U.S. Energy Poll Shows Domestic Oil Production Support Is Rising

By EarthTechling's Shira Mincer:

You might think rising gasoline prices at a time of flat demand and surging domestic oil production would convince Americans that we need to find alternatives to oil. But no. A new survey shows the public increasingly tilting toward doubling down on oil, on the apparent assumption that if the United States just produces even more, all our $2.50-a-gallon dreams will come true.

A Pew Research Center survey conducted this month found 52 percent of Americans consider developing alternative energy a more important priority than expanding domestic fossil fuel exploration (coal, oil, natural gas), down from 63 percent a year ago.

The report also found that nuclear power has regained a bit of the support it lost after the Fukushima meltdown in Japan last March, with support for further development climbing from 39 percent to 44 percent. Still, a plurality of 49 percent of those surveyed remain opposed.

BP’s Gulf of Mexico disaster in 2010 also made a small impact on public opinion—until the public forgot about it a couple of years later. According to poll, which was was based on a survey of 1,503 adults, nearly two-thirds of Americans (65 percent) now support offshore drilling, around the same percentage as before the spill. As oil was gushing fron the pipeline, support had dropped to 44 percent, a figure that increased to 57 percent by 2011.

It’s unclear how directly public opinion will impact the nation’s energy policy, especially given the sharp partisan divide on the issue. In March 2011, Republicans were nearly evenly split on whether more renewables or expanded drilling should be the country’s highest energy priority. But now just 33 percent of Republicans see renewables as the top priority. Unsurprisingly, the breakdown comes down the other way for Democrats.

A particularly divisive issue is hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) for natural gas, in which pressurizd fluids are used to unlock what by most accounts is an abundant U.S. resource that could provide energy for several decades. The poll found that 73 percent of Republicans who have heard at least a little about fracking support the process, compared to just 33 percent of Democrats.

Even among Democrats there is debate, with 39 percent of conservative-to-moderate Democrats supporting fracking (with 43 percent opposed) and only 26 percent of liberal Democrats supporting it (with 64 percent opposed).

If public opinion has a major impact on state and national energy policies, natural gas production could continue to flourish and might even crowd out some renewable energy development. Supporters tout natural gas as capable of producing reliable baseload power with a fraction of the dangerous emissions that coal-fired power plants produce and without the dangerous spent fuel cells that nuclear power produces.

And in that sense, natural gas could provide a bridge to affordable and plentiful truly clean energy sources, a concept that some environmental groups have flirted with and that the Obama administration seems to have embraced. The danger, though, could be that the country abandons long-term planning in favor of yet another fossil fuel, essentially repeating the mistakes of the past.

Pew said its report was based on telephone interviews conducted March 7-11, 2012, and had a margin of error of 3 percent for the total sample, up to 6 percent for the subgroups.

Also on HuffPost:

From our partners

• 10 Of The Worst Wildfires In U.S. History - Mother Nature Network
• 13 Of The Cutest Tree-Dwelling Animals In The World - Mother Nature Network
• 5 Energy Projects Being Backed By The U.S. Government - Mother Nature Network

Comments

[Jowlick Jolx]

02:30 PM on 11/15/2012

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/heavily-invest-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-lenr-energy-independence-clean-energy-and-stimulate/QrX5lW7Q

[vetxcl]

11:09 PM on 04/14/2012

Polls are for people who need others to do their thinking for them.

[realityCheckInTheMail]

12:27 AM on 04/12/2012

In other words, the people support drill baby drill.

Fantastic!

[Luke Armstrong]

05:48 PM on 04/08/2012

Lotta paid posts up here... Wonder what Orwell would have to say about my hypothesis.

[jjsheets]

07:45 PM on 04/05/2012

I honestly think that public transportation is something that the US really needs to fix. Too many people are driving their cars too often when they could be taking a train for the longer distance trips or taking a bus or subway for things within that distance. It is something that I feel is being far too neglected is places where it could be taken advantage of.

[D-Driller]

03:46 AM on 04/05/2012

Americans continuously look a gift horse in the mouth... You don't want oil. You specifically don't want foreign oil. You don't want coal. Okay. You're the consumer - the consumer is always right. So what do you think oil & gas companies try to give you? Natural Gas. That's all they have, that is all they know what to do - produce oil and gas. For you. But you don't want it, do you? No "fracking" allowed. NIMBY. Gas is worse(!) than coal. Okayfine... But don't blame the oil and gas companies for trying to give you what you want - you turned your back. Good luck with the solar and wind - 25, 30 years, maybe you're powering your homes with it, and you'll still need transportation fuels. That is IF the country still has any money left from buying millions of bbls per/day from not only the rags but also Canada, who would LOVE to sell you a million+ bbls/day from the oil sands... Do you think I'm exaggerating? Are you absolutely sure about that?

