Story submitted by Eric Worrall
A UK government study has concluded that people concerned about global warming, on average, use more electricity than climate skeptics.
Some highlights from the study follow.
On the “benefits” of switching off appliances;
“There is some link between households’ stated behaviour towards switching off unused appliances and electricity use, but there is seldom a statistically significant relationship (p-value 0.05 or less) between stated and actual behaviour. This means that policy-makers cannot rely on stated behaviours alone in assessing how often householders turn off unused TVs and desktop computers, or how much hot water they use for showers.”
On the (inverse!) correlation between environmental belief and energy use;
“Taken all together, householders who strongly agreed they were not worried about climate change because it was too far in the future in fact used less electricity rather than more, counter to the hypothesis that households concerned about climate change use less electricity.”
The study noted however that this was largely due to the fact most climate skeptics were older and poorer than people who expressed strong feelings about green issues.
“However, we found this was largely due to the effect of age, as older households were much more likely to agree with this statement, and also had lower energy consumption.”
Peter Lilley, a Conservative member of the Commons Energy and Climate Change committee, said:
“The survey exposes the hypocrisy of many who claim to be ‘green’: the greater the concern people express about global warming the less they do to reduce their energy usage.”
The study is available here:
Don’t do as I do, do as I SAY!!!!!!
Q: What’s the difference between an environmentalist and a developer.
A: The environmentalist already owns a house in the woods.
It’s amazing how so many environmentalists measure their conviction by how much they want other people to change. Themselves, not so much.
Old Huemul says:
July 15, 2014 at 6:50 am
=====
The correct response is that this study “may be” the result of spurious correlation.
You may believe it to be, but you haven’t proven it, so you can’t say claim definitively that it is.
BTW, read the article.
M Courtney says:
July 15, 2014 at 7:53 am
=====
If environmentalists are having a lot of kids, then that is a different form of hypocrisy on their part.
Environmentalists are always going on about too many people on the planet. They should be doing their part to hold down the population.
evanmjones says:
July 15, 2014 at 7:57 am
====
Relative wealth shouldn’t be relevant. Not if the greens were following their claimed convictions.
In fact extra wealth gives them the wherewithal to afford energy saving devices that the rest of us can’t. If they are instead using their extra wealth to buy bigger houses and more stuff, then are failing to act on their convictions.
If you perform certain rituals then your sins are absolved. Recycling is one such ritual.
Along with having control of far more resources (‘wealth’) than you really need comes a burden of guilt. Environmentalism is just one way to deal with that guilt. That is NOT meant to imply that those with the burden of wealth are going to really inconvenience themselves, however. They live by the rule “Do as I say, not as I do.”
One of my favorite prayers has always been “Lord, please give me a chance to prove to You that great wealth will not spoil me.” 😉
That prayer has never been answered. 🙁
“most climate skeptics were older and poorer ..” Less gullible, maybe, than younger and richer who believe that climate skeptics are bribed by Koch brothers.
It’s actually worse than this behavioral problem if you add in a scenario of lower average economic and revenue growth going forward from any mix of factors including aging population and social program cost, debt service, and further misplaced green spending. The best years may well be behind us as we lurch in the wrong direction, up until the next crisis recognition.
HomeBrewer says:
July 15, 2014 at 7:37 am
_______________________________
Wonderful, now can you reduce it further?
Given the number of variables likely to effect electricity consumption, the study with an N of 250 is far too small to be taken too seriously – though it would be nice to see Josh encapsulate the finding in a cartoon
More worrisome to me is this throwaway line by the author:
“The findings will strengthen the case of those who argue that more coercive methods are needed if people’s energy consumption is to be reduced. ”
This is a very strange and logical non sequitur. Assuming that the results held up with a more rigorous study, it seems to me that the correct interpretation of the results is that people on the are aware of their self-interests and act more or less in accord with those self interest. This is demonstrated that on average folks in the same general life circumstances consume roughly the same amount of electricity. Coercion in any form seems to be hardly justified by this study’s results.
I’m so green, i have 35 energy saving lamps in my house- but i ‘m using them only 3 hours a day.
-Hey I’m much greener, i have 200 of them and they’re on 24/7.
Apologies for any offence, I was pointing out that the green movement has a lot in common with organised religion and those at the center of organised religion tend to display the greatest hypocrisy in their behaviour e.g. attacking consenting adults for having sex outside marriage whilst covering up child sex abuse, that kind of thing.
It’s the same with any large movement that takes itself too seriously.
RTB, you are very polite not to mention organized crime.
Youth is passionate and filled with the urge to do good, to struggle against the wrongs of the world. Youth looks for causes to support. With age comes skepticism, not just that the individual can do much to change anything (that lasts), but that the crisis is real.
You can live in a zero CO2 world when you are raising kids and exploring the world. But who will when it means you sit at home and watchthe vegetables grow?
