Americans Buy Green to Save Money, Not the Climate

<p><a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-66535906/stock-photo-world-commerce-checkout-icon-d-render.html?src=csl_recent_image-1" target="_blank">3d brained</a>/Shutterstock</p>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


If you care about saving the climate, there’s good news and bad news this week, courtesy of a voluminous new report on Americans’ personal and consumer behavior in relation to global warming that’s just out from the Yale and George Mason research teams on climate change communication.

First the good news: It looks like energy efficiency is really winning over the American consumer. Not only do half of Americans now say they’ve purchased a kitchen appliance that’s energy efficient, but looking forward, impressive majorities say that they want their next appliance or car purchase to be green. Three-quarters say as much for kitchen appliances, 71 percent for their next water heater, and 61 percent say they want their next car to do 30 miles per gallon or better.

Something similar could be said for the market penetration of energy-efficient compact fluorescent lightbulbs. Fifty-three percent of Americans now say that “most or all” of their bulbs are CFLs. By contrast, that number was just 40 percent in late 2008. (This despite the fact that among conservatives, recent research suggests energy efficiency can be a big turn-off.)

Americans want to buy *more* green stuff Source: Yale & George Mason projects on climate change communication
Americans want to buy *more* green stuff
Source: Yale & George Mason projects on climate change communication

So what’s the bad news? Well, it comes in the area of what you might call “efficacy”: Americans are buying lots of green stuff, but at the same time, they’re less convinced that their personal or individual actions actually make a difference for the climate.

Here, the numbers could certainly be called worrisome: They’ve declined noticeably since the year 2008, when 48 percent of respondents said that they thought their “energy-saving actions and intended actions” would significantly reduce their contribution to global warming. That’s now down to just 31 percent. Similarly, in 2008, 78 percent of the public thought that “if most people” in the country took the same green lifestyle steps, “it would reduce global warming ‘a lot’ or ‘some.'” Now, that’s down to 56 percent. (This particular question excluded individuals who were “very or extremely sure global warming is not happening.)

Indeed, looking forward, the study found that Americans overall will be changing their airline travel patterns less out of global warming concern in the future. Meanwhile, it also reported that since 2008, there has been virtually no change in the lowly percentage of Americans (now 10 percent) who have contacted an elected official about global warming.

So what is up with us Americans—besides the obvious implication that the companies selling energy-efficient products have done a much better job of marketing than the activists selling climate solutions? Why are Americans simultaneously greener, but less convinced it matters?

According to Yale’s Anthony Leiserowitz, one of the report’s authors, it’s very unlikely that most Americans have suddenly figured out that individual energy-saving actions—while highly commendable—aren’t enough on their own to fix climate change (because instead we need major policy changes). Rather, he suggests, people’s sense of climate efficacy has declined largely because climate change itself fell out of the media, and public consciousness, in the wake of the economic collapse and throughout much of President Obama’s first term. “I think a lot of it is because we aren’t talking about this issue at all any more, so people are not being reinforced with the message: ‘So, here are the things you can do.'”

Nonetheless, the findings on energy efficiency are surely heartening. As Leiserowitz’s colleague Ed Maibach of George Mason notes, “Manufacturers of cars, home appliances, and electronic gear are doing an increasingly better job of making energy-efficient models easy, fun and popular. So, in some sense, this could be seen as a victory of market-based approaches.”

If only climate policy were half as well marketed.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate