ENVIRONMENTALISM: Study: Democrats better at reducing consumption than Republicans

Posted on May 11, 2010

In some ways, Democrats are more conservative than Republicans. More via the New York Times:

Political ideology helps determine whether homeowners respond to voluntary energy conservation programs, two University of California, Los Angeles, economists have found.

In a study published last month on the National Bureau of Economic Research website, Dora Costa and Matthew Kahn concluded that providing feedback on energy use can actually backfire with some conservatives.

Costa and Kahn merged utility data from 80,000 homes with corresponding voter registration and donation records. The economists found that a Democratic household with green bona fides — paying for electricity from renewable sources, donating to environmental groups and living in a neighborhood of fellow liberals — will reduce its consumption by 3 percent in response to feedback.

Meanwhile, a Republican household that doesn’t adhere to environmental behaviors will actually increase its consumption by 1 percent. The households that received home energy reports reduced their consumption by about 2 percent overall, but the Republican subset of this group reduced their energy use by 0.4 percent.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

ENERGY: Increased energy consumption tied to an increase in troop casualties

Posted on November 29, 2009

Christopher Helman has an interesting piece at Forbes.com regarding the military and energy consumption. In addition to other energy consumption issues within the military, he highlights an interesting study that correlates fuel consumption with troop deaths. From Forbes.com (emphasis added):

If President Obama decides to send another 20,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, the Department of Defense will also have to figure out how to send along another half-million gallons of fuel a day to support them. Since the end of World War II, the use of petroleum-based fuels has risen 175% to 22 gallons per solider per day. In 2008 U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan burned through 25 million barrels of oil.

It’s more than a conservation issue. More fuel consumption correlates directly to more deaths. So asserts a new report by Deloitte Consulting on the military’s energy security. “The biggest game changer for reducing casualties is reduction in convoys,” says retired Air Force General Charles Wald, the lead author of the report. Fuel convoys are easy targets for roadside bombs, which have accounted for nearly half of American deaths in Iraq and almost 40% of deaths in Afghanistan.

. . .

It might feel good to use an alterna-fuel, but because most airstrips and harbors are relatively easy to supply it would do nothing to reduce the casualties incurred by trucking diesel to battlefields. If the intention is to use coal-derived fuels to reduce reliance on foreign oil it would be far more cost-effective for the government to open up coastal areas to oil drilling. More domestic oil isn’t something the Deloitte report recommends, though Gen. Wald concurred in an e-mail exchange that it would help. “Any measure that decreases our nation’s dependency on imported oil is positive,” he says.

Frankly, the greatest emphasis should be on reducing fuel consumption on land, not just to power humvees and tanks, but also electric generators. During peacetime, generators powered by liquid fuels burn 26 million gallons a year. In wartime, figures Deloitte, that has jumped to 357 million gallons (roughly 8.5 million barrels) a year.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

ENERGY: Study finds “nearly 4 in 10 Americans (39 percent) cannot name a fossil fuel,” and the public’s knowledge about energy is low, insufficient

Posted on June 19, 2009

The public does not need to become experts on an issue in order to fully participate in decision making. That’s not possible, and it’s not necessary either. Americans don’t need to be economists in order to set priorities for health care reform or hold a doctorate in education to realize what’s needed in their local schools. But the public does need enough information so it can understand the basic elements of the problem and wrestle with the implications of different choices.

A report from Public Agenda examined “the public’s attitudes, values and concerns about the tangle of policy challenges, business choices and personal habits that come under the catch-all heading of ‘energy.’” The report is interesting, and it investigated a multitude of energy-related issues by analyzing the American public’s perception or knowledge of key energy issues (download the report, “Energy Learning Curve” as a PDF). Interestingly, although 4 in 10 Americans cannot name a fossil fuel, a majority of Americans do worry about fuel costs and believe the U.S. economy is too dependent on oil. From the report:

Even though energy prices have fallen since the oil price spike of 2008, public concern over cost remains both strong and intense. An overwhelming 9 in 10 Americans (89 percent) say they worry about the cost of gas and fuel. Even more important is the intensity of that concern, with 57 percent saying they worry “a lot.”

Eight in ten (83 percent) worry that the U.S. economy is too dependent on oil, with 47 percent saying they worry “a lot.” Nearly three quarters of the public (73 percent) disagrees with the statement that “if we get gas prices to drop and stay low, we don’t need to be worried about finding alternative sources of energy.” Fully 53 percent of the public strongly disagrees with that statement, showing this is a firmly held belief.

This may be because the public believes there’s a long-term trend at work here. Seven in ten say that “over the long run, the price of oil will go up” because “supplies are decreasing and demand continues to rise.” Despite the high number, the public still has some contradictory views on this trend. Nearly as many (68 percent) also blame “speculators who drive up the price of oil” for cost increases.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

ENERGY: U.S. Primary Energy Consumption by Source and Sector, 2007

Posted on June 8, 2009

Here is an interesting energy diagram:

Via the Energy Information Administration

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

SUSTAINABILITY: Jeffrey Sachs discusses the consequences of natural resource scarcity and the need for sustainability

Posted on March 25, 2009

On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Jeffrey Sachs discusses the implications on national security that arises when poorer countries lack adequate energy, land, and water resources; in addition to the growing world need for energy and that impact on energy availability and prices (or natural resources in general).

Jeffrey Sachs is the Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and the author of New York Times bestsellers such as Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet and The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time.

If the video does not work for you, then you can watch it here.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

The Conservation Report

Tracking news regarding conservation, the environment, energy, politics, and technology

Tag Archives: Consumption

ENVIRONMENTALISM: Study: Democrats better at reducing consumption than Republicans

ENERGY: Increased energy consumption tied to an increase in troop casualties

ENERGY: Study finds “nearly 4 in 10 Americans (39 percent) cannot name a fossil fuel,” and the public’s knowledge about energy is low, insufficient

ENERGY: U.S. Primary Energy Consumption by Source and Sector, 2007

Here is an interesting energy diagram:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Here is an interesting energy diagram:

Share this:

Share this: