Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Palin Is a Global-Warming-Denying, Polar-Bear-Dissing, Pat Buchanan Acolyte

By Joseph Romm, Climate Progress. Posted August 29, 2008.


Definitely not a VP choice for anyone wanting to win environmental voters.
Advertisement

Did I mention she's a hard-core denier?

Q: What is your take on global warming and how is it affecting our country? A: A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.

That would be McCain's VP pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, in a new interview. Needless to say, if humans aren't the cause of global warming, then it's a random cycle that will eventually reverse itself, so 1) you'd be crazy to mandate sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions like McCain (says he) wants, and 2) the polar bear can fend for itself. So it's no surprise that in May, Palin announced the state will sue the Interior Department over its decision to list the polar bear as threatened. As she explained in an op-ed for the NYT in January:

... adding polar bears to the nation's list of endangered species, as some are now proposing, should not be part of those efforts.... I strongly believe that adding them to the list is the wrong move at this time.... The Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, has argued that global warming and the reduction of polar ice severely threatens the bears' habitat and their existence. In fact, there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future.

Uhh, no. Does anybody out there still think the Arctic won't be ice free by 2020? If so, I want your money and am still trying to take more bets on this. The National Snow and Ice Data Center's Mark Serreze said on Wednesday, "No matter where we stand at the end of the melt season it's just reinforcing this notion that Arctic ice is in its death spiral."

The only question that remains is -- Can the polar bear survive the loss of its primary habitat? Even the Bush's uber- Conservative Interior Secretary Dirk Kepthorne had to admit the basic case (see Bye-polar Kempthorne: Polar bear IS endangered, but "Rule will allow continuation of vital energy production in Alaska"):

  • The polar bears need sea ice for feeding.
  • The sea ice is being destroyed by human-caused emissions, faster than the models had predicted.
  • Thus, the polar bear is endangered.

This is a very widely held scientific view:

"The survival of polar bears as a species is difficult to envisage under conditions of zero summer sea-ice cover," concludes the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, by leading scientists from the eight Arctic nations, including the United States. Another 20Joe Romm hello04 study, by Canadian scientists, agreed: [G]iven the rapid pace of ecological change in the Arctic, the long generation time, and the highly specialised nature of polar bears, it is unlikely that polar bears will survive as a species if the sea ice disappears completely.

But Palin says "My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts." A "broad range." Yeah. Must be the same broad group of experts McCain talked to when he said "When you say wind, solar and tide, most every expert that I know says that, if you maximize that in every possible way, the contribution that that would make given the present state of technology is very small, is very small" (see The real, Luddite McCain: "The truly clean technologies don't work").

BTW, it also looks like Palin is breaking the law on behalf of mining interests.

Finally, Palin supported Buchanan's far-right, hate-filled campaign in 1999, when she was mayor of a town of 9,000 people.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: global warming, election08, climate change, palin

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Difference?
Posted by: buh on Aug 29, 2008 6:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Evidently it's because she's a woman land ravager who will still appeal to all of those disappointed hillary backers who will now jump on her, sorry, mccain's bandwagon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is the assumption
Posted by: Jeanne on Aug 29, 2008 8:44 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that Hillary Clinton supporters are that stupid? Sarah Palin is the antithesis of everything that Hillary Clinton has stood for and fought for during her life. Palin is the right wing's epitome of the mindless ideologue. She has probably gotten so far (in Alaska) because she is not ugly and she is a loud mouth. Smart? Not so much. She admits she hasn't paid attention to Iraq, and she doesn't know what the VP does on a daily basis. I truly think she accepted the nomination because she is too stupid to comprehend the enormity of the position. Only incredible arrogance and hubris, or serious ignorance would make anyone, man or woman, with Palin's limited curriculum vitae think they had the ability to serve in that capacity. If this doesn't condemn McCain's candidacy to defeat, then the electorate in the country will get the government they deserve. Ideocracy will have replaced democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is the assumption Posted by: dangerouslysane
» RE: Is the assumption Posted by: lenioui
The REAL Luddites
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 29, 2008 10:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The REAL Luddites are the people who imagine that wind, solar,
geothermal and tidal energy can replace coal fired power plants.
The truth is, they can't with currently available technology. We
have been doing a lot of research to make nuclear power safe, and
we have succeeded. But there was never enough funding to do
the research necessary to make wind, solar, geothermal and tidal
energy into a replacement for coal fired power plants.

