Why do Americans like Pickup trucks?

[nwdiver]

Sorry, but you're missing a big factor in how marketing is done in the USA. Your car IS a fashion statement, and it DOES say something about you.

A friend of a friend bought a used truck from them that they had used to make dump runs and other 'truck stuff'; He already had a car, lived in a rental and had ABSOLUTELY no use for a truck. He wanted to use it as a commuter. When I asked my friend why on earth he wanted their beat-up datsun when he already had a car he explained that their friend wanted a truck because his co-workers had trucks... it's part of their wasteful culture.

That's the point here... it's not enough to offer an attractive alternative... some people (enough to be a BIG problem) will not change their ways as long as their way keeps working. Obviously providing an alternative is a necessary part of the solution... the other part is making people uncomfortable with the status quo. The frivolous burning of fossil fuels for the sake of making a statement is not acceptable. If you think the carrot will work without the stick... if you think offing an affordable and attractive alternative alone will motivate (enough) people to give up their addiction then you need to read a few psychology books. Guilt, shame and peer-pressure also have a role to play.

 

[James Anders]

Yeah, it's called eco-shaming.

Eco Shaming - Marketers turn to guilt as a tactic to inspire consumers to be more eco-conscious

And I think of it about what I think of the other "shaming" trends.

 

[nwdiver]

Yeah, it's called eco-shaming.

Eco Shaming - Marketers turn to guilt as a tactic to inspire consumers to be more eco-conscious

And I think of it about what I think of the other "shaming" trends.

If you've got a better idea to accelerate the transition to responsible and sustainable energy use/production I'd honestly love to hear it...

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

Yeah, it's called eco-shaming.

Eco Shaming - Marketers turn to guilt as a tactic to inspire consumers to be more eco-conscious

And I think of it about what I think of the other "shaming" trends.

I don't like the word shame.

I prefer to talk about guilt.

To me guilt is something positive. It prevents me and other human beings with a normal functional conscience from harming myself and others around me.

The problem here IMO is that:


1: Too many people are completely unaware of that the mean sea-level is up ~9 inches since ~1880.

Source: :: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO ::


2: Too many people are completely unaware that the reason the sea-level is up ~9 inches is that the amounts of green house gases has increased in the atmosphere. And the main driving green house gas which is CO2 has increased in the atmosphere from ~280 ppm (parts per million) in the year ~1880 to ~400 today.

Source: Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


3: Too many people are completely unaware that as a result of the increase of C02 and other green house gases the temperature in the atmosphere is warming. The oceans are also warming. ~93,4% of all the man-made global warming ends up in the ocean. And as a result we have seen the rise of the global mean sea-level outlined in [1.] above.

Source: Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Source: Where is global warming going? | Skeptical Science – Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism


4: Too many people are completely unaware that there is basically complete scientific consensus about [1-3].

Source: The 97% consensus on global warming | Skeptical Science – Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism


If people knew and understood everything above their consciences would not allow them to carry on wasting and polluting at the scale they are doing today. It would simply be socially completely unacceptable.



- - - Updated - - -

Also:

Yeah, it's called eco-shaming.

Eco Shaming - Marketers turn to guilt as a tactic to inspire consumers to be more eco-conscious

And I think of it about what I think of the other "shaming" trends.

What other “’shaming’ trend” are you referring to?

Slut-shaming?

What similarities do you see between what you refer to as “Eco Shaming” and Slut-shaming?

 

[nwdiver]

The problem here IMO is that:


1: Too many people are completely unaware of that the mean sea-level is up ~9 inches since ~1880.


2: Too many people are completely unaware that the reason the sea-level is up ~9 inches is that the amounts of green house gases has increased in the atmosphere. And the main driving green house gas which is CO2 has increased in the atmosphere from ~280 ppm (parts per million) in the year ~1880 to ~400 today.

3: Too many people are completely unaware that as a result of the increase of C02 and other green house gases the temperature in the atmosphere is warming. The oceans are also warming. ~93,4% of all the man-made global warming ends up in the ocean. And as a result we have seen the rise of the global mean sea-level outlined in [1.] above.

