Home › News › Local News
Poll finds support for drilling
51% favor exploration off California's coast
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsFor the first time since an oil spill blackened Santa Barbara beaches in 1969, public sentiment about oil drilling appears to have shifted in California.
A poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California finds 51 percent of adults in the state favor more drilling off the state's coast — a 10 percent jump from a year ago. The findings, released late Wednesday, are based on telephone interviews with 2,054 adults from July 8 through July 22.
The nonpartisan institute has polled Californians about their views on environmental and energy issues every summer since 2003. In each of the previous five years, support for offshore drilling fluctuated between 39 percent and 44 percent. This year, in the wake of $4 per gallon gasoline prices, public sentiment sharply shifted.
The poll found that residents in every region in the state except the San Francisco Bay Area support additional drilling. Support was strongest in inland areas such as the Central Valley and the Inland Empire, but even a plurality of residents in Los Angeles County back more drilling.
The survey's regional breakdown of responses does not include a specific region that includes the Central Coast counties, which would be most affected — Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey and Santa Cruz.
"We're encouraged by what appears to be a growing recognition that supply really does matter when it comes to transportation fuels," said Tupper Hull, spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association. "We've had a just-say-no energy policy in the United States for a long time."
An illusion, not a solution'
Opponents of offshore drilling said the poll results may reflect a temporary reaction to this year's spike in gasoline prices.
"This is an illusion, not a solution," said Bill Magavern, director of Sierra Club California. "We need to communicate that we have much better solutions that will bring down gas prices quicker and be much more sustainable."
Among those solutions, Magavern said, are improved fuel efficiency in cars and trucks, nonpetroleum fuels and better land-use planning to cut demand for gasoline by reducing commuting distances for workers.
The poll found that large majorities of Californians support such measures. Seventy percent of respondents, including majorities of both Democrats and Republicans, said automakers should be required to significantly improve fuel efficiency in cars even if it means higher sticker prices. In addition, 83 percent support additional funding for the development of renewable energy sources.
Even with the elevated public concern about gas prices and oil drilling, the poll found the No. 1 environmental concern of Californians remains air pollution, which was cited as the top issue by 23 percent of respondents.
Critics of offshore drilling say many Californians haven't made a connection between air quality concerns and additional oil drilling. "It's basically a dirty, industrial process," Magavern said of oil drilling. "It pollutes the water, it pollutes the air."
Keith Duval, a senior program manager for the Ventura County Air Quality District, said the several years of exploratory drilling that would be necessary before new offshore leases could be developed would have a significant effect on local air quality. "Exploratory drilling vessels are heavily dependent on diesel engines, which generate a lot of nitrogen oxide," Duval said. Nitrogen oxide is a component of ozone pollution. Those exploratory drilling vessels, he noted, could not be regulated by local air quality officials.
The poll found that opinions on offshore drilling are sharply split along partisan lines. While 77 percent of Republicans favor more drilling, it is opposed by 60 percent of Democrats. Independents are more closely divided, with 50 percent opposed and 44 percent in favor.
Republicans push drilling
President Bush this month lifted an executive moratorium on new drilling, and presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain has called for lifting the congressional moratorium as well. Republicans nationwide are pushing the issue in this year's campaigns, saying the public shares their support for new oil exploration along the Outer Continental Shelf.
California's political leadership, led by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, remains opposed to additional drilling.
Both the Democratic and Republican candidates for the 19th state Senate District, which includes most of Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, say that opinion locally remains against new drilling.
The poll results represent "a kind of quick response to the fact that people are getting really hammered at the gas pumps," said Democrat Hannah-Beth Jackson. "But even the president's own commission acknowledges there would not be any results for seven to 10 years, and even after that it would reduce gas prices by a penny a gallon at the most."
By improving energy efficiency and developing alternative fuels, Jackson said that in those same seven years "we could remove ourselves from our dependence on Mideast oil and reduce the cost of energy significantly."
Republican Tony Strickland said more offshore drilling would be "a Band-Aid in terms of the larger issue of dependence on foreign oil. I don't believe lifting the ban will solve the problem."
Strickland said the shift in public attitude reflected in the poll is a sign "that people are frustrated right now. This is the exact time we need leadership to increase our use of alternative energy."
Posted by chair on July 31, 2008 at 1:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is scientific proof that diesel fumes cause lung cancer. There is no such proof for tobacco -- just statistics and opinions. We're all het up over tobacco but, as a people, we totally ignore vehicle and industrial fumes. Using 100 square miles of our Sunny Southern deserts could produce more than enough electricity to power the entire United States. Put another way, using the open fields in Oxnard west of Victoria Ave., north of Wooley Rd. and south of Doris Ave. for commercial solar plants could power our entire West County. All the needed technologies exist to do this. We can and have built electric cars. Sunlight costs nothing. We have a problem with a solution, don't we?
