Palin's Cap-and-Trade Is Alaska's Bait-and-Switch
In her op-ed in the Washington Post this week, Sarah Palin, while still governor, took up the sword for corporate interests; a position directly opposing what is best for Alaska.
The flip-flop to anyone who watched the vice presidential debate was obvious. When Gwen Ifill asked, "Do you support capping carbon emissions?" Palin responded, "I do. I do."
What or who changed Sarah Palin's mind about cap-and-trade?
In both her resignation speech and her op-ed, Palin touted AGIA, the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act. It was widely supported and passed with a vote of 58-1. "This is the largest private sector energy project, ever. THIS is energy independence," she said on July 3. In her piece, she railed Obama's plan for cap-and-trade. She mentioned AGIA again and how we are "progressing" the 3,000-mile project.
As evidenced by its near unanimous passage in the Alaska Legislature, AGIA is one of the most important pieces of legislation in our 50 years of statehood. We need jobs and energy relief.
The Senate Resources committee was still hashing out details of the gas line legislation this year. With such a monumental project on the table -- one that will affect generations, the committee members took pains to consider the potential impact of future federal legislation on the project. The prospect of cap-and-trade came up repeatedly. How would it affect the gas line? How would it affect Alaska?
On March 25, Dr. Mark Myers, a former Alaska Division of Oil & Gas Director, appointed by President Bush to oversee the United States Geological Service, and the State of Alaska's AGIA Coordinator, presented a slide to the committee titled "Impact of Carbon Regulation on Natural Gas Demand." His presentation demonstrated how the gas line will have an economic edge and environmental advantage over coal plants in producing clean energy. Such a regulation will also create higher demand for Alaska gas, thereby pushing up prices and ultimately benefiting Alaskans in form of additional state revenues and support for jobs in the gas field.
In Senate Resource hearings on March 26, April 7, and June 3, Senators Wielechowski and Therriault asked experts how cap and trade would affect the Alaska gasline.
March 26, 2009 DR. DAVID WOOD (a LNG international consultant) said gas should benefit from that legislation, being the least carbon...of fuels. Cap and trade will penalize coal with respect for gas...most cap and trade will increase demand.
April 7, 2009
TONY PALMER (TransCanada's Alaska Vice President) said he has not spoken to Obama yet but has spoken briefly with his staff about a month ago, before they had formulated how they might proceed. Cap and trade agreements should be positive force on this project.June 3, 2009
MR. PALMER said carbon legislation would be put in place, that should be positive for gas and therefore this project.
They were unanimous that federal cap-and-trade legislation will have a positive influence on the AGIA project.
Thus, between the amount of carbon credits Alaska would have to trade, and the increased demands for clean energy in natural gas, federal cap-and-trade regulation is in the best interest of Alaska.
You don't have to follow Palin's tweets to know she wasn't present at the Senate resource hearings. However, her appointee, Dr. Myers, was not only attending, he was advising the legislature that the cap-and-trade legislation will be of great benefit to Alaska -- a view that is diametrically opposed to Palin's new stance.
Recently, the federal government found Alaska has warmed at more than twice the rate of the rest of the United States. Widespread and unprecedented thawing of permafrost, sinking buildings, buckled roads, damaged runways, water and sewer systems, are just part of the effects of climate change. Three coastal villages have begun relocation plans with 160 rural communities threatened by erosion. Alaska's climate is the canary in the coal mine. Capping carbon emissions may help Alaska avoid some dire environmental consequences.
Palin's op-ed was completely contradictory to her own administration's position in its Juneau testimony last legislative session. She has apparently been convinced that, despite its importance to Alaska's gas line project, cap-and-trade is somehow bad for the rest of the country. Sarah Palin either doesn't understand the importance of cap-and-trade to Alaska, or she does know, but now that she's pandering to red swing states, she just doesn't care.
Follow Shannyn Moore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/shannynmoore
John Kerry: What Gov. Palin Forgot
The global climate change crisis threatens our economy and our national security in profound ways. Governor Palin need look no further than the view from her front porch in Alaska to see how destructive this crisis can be.
Ben Carmichael: Half-Baked Alaska: Palin's Confused Vision of Energy & Environment
Palin's argument is so dependent on established Republican strategy that is reads like a grab bag of worn-out phrases.
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
NASA has corrected its US temperature records, the hottest year on record is no longer 1998, but 1934.
Five of the ten hottest years since 1880 were between 1920 and 1940 " and the 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread across seven decades.
This suggests natural variation, not a warming trend. Plant and insect remains found at the base of Greenland"s ice sheet indicate that,
just 400,000 years ago, the island was blanketed in forests and basking in temperatures perhaps 27 degrees F warmer than today.
If CO2 were a pollutant, then why would our US submarines allow an environmental concentration of this
very same gas in the neighborhood of 8,000 ppm?
Credible link please? Otherwise it's File 13.
