Palin takes a stand in WaPo – blasts cap and trade

from The Washington Post

The ‘Cap And Tax’ Dead End

By Sarah Palin

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America’s unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won’t bring jobs. Our nation’s debt is unsustainable, and the federal government’s reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, “poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity.”

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.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter.

For so many reasons, we can’t afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama’s energy cap-and-tax plan.

The writer, a Republican, is governor of Alaska.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
251 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
tallbloke
July 14, 2009 3:35 am

Sandy (01:11:26) :
“And of course, any major oil spill will mind it’s business and stay on it’s 2000acre reservation.”
30 years of North Sea operations haven’t produced an oil spill?
But anyway, what have facts got to do with it?

I’ll probably get flak for saying it, but the UK’s safety and accident prevention record is a lot better than the U.S.
Why is that?
It’s not because Brit’s are cleverer or more careful than Yanks at the individual level.

July 14, 2009 3:50 am

>>>We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence
>>>if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right
>>>underfoot on American soil.
Oh, the Dark Age mentality of American politics rears its head once again. When, oh when, will America learn to live with the First Amendment and drop this god business from political speeches?
If this god theory is correct, Ms Palin, then god must be a Muslim, otherwise all that oil would not be sitting under Saudi Arabia (Muslim), Iraq (Muslim), Iran (Muslim), UAE (Muslim) etc: etc:
I do hope you are genuflecting before Allah, my dear Palin….
.

Ron de Haan
July 14, 2009 3:51 am

CodeTech (22:33:53) :
Ron de Haan
Harper has a minority government that can be toppled on ANY pretense. Shutting down the discussion would be political suicide… and not at the “next election”, immediately. There are no defined terms in Canada.
Harper is doing the right thing. Keeping the entire topic on the back burner, and not making outrageous claims or attempting to impose draconian laws. Canadians were brainwashed very effectively by previous governments, and actually seem to believe the leftist spew.
CodeTech,
Thanks for this insight.
I know he is doing a balancing act.
I thought there was a lot of opposition against C&T in Canada and a majority in favor of oil sand exploitation?

Tenuc
July 14, 2009 3:56 am

Beware of Palin. Under that folksy, butter wouldn’t melt in the mouth exterior is the heart of a snake.
It always amazes me how the people in any democracy are so easily manipulated by the media so that the ruling elite get the candidate they want to deliver their rule.
If you are having second thoughts about Obummer, please look elsewhere to find an honest politician – that’s if one actually still exists. Your not alone with this problem, and over this side of the pond, David Cameron is being spun by the media into the next PM. He will be worse than his predecessor, I think.

Sandy
July 14, 2009 3:56 am

Non Partisan Scientist (02:01:34) :
there are plenty of resons to reject C&T.
By posting partisan lunacy, you lose YOUR credibility.
How fascinating? You judge yourself to be non-partisan, but this essay to be partisan. You call yourself a ‘scientist’ but present no logic, nor facts and just emote.
And of course you leave no name.
Explain why anyone should value YOUR judgement on this site when you seem to be a credibility-free zone?

Ron de Haan
July 14, 2009 4:00 am

rbateman (22:16:27) :
Ron de Haan (22:01:27) :
Given how bad Cap & Trade will damage the US, the GOP is listening to sound reasoning. They are the political opposition to this, and the best hope there is to avoid ensuing calamity.
Can we trust her?
2011 is a long way off.
For now, it’s a fight in the trenches, and we need all the help we can get.
rbateman,
I can only agree with that. we certainly need all sails set.

July 14, 2009 4:05 am

>>>“I prefer my politicians to not believe the Earth was created
>>>in seven days.”
>>>I found it is a straw man.
You are wrong on this. Palin advocated teaching of Creationism in US schools, and this is the back-door policy of Intelligent Design proponents to get religion back into US schools – which goes directly against the sensible secularism of the First Amendment.
Palin said “teach the kids both sides of the argument, and let them decide”.
Sound reasonable? Well, as this article points out, would we teach children that the Earth may either be flat or spherical, and let them decide? Not even an idiot would propose that one…
http://www.livescience.com/culture/080901-sb-palin-creationist.html
Needless to say, a prime plank of Creationism is that the world was created in seven days, which is why this label has been attached to Palin.
Dark Age US politics again….
.

VG
July 14, 2009 4:24 am

This (in quotes) posted here:
http://www.news.com.au/comments/0,23600,25780407-2,00.html
Basically all quite similar…
“so what if al gore is wrong…..at the end of the day, if we all believe in global warming/climate change and we make rapid changes that are environmentally friendly….what harm can we be doing? All that will come of it is good for our planet…..so stop worrying if they are wrong about climate change….let’s all try and help out our planet a bit.”
So now it doesn’t matter anyway, all you have to do is believe in it LOL… I think these people are destrying their own movement… forecast AGW will fade away to about 0 interest in the next 2 years. I now actually doubt that any anti-C02 legislation will be passed anywhere.. mainstream media has copped on.

