PDA

View Full Version : Conservatives prefer wasting energy over protecting the environment, study finds



Chloe
04-30-2013, 12:29 PM
"Why do conservatives like to waste energy? (http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/04/why-do-conservatives-waste-energy)" asks Tim McDonnell about a disturbing study on attitudes towards energy conservation:
A study (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1218453110) out today 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 light bulb 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.

The author of the study says that political polarization of climate change is the reason conservatives choose to avoid products marketed as green, even though they may also save money in the long run. That may be the case, but I suspect it also has something to do with the right-wing framing of global warming as a hoax concocted by people like Al Gore to make money. They may see any product touting its greenness as putting money into the pockets of their political opposition or as a deception to be avoided.
I was also reminded of examples of people intentionally wasting energy out of spite due to their dislike for environmentalists or liberals. For example, the libertarian/conservative think tank, CEI opposed Earth Hour (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/03/21/libertarians-keep-lights-on-for-earth-hour) by encouraging people to keep the lights on. It's also not at all uncommon to see Facebook posts or tweets (https://twitter.com/VerifiedDrunk/status/171065710347436032) like these (https://twitter.com/GrizzlyT620/status/192625837579833345) of people touting their poor MPG on their vehicle or plans to litter, because they dislike "tree huggers."
Why do you think conservatives are avoiding products marketed as green? And what should be done about it to make the issue less divisive?
UPDATE: At the Dot Earth blog, Andrew Revkin points (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/energy-agreement-hidden-by-climate-disputes/) to a 2009 study that found a similar pattern.

Conservatives prefer wasting energy over protecting the environment, study finds : TreeHugger (http://www.treehugger.com/culture/conservatives-waste-energy-study.html)

Chloe
04-30-2013, 12:30 PM
It's interesting at least. Funny enough i've seen people on here talk about doing similar things just out of spite, and I've heard people mock things like this in person too. Whether it is a conservative issue or not who knows, but it is very sad that there are thousands of people out there that willfully mock environmental awareness and do things to reverse progress.

KC
04-30-2013, 12:34 PM
I think it's based on partisan instinct rater than logic. People should buy the better product, based on utility, price, and their values. I think if a product would cost me roughly about the same, and give me the same amount of utility I'd always choose the Eco-friendly option.

Chris
04-30-2013, 12:58 PM
I'd like to know how they defined lib and con. I suspect they found results, grouped the positives as liberal and grouped the negatives as conservative. Not really very interesting.

Common
04-30-2013, 01:14 PM
It's interesting at least. Funny enough i've seen people on here talk about doing similar things just out of spite, and I've heard people mock things like this in person too. Whether it is a conservative issue or not who knows, but it is very sad that there are thousands of people out there that willfully mock environmental awareness and do things to reverse progress.

This is my perspective without a blatant partisan approach, just my beliefs based on political observation for decades.
The gop will most always fall on the side of business, I think we all know business does not like regulations or spending any kind of money they cant get a return on, like installing polution equiptment etc.
When environmental issues come out business comes first to republicans and that may be what causes the perception.

Chloe
04-30-2013, 01:18 PM
I'd like to know how they defined lib and con. I suspect they found results, grouped the positives as liberal and grouped the negatives as conservative. Not really very interesting.

They probably defined it like everybody else probably does. It's not that hard to determine if someone leans liberal or conservative. Are you offended by the findings?

Chris
04-30-2013, 01:20 PM
This is my perspective without a blatant partisan approach, just my beliefs based on political observation for decades.
The gop will most always fall on the side of business, I think we all know business does not like regulations or spending any kind of money they cant get a return on, like installing polution equiptment etc.
When environmental issues come out business comes first to republicans and that may be what causes the perception.

Nice partisan statement, common.

Note the study did not concern itself with partisan matters but matters of principle, lib v con, however ill-defined they left those lumping labels.

Chloe
04-30-2013, 01:23 PM
Nice partisan statement, common.

Note the study did not concern itself with partisan matters but matters of principle, lib v con, however ill-defined they left those lumping labels.

You didn't find it interesting that the moment a "green" message was introduced the people who lean conservative actively went away from it for fear of supporting liberal ideals? Even though it's something that any party could really believe in?