[Genders]

09:46 PM on 04/11/2012

Bs, 5% of our energy could possibly come from drilling everywhere in the USA, and it would run out in a few years.

Rooftop solar, offshore wind, waste bio char bio fuels and efficiency are the future. Forever, cheaper, clean and safe.

Wasting time and resources obsessing on the last few drops of oil will not save us.

On the contrary, it will guarantee our demise.

[D-Driller]

12:09 AM on 04/12/2012

50% of our energy comes from it now - why would it suddenly go to 5%?... Leaving you to your calculator, where in my post did I say we shouldn't do renewables? I never said that. I simply said that it will have to come from other sources like, most likely, believe it or not, RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPANIES, and not the oil and gas companies who, as their title implies, supply OIL AND GAS!

[Stilichos]

06:09 PM on 04/04/2013

Estimates say that we could power our country for the next 200 years just by using our own oil reserves... I agree with using solar panels, Not wind... that kills birds, (you want to protect the environment right?) Personally, as far as future fuels go, for cars I think Hydrogen is the way to go, it has been proven to work, sadly the guy who got it to work was killed by opec, (rather unproven, but who else?)
Be smarter next time please, it will make my job easier.

[niko73]

04:07 PM on 04/03/2012

This is why the Obama administration is ramping up its domestic energy development PR machine. If you go on Obama’s website you’ll find that domestic energy development has increased over Bush. They’re happy to play up this fact. Department of Interior is happy to put out this news release about Bakken shale development today:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2012/april/nr_04_03_2012.html

I’m all for curtailing development of fossil fuels and forcing a transition to alternative energy sources. The problem is, we greenies are 99% Dems. Obama doesn’t need to cater to our agenda. He needs to cater to the agenda of the people in the middle, most of whom, as illustrated by this poll, want to ramp up domestic oil/gas/coal development.

So I both oppose and support Obama’s domestic energy development platform. While I don’t see the direct benefit to the environment, I see that by taking this pro-drilling position he’s improving his chances of being reelected in November. I think we can all agree the environment is better off under Obama that it would be under Romney. So sure, Obama’s stance isn’t green enough for me, but it could INDIRECTLY benefit the earth more than strong measures to curtail drilling.

[realityCheckInTheMail]

12:23 AM on 04/12/2012

If only the left thought like that in 2000 than Gore would have won.

[WESmith]

01:36 PM on 04/03/2012

We are exactly where we were in the middle 1980s.
In the late 1970s, we were so proud of ourselves. We were going to be foreign oil free by the end of the century. By 2010, only stupid people would own gasoline-powered vehicles. We had electric cars. We had alternative fuel vehicles. We had hybrids. We had solar power. We were ready and willing to turn our backs of fossil fuels.
In 1985, millions of us in the alternative energy business lost our jobs and most lost their homes. 300,000 people within 25 miles of me lost their jobs. 75% of the homes in my subdivision were foreclosed on. My home was worth 20% of what I owed at 15.5% mortgage interest. But, that was all unimportant. We The People had made our choice. We wanted gasoline-powered vehicles. Everything was perfect for continuing our love affair with the gasoline-powered car. But, we weren't happy with the cars of the 80s. We wanted large vehicles with bad fuel mileage. Recently, we added entertainment to that desire. We have so many wonderful accessories in our vehicle, we don't even realize we are driving. New safety devices are added so that we can increase our chance-taking. We are save. Maybe not so for the 32,000 people we kill each year in avoidable car crashes. Not so for the billions of dollars we waste in healthcare due to avoidable car crashes.

[April1261]

11:37 AM on 04/03/2012

In keeping with the recent trend of so-called green companies going into the red, another solar energy company supported by President Obama's top administration officials declared bankruptcy today.

Solar Trust for America received $2.1 billion in conditional loan guarantees from the Department of Energy -- "the largest amount ever offered to a solar project," according to Energy Secretary Steven Chu -- for a project near Blythe, Calif., but declared bankruptcy within a year. It is unclear how much of the guarantee, if any, was actually awarded.

