Sarah Palin: Polar Bears and ANWR

This space was originally going to delve into day two of the RNC, but since things are a bit up in the air at this point, Let’s instead focus on the public stances of the Republican V.P. Candidate, Sarah Palin, on a few select subjects.

I went over in a very general way her stances last friday, but I think a more in-depth view of things is required to really get to know this candidate.

There are obviously going to be some places where there is no stated stance from Mrs. Palin Like Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Immigration, so what I plan to do here is look instead at her stances on The Environment and Energy Policy, two places where she has made public statements and had to legislate action.

Mrs. Palin has long been a proponent of opening up ANWR, making statements about opening it up for the first time publcily in November 2006, one month prior to her taking over as Governor of Alaska. She has also made statements about offshore drilling, as noted in my previous post. And in a Press release dated August 4th of this year, she agreed with Sen. Obama on the need for the completion of the Alaska natural gas pipeline. However she did disagree with his windfall profits tax on oil companies.

Also, in a quote from
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Environment.htm Governor Palin and the state of Alaska are suing the US government to stop listing polar bears as an endangered species:

Governor Sarah Palin announced today the State of Alaska has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to overturn Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne’s decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
This action follows written notice given more than 60 days ago, asking that the regulation listing the polar bear as threatened be withdrawn. “We believe that the Service’s decision to list the polar bear was not based on the best scientific and commercial data available,” Governor Palin said.

She is afraid that oil and gas development in Alaska would be harmed by this, because areas that the polar bears inhabit also happen to be areas in which Gov. Palin wants to drill. Seeing how Gas and oil development are the financial lifeblood of the state, this is seen I am sure, at least in Alaska, as a legitimate concern.

Now I don’t know about you, but I think that the unhealthy addiction to oil would do the most harm to this area, for obvious reasons, and that both drilling in ANWR and this attempt at taking the Polar bear off of the endangered species list is at best a spurious try at manipulating the system to get what she thinks is best for Alaska. My Main concern with that is that what is best for America and what is best for Alaska here are two completely separate things. Isn’t one of John McCain’s Mantra’s “America First”? Does Alaska have no other industries with which to work?

America needs less oil not more. More oil would only serve the interests of the big oil companies, who are doing well enough without anyone elses help. Is BP, Sarah Palin’s husband’s employer, that hard up for cash that we need to sacrifice polar bears and ANWR for their bottom line?

I think not. This is one area that I think McCain’s V.P. selection is dead wrong. What do you think? Drop me a line and let me know!

Uncle Mikey

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

This is something of a follow up on yesterday’s report on quotes and statements on Energy policies By Barack Obama and John McCain. But today we are going to look at actual votes each of the two major party candidates as far as energy policies are concerned.

To begin with, know that the vast majority of the energy votes for the last two years have been in fact MISSED by both of these candidates. John McCain has missed all 15 of the energy related measures to reach the senate floor since august 2006, and Barack Obama has missed 9 of the last 15 energy related measures to reach the senate floor in the same time span.

Despite there chronic campaign influenced absences, they have been on the floor a total of 11 times in the last few years to vote on energy related bills at the same time. I am going to go over a few of them, to show how they voted, and how much they vary when it comes to actual legislative actions.

3/16/2005; Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act: S 3711: A bill to enhance the energy independence and security of the United States by providing for exploration, development, and production activities for mineral resources in the Gulf of Mexico, and for other purposes.

This bill was touted as a remedy to the high cost of energy, via drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, hence the Bill’s title. A complete summary of the bill can be found here. If you have the time and patience, here is a complete list of every speech given on or about this bill.

Given their stances now, it is not suprising that Obama voted no and McCain voted yes. This Amendment was rejected 51-49.

3/16/2006; LIHEAP Funding Amendment: S Amdt 3074 to S Con Res 83: To increase funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program by $3,318,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, increasing the funds available to carry out that program to the fully authorized level of $5,100,000,000, to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.

This was a non binding resolution that set funding levels for discretionary spending. It passed 51-49 with the help of four Republican senators voting with the Democrats.

Obama voted yes. McCain voted No.

6/28/2005; Energy Policy Act of 2005: HR 6: To ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy.

This bill had a Large amount of provisions to it. A few for your perusal:

- Coordinates an Outer Continental Shelf mapping initiative, as well as a federal inventory of natural gas and oil reserves located in that area

- Requires a gradual increase in the amount of renewable fuels used in gasoline, such as ethanol, from four billion gallons in 2006 to at least eight billion gallons in 2012

- Directs the President, within one year of enactment, to develop and implement plans to reduce the United States’ demand for petroleum by one million barrels per day from the amount projected for 2015

- $18 million over three years for nuclear energy research programs, including one that examines designs for high-temperature reactors capable of producing pure hydrogen

Barack Obama Voted Yes on this. John McCain Voted no. It passed the Senate 85-12. The no votes were pretty evenly split, 7 Republicans, 5 Democrats.

Draw your own conclusions as to which man voted in a more ethical manner. What i am trying to do here is draw attention to what these men have actually done. Talk is cheap, and this article is about walking the walk and how each man showed his true colors when push came to shove on the senate floor when your energy dollars were on the line.

In four of the six votes, the first two bills mentioned, these two men each followed the party line. The final vote had bipartisan support. The final bill was by far the most comprehensive and most sweeping in scope. Senator McCain believed this bill did not serve the present or future needs of the nation and would only saddle us with debt while making us more dependent on foreign oil…despite the planned reduction of petroleum use by 1,000,000 barrels of oil a day put in the bill, and the doubling of renewable fuels used in gasoline in a 6 year time span.