Chris
04-30-2013, 01:30 PM
You didn't find it interesting that the moment a "green" message was introduced the people who lean conservative actively went away from it for fear of supporting liberal ideals? Even though it's something that any party could really believe in?

I might if the lumping labels--something you find meaningless, no?--were defined. What do they mean by lib and con? I've dug as far as I can to the source study abstract and not a word on how they defined these labels.

I strongly suspect they put the cart before the horse here. Rather than even asking participants how they self-identified, the first questions divided participants in this way:


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.

IOW, they divided people according to whether they favored or disfavored environmentalism, and slapped liberal on one and conservative on the other.

Based on that assumption, what other result would you expect?

Chloe
04-30-2013, 01:36 PM
I might if the lumping labels--something you find meaningless, no?--were defined. What do they mean by lib and con? I've dug as far as I can to the source study abstract and not a word on how they defined these labels.

I strongly suspect they put the cart before the horse here. Rather than even asking participants how they self-identified, the first questions divided participants in this way:



IOW, they divided people according to whether they favored or disfavored environmentalism, and slapped liberal on one and conservative on the other.

Based on that assumption, what other result would you expect?

Well quite honestly the way that people would answer those questions could probably pretty accurately determine which way they lean politically. I know you don't agree with that but if I asked 10 people if they'd rather drive a prius or a mustang i'd probably image that the majority of liberals within that group of 10 would say prius. Or like if for example you had 10 people in a room and asked them all about carbon emissions i'm sure it would break down the same way. There are obvious divides between conservative and liberal and so you can try and hide it the best you can but for the most part peoples leanings come out without even saying what you are. If I never claimed on here to be a liberal wouldn't you already know that I was one based on my opinions?

Chris
04-30-2013, 01:45 PM
Well quite honestly the way that people would answer those questions could probably pretty accurately determine which way they lean politically. I know you don't agree with that but if I asked 10 people if they'd rather drive a prius or a mustang i'd probably image that the majority of liberals within that group of 10 would say prius. Or like if for example you had 10 people in a room and asked them all about carbon emissions i'm sure it would break down the same way. There are obvious divides between conservative and liberal and so you can try and hide it the best you can but for the most part peoples leanings come out without even saying what you are. If I never claimed on here to be a liberal wouldn't you already know that I was one based on my opinions?


Well quite honestly the way that people would answer those questions could probably pretty accurately determine which way they lean politically.

Could, but the study as reported merely says the way that people would answer those questions is the way that people would answer those questions. As cited, they asked people how they would answer, then found that they did so.

I know two conservatives at work who each drive a Prius.


There are obvious divides between conservative and liberal and so you can try and hide it the best you can but for the most part peoples leanings come out without even saying what you are.

And those definitions are?


If I never claimed on here to be a liberal wouldn't you already know that I was one based on my opinions?

Not really. :-D Remember KC's test? You scored libertarian.


All I'm saying is they didn't define political categories clearly and I think found exactly what they expected: From your source: "Gromet said she never expected the green message to motivate conservatives".

Common
04-30-2013, 01:49 PM
Nice partisan statement, common.

Note the study did not concern itself with partisan matters but matters of principle, lib v con, however ill-defined they left those lumping labels.

Your attempts at always trying to paint me partisan are a fail chris, especially in light of your hyper partisanism :)

Chris
04-30-2013, 01:50 PM
Your attempts at always trying to paint me partisan are a fail chris, especially in light of your hyper partisanism :)

All I did was point out the obvious partisan aspect of your post, common. You once again criticize only reps and the right. I don't have to attempt anything.

KC
04-30-2013, 02:13 PM
I'd like to know how they defined lib and con. I suspect they found results, grouped the positives as liberal and grouped the negatives as conservative. Not really very interesting.

The study asked them to answer a series of questions about whether they thought they, Americans and the Government had an moral obligation to "reduce carbon emmissions" and other questions related to the environment.

They were also asked to score their political ideology based on how liberal/conservative they are (economic and social scale).

Page 5: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/04/26/1218453110.full.pdf+html

Chris
04-30-2013, 02:23 PM
The study asked them to answer a series of questions about whether they thought they, Americans and the Government had an moral obligation to "reduce carbon emmissions" and other questions related to the environment.