[WESmith]

01:45 PM on 04/03/2012

When I retired, several Green Companies wanted to hire me to sell the word "Green."
There was promise. If ENRON could sell nothing for a profit, why not? Even our government wanted to get in the business of selling nothing for a profit. Cap and Trade would have made billions for WallStreet and ironically for the major multinational oil companies. The top five American Oil Companies have complied with the Kyoto Protocol. It was profitable for them to do so. Even with a Democratic Monopoly, We couldn't pass the Kyoto Accord. No profit. We The People make more in the petroleum business than all 13,000 American Oil Companies combined. We The People sent most American corporations overseas. We need income from somewhere to support our fantasy lives.

[skyemoor]

09:21 AM on 04/09/2012

WESMith say: "The top five American Oil Companies have complied with the Kyoto Protocol."

?? There is absolutely no support for such an implausible statement. The US never ratified the Kyoto Treaty, with American Oil companies leaning heavily on Congress with campaign contributions to ensure that.

It is difficult to realize that oil supplies are not infinite, so people hold out for a continuation of oil-intensive lifestyles without recognition of the geophysical realities of Peak Oil (when global oil production peaks and begins its terminal decline). The US peaked in 1970, so holding out hope that we'll be energy independent without serious lifestyle changes is naught but a mirage...

[Mandy Ann Osipchuk]

08:11 AM on 04/21/2012

That is why (the feds) just print baby print... the fiat money!

[ogis]

02:49 PM on 04/03/2012

Here is one link http://www.mydesert.com/article/20120403/BUSINESS/204030305/Solar-Trust-of-America-bankruptcy-Blythe-project

I'd recommend reading the article before spouting out that Solar Trust 'received' $2.1 billion. They didn't receive a dime they had to pull out when they couldn't come up with the $1 million a year rent that BLM wanted for the land. The rent (bond?) was to secure against damages should the project be unsuccessful. Do frackers pay that too? I know, dumb question.

[April1261]

05:42 PM on 04/03/2012

So , who's dumb? You didn't bother to read the last line of the post

[CrustyCSM]

11:05 AM on 04/03/2012

I would love for nothing more than to have energy that is 100% clean and affordable. We arent there yet. Ask any biofuel technician. They will tell you that a gallon of Obamas biofuel he is talking about costs more than $35 dollars a gallon. Wind and solar combined can only generate 4 percent of demand. Natural gas is cleaner, abundant, and feasable. I hope we bridge the gap, but in the meantime lets face reality. Another solar power company that was given a 2.1 billion dollar loan guarntee last year went belly up. And your Chevy Volt runs on electricity that is produced through coal powered plants. You cant have it both ways. If Obama is serious, why doesnt he mandate natural gas vehicles? Or lower the speed limits to 55 mph as was done years ago? All smoke and mirrors in the white house.

[Malcolm Hensley]

12:54 PM on 04/03/2012

I have a used CNG Honda and a Phil Station at my house it cost me about $0.92/gallon gasoline equivalent. Funny thing is the way the rates work in the winter time I save $40.00 heating my home.

I can go 1600 miles on $40.00 worth of natural gas.

The rest of you are missing out on a good thing!

[CTDFalconer]

01:15 PM on 04/03/2012

The one biggest advantage of electric vehicles is that is decouples personal transportation from oil, opening the door to the next energy economy. One thing is clear, the next energy economy will necessarily include numerous sources, with natural gas replacing much of the coal we now use.

[WESmith]

01:57 PM on 04/03/2012

I chose a different route. I chose energy efficiency and energy conservation. Over 28 years, I saved $100,000 by not using energy. I invested that money and the value tripled.
I came by this honestly. In 1951, my father built an energy-efficient home with extra insulation, passive heating and only flourescent lights. 60 years later, the government is thinking about forcing us to give up our incondescent lights. That is old news. Every light (LED) in my home operates on a single 12V battery and a solar charger from Harbor Freight.
People are demonstrating in the streets so we don't move from coal to natural gas. Natural gas is Evil. Don't tell anyone, but I make my own natural gas in the back yard (ala Mother Earth News, circa 1970).
We are a confused people. Switching from fossil fuels to green energy is like an alcoholic switching from cheap vodka to expensive gin. As added irony, in the 1980s, Exxon stated that we needed to become energy efficient and use science technology when they confirmed that there is a rising trend in global temperatures.

