PDA

View Full Version : So which voters have made more green investments in their lives? Obama or Romney



Ray Frechette Jr
10-18-2012, 07:26 PM
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680577/romney-voters-are-more-likely-to-make-energy-efficient-home-improvements-than-obama-supporte

Ian McColgin
10-18-2012, 07:57 PM
Interesting survey. It did not explicity test for disposable capital, but a look at the detailed responses show that the Romney voters were more likely to be motivated by personal profit factors than the Obama supports. From that one might conclude that they were the voters who had some capital to use and they saw the solar option as a good return on the investment. And that's true.

Ray Frechette Jr
10-18-2012, 08:08 PM
Did you read the same survey I read??

"Still, the home solar industry has barely tapped the market--only 3% of Romney voters and 2% of Obama voters have installed solar-power systems in the past half decade. "

Solar is a pretty poor return on investment compared to many many other energy investments out there. One of the very last I would ever consider.

I agree that the survey did not distinguish between disposable capital.

But we are even talking some issues like low capital investment items such as;

"According to a new survey of 2,334 U.S. adults from home solar company Sunrun, Mitt Romney voters are actually more likely than Obama voters to have made "green" home improvements in the past five years (permanent changes like installing solar panels, "low-flow shower heads, energy-efficient lightbulbs", and so forth), with 64% of Romney voters making these changes and 58% of Obama voters making green improvements. "

Low flow shower heads and compact flourescents are mega cheap upgrqades to make with low capital investment and huge ROI for amount invested. Given that solar panels only accounted for 2-3 percent of surveyed individuals....

Here ios another takeaway quote;

"saving money is the biggest reason that people surveyed--both Obama and Romney supporters--made green home improvements."

Something apparently that those of us form both sides of the political spectrum can agree on.

For the longest time I have wondered why conservatives would possibly be against conservation. So far I have reduced my annual Heating fuel purchases from 6,000 gallons a year down to 2400 gallons per year. (Business and personal)

Hoping to have it down to 1,500 gallons a year within 5 years...

I have also reduced monthly electricity consumption personal and business from around 800 kwhr a month to around 450 a month.

LeeG
10-18-2012, 10:29 PM
Perhaps that is because they aren't.

Because they aren't conservatives anymore

Chip-skiff
10-18-2012, 11:50 PM
It has more to do with the sheer quantity of sunshine in the south and southwest, where Republican voters are in the majority.

Or is that too bloody obvious for you?

pipefitter
10-19-2012, 12:04 AM
It has more to do with the sheer quantity of sunshine in the south and southwest, where Republican voters are in the majority.

Or is that too bloody obvious for you?

Even more obvious is, most here in the bilge could definitely use some more sunshine.

Ray Frechette Jr
10-19-2012, 07:30 AM
And yet despit ethe snarky comments it would appear form this survey that Conservative voters are more likely to spend money to conserve than the liberal voters who supposedly belie3ve in conserving.

And regarding the voters of the south being more liely to invest in solar, again I point out in the survey only 2-3 percents of survey respondendts invested in solar the majority were investing in other green technologies.

Maybe it could be posited that Romney voters are more likely to go out and do something and 0bama voters are more likely to want to wait for the Government to do something for them or force them to do something for teh environment.

So if we are going to be serious about conserving for whatever reason we need to pass legislation to make not conserving more expensive... IE Raise the cost of energy to motivate the conservatives to save money, and we then also have to spend money to make the 0bama voters buy conservation technology IE:Give them technology upgrades for free as they won't take action until they are given it.

I guess I can make gratuitous snarky comments too. Though honestly it wasn't my intention when I posted this and it is not realy what I believe, I am just trying to illustrate the obnoxiousness of it. I had hoped to engendeder a serious discussion, But alas this is the bilge..

Chip-skiff
10-20-2012, 03:21 PM
I guess I can make gratuitous snarky comments too. Though honestly it wasn't my intention when I posted this and it is not realy what I believe, I am just trying to illustrate the obnoxiousness of it. I had hoped to engender a serious discussion, But alas this is the bilge..

Okay— I deleted the comment about voting for my dog, and I'm bumping this back up. What set me off is your citing this survey as evidence of liberal hypocrisy. There are no doubt many other factors involved, including where one lives, income level, home ownership, lot size, state and local subsidies for renewable energy, etc. But you don't seem interested in much except pushing your political viewpoint.

So I'll shut up and let this fly on its own.

RichKrough
10-20-2012, 06:02 PM
The problem with energy efficient or LEED building is that it is expensive on a small scale. A guy who is spending 2 million on a house is in a much better financial position to spend 100K on a geothermal heating system for a 6500 sqft house than a guy in a $300k house spending 30K on geothermal for 2500 sqft.