RTB says:
July 15, 2014 at 4:37 am
In much the same way that the most hardline religious people tend to be the least moral.
———————————————————
kenw says:
July 15, 2014 at 6:16 am
well, that was totally uncalled for….
======================================
Oh, I don’t know. I, for one, instantly thought “Jimmy ‘I have sinned’ Swaggert”.
That explains it all, says a skeptic using a 800 cc vehicle for shopping and living in a house heated with solar & a couple of energy-efficient stoves. All lights and equipment are needlessly on during the earth hour only.
Of course, a powerful, spacious and comfortable 4×4 (with a couple of pony-sized dogs fed almost exclusive with meat) is used for longer journeys – for the pleasure of overtaking retired hippies and electric cars with ‘nuclear, no thanks’-bumper stickers.
QUOTE
Households that said the effects of climate change are too far into the future to worry them use less, rather than more, electricity. However, this was largely due to their age: older households (over 65) were much more likely to say climate change is too far off to worry them, and also had lower energy use
The Household Electricity Survey monitored a total of 250 owner – occupier households across England from 2010 to 2011. Twenty – six of these households were monitored for a full year. The remaining 224 were monitored for one month, on a rolling basis throughout the trial.
Participants kept detailed diaries of how they used certain appliances, which can be matched against actual energy use monitoring for their homes. Each household filled in a diary every day for one week. The households monitored for a year did this twice. The diaries covered use of wet appliances, tumble dryers, ovens and hobs. They had between 13 and 85 appliances in their homes, with about a third of households owning between 30 and 40 appliances
The sample of homes was not perfectly representative – partly because only homeowners were included and partly because they were more energy – conscious than average households
END QUOTE
10 million over 65 in uk
only home owners in survey and only 26 homes for one year, the others for 1 month – although filling in a diary for a week, some for two is not very informative. To draw conclusion like the telegraph did and this article quotes is nonsense – total misrepresentation of the facts, garbage report on study. I am not impressed with the study itself either – such a small sample, 26 homes for a year!? a further 221 a month, participants fill in a diary for a week – you gotta be kidding…
My conclusions:
Sensationalist reporting
A weak/poor study extrapolated to mean something it does not – is/was worthless – no value.
Cheap mini-study that cannot achieve anything – except sensationalist report to make out someone is studying this issue, when they are not seriously studying much at all.
Wasted everyones time
.
neillusion – Well said. Bogus study. Reactions to it, tell you more about the responders than anything else.
North of 43 and south of 44
There’s not much more to save with two kids and an indoor/outdoor temperature difference at about 45C during winter.
Perhaps one could save some by not turning on all the lights during Earth hour, but I think it’s worth celebrating. 😉
“The study noted however that this was largely due to the fact most climate skeptics were older and poorer than people who expressed strong feelings about green issues.”
Sounds like the the authors discounting their results. They just know that old people and poor people are not as smart as the young who care.
pbft says:
July 15, 2014 at 5:00 am
“To be fair, you’d want to compare energy usage of ‘greens’ with their demographic peers before claiming hypocrisy. If the big correlation is between energy use and age (or income), that effect could easily swamp real differences based on ideology.”
Being a Green correlates strongly with working for Big Government and thus having a lavish salary for no work at all.
The title of this story is “UK Government Study: Greens use more electricity than skeptics.”
The first line of this story says essentially the same thing: “A UK government study has concluded that people concerned about global warming, on average, use more electricity than climate skeptics.”
However, the study (to which the author provides a link) specifically does NOT reach that conclusion: “None of the stated attitudes about environmental or climate change had any significant impact on overall energy use when household age was taken into account.”
Given the limited size and scope of the study, the reporting in the Telegraph and the reporting that appears here strike me as misleading and irresponsible.
Andy_E says:
July 15, 2014 at 7:44 am
You are sadly misinformed about ‘smart meters’. You have a wireless electricity monitor.
From the wiki article at end:
Research by Which?, the UK consumer group, showed that as many as one in three confuse smart meters with energy monitors, also known as in-home display monitors.
Smart meters are much more sophisticated devices whose purpose is monitor your energy consumption (both electricity and gas) every 5 seconds and report this back to your supplier(s) and, indirectly, your government every 30 minutes. Ultimately, by a progressive implementation of features built in to the smart meter, your consumption will be controlled by the supplier who may impose dynamic ‘time of use’ pricing depending on direction from government.
See:
https://www.gov.uk/…/225-smart-metering-imp-programme-design.pdf (applies to UK only)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_meter (other countries)
Smart meters are going to ruin the internet … by overloading it with micro-management by energy suppliers.
Ooops!
First link above should be:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/42723/225-smart-metering-imp-programme-design.pdf
£48k turbine which made just £5 of power a month to be removed http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-28229430
Any idea how often this happens?