So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

by bmd Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:00 pm

In another thread, I presented an quick and dirty analysis (see below) showing that folks in putatively more conservative states tend to use more energy, per capita, than folks in putatively more liberal states. So, does anyone (other than Sam) wanna' take a crack (a serious crack) at "splainin'" this apparent relationship?

bmd wrote:Take the per capita energy use for all the states (and D.C., just for good measure), and rank them, highest to lowest. Then take the Novermber election results. Use the difference in the proportion of votes that McCain and Obama received in each state (i.e, if McCain received 49% of and states votes, and Obama received 45%, with the remainder going to "third party candidates", then the metric for that state would be 0.04. Rank the states (and D.C.) again using these data. Here are the ranks, sorted alphabetically by state, with energy use first, then conservative-liberal rank:

Alabama 7 Alabama 5
Alaska 1 Alaska 6
Arizona 45 Arizona 18
Arkansas 13 Arkansas 7
California 48 California 42
Colorado 39 Colorado 28
Connecticut 46 Connecticut 41
Delaware 20 Delaware 43
District of Columbia 37 District of Columbia 51
Florida 44 Florida 25
Georgia 26 Georgia 20
Hawaii 42 Hawaii 50
Idaho 22 Idaho 4
Illinois 32 Illinois 44
Indiana 9 Indiana 24
Iowa 14 Iowa 29
Kansas 16 Kansas 11
Kentucky 6 Kentucky 9
Louisiana 3 Louisiana 8
Maine 23 Maine 40
Maryland 43 Maryland 45
Massachusetts 49 Massachusetts 46
Michigan 40 Michigan 38
Minnesota 19 Minnesota 31
Mississippi 12 Mississippi 13
Missouri 28 Missouri 22
Montana 10 Montana 21
Nebraska 18 Nebraska 12
Nevada 33 Nevada 33
New Hampshire 47 New Hampshire 30
New Jersey 36 New Jersey 36
New Mexico 21 New Mexico 35
New York 50 New York 47
North Carolina 38 North Carolina 23
North Dakota 4 North Dakota 17
Ohio 25 Ohio 26
Oklahoma 11 Oklahoma 2
Oregon 35 Oregon 37
Pennsylvania 31 Pennsylvania 32
Rhode Island 51 Rhode Island 48
South Carolina 15 South Carolina 16
South Dakota 24 South Dakota 19
Tennessee 17 Tennessee 10
Texas 5 Texas 15
Utah 34 Utah 3
Vermont 41 Vermont 49
Virginia 27 Virginia 27
Washington 30 Washington 39
West Virginia 8 West Virginia 14
Wisconsin 29 Wisconsin 34
Wyoming 2 Wyoming 1

Now, is there a correlation? The data are not normal, so we can't use parametric stats. But!!! The Pearson Product-Moment method should suffice (it's a very standard statistical method, developed for just this sort of nonparametric situation). The answer? The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (rho, in statistico-speak) is 0.72. What the &$^%&! does that mean, you ask? Well, if there were no relationship between the two data sets, rho would approach zero; if the ranks for each state were identical for both data sets, rho would approach one. So, even without getting into assigning a significance value to this stat, 0.72 is pretty highly correlated.

What can we infer from this? Per capita energy use and conservatism are closely related. The more conservative a state is (at least as indicated by the most recent presidential election) the more folks in that state burn up energy. So, guess what? Them wine-drinking, sushi-eating libs really are, on the whole, practicing what they preach.

by Keli Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:05 pm

Answer, "Why does Al Gore uses 20 times the average utilities in his house? And, "Why doesn't he fly coach?" And, I will answer your question.

by Aaron Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:12 pm

Population densinty. It's already been answered. California is second only to Texas in the amount of carbon emitted into the air with about 390 million tons of carbon emitted every year.

by bmd Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:39 pm

Aaron wrote:Population densinty. It's already been answered. California is second only to Texas in the amount of carbon emitted into the air with about 390 million tons of carbon emitted every year.

Show us your analysis, not just an anecdote.

by Aaron Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:42 pm

As you said yesterday, google it yourself.

Seriously though, you're not contesting the the most populated state isn't one of the largest energy consumers, are you?

Really???

by bmd Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:51 pm

Aaron wrote:As you said yesterday, google it yourself.

Seriously though, you're not contesting the the most populated state isn't one of the largest energy consumers, are you?

Really???

I didn't "google it", I did an original analysis.

Fuck, we just had an earthquake!! Not too big right here. Back in a few.

by bmd Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:57 pm

bmd wrote:
Aaron wrote:As you said yesterday, google it yourself.

Seriously though, you're not contesting the the most populated state isn't one of the largest energy consumers, are you?

Really???

I didn't "google it", I did an original analysis.

Fuck, we just had an earthquake!! Not too big right here. Back in a few.

nm, it was only ~4.9 mag., ~30 miles away.

