Public overwhelming opposes new power plants.
By on Mar 7th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Public overwhelming opposes new power plants.
A new Pew poll finds that the American public rejects the Bush administration’s push to expand drilling and the construct new power plants. Fifty-five percent believe that more energy conservation and regulation is the most important U.S. energy policy, followed by just 35 percent who want more mining, drilling, and construction of power plants.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
So 54% want us to start drilling our own oil for a new source of energy. I fully agree we need to start finding new sources of energy like the oil and coal we haven’t starting drilling and mining.
Without that we will have massively more expensive energy which will hurt the poor the worst.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:48 amIf we’re talking coal power plants, then no.
If they’re nuclear, though, I’m all for it.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:49 amvery good news…
very ignorant prattling at #1…
- Hussein Katy
March 7th, 2008 at 11:51 amWe have an electrical infrastructure that would support our demographics….what?!?! 20 years ago!!!!
This is stupid, we need more power plants and we have the PROVEN technology to run nuke(recycling like the French have been doing for decades now) and coal(capturing coal emissions) clean right now.
This isn’t a point that the democratic party is looking good on IMHO.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:52 amLearn to read rogermccrazyroger.
it says 54% want new sources of energy
The next set of options says 55% want more energy conservation and regulation.
Silly troll, literacy is for grownups.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:52 am..CORRECTION: not the democratic party but the America media for not educating the populous about our options in regards to clean or near clean resources.
We have the technology RIGHT NOW and it’s been proven no need to research another 30 years.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:56 amBut American’s deserve to be big, fat, gluttonous pigs!
Evolution is a sign of weakness!
March 7th, 2008 at 11:56 amHey, since they Ollie thread is closed, let’s discuss here:
North’s statements echo CNN’s Glenn Beck, who said recently, “Nancy Pelosi will end up killing Americans.”
Really? Sounds more reminiscent of Dumbya’s reign of stupidity.
Thanks for 9/11, Little Shrub and Dick.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:08 pmThat’s funny Ollie – I’m in Manhattan right now & nobody is buying your fearmongering. I REPEAT – NOBODY.
These people will never quit will they.
Tstat Hussein guy
March 7th, 2008 at 12:14 pmOllie thread is open for comments.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:15 pm.
If Olly thinks/spews that the PAA would have found this bomber because the PAA provided the ability to wiretap TERRORISTS who are making telephone calls INTO and OUT OF the USA to foreign places and would have made it easier to catch this person.
THEN, Olly went on to describe this bomber as (drum roll please)… is not a terrorist but instead a vandal.
So, what Olly suggests is that the American Government should be able to hide behind the smoke and mirrors of international terrorism so as to spy on domestic vandals. And for that, he blames Pelosi and the House Dems?
SINCE WHEN DOES PATRIOTISM REQUIRE IMMUNITY, OLLY?
.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:19 pmIf they’re nuclear, though, I’m all for it.
Comment by anonymousryan
Yeah, that seems so much better. /sarc
March 7th, 2008 at 12:20 pmI mean, it is not easy to feed electricity to 5 TVs, in the same house…
March 7th, 2008 at 12:21 pmPublic overwhelming[ly] opposes new power plants.
Fix your typo, TP.
Just sayin’
March 7th, 2008 at 12:25 pmNo new power plants will translate into higher energy prices and blackouts. More coal and natural gas power plants translates into more greenhouse gas and accelerating climate change. Either we build more nuclear and alternative energy plants or conserve. (Like Cheney said, wear a sweater and turn down the thermostat.)
March 7th, 2008 at 12:37 pmRIGHT!! It plays right into energy companies hands to have fewer power plants that they can control. We have the technology for clean energy in the area of coal and nukes and countries that DIDN’T place a man on the moon before I was born have been doing it safely for decades.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:55 pmThe poll really didn’t say that they OPPOSES the idea of new power plants. They just don’t think that it is the top priority.
I actually agree with those results. Sure conservation is the most important goal, but I would like to see more efficient power plants built. It would be good to get rid of some of the old ones that spew so much pollution, and of course the constrution jobs for the new plants would help a lot of local economies.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:09 pmClean coal is one of the biggest PR scams of the new century. There is absolutely nothing clean about coal from its extraction to processing to burning. The fact that these corporations are allowed to rape Appalachia and pollute our environment is absolutely ridiculous. I guess we have Mitch McConnell and his ilk to thank for this.
Clean is to coal as astroturf is to grass!
March 7th, 2008 at 2:10 pmthe more people who put solar cells on their roofs,
the less power companies we’ll need, not?
i’m looking into it… any central illinois recommendations
March 7th, 2008 at 2:39 pmwould be most welcome!
Sloppy post.
Saying you feel more regulation, etc. is a HIGHER PRIORITY than power plants, exploration or mining is NOT the same as saying you OPPOSE new power plants.
