLs and prefer LEDs. You pay a little more for them, but I view them as worth the cost in the cost to operate department, and longevity as well.

 

[chucky2]

The researchers controlled for that by offering the exact same product with and without the "green" marketing on the label, and found that conservatives were more likely to purchase the product if it lacked the "green" branding.

OK? That assumes people even understand what they're buying. So one of these poor conservatives who has been bit by "green" or "environmentally friendly" or "low <x> usage" before walks up and sees two CFL lightbulbs for the same price. One has no label and one has "Environmentally Friendly!" on it. If this person has been bit by sh1t like this before, why wouldn't the pick the other bulb given no other choice?

 

[theevilsharpie]

OK? That assumes people even understand what they're buying. So one of these poor conservatives who has been bit by "green" or "environmentally friendly" or "low <x> usage" before walks up and sees two CFL lightbulbs for the same price. One has no label and one has "Environmentally Friendly!" on it. If this person has been bit by sh1t like this before, why wouldn't the pick the other bulb given no other choice?

You can never be 100% sure what motivates and biases a person's decision making, but with statistical modeling and a large enough sample size, you can get pretty close. I don't have access to the raw data generated by the study, but given that it was published in a highly-respected scholarly journal, I feel safe in assuming that the researchers were able to correlate branding and the purchasing decisions of conservatives to a sufficiently high degree of confidence.