Getting back to the article...

I am surprised that Scott Stephens (or anyone else) found the evidence he quotes for 'self-serving environmentalism' at all convincing (re: house prices and environmental views).

In the first place, if you know anything about quantitative statistics you know that a correlation is not a causation. Certainly, there is no 'finding' a causal relation. Causal relations are theories which ideally are tested with longitudinal data (and even then they remain contestable). Personally, I find the speculation on this particular correlation to be rather far-fetched and desperate. It looks like a case of fitting the facts and overstating the evidence for a pre-committed theory. Moreover, at least they way Scott interprets it, the theory relies on a highly reductive notion about the formation of attitudes that would not get much traction in the non-economic social sciences (or sophisticated economic sciences for that matter).

But I am also dubious about the strength of the correlation itself and would check the study's method very carefully to be convinced. It seems to me to be far too easy to think of contrary examples of people with strong environmental convictions living in unsalubrious housing situations for the reported correlation to be meaningful. I also happen to know that in the Australian Electoral Survey data Greens supporters are not the wealthiest group and are spread across income groups though they tend to be in the middle and above range (middle-class). What does distinguish Greens from other political groups is that they tend to have higher levels of education (many more postgraduates particularly) (and, yes, Green supporters do overwhelmingly pick the environment as their number one political priority)

The other thing that struck me was the way Scott called concern for the environment 'the ultimate expression of altruism'. But this economist jargon categorises experience in a way that only allows for two things: self-interest or self-sacrifice (altruism). More often than not, economists (the less sophisticated kind) will then try to collapse the latter into the former through slippery definitions and desperate logics. This article attempts to do just that.

I argue that even the initial 'altruism' category is a misnomer here by not allowing for other possible calculation configurations (after all, this is an internal state that can't be directly measured). What this definition misses is the possibility that people's prudential concern is not individuated when they are 'calculating' their concern for the environment. In other words, when thinking about environmental issues their moral/interest boundaries might include, for instance, their grandchildren, global humanity, wildlife or the planet. In assessments like these there is no distinction between self- and 'other' prudential interests - they are considered mutually as one. It is a different kind of collapsing in the sense that it is (variously) inclusive of others. In everyday language, this would be understood as thinking about the common good, public interest, common weal… the terms go back a long way. I also think this is a more apt way of characterising people's 'calculations' about their concern for the welfare of close family members (going some way to explain why some would die to save family members).

This doesn't of course mean that environmentalists or family members are always thinking in these inclusive or collective terms all the time (as though it were some permanent, immovable state). We are all brought up to, and are quite capable of, being strictly individuated in our self-interest calculations. Personally, I think we can slip back and forth depending on context and pressures. But as we all know from life experience, the extent to which and in what contexts people make individuated calculations or other more inclusive ones is highly variable. So some people are easier to share a house with than others. :-)

It was Aldous Huxley who said,

"To believe some things, one must be an intellectual,
ordinary men would never be so silly".

The other major correlation with green voters is a past or present history of substance abuse. And this, combined with education levels concentrated in the second quartile, not the first, produces a cohort who got where they are by indulgent parents and lax public sector study leave entitlements. Don't ever mistake education level for cognitive capacity.

"The other major correlation with green voters is a past or present history of substance abuse. And this, combined with education levels concentrated in the second quartile, not the first, produces a cohort who got where they are by indulgent parents and lax public sector study leave entitlements. Don't ever mistake education level for cognitive capacity."

wow perseus, such insight! and a 'taxi-drivers' notion of 'real world education' overcoming real study/science. so by your kind of reasoning, the overriding characteristic of liberal/national voters is that of sociopath with unbridled greed.

i really dont know where you have been hiding for at least the last 10 years, because study entitlements are still less than unemployment benefits, below the poverty line and are in receipt by very few who actually have tertiary qualifications.

some of the garbage you post is unbelievable, except im actually reading it with my own two eyes.

So, has environmentalism been simply a religion of atheists, conservation is a brand of, the WWF’s head is who?

Perseus

The 11% I was referring to is the increase in the glacial melt rate (And you complain about acts of sophistry?). The spreadsheet calculation is simple to do, and is quite an eyeopener. The most interesting thing about the calculation is that you do not start seeing a substantial sea level rise (1cm per annum) until about 2020.

As for the criticism that I use only 20 years of data, I would point out that you also take your annual melt rate from one year, then assume that it will be the same for the next 19,000+ years (well spotted whispering ted). Brilliant! But your extrapolation point is a good one, as the paeleological record shows that rates of sea level rise of greater than one centimetre per year are quite possible.