4: Too many people are completely unaware that there is basically complete scientific consensus about [1-3].

That was once true... it's now mostly a cultural problem. I'm about half-way through George Marshalls book 'Why our brains are wired to ignore climate change'; There's one study discussed that really stood out. In terms of wasteful cultures from most to least the general perception among the British is America, UK then Sweden. When a British test group was consciously compared to Sweden they became more wasteful to enhance their cultural identity; When compared to America they became less wasteful. Bubba is now mostly aware of the facts surrounding climate change... but cognitive dissonance and motivated reasoning driven by his cultural identitiy allow him to frame the narrative so that he is either blameless or powerless. Either way... he doesn't see climate change as his problem...

Shame, Guilt... call it what you will... the key to solving this problem is to make the use of fossil fuels for energy culturally unacceptable while acknowledging that on some level they are still (for now) required for SOME tasks.

For those that think this is a 'smug' attitude... what was the last problem humanity solved by ignoring it? The elephant in the room that is climate change has been joined by an even BIGGER elephant... the perception that honestly discussing climate change is taboo... that's a BIG problem.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

That was once true... /...

Ok.

Like this then:

Most people have heard about global warming in the atmosphere. And most people know CO2 is involved somehow. And most people have seen those graphs on global warming in the atmosphere and the rising CO2 level. But exposure to those graphs happens to seldom. So they forget what they look like, and the blatant, glaring correlation between them.

BUT: Most people do not know about the sea level rise that has been occurring since ~1880. And most people are not aware of the amount of heat energy that is already stored in the planet’s oceans. They also do not know how much CO2 has increased in the atmosphere since ~1880. They don’t know about 280 ppm – 400 ppm. They don’t know the scientific consensus is that we have to get back to 350 ppm as soon as possible.

Source about 350 ppm: Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes | Skeptical Science – Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism

And since they don’t really know all this, there’s a lot of room for various PR stunts, and various friends and family to still make them think that perhaps, hopefully things aren’t really as bad as they actually are.

- - - Updated - - -

.../ it's now mostly a cultural problem. /...

But sure... I agree it's a cultural problem as well.



- - - Updated - - -

.../ But sure... I agree it's a cultural problem as well.

(Thinking about this some more...)

Hopefully it’s like this: Culture can only withstand so much facts. I think the scientific facts outlined above can impact wasteful polluting culture.

These facts have made me understand.

Then they should also be able to make others understand.

 

[nwdiver]

Hopefully it’s like this: Culture can only withstand so much facts. I think the scientific facts outlined above can impact wasteful polluting culture.

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.' - Men who owned Men

Never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Johan]

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.' - Men who owned Men

Never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance.

+100

I didn't read the book you referenced but I had this thought regarding the problems of climate change public understanding, that this phenomenon of cognitive dissonance is at the heart of the issue.

As a doctor I see this "all day erry day" with health issues. Smoking cessation for example: the facts are non-debatable, and there isn't even attempts from the tobacco companies anymore to change public perception (in the West). Still people (some) go on smoking. If you pressure them they do understand in a logical perspective that there is not one single rational reason for them to not stop. But cognitive is more than analytical - it's also emotional and cultural. This is where the dissonance happens: the logic and rational conclusion threatens something more primitive: identity (personal or cultural), self worth, stability. The result is the rational thought is held at bay, isn't allowed to penetrate to the emotional level - not allowed to be "felt" and experienced in your soul. So it stays this idea that doesn't really feel line anything else than an idea to you (as opposed to a fact, a truth of life, something that ACTUALLY is).

With climate change denial there are strong economic interests who are constantly working to enable these cognitive dissonance issues in different ways, playing this mechanism to influence public attitudes. (A parallel to how I referenced smoking above and said that Big Tobacco aren't doing this ANY LONGER).

 

[nwdiver]

I didn't read the book you referenced but I had this thought regarding the problems of climate change public understanding, that this phenomenon of cognitive dissonance is at the heart of the issue.

The science supporting AGW is necessary but FAR FAR from sufficient to motivate REAL action. People have a disturbing tendency to double down on their ideology when presented with evidence that conflicts with it. The focus on addressing climate change is geared more and more towards understanding the culture... understanding why indeed Americans are so pathologically driven to drive such inefficient vehicles even when it's completely unnecessary.

