Palin's Acceptance Speech Bullish On Energy
Sarah Palin's much-anticipated VP acceptance speech on Wednesday night included a lot of energy talk -- and extensive criticism of Barack Obama.
"We are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and a servant's heart," she said. "I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States. This was the spirit that brought me to the governor's office, when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good-ol' boys network."
Palin emphasized her call to expand domestic drilling, and called for more nuclear, "clean coal," and renewables.
"Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems -- as if we all didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all," she said. "Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines and build more nuclear plants and create jobs with clean coal and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources. We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers."
She talked up her moves as governor to suspend the state fuel tax, and said she "championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress." She also repeated the line from her introduction speech last Friday about the "Bridge to Nowhere" -- "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere" -- a claim that has been since disputed. Palin was actually for the bridge before she was against it.
"If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves," she said in tonight's speech. Actually, the state still got the federal money, and they're using millions of dollars from that pork to build a road meant to link up with said bridge that doesn't yet exist.
She also talked up the tax she imposed on the oil industry in her state. "When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged -- directly to the people of Alaska," she said. "And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources."
She talked about the natural-gas pipeline she has pushed for as governor and her call for increased drilling, both of which she asserted will bring the country closer to energy independence.
"I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion natural-gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence," she said. "That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart."
She continued on the topic of energy security, delving more into the issue than any other speaker so far at this convention.
"When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil," she continued. "With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers."
"To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries, we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas," she said. "And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both."
And later in the speech, "What does [Obama] actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? ... American needs more energy -- our opponent is against producing it."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It is obvious to most people that McCain and Palin will be supporting Big Oil at the expense of the taxpayer. There is nothing for the average person in that ticket except misery, and more misery. I hope they get elected so I will be proven right. That way BS articles about how good they will be for the average person will definitely garner a resounding no, go away once and for all response. It is insulting for anyone to say that the Repub ticket is good for anyone except big oil and racists.
NO such thing as "clean coal". The disaster to the environment just to mine the stuff makes anything else look pale in comparison. The technology doesn't even really exist either.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390_2.html
There are numerous technologies to make the burning of coal cleaner, however, many of them are expensive and most require that the facilities be refurbished every fifteen years or so. That means the cost of building a clean coal facility must also include the cost of refurbishing it multiple times over it's lifespan, which is never done by the proponents of 'clean coal'.
There is almost no way to mine coal cleanly without greatly increasing the cost, and considering that the freshwater supply of the southeastern states downstream will be greatly degraded, I sure hope they step up and weigh in on this before it's too late.
none are commercially available, all are research projects.
Why Alaska? And then to pick a virtually unknown.
It had to be all about energy / the Evangelical Right interests.
Obviously the things that are happening in Palin's personal life - smash the conservative halo and what's left is energy.
Almost half her speech sounded to me like it was about energy /oil and gas - added to by the call for nuclear [not-in-my-backyard] plants across the country - and then the lip service to alternatives.
That's why she's there.
These are building blocks for another Big Oil administration/ warmongering one - for oil.
Like Alaska - little insignificant Georgia [up there by Russia] has a pipeline running through it as well.
The problem is efforts to acquire energy are becoming more and more extreme - we all want to see growth in China and India - and Russia emerge from its communist rule - to do this we all need energy - and what we are now fighting over is a dwindling pool.
Listening to the warmongering rhetoric coming out of the RNC convention - what they are saying is let's continue this fight for scarce energy resources.
Money which would be better spent on Barrack Obama's plan - which says - let's change this for real!
Let’s move away from or change the way we use these types of energy!
Did ya notice that Palin's speech was a list of the countries that have our oil under their land.
The Iraq war Alone costs more than the cost to completely switch to wind and solar.
See my profile.
"The Iraq war Alone costs more than the cost to completely switch to wind and solar. "
This is complete BS. The Iraq war has not even cost $1 Trillion thus far. As of Sept 2006, the first 3 years of tha Iraq War had only cost $400B. That's less than the annual debt service on the national debt. Even if the cost doubles by Sept 2009, that will still be less than $1T. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954//
This is an estimate of what oit would cost to convert the entire current coal-gas-oil US power generation capacity to wind-solar-geothermal. Not one of these schemes would cost less than 1.2 Trillion just for the generators, and that is the nuclear option, which YOU bitterly oppose. Wind, which yopu are constantly promoting here comes in at $6 Trillion. None of these prices include the tranmsmission grid to get this energy to market. Some folks have noticed renewable sources are not located at the same places as current generation capacity. The real cost of any of these options is upwards of 2.5 Trillion and maybe closer to $10 Trillion.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/127793.html
Everyone agrees but war mongers that the Iraqi War Crime will end up costing us some 3Trillion dollars. But you would just like for forget about the veterans.
Sorry Reason's article is BS. They compare specifica project prices in wind and solar, with hypothetical prices from westinghouse trying to sell Nukes!
The average cost of wind power KWH installed last year is cheaper for wind than actual nuclear.
Nukes are a dead end: they can't get insurance with the government. Nukes just create another scarce resource uranium, and with us threatening to nuke Iran of the legal reprocessing you want to install MORE NUKES?!@?!#?@#@
Linear thinking is a handy way to dismiss new ideas. Look up the "S" curve. We are just moving into the steep part for wind, and solar.
The prices of mass produced cells with be a fraction of today's hand made cells. No economist would debate that.
My profile has links and calculations.
"The Iraq war Alone costs more than the cost to completely switch to wind and solar"
An outright lie. And one you have been challenged on before.
