Right-wingers less likely to buy energy saving bulbs if you tell them it helps the environment

Head, meet desk.

This is the saddest thing. Research reported in American scientific journal PNAS finds that right wingers are made less likely to buy an energy-efficient bulb when the purchase was specified as environmentally friendly than when it wasn't.

In the study, one of two carried out by Dena M. Gromet, Howard Kunreuther, and Richard P. Larrick, the researchers offered participants the choice of buying a conventional lightbulb, and an energy-saving one. Every participant was offered "information about the energy efficiency benefits of the CFL bulb compared with the incandescent bulb (e.g., the CFL bulb lasts for 9,000 more hours and reduces energy cost by 75%)," and the experiment was run twice, once with a realistic price difference (50¢ for the incandescent bulb, $1.50 for the CFL) and once with both bulbs at 50¢.

The participants were then split into two groups. One of the groups were given the CFL bulb in a blank box, the other in a box that said "Protect the Environment" on it. The result? Most people except those who were very left-wing were put off by the environmental label. Whereas slightly over half the people offered two blank boxes chose the CFL bulb, people offered the environmental label chose it 80% of the time if they were left-wing, dropping to just 30% if they were right-wing.

It's one thing to see that people on the left politically are more encouraged to protect the environment than people on the right – that's always been known – but it's an entirely different kettle of fish to discover that (American) right-wingers are actively turned off something if they discover it will help the environment. No wonder fighting climate change is so hard.

Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Autumn Statement 2015: George Osborne abandons his target

How will George Osborne close the deficit after his U-Turns? Answer: he won't, of course. 

“Good governments U-Turn, and U-Turn frequently.” That’s Andrew Adonis’ maxim, and George Osborne borrowed heavily from him today, delivering two big U-Turns, on tax credits and on police funding. There will be no cuts to tax credits or to the police.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, in total, the government gave away £6.2 billion next year, more than half of which is the reverse to tax credits.

Osborne claims that he will still deliver his planned £12bn reduction in welfare. But, as I’ve written before, without cutting tax credits, it’s difficult to see how you can get £12bn out of the welfare bill. Here’s the OBR’s chart of welfare spending:

The government has already promised to protect child benefit and pension spending – in fact, it actually increased pensioner spending today. So all that’s left is tax credits. If the government is not going to cut them, where’s the £12bn come from?

A bit of clever accounting today got Osborne out of his hole. The Universal Credit, once it comes in in full, will replace tax credits anyway, allowing him to describe his U-Turn as a delay, not a full retreat. But the reality – as the Treasury has admitted privately for some time – is that the Universal Credit will never be wholly implemented. The pilot schemes – one of which, in Hammersmith, I have visited myself – are little more than Potemkin set-ups. Iain Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit will never be rolled out in full. The savings from switching from tax credits to Universal Credit will never materialise.

The £12bn is smaller, too, than it was this time last week. Instead of cutting £12bn from the welfare budget by 2017-8, the government will instead cut £12bn by the end of the parliament – a much smaller task.

That’s not to say that the cuts to departmental spending and welfare will be painless – far from it. Employment Support Allowance – what used to be called incapacity benefit and severe disablement benefit – will be cut down to the level of Jobseekers’ Allowance, while the government will erect further hurdles to claimants. Cuts to departmental spending will mean a further reduction in the numbers of public sector workers.  But it will be some way short of the reductions in welfare spending required to hit Osborne’s deficit reduction timetable.

So, where’s the money coming from? The answer is nowhere. What we'll instead get is five more years of the same: increasing household debt, austerity largely concentrated on the poorest, and yet more borrowing. As the last five years proved, the Conservatives don’t need to close the deficit to be re-elected. In fact, it may be that having the need to “finish the job” as a stick to beat Labour with actually helped the Tories in May. They have neither an economic imperative nor a political one to close the deficit. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.