Sarah Palin on Energy:
You’ve got to admit! Sarah Palin is good. The woman can sell anything, even the devil. This is what makes her so dangerous
See Grist’s rebuttal, including roundup of Palin’s environmental record below:
- Opposed a statewide ballot initiative to prohibit or restrict new mining operations that could affect salmon in the state’s streams and rivers
- Has pushed to build a natural-gas pipeline from Alaska’s North Slope
- Got the state legislature to pass a bill to provide each Alaskan $1,200 to help with energy costs
- Sued the Interior Department over its decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species
- Has proposed eliminating Alaska’s gas tax
- Has pushed to open Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling
- Has created a committee to forge Alaska’s climate-change strategy, and has made Alaska an observer (but not a member) of the Western Climate Initiative
- Opposes a windfall profits tax on oil companies
- Was the ethics commissioner of the Alaska Gas and Oil Conservation Commission from 2003 to 2004
- Lifelong angler and hunter
- Husband is an oil production operator for BP on Alaska’s North Slope
- Started Alaska’s Petroleum Systems Integrity Office, an oversight and maintenance agency for the state’s oil and gas equipment, facilities, and infrastructure
- Chairs the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, a multistate panel “that promotes the conservation and efficient recovery of domestic oil and natural gas resources while protecting health, safety and the environment”
- Believes intelligent design should be taught along with evolution in science classes
Last, but not least, Sarah Palin‘s quote on global warming:
“I’m not one though who would attribute [global warming] to being man-made.”
SCARY!!!!!
Palin says environmental groups are overstating the damage that would be done with drilling. I think that’s a fact worth checking out.
In total, mountain-top removal might be a far more destructive practice, yet this happens continually.
For the rest, she seems very focused on the economy, particularly focusing on Alaskan jobs. Indeed, there will be less money flowing out the US if the US would produce more of it’s own oil. For national considerations, this is a huge boost. It makes the influence on oil price (which will be very small anyway) totally irrelevant. But keeping money in your country is a smart thing from a national perspective. Palin would of course be even happier, seeing part of this money go specifically to Alaska.
I don’t know who would sell the drilling rights, the Alaskan or the federal government. Do you know?
I also wonder if there will be a fair auction, or if the rights will be sold under market value, in effect creating a wealth transfer from US citizens to shareholders of the oil companies. If the US decides to sell some of its riches to oil companies, then they surely need to get the best price. You can sell your resources only once.
A fan of big oil as the VP ? Wow, that really would be scary for you Americans but also for us, citizens of the world.
Last week the United Nations outlined that the subsidies given to Big Oil and Coal are costing the world up to 300 billions USD (that’s 200 billions Euros) per annum.
Stop giving this money would :
– increase a bit the world’s total GDP
– cut by six percent per annum global greenhouse gases emissions.
If you want to learn out more on that, it is my latest article :
http://www.elrst.com/2008/09/02/cutting-fossil-fuels-subsidies-to-cut-emissions/
And yes, I would support drilling, but for geothermal energy, not oil :
http://www.elrst.com/2008/08/19/google-invests-in-enhanced-geothermal-systems/
Thanks Edouard. Will make sure to check our your post. Those numbers are staggering, aren’t they?
Meryn,
I don’t have the answer to your questions. Time allowing, I will try to find out.
What I do know, however, is that drilling in Alaska would make such a small dent in our oil imports that it is more of a PR move as far as I am concerned. And to make that the center piece of an energy policy is not a good signal for the country.
Notice how energy conservation is not part of her discourse. She keeps talking about hungry citizens.
De rien Marguerite, it is always a pleasure to share the little I know as I learn soo much with your articles and readers. 🙂
These indeed are staggering amounts of money. As the UNEP notes, stopping this money and allocating it to clean energy solutions would make quite a huge leap forward on climate change mitigation.
I wanted to comment last nite on this article but didn’t as I was too nasty with Republicans and especially Ms Palin.
What I meant was that :
We are now totally into the 21st century, we know have 21st century ideas, paradigms and so on. (we now have seen Earth from space, we live in a small world and there are nearly seven billions of us, global warming and so on…)
Senator Obama proposes 21st century ideas and programs. (at least on energy and environmental issues)
On the other hand, Senator Mc Cain wants to perpetuate the same old and outdated stuff that didn’t work that much in the 20th century.
Which one Americans will choose ? The one that will give them more power and money, or the one that will give more of US people’s money to big oil and coal ?
I have no idea how much subsidies are given by American people to Big coal and oil companies in the form of subsidies, but that must be staggering.
If all this money was given instead to renewable energies where people can sell some of their extra energy… That would be an exciting prospect !
(that’s my longest comment here. I won’t do that again, unless you want me too)
Right on Edouard. There is also the critical issue of whether or not a critical renewable energy tax credit extension will be granted before it expires at the end of this year. So far the Republicans have blocked it in Congress.
two films worth renting ASAP:
“Elmer Gantry” (1960)
“A Face in the Crowd” (1957)