Yesterday the CBC website carried a news article about a senior official/whistle-blower at the International Energy Agency claiming that the IEA is covering up information which points to validation of looming Peak Oil theories. This will have caused a good deal of buzzing around the world and that was the case in the comments section for that article as well. People on both sides, myself included, were tossing their comments back and forth. As always, I was dumbfounded at the comments of some who seem to feel that stupidly stubborn liberal environmental types who deter exploitation in sensitive areas are the main cause of the apparent supply crunch in global oil supply.
Suddenly it occurred to me that this was a good opportunity to toss out a very simple (5th grade?) public opinion poll. This is what I came up with:
Perhaps a little CBC comments section poll.
Assuming there is no real geological limit to world oil reserves (for, say 500 years), just a liberal stubbornness which prevents necessary exploitation:
Should we ignore the suggested "invisible" costs (ecological, social, health, etc) and focus solely on meeting the demand for cheap energy, ie. oil and gas?
Yes = Agree
No = Disagree
Please, if you choose to respond, do so in seriousness.
I am thankful to be able to say that I found some hope in the responses!
When I checked last, at nearly 4pm today, only 17 had said Agree. 80 people said they disagreed. I did not cast a vote but I hope it is obvious that I would be the 81st. I was definitely pleasantly surprised by this response even though it would have been nice to have a lot more responses overall.
10 hours ago