Clean energy may be a partisan issue in Washington, D.C. (see the No More Solyndras act that recently passed in the House). But things are different outside of the beltway.
According to a new survey of 2,334 U.S. adults from home solar company Sunrun, Mitt Romney voters are actually more likely than Obama voters to have made "green" home improvements in the past five years (permanent changes like installing solar panels, low-flow shower heads, energy-efficient lightbulbs, and so forth), with 64% of Romney voters making these changes and 58% of Obama voters making green improvements. How can this be when the Republican Party dropped energy efficiency from its platform this year?
We look at our customer base and actually a majority of our customers are Republicans.
Washington, D.C., politics simply don't reflect what's happening on the ground. "We are seeing solar energy almost portrayed as a political debate on Capitol Hill," says Sunrun Consumer Educator Susan Wise. "In reality, we look at our customer base and actually a majority of our customers are Republicans." That's because saving money is the biggest reason that people surveyed--both Obama and Romney supporters--made green home improvements.
Some other highlights from the survey:
- Romney votes are more likely to have installed low-flow toilets and bought energy-efficient appliances than Obama voters. But Obama voters are more likely to eat organic foods, unplug electronics when not in use, and recycle--in other words, to make lifestyle changes.
- Saving money is the top reason to make green home improvements for both Obama voters (84%) and Romney voters (87%). Obama and Romney voters also are in close agreement on other reasons to make these changes: improving family health (60% vs. 54%, respectively) and helping America become less dependent on other countries (50% vs. 47%).
- Obama voters, however, are much more likely to cite concern for the planet (58%) as a reason to make green home improvements compared to Romney voters (27%).
DBL Investors also released a report (PDF) this month showing that clean-tech jobs tend to be clustered in small, Republican-leaning states. The authors write: "Outside of the capital, where governors (and mayors) are more concerned with creating jobs than scoring debate points, there is no controversy about the impact of clean tech." The same could be said about the cash-saving impact of energy-efficient technologies on individual homes.
Still, the home solar industry has barely tapped the market--only 3% of Romney voters and 2% of Obama voters have installed solar-power systems in the past half decade. So, though 27% of survey respondents want to install a solar-power system in the future, there's still a long way to go on both sides of the aisle.
Copyright 2012 by Fast Company. Reprinted with permission.
See what we're tweeting about
3 Comments
Add CommentMaybe many Obama voters made all these improvements BEFORE "the last five years"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe Obama voters were already going green and saving energy when most Romney voters still believed that climate change was a hoax?
Maybe Obama voters had low-flow toilets and bought energy-efficient appliances long before Sunrun's CEO decided to back Romney?
And could it be that some of Romney's backers from WallStreet and Las Vegas don't give a toss about pollution when they waste their double-digit-million bonuses in their private planes which they deduce from their taxes while some of the hard-working, but less lucky Obama voters can't even afford to pay their mortgages anymore?
Maybe Romney voters will also eat organic foods, unplug electronics when not in use, and recycle in 2017 and Sunrun will then pretend that Post-Romney voters are the ecological avant-garde?
This article is utter cr... oh, sorry, I hadn't noticed this was from SciAm's real-life satire section. But you really had me there for one moment. Phew, that was close.
You aren't understanding the thesis of this article. It isn't about up playing the Republican Party by presenting it's supporters as also climate friendly or making any distinctions. What the article is trying to do attempt to show that even Republican supporters support clean energy as long as it saves them money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyes, and I don't differ, I just point out that Republicans got into it later which if one only takes into account the last few years makes them look as if they were leading the market. In fact they trail it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIntentionally or not, it's erroneously trying to make the Republicans as what they are still not by any measure: green = ecologically conscious. But as you point out and I've taken this point of view myself on occasion, if it makes them do it for the money, they may very well one day wake up to ecology.