Drilling Versus Renewable Energy

The Century Foundation recently posted on its web site the results of a poll that asked Americans about the direction of U.S. energy policy, specifically with regard to drilling for new oil and the development of renewable sources of energy. The problem with the poll, and the conclusions drawn from it, is that the issue is presented as an either / or choice.

In "The Snapshot: Voters Want Renewable Energy, Not Drilling," Ruy Teixeira says, "These data make it clear that, no matter what conservatives claim, voters have clear preferences on the best way to deal with energy problems going forward, and those preferences involve renewable energy, not drilling." To back his claim about American preferences, he presents data from a Quinnipiac University poll of voters in Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

Teixeira cites the following question from the poll: "Which is the best way to help solve the energy crisis and make America less dependent on foreign oil-A) building new nuclear power plants, B) drilling offshore and in Alaska, C) developing renewable energy sources like solar power, wind power and biofuels, D) releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or E) maintaining higher mileage standards for cars?"

Think about that question for a moment. Why didn't the pollsters offer the option of drilling in conjunction with the development of alternative or renewable sources of energy? Or why not offer the building of new nuclear power plants in conjunction with other the choices? Americans know that oil is generally accepted as a finite resource and that we will eventually exhaust it as a source of energy. So logic dictates that the United States will have to pursue alternative or renewable sources to meet its growing energy needs. So why not make the investment in alternative or renewable sources of energy while simultaneously working to increase the current supply by drilling where we believe oil to be available?

Not surprisingly, given an either / or choice between options that could be pursued simultaneously, respondents chose what many believe to be the lesser evil. Nuclear power is often portrayed as dangerous and unstable. Mandating high mileage cars means more government regulation and less consumer choice. Tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a temporary solution at best, with estimates ranging from a few days to a couple of weeks for the amounts of oil recommended for release. Drilling is portrayed as environmentally irresponsible and not a long-term solution given its status as a finite resource. That leaves the development of renewable energy sources. It is hardly surprising that respondents chose renewable energy just over fifty percent of the time.

A more objective set of questions and answers would probably have produced responses more in line with mainstream America. Americans want price relief now, and that means increasing current supply. The best way to do that is by immediately drilling to put more oil on the global market. That doesn't mean we abandon investment in alternative or renewable sources of energy to meet our long-term needs. But it does mean looking at all options, both short- and long-term, for providing Americans with adequate supplies of energy at reasonable cost.