January 19, 2011

"Gays are greener than heterosexuals."

"Most (55%) of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender (LGBT) adults say they 'personally care a great deal about the current state and future of the environment,' compared with 33% of heterosexuals, according to the Harris Interactive survey. Also, 40% of LGBT adults say they 'encourage others to be more environmentally friendly,' compared with 24% of heterosexuals."

77 comments:

LL said...

Message - we care more.

Fen said...

Crap

Marcia said...

Claiming to care + scolding others = greener

Jay said...

personally care a great deal about the current state and future of the environment

That's great.

They "care" so much that by golly, um, er, they recycle!

And they have a dog eared copy of Earth in the Balance...

edutcher said...

And this changes the world, how?

chickelit said...

What Gaia-forsaken people we straights are.

Coketown said...

As a group, gays are more liberal than heterosexuals. I'm in the minority; but most gays I know are capital-p Progressives. You can't just pick and choose those values conducive to advancing your sexual identity/politics. You have to adopt the whole basket of stupidity. So of course it seems reasonable that one's sexual preference should also determine one's preference on marginal tax rates and subsidies for green energy, etc.

ricpic said...

Those gays internalize self-esteem good, real good.

Skyler said...

I suppose that's supposed to be an insult. But it's not. It's just a reflection of the obvious, that homosexual men tend to be less logical than others.

JAL said...

Also, 40% of LGBT adults say they 'encourage others to be more environmentally friendly,' compared with 24% of heterosexuals.

I hate it when people "encourage me" to change behavior that is none of their business.

Rick said...

I read the whole USAT piece. Marcia's mostly right. "Greener" is defined primarily in terms of thought and feelings not actions.

But the article does mention "engaging in environmentally friendly activities" so maybe at some point there is a substantive difference.

Which then raises the question of social-economic status. Let me put it this way. There are a lot of ways I'd like to be more "environmentally friendly" that I just plain can't afford. I can't afford a hybrid on my modest income. I remember an article shortly after Katrina about a local couple that redesigned their house so they wouldn't need AC during the ghastly Louisiana summer.

Price tag? $150,000. For the redesign. Not the house.

Jason (the commenter) said...

The big story seems to be that the environmental fad has peaked. If this trend continues there were be an ever greater number of green products chasing fewer and fewer consumer dollars. You can say goodbye to the "green premium" many manufacturers have been betting on.

Jon said...

Of course they are, they don't produce children.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Some groups are above average, and I bet some are below average, too!

mesquito said...

Urban weenies who don't know jack but emote well.

Lord, how that grows tedious.

I need a latte.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Jon: Of course they are, they don't produce children.

They do! But beside that point, your statement doesn't scan. People who don't produce children should care LESS about the future of the Earth.

The Crack Emcee said...

And you wonder why I tie gays into the NewAge movement?

Gaia would be so "proud".

BJM said...

Neener, neener, neener.

Silly heteros.

somefeller said...

As a group, gays are more liberal than heterosexuals. I'm in the minority; but most gays I know are capital-p Progressives. You can't just pick and choose those values conducive to advancing your sexual identity/politics. You have to adopt the whole basket of stupidity. So of course it seems reasonable that one's sexual preference should also determine one's preference on marginal tax rates and subsidies for green energy, etc.

In practice, this is the case in US politics, but it's not something that had to turn out that way. There really isn't any logical connection between, for example, one's stance on gay marriage and capital gains taxes. This is really just an artifact of how social conservatives have pushed gays into the liberal camp, and once in that camp it's easy to pick up liberal views on other issues or at the very least report liberal views on other issues. It's all about teamwork. And even with that being the case, lots of gays still vote for the GOP, and more would do so if the GOP went in a more libertarian direction.

Henry said...

I 'encourage others to be more environmentally friendly' only when pressed by enthusiastic greens.

Nuclear power is green. So are disposable diapers and plastic bags.

mesquito said...

Homosexuals have a better sense of fashion. It follows that their opinions would be more fashionable.

jr565 said...

They are greener because the color green is FABULOUS!

mishu said...

They don't produce children and rationalize their childless life by claiming they are greener.

Leo Ladenson said...

Again, the love that once dared not speak its name now won't shut the hell up.

Pogo said...

The modern hair shirt is nagging your neighbor and voting for socialists.

Much easier.

Cedarford said...

Jason (the commenter) said...
Jon: Of course they are, they don't produce children.

They do! But beside that point, your statement doesn't scan. People who don't produce children should care LESS about the future of the Earth.