Posted by cassandra2 on July 31, 2008 at 6:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This reversal in opinion should make the brain dead very happy.
Posted by AnaCapa on July 31, 2008 at 6:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The people who support drilling aren't aware that the oil companies already have leases for hundreds of acres that they haven't explored yet.
Drilling in protected lands is just a last ditch effort by Bush to get more profits into the pockets of his oil friends. Wake up people!
Posted by CloudyDaze on July 31, 2008 at 6:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is play by the oil companies to secure even more offshore and Alaska tracts than they have now. There are millions of acres, both offshore and in Alaska that are already approved for drilling, but remain untouched. Let the oil companies fully explore what they've already been permitted for before asking for more.
Posted by Ms_California on July 31, 2008 at 6:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Chair... are you going to personally reimburse those of us who own fuel vehicles? I understand your concept of alternate fuel sources, and that is great. I completely agree things can always get better. But we have to think of other things that could be effected by this as well. What about those of us who actually own fuel based vehicles? I personally own my vehicles and am not looking nor can I afford to purchase a brand new car. So if we start using alternate fuel such as electricity what do we do for the fuel vehicle owners(sale incentives,tax breaks etc.) for those of us who have them and want to switch?
Posted by cslaurie on July 31, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
(quote: "This reversal in opinion should make the brain dead very happy.)...
The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations, first published in 2004, is a book written by James Surowiecki about the aggregation of information in groups, resulting in decisions that, he argues, are often better than could have been made by any single member of the group. The book presents numerous case studies and anecdotes to illustrate its argument, and touches on several fields, primarily economics and psychology.
Posted by NowHearThis on July 31, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
YOUR WALLET!
That's where Democrats want to drill!
Posted by cason on July 31, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is ridiculous. Oil, like it works in our cars, also helps to reduce heat and friction caused by the earth, duh! Any oil being removed only increases the destruction of the earth. NO,NO,NO. It is time to stop being motor heads and start being smart consumers. The oil that Exxon and so many profit on creates large empty pockets in the earth and below our feet. Exxon owes the American people and no one should be allowed to continue the black gold rush.
Posted by NowHearThis on July 31, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
AnaCapa says, "The people who support drilling aren't aware that the oil companies already have leases for hundreds of acres that they haven't explored yet."
The problem is the liberal environ-whackos have worked hard to forestall development with lawsuits and just about everything else aimed at stopping energy exploration and energy infrastructure the past three decades.
The green monsters have run amok and no one has the guts to squash them like the vermin that they are.
I have a great conservation idea. Libs who don't like oil, natural gas and clean coal: let's take away their cars, electricity and gas for their washers/dryers, and other conveniences in the home. That would be a great start.
Every lib that posts here and that promotes solar/wind etc., I'd bet isn't using it.
It's called liberal hypocrisy folks.
Posted by Blueheron on July 31, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To those of you who don't think we should drill for at least part of our own oil, Natural Gas, Oil shale and coal period.
Stop burning oil, Natural Gas, Oil shale and coal PERIOD.
That's right. Stop driving your and car stop heating your home.
If you don't, you are being what is known as a HypoCrat and I thank you for making all of our lives more expensive.
Remember, Al Gore got a "D" in "Dumb Bell" Earth Science.
Posted by 2wheelsguy on July 31, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The reason for the decline of America is the proliferation of stupidity exemplified by individuals such as "NowHear" who refer to anyone who supports the common sense efforts to protect our environment as "enviro-whackos." These folks are the same people driving the gas-guzzling SUVs, who also deny that global warming is happening, and who voted for George Bush, both times. Those blessed with a brain need to come out in force this November and vote for common sense; Obama instead of the senile McCain who will continue Bush's destruction of the planet.
Posted by Will on July 31, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Whats the problem? Oil is a natural organic product. They should carry it at Lassens.
Posted by svwl on July 31, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ms California,
Your argument that because you have paid for fuel vehicles, you should be reimbursed if society shifts away from that energy is very selfish.
It sounds like you are suggesting that because you didn't have the foresight to recognize that the fuel based cars that you structured your life around are not sustainable, we as a society should pay the price.
If we shift to more sustainable energy sources and that leaves you stuck with gas-guzzling dinosaurs, sorry for the inconvenience, but that is just too bad. Try to have better foresight in the future.