When did Exxon/Mobile takeover India?
http://tim
"India's position is clear and categorical that we are simply not in a position to take any legally binding emissions reductions," Ramesh said at conference on climate change he addressed along with the visiting secretary of state to mark the opening of ITC's Green Centre building in Gurgaon.
Ramesh drew the red lines clearly. "There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have been among the lowest emitters per capita, face to actually reduce emissions. And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours."
Sarah's column followed the same columns written by Michele Bachmann on cap and trade. Same talking points. Same blather.
THEY'RE LYING TO YOU ABOUT
GLOBAL WARMING
Because telling the truth about global warming wouldn't further militant environmentalists' global warming crusade, which will give them enormous power over our lives, they often resort to distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies.
For example, while the UN's 1995 "Global Temperature Chart" clearly demonstrates that the earth was much warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, more recent UN temperature charts have eliminated the Warm Period altogether.
Instead of accurate long-term temperature information – which shows the earth periodically warming and cooling, militant environmentalists like Al Gore offer us a "hockey stick" graph fallaciously showing a steady rise in the earth's temperature for 1,000 years.
Would you say there's a difference between "cap and "trade" and "capping emissions?"
After all, Sarah said the latter not the former in the VP debate.
Even if your assertions were 100% correct, which they're not, do you like the air and water quality we have today? What do you have against cleaning up the air and water quality? Global climate change is a fact and it's moot really whether we caused it or are just contributing to it. We CAN change it for the better, so why shouldn't we?
oh brother...
I know most people h8 her, but if you read up on cap & trade...on this topic she is 100% correct. Do your own homework before you jump to conclusions just because of who wrote the piece.
Coal is a huge contributor to bad air quality. If you like breathing coal dust, fine. It really is as simple as that.
So when the Great Green Profit sat down on Tuesday with the 7.30 Report’s Heather Ewart, he must have figured he’d get yet another easy ride.
She was from the with-the-faith ABC, wasn’t she? Her request for an interview had been vetted, right? All sweet.
And for the first half of the interview Ewart indeed buttered Gore on both sides. But suddenly she switched the topic to scaremongering, with a question on Gore’s Oscar-winning movie, An Inconvenient Truth.
Ewart: There was also, though, a British judge who ruled that there were in fact, I think, nine errors (in the film) when it was challenged in court?
Gore: Well, the ruling was in my favour.
Pardon? In Gore’s favour?
Mr Gore, I don’t think you have quite told the truth. Not all of it, at least.
next time Gore says he has evidence “in my favour” on global warming, know it could actually show the opposite of what he claims.
Beyond the dispute over the alarmists’ blatant manipulation of data, the larger and more important issue is that global warming theory is no longer a testable scientific theory—assuming it ever was one. The alarmists claimed Antarctica was warming because of a human-induced climate crisis. When it was shown Antarctica is cooling, the alarmists flip-flopped and claimed Antarctic cooling indicated a human-induced climate crisis. When that party line was no longer convenient, they flip-flopped again.
Sound science dictates that a theory be testable and conform to known facts. When it is asserted that anything and everything that could possibly happen is consistent with, and indeed affirmative evidence for, a certain set of beliefs, that is not science. That is dogma, and nothing more.
I know it's sometimes hard for the slow-witted to keep up, but climate change is real. The evidence is here already. Not a theory. Humans are being affected now.
Oh what a tangled web we weave.....
If you want to understand Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Mark Sanford and the occupants of the C-Street house and their Seven Mountain Mandate to infiltrate your government and take-over the White House, check the following links.
Sarah Palin is not hard to understand. She is limited in her intellect, but she is fanatical as to her Seven Mountain Mandate to conquer the world. These people belong to a very serious and dangerous cult.
http://www
http://www
Scary stuff.
"Sarah Palin either doesn't understand the importance of cap-and-trade to Alaska, or she does know, but now that she's pandering to red swing states, she just doesn't care."
Or perhaps it's option #3: she doesn't understand AND she just doesn't care.
Palin: "Carbon is just another name for something God made"
She has changed her position just as the GOP in general have changed their positions. She's pandering to the party leadership on this one. She's also using their rhetoric, so...uh...
Palin is real pro!
You know, she clearly wasn't ready for prime time.
I don't think she is even close to being as dumb as she.... sounded.
(She *looked* great.)
I have heard Ted Kennedy talk about his first stint on a weekend political talk show way back in the early '60s.
He had such a poor showing that his two older brothers literally sat him down and made him learn the issues, inside and out.
There has to be a big adjustment when going national, and she seemed lost, or at least too uncomfortable talking about many of the issues.
I lost a lot of faith in McCain the week he made that pick. I was more than leaning towards Obama anyway, but that surely didn't raise his score.
Sarah will have to learn the talking points. I doubt she has the ability or interest to understand the actual issues.
Cap-And-Trade?
Bait-And-Switch?
I thought I was writing an article on Bait-And-Tackle?
-SP
Sarah Palin is Bush in a skirt..!
Sarah is also Bush in waders.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
