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.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Is anyone prepared to solve the NHS funding crisis?

As long as the political taboo on raising taxes endures, the service will be in financial peril. 

It has long been clear that the NHS is in financial ill-health. But today's figures, conveniently delayed until after the Conservative conference, are still stunningly bad. The service ran a deficit of £930m between April and June (greater than the £820m recorded for the whole of the 2014/15 financial year) and is on course for a shortfall of at least £2bn this year - its worst position for a generation. 

Though often described as having been shielded from austerity, owing to its ring-fenced budget, the NHS is enduring the toughest spending settlement in its history. Since 1950, health spending has grown at an average annual rate of 4 per cent, but over the last parliament it rose by just 0.5 per cent. An ageing population, rising treatment costs and the social care crisis all mean that the NHS has to run merely to stand still. The Tories have pledged to provide £10bn more for the service but this still leaves £20bn of efficiency savings required. 

Speculation is now turning to whether George Osborne will provide an emergency injection of funds in the Autumn Statement on 25 November. But the long-term question is whether anyone is prepared to offer a sustainable solution to the crisis. Health experts argue that only a rise in general taxation (income tax, VAT, national insurance), patient charges or a hypothecated "health tax" will secure the future of a universal, high-quality service. But the political taboo against increasing taxes on all but the richest means no politician has ventured into this territory. Shadow health secretary Heidi Alexander has today called for the government to "find money urgently to get through the coming winter months". But the bigger question is whether, under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour is prepared to go beyond sticking-plaster solutions. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.