They were also asked to score their political ideology based on how liberal/conservative they are (economic and social scale).

Page 5: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/04/26/1218453110.full.pdf+html


They were also asked to score their political ideology based on how liberal/conservative they are (economic and social scale).

OK, that addresses my concern.

Now, since I cannot access that document, could someone (kathaariancode?)copy out specifically what they were asked to score and how. It's a methodological question.


Note that the Mother Jones write up didn't say anything about this, it simply named Michele Bachmann, a somewhat batty big government con, hardly a typical conservative.

Greenridgeman
04-30-2013, 02:31 PM
You didn't find it interesting that the moment a "green" message was introduced the people who lean conservative actively went away from it for fear of supporting liberal ideals? Even though it's something that any party could really believe in?


People do not like agitprop with their purchases.


I will not buy a product with a pink ribbon on it.

When I want a box of salt, I want a box of salt, not a message.

It is called human nature.

Chris
04-30-2013, 02:47 PM
People do not like agitprop with their purchases.


I will not buy a product with a pink ribbon on it.

When I want a box of salt, I want a box of salt, not a message.

It is called human nature.

This, green's, concern is likewise important. Say conservatives are against environmentalism, silly on the face of it, but assume. Are they against it because they are conservative, or do they have reasons for being against it like green's?

KC
04-30-2013, 03:17 PM
OK, that addresses my concern.

Now, since I cannot access that document, could someone (@kathaariancode (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=423)?)copy out specifically what they were asked to score and how. It's a methodological question.


Note that the Mother Jones write up didn't say anything about this, it simply named Michele Bachmann, a somewhat batty big government con, hardly a typical conservative.

How come you can't access it? Do you have to be affiliated with a university library? I tried to copy the text from the document but somehow going from PDF formatting to html screwed it up and

each couple

of words

was on a separate

line like this.

KC
04-30-2013, 03:18 PM
Not really. :-D Remember KC's test? You scored libertarian.


Only on the social axis. She scored liberal on the economic axis. Economically progressive + socially liberal/libertarian actually defines the Green Party pretty well, which Chloe has supported.

Chris
04-30-2013, 03:20 PM
How come you can't access it? Do you have to be affiliated with a university library? I tried to copy the text from the document but somehow going from PDF formatting to html screwed it up and

each couple

of words

was on a separate

line like this.

Says either sign in or pay, or pay to sign up to sign in.

Can you summarize what you see? Your impression?

KC
04-30-2013, 03:35 PM
Says either sign in or pay, or pay to sign up to sign in.

Can you summarize what you see? Your impression?

Snipped up version here:

"Methods

Participants were recruited via the Clear Voice survey service and received monetary compensation. They were given a description of energy efficiency ("Technology is considered energy efficient when it uses less energy to produce the same level of performance"). After reading the description of energy efficiency, participants indicated “how much each of the following is an important reason to invest in energy-efficient technology”: the technology’s ability to reduce “the level of carbon emissions that harm the environment,” “dependence on foreign oil,” and “the financial cost of energy use to consumers” (presented in a random order). The scales were anchored at 1 (not at all important) to 7 (very important).
...
The next set of questions asked participants about the extent to which they thought that they individually, Americans, and the US government (presented in this fixed order) had a “moral obligation” to reduce “the level of carbon emissions that harm the environment,” “dependence on foreign oil,” and “the financial cost of energy use to consumers” (presented in a random order). Participants answered the identical set of questions with regard to how much they individually, Americans, and the US government “would benefit from” these three reductions.
...
Participants indicated how much they identified as being politically liberal or conservative (i) in general, (ii) on economic issues, and (iii) on social issues, on a scale from 1 (very liberal) to 7 (very conservative). The midpoint of the scale was labeled as moderate. Participants provided their responses to these questions either at the beginning of the study (before reading the description of energy efficiency) or at the end (after indicating how much they favored investing in energy-efficient technology). At the conclusion of the study, participants indicated the extent to which they identified with four political groups: Democrats, Independents, Republicans, and the Tea Party on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).
...
The ideology measure was a composite of both these political ideology and party affiliation measures..."

