It's nice that I'll save money, but do you have

one that clubs baby seals?



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.

Shorter conservatism: Whatever liberals are for, we're against it Got that? With all other factors being equal, conservatives were less likely to buy the exact same lightbulb if you told them it would help the environment. They didn't have any more aversion to buying energy-saving lightbulbs than anyone else, unless the package pointed out that this particular lightbulb was slightly less earth-screwing than the other one. Tell them that, and they were more likely to go for the other one.

The researchers believe the result to be indicative of the heavy politicization of climate issues. Put more simply, it means that conservatives are willing to base even the most minor of decisions in large part on whether they think the result will piss imaginary liberals off; we've just re-discovered the guiding philosophy of the entire post-Reagan conservative movement. (It also raises an interesting question that, as far as I can discern, was left untested: If you advertised one bulb specifically as being bad for the environment, would conservatives be more likely to buy it? There may be an untapped market for a bulb that promises "this lightbulb personally clubs baby seals" or "this bulb will help give asthma to some poor midwestern kid living near a power plant.")

The real-world implications of this are unclear, but at the least we can surmise that it won't be long before Sen. Inhofe or some other hard-right conservative lawmaker sees this research and responds with (1) an investigation of some sort into the National Acadamy of Sciences and (2) the introduction of a bill to ban all future research that might make conservatives look petty or stupid. That'll be the end of geology, biology and economic theory, to name only a few, but at least America will still have slightly-more-environment-screwing lightbulbs.

