Conservatives Hate Conservation: Studies Prove They’ll Reject Produc

[dairygirl4u2c]

Conservatives Hate Conservation: Studies Prove They’ll Reject Products Labeled As ‘Energy-Efficient’

 

"Either option is a counterproductive display of territorial defense: rather than potentially saving energy if, for no other reason than to … well … save energy and save money, conservatives will shun an efficiency product out of sheer obstinance and/or in defense of their political “territory.”

Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/20/the-politics-of-saving-theconservatives-hate-conservation-studies-prove-theyll-reject-products-labeled-as-energy-efficient-planet-new-studies-find-conservatives-will-reject-products-labeled-gre/#ixzz2TtpBMRdG

 

Edited May 21, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[jim111]

If I have a choice between a green prodcut and a not green product and all other features are the same, I will alwyas choose the none green product. I can respect some things, but most of the green stuff is just a Scam. Example, mercurey light bulbs are considered green, however these light bulbs are extrememly posionous and deadly if broke. They are actyally banned in some european countries.

Edited May 28, 2013 by jim111

[Ice_nine]

If I have a choice between a green prodcut and a not green product and all other features are the same, I will alwyas choose the none green product. I can respect some things, but most of the green stuff is just a Scam. Example, mercurey light bulbs are considered green, however these light bulbs are extrememly posionous and deadly if broke. They are actyally banned in some european countries.

 

I must say this does sound absolutely ridiculous, almost trollish. Granted a lot of "green" stuff is gimmicky but it just comes off as being stubborn. Like "if I have a choice between a product that does less damage to the environment, I'm going for the tree killing product, just to piss the hippies off sneer hehehe"

 

 

And yes there ARE dangers to these lightbulbs that people should be made aware of, but consumers (including myself) remain ignorant of the thousands of toxins and carcinogens that are being mass produced and pumped out of the bowels of Chinese sweatshops and American factories. Did you know hippies don't use shampoo? After a quick google search, I know why. It's pretty much like rubbing cancer on your head. But you think procter and gamble gaf? They certainly do not and will laugh at my dying ass all the way to the bank. Seems silly to get upset over a little mercury in your house that can be contained and clean up and not really care about the bazillion gallons of mercury being dumped into the environment.

 

And also shame on you for posting in a dairy thread that was well on it's way to sinking into utter obscurity and thereby compelling me to do the same! ;)

Edited May 28, 2013 by Ice_nine

[ardillacid]

almost trollish. 

 

 

 It's pretty much like rubbing cancer on your head. 

 

yep

[Chestertonian]

Going green is great. Given the choice between a green product and a non-green product, nine times out of ten I'll choose the green one.

 

 I'm adamantly opposed to limiting choices and forcing people to 'buy green,' though. It causes a lot of resentment and it's ultimately counterproductive.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

The end will be swift. Like lightning. 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Thanks for the change to commoner from perm, dUSt. 

 

Also i'm all for going green without happening to stop population growth with condoms,abortion,the pill,vasectomies etc etc

 

 

Onward christian souls.

Jesus is LORD.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Socrates]

Going green is great. Given the choice between a green product and a non-green product, nine times out of ten I'll choose the green one.

 

 I'm adamantly opposed to limiting choices and forcing people to 'buy green,' though. It causes a lot of resentment and it's ultimately counterproductive.

 

Agreed.  I'm against government subsidizing of so-called "green" corporations, and not all things touted as "green" are in fact best for the environment (for example, ethanol, which wastes land, and whose production actually involves burning more greenhouse gasses).

 

That said, i'm about as conservative as they come, and "green" marketing has little effect on me one way or the other.  Nowadays, hawking a product as "green" is about as ubiquitous as "new and improved!" and "better than the leading brand!" and it seems everyone and their dog would have you believe that buying their stuff will help Save the Planet.  In most cases, I'm sure it's largely advertising puffery.

(In a class, it was discussed how studies show that "green" advertising has little actual effect on gaining sales, but touting green credentials is a pro-active way to avoid being singled out by activists as environmentally irresponsible.

 

However, if a company is genuinely working to improve stewardship, and reduce consumption of resources or pollution, I believe that's a good thing.  I certainly don't make it a point to avoid "green" products.

It's up to consumers to decide what to buy, as well as to learn is genuinely good for the earth, and what is fraudulent marketing hooey.

[Chestertonian]

Agreed.  I'm against government subsidizing of so-called "green" corporations, and not all things touted as "green" are in fact best for the environment (for example, ethanol, which wastes land, and whose production actually involves burning more greenhouse gasses).

 

That said, i'm about as conservative as they come, and "green" marketing has little effect on me one way or the other.  Nowadays, hawking a product as "green" is about as ubiquitous as "new and improved!" and "better than the leading brand!" and it seems everyone and their dog would have you believe that buying their stuff will help Save the Planet.  In most cases, I'm sure it's largely advertising puffery.

(In a class, it was discussed how studies show that "green" advertising has little actual effect on gaining sales, but touting green credentials is a pro-active way to avoid being singled out by activists as environmentally irresponsible.

 

However, if a company is genuinely working to improve stewardship, and reduce consumption of resources or pollution, I believe that's a good thing.  I certainly don't make it a point to avoid "green" products.

It's up to consumers to decide what to buy, as well as to learn is genuinely good for the earth, and what is fraudulent marketing hooey.

 

We're kindred souls.

[EmilyAnn]

I have read the paper and I find that an excessive claim to make based on the findings. 

[Lil Red]

Conservatives Hate Conservation: Studies Prove They’ll Reject Products Labeled As ‘Energy-Efficient’

 

"Either option is a counterproductive display of territorial defense: rather than potentially saving energy if, for no other reason than to … well … save energy and save money, conservatives will shun an efficiency product out of sheer obstinance and/or in defense of their political “territory.”

Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/20/the-politics-of-saving-theconservatives-hate-conservation-studies-prove-theyll-reject-products-labeled-as-energy-efficient-planet-new-studies-find-conservatives-will-reject-products-labeled-gre/#ixzz2TtpBMRdG

 

ts;dr. 

[Winchester]

I just poured ten gallons of Quaker State on a spotted owl.

[Chestertonian]

I just poured ten gallons of Quaker State on a spotted owl.

 

That's pretty hardcore.

[centurion]

"Territorial Defense?"  I certainly don't see this displayed by progressives when it comes to the issues they care about...

 

I would rather be opposed to state-funded infanticide and purchase cheap light bulbs than support state-funded infanticide and purchase the expensive "energy-efficient" light bulbs.

[PhuturePriest]

I'm a conservative with libertarian leanings, and I'm all for organic things. Not eating things that are worse for you than straight gasoline is something I'm into.