I think that they did a fairly good job of measuring political ideology for the purposes of classification. I think that a major flaw in any study that tries to measure political ideology in relation to attitudes about "X" (in this case energy efficiency) is that many survey respondents will purposely answer the questions in order to confirm the information they've presented about themselves. IOW, it is more important that participants answers conform with their political in group than their actual feelings because they are more invested in their political ideology.

Chris
04-30-2013, 03:43 PM
Participants indicated how much they identified as being politically liberal or conservative (i) in general, (ii) on economic issues, and (iii) on social issues, on a scale from 1 (very liberal) to 7 (very conservative). The midpoint of the scale was labeled as moderate. Participants provided their responses to these questions either at the beginning of the study (before reading the description of energy efficiency) or at the end (after indicating how much they favored investing in energy-efficient technology). At the conclusion of the study, participants indicated the extent to which they identified with four political groups: Democrats, Independents, Republicans, and the Tea Party on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).
...
The ideology measure was a composite of both these political ideology and party affiliation measures..."

OK, self-identification--a lousy measure.

The political group identification is confusing, I get Dems, Indies and Reps, but Tea Party, it's basically libertarian and neither Dem nor Rep, Lib nor Con.

They should have stuck with self-identification, bad as that is, it's better than the assumptions imposed by what they call "ideology measure".

Thanks!

Chloe, I'm now less concerned about researcher bias, less, mind you, not completely convince of their non-bias.

Peter1469
04-30-2013, 04:42 PM
If a green energy was widely available and cheaper than fossil fuel, a true conservative (anyone really) would use it.

Chris
04-30-2013, 04:59 PM
If a green energy was widely available and cheaper than fossil fuel, a true conservative (anyone really) would use it.

On the free market, sure, force fed by government, no. And that may be the real distinction here. Not a reaction against environmentalism, but government's interference in it. You know, like Solyndra, the Fisker, etc.

Peter1469
04-30-2013, 05:12 PM
On the free market, sure, force fed by government, no. And that may be the real distinction here. Not a reaction against environmentalism, but government's interference in it. You know, like Solyndra, the Fisker, etc.

But there is no free market in the energy sector. For transportation fuel, oil has a monopoly. If the government acted intelligently it could easily end that monopoly and create a free market in transportation fuels.

KC
04-30-2013, 05:16 PM
But there is no free market in the energy sector. For transportation fuel, oil has a monopoly. If the government acted intelligently it could easily end that monopoly and create a free market in transportation fuels.

Not to mention there is a natural monopoly for many areas for power plants.

Peter1469
04-30-2013, 05:18 PM
Not to mention there is a natural monopoly for many areas for power plants.

Right, and regional monopolies make sense for power plants. But government must tightly regulate them, because they are regional monopolies.

Chris
04-30-2013, 05:19 PM
What monopoly does oil have? I realize government subsidies help the oil industry, buy they also help alternative energy. But I see no monopoly.

Peter1469
04-30-2013, 05:28 PM
What monopoly does oil have? I realize government subsidies help the oil industry, buy they also help alternative energy. But I see no monopoly.

Oil supplies the vast majority of energy for transportation fuel. Alternatives have the major disadvantage of distribution centers (like "gas" stations) infrastructure. That creates monopoly conditions.

It is not really caused by government. (Unless you want to go back to the reasons behind Prohibition).

Greenridgeman
04-30-2013, 05:28 PM
Well quite honestly the way that people would answer those questions could probably pretty accurately determine which way they lean politically. I know you don't agree with that but if I asked 10 people if they'd rather drive a prius or a mustang i'd probably image that the majority of liberals within that group of 10 would say prius. Or like if for example you had 10 people in a room and asked them all about carbon emissions i'm sure it would break down the same way. There are obvious divides between conservative and liberal and so you can try and hide it the best you can but for the most part peoples leanings come out without even saying what you are. If I never claimed on here to be a liberal wouldn't you already know that I was one based on my opinions?




It would be easy to peg you as a liberal., as today liberal means opinionated and intolerant of beliefs to the right of you.

Far cry from the liberals of the late 50's and early 60's, when liberal meant one who tolerantly listened to conflicting beliefs.

Greenridgeman
04-30-2013, 05:31 PM
This, green's, concern is likewise important. Say conservatives are against environmentalism, silly on the face of it, but assume. Are they against it because they are conservative, or do they have reasons for being against it like green's?


I hardly think rejecting the toxic curly-que lightbulbs with a 15 step process for safe disposal over the simpler not toxic ones makes for a sweeping political generalization.


This is another classic lib agit-prop fail.

Peter1469
04-30-2013, 05:31 PM
The liberals of the 60s were anti-government. Today they are practically Statists. (Talking about the leadership).

Greenridgeman
04-30-2013, 05:37 PM
"Why do conservatives like to waste energy? (http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/04/why-do-conservatives-waste-energy)" asks Tim McDonnell about a disturbing study on attitudes towards energy conservation:
A study (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1218453110) out today 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 light bulb 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.

The author of the study says that political polarization of climate change is the reason conservatives choose to avoid products marketed as green, even though they may also save money in the long run. That may be the case, but I suspect it also has something to do with the right-wing framing of global warming as a hoax concocted by people like Al Gore to make money. They may see any product touting its greenness as putting money into the pockets of their political opposition or as a deception to be avoided.
I was also reminded of examples of people intentionally wasting energy out of spite due to their dislike for environmentalists or liberals. For example, the libertarian/conservative think tank, CEI opposed Earth Hour (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/03/21/libertarians-keep-lights-on-for-earth-hour) by encouraging people to keep the lights on. It's also not at all uncommon to see Facebook posts or tweets (https://twitter.com/VerifiedDrunk/status/171065710347436032) like these (https://twitter.com/GrizzlyT620/status/192625837579833345) of people touting their poor MPG on their vehicle or plans to litter, because they dislike "tree huggers."
Why do you think conservatives are avoiding products marketed as green? And what should be done about it to make the issue less divisive?
UPDATE: At the Dot Earth blog, Andrew Revkin points (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/energy-agreement-hidden-by-climate-disputes/) to a 2009 study that found a similar pattern.

Conservatives prefer wasting energy over protecting the environment, study finds : TreeHugger (http://www.treehugger.com/culture/conservatives-waste-energy-study.html)








Links would not open, but, seems like a lot of built in prejudice in the experiment, aimed at reaching a foregone conclusion.

For example, did it distinguish between people who had read the 15 steps for safe disposal of the new bulbs from those who had not?

As agitprop, this post is big FAIL.

Greenridgeman
04-30-2013, 05:42 PM
"Why do conservatives like to waste energy? (http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/04/why-do-conservatives-waste-energy)" asks Tim McDonnell about a disturbing study on attitudes towards energy conservation:
A study (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1218453110) out today 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 light bulb 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.

The author of the study says that political polarization of climate change is the reason conservatives choose to avoid products marketed as green, even though they may also save money in the long run. That may be the case, but I suspect it also has something to do with the right-wing framing of global warming as a hoax concocted by people like Al Gore to make money. They may see any product touting its greenness as putting money into the pockets of their political opposition or as a deception to be avoided.
I was also reminded of examples of people intentionally wasting energy out of spite due to their dislike for environmentalists or liberals. For example, the libertarian/conservative think tank, CEI opposed Earth Hour (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/03/21/libertarians-keep-lights-on-for-earth-hour) by encouraging people to keep the lights on. It's also not at all uncommon to see Facebook posts or tweets (https://twitter.com/VerifiedDrunk/status/171065710347436032) like these (https://twitter.com/GrizzlyT620/status/192625837579833345) of people touting their poor MPG on their vehicle or plans to litter, because they dislike "tree huggers."
Why do you think conservatives are avoiding products marketed as green? And what should be done about it to make the issue less divisive?
UPDATE: At the Dot Earth blog, Andrew Revkin points (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/energy-agreement-hidden-by-climate-disputes/) to a 2009 study that found a similar pattern.

Conservatives prefer wasting energy over protecting the environment, study finds : TreeHugger (http://www.treehugger.com/culture/conservatives-waste-energy-study.html)



Notice, treehugger does not mention this part.




Step 1: Carefully remove the bulb from the fixture, then store it inside an airtight container until it can be recycled. It's often best to replace it inside the cardboard container it came in for extra protection before sealing it away. Though air tight plastic bags can be used to store them, it's better to use a plastic or metal container.
Step 2: Mark the container so that it is not accidentally damaged or thrown in the trash.
Step 3: Take to a recycling center.
If the CFL light bulb has broken, take the following precautions:
Step 1: Remove children and pets from the area.
Step 2: Turn off heat or air conditioning and open windows; ventilate the room for at least 15 minutes.
Step 3: Gather the following materials before you attempt clean up: gloves, cardboard or stiff paper, plastic bags, duct or masking tape, and wet paper towels.
Step 4: After putting on gloves, pick up and place the larger pieces of glass into a resealable plastic bag.
Step 5: Using cardboard or stiff paper, scoop up the rest of the pieces. Discard into plastic bag bag.
Step 6: Use the sticky duct or masking tape to pickup any leftover residue. Discard into plastic bag.
Step 7: Wipe down the affected area with a wet paper towel or hand wipes. Discard into plastic bag.
Step 8: Vacuum the area, then discard the disposable vacuum bag into a plastic bag and seal. If using a canister style vacuum, discard vacuum sweepings into a plastic bag. Then, using wet paper towels, wipe down the canister. Discard the used paper towels in a resealable plastic bag.
Step 9: If shoes have come into contact with the breakage, clean them thoroughly before wearing again.
Step 10: If clothing has come into direct contact with the breakage, throw them away. Washing them may disperse the mercury throughout your washer.
Step 11: Air out the room the next few times after you vacuum the affected area.
Step 12: Make a plan to carefully recycle the above materials.

Chris
04-30-2013, 06:20 PM
Oil supplies the vast majority of energy for transportation fuel. Alternatives have the major disadvantage of distribution centers (like "gas" stations) infrastructure. That creates monopoly conditions.

It is not really caused by government. (Unless you want to go back to the reasons behind Prohibition).

But that doesn't prevent alternatives being marketed and distributed.

Shell and others are actively pursuing alternatives. They have an advantage, not a monopoly.

Peter1469
04-30-2013, 06:21 PM
But that doesn't prevent alternatives being marketed and distributed.

Shell and others are actively pursuing alternatives. They have an advantage, not a monopoly.

They currently have a vast monopoly. It is slowly changing.

How many places near you can you get fuel that is either not 100% gas or E10?

Chloe
04-30-2013, 06:31 PM
It would be easy to peg you as a liberal., as today liberal means opinionated and intolerant of beliefs to the right of you.

Far cry from the liberals of the late 50's and early 60's, when liberal meant one who tolerantly listened to conflicting beliefs.

You guys never miss an opportunity to give me a hard time huh?

Chloe
04-30-2013, 06:32 PM
But that doesn't prevent alternatives being marketed and distributed.

Shell and others are actively pursuing alternatives. They have an advantage, not a monopoly.

An advantage that is on par with monopoly. A basketball player that is a foot taller than another basketball player is an advantage. Big oil companies run the world.

Greenridgeman
04-30-2013, 06:36 PM
You guys never miss an opportunity to give me a hard time huh?



Well, post a "study" like that, and you are wide open for a hard time.

Doesn't mean we don't like you.

Are "studies" in Environmental Studies conducted under such unscientific conditions?

Greenridgeman
04-30-2013, 06:37 PM
An advantage that is on par with monopoly. A basketball player that is a foot taller than another basketball player is an advantage. Big oil companies run the world.


Big oil companies no more run the world than the Learned Elders of Zion.

zelmo1234
04-30-2013, 06:41 PM
But there is no free market in the energy sector. For transportation fuel, oil has a monopoly. If the government acted intelligently it could easily end that monopoly and create a free market in transportation fuels.

I would hate to see the government get into the energy business. However: Tax incentaves to develope Natural Gas and the distribution network would be great! Consentrating on the long haul shipping industry first, and then moving to short haul and government transportation!

Tax Credits for building new refineries, and new Clean Coal fired power plants, and getting rid of the threats to the coal and natural gas industry might spur the process!

And last a national gas blend for summer and winter so there is not change over all the time!

