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

by sodbuster Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:16 pm

Anybody know what happened to SF Craig?

by Aaron Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:04 pm

bmd wrote:
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).

I'm just throwing back at you the same thing you said to me on a previous thread. How's it taste?

As for liberals being more efficient doesn't change the fact that California STILL uses more energy then any other state save Texas.

I posted on that when I discussed how California is a microcosm of the US in that even with conservations and efficiency, we would still need more energy based on population increases and you never responded.

And the reason is simple. It's obvious you don't have an answer.

by bmd Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:49 pm

Aaron wrote:
As for liberals being more efficient doesn't change the fact that California STILL uses more energy then any other state save Texas.

I posted on that when I discussed how California is a microcosm of the US in that even with conservations and efficiency, we would still need more energy based on population increases and you never responded.

And the reason is simple. It's obvious you don't have an answer.

You comparison is bogus. Of course CA uses more energy than most states, CA has the largest population, and the third largest area.

The issue is whether individuals in politically liberal states are more conservative with their energy use than individuals in politically conservative states. My analysis shows that they are. It's obvious that you don't have a response worth posting.

Trying to spin the discussion to suit your bias only reinforces your reputation, Aaron.

Why don't your just try to directly address the observation that politically conservative folks are energy hogs? Or, is spin all ya' got?

by **Stephanie** Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:57 pm

Then kindly explain Algore's mansion, his fleet of SUV's etc. You can twist things anyway you like them.

California has many areas with high population densities and mild climates. WV has neither.

by Aaron Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:59 pm

We used to have a guy on here who also claimed liberals walked on water and could do no wrong while conservatives originated in hell and had a mission of destroying America at any and all cost.

He was a well educated, relatively smart, ignorant dumb ass that didn't know what the hell he was talking about.

So how are you with Photoshop?

by bmd Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:09 pm

Stephanie wrote:California has many areas with high population densities and mild climates. WV has neither.

Are you saying that only liberals are smart enough to live in mild climes? Or, that liberals enjoy being around other people more than conservatives do?

What about the GENERAL trend of liberal states using less energy, per capita, than conservative states? Cherry-picking ones examples works both ways: Montana has a lower per capita energy use, but a much lower pop density and a MUCH harsher climate than WV.

by bmd Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:12 pm

Aaron wrote:We used to have a guy on here who also claimed liberals walked on water and could do no wrong while conservatives originated in hell and had a mission of destroying America at any and all cost.

I never said either. But, you STILL haven't addressed the trend I have brought to your attention.

by Aaron Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:37 pm

I think your trend is BS. I think what it shows is that rural states use more energy and if I recall correctly, you yourself partially explained that on another thread with Sodbuster when you were talking about energy loss during transmission.

If you break down California, I would venture to say the LA-Long Beach-Riverside areas, the 2nd most populace area in the US and home to almost half of California’s population and the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, the 6th most populace area in the US make up a large part of California’s energy efficiency and the rest of the state, especially the mountainous areas, ain't quite as efficient.

I mean, that's like saying California by county is a majority democratic state when that is simply not true. 38 of California's 58 counties voted for John McCain for President as illustrated in the map below.

The truth of the matter is, your data is skewed towards large metropolitan areas, and the more metropolitan areas a state has (CA has 3 of the top 20 in the US-more then any other state), the more energy efficient they're going to be. And being in one of the milder states doesn't hurt.

The only question I have about California is, if it's such a wonderful place to live, why is the state resorting to IOU's for tax refunds?

by bmd Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:44 pm

Aaron wrote:I think your trend is BS. ...yada...yada...yada...

You're falling into the same fallacy as Steph; you're cherry-picking your examples. Try again, addressing the TREND. Show us an analysis that uses ALL the data, not just some select examples.

by Aaron Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:09 pm

As far as I'm concnerned, I addressed it and I'm correct.

Deal with it.

by bmd Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:19 pm

Aaron wrote:As far as I'm concnerned, I addressed it and I'm correct.

Deal with it.

You really have but a loose handle on reality.

by bmd Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:24 pm

Aaron wrote:The only question I have about California is, if it's such a wonderful place to live, why is the state resorting to IOU's for tax refunds?

