In this CNN story -- Poll: Most Americans want offshore drilling -- there are two things I find incredibly troubling.
First, is this quote:
Most Americans favor an increase in offshore oil drilling but the public is split over whether or not it would result in lower gas prices in the next year, according to a just-released CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll. (emphasis mine)
It is a cold, indisputable fact that initiating offshore oil drilling today would have no impact on gas prices for several years, certainly not in the next 12 months. Nobody who knows anything about the industry would claim otherwise.
The second thing I find troubling is that this fact was even considered to be something that should appear on a poll. Polls are meant to discern sentiments, not uncover core understanding and comprehension of the facts at hand.
It made me wonder why don't we poll people on some other things, like scientific constants: "Do you believe gravitational acceleration on Earth is approximately (a) 8 m/sec/sec, (b) 9.8 m/sec/sec, or (c) 12 m/sec/sec?"
Or historical facts: "Which country do you feel was more directly responsible for the American Revolution: England or Mexico?"
If the oil poll was intended merely to demonstrate how little the public knows about the topic, it is clearly successful.
If, however, it was supposed to influence policy-makers, it failed miserably to show that any general public will on the matter is based upon anything other than a short-term, myopic desire for lower gas prices regardless of the long-term costs incurred.
Unfortunately, that's neither journalism nor science. In fact, I'm not really sure what it should be called other than a waste of time and effort.
Craig, about polling on facts, yep, I totally agree. I love your examples. I'll make sure to follow you now, this stuff is great.
About oil markets specifically, offshore drilling now would reduce uncertainty in future supply, if not the actual supply, and the markets, even without a drop of oil, would respond accordingly with downward pressure on prices.
- andy
Andy, thanks for the kind words. Regarding oil supply, adding just 1% to the US supply would not have a marked effect on price. Most economists and industry analysts have said that.
What we're seeing now is a dramatic price reduction due almost entirely to a REDUCTION IN DEMAND by US consumers. So, it goes back to the core issue: which is a more effective way of combatting oil prices...increased production or reduced consumption. Time and time again we see that reducing consumption, by being more efficient, is a far more effective strategy.
Plus, it helps combat pollution, which I doubt anybody thinks is a good thing.