Climate skeptics more eco friendly

The obligatory picture of backlit harmless water vapour to illustrate a Climate Change story

Who’d have thunk it. Those who are sceptical about climate change are more eco-friendly than those who make a song and dance about it. Breitbart explains: Quote:

QuoteAmericans who are skeptical about climate change engage in personal behavior that is more friendly to the environment than climate alarmists, who support increased government regulation, a new study has found.

Michael Hall, a psychologist from the University of Michigan, led a team of researchers in a yearlong longitudinal study of 600 Americans who ?regularly reported their climate change beliefs, pro-environmental behavior, and other climate-change related measures? and published the results of their study in The Journal of Environmental Psychology[…]

The results of the study contradicted the intuitive assumption that people most concerned about climate change would be the most likely to engage in eco-friendly behavior, revealing instead that the contrary is true. There is an inverse correlation between climate-change concern and environmentally beneficial action.End of quote.

I wouldn’t call it contradictory. Those who talk the walk seldom walk the talk. Quote:

QuoteWhile very supportive of government action on climate, the group of ?highly concerned? were the least likely to behave in environmentally friendly ways on a personal level, the study revealed.

The self-described ?skeptics,? on the other hand, while the most opposed to government climate policies, were also the ?most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors,? the study found.End of quote.

Heh. Quote:

First, there is a tendency among those who believe they are on the ?right side? of an issue at the macro (governmental, social) level to be negligent in the same area at the micro or personal level, an instance of a phenomenon known in psychology as ?moral licensing? or ?self-licensing.?End of quote.

In other words, those that virtue signal think that gives them the right to lord it over others while not actually doing anything. Quote:

Quote[…]As Stefan Hartmann of the University of Passau describes in his paper titled ?Moral Licensing in the context of Environmental Behaviour,? such an apparent disconnect between belief and action is not uncommon. Supporting government intervention often leads a person to believe he has done his or her share for the environment, leading to ?self-licensing? to act in contrary ways at the personal level, as other reports have noted.

Such ?moral licensing? may help explain the apparent disconnect between belief and action of the world?s most famous climate alarmist, Al Gore. His 20-room, 10,070-square-foot, Colonial-style mansion reportedly consumes 21.3 times more kilowatt hours than the average U.S. household ? including 66,159 kWh per year just to heat his swimming pool.End of quote.

But all the attention he brings to the issue of climate change makes up for it (sarcasm.) Helps explain why no one does hypocrisy like the Left. Quote:

Quote A second explanation may be found in the distinctive moral universes of conservatives and liberals. While good and bad are bipartisan and neither side can claim definitive moral high ground, there are statistically based moral tendencies that are revealing.

As reported by the New York Times in 2008, liberals favor generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad, but give comparatively little in personal contributions to charitable causes. Personal virtue can be viewed as less important that government programs, which helps explain why liberals favor higher levels of taxation than conservatives, who would rather donate their money than have it taken from them.

Average annual charitable contributions from households headed by conservatives, for instance, give 30-50 percent more than liberal households, the Times article stated.End of quote.

Liberals would argue that it’s because conservatives have more money. Oh, wait… Quote:

Quote[…]The study found that the states in which people gave the highest percentage of their adjusted gross incomes were also states that voted for Romney, while states in which people gave the lowest percentage of their adjusted gross income voted for Obama. The top 17 most generous states all went for Romney.

Since the most ardent believers in climate change tend to be on the liberal end of the political spectrum, it would make sense that they would push government action on the environment, while doing less at the individual level.End of quote.

So Liberals want others to spend and do while they just talk and expect the government (ie others) to pay. Of course, it’s not just with climate change. Over here we see it with some people pushing much more spending on public services but nobody actually voluntarily paying more taxes to help pay for that spending.

Anyway, whenever I see someone harping on about climate change I often wonder how much they’re actually doing to fight “climate change”.

Now we know.