backtop


Print 66 comment(s) - last by YashBudini.. on Jun 25 at 5:28 PM


  (Source: Go Solar Energy For Life)

  (Source: Wordpress)
BP oil spill directs country's viewpoint toward renewable energy

recent poll by Rasmussen Reports, an American public opinion polling firm, confirmed that 73 percent of Americans believe it's important for the United States to cut its dependency on fossil fuels. Rasmussen Reports conducted the poll on June 16-17 asking 1,000 Americans what their thoughts were on fossil fuel dependency, government policies, and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The poll states that 73 percent of American adults believe it's "at least somewhat important for the country to change it's dependency on fossil fuels" while another 42 percent of adults think it's very important. Only 23 percent say it's not important at all. As far as the government's involvement in fossil fuels goes, 41 percent believe government policies should be enacted to "discourage use of fossil fuels and encourage the use of alternative energy." 

BP's recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which began April 20 when the oil rig Deepwater Horizon exploded, has clearly impacted more than just its surrounding environment. While countless amounts of wildlife have been destroyed and several businesses ruined, this poll indicates that Americans all over the country are speaking out in anger against this disaster, and their not just environmentalists. 

According to the poll, 43 percent of American adults believe that the disastrous oil leak in the Gulf is at least "somewhat likely to change our dependency on fossil fuels in the near future." On that same note, 54 percent of women say the Gulf oil leak will cause America to change its dependency on fossil fuels, but 61 percent of men think that idea is unlikely.

Despite the number of Americans who think cutting fossil fuel dependency is important, a majority of U.S. citizens still believe offshore drilling is vital to meet the energy needs of America. Seventy-six percent think offshore drilling is at least somewhat important in meeting these needs, and 60 percent believe offshore drilling should be allowed despite the oil spill in the Gulf.

When questioned about the United States' future purchases of foreign oil , only 29 percent of citizens believe the country will buy less oil from the Middle East. Forty-five percent think it will stay the same and 19 percent think the U.S. will buy more foreign oil over the next five years. 

There is a ray of light through some of those bleak numbers, though. According to the poll, 48 percent of U.S. citizens say they are likely to buy an alternative energy car in the next 10 years, and 63 percent say "investing in renewable energy resources such as solar and wind is the better long-term financial investment for America than investing in fossil fuels."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Only 73%?
By mdogs444 on 6/22/2010 10:11:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What we really need is a massive and QUICK transition to nuclear power (and hydro fuel cell engines). The only thing we are waiting for is the tycoons and greedy ass politicians to change investments.


Perhaps you haven't noticed that we're running deficits of nearly $1.5T. We're broke, we don't have the money to invest in anything.

I know you people love to say "just tax the rich", but there aren't enough rich people to pay for it. And imposing higher taxes on middle class people who are already struggling to get by with $2.75/gal gasoline costs, ever increasing electric, heat, and water costs...while we're hovering at just under 10% unemployment is downright stupid. Haven't you noticed that jobs are leaving on massive scales because manufacturing is not as viable here as it used to be because of the ever rising costs of labor and production? Do you really think that increasing costs of energy to produce things and then charging them taxes on "carbon" from their production processes is going to gain jobs, much less keep them here?!

Perhaps you think that workers are just going to be satisfied with making the same amount of money in salary/benefits while everything they have to purchase is going up in price because of of this - food, transportation, heating, clothing, everything! Now, if you cannot purchase as many things because your budget is constrained from new energy taxes - what is going to happen? The local city and states tax revenues are going to decrease because people don't have as much discretionary income to spend on items and leisure activities. Then what? The local city and state are going to want to increase taxes again because of their new budget shortfalls. Then you have to deal with what to do about the lazy bums and people on welfare. We have to increase taxes to pay for the heating in their homes, the gas/fuel in their cars, the dollar amount of their food stamps, how much we give them for bus fares. It never ends.

Its a never ending cycle of increased bureaucracy and taxation. Before you know it, people will be giving away 50, 60, even 70 of their income in taxes.


RE: Only 73%?
By Quadrillity on 6/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: Only 73%?
By mdogs444 on 6/22/2010 10:36:10 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
you people? It sounds like you are setting yourself up high and mighty on a golden horse with that statement.

So you are advocating for "tax the rich, and then tax some more". I'm not the one wanting to take more of what people earn, so a golden horse is not me, its you.
quote:
"We can fund this entire movement by re-writing the "free handout" laws that give all of my tax money to dead beat and free loading anti-citizens that abuse the welfare system."

I don't know about funding the entire movement by this, but reforming and rewriting has to be done either way.
quote:
Your whole whining argument is the very reason that we have not invested in anything yet.