There probably isn't anything approaching a logical answer... many Americans appear to take pride in swimming against reality...

 

[Johan]

There probably isn't anything approaching a logical answer... many Americans appear to take pride in swimming against reality...
View attachment 80534

Well isn't religion the other great example of our time of the power of cognitive dissonance? Identity, heritage and culture outweighs rationality for so many, still.

Just like your great example above in the 18th century: slave owners talking with true conviction about how all men were created equal.

 

[tomas]

I am aligned with a lot of the viewpoints being expressed here about climate change, culture, and ignorance (yes, I know it is a polarizing word, but "ignore" is the root "ignorance", and to "ignore" climate change is to be "ignorant". Literally.).

But, I feel this thread is not only getting OT, but could be read to imply that driving a pickup truck = climate ignorance. The issue is that ANY gas guzzler = climate ignorance. Not all gas guzzlers are pickups, and not all pickups are gas guzzlers. You can get a 20+ combined MPG pickup. That's better than our mini convertible, which few would equate with climate ignorance.

Fact is that there are many people out there who's lifestyle requires use of pickup. People who have towing requirements. People with trade jobs that must carry equipment/tools. People with horses. People who hunt. etc.

Some of those people can have a pickup as a second or third car... so they can minimize use of it, and use a more fuel efficient car for driving that doesn't require pickup.
Some of those people cannot afford a second car, so the pickup becomes the primary car. Those in this category who are responsible should seek a fuel-efficient pickup. Also because if you can't afford a second vehicle, then you ought to be economizing on fuel as well.

Then, there IS the category of climate change - ignorant people who don't really need a pickup... large SUV... etc. But, they buy it because it fits some image that they want to project or identify with. We will have a tough time changing those people, because they get their security and identity from other climate change - ignorant people. This is why I've long had a problem with the climate change movement -- it's spreading much too slowly because the marketing is all to people who already understand. Need to convert a few thought leaders that large groups of climate change - ignorant people look up to. Because, they can't be bothered with the science, but can be sold by someone they believe in.

 

[abasile]

Well isn't religion the other great example of our time of the power of cognitive dissonance? Identity, heritage and culture outweighs rationality for so many, still.

I would not be too quick to cast all religion in the same light as climate change denialism. Certainly, believing that humanity shared the earth with dinosaurs and that we were all created only thousands of years ago is a good example of cognitive dissonance. However, there is a rational basis for the belief that life and the Universe were designed by a superintelligent yet knowable Creator. "Design" need not preclude evolutionary processes, by the way.

On the topic of truck ownership, I'll mention that for years we owned a small, very basic, older Toyota pickup. Although it sometimes sat for weeks without being driven, it was at times quite handy for moving things, especially when we were doing construction on our home. Further, the marginal utility of having a larger, much more expensive truck would have been minimal. There's no rational reason to spend $30-60k on a truck so that one can make dump runs or haul furniture. If one has an additional parking space for an old "beater" truck for occasional use and it's not too expensive to insure and maintain, then keeping a truck while using efficient cars for daily driving seems sensible.

 

[beeeerock]

Then, there IS the category of climate change - ignorant people who don't really need a pickup... large SUV... etc. But, they buy it because it fits some image that they want to project or identify with. We will have a tough time changing those people, because they get their security and identity from other climate change - ignorant people. This is why I've long had a problem with the climate change movement -- it's spreading much too slowly because the marketing is all to people who already understand. Need to convert a few thought leaders that large groups of climate change - ignorant people look up to. Because, they can't be bothered with the science, but can be sold by someone they believe in.

If more people were willing to watch this video as an example of the basic logic that seems to be missed by so many people... or explain it to people when the opportunity comes up...

