Published on August 29th, 2008 | by Joshua S Hill16
Why Palin is a Bad Choice for the Environment
It’s being described as a “bold, maverick pick,” and has shocked many political pundits. Senator John McCain has chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential candidate on the Republican ticket for the 08 election.
But this bold move may just very well be a bad move for the environment she might end up overseeing if McSame McCain and Palin win the election in November.
Quoted as saying that “I’m not one though who would attribute it [global warming] to being man-made,” Sarah Palin, 44, has made a habit of pitting herself against environmental safety. This comes as a surprise, as she actually disagrees with McCain on several things, such as anthropogenic global warming.
Earlier this month, I wrote about Alaska’s attempt to sue Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, after he listed the polar bear as an endangered species. This move was led by Governor Sarah Palin, who said that “We believe that the Service’s decision to list the polar bear was not based on the best scientific and commercial data available.”
Palin’s position against the polar bear is not hard to explain, considering her desire for Alaska to be turned in to a giant petrol station for the rest of the US. The listing of the polar bear on the Endangered Species Act is going to force decisions about drilling for oil and gas in Alaska to be put on hold, or cancelled altogether.
That leads us to her view that drilling for oil is very much the answer. When informed that some politicians believe that drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is not the answer, Palin answered thus;
I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can’t drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won’t ultimately affect prices. Of course it will affect prices.
Without out-and-out saying that she is in the pocket of the oil industry, it is hard to understand how any right-thinking individual can take the stance that Palin has and expect others to ignore the obvious. Any oil that is removed from Alaska – no matter how small or large – is only going to postpone the inevitable. And if we’re ignoring the likelihood that fossil fuels are the cause of many of the planets problems, then at least think about what we should be doing for those further down the track.
Ask yourself this question. Does Sarah Palin believe that the polar bear should not have been listed as endangered because it is not based “on the best scientific and commercial data available,” or because it gets in her way of drilling in Alaska?
More from the GO Network
Obama Hood: Taxing Big Oil to Give Americans Another Stimulus Check
Can the Democrats Win in the West? How Green is the McCain VP Shortlist?
McCain Colorado River Gaffe Might Cost Him Key Western States
Biden Says Obama Will Make Alternative Energy a National Priority