No, my whole argument is based on economics, and principals of the individual. Your argument is based on robin hood style thievery to force everyone to live a lifestyle that you deem acceptable, regardless what their feelings are, and regardless what it can do to personal wealth and unintended consequences.
quote:
The only way to make forward progress is the just SHUT THE F*** UP AND DO IT .

Spoken like every Democrat in Congress. Pretty much exactly what they told the majority of the American people during the Health Care debate, during the Stimulus debate, right now during the beginning states of the Immigration debate, and you just confirmed it for the Cap & Tax debate. Notice how the American people don't like being told what they have to think, do, spend money on, and how and where they have to live?
quote:
We need to suck it up, do the right thing, and do what needs to be done.

No, what we need to do is sit back and analyze the entire situation and make decisions based on what is best for the individual, and what makes sense from a logical and fiscal policy. You would rather cram emotion down everyones throat and then tell them to pay for it. You must be the true angry liberal type..."Everyone needs to share. I bring nothing to the table, but I'd like some of what you have."
quote:
It's not too late yet, but the tipping point is coming soon.

So let me see - you don't care how much it costs, what it does to my savings, what my feelings are on it, and how much the government has boondoggled every other policy out there from welfare, to health care, to immigration, to stimulus packages...but I should just shut up and do what you want because you think time is running out and the earth is going to implode. No thanks.


RE: Only 73%?
By Quadrillity on 6/22/2010 12:08:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So you are advocating for "tax the rich, and then tax some more". I'm not the one wanting to take more of what people earn, so a golden horse is not me, its you.

Please direct me to where I said anything about taxing the rich ...
quote:
Your argument is based on robin hood style thievery to force everyone to live a lifestyle that you deem acceptable, regardless what their feelings are, and regardless what it can do to personal wealth and unintended consequences.

Again, where did you get this idea that I support that?
quote:
Spoken like every Democrat in Congress. Pretty much exactly what they told the majority of the American people during the Health Care debate, during the Stimulus debate, right now during the beginning states of the Immigration debate, and you just confirmed it for the Cap & Tax debate. Notice how the American people don't like being told what they have to think, do, spend money on, and how and where they have to live?

1. I am neither Demo nor Repub
2. Obamacare is the worst idea I have ever seen.
3. Immigrants should be deported, and we should build a huge guarded wall along the mexico border.
4. Cap and Tax is a huge mistake
quote:
No, what we need to do is sit back and analyze the entire situation

LOL. That's exactly what we need... to sit back on our ass for another 4 decades waiting for the miricle energy fairy to come along. The technology is there for us to start implimenting! Like I said before, the big holdup is the massive investments in oil as our main source for energy. Until the masses start to shift investments, WE WILL SEE NO CHANGE.
quote:
So let me see - you don't care how much it costs, what it does to my savings, what my feelings are on it, and how much the government has boondoggled every other policy out there from welfare, to health care, to immigration, to stimulus packages...but I should just shut up and do what you want because you think time is running out and the earth is going to implode. No thanks.

Your ignorant assumption that I am a tree-hugging liberal hippy makes you look like a complete fool. Everyone under the sun with half a brain knows that NOW is the time to start building reactors and improving our electrical grid. How is this in any way an eco-freak related trolling? If we don't start something, it will never get done. The "Lets worry about it later" method has been going for decades now. I guess its you that will be changing your attitude when gas hits $10 a gallon right? What's wrong with pushing for a switch to hydrogen fuel cells + the other technologies listed above?


RE: Only 73%?
By Ammohunt on 6/22/2010 2:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am neither Demo nor Repub


quote:
Your ignorant assumption that I am a tree-hugging liberal hippy makes you look like a complete fool.
<

it appears you are worse! the mushy middle don't take sides sway with the wind; you know a principle free spineless weasel.


RE: Only 73%?
By Quadrillity on 6/22/2010 3:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
Or maybe It could be that I am a conservative? Think that may have been a possibility you ass hat?

quote:
the mushy middle don't take sides sway with the wind

what's wrong with not associating with a political party? It seems like everyone has to have labels nowadays. I happen to side with George Washington when it comes to political parties and governing. If you don't know your history very well; at his farewell speech, one of the things he warned us about was the dangers of parties.

So you are saying that I have to be either a Democrat or a Republican in order to have a worthy opinion?


RE: Only 73%?
By Nfarce on 6/22/2010 8:31:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
what's wrong with not associating with a political party? It seems like everyone has to have labels nowadays. I happen to side with George Washington when it comes to political parties and governing.


That's a noble stance. Too bad it's not reality. George Washington was not perfect. Political parties were inevitable even though he was against the development of them in parliament as was John Adams (both considered themselves far too independent minded in politics).

