Public Favors Priority on Energy Production Over Environment

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Everyday Chit Chat

Public Favors Priority on Energy Production Over Environment

[41 posts] [12 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 2 years ago by rus
Latest reply from gramarye

Tags:

12 3 Next »

rus

Login to Send PM

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/06/public-favors-priority-on-energy-production-over-environment/

For the first time since Gallup began asking the question in 2001, more Americans say that the United States should put priority on developing supplies of oil, gas and coal than on protecting the environment.

This is the latest in a series of Gallup polls that have found public concerns lessening about the environment. A survey conducted in early March said that those who believe the seriousness of global warming had been exaggerated jumped from 30 percent in 2006 to 48 percent.

Gallup also said that Americans were less worried than they were a year earlier about a variety of environmental issues ranging from pollution of drinking water to air pollution.

...

Gallup said one explanation for the trend may be the tendency of Americans to downgrade the importance of environmental protection during economic hard times. Gallup found in polling during the same March period that 53 percent put the priority on economic growth over the environment, which, along with a similar result in 2008, was only the second time in two decades that this view prevailed.

NB: Article has links to the gallup poll results themselves.

Posted 2 years ago #
J.R. Locke
Weinland Park
Login to Send PM

However, a majority of Americans -- 52 percent to 36 percent -- still believe that the best solution to energy problems is more conservation rather than emphasizing more production.

That is the most hypocritical statement ever. Shame on folks not telling the friendly survey people the truth.

Posted 2 years ago #
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM

It's not surprising... a large number of people believe that environmental protections provide the major cost differential in producing goods here versus China. A pretty dubious statement, but nevertheless believed quite whole-heartedly by the undereducated populace.

Did Gallup ask how much of a difference people thought that the extra production was going to make in the supply?

Posted 2 years ago #
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

I'd guess that's just an overreaction to the leaking of the emails from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia.

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Bear wrote >>
I'd guess that's just an overreaction to the leaking of the emails from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia.

That might be covered by a different survey gallup did, but I wonder if it's not two factors:

1) A lack of observable environmental problems people care about. For instance, I can't recall the last time I heard of lake erie catching fire.

2) myliftkk touched on it, but the perception that we can't afford new environmental regulations.

Posted 2 years ago #
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

Mm, true... the text made it sound fairly abrupt and recent, but looking at the longer-term trend it's actually fairly gradual, which is more consistent with the economic downturn:

Posted 2 years ago #
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM

Why should any of this truly matter? Until pretty recently, a majority of the US thought dating outside of one's race was a bad idea and if I'm not mistaken, there is still a majority who do not believe in evolutionary biology. Is it really news that our citizens are short-sighted?

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

berdawn wrote >>
Why should any of this truly matter? Until pretty recently, a majority of the US thought dating outside of one's race was a bad idea and if I'm not mistaken, there is still a majority who do not believe in evolutionary biology. Is it really news that our citizens are short-sighted?

People vote.

Posted 2 years ago #
Twixlen
Westgate, Columbus
Login to Send PM

I think the fact that we aren't dealing with the same kind of air quality issues we had in the 70's, and have cracked down on the biggest polluters, makes a lot of folks wonder what the fuss is about. The idea of climate change is just too big a problem, too seeminly intangible - and folks care less about what is IN the water when they are having a hard time paying the water bill.

The biggest reason our energy useage has remained flat is that while households are consuming more than ever, this country no longer makes things in the way we used to. Manufacturing died and so did the country's energy load.

The continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with continuous "issues" with the other global big oil players has perhaps made people more aware of how unsafe we are without our own supplies.

Then again, it really comes down to economics. The cost of energy has risen just enough to make people not take the cheapness for granted - and they realize that to keep things as cheap as they are now, we need more supply.

Kind of random. I need more coffee.

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Twixlen wrote >>
I think the fact that we aren't dealing with the same kind of air quality issues we had in the 70's, and have cracked down on the biggest polluters, makes a lot of folks wonder what the fuss is about. The idea of climate change is just too big a problem, too seeminly intangible - and folks care less about what is IN the water when they are having a hard time paying the water bill.
The biggest reason our energy useage has remained flat is that while households are consuming more than ever, this country no longer makes things in the way we used to. Manufacturing died and so did the country's energy load.
The continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with continuous "issues" with the other global big oil players has perhaps made people more aware of how unsafe we are without our own supplies.
Then again, it really comes down to economics. The cost of energy has risen just enough to make people not take the cheapness for granted - and they realize that to keep things as cheap as they are now, we need more supply.
Kind of random. I need more coffee.

Quick google shows this:

http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2009/10/13/data-on-the-largest-manufacturing-countries-in-2008/

We've lost a lot of manufacturing jobs:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/oco2003.htm

But that's not the same as reducing output.

As to energy conservation / alternate energy, one can support that for non-environmental reasons.

Random thoughts, myself.

