Energy Production vs. Environmental protection

Which do you feel is more important?

(From here.)

Marking a shift from the early 2000s, Americans are now nearly evenly divided over whether environmental protection or energy production should be given priority, according to a Gallup poll released March 23.

A slightly higher percentage of respondents, 47% to 44%, said U.S. development of oil, gas and coal should be given priority over protecting the environment, Gallup reported. The results were based on the organization's annual environment poll, conducted March 8-11.

In 2011, fully 50% of respondents said U.S. energy development should be given priority, versus 41% favoring environmental protection, Gallup noted. The results from this year and last year represent a shift from those in a 2002 Gallup poll, when 52% of Americans favored protecting the environment while 36% gave priority to energy development.

Among Democrats, 56% in the March 2012 poll gave priority to environmental protection, with 34% favoring energy production. That number shifted dramatically among Republicans, with only 24% giving priority to protecting the environment and 68% favoring energy production. Among independents, 49% gave priority to environmental protection and 41% to energy production.
...

Again I needs must wonder - what is it that conservatives are conserving?

The socio-economic status quo.

The ability to protect the environment in the future depends on the use of energy today.

Why can't it be both? Zen's right. We can send a man to the moon, but we can't figure out a way to harness natural and never-ending energy supplies?

I don't believe it. There's also a cure for cancer, you know. :rolleyes:

Undertoad;803319 wrote:

The ability to protect the environment in the future depends on the use of energy today.

Yes, if that was our focus.

Or do you mean that if we burn up all the coal, oil and gas now, then they won't have to worry about it in the future?

You can't put too much water into a nuclear reactor.

And you can't put too much nuclear reactor into the water.

I'm saying that tomorrow's innovations will allow us to generate energy in new ways, and sip energy where we need to. But in order to get to tomorrow's innovations quickly, we must educate and employ as many of today's people as possible, in strong economies that allow maximization of human energy, improving productivity.

So - ironic though it is -

We have to both encourage conservation AND use a lot of energy to move societies and cultures forward.




i'm so sorry this sounds all pseudo intellectual man it's like i just go over an edge sometimes

HungLikeJesus;803313 wrote:

what is it that conservatives are conserving?

Their own power/wealth

Attempt to find some practical equilibrium. Attempting to fully harness energy from fossil fuels will significantly hurt us in the future. Attempting to eliminate environmental damage will significantly hurt us now.

Attempt to find ways to produce energy in a economically productive way that also minimizes environmental damage. Right now there is no silver bullet so we just need to continue the tug of war.