That’s the kind of stunt the right wingnuts pull. I would hope we progressives have a little more integrity.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:13 pmSolar and wind most definitely have huge environmental impacts in a sense that they take up large amounts of land
You have LAND on the roof of your house?
Weird.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:13 pmIf the liberal French can get the vast majority of their power from nuclear why can’t the U.S. do the same?
Comment by mcTracy2
Question 1- if the “liberal french jumped off the Eiffel Tower, would you?
Question 2- why did the “liberal french elect a neocon?
http://eux.tv/article.aspx?articleId=7708
Question 3-why don’t you think for yourself?
March 7th, 2008 at 3:20 pmSolar and wind most definitely have huge environmental impacts in a sense that they take up large amounts of land
Check out central NY http://www.greenmountain.com/about/press_events/2003_04_10.jsp
They have a bunch of turbines near my dad’s home. They don’t take up farm land, they may not be pretty, but that is the price we’ll have to pay if we want power.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:23 pmTracy dude,
Get used the living a “green” lifestyle.
Like it or not, it’s coming soon to a city near you.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:45 pmMore “nukyoolar”, advanced geothermal, high altitude wind and solar thermal. We have the technology and we can rebuild it (to paraphrase a certain 70’s TV show).
Remember “acid rain”? I do, but just barely because we employed a cap and trade system that helped regulate and reduce the emissions that caused it. It is amazing to me that Conservatives can talk all day long about what they “believe” will happen (energy companies will go bankrupt, corporations will move over seas, the economy will tank) if we had a similar cap and trade system for carbon.
We could develop a cap and trade system and provide incentives (tax relief, not cash) for the aforementioned technologies. Combine that will a national infrastructure program paid for by reduced spending attributed to a certain war (heck, if we could spend one tenth of what we spend in Iraq on infrastructure, it would be a big impact) and you have a real stimulus package that would pay off handsomely for decades.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:53 pmBy infrastructure, I mean an advanced national power grid, public transportation for urban areas and high speed rail for urban areas.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:56 pmSorry “rural”, for high speed rail.
Brain is already on weekend time…
March 7th, 2008 at 3:56 pm“Public overwhelming opposes new power plants”
Isn’ this a missleading statement when lumped with exploration,
March 7th, 2008 at 4:53 pmmining, and drilling?
It’s a Pew Center poll – you didn’t expect it to be free of bias, did you?
Please visit this site: .
The author hates the Saudis and the fact that they have inordinate and totally inappropriate influence with our political elites on both sides of the aisle. To counter the oil power of Saudis and Iranians, the author advocates requiring all autos sold in this country be capable of running on any blend of alcohol (ethanol and methanol) and gasoline.
Such a move would allow the alcohol energy infrastructure to emerge naturally because millions of cars will be able to use the alcohol blends, and the fuel can be marketed for less than gasoline. It would also force OPEC to respond to market competition, clean up our environment, and empower agriculture sectors in both the US and thrid world nations to produce non-food crops that can be used as feedstock for an alcohol energy economy.
You won’t see polling on this issue from either side, because conservatives are in love with oil money, and liberals are convinced that we can conserve our way to energy independence.
March 7th, 2008 at 7:17 pmOK, for some reason the link didn’t come through
http://www.energyvictory.net
March 7th, 2008 at 7:18 pmComment by Father OKC — March 7, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
Keep waitin’ for that “magic” pie to fall from the sky.
Sounds “nice”. Too nice, as in, unobtainable.
There’s too many uses for crude that simply cannot be “replaced” by alcohol blends.
Look it up. Takes OIL to build high tech appliances, not alcohol.
March 7th, 2008 at 7:46 pm#38 Comment by DieNow – just read the book before you go shootin’ yourself, or shooting your mouth off. Turns out you can make a lot of plastics from alcohol. Or maybe you want to keep sending your money to Saudi Arabia, and your children to Iraq? I don’t believe we’ll ever find no use for oil – I’ll still need race gas ’til they come out with methanol premix. But I’d rather not have to buy it from someone who pays people to kill me.
Re: solar, the key is to distribute the grid. If you are thinking you need a big massive solar bank out in a field somewhere, you are stuck in a 20th century mindset. Imagine panels on each roof, all tied to the grid. Or off the grid if you must, with batteries. Many of our neighborhoods can be re-engineered to provide most of their own power, especially in the Southwest US.
We are fortunate to have an incredible research infrastructure in the US but funding for research has been gutted over the last 20 years, and mismanaged horribly. Our national labs are making bombs instead of new sources of energy. And the American public doesn’t understand that, whether global warming is real or urgent or not, our need for energy security is real, and urgent, and we can do something about it besides invade a sovereign nation, or mortgage ourselves to assassins.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:37 am