« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Gallup: Americans rank economy over environment…

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  March 21st, 2009 at 05:19 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

…for the first time since Gallup started asking the question.



They are also still firmly in favor of nuclear power:

Neither conclusion should surprise anyone who isn’t an anti-progressive religious fanatic*. Environmentalism is a luxury indulged in by societies that have determined that they can afford it; poor societies that are trying to industrialize their way out of poverty tend not to care at all whether the peppered moth is suddenly being forced to evolve or not in response to new factory development. This fairly elementary observation will no doubt infuriate environmentalists, who have been accustomed to being able to portray their beliefs as having an unimpeachable, universal morality. Again, that is because they have been operating in a society that has thought itself rich: now that it considers itself not-so-rich, certain priorities will be reconsidered over the next few years. Including the priority of how important it actually is listen to environmentalists.

What makes this more-or-less amusing is that blame for this can be squarely laid on the shoulders of the environmentalists’ chief ideological allies in the Democratic party: if they hadn’t melted down the American economy** the American people wouldn’t be now apparently starting to contemplate this particular issue in terms of marginally decrease CO2 production vs. freeze to death. Or start thinking about just who wants them to risk the latter. Trust me: this is starting to be not a good time to look like a pampered, out of touch elite.

Moe Lane

*I may have linked to it at first solely for the nuclear power quote, but read the whole darn thing.

**Actually, they haven’t really stopped yet.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tags: , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Kowalski

    The Obama Administration is busy completing the work the Carter Administration did in terms of preventing Americans from having real energy alternatives, most importantly in terms of nuclear power. It may be something Americans will be willing to go along with for another 30 years, but there’s no reason for it.

    We’re a very large country in comparison to places like France, for instance, and France gets most of its electrical energy from nuclear power. It’s not the problem of disposing the waste, since the French have evidently solved it. It’s simply a question of our political leaders encouraging America to become less energy dependent by investing in real energy sources and helping to provide the means to dispose of the waste.

    Otherwise everyone’s energy costs are going to rise. We know how to stop that from happening, and we have known for more than three decades now.

  • Kowalski

    America’s problem — and the world’s problem — is not too much energy too cheaply: it’s too little energy, too expensively. If we are going to even make a dent in the world’s serious problems, of recycling, of waste disposal, and of providing a good standard of living to billions more people, we will surely need to develop power solutions that provide that energy much more cheaply on a dollar per kilowatt hour basis.

    If you look at the areas in the country that are most amenable to wind power, on the East Coast and now in Hawaii, environmentalists don’t want those projects to go forward. And yet the problem of people needing more energy to live their lives isn’t going to cease: we will need more. It’s about time the United States got serious about providing it again…at least as serious as France is.

  • Kowalski

    It may seem to be less important right now because of the basic facts of economics, which have in many cases betrayed the average American, who is paying more for electricity now than ever before. Throughout this recession, electricity costs where I live have stayed constant or gone up. There has been no semblance of relief to anyone running a business. How does anyone propose to make an America that has a mix of blue and white collar jobs based on these increasing prices for the basic commodity that allows them to work?

    Hawaii pays the most in the country per kilowatt hour and all the northeastern states are close behind in the race of shame. Their economies have not improved regionally because of those very high costs — instead they are pushing people away. It’s time to think again.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    and we didn’t need a global warming scare to do it.

  • Kowalski

    One of the things that bothered me most in the past few years was that Republicans really didn’t present any ideas other than “Drill, Baby!, Drill!”

    It was very easy to understand why that didn’t gain much traction in America. Whoever told Republicans to say that exclusively wasn’t thinking very well. What Republicans should be doing is talking about the real energy alternatives this country has, and they’re based on moving away from coal and away from oil — not mining them domestically. T. Boone Pickens likes natural gas; I guess there’s a lot of that when it comes to building his windfarms. But he’s never told anyone what the cost per kilowatt hour will be.

    The energy sources of the United States are in play right now: either the environmentalists are going to win, in which case everyone will pay more for less, or someone is going to come up with a real plan to change the staus quo.