You make the call as to whether he was right or not. Do you see the facts as set out in their voting record affecting their perception by the voting public? Do you think the lack of recent voting on both of their parts, but in particular John McCain lack of votes over two years, will have a palpable effect on voters perceptions of their energy proposals? Drop me a Line and let me Know!

Uncle Mikey

Besides in these?

A question well worth a second look. Let’s look at a statement he made recently, shall we?

He says he won’t raise your taxes. A lot. It’s usually a centerpiece in his speeches. And yet the man as recently as a few days ago when asked in an interview if he was prepared to raise payroll taxes to help fix Soc. Sec. he responded this way:

“There is nothing that’s off the table. I have my positions, and I’ll articulate them. But nothing’s off the table. I don’t want tax increases. But that doesn’t mean that anything is off the table.”

In response to this quote from senator McCain Pat Toomey, President of The Club for Growth, a Conservative advocacy group released an open letter saying:

“Your comments yesterday send American taxpayers and businesses a mixed message about where you stand on this issue…We hope you will clarify where you stand on this important issue and reaffirm your commitment to eschew all tax increases”

Ouch. Kinda rough when your allies call you on the carpet for your flip-flop.

Let’s take a glance at a few other Notable Flip-Flops the man has engineered for himself.

McCain was initially against warrantless wiretapping, today he is for it.

He was originally against drilling in A.N.W.R., now he is for it.

Ten years ago, McCain opposed a resolution in the Az. Legislature that would’ve blocked affirmative action programs, This year, McCain has endorsed an Identical measure.

He initially said that he would run a clean honest campaign. Hmm… Wonder how many times that one went under the “straight talk express”.

Funny how an election will make you say and do just about anything to get elected….

…Ya know something though, I don’t really like throwing one candidate under the “straight talk express” without giving the other candidates a “where the rubber meets the road” view of the bus as well. There are more flip-floppers around then Senator McCain. Tomorrow, we’ll touch on Barack Obama and Bob Barr…

And there is yet another point to be made as well, but that is for tomorrow in part two…

Anything In particular catch your eye in this story that you want more facts on? If there is anything you think needs covering that isn’t getting press, just drop me a line and let me know, and I’ll give’em the business.

Uncle Mikey

A.N.W.R.: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 19,049,236 acres of Pristine land in Northern Alaska. With Billions of Barrels of oil Underneath. To the big oil business interests, there is Gold in them thar hills! The Area that they drill in now in Northern Alaska near there, Prudhoe Bay, produces 17% or so of U.S. domestic oil production, and conservative estimates have the total amount of recoverable oil in the ANWR region is 4,300,000,000 Barrels of oil, with some estimates as high as 11,800,000,000 barrels of oil. There’s a Minor Problem for those who want to tap this “Black Gold Mine”.

The Locals, The indigenous populations say no.

The Ecologists say no.

The Democrats say no.

Now you would have to be $illy to not understand why the big oil companie$ want to drill there. Profit$. They $tand to make billion$ and billion$ on any oil exploration, even if it would take them year$ to work with it and get production ramped up to help them.

ENOUGH with the dollar signs.

The Oil companies also argue that the addition of the ANWR oil to America’s oil arsenal would give leverage against Oil market speculators, and it would drive the price of oil down significantly, potentially saving Americans Billions of dollars overall. One more positive, according to President Bush. A quote from President Bush:

With a drilling footprint of less than 2,000 acres – about 0.01 percent of this distant Alaskan terrain – America could produce an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil. This is the equivalent of roughly two decades of imported crude oil from Saudi Arabia.

Time for a rebuttal I think….

Last point First.

BULLSHIT. the 1002 region, which is the area Oil companies want to drill in is Not less than 1% of the Total size of the ANWR. It is maybe .01% The Size of Alaska. To throw out the information out there the way Georgie Porgie threw it out there is entirely disingenuous and just plain wrong.

And that area, 1002, has a Native American Indian tribe living there, where they would drill. Ya Know, I’m all for helping out the Average American in just about any way I can. But taking away hunting area and living space for people who live there is NOT one of them. The Inupiat Eskimos who live there don’t want this done. It would take away from them their way of life, disturb the way they live. Destroy their calving grounds. Which they need so the Animals they depend on for survival, The elk, can raise their young so they can thrive and the Inupiat can hunt.

Let’s look at this another way. Even if we start moving men and material up there TODAY, it will take YEARS to get any kind of return on our investment. And it would be a fight every step of the way. It would be easier and more helpful to the economy to find another source of energy that we can use. We the people are ADDICTED to oil. The Answer to our Oil problems is not MORE OIL. The Answer is in finding a way to make us more self sufficient and less dependent on oil of ANY Kind. There are answers out there.

Solar.

Nuclear.

Wind.

Geothermal.

There are a great many ways for us to get what energy we need, if we just learn to harness it and learn to adapt it. It will probably take as much time to get the power we need from those other sources as it would for us to get useful product from ANWR.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama are against drilling in ANWR, Barack Obama had this to say:

“I strongly reject drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it would irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernable impact on U.S. energy security.”

John McCain had this to say:

“If people have new information or want me to review policies…no matter what those policies are, I’d be glad to review them,” he said. “People have said to me, ‘I’m going to bring you new information about ANWR, how environmentally we can make it safe.’ I’ll be glad to accept new information but my position has not changed.”

Think I have it wrong? Think either Candidate has it right? Think you know a better way? Drop me a Line!

Uncle Mikey