Study: Conservatives actively prefer wasteful tribalism

I neglected to blog about this when I first heard about it earlier this week, but an interesting and revealing (if not entirely surprising) new study seems to confirm that not only do more hardline conservatives care little about preserving the environment, they’ll actively go for the more wasteful and inefficient route in order to spite ’em some tree-huggerin’ librulz, even if it means paying more out of their own pocket for it:

A study 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.

[…]

Gromet said she never expected the green message to motivate conservatives, but was surprised to find that it could in fact repel them from making a purchase even while they found other aspects, like saving cash on their power bills, attractive. The reason, she thinks, is that given the political polarization of the climate change debate, environmental activism is so frowned upon by those the right that they'll do anything to keep themselves distanced from it.

Handy GOP-to-English guide

Ever find it confusing to translate all those illogical Republican talking points and dog whistles into plain English? Well, worry no more:

Transcript: (click the [+/-] to open/close →)

[−]

GOP Translator

“Family”: The War on Gays

“Pro-Life”: Pro-War, Pro-Death Penalty, and Pro-We Choose For You

“Religious Freedom”: Freedom to Spread Christianity

“War on Religion”: It’s unacceptable that our laws and culture aren’t based solely on my interpretation of the bible^{[caps sic]}

“Capitalism”: A market economy that’s rigged towards the “Job Creators”

“Job Creators”: The source of lobbying funds that keep the system rigged

“Class Warfare”: Stop pointing out that the system is rigged

“Elitist”: Educated

“Liberal bias”: The facts don’t fit our narrative

WWW.FACEBOOK.COM/KFV3Z

It truly is a scary, bizarre world they live in.

(via Political Irony)

Fail Quote: Rightists flame out with racism and incompetence

John Hawkins is a blogger at Right Wing News, Townhall and Pajamas Media. He’s featured on the official Romney campaign website. But most of all, he’s a loathsome far-Right crank:

A white woman voting for Barack Obama is like a black woman voting for the KKK.

— John Hawkins (@johnhawkinsrwn) October 3, 2012

Because if there’s one thing that stands out in the Obama administration’s track record, it’s the oppression of White people.

Better yet, what is it that made him draw this conclusion? It’s the far-Right’s latest anti-Obama “bombshell” video revealing how then-Senator Obama (D-IL) supposedly went all Angry Black Man^TM mode and stuff by criticizing the federal government’s clusterfuck-ish response to Hurricane Katrina back in 2007, as did everyone else. And if people seem a little nonplussed at all the hype, that’s partially because the same people who did said hyping today also covered Obama’s remarks back when he first made them five years ago.

It would be terrifying that these people are the main opposition force in the United States today if they weren’t so terminally and delightfully incompetent.

(via @BuzzFeedAndrew; RT: @radleybalko)