Because we have a Republican Governor (aka, der Gropenführer).

by Aaron Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:24 pm

It's been addressed. You may not like the answers but your challenge has been met.

PERIOD.

by bmd Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:26 pm

Aaron wrote:It's been addressed. You may not like the answers but your challenge has been met.

PERIOD.

I asked you to address the trend; you dodged the issue by cherry-picking.

by Aaron Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:32 pm

bmd wrote:
Aaron wrote:The only question I have about California is, if it's such a wonderful place to live, why is the state resorting to IOU's for tax refunds?

Because we have a Republican Governor (aka, der Gropenführer).

Davis's second term, which lasted only ten months, was dominated by the recall election. Davis signed into law several controversial measures during the closing weeks of the recall campaign, including one granting drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants. Davis also signed legislation requiring employers to pay for medical insurance for workers and legislation granting domestic partners many of the same rights as married people. He vetoed legislation giving illegal immigrants free tuition for community college. Many of Davis's opponents were furious over the signings of these measures during the final weeks of the Davis administration. Some political observers say these efforts as an attempt to reinforce support from Hispanics, labor union members, and liberal wing Democrats. Ultimately, Davis did not have as much support from Hispanics and union members in the recall election as he did in his 2002 re-election.

source

by bmd Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:58 pm

Davis also had balanced budgets.

But, that has nothing to do with your dodging the topic of this thread.

by **Stephanie** Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:35 am

I don't see how Aaron is "dodging" anything. I think you're making a few false assumptions. Like the assumption that only liberals like other people. The fact of the matter is, liberal politicians have created a new class of citizen and herded them together like cattle in urban areas and provided a giant trough for them to feed off the scraps thrown to them. Over the years, they've become dependent on those scraps and those liberal politicians to toss them. It's a vicious cycle being played out in urban areas across the country.

Then there are guys like you, who tell yourself how noble you are and what great good you're doing by creating new programs requiring more taxes further limiting the benefits and rewards of hard work and innovation. You're doing a bang-up job, by the way.

by bmd Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:04 am

Stephanie wrote:I don't see how Aaron is "dodging" anything. I think you're making a few false assumptions. Like the assumption that only liberals like other people.

I just asked a question as to what YOU thought about the trend. The trend has yet to be seriously refuted. You, and Aaron, seem to think that population density explains ALL of the effect. However, I have shown that while density may be responsible for SOME of this effect, there is still quite a bit that is only accounted for by the relative position along the conservative-liberal ordination.

The questions of why higher density states tend to be more liberal is also interesting, and whether nasty climates tend to have more conservatives, are interesting in their own right. However, they are not the trends we are discussing.

by **Stephanie** Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:11 am

Perhaps they are not the trends you wish to discuss, however, they are the trends Aaron and I are discussing. Who are you sharing a discussion with?

by bmd Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:54 am

Stephanie wrote:Perhaps they are not the trends you wish to discuss, however, they are the trends Aaron and I are discussing.

And the only reason I can see for your changing the discussion is that you can't deal with the original observation.

I started this whole discussion, on another thread no less, because someone indicated (on the basis of nothing but his/her own bias) that liberals were all hypocrites about conserving energy. I thought, "I wonder how one could actually test such a thing?", and then figured out a reasonable way to do so. The trend was much stronger than I thought it would be, and exactly the opposite of what the original poster had espoused; and what you and Aaron seem to hold near and dear.

I don't blame you, and Aaron, for not wanting to discuss the general trend. It's hard to admit it when one is wrong. But, I have seen absolutely no evidence to support the notion that liberals are hypocritical about energy conservation. In fact, the opposite appears to be true; conservatives use more energy per capita than do liberals. The more liberal a state, the less energy folks in that state tend to use. The more conservative a state, the more energy folks in that state are likely to use. Cherry-picking counter examples do nothing to provide evidence to the contrary. In fact, such behavior only reinforces the vacuousness of your arguments.

by Aaron Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:02 am

I find it curious that when you don't agree with us and dodge a question, you somehow have answered it but we don't like the answer but if you pose a question and we respond, then we're still dodging the question.

