Fact or Fiction in the Energy Debate
Posted August 14, 2008 in Moving Beyond Oil, Reviving the World's Oceans, Saving Wildlife and Wild Places, Solving Global Warming
In the past few days, the editorial pages of the New York Times have identified an alarming trend in the current energy debate. Increasingly, candidates and their surrogates are peddling delusions and fraudulent claims about how we can drive down gas prices.
Exaggeration and embellishments are a time-honored tradition in political campaigns, but bold deceptions about how America can solve this national crisis are dangerous. Bob Herbert likens them to the lies that led us into the war in Iraq.
What will it take for America to have an honest, sane conversation about our energy future? The facts, not the fiction. We need the whole story, not the easy applause lines.
When American voters are given the whole story—the whole range of energy options—they tend to arrive at a more nuanced, forward-looking position than the “drill here, drill now” crowd would have us believe.
A new national energy poll, commissioned by the League of Conversation Voters, the Sierra Club, and NRDC’s Action Fund, found that:
- 83 percent of Americans favor investment in clean, renewable energy over increased oil drilling when presented with the full spectrum of energy options.
- That is 20 percent more than supported increased offshore drilling
When people hear the facts, they understand that clean energy works. For instance,
- The U.S. Department of Energy’s own Energy Information Agency says “access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.”
- Increasing fuel efficiency standards for new vehicles to 40 miles per gallon would save more than 10 times the likely yield of oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Figures like these should be forming the basis of the energy debate—not falsehoods and empty promises.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Dan Troutman — Aug 14 2008 05:07 PM
I wonder what the poll numbers would be if you asked "Do you favor renewable energy - even if it costs 3x as much as today's prices?" That's the latest estimate of cost/KWh for power generated by 100,000 wind turbines.
The Not In My Backyard syndrome is alive and well in America. Americans just want the lights to turn on when they flip the switch - they don't really care how/where the electricity is generated or how it arrives.
Which do you think it would take longer to build: 300,000 wind turbines or 45 nuclear power plants? Guess which ones would produce RELIABLE power 24/7/365?
Americans will soon start balking at the hundreds of thousands of wind turbines that will start showing up in their precious backyards.
Energy polls better ask questions about cost in order to capture the true consumer opinion. Everyone wants "clean" energy, but very few are actually willing to PAY for it.
Dan Troutman — Aug 17 2008 09:03 AM
I was surprised to see the following in the Abilene Reporter news on Saturday:
http://www.reporternews.com/news/2008/aug/16/residents-band-together-to-fight-wind-turbines/
Looks like the NIMBY backlash against wind turbines has spread to the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
A similar lawsuit was tossed out in the San Antonio area - it was determined that wind turbines didn't decrease property values or "spoil the view."
Wonder what will happen here?
Is NRDC going to continue to support new turbines or come to the rescue of these "infringed" folks?
Dan Troutman — Aug 17 2008 03:30 PM
Wind turbines: neighbor against neighbor.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/17/bitter.wind.ap/index.html
This is just getting started. Forget the polls, this is about those that receive the royalties and those that don't but have to live around them anyway.
The public uproar against wind turbines will make nuclear power look good. (Only need 45-100 sites and you can "hide" them pretty good. Hard to do that with 100,000-300,000 "ugly" turbines.) :)
Renewable energy - just not in my neighborhood.....
Mariann Regan — Aug 17 2008 04:33 PM
Education is the first answer to the forces that are "peddling delusions." Happily, universities are now actively competing to see which ones can "go green" first and most thoroughly. Here at Fairfield University in Fairfield, CT, our Green Movement is picking up speed. Students are organizing themselves into educational and activist groups. Environmental Studies are gaining popularity. Our School of Business even held a symposium on the expected "boom" in clean energy job opportunities for business majors--but if Congress can't pass the necessary financial initiatives for clean energy sources, how can our country reach that "boom" stage?
I write Fairfield University's blog, "The Reluctant Environmentalist" (see URL). Here we're all trying to close the gap between those who know the "facts, not the fiction," as Frances Beinecke says, and those who have the power to make the decisions.
As a proud member of NRDC and enthusiastic reader of the New York Times, and as a university prof, I believe we must educate, educate, educate. Repeat the facts many times, in many different ways, for those who can't hear them the first time.
Mariann Regan
Dan Troutman — Aug 17 2008 09:16 PM
Mariann,
Good for you. You certainly have your work cut out for you. Hopefully you're teaching that power doesn't come from thin air and difficult decisions have to be made regarding generation and transmission (no matter what "renewable" source.) You have a golden opportunity to squelch the "Not In My Backyard" syndrome in your students.
Too bad education can't overcome those that have "ignorant" opinions when it comes to perceived landscape views and "ugliness".
Unfortunately in America, our system of government allows an "ignorant" majority to overrule the "educated" minority.