Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Palin's Op-Ed Against Cap-and-Trade

Sarah Palin's op-ed in the Washington Post is truly remarkable -- in an entire piece on cap-and-trade, she does not address at all the reason why cap-and-trade is being considered, let alone provide any alternatives. Not once does she admit that carbon buildup in a danger, or that global warming exists, or that there are costs to not restricting carbon buildup in the atmosphere and oceans. Not once.

The closest she comes is this sentence:
Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.
That's it, a statement that is so general as to be useless, and probably not even true.

Wow.

P.S.: Basic economics -- If we don't make carbon-based energy more expensive, people won't use less of it, and there will be no incentive for anyone to invest in noncarbon sources. The price of carbon-based energy must increase.

3 comments:

Bill Abendroth said...

To the Editor Quark:

Hunter S. Thompson, in The Great White Shark Hunt (the first volume of his collected works), dedicated the book to Richard Milhouse Nixon, "who never let me down."

After living through Presidents Nixon, Reagan, George W. Bush, and having to listen to the current Senators from Oklahoma, I was certain, sure I could not be surprised.

But Sarah Palin--no matter how mean, how biting, how personal are the things I write about her bizarre political credo; she always somehow manages to top herself. Now THAT'S real talent.

What was fascinating to me, was that the same day that Governor Palin posted her simple minded, ghost written tripe, Ms. Anne Applebaum's column (The Summit of Green Futility chided the leaders of G8 or G10 or G whatever permutation floats your boat, for trying to "negotiate" limits on carbon. Ms. Applebaum's view was that the time for finding mutually satisfactory goals had come and gone. Instead, each nation--and by "nation," she meant America first (even if we were the only ones)--needed a carbon tax, and needed it now.

No cap, no trade, no B.S.--just a straight, heavy tax on carbon.

I am hoping that one of ex-Governor Palin's flacks will someday get back to Ms. Couric re where Governor Palin gets her "news," and one of those sources are the environmental writings of conservative hawks like Ms. Applebaum.

But again, I am just fooling myself--and not because I am so easy to fool.

I remain:
In awe from the wonder of it all.

Bill Abendroth
Samsara Samizdat
http://samsamdat.blogspot.com/

Kurtis said...

Palin Washes Hands of Cap-and-Trade;

Clears Conscience of Reason


by Kurtis Cates, July 22nd, 2008

In her July 14th Op-Ed published in the Washington Post Alaska Governor Sarah Palin offered her position on the Cap and Trade legislation which is currently moving through Congress. It belies either an ignorance or dishonesty which I must attempt to answer. The piece has been widely analyzed for quality of argument and perused for relevance to cap-and-trade. John Kerry wrote what I believe was the perfect response, though I didn't expect that the perfect response would not utterly bring her down. He was pretty gentle, but his points were basically flawless. I cannot be so gentle. I am going to call Palin out for what she is, which this most recent tirade has confirms.

Governor Palin spends much of the piece complaining about what 30 years of the Obama Administration has left us with. She notes that, in the meantime, she has been putting together a little care package of ideas derived from a long career ruling Alaska, converting water into wine while Jesus gets ready to return for everyone that was smart enough to keep drilling. It is a typical political-slam type intro, stretched into the space of an article. It misses where facts are concerned but is packed with effective language and imagery and solid punches. But when she gets to the part where a person would normally present a -solution, alternative, plan- she returns to the empty words, which talk about issues but do not touch them, that she campaigned and lost with.

"We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today."

It is literally oil or nothing with this person. Her campaign chants' echoes have not ceased. People say that she has an eye on the 2012 election. I think she may still be re-running for 08'. Alaskans have weird rules about mulligans. And she did suggest in this piece that God created oil. But God did not create oil any more than he created the human brain. Why isn't she willing to use both? (Or) Why didn't God let the dinosaurs live a few million years longer? Why did God make this most incredible resource out of Dinosaurs instead of Buddhists?

Kurtis said...

Read the rest of the article above at: www.fromthebiblebelt.org