The REAL Luddites are also those who have irrational fears of
nuclear power. The problems are that they are ignorant of the
science and engineering involved and that the coal industry has
driven them paranoid. The coal industry stands to loose $100
Billion per year if Americans ever quit being paranoid with respect
to nuclear power. The coal industry has no fear of wind, solar,
geothermal and tidal energy because they know perfectly well that
wind, solar, geothermal and tidal energy cannot challenge their
position and cash flow. Reference: "Power to Save the World;
The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007.
Finally, a truthful book about nuclear power. Nuclear power is
the safest and cleanest energy available, bar none. Look at my
previous posts on this subject.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The REAL Luddites Posted by: bcgirl125
» RE: The REAL Mudballers Posted by: ranchero42
I prefer
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Aug 30, 2008 12:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I prefer to think of her as James Inhofe with breasts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here ya go
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Aug 30, 2008 12:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here ya go Asteroid Miner
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclear
http://greyfalcon.net/geoenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/egs
http://greyfalcon.net/solarenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solarthermal
http://greyfalcon.net/ausra

Oh, and for good measure.
http://greyfalcon.net/coalptc.png

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Funding Sources
Posted by: buh on Aug 30, 2008 2:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear power advocates need to explain why private sector lenders will not make loans for new nuclear plant construction, unlike they will for wind and solar. The 40 something new nukes that mccain envisions would be funded by government subsidy, er, loans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Excellent point! Posted by: PaulC
Palin Denies!
Posted by: SackofWoe0 on Sep 1, 2008 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Denial is a Thief, It Robs you of yourself. And my oh my, doesn't she fit the bill. I am a Hillary supporter and always will be, because she is intelligent and certainly knows what V.P.'s duties are. And No I will not jump on McCain's bandwagon because of Palin. I will go in and vote a straight democratic ticket just like most of my female friends plan on doing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't be paranoid about nuclear.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 1, 2008 8:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference Book: "The Paranoia Switch" by Martha Stout. Coal
companies push your buttons and pull your chain, just like George
W. Bush, Adolph Hitler, Senator McCarthy and others. MRI
used to be called NMR. The name was changed to get patients
into the scanner. Most Americans are paranoid of terrorists and
all things nuclear. If the "human" brain had been designed by a
competent god, the coal industry would not have a $100 Billion
per year cash flow and George W. Bush would never have had a
chance of being elected once. We all know that we have to
convert all coal fired power plants to nuclear worldwide by 2015,
but it won't happen because the average American has an
irrational fear of all things nuclear. To solve the global warming
problem, the whole USA needs to be sent to a mental health
professional. We have enough time and technology. It is only
mental health and education that are lacking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear is the safest
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 1, 2008 8:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Deaths per terrawatt year [twy] for energy industries, including
Chernobyl. terra=mega mega

fuel......... ........fatalities... .....who......... .......deaths per twy
coal......... .........6400...... ......workers........... .........342
natural gas..... ..1200...... .....workers and public... ...85
hydro........ .......4000..... .......public............ ............883
nuclear........ .........31...... ......workers............ .............8

Nuclear power is proven to be the safest. Source: "The Revenge
of Gaia" by James Lovelock page 102.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Because clearly
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Sep 2, 2008 3:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dying of Cancer from radioactive tailing ponds isn't actually considered a death.

The Nuclear industry of course also likes using the metric of "hours of work missed".

And generally only includes deaths of employees.

_

This of course conflates the difference between radiation poisoning and explosions.

Explosions kill rapidly.
Radiation kills slowly.

And of course if you fire an employee after a week or so of missed work 15 years later, presto, he doesn't count.

_

Whats more, if you consider the raw killing potential of Nuclear power. How many times we could eradicate all life on the face of the planet.

Ramant proliferation worldwide isn't really such a bright idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Sep 2, 2008 3:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And according to Energy Executives.

ZERO nuclear power plants are going to be built until 2020, at the earliest.

So this "Replace all coal by 2015" is just silly.

Nuclear is simply too slow for this crisis.

Whats more, SolarThermal with HeatStorage, and EGS Geothermal are cheaper, faster, and can deliver baseload and dispatchability.

All without the potential of launching us all into world war 3.

_

But that should be bluntly clear to begin with.

Nuclear power is the most Federally supported source of power on the planet.

It cannot get private financing, and almost every nation in the world runs their Nuclear power program as a Federal Monopoly.

US isn't far from one either.

_

As such, expecting Nuclear power to scale is just a fools errand.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sarah's comparing herself to a pit bull ISN'T CUTE!!!
Posted by: johngary on Sep 6, 2008 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sarah’s comparing herself to a pit bull wasn’t cute. Pitbulls are vicious...banned in many cities...and are notorious for attacking innocent children. Is this the real Sarah Palin?
You bet, but she aint cute!!! Check out pitbullattack.wordpress.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]