[CrustyCSM]

10:54 AM on 04/03/2012

In Jimmy Carters state of the union address in 1973, he strongly urged America to harvest its own natural resources in order to lessen our dependancy on foreign energy and interests. As big of a buffoon as he was, he had it right. Until domestic oil cost more than $50 dollars a barrel, it wasnt cost effective. But after passing that mark the federal govt and tree huggers got in the way of domestic production and now seek to dump billions into failed green energy and do whatever they can to restrict fossil fuel harvest. Read the news today puffers. Another big green co failed. "Solyndra 2" had a 2.1 billion dollar loan guarntee and it tanked. Wonder how much this one cost us?

[kwaut lizard]

12:59 PM on 04/03/2012

Exactly what were the gross negligences perpetrated by Carter?
Seriously, just curious as 'big buffoon' is quite a strong language.

[WESmith]

02:03 PM on 04/03/2012

Under Jimmy Carter, we nationalized coal, oil, natural and every other natural resource within the US. We created several new agencies to steward these resources. Today, atleast according to US government-approved financial reports, We The People make over a trillion dollars a year selling and taxing our natural resources.

[salebored]

10:06 AM on 04/03/2012

Start by taking away every subsidy for travel and entertainment in the tax code, including shipping subsidies. Airline tickets must go up to meet cost ,security should be payed by the ticket price , then far less fuel will be burned, because the traveler will be paying the price , not Chinese borrowed money.

[salebored]

09:52 AM on 04/03/2012

In Nov of 1980, the people had some help when they went to the polls, some copter parts and money were given to terrorist whom held some of our people hostage in Iran and that decision has lead us to our present failing society.

[The last sane American]

07:17 AM on 04/03/2012

"The danger, though, could be that the country abandons long-term planning in favor of yet another fossil fuel, essentially repeating the mistakes of the past."

There is no shortage in long term planning to migrate to alternatives fuels at some point in the future with the current Administration. What is present is an abysmal lack of understanding of time-frame and incentive.

This is a multi-decade process. De-incentivising fossil fuels by increasing their cost, only ruins an economy based on access to this cheap energy source.

[kwaut lizard]

01:01 PM on 04/03/2012

Haven't thought like that since the moon shot.
Been 'sell it, sell it all off' ... including the jobs, since then.

[CMedansky]

12:00 AM on 04/03/2012

Unfortunately, we continue repeating the mistakes of the past…

Nature is a global, integral system where all levels mutually support one another and strive towards balance because it is the key to health, safety, and sustainability both in every part and the whole system. There is one exception: humanity. The crisis between nature and society reveals that we are in contradiction with the rest of nature—no other creature exceeds the limits of balance bringing harm to all of nature and relates to those around him with the intention to exploit for profit.

As Albert Einstein said “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” The most practical solution today is to change our attitudes and behavior by developing an awareness of the integrated world in which we live, and applying the principles of global cooperation and mutual responsibility in society.

[davidprosser]

02:07 AM on 04/03/2012

You make some good points. How do you think this new level of thinking, attitude, and behavior can be achieved?

[The last sane American]

07:19 AM on 04/03/2012

Heard of locusts?

[CMedansky]

11:49 AM on 04/03/2012

Not sure if you’re kidding about the locusts, saneAmerican…

Locusts are vegetarians that breed rapidly under suitable conditions; high rainfall stimulates growth of grass which creates an ideal habitat for breeding. Swarming behavior is a natural response to overcrowding. Additionally, deforestation, agriculture and crop planting by humans contribute to swarming behavior. Birds of nearly every species feed on locusts. The connection between deforestation and aggressive agriculture upsetting the balance of birds and locusts was noted as early as 1859 in Australia. In North America the demise of the Eskimo Curlew is closely linked to the extinction of the Rocky Mountain Locust. And let’s not forget the “Great Leap Forward and the Great Famine” in 1958, the agriculture disaster which resulted from Mao’s decree to strip forests and eliminate sparrows, which cleared the way for swarms of locust to descend on the crops resulting in the deaths of 45 million people.

Today humanity seems to be on course for what is likely to be the worst environmental disaster of all time. However, there is a practical solution: integral education based on scientific data, on the direct demands of nature, the surrounding environment, and of our own inner developing nature. Fortunately for us, there are many scientists and opinion leaders whose research aims to solve today’s global crisis, and a growing community of concerned citizens who believe passionately in science’s ability to change personal and global attitudes.