The Iraq War has not cost $1Trillion. To date, it has cost $500 Billion. "The bill for Iraq over the past five years is now approaching a cumulative $500 billion, or about $100 billion per year on average" source: http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/10/news/economy/costofwar.fortune/index.htm
The cost to switch current fossil fuel to wind power alone for would exceed $6 Trillion over the next ten years. source: http://www.reason.com/news/show/127793.html
Do you lie to people intentionally or are you just guillible?
Our nation will never be oil-independent. McCain and Palin perpetrate a myth.
What I hear her saying is "forget about people, forget about the planet -- it's energy that only matters in this world."
A seminal wedge between the haves and the have-nots.
Great Comment Mouselion!
I heard also consume consume...keep going america! What we want we get. Ra, Ra America! However, we use 25% of oil produced But are only 3% of global population; that is el sicko!
All this slight of hand, outright lies to win the power positions...oh I can't repeat myself... it's sicko. Learn to conserve people; reduce, reuse, recycle.
It seems increasingly likely that whichever party can claim to offer the cheapest gas within the shortest time period, is going to win this election. The Democrats can drive this debate to victory, if they put forward a concrete plan to build massive amounts of synthetic oil production capacity, sending prices down to actual costs of non-conventional oil (50-60 $ / barrel). The Good Old Petroleum party will be put in a position where they oppose cheaper gas, which will cost them the election.
The fastest way is to build coal-to-liquids plants, (mostly in swing states, of course) which can be gradually cleaned up by switching to renewable carbon sources when the green technologies mature. Rather than rely on vague plans or futuristic research programs, this has to be an open and unapologetic campaign to sink global oil prices for US self-interest within a few years.
This will cost a fortune, which is just fine. The public will go along with it if they see light, jobs and cheap all-domestic gas at the end of the tunnel.
just close the Enron loophole.
I was sort of on the fence before Sarah Palin, now I'm full throttle on board with the Republicans again.
Don't "vet" yourself. McCain didn't do it to Palin, either.
:-)
I thought the speech was bull_ _ _ _ too.
Can't we all get along? I'm both Republican and Democrate. I'm a Republican as I like big/small business and I'm a Democrate as I swish when I walk and have no idea what moral and ethical back bone means. I think all women are equal to men as the pants they wear look much better on them than on men. I think there is warming of the plant, but I could be wrong as I hear there is a 40% increase in the Polar Bear population. I find that I have a Carbon Foot Print, however, I can buy my way out of it. I'm a totaly confused Mex/American. Can someone help me?
Yeah, I can help you. Take a long walk off ashort pier. Problem solved.
As for moral and ethical backbone, you'll find some when you stoppretending to be a Democrat.
Global Climate Change? Try walking to the North Pole. Oh, that's right, it's under water for the first time in recorded history.
Your carbon footprint can be reduced greatly if you stop spewing the methane from what are, laughably, called your posts.
Glad I could help.
I think this is the inappropriate way to respond to someone asking a question in a confusing time full of information. I do not believe her way but you cannot bully the same way they do and make it right, this guy is just asking a question, although polar bears are in big trouble.
"Can someone help me?"
Yep, stop the trolling and things will go uphill from there.
"...we're going to lay more pipelines and build more nuclear plants and create jobs with clean coal and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources."
Translation: We'll do more of the same and give lip service to clean energy while lining the pockets of oil and coal and trickle enough money toward alternative energy so we can't be accused of doing nothing. e.g.- Buch Inc. policy of effectively doing nothing.
This stuff (false statements, exaggerations, clear deceptions, blanket hypocrisy, emotional hyperbole, self congratulating, etc).
makes my head hurt. And it feels like part of the right wing plan.
Say, did she mention which "clean coal" mine we might visit? You know, like actually see one in action, compare the price of that coal, compared to today's high-priced "dirty coal"? Of course, there are those who would wonder whether the cost of designing and actually building "clean coal" plants might not be spent to better advantage for the world, if we designed and built energy infrastructure based on solar and wind, thereby avoiding global warming issues. Aaah, never mind. McCain-Bush policies have been disastrous for eight years. Might as well just watch and see how they do for the next four years. . . . NOT!
So your point in this article is............what, exactly? Are you coming here to a liberal website to try to speak about all the good that Sarah Palin will do for us, in spite of ALL the evidence that not only will her energy policy do no good, it will actually HARM us, by extending the time until we get alternative energy sources on line......
In reality 'tompoe' just above your post has it exactly right.
It's called the 'reasonable' position that sounds good enough for low information voters.
This is the position of the energy industry;
1. Continue the status quo, with rear guard actions to slow any changes as long as possible.
2. Hopefully get your foot in the door so you can profit when energy change becomes inevitable.
3. The goal is to continue to corner the energy market FOREVER.
I don't even care if they are dealing with the NEW energy market! I understand that a corporation will handle our energy needs better than the govt. The problem is that the energy companies are refusing to consider anything that hasn't already been proven. The fact is that a corporation is the most conservative known creation of man. That's why we need the govt to create the alternative energies. That's why we needed the govt to get us on the moon, that's why we needed the govt to create the atom bomb. And that's why we need the govt to be our primary war fighter.
i'm tired of democrats losing. be specifc to counter falsehoods and contradictions. REPUBLICANS . . . MEET . . . WIKIPEDIA . . . did you take computer lessons from mccain?
link to table with obama's hundreds of legislative efforts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bills_sponsored_
by_Barack_Obama_in_the_United_States_Senate
link to table with obama's primary legislative achievements, including the bipartisan obama-lugar bill (ethics, reform) obama has other ethics achievements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
i have not included the many years in the state legislature, only the use senate where he was for a scant three years. productive?
Wikipedia has to be the worst source on the internet. Try again
YOU'VE quoted wikipedia when it suits you! Try again!
i checked my Bible. Obama is not even mentioned. game over, i guess.
To paraphrase this:
"America, you are an addict and Mommy will make sure that you will get your fix!"
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