The cat didn't even wake up.

Where was I? Oh, yeah. The most objective comparison is among individuals, hence the use of per capita measures.

by Aaron Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:03 am

I disagree. I think population density can be very misleading and has an obvious effect.

And it doesn't change the fact that Californians still use more energy then any other state save Texas, so much so that you have to import more energy then any other state.

by ziggy Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:04 am

bmd wrote:
Aaron wrote:As you said yesterday, google it yourself.

Seriously though, you're not contesting the the most populated state isn't one of the largest energy consumers, are you?

Really???

I didn't "google it", I did an original analysis.

Fuck, we just had an earthquake!! Not too big right here. Back in a few.

Well, maybe you can forego the prune juice, anyway.

by **Stephanie** Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:09 am

You know, one of the things I like most about WV is its lack of natural disasters. Nearly all the disasters here are man-made, and that really sucks but with man-made disasters there is always hope we'll learn from our mistakes.

In California and Florida and Kansas, they have the man-made disasters too, but they have to cope with all of those and earthquakes and hurricanes and tornadoes. Do you add an "e" when making that word plural? Someday when I grow up I'm going to get that program Terry has mentioned a time or two to check my spelling.

by bmd Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:25 am

Stephanie wrote:You know, one of the things I like most about WV is its lack of natural disasters. Nearly all the disasters here are man-made, and that really sucks but with man-made disasters there is always hope we'll learn from our mistakes.

In California and Florida and Kansas, they have the man-made disasters too, but they have to cope with all of those and earthquakes and hurricanes and tornadoes. Do you add an "e" when making that word plural? Someday when I grow up I'm going to get that program Terry has mentioned a time or two to check my spelling.

Well, this one wasn't much of a disaster. The radio just said that they (USGS?) downgraded it to a 4.5. It knocked a few things off store shelves, but that was about the extent of the damage. If you're right on top of a 4.5 - 5.0 it can be kind of scary. But, as I said earlier, we are about 30 miles away from the epicenter of this event, so I was the only one in the house to feel it. I kind of figured it was a little ways away when I felt it, as there was a definite temporal separation between the first little jolt and the bigger following waves. The longer that separation, the further away the quake is; in fact, that's one way they triangulate where the quake originates.

As for latin plurals, that's the way you would do it if it were a regular noun (at least, that's the way taxonomic names work). But, I'm not so sure the same rules would apply in this case; mea culpa not being a noun or nouns. Maybe you could ask a Catholic Priest, they're supposed to know latin. While you're at it, you might ask him if JC was human, or not.

by bmd Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:27 am

ziggy wrote:
bmd wrote:
Aaron wrote:As you said yesterday, google it yourself.

Seriously though, you're not contesting the the most populated state isn't one of the largest energy consumers, are you?

Really???

I didn't "google it", I did an original analysis.

Fuck, we just had an earthquake!! Not too big right here. Back in a few.

Well, maybe you can forego the prune juice, anyway.

Always a danger in earthquake country.

by Keli Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:39 am

bmd wrote:
Aaron wrote:As you said yesterday, google it yourself.

Seriously though, you're not contesting the the most populated state isn't one of the largest energy consumers, are you?

Really???

I didn't "google it", I did an original analysis.

Fuck, we just had an earthquake!! Not too big right here. Back in a few.

Earthquake? Think the Solstice is trying to tell you something, bmd?

by bmd Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:49 am

Aaron, I still don't see an actual analysis. Just anecdotes.

Well, I guess it probably isn't all that fair to expect such things. Opinions being so much more important than actual facts around these parts. So here's the analysis (or at least my version of it).

Start with the energy use rankings we used before, and then get a list of population densities. The latter is easy enough to come by, ranked and ready to go from Wikipedia. Here are the data, with energy use per capita first:

Alabama 7 28
Alaska 1 51
Arizona 45 34
Arkansas 13 35
California 48 12
Colorado 39 38
Connecticut 46 5
Delaware 20 7
DC 51 1
Florida 44 9
Georgia 26 19
Hawaii 42 14
Idaho 22 45
Illinois 32 13
Indiana 9 18
Iowa 14 36
Kansas 16 41
Kentucky 6 23
Louisiana 3 25
Maine 23 39
Maryland 43 6
Massachusetts 49 4
Michigan 40 17
Minnesota 19 32
Mississippi 12 33
Missouri 28 29
Montana 10 49
Nebraska 18 44
Nevada 33 43
NH 47 21
NJ 36 2
NM 21 46
NY 50 8
NC 38 16
ND 4 48
Ohio 25 10
Oklahoma 11 37
Oregon 35 40
Pennsylvania 31 11
RI 51 3
SC 15 22
SD 24 47
Tennessee 17 20
Texas 5 27
Utah 34 42
Vermont 41 31
Virginia 27 15
Washington 30 26
WV 8 30
Wisconsin 29 24
Wyoming 2 50
(I gotta admit. The fact that AK and DC are at the exact opposite ends of each ordination made be a bit nervous at this point.)