I think that Chris hit the nail on the head. During the Carter administration the government tried to force green energy on the people! It failed and the people that had been paying extremly high prices for energy! Decided that green energy was a terrible idea! We have been through 5 years of prices that are much higher than they need to be! And the people are sick of it!

Chloe
04-30-2013, 06:47 PM
Big oil companies no more run the world than the Learned Elders of Zion.

When I say "run" the world I don't mean that they literally run the world like a conspiracy thing. I mean that the thing that they produce and sale, primarily oil, is something that would cause the world to stand still if they stopped. That's more powerful than some monopolies in my opinion.

zelmo1234
04-30-2013, 06:47 PM
They currently have a vast monopoly. It is slowly changing.

How many places near you can you get fuel that is either not 100% gas or E10?

In MI we have a mandatory E10 and E85 is available in a lot of places, the problem is that the price of corn is through the roof, and that is the prefed plant! So it actually has driven the price up! Also using E85 you loose about 20% of your milages so at 20% less you break even??? And it is never 20% less

Until that alternatives are less moeny, they will never catch on!

punising people, especially those on a fixed income because you care, is cruel as hell!

Mister D
04-30-2013, 07:16 PM
"Why do conservatives like to waste energy? (http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/04/why-do-conservatives-waste-energy)" asks Tim McDonnell about a disturbing study on attitudes towards energy conservation:
A study (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1218453110) out today 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 light bulb 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.

The author of the study says that political polarization of climate change is the reason conservatives choose to avoid products marketed as green, even though they may also save money in the long run. That may be the case, but I suspect it also has something to do with the right-wing framing of global warming as a hoax concocted by people like Al Gore to make money. They may see any product touting its greenness as putting money into the pockets of their political opposition or as a deception to be avoided.
I was also reminded of examples of people intentionally wasting energy out of spite due to their dislike for environmentalists or liberals. For example, the libertarian/conservative think tank, CEI opposed Earth Hour (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/03/21/libertarians-keep-lights-on-for-earth-hour) by encouraging people to keep the lights on. It's also not at all uncommon to see Facebook posts or tweets (https://twitter.com/VerifiedDrunk/status/171065710347436032) like these (https://twitter.com/GrizzlyT620/status/192625837579833345) of people touting their poor MPG on their vehicle or plans to litter, because they dislike "tree huggers."
Why do you think conservatives are avoiding products marketed as green? And what should be done about it to make the issue less divisive?
UPDATE: At the Dot Earth blog, Andrew Revkin points (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/energy-agreement-hidden-by-climate-disputes/) to a 2009 study that found a similar pattern.

Conservatives prefer wasting energy over protecting the environment, study finds : TreeHugger (http://www.treehugger.com/culture/conservatives-waste-energy-study.html)

I would ask Tim if he supports the migration of tens of millions of poor people from Latin America into the US. He must realize that they adopt lower class American lifestyles, That is, they run cheap ACs, drive shitty cars, litter, and generally present a setback for the environmental protection Tim is talking about.

Peter1469
04-30-2013, 08:12 PM
Big oil companies no more run the world than the Learned Elders of Zion.

That is not entirely accurate. I suggest reading the Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

Peter1469
04-30-2013, 08:16 PM
I would hate to see the government get into the energy business. However: Tax incentaves to develope Natural Gas and the distribution network would be great! Consentrating on the long haul shipping industry first, and then moving to short haul and government transportation!

Tax Credits for building new refineries, and new Clean Coal fired power plants, and getting rid of the threats to the coal and natural gas industry might spur the process!

And last a national gas blend for summer and winter so there is not change over all the time!

I think that Chris hit the nail on the head. During the Carter administration the government tried to force green energy on the people! It failed and the people that had been paying extremly high prices for energy! Decided that green energy was a terrible idea! We have been through 5 years of prices that are much higher than they need to be! And the people are sick of it!

The only thing that Carter ever said that made sense was to tell us to move away from fossil fuels. If we did that, we could once again be a manufacturing power-house. And we would have no need to consider the troubles in the Middle East. http://www.energyvictory.net/

roadmaster
04-30-2013, 08:20 PM
I think the person who said conservatives should have put Republicans but both R and D's are owned by the oil companies.