| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Poll: Americans Prefer Drilling Over Conservation |
| 2008-07-02 |
| WASHINGTON - High gasoline prices have dramatically changed Americans' views on energy and the environment, with more people now viewing oil drilling and new power plants as a greater priority than energy conservation, according to a new survey. The poll released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center shows nearly half of those surveyed — or 47 percent — now rate energy exploration, drilling and building new power plants as the top priority, compared with 35 percent who believed that five months earlier. Gas prices speak volumes. I support widespread drilling on the Arctic Shelf because I know it can be done without causing environment havoc. Also, the Russians have made claims, and the US - and its Arctic allies - have to address same. The Shelf WILL be drilled; if you want to play, you have to get in the game. The Pew poll, conducted in late June, showed the number of people who consider energy conservation as more important declined by 10 percentage points since February from a clear majority to 45 percent. People are now about evenly split on which is more important. Viewers of History Channels' "Ice Road Truckers" can see first hand the environmental practises of Big Oil. Even minor spills are cleaned up. Waste at Well-Head camps is pumped into "Vac" trucks, and taken away for safe disposal. That's Canada, but Alaskan natives run a fairly large Summer fishing fleet. I don't hear them complaining about toxic waste. "Arctic Grayling" makes its way into pricy seafood restaurants. The number of people who said they considered increasing energy supplies more important than protecting the environment increased from 54 percent in February to 60 percent and the number of people who favor oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge also increased. "This shows the real impact of higher gas prices on the public," said Carroll Doherty, associate director for the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, which commissioned the telephone survey of 2,004 adults from June 18 to June 29. The margin of error was plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, slightly larger for subgroups. Since February, gasoline prices have soared from just over $3 to a national average of $4.08 a gallon, according to the Energy Department... |
| Posted by:McZoid |
| #8 There are some things that just can't be done, and some things that are too hard to do to make it worthwhile. ANYTHING ELSE should be on the table. I agree with AuburnTom - we need whatever we can build to meet the needs of the United States. "Environmentalists" - elitists who want to dictate to the rest of us - have all but shut down the nuclear power industry in this country. France has 48 nuclear reactors in service. We have 45 at last count. We need about 200. We can also use another 70 or 80 coal-fired plants, a half-dozen natural gas plants along the Gulf Coast, tidal basin energy production sites, wind farms (and nail Ted Kennedy's and John foney Kerry's hides to the supports), and anything else that will produce energy at market or near-market rates. We need to drill in Alaska, the Gulf, the Atlantic, and the Pacific. We're fast becoming an all-nuclear navy (and should move faster in that direction). As soon as we are, we need to open up the Alaska Naval Petroleum Reserve for drilling. In fact, why are we buying foreign oil to run our ships NOW? There has to be a trade-off between fuel economy and safety. We do not need to kill any more Americans on the highway because a tiny little motorized roller skate mixes it up with an F-350 diesel. Still, if we can increase gas engine efficiency even one percent, it would cut our DAILY oil useage by a million barrels. We have a problem with Colorado oil shale. Extracting oil from oil shale uses tons of water - water that's scarce on the Western Slope. We need to find some other way to use it that doesn't use other scarce commodities. There's enough coal in Colorado to continue to supply much of the nation with cheap, dependable electricity for generations to come. Coal technology is getting cleaner and cleaner all the time. Six 80-car coal trains go through Palmer Lake every day. There is no spilled coal, and no layer of coal dust, as there used to be 20, 30 years ago. HALF THE COAL MINES IN COLORADO are closed - not because there's no more coal, but because it became too expensive to get it out of the ground. Now oil companies are drilling those coal beds for methane - natural gas. There's four million acres in the northwestern part of the state that's effectively been put off limits for natural gas drilling - yet that area has multiple beds of coal, and methane seeps out of the ground in places. We won't EVEN get into the absurdity of Escelante-Grand Staircase. World supply and demand are forcing every American to reassess what a handful of our "leaders" have committed us to. Many of those "environmentalists" have ideas about the oil and gas industry they got from watching the movie "Giant". Their heads are also locked into a 1950's mentality that needs to come to grips with the reality of the 21st Century. End MY rant... for now. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-07-02 22:50 |
| #7 My example would be California's attempts to virtually outlaw diesel engines from non-commercial trucks because the diesels in the 70s were so bad. The Europeans have been chugging away improving on diesel engines getting better and better gas mileage while the US has not. Why build a better diesel engine for a truck primarily used in the US market when a huge section of that market won't allow it. I think the law recently changed but there really is no excuse. The US buys trucks. We make the best trucks. Trucks work better on diesel. Prettymuch everything that isn't a sports car should be running on diesel now except some well-intentioned but ignorant laws have made it nearly impossible for decades. This has little or nothing to do with engineers and everything to do with politicians and activist and opportunistic lawyers. End rant. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-07-02 16:44 |
| #6 I could be wrong but I think RbR's saying the safety and other requirements heaped onto the trucks have increased the weight making for poorer gas mileage than we otherwise could have attained by now. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-07-02 16:40 |
| #5 RbR, I'm all for the Drill AND Conserve approach but anyone that thinks that the auto industry hasn't been trying to maximise fuel economy for the last 20 years is a fool. Where's Toyota's truck that's as big and strong that gets that kind of mileage? Hyundai? BMW? VW? Nissan? Get a grip. Physics is a hard mistress especially when regulated by the Feds. Oh, and do you really think that Lawyers and engineers are interchangeable? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2008-07-02 13:59 |
| #4 Carabou who In this day and age, it can be both. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2008-07-02 12:51 |
| #3 Ricky, I was thinking the same thing. Why is this always presented as an "either/or" scenario? I prefer drilling AND conservation AND alternative fuels AND nuclear power AND new technology. Whatever it takes to get us away from dependence on third world dungheaps for our energy. |
| Posted by: AuburnTom 2008-07-02 09:54 |
| #2 Ah, the three card monty of MSM. Americans are awaking to the radical green agenda and aren't happy. To cover their 'environmental' ass, MSM now subs the word 'conservation'. They'll find they'll only destroy the value of the word rather than alter the consequences of their watermelon [green on the outside, red on the inside] program. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-07-02 09:39 |
| #1 Too bad the poll didn't have "Drill, Drill, Drill AND Conserve, Conserve, Conserve" as an option. If the domestic auto industry had expended the resources on engineering and technology that they instead pissed away on lawyers and lobbyists, your Ford F150would be able to lug a bedful of stuff from Home Depot and still get 50 miles a gallon. |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2008-07-02 02:04 |