Aaron Edwards
July 14, 2009 4:37 am

Palin is a lot like America; she can’t help it if she is beautiful and loaded with energy. How can you not love this woman? I felt as though I had written this piece myself. Her voice is the American voice of pure reason unfettered with political correctness and scaredy-cat tippy toeing around the core energy issues. Maybe she is the way she because Alaska is so close to Canada where people still has the gonads to speak their minds when so many others have lost theirs.
No wonder so many uber-liberal women hate her. She’s got it all but she does not flaunt it nor does she need to. When you’ve got it, you’ve got it and people either love you or hate you for it. It speaks volumes about your personality if her feminine strength, intelligence and beauty make you despise her. Not for this Texan, I like everything I see and hear. Todd is one lucky SOB and so is America. You go girl.

Jim
July 14, 2009 4:55 am

I wish she had mentioned nuclear. We need it not for “clean” air, but for the next leg in the energy race.

Bruce Cobb
July 14, 2009 5:08 am

My estimation of Palin has just gone up a notch. To be fair, as McCain’s running mate she couldn’t go against his views on climate change and Cap and Trade. She pretty much had to tow the line on that. The Republicans have a huge opportunity here, especially if they can manage to block ACES in the Senate. This is their way back into power. I hope they don’t blow it, and I say that as a still-registered Democrat (but not for long).

imapopulist
July 14, 2009 5:14 am

This is a very will written article.
She can serve this country well over the next few years just by addressing this issue in such a common sense and logical fashion.

Gary P
July 14, 2009 5:15 am

I would much rather vote for someone who does not publicly argue with the myth in Genesis than someone who believes in the religion of AGW and uses their religion to destroy the economy and gain political power.
I will be voting for Sarah Palin for president even if it has to be a write in vote.

wws
July 14, 2009 5:15 am

“I would shudder to think about her being interviewed on the topic rather than reading from what seems to be a prepared statement.”
Funny how so many Obama supporters jump on this as a criticism, when Obama himself instantly lapses into complete incoherence without a teleprompter in front of him.

Curiousgeorge
July 14, 2009 5:16 am

I have a standing rule. Never, under any circumstances, trust any politician. That does not mean that I won’t support one over his/her opponent. But trust? Not in a million years.

Pierre Gosselin
July 14, 2009 5:20 am

According to PEW, only 6% of scientists are Republicans.
Here’s another slogan for 2012:
“Sarah PLC 2012”
(Sarah Palin – Liz Cheney 2012)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/14/cheneys-daughter-considers-campaign-for-political-/?feat=home_headlines
Finally, the republicans are finding people with real balls.

Curiousgeorge
July 14, 2009 5:21 am

PS: There is also an interesting piece in the WSJ by Zuckerman, about the current state of the economy/employment picture going forward. Very scary, btw, and would be enormously aggravated by any climate bill or other tax hit on business such as the health plan. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753066246235811.html

layne Blanchard
July 14, 2009 5:27 am

What her speech says to me is that she has realized the political opportunity afforded by taking this stand. As the truth becomes more and more clear, she will start to look like a visionary to those who didn’t see this coming.
Mcain was/is an AGW believer. It was his campaign she joined, so she was stuck with his positions. Now she isn’t.
I thought she was a detriment to Mcain’s ticket, just from the experience standpoint.
This speech and more like it could make her a much more legitimate contender.

John K. Sutherland
July 14, 2009 5:47 am

Jim, She DID mention nuclear. Read near the end.

Noelene
July 14, 2009 5:51 am
philw1776
July 14, 2009 5:57 am

So WHAT if Palin has said that some GW is anthropic from burning CO2 emitting hydrocarbons? I’m an AGW skeptic who yet believes that there is a contribution to warming that is human induced. Where I part company with the AGW orthodoxy is that I also believe that other factors drive the climate, Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ is an artifact, and most AGW proponents engage in unwarranted hysteria. I mostly agree with the late Michael Crichton’s temperature forecasts.
This is a science blog. If new data showed that AGW really was driving the climate in a major way and driving it to extreme temperatures (as claimed by the Gore-Hanson faction) I’d expect that to be reported here. Unlike Real Climate, opposing data and views should be aired as long as they’re backed with evidence and reason.
In my view, Palin’s remarks show her as inexpert yet open to considering different views based on the evidence.

layne Blanchard
July 14, 2009 6:06 am

Who will Palin run against? Re: Obama’s citizenship: It should be glaringly obvious to everyone that something is amiss with his citizenship, simply because legal challenges to the question have been squelched with technicalities. Had his legal team simply produced valid documentation, the issue would be dead. The fact they have not done so speaks volumes. It will probably come down to his mother having been too young to convey citizenship to him when he was born overseas. But I doubt this will force him out of office. Too much to hope for.

Hoi Polloi
July 14, 2009 6:09 am

“This is a very will written article.”
Looking at her past performances, I highyl doubt she wrote it herself…

Hoi Polloi
July 14, 2009 6:13 am

“(Sarah Palin – Liz Cheney 2012)” Finally, the republicans are finding people with real balls.
Shirly you’re joking, right?

AEGeneral
July 14, 2009 6:14 am

Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source.
You don’t even need the technology in some cases. The Kaiparowitz plateau has some of the cleanest burning coal on the planet, but was inexplicably declared a national monument back in the mid-90’s while Clinton was on a campaign stop in an adjacent state. Go figure. It didn’t make sense then, and it doesn’t now.