Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Opposition Rises to Increased Nuclear Power Use; Offshore Drilling Support Rebounds

1 year ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
How long lasting are the effects of disasters on public opinion?

The nuclear plant crisis that resulted from the earthquake and tsunami in Japan has prompted a spike in opposition in the U.S. to increased use of nuclear power, much like the rise in opposition to increased offshore oil drilling following the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that was set off last April by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform.

But almost a year later, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted March 17-20, support for more offshore oil drilling has rebounded.

Fifty-two percent of those surveyed by Pew following the drama at Japan's nuclear plants said they opposed increased use of nuclear power compared to 39 percent who supported it. That's a turnaround from February 2010, when 52 percent favored increased use of nuclear power and 41 percent were opposed.

Pew's measures of public opinion on nuclear plants has fluctuated over recent years between support and opposition for more use of nuclear power plants.

A Gallup poll conducted March 15 found that 47 percent opposed building more nuclear plants compared to 44 percent in favor, a turnaround from the 57 percent to 38 percent margin of support for more plants in a previous poll. But Gallup's polling figures shows more consistent support over the years for more plants. (Pew asked respondents if they favored or opposed "promoting the increased use of nuclear power" while Gallup asked if those surveyed favored or opposed "construction of nuclear power plants in the U.S."

After last year's Deepwater Horizon spill occurred, support for more offshore oil drilling fell from 63 percent in in February 2010, just prior to the spill, to 44 percent, with 52 percent opposing increased drilling. But Pew's latest poll finds support for increased drilling has rebounded to 57 percent who are in favor of it, compared to 37 percent who are opposed.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place
Filed Under: Polls, Energy, Poll Watch

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

10 Comments

Filter by:
gegeorv

We need our own energy and not just the lame wind and solar. We need our own gas and oil and coal. According to Forbes the U.S. has more natural resorces than all the arab countries combined.

March 23 2011 at 3:58 PM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply
mrscaptndavid

Hey whats the deal with our president promising Brazil that we are going to invest in their deep oil exploration drilling when he has imposed a moratorium on offshore drilling in the Gulf and Alaska's continental shelf. It is ok to give our money to foreign countries to do deep well oil drilling but we must put our people out of work because offshore oil drilling is too risky?! Yes, we are bringing in more oil than ever but that was not because of President Obama but the moves made by previous administrations and a push to be less dependent on foreign energy sources. I do not understand this president and his dislike for domestic oil and coal production while he embraces giving our money to a foreign nation to do what he is denying us. We need jobs and his obstinate stance is hurting our economy but is truly nonsensical in light of his promises to Brazil!

March 23 2011 at 12:46 PM Report abuse +6 rate up rate down Reply
JonDomin

While I strongly oppose Bush's depletion of our reserves,which he refilled with foreign oil (way to support our economy government),I amvery glad to see another permit issued. It's not enough. Living in Wyoming or Maryland,one may not notice. Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida do. Ironically, we were hit with the oil spill, but it is much harder to see friends out of work because there is no offshore economy (or in other sectors because they can't afford to drive to work everyday.) While fishing in Lake Theriot in southern Louisiana, I passed by at least 10 parked and stacked offshore oil rigs that were not only empty showing job loss, but they were serving no purpose and drilling no oil. We have resources in place. Unemployment and the economy surely will only suffer more than it already has in my opinion if Congress does not increase drilling.

March 23 2011 at 10:01 AM Report abuse +6 rate up rate down Reply
tnickerson08

We haven't built a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years, obama put restrictions on coal, then oil drilling. Obama and the democrats have no energy policy, jimmy carter established the DOE to make America "energy independent" within 20 years; how has that worked out? It's time to drill for oil and natural gas, open Yucca Mnt to store nuclear waste, mine for coal and stop thinking that solar and wind are a real option.

March 22 2011 at 3:25 PM Report abuse +7 rate up rate down Reply
noknrc

Energy Policy: While leaving U.S. oil and jobs in the ground, our itinerant president tells a South American neighbor that we'll help it develop its offshore resources so we can one day import its oil. WHAT?!?

His "What, me worry?" presidency has given both Americans and our allies plenty to worry about. But in the process of making nice with Brazil, Obama made a mind-boggling announcement that should make even his most loyal supporter cringe:

We will help Brazil develop its offshore oil so we can one day import it.

We have noted this double standard before, particularly when — at a time when the president was railing against tax incentives for U.S. oil companies — we supported the U.S. Export-Import Bank's plan to lend $2 billion to Brazil's state-run Petrobras with the promise of more to follow.

Now, with a seven-year offshore drilling ban in effect off of both coasts, on Alaska's continental shelf and in much of the Gulf of Mexico — and a de facto moratorium covering the rest — Obama tells the Brazilians:

"We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers."

March 22 2011 at 2:36 PM Report abuse +10 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to noknrc's comment
okitori

One would think this statement (made in Brazil) would cause such an outrage from the taxpayers who now has to turn over $2 Billion to Brazil for them to drill for oil. Not an article anywhere--I couldn't even find a place where comments could be posted. While we are facing $4 or $5 gal/gas and Obama is telling Brazil we will be their best customer!!! Somethings wrong with this picture.

March 22 2011 at 8:12 PM Report abuse +9 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to okitori's comment
gegeorv

You won't see it on the LAMESTREAM MEDIA, but Fox has it! The libs don't want people to know what is REALLY going on.

March 23 2011 at 3:53 PM Report abuse +5 rate up rate down
wardloc2

I am under the impression that there have been extrodinary advances made in atomic energy production in the last 25-30 years.
Why don't we hear more about these advances as some of them reduce the potential danger by half.
There is even some successful engineering in room temp fusion in our own Navy department which could lead to almo0st no danger or spent fuel.
Again why don't we hear more about such things? It might make our minds up in a very big way.

March 22 2011 at 11:04 AM Report abuse +8 rate up rate down Reply
gophatesusall

Our Nuclear plants are old and out dated, time to move on. Anyone that say they are cheap and safe is full of it. They cost big time to keep running and one mistake mean massive cost in money and lives, Who in this day would want something that produces a toxic waste that is deadly for 100,000 of years, when there are so many other forms of safe energy. The answer to our energy needs are not one thing but many. We as a nation should face this like when we helped rebuild Europe after WW2, we need a marshall plan for energy. Its time we cut the ties to big oil who has been holding us back. We need to invest in all froms and fast.

March 22 2011 at 7:53 AM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to gophatesusall's comment
okitori

Yeah--since it's going to take years to make wind & solar an economical source of energy--let's give our billions to Brazil, Middle East, etc. so that we remain dependent on foreign oil. Thanks Obama!!! and did I hear that Soros bought millions of shares in Brazilian Oil?

March 22 2011 at 8:16 PM Report abuse +10 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>