===============
Nah, basically it's substitution and homage to gay theatricality. Normal parents with kids care for their future, gays with none have to be above that and pretend they careabout something even greater - The Whole Planet! Higher morality and all.
As for "being green" gays herd for what is trendy. Ten years ago, Armani and sparkling water. Now green, not wanting to be caught dead in Jersey Shores Armani, and being seen in public with a CO2-laden non-recyclable plastic bottle full ofwater in public is incredibly gauche`.
Next year, the gays will be past "green" and onto a new trend.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Reading the comments here, I get the impression heterosexuals pave over gardens, hate spending time outdoors, and love breathing smog.

David said...

At best, what this study shows is that gays claim to be greener than heterosexuals.

Roux said...

Does this prove that Gays are stupider than heterosexuals?

Methadras said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AST said...

I give up. I apologize for being heterosexual. We'll just segregate ourselves now and go about our own business.

Jana said...

Seattle City Light offered me the opportunity to pay a surcharge on every bill to be greener the same billing cycle in which they raised rates significantly.

I have gay progressive neighbors with whom I'm quite friendly. I am dying to ask if they took up the offer. They still have this in their window, too! They're adorbs.

Methadras said...

I can haz the green gays?

wv = repack = lol

Jason (the commenter) said...

Cedarford: Next year, the gays will be past "green" and onto a new trend.

If gays are especially sensitive to trends, as you presume, then they should be leading the movement away from environmentalism, not hanging onto it as something of value.

Methadras said...

Jana said...

They still have this in their window, too! They're adorbs.


My response to that would be, "Oh no you didn't..."

Coketown said...

@somefeller: It doesn't take a sophisticated imagination to see the relationship between preferences for low taxes and preservation of the nuclear family--namely, both are necessary for a minimalist framework of government. What would a similar logical bridge be between high taxes and support for gay marriage? Preference for large, intrusive government? Input welcome!

But I will agree with you about social conservatives pushing gays into the liberal, judgment-free camp--a development that has not been advantageous to gays. If we want to talk disparities between straights and gays, keeping with the theme of the thread, let's add drug dependency and suicide to the list.

mesquito said...

Nothing says "green" like assless chaps.

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

As a group, gays are more liberal than heterosexuals. I'm in the minority; but most gays I know are capital-p Progressives. You can't just pick and choose those values conducive to advancing your sexual identity/politics. You have to adopt the whole basket of stupidity. So of course it seems reasonable that one's sexual preference should also determine one's preference on marginal tax rates and subsidies for green energy, etc.

In practice, this is the case in US politics, but it's not something that had to turn out that way. There really isn't any logical connection between, for example, one's stance on gay marriage and capital gains taxes. This is really just an artifact of how social conservatives have pushed gays into the liberal camp, and once in that camp it's easy to pick up liberal views on other issues or at the very least report liberal views on other issues. It's all about teamwork. And even with that being the case, lots of gays still vote for the GOP, and more would do so if the GOP went in a more libertarian direction.


Wrong.

In the '80s, the Demos observed that urban homosexuals bloc vote and started courting them. Social conservatives had nothing to do with it.

Jason (the commenter) said...

edutcher: In the '80s, the Demos observed that urban homosexuals bloc vote and started courting them. Social conservatives had nothing to do with it.

You mean the ghetto. The impoverished neighborhoods they were driven to live in because of the persecution they faced from social conservatives.

woof said...

You mean the ghetto.

Of course, we fixed up the ghetto and made it safe for yuppies.

virgil xenophon said...

RE: "Eco-friendly" gays. A friend of mine once commented that he liked renting his rental property out to gays: "We had one single-family home we rented to gays which wasn't landscaped. By the time they left the entire property was a veritable 'Hanging Gardens.' TOTALLY improved the property and cost me absolutely nothing." LOL!

Synova said...

Tie this into the study that showed that "green" purchases corresponded with people being less honest and what you've got is a bunch of people with an excuse to be jerks.

AJ Lynch said...

Cripes -do they actually pay someone to do these studies? Is someone planning to sell purple recycle bins?

Big Mike said...

They say they care more. That doesn't mean they do more.

I've seen people who drive up to the office building in big SUVs (Tahoes, Escalades) festooned with "Save the Earth" bumper stickers. I've seen people who call themselves ardent environmentalists toss aluminum cans into the trash to save walking 50 paces to the recycle bin.

Don't tell me how much they care. What do they do?

Maguro said...

Green is the new fabulous.

Skipper50 said...

And why is that assumed to be a positive?

MadisonMan said...

Interactive surveys aren't random. I wonder how they honestly factor out self-selection biases?

Organic food popularity is dropping in the survey, I notice. So is local-grown food purchases. I hope this spells death for that horrible word: locavore.

shoutingthomas said...

Well, Jesus, I guess we'd all better start butt fucking each other.

Case closed.

Teri said...

Jana said...