(The title is a bit over the top, but the content is easy to understand and quite logical)

The easy analogy of boiling a frog often comes to mind. But it really isn't that simple. People are paralyzed into inaction because they don't know what to do and - most importantly - nobody else is doing anything substantive and useful. Global leaders included. What good is it to do something if nobody else bothers? Essentially, no good at all. But perhaps doing something anyway will inspire someone else... and so on. And maybe Bubba will give up his truck eventually too, of his own accord. Because it's more important to get people doing whatever they can, than have them wait for the magic invention that'll save us all.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

.../ But, I feel this thread is /.../ getting OT /...

Why?

IMO there's a clear line of thought from post #101 to your post #111.


- - - Updated - - -

.../ What good is it to do something if nobody else bothers? Essentially, no good at all. /...

I disagree. And you go on to make my case in your next sentence:

.../ But perhaps doing something anyway will inspire someone else... and so on. /...

.../ Because it's more important to get people doing whatever they can, than have them wait for the magic invention that'll save us all.

Sorry.

No time to wait for a "magic invention".

Unfortunately our time is up.

We have to do everything that we possibly can right now.

 

[beeeerock]

I disagree. And you go on to make my case in your next sentence:



Sorry.

No time to wait for a "magic invention".

Unfortunately our time is up.

We have to do everything that we possibly can right now.

I think you may have misread my statements. :smile: Those comments were intended to be read as if spoken by the person who simply won't give up his truck or do anything to be part of the change. I'm not suggesting it's useless to do something and I'm not suggesting there ever will be a magic invention. Only that 'Bubba' is happy to sit in his pot of rapidly heating water and do nothing, because he sees no use in his efforts.

I bought the Tesla for the primary reason that it's going to reduce my carbon footprint drastically. The 'cool factor' was secondary, by quite a distance! I'm working on a design for rooftop PV panels on my house for the same reason. The economics of the panels where I am aren't really that good, but I'm still willing to do it because it makes a statement. Every kWh I produce and feed onto the grid, is one less kWh generated by coal somewhere in western North America.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

.../ there is a rational basis for the belief that life and the Universe were designed by a superintelligent yet knowable Creator. /... [My underline.]

Is there?

Regardless, there isn't any sort of evidence for any kind of "Creator".

 

[dhrivnak]

If we are going to start shaming people make sure we also target air travelers . Yes Buba in his 15 mpg pickup spews forth about 8 tons of CO2/yr. But a family of 4 flying across the country generates the same CO2 in just one flight. Take your family to Europe or Asia just once and that is more than 18 months of Buba 's driving.

Log In

 

[beeeerock]

If we are going to start shaming people make sure we also target air travelers .

You are absolutely right!

I recall some discussion after 9-11 about whether con-trails might increase global temperatures or reduce them. I think there was some thinking that they help us during the day by reflecting some light back into space, but might hold heat at night. Probably not a big contributor one way or the other (compared to actual carbon emissions), but interesting nonetheless...

 

[reddy]

Americans drive pickups regardless of their religious persuasion.

And many here appear to be using a popular, but wrong, definition of cognitive dissonance.

I do think that many Americans like pickups because :

1) The cost of gas here is cheap.
2) They are versatile, you can haul trailers and move stuff.
3) Because the manufacturing profit margin is high, they are aggressively marketed.
4) Because of exemptions from auto regulations such as CAFE historically, and some of the safety regs, they are also marketed heavily.
5) Marketing is mostly to men, and they are associated with high testosterone activities. They want to convey manhood, virility, and healthy aggressiveness.
6) IMO, and there is evidence to back this up, men who have feelings of impotence / self doubt do tend to purchase trucks with exaggerated features : Anglos: dual-wheels, high rises, etc. Go south of the border and you get the low-riders.
7) Buyers are typically clueless about environmental costs. They don't know, and they don't care. It's not on their radar. Cognitive dissonance isn't the issue here.

In short; Environmental awareness , or religiousity, don't really factor into the choice of pickup. Self perception of competence and virility probably does.

 

[tomas]

If more people were willing to watch this video as an example of the basic logic that seems to be missed by so many people... or explain it to people when the opportunity comes up.

you missed my point. This is yet more marketing to people who believe. We watch and say "great argument". The non believer either gets angry, loses attention, or gets irrationally defensive. You need the top 3 nascar drivers saying it's imperative. No matrix, just endorsement. Then you've got something.