Unfortunately, that is not the reality of today, nor has it been for the past, say 200 years or so when America really got going after 1776. Parties were inevitable. It is human nature to have disagreements and arguments. No one human is the same, not even identical twins. Everyone has different ideas, and it is up to those that share similar ideas (ideology) to band together and form a forceful opposition to those who don't share the same.

This is nothing new and has been around for thousands of years in actuality. Anyone pretending to be on the middle of the fence on any issue, especially today, is an irrelevant pawn to either side of the issue.


RE: Only 73%?
By Ammohunt on 6/23/2010 2:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
We have a two party system which for now we are stuck with. Running around attempting to make a statement by not affiliating is juvenile at best; my advice to you is to participate and influence change in the Republican party ergo the Tea Party movement. The Repulican party will once again be conservative.


RE: Only 73%?
By pequin06 on 6/22/2010 10:38:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your whole whining argument is the very reason that we have not invested in anything yet.


The fact that the alternatives might suck don't have anything to do with it?

There's more to oil than most people realize.
The derivatives from oil are in almost every product you touch in your day to day life.


RE: Only 73%?
By Quadrillity on 6/22/2010 11:52:13 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The derivatives from oil are in almost every product you touch in your day to day life.


No s*** retard ... we need to move away from oil as a main resource for fuel. No-one said anything about forgetting that oil exists! I don't know where you think you are, but this is a technology forum; I think we know the basics of oil economics by now.


RE: Only 73%?
By seamonkey79 on 6/22/2010 8:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that the reason oil is able to be used in all these other things is that the fuel side of oil more than pays for the investment in getting the stuff out of the ground and developing the plastics and whatnot from the rest of it.

Without the fuel side, the rest of it skyrockets in price, because a great deal of what we use as fuel is 'waste' product from the other stuff.


RE: Only 73%?
By Quadrillity on 6/23/2010 9:18:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Without the fuel side, the rest of it skyrockets in price, because a great deal of what we use as fuel is 'waste' product from the other stuff.

And that would be proof that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Almost half a barrel of crude oil is refined into gasoline. What you idiots don't understand is that we wouldn't COMPLETELY do away with using gasoline. We would just cut back prob 80% or more from using it in mainstream auto's. Using gasoline as a main resource for transportation is a stupid idea considering we have the technology and means to run off of hydro-electric power.

Like I said earlier, and I'll say it again, the investors are so tied up in oil that it would take a miracle to switch over. Make no mistake, IT CAN BE DONE.


RE: Only 73%?
By HotFoot on 6/22/2010 10:38:23 AM , Rating: 2
Since the 80s, our societies have embraced the idea of buying as much as possible from overseas, because, as consumers, we've decided we can't afford to pay our neighbours to make the goods and services we want. Since that time, standards of living and real income for the average household have stagnated, while executive compensation and government deficits have ballooned out of all proportion.

If you can't afford to pay your neighbour a living wage for the goods or services you want, then you can't really afford it. Buying all the cheap Asian goods (and foreign oil, which is perhaps another matter) is bleeding the economy dry, and it will be bone-dry by the time the Asian economies catch up and begin to match our standards of living and costs of labour.


RE: Only 73%?
By mdogs444 on 6/22/2010 10:58:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Since the 80s, our societies have embraced the idea of buying as much as possible from overseas, because, as consumers, we've decided we can't afford to pay our neighbours to make the goods and services we want.

Ok, that is very nice spin, but not entirely accurate.

First off, its not the average consumer who decided that they cannot afford to pay for our "neighbors". Its other countries are finding ways to produce good cheaper than we can, thus making their products more attractive. It's nothing against the actual workers themselves, but in certain cases, we see what's going on in these work places and we decide that its not worth it to us.

For example, someone goes to buy a car and see two cars priced relatively similar - a Toyota and a Chevy . If the Honda is offering more value at the same price, or the same value at a lower price - the choice is pretty clear. If you're going to ask me to pay an additional $2,000 for a car, not because its better, but because the labor costs are more expensive....good luck with that. Granted, Toyota may not be the best example right now, but you get the point.

The real fact is that our government including everyone from Congress writing new tax laws, to ever increasing environmental policy inflicted on these businesses, makes producing a product more expensive. When the average person goes to the store, he/she wants to get as much as they can for their money. We all know there is a fine line between cheaply made junk, and paying more money just because of where its produced.

Blaming it on not wanting to take care of your neighbors isn't true at all, and that wreaks of a Union talking point. The only real way to stop what you claim is "bleeding us dry", is to relax all the cost increasing restrictions put on companies - like the newly proposed Cap & Tax, and let companies try to make things cheaper and more efficiently without having to deal with regulation after regulation, when our competition is not playing by the same rules.


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki