BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

F.O.A.D.

On 5/1/13 2:47 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 14:09:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/1/13 1:49 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:41:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/1/13 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 06:10:24 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

The study demonstrated that conservatives and liberals were equally
likely to buy either bulb, but conservatives were less likely to buy the
energy savings lightbulb if you told them it would help the environment.
*That* is the point here.

I understand that and I explained it. If you just say it helps the
environment without actually showing it saves money, people assume it
is more expensive.
There are also questions about just how much it "saves the
environment" when you start talking about mercury and the extra
manufacturing pollution. Fortunately for the US, that all happens in
China. (unless you were a light bulb factory worker here).
You still have the disposal problem and the issues with a broken bulb
in the home.
Maybe liberals simply blow all of that off because they are "saving
the planet". It says so right on the non-biodegradable bubble pack.

I think you are again overanalyzing. I posit that the reason the
conservatives didn't buy the energy saving bulbs is because they don't
give a damn about the environment.

... But you said they would buy the more expensive bulb if the thrust
of the puffing was that they saved money.
Price is still king.
For purposes of the survey, the bulbs were priced the same. Price was
not a factor, only the pro-environment factor.

I would like to see the actual study, Do you have a link to the
source data but I will agree some people are skeptical of "green"
products, simply because of their experiences with them.

I think the original article had a reference to the source material.