We answered your question. Could there be other factors to what you state? Possibly. But population density is the greatest factor whether you like it or not.

So unless you have something else, this is really getting old.

by **Stephanie** Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:10 am

Now, now there you go again, bm. AlGore, the liberal global warming guru, and his family, use far more energy in a year than your family, mine, Aaron's, Mike's and Jimmy's combined. That's quite an accomplishment.

The general trend is pretty much as I described it. Perhaps the real answer is, as a rule, liberals enjoy being huddled masses and conservatives do not. However, there are exceptions to every rule and AlGore is a good example of this. Smile

by bmd Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:14 am

Aaron wrote:I find it curious that when you don't agree with us and dodge a question, you somehow have answered it but we don't like the answer but if you pose a question and we respond, then we're still dodging the question.

We answered your question. Could there be other factors to what you state? Possibly. But population density is the greatest factor whether you like it or not.

As I pointed out earlier, since I used a non-parametric test here, one can't just subtract one statistic (rho) from the other and look at the difference. In fact, that would only work if this were a parametric least-squares regression, AND one could reliably assign dependence/independence to the variables. Without using much fancier stats (and spending a whole lot more time beating a dead horse; which you're welcome to do, if you have any idea how to do so) we'll just have to take for granted that the "political effect" is stronger than the "density effect".

Aaron wrote:So unless you have something else, this is really getting old.

Then why do you keep trying to figure out a way to spin this thread in your favor?

by Aaron Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:21 am

I'm not spinning anything. You ask for a response. I gave you one. It's not my fault you don't like the answer.

Keep trying though.

by Aaron Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:36 am

Something curious I ran across.

Per Capita Energy Consumption

This story got a lot of coverage in the news yesterday. To make a long story short, the Brookings Institution (one those “think tanks” that thinks what its corporate sponsors pays it to think), released a study that shows that per capita energy consumption (and corresponding “carbon footprint”) is lower in big cities than it is in more rural areas.

While cities are hot spots for global warming, people living in them turn out to be greener than their country cousins.

Each resident of the largest 100 largest metropolitans areas is responsible on average for 2.47 tons of carbon dioxide in energy consumption each year, 14 percent below the 2.87 ton U.S. average, researchers at the Brookings Institution say in a report being released Thursday.

This seemed to come as a surprise to the study’s authors.

Those 100 cities still account for 56 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide pollution. But their greater use of mass transit and population density reduce the per person average. “It was a surprise the extent to which emissions per capita are lower,” Marilyn Brown, a professor of energy policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology and co-author of the report, said in an interview.

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the role of population density in driving down per capita consumption. People in cities aren’t “greener” because out of any conscious effort to reduce energy consumption. It’s due entirely to the fact that they’re forced to crowd together. More live in smaller dwellings, like apartments and condos, have shorter commutes and are forced to use mass transit due to traffic congestion. Would residents of Los Angeles prefer the more wide open quality of life enjoyed by people living in Lexington, Kentucky? Most surely would, but it’s not an option for them. They’ve been crowded out of that kind of life style.

Now, obviously, this is a good thing from the perspective of conserving natural resources and minimizing impact on the environment. But this declining per capita consumption is a very bad thing for employment. Falling per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity, results in rising unemployment and poverty.

You have to ask yourself, what was Brookings’ motivation for doing such a study? It seems clear to me: Brookings’ corporate sponsors want to defuse concern about global warming and especially want to cast doubt on the growing suspicion that a growing population is an environmental threat. To suggest that energy consumption is lowest in our most densely populated locales is to also suggest that we can solve the global warming crisis by actually increasing our population density.

Don’t buy it. There’s no greater threat to our environment, our limited supply of natural resources and especially to our economy, as rising unemployment and poverty take their toll, than further population growth. No amount of technological solutions can be effective if population growth wipes out any improvements in efficiency. It’s time to focus on the one and only solution that offers any hope of a sustainable high quality of life in the future - stabilizing our population.

source

by Sponsored content