When the automobile was first being introduced at the end of the nineteenth century, many horse owners probably resisted them because of prior investments in their preferred mode of transportation. Maybe we should have stifled innovation because of them? A lot of Blacksmiths would not have lost their jobs if that was the case.
Alas, we went with the 'future.' And that led to your being stuck with your car today once we finally learn that petroleum isn't sustainable. What comes around goes around, I guess.
Your inconvenience is a small price to pay for a much larger societal benefit.
Posted by bbbdugout on July 31, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
what a bunch of fools we are - in the same time it would take to drill and produce any usable oil products we could have, in the same amount of time, produced wind and solar energy to replace the use of oil - the difference for those of you who are not paying attention - clean and renewable forever energy - we could be a stand on our own country when it comes to energy - but I know, then we have no reasons to send over our young guys to die for the rights of the oil companies - what a shame -
Posted by danp on July 31, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nowhearthis, HAHAHA, awesome
Posted by star on July 31, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I see mmshoot is parroting Bobby Jindal's claim that there was no major spill caused by Katrina. That's bogus. Nearly 600 spills, more than 9 million gallons. Check out the sattelite photo: http://skytruth.mediatools.org/sites/...
Posted by DoctorDude on July 31, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
HowHear, have you noticed the size of the deficit under 8 years of republiCON rule? How do you think that's gonna get paid? YOUR WALLET! as you like to say. You guys had your chance, time to change.
Posted by dse_kpa on July 31, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hey, i never was included in that survey. what a bunch of cr*p!
Posted by cassandra2 on July 31, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I see one of the blondes is back. Because she made a really dumb choice for a vehicle and now is suffering, somebody should take care of it. Not her, of course.
Too bad Lichenstein is gone. It would make a great cartoon. Sob! Peak Oil! There goes my SUV!
Posted by dse_kpa on July 31, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
...and darn, we could have put that marijuana to use for biofuel...www.hemp4fuel.com.
love,
your wacky liberal
Posted by Fred on July 31, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
prediction: gas will be 3 bucks a gallon come election time
Fred
Posted by SpiderWoman on July 31, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's time we became dependent on ourselves and not rely on others. We need the oil and we have it, why not get it. Look at Saudi Arabia and Argentina paying way less than a dollar a gallon for gas. Sure there can be spills and accidents, stuff happens but you can't live in bubble wrap.
Posted by dom_kenpo on July 31, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I support more female oil wrestling.
Posted by 2wheelsguy on July 31, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All those advocating expanded oil drilling here are ignorant of the reality that any oil produced from such drilling will be sold overseas, where a higher price is obtained. Exxon Mobil just posted the highest profit ever posted for any company here. They didn't do that by helping us out with lower gas prices. Folks here need to get wise quick; expanded oil drilling will do nothing to lower your gasoline expense, and it will destroy our local beaches. Only the oil companies will benefit from expanded drilling, and they will not pass the profit down to us.
Posted by ioeel on July 31, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The oil companies are only looking to secure locations of oil production, so that they can keep their monopoly on our economy. Read the latest profit reports. They have several oil rich sites, that they do not even use to produce oil, so that they can continue their strangle hold on the dollar. We should all be ashamed of our government. While they chase professional baseball players for doing steriods, so they can get face time on ESPN, they have let our economy go in the toilet!
Posted by THX1138 on July 31, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"there would not be any results for seven to 10 years, and even after that it would reduce gas prices by a penny a gallon at the most."
I'd like to see what this theory is based on..
This is a moot issue - the oil co's have been sitting on oil rich land for some time now and choose not to drill.
Posted by megnosis on August 1, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This poll, of course, didn't go to the next logical step and ask-
"Would you still support drilling if in the end gas was still over $4 a gallon and there were smog alerts 200 days out of the year warning against going outside?" Or something like that.
Presented with the irrational implication of no downside to drilling, of course a percentage of the population will bite.
Posted by soyculay on August 1, 2008 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a bait and switch system by the oil companies. Approve offshore drilling, lower the price to $3.49, then slowly raise it to about $4.01. Wow, a whole $0.16 lower than what 76 off Wells Rd. is charging. In the end, Bush's buddies give us a whole 4% off what we pay now.
Posted by jbh50 on August 2, 2008 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Its sort've funny to read from the BO - environmentalist - supporters. All rushing on the BO platform to NOT drill. Only one problem, your candidate has flipped once again and is now in favor of drilling offshore.
Staring to need a score card to follow your leader's platform?
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 29 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.