They still have this in their window, too! They're adorbs.


I notice that the first feature is "easily removable."

pst314 said...

"I hate it when people 'encourage me' to change behavior"

I like to "encourage" them to do something painful and disgusting to themselves. :-D

Geoff Matthews said...

Environmentalism is trendy. Gays and lesbians latch onto trends.

peter hoh said...

Bullshit survey. There are limits to how much you can determine about people's behavior from what they tell a pollster. You're getting much too fuzzy data when you are asking them questions about how much they care about something, rather than, say, the temperature at which they set their thermostat.

And when you're asking people about their thermostat settings, your results are clouded by people who give their "pollster" answer rather than their real answer.

Ralph L said...

Haven't they figured out that CFLs make you look ten years older?

Methadras said...

Maguro said...

Green is the new fabulous.


And it's fierce.

Jon said...

@Jason- It mean, not producing children is, in itself, "green".

Ralph L said...

It was an online survey with 15% self-identified LGBT. Not statistically sound.

Jon said...

It= I

Juba Doobai! said...

When you got no kids to worry about, you can worry about a whole lotta shit.

sunsong said...

I care about the planet. It's not, for me, climate change or global warming. It's that a good planet is hard to find :-)

And more than that - I prefer clean air to dirty air and clean water to dirty water. I prefer beautiful landscpes and forrests to trash heaps.

Rialby said...

No, I care more

/straight man

Rialby said...

"When you got no kids to worry about, you can worry about a whole lotta shit."

And when you refuse to shop anywhere but Whole Foods for your food, it makes it easier to buy organic, locally grown vegetables from which pests and bugs were daintily plucked at the low, low price of $10 a tomato.

Timon said...

Since when was 55% percent "most?"

Michael said...

I think the comment about gays and trends (fads) is right on. I have no problem with that but there are other issues, like the coming bankruptcy of the US.

bagoh20 said...

I'm viridiphobic.

bagoh20 said...

I wonder if greeness can be cured via psychiatry, or religion. I've noticed that facts have no effect.

bagoh20 said...

If green ever becomes un-hip, these number will reverse.

JAL said...

You can say goodbye to the "green premium" many manufacturers have been betting on..

It so annoys me when I hear the Prez pushing economic recovery by all the 'green" jobs which are being / will be created.

Does he believe this bullshit?

What regulations need to be eased to help recovery?

(This is a test.)

1. Drill, baby, drill!
2. Reactors, baby, reactors!

Methadras said...

sunsong said...

And more than that - I prefer clean air to dirty air and clean water to dirty water. I prefer beautiful landscpes and forrests to trash heaps.


Well, then be thankful you live in the United States instead of worrying that you live in some 8th world fuck hole like Africa or India.

AllenS said...

More Liberal bullshit.

Fen said...

Isn't it time for another study telling us how smart Liberals are?

I need to be reminded.

TMink said...

Do gay men die decades earlier than breeders? Is that green?

Trey

Pastafarian said...

And conversely, greens are gayer than non-greens. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Drew said...

Least surprising survey EVAR!


wv: mundods

(I propose that should be a new term for Gaia-destroying straights).

Bruce Hayden said...

A lot of good comments, and if there is any validity to the study, the answer is probably a combination of all of the above.

One additional, related issue, is that gays, at least in this country, tend to be more urban, and likely significantly more urban, than the nation as a whole.

Yes, there are plenty of rural gays. But I would still suggest that gays are more likely, at least at some point in their lives, to want to live downtown, where the action is, where the gay community is, etc.

Also, at gays in general, and gay males in particular, tend to have higher disposable income - which is fairly easy when you aren't paying for kids. "Organic" food is a luxury, a lot easier to afford when you only have one mouth to feed. Ditto for much of the "green" movement. You can afford a Prius, and it might make sense, if you don't have those pesky kids to haul around. But if you do, and their friends, then maybe a mini-van, or, horrors upon horrors, an SUV (and around here, even worse, a Suburban) might be more realistic.

Bruce Hayden said...

And conversely, greens are gayer than non-greens. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

It makes sense (above and beyond being the inverse of the original proposition). Humans cause pollution, and how better to reduce pollution than to not increase the population of the planet? And how better to do that, and still have sex, than to not take the chance of accidentally, or maybe even being deceived into, having kids?

Unfortunately, this logic didn't work very for me. I am a not very environmentally conscious breeder. So be it.

holdfast said...

@Methadras - No, Sunsong makes a good point. Every dollar wasted chasing the poor little CO2 molecule is one that could have been spent reducing actual pollutants, the kind that actually can harm children and other living things.

Eric said...

>Message - we care more.

That's the left in a nutshell. Outcomes don't matter - what matters is *intention*.