[WOSG]

Energy vs. environment is another NYT/Liberal false dichotomy.
That most will choose environment shows the question was poor of people were not thinking clearly.

It's a matter of degree in these things. To destroy thousands of species for slightly cheaper energy would be foolish, but that is not the tradeoff.
Drilling in ANWR will do less to harm the environment than the average suburban subdivision. We can have nuclear energy and both improve the environment and reduce energy costs, but that requires opening people's closed minds on the subject.

The real choice is "reason and cost-based economic tradeoffs in policy", or emotionally-charged eco-extremism that disregards balance.

[Dianna]

We can have nuclear energy and both improve the environment and reduce energy costs, but that requires opening people's closed minds on the subject.

And this is what I think we ought to take away from this poll. We need to educate the people on what we want to do, what the pros and cons are. That is always a good idea and very necessary after 8 years of utter crap claiming to represent our view.