  • Kowalski

    I know that the environment is cleaner now than it was in 1970. It’s a lot cleaner. There used to be smog in New Jersey where I lived, on a daily basis and there isn’t any more.

    Internal combustion cars have come a long way in that time.

    This is a partisan blog, I know: people here are used to talking about things in partisan terms. But in terms of energy for the world, Republicans are going to have to start talking about better solutions, not just partisanship.

    Global warming wasn’t the reason the automakers started to improve their cars: one of the first reasons was lead in gasoline, which was burned and wound up in the air. If you look at the crappy cars Detroit was making in the early 1970′s and compare them to the ones in the 1990′s, people should say that enviromental regulation was a blessing: they were godawful cars.

    I’m sorry, Mike, I’m less partisan about this than I used to be. The main thing I want to see are more sensible ways to increase energy production and distribution here in the United States while preserving the environmental gains we’ve made. I think there are only a few ways to do that.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    amending the Endangered species act; the EPA, tort reform and relaxation of regulations preventing the building of nuclear power plants and oil refineries

    and

    calling out the democrats for selling out to the trial lawyers and greenies rather than caring about the poor and middle class, and expressing our opposition to the dems in MORAL terms.

  • DerKrieger

    Although “Drill Baby Drill” became an effective solution not a single GOP leader presented it as the only solution. It is just one of many solutions to pursue. The Left, as it always does, seized on the slogan and portrayed the GOP as single-minded and in thrall to the oil companies.

    One thing about this whole energy independence debate has been the conflation of oil dependence with our need for additional electricity generating capacity. Democrats constantly discuss wind and solar in the same breath as energy independence. The two are only tangentially related as we import oil for transportation fuel, not for generating electricity.

  • Kowalski

    The first step is to stop this Jane Fonda insanity on nuclear power. America can compartmentalize and dispose of the waste if the government(s) can agree on a suitable facility. It’s not an esoteric problem any longer: it’s been SOLVED.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    for energy suicide since 1978′s Three Mile Island, after which not one nuclear power plant or oil refinery has been built and no expansion of oil exploration areas.

    Democrats alone! I was in the party till 2000 and always hated their

    congressional majorities
    presidents and/or
    senate filibusters

    that have done this

    It is not partisan to point out this fact

    not that I have a problem with partisan since its true

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • DerKrieger

    How do the Democrats reconcile their insistence that we cut back on our national energy consumption to avoid “climate change” and their desire to increase the US population by granting amnesty to illegals and touching off a drive for the border from Latin America? Environmentalists OUGHT to be Conservatives’ allies against mass migration and amnesty.

  • Kowalski

    But we need to really stop the baloney: America hasn’t built a nuclear power plant since the mid 1970′s if I’m correct. We have done PRECISELY NOTHING with more than three decades of engineering and theoretical advancement.

  • DerKrieger

    meant to say “effective slogan” not “effective solution”

  • Kowalski

    And I’ll note that the country that stands to gain the most from global warming, it it ever occurs, is —

    anyone….

    anyone…?

  • redneck_hippie
  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Kowalski

    Russia stands to gain more than any country in the world if global warming occurs, because it will allow them to unlock areas in their frozen regions that are much more amenable to natural gas and oil exploitation, and this has been known for a long time now.

    It seems to me that it is much smarter not to avoid having them do it, even in theory: they don’t care much about the environment. I think instead that America should become the world leader in generating power from non-carbon sources, and I don’t mean wind or solar.

    Off my soapbox for tonight.

  • redneck_hippie

    that the southern hemisphere could not.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.phxgonline.com phxg

    When unemployment is at 10.5% here in AZ and there are literally no jobs to be had, things are desperate and the luxury of spending on feel good stuff is no longer important.

  • GregInFla

    by producing more US oil. Why are the Obama-ites so stubborn? American oil means American jobs!! They say they want to reduce, but think that wind and sun, while great for sailing boats and heating swimming pools in Florida, will save them. Here in central Florida, environmentalists are protesting against, via an impact study, a solar plant for FPL. Figure that one out.

  • GregInFla

    Such logic will not be tolerated! (i totally agree)