Opposition to more offshore drilling is solidifying as the BP oil geyser continues to gush millions and millions of gallons of crude into the gulf and across beaches in now four states.
Steve Benen tabulates the results:
A new Pew Research Center poll finds that the BP oil spill disaster has grown more serious, Americans' support for drilling has fallen dramatically.
Opposition to allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters has grown dramatically in recent months as oil continues to flow into the Gulf of Mexico. For the first time since the question was first asked nearly two years ago, a majority (52%) opposes the government allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters. That is up from 31% in February and 38% in May, shortly after the April 20 rig explosion that triggered the leak. In April 2009, 68% favored allowing more drilling in U.S. waters; 27% were opposed.
Support for offshore drilling has dropped across party lines, most sharply among Democrats and independents.
A majority of self-described Democrats and independents now oppose expanded offshore drilling, a sharp reversal of attitudes from earlier this year. By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, rank-and-file Republicans still want more drilling, though it's worth noting that even opposition among Republicans has grown from 19% in May to 34% now.
The question is what's the response to this from lawmakers going to be? The energy bill trade-off was more offshore drilling in exchange for carbon caps. That's a non-starter now for a majority of Americans. Even election year Republicans have to tread carefully on this one. Does this doom the energy bill, or is there another way around this towards another compromise? Do Republicans even
want to compromise?
The news is pretty grim on that front today.
Republicans have sourly predicted Reid's strategy of tying popular oil spill provisions to controversial climate policies that charge industrial emitters for releasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the top Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which is working on the spill measures, described the move this week as "untenable."
Still, Democrats are betting that the Gulf spill's black backdrop will energize public support for wider action on clean energy, making it difficult for Republicans and even wavering Democrats to block clean energy legislation before midterm elections.
"I think that the strategy of bringing up a bill and working toward that 60 ... it's going to force people out of the woodwork," said Franz Matzner, climate legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The party lacks clarity, however, on which climate measures it will add to the legislation.
We'll see. Republicans are pretty vulnerable here on this, especially Republican House incumbents who have amassed a long record of coziness with Big Oil. The action however is in the Senate, and that's going to be a much harder fight.
The problem is, do the American people know all the facts?
ReplyDeleteI bet most Americans don't know about the help we've turned down. Or that BP was basing their response to a spill off of outdated Government models...
"BP PLC and other big oil companies based their plans for responding to a big oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on U.S. government projections that gave very low odds of oil hitting shore, even in the case of a spill much larger than the current one."
Had the spill been contained do you think public support would have wavered this much? Hell no.
That's funny. You keep saying that Obama turned down help from other countries on the oil spill, but it turns out that's not what actually happened.
ReplyDeleteThere was a delay, yes. But we did buy the Dutch skimmer technology. Would it have contained the spill? Of course not...not with BP lying and the reality being millions of gallons of oil gushing up.
Yet you neglect to acknowledge the outdated Government models. Does BP own this? Yes. Is the aftermath solely their fault? No.
ReplyDeleteTheir lack of response to time sensitive offers is in essence turning down help.
is that a reference to me? my username is "tman". maybe you were really angry when you typed it?
ReplyDeletei notice you don't acknowledge it when you're actually wrong. you're a very dishonest debater, my friend*. do you ever experience "cognitive dissonance" on these things? is there a brief shudder when you realize how far your head is lodged up your ass? or are you just utterly incapable of ever admitting that? yeah, that's probably the case, because if you ever admit you're wrong then you can't "own" everybody you argue with and that's important. i'm guessing you're on the 'net a lot because you are one insufferable jackass in the real world and most people avoid you like the plague.
*i'm being ironic, so don't get the wrong idea. i really think you're a stupid, hard-headed prick.