Posted 2 years ago #
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM

Twixlen wrote >>
I think the fact that we aren't dealing with the same kind of air quality issues we had in the 70's, and have cracked down on the biggest polluters, makes a lot of folks wonder what the fuss is about. The idea of climate change is just too big a problem, too seeminly intangible - and folks care less about what is IN the water when they are having a hard time paying the water bill.
The biggest reason our energy useage has remained flat is that while households are consuming more than ever, this country no longer makes things in the way we used to. Manufacturing died and so did the country's energy load.
The continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with continuous "issues" with the other global big oil players has perhaps made people more aware of how unsafe we are without our own supplies.
Then again, it really comes down to economics. The cost of energy has risen just enough to make people not take the cheapness for granted - and they realize that to keep things as cheap as they are now, we need more supply.
Kind of random. I need more coffee.

Uh, energy usage has not remained flat in the US.

The reason why the cost of energy is what it is, is because in most states it is heavily regulated. Remember the whole Enron/CA energy pricing crisis over the deregulation in CA's energy market? People are more likely to discount environmental concerns now if for no other reason than a few over-played hands by the more radical environmentalists coupled with a decidedly organized political opposition to any kind of regulation as somehow "the end of freedom as we know it".

Posted 2 years ago #
Twixlen
Westgate, Columbus
Login to Send PM

I would be really interested to see those manufacturing numbers carried out through 2009 --- a year when we lost a whole bunch of auto-based manufacturing plants. Of course, we'd been losing them one at a time all along, moving them to other countries, or just closing doors, but my anecdotal info says we lost them at a much more rapid pace in the last 15 months.

Now, one thing that is true is how manufacturing has changed, in terms of how much energy they consume - the steel industry is a great example of this. They've had to become more and more efficient, using less electricity, recycling more, reducing in-house waste, all so they could stay globally competitive. A lot of folks have refined their manufacturing techiniques for much the same reason +1 - for some products, consumers like the idea that they are supporting a company that is doing what they can to reduce their own footprint. That line of thinking ties into a couple other postings on here that were going around a few weeks ago. It's all pretty damn circular. It impacts the overall environmental picture, but the reasoning behind those changes aren't necessarily based on that.

Posted 2 years ago #
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>

berdawn wrote >>
Why should any of this truly matter? Until pretty recently, a majority of the US thought dating outside of one's race was a bad idea and if I'm not mistaken, there is still a majority who do not believe in evolutionary biology. Is it really news that our citizens are short-sighted?

People vote.

not very many, but I still don't get why opinions are news.

Posted 2 years ago #
Twixlen
Westgate, Columbus
Login to Send PM

myliftkk wrote >>

Twixlen wrote >>
I think the fact that we aren't dealing with the same kind of air quality issues we had in the 70's, and have cracked down on the biggest polluters, makes a lot of folks wonder what the fuss is about. The idea of climate change is just too big a problem, too seeminly intangible - and folks care less about what is IN the water when they are having a hard time paying the water bill.
The biggest reason our energy useage has remained flat is that while households are consuming more than ever, this country no longer makes things in the way we used to. Manufacturing died and so did the country's energy load.
The continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with continuous "issues" with the other global big oil players has perhaps made people more aware of how unsafe we are without our own supplies.
Then again, it really comes down to economics. The cost of energy has risen just enough to make people not take the cheapness for granted - and they realize that to keep things as cheap as they are now, we need more supply.
Kind of random. I need more coffee.

Uh, energy usage has not remained flat in the US.

The reason why the cost of energy is what it is, is because in most states it is heavily regulated. Remember the whole Enron/CA energy pricing crisis over the deregulation in CA's energy market? People are more likely to discount environmental concerns now if for no other reason than a few over-played hands by the more radical environmentalists coupled with a decidedly organized political opposition to any kind of regulation as somehow "the end of freedom as we know it".

I'm talking more recent declines than from 2005. I'm in the industry - without getting into too much detail, trust me, it's been pretty stagnant the past 2-3 years, with manufacturing losses being at the heart of the lack of increase. Of course, we also had a cool summer last year, and that definitely had a huge impact.

I agree that there has been a media campaign waged to change the public perception of climate change - to the detriment of people changing their own habits and having a rational understanding of the bigger picture. Again, I work with those people. It's not pretty.

I think if that same Gallup poll were asked only in California, the outcome would be different. Their energy costs reflect the environmental controls that are in place - they feel the pain of energy in short supply and regulation in their wallets, but California has been so much better about teaching and preaching conservatism. So while they feel the pain, I don't think a majority of Californians would be pro-more coal, pro-drilling, etc.

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

berdawn wrote >>

rus wrote >>

berdawn wrote >>
Why should any of this truly matter? Until pretty recently, a majority of the US thought dating outside of one's race was a bad idea and if I'm not mistaken, there is still a majority who do not believe in evolutionary biology. Is it really news that our citizens are short-sighted?

People vote.

not very many, but I still don't get why opinions are news.

If a politician advocates for an unpopular cause, you don't think that would cause them to lose at the voting booth?

Posted 2 years ago #
jimbach
Short North (WP division)
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>

berdawn wrote >>

rus wrote >>

berdawn wrote >>
Why should any of this truly matter? Until pretty recently, a majority of the US thought dating outside of one's race was a bad idea and if I'm not mistaken, there is still a majority who do not believe in evolutionary biology. Is it really news that our citizens are short-sighted?

People vote.

not very many, but I still don't get why opinions are news.

If a politician advocates for an unpopular cause, you don't think that would cause them to lose at the voting booth?

I think that in a lot of cases it doesn't matter very much at all.

There are all sorts of reasons why an unpopular stance on a specific issue may or may not be a political liability. An unpopular stance on an issue most people don't care about won't cause an office seeker much heartache. Neither will it be a problem if the public doesn't see much difference in issue stance between rival candidates or parties. Responses to a polling question tell us what people think about the subject of the question. It doesn't tell us how important they think that subject is, how their opinion on it fits with their broader ideology or partisan identification, whether they can accurately place the stance of rival candidates on that issue, etc.

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

jimbach wrote >>

rus wrote >>

berdawn wrote >>

rus wrote >>

berdawn wrote >>
Why should any of this truly matter? Until pretty recently, a majority of the US thought dating outside of one's race was a bad idea and if I'm not mistaken, there is still a majority who do not believe in evolutionary biology. Is it really news that our citizens are short-sighted?

People vote.

not very many, but I still don't get why opinions are news.

If a politician advocates for an unpopular cause, you don't think that would cause them to lose at the voting booth?

I think that in a lot of cases it doesn't matter very much at all.

How about in this case, with economic and environmental issues?

Posted 2 years ago #
jimbach
Short North (WP division)
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>

jimbach wrote >>

rus wrote >>

berdawn wrote >>

rus wrote >>

berdawn wrote >>
Why should any of this truly matter? Until pretty recently, a majority of the US thought dating outside of one's race was a bad idea and if I'm not mistaken, there is still a majority who do not believe in evolutionary biology. Is it really news that our citizens are short-sighted?

People vote.

not very many, but I still don't get why opinions are news.

If a politician advocates for an unpopular cause, you don't think that would cause them to lose at the voting booth?

I think that in a lot of cases it doesn't matter very much at all.

How about in this case, with economic and environmental issues?

First, this isn't an 'economic issue' except in a broad sense. Since gas prices aren't particularly high right now, it doesn't speak to inflation, and it certainly has nothing much to do with unemployment.

Second (and more important), the Obama administration just last week announced its intent to allow offshore drilling in the Atlantic and more drilling in Alaska. That did two things, politically. First, it provided cueing to liberals and Democrats who might not have felt strongly on this issue to adopt the administration's position, since (a) they would be predisposed to align their views with what they see as a leader whom they like and admire, and (b) it got a lot of coverage, so they would not have any ambiguity over what the Obama administration's stance is on this issue.

This also has the advantage of taking this issue off the table for a number of voters, since it has ceased to be a 'wedge issue', as it can be accurately stated that both parties (at the national level) are now on the same side of it (even if the Republicans are further to that side, so to speak.)

Posted 2 years ago #
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>

jimbach wrote >>

rus wrote >>

berdawn wrote >>

rus wrote >>

berdawn wrote >>
Why should any of this truly matter? Until pretty recently, a majority of the US thought dating outside of one's race was a bad idea and if I'm not mistaken, there is still a majority who do not believe in evolutionary biology. Is it really news that our citizens are short-sighted?

People vote.

not very many, but I still don't get why opinions are news.

If a politician advocates for an unpopular cause, you don't think that would cause them to lose at the voting booth?

I think that in a lot of cases it doesn't matter very much at all.

How about in this case, with economic and environmental issues?

I don't think that's specific enough. suppose Candidate A favors choice but off shore/ANWR drilling while Candidate B is anti-choice and proposes a moratorium on MTR and drilling/exploration in any sensitive area. (both unlikely, but highlights polarizing issues)

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

jimbach wrote >>
Second (and more important), the Obama administration just last week announced its intent to allow offshore drilling in the Atlantic and more drilling in Alaska. That did two things, politically. First, it provided cueing to liberals and Democrats who might not have felt strongly on this issue to adopt the administration's position, since (a) they would be predisposed to align their views with what they see as a leader whom they like and admire, and (b) it got a lot of coverage, so they would not have any ambiguity over what the Obama administration's stance is on this issue.
This also has the advantage of taking this issue off the table for a number of voters, since it has ceased to be a 'wedge issue', as it can be accurately stated that both parties (at the national level) are now on the same side of it (even if the Republicans are further to that side, so to speak.)

Seems like we might be agreeing more than disagreeing; if there's political advantage to taking offshore drilling off the table, then isn't that a reflection of changing opinions in the public?

In other words, would the current administration have gained a political advantage by allowing new offshore drilling if the public held that environmental concerns trumped concerns regarding adequate energy supply? I don't think so, myself.

Posted 2 years ago #