The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (rho) for this comparison is -0.58 (don't worry about the negative sign; in this context it's the magnitude that matters). So on average states with lower population densities do use more energy, per capita, than states with higher population densities. However, rho was quite a bit higher for our previous analysis, 0.72. So, population density, while it does explain some of the per capita energy use, doesn't explain all of it. There still appears to be a significant effect of a states position on our conservative-liberal ordination (or scale). Unfortunately, since this is a nonparametric analysis, we can't just subtract one rho from the other (or, more properly, the absolute value of one from the absolute value of the other). But, there does appear to be a significant effect of both predictors (conservative-liberal ordination and population density). In fact, our c-l ordination appears to be quite a bit better at predicting per capita energy use.

by bmd Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:53 am

Keli wrote:Earthquake? Think the Solstice is trying to tell you something, bmd?

Naw. But Neptune might have been trying to tell San Bernardino something.

by **SheikBen** Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:23 am

Lessee, California is 48th in homeownership, according to the US Statistical Abstract for 2004-2005.

If you are cramming people into high density housing (common in city apartments, particularly with low wage earners), the energy use will surely be lower. When you consider further that San Diego has the nation's best weather, energy use is thrown off in that way also.

New York, by the way, is 50th in rate of homeownership according to the Abstract for 2004-2005.

West Virginia is number one.

by Keli Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:46 am

SheikBen wrote:Lessee, California is 48th in homeownership, according to the US Statistical Abstract for 2004-2005.

If you are cramming people into high density housing (common in city apartments, particularly with low wage earners), the energy use will surely be lower. When you consider further that San Diego has the nation's best weather, energy use is thrown off in that way also.

New York, by the way, is 50th in rate of homeownership according to the Abstract for 2004-2005.

West Virginia is number one.

Does Al Gore, Father of Global Warning, rent or own that energy black hole he calls home?

by Aaron Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:25 am

If you can't google energy use by state and see that California is 2nd in consumption to Texas, then you don't need to be teaching anyone anything BMD.

by **Stephanie** Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:12 am

Maybe you could ask a Catholic Priest, they're supposed to know latin. While you're at it, you might ask him if JC was human, or not.

It's been a long time since catechism, but I seem to recall the answer is he was man and god both. Hope that helps.

by bmd Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:36 am

SheikBen wrote:Lessee, California is 48th in homeownership, according to the US Statistical Abstract for 2004-2005.

If you are cramming people into high density housing (common in city apartments, particularly with low wage earners), the energy use will surely be lower. When you consider further that San Diego has the nation's best weather, energy use is thrown off in that way also.

New York, by the way, is 50th in rate of homeownership according to the Abstract for 2004-2005.

West Virginia is number one.

The thread is about per capita energy use, not home ownership. Besides, I would much rather rent an apartment with a view of the Pacific Ocean than own a double-wide with a view of a missing mountaintop, or a pile of coal ash, in WV.

by bmd Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:38 am

Aaron wrote:If you can't google energy use by state and see that California is 2nd in consumption to Texas, then you don't need to be teaching anyone anything BMD.

That's just a pile of horseshit that you are using to deny the fact that people in liberal states are more energy efficient than people in conservative states (which, afterall, is the topic of discussion).

by SamCogar Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:43 am

People who live in rental units with utilities paid ...... are the worstest offenders of wasted energy.

by bmd Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:48 am

SamCogar wrote:People who live in rental units with utilities paid ...... are the worstest offenders of wasted energy.

So, if more people rent in CA, why are we so energy efficient?

by SamCogar Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:05 pm

Average temps in San Diego is around 70. In SF around 60. In Palm Springs probably around 75-80.

Los Angeles ranges from 56 to 71.

With those temps .... some people never use their HVAC systems even if they have one.

by bmd Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:37 pm

SamCogar wrote:
Average temps in San Diego is around 70. In SF around 60. In Palm Springs probably around 75-80.

Los Angeles ranges from 56 to 71.

With those temps .... some people never use their HVAC systems even if they have one.

"The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco."
- often attributed to Mark Twain, apparently erroneously

Many parts of CA are quite mild. That said, I don't know where you got those particular numbers, but the temps in Palm Springs are WAAYYYY off. The average highs in PS in the summer top 100˚F. In addition, average temps can be very misleading. It's the extremes that are a better indication of how much one is likely to use their heating and air. For instance, the highs during the summer in LA are frequently above 100˚F and the lows in the summer are often below 40˚F. People do use their HVAC units around these parts.

by Sponsored content

So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?

Re: So, why are conservatives so liberal in their energy use?