Unicorns? Sasquatch? Green Republicans?

[pscot]

Unlikely as it seems, there are indeed Green Republicans. They blog and they worry about the teabaggers, who seem to be as ignorant about energy issues as they are about everything else.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/republican/anwr-oil-0331

(David) Frum sent some interns to a DC Tea Party rally the other day to survey them about the economy, taxes, health care, and energy. The crowd size was 300 to 500, and the sample size was 57.

The Tea Partiers were asked how much oil lies beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in terms equivalent to annual domestic oil consumption. The average response was 70 years. One person estimated 1,000 years worth. The right answer - if you accept the highest number in a U.S. Geological Survey estimate - is about 2 years and 3 months, based on the present consumption rate. That works out to around 16 billion barrels.

If it were 70 years, as the Tea Partiers' average response indicated, the refuge would contain nearly 500 billion barrels of oil - equivalent to 40 percent of all the petroleum that the world has consumed since Edwin Drake struck oil in Pennsylvania back in 1859. Saudi Arabia's supergiant Ghawar field, the world's largest, would be a tiddler by comparison, with a mere 140 billion barrels of initial reserves.

If the Tea Partiers were right, we could join OPEC. Hell, we could run the joint. Of course, they're not right. Frum's primary conclusion is not so much that the Tea Partiers got their facts so crazily wrong, but that their misinformation comes from inhabiting an echo chamber where the gruel spoon-fed by the daily circus acts on talk radio and out on the blogs is taken as gospel.

In fairness, the echo chamber effect is not unique to the Tea Partiers; an artifact of political polarization and media fragmentation is that it's easier for people across the ideological spectrum to stay within information comfort zones that confirm rather than challenge their beliefs. Which is one reason why the belief persists that drilling the Arctic refuge would be an energy security magic wand, and the facts be damned.

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/republican/anwr-oil-0331#ixzz0kHUm39vI

[demosincebirth]

1. Never met one.

[joshcryer]

4. I knew many a hunter who was an environmentalist.

Sure there were a couple of rednecks who had complete disregard for the environment, but not the majority of those that I knew. Forest Service is largely supported by hunters.

[hatrack]

2. Sadly for the GOP, Teddy Roosevelt has been dead for about 90 years . . . .

If they're going to find some sort of famous figure to establish their "bona fides", they might want to consider someone who was, I dunno . . . at least born during the 20th Century?

[pscot]

3. Nixon signed off on the EPA

Though I don't believe a love of nature was behind that.

[hatrack]

10. He did know how to read political tea leaves, to give credit where it's due

Nixon didn't really give a damn about nature in general, but (per Tom Wicker's biography) his rule of thumb was "When in doubt, make it a park" - generally a vote-getter back in the day.

[pscot]

I recently read Nixonland, by Rick Pearlstein

It's a painfully vivid political biography, not only of Nixon but of the country during the 60's and early 70's. It was like tearing off a scab. I found myself bleeding from wounds I thought had healed a long time ago.

[joshcryer]

5. They exist, but they're not represented by the polarized political environment.

In fact, our black and white political environment may even compel some Republicans or "right wingers" to be anti-environment simply due to herd mentality.

It's unfortunate because the environment should be non-partisan, but even on these forums we have people calling others "right wingers" for having pro-environment views.

[kristopher]

6. That is horseshit.

There are distinct differences in priorities that certain groups make. Those who support nuclear power are first and foremost motivated by energy security. Sure they "care about the environment" but they fundamentally the same as those that wouldn't pay a $0.05/gal gas tax if the smog was choking them as they pumped the petrol. After 50 years of techno-utopianism where they made abundantly clear they didn't give a shit about "being green" and mocked any attempt to reform our energy systems, they now pretend that they are "environmentally motivated" because they see a way get the public to build more churches where they can worship the at the alter of Uranus by yelling "Oh my god, it's GLOBAL WARMING!!!!"

You can't make a claim to be environmentally motivated when, despite clearly identified choices that are BETTER IN EVERY RESPECT, your selection to solve one massive environmental problem lands you square in the middle of three more and then spend all of your time using misinformation and fraudulent claims in an attempt to trash far more environmentally friendly alternatives.

I mean really, do you think for a military second that anyone really buys those bullshit claims that nuclear power is "greener" than wind or solar?

Of course you don't; but you still have to try, don't you?

[joshcryer]

7. Rambling again, are we? I didn't even mention nuclear.

But it's clear that you will use one single issue to malign posters here in a highly disruptive manner.

[kristopher]

8. Why wouldn't I associate your comments with nuclear power?

That is how you spend your efforts, promoting nuclear power and maligning renewable energy. It is perfectly natural to view your comments in that context.

[joshcryer]

9. My comments were focusing on your disruptive comments here.

Being pro-nuclear does not, defacto, make you anti-environmental. Being nuclear-neutral does not, defacto, make you anti-environmental.

But your screed says otherwise. nuclear power = RW shill who hates the planet

Nevermind that most of your arguments to that effect use spurious reasoning. It's still slander.

[kristopher]

11. Being pronuclear DOES mean a person places LOW PRIORITY on environmental values

There are distinct differences in priorities that certain groups make. Those who support nuclear power are first and foremost motivated by energy security. Sure they "care about the environment" but they fundamentally the same as those that wouldn't pay a $0.05/gal gas tax if the smog was choking them as they pumped the petrol. After 50 years of techno-utopianism where they made abundantly clear they didn't give a shit about "being green" and mocked any attempt to reform our energy systems, they now pretend that they are "environmentally motivated" because they see a way get the public to build more churches where they can worship the at the alter of Uranus by yelling "Oh my god, it's GLOBAL WARMING!!!!"

You can't make a claim to be environmentally motivated when, despite clearly identified choices that are BETTER IN EVERY RESPECT, your selection to solve one massive environmental problem lands you square in the middle of three more and then spend all of your time using misinformation and fraudulent claims in an attempt to trash far more environmentally friendly alternatives.

I mean really, do you think for a military second that anyone really buys those bullshit claims that nuclear power is "greener" than wind or solar?

Of course you don't; but you still have to try, don't you?

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[joshcryer]

15. You are wrong, and insulting.

[kristopher]

16. If the shoe fits...

:shrug:

[Viking12]

12. Even the "16 billion" figure is a gross over-estimation

The USGS states there is only a 5% chance for the figure of 16bbo for technically recoverable oil. There's a 50% chance for 7bbo of economically recoverable oil.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2002/fs045-02/fs045-02.pdf

[pscot]

13. What I took from the article

was just how wildly astray from the reality people's perceptions are. These guys think there's another Ghawar beneath the tundra. They just don't even live on the same planet as the rest of us.

[phantom power]

14. I suspect innumeracy in most cases.

Especially the particular brand of innumeracy where any number ending in "illions" is categorized as "Big" even though "billion" is 1000 times a million, and "trillion" is a million times a million, etc.

[kristopher]

17. They are just parroting a political message - regurgitating the spin from RW think tanks

No one has enough time to inform themselves properly on all issues, so we rely on filters to establish our positions. To most people the issue of energy is no deeper than their electric bill and the numbers on a gas pump; they therefore are only interested as long as those signals are causing them pain.

Exploiting this "cost of information" facet of decision-making has become a fine art, especially for the Republicans, since they are focused on a body of legislation that people wouldn't support if they were fully informed.

[phantom power]

18. Also true, that.

Anybody who spends time on a forum like E/E is a far outlier, in terms of the ideas and information they get exposed to, and the amount of time spent considering it. Off the top of my head, I bet any of the E/E regulars spend more time in a given day thinking about these topics than most people spend in an entire year.