Recent Comment
Share
OK, well, now we know the two folks who will be vying for the vice presidency. So it's time to do a little bit of analysis on who is a stronger environmental technology candidate.
Joe Biden: Strong supporter of "energy independence" with a focus on biofuels. And, if Obama's speech last night was any indication that will be "second generation" biofuels. I.E. not food based.
In general Joe has a good voting record with the League of Conservation Voters (who keeps tabs on these things) with an over all score of 83 out of 100. During his own run for president, Biden's emissions policy closely matched Obama, calling for an 80% reduction over 1990 levels by 2050.
A few pertinent Biden quotes include:
If I could wave a wand, and the Lord said I could solve one problem, I would solve the energy crisis, that's the single most consequential problem we can solve.
I believe that all new coal-fired power plants should be built with carbon capture and sequestration capacity.
Sarah Palin: Doesn't have a record at all with the LCV, since she's been in politics for only a few years. But despite being a hunter and angler (the only reasons to be a Republican conservationist these days) she's pro mining, pro drilling, pro pipeline and pro big oil. And, of course, there was that time that she sued the government of the United States for listing the Polar Bear as an endangered species.
The most pertinent quote I could find from her on clean technology was:
Alternative-energy solutions are far from imminent and would require more than 10 years to develop.
OK, so this actually turns out not to be a very interesting comparison. McCain and Obama certainly both have more interesting thing to say about Green Technology, and it's clear that the environment didn't play much of a part in either of these VP decisions.
If there's any real clear picture here, it's that Obama wanted a foreign policy guy, and McCain wanted a young "agent of change." Though what that change precisely is, I'm quite frightened to consider.
Hits: 6873
Comments (17)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Ottar, August 30, 2008
Being a hunter and/or an angler are not the sole reasons for being a conservationist in Alaska. Alaska, from the time before it was a state, a territory, or even a district has had a long standing tradition of environmental stewardship and management. And while glaring mistakes have been made by government and private industry, we have learned from those mistakes and thus still have wildlife and natural resources to manage, unlike the rest of the 48 contiguous states. So please don't be so quick to judge Palin or our state, we have even more riding on the current economic and environmental crisis than most, as global warming is affecting the arctic more quickly than the temperate climes and the energy crisis has been hitting us harder here than elsewhere in the U.S. Gas is currently $5.50 Diesel $6.79 and home heating fuel is over $7.00 per gallon in the remote village that I am working in. People in other parts of the country have been finding that they must drive less, or actually remember to flick off the lights, up here, with monthly heating and electricity bills expected to be in the range of $1200 and $500 per household in the remote villages, we are facing the extermination of an entire way of life this year. Palin has been working hard to find ways to alleviate the energy crunch for Alaskans, while here efforts may seem a bit misguided compared to ecogeeks (rightfully so) high standards, I believe her heart is in the right place and that she could perform very well if given the proper venue.
-
- +0
-
-
written by EV, August 30, 2008
she's pro mining, pro drilling, pro pipeline and pro big oil.
She's passed tax increases on the oil companies. Do you want to re-evaluate that statement?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Lysh, August 30, 2008
She SUED the government because they put polar bears on the endangered list? How did that personally offend her?
How silly. I definitely have to do some research on that one now...
How silly. I definitely have to do some research on that one now...
-
- +0
-
-
written by Mark Kiernan, August 30, 2008
She is pretty much a neo-Bush on economic and social issues. She cares more about religion than she does about the environment. I think it would be scary to have her in a heartbeat away from the Oval office, she has zero experience (half a governor term), imagine her trying to face down Eye Ran or dealing with problems in Eye Rak.
Imagine her speaking about climate change to the UN (don't worry Jesus will save us).
Sorry but I am truly worried for the state of the world (not just America) if her and McCain win in November. McCain could be a president (not a great one) but HER!
Imagine her speaking about climate change to the UN (don't worry Jesus will save us).
Sorry but I am truly worried for the state of the world (not just America) if her and McCain win in November. McCain could be a president (not a great one) but HER!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Nick Touran, August 30, 2008
Palin wrote an excellent letter to the NYTimes regarding her views on polar bears. You can get a better grasp of her environmental policy by looking at it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05palin.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05palin.htm
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ken Roberts, August 30, 2008
People, please do not be ignorant knee-jerk environmentalists. Sarah Palin sued the Federal government for putting the polar bear on the endangered species list for two reasons:
1) The polar bear isn't yet in real danger. It's only potential future danger.
2) The endangered species act requires often draconian measures to protect endangered species. There are a lot of horror stories to this effect. Palin was concerned that placing the polar bear on the endangered species list would shut down some of the oil production on the North Slope in Alaska.
1) The polar bear isn't yet in real danger. It's only potential future danger.
2) The endangered species act requires often draconian measures to protect endangered species. There are a lot of horror stories to this effect. Palin was concerned that placing the polar bear on the endangered species list would shut down some of the oil production on the North Slope in Alaska.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Mark Kiernan, August 30, 2008
Nick I read her article from the NY Times, but the problem with all of this is that she said that she supported the actions taken by her biologists (support you own staff) but the thing that hit it for me was that she has said that Global Warming is not man made.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/29/palin-globalwarming-manmade/
So her first point of believing in the work of scientists but not in other scientists (ones who may go against the agenda of her financial backers) makes her a liar or ignorant.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/29/palin-globalwarming-manmade/
So her first point of believing in the work of scientists but not in other scientists (ones who may go against the agenda of her financial backers) makes her a liar or ignorant.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jacob, August 30, 2008
"potential future danger?"
I think someone needs to do some research into climate change. when the IPCC says something is
"highly likely" that means it's at least a 90% chance. If population is precarious enough to warrant an "endangered" rating, then we should WANT draconian measures because it's an emergency!
I think someone needs to do some research into climate change. when the IPCC says something is
"highly likely" that means it's at least a 90% chance. If population is precarious enough to warrant an "endangered" rating, then we should WANT draconian measures because it's an emergency!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ken Roberts, September 01, 2008
With respect, the IPCC doesn't have a clue what climate change will do to the polar bear. They're having a hard enough time getting climate models correct.
The endangered species act needs to be retooled. Prohibiting the hunting of polar bears and such would be great. Shutting down industry to protect bear 'habitats' would be an economic disaster, and would probably have negligible effects. Alaska is already almost deserted, after all.
The endangered species act really needs to be more flexible. My city, Atlanta, lost about 75% of our water supply last year due to federal policies that require us to send more water downstream than we're receiving from upstream, even in a severe drought. That was designed to protect a species of clam or mussel.
The government needs to only get draconian when we're talking about keystone species. Otherwise go with milder measures.
The endangered species act needs to be retooled. Prohibiting the hunting of polar bears and such would be great. Shutting down industry to protect bear 'habitats' would be an economic disaster, and would probably have negligible effects. Alaska is already almost deserted, after all.
The endangered species act really needs to be more flexible. My city, Atlanta, lost about 75% of our water supply last year due to federal policies that require us to send more water downstream than we're receiving from upstream, even in a severe drought. That was designed to protect a species of clam or mussel.
The government needs to only get draconian when we're talking about keystone species. Otherwise go with milder measures.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Andrew A. Hunt, September 01, 2008
First off, having lived in Alaska for a few years, I can personally say that Palin will have zero ability to interface with the issues that face the rest of the country, and for that matter, the world.
Alaska is an isolated gem with abundant natural resources and a set of social issues completely unique to it's management. From my experience, the people of Alaska are great conservationists, but the government is COMPLETELY IN THE HANDS OF INDUSTRY, and thus, hugely exploits and abuses those resources.
Look at where Palin gets her money and you will see how she will always favor big oil. Cheney in a skirt without the cloak and dagger resume basically. Her knee-jerk reaction to an energy challenge is drill more. Her political policies are as short-sighted as her personal political term, which makes her an insult of a candidate.
Politically she is unqualified for VP, and from an environmental standpoint she clearly has no depth for handling national issues or the realities of our current un-sustainable lifestyle.
Alaska is an isolated gem with abundant natural resources and a set of social issues completely unique to it's management. From my experience, the people of Alaska are great conservationists, but the government is COMPLETELY IN THE HANDS OF INDUSTRY, and thus, hugely exploits and abuses those resources.
Look at where Palin gets her money and you will see how she will always favor big oil. Cheney in a skirt without the cloak and dagger resume basically. Her knee-jerk reaction to an energy challenge is drill more. Her political policies are as short-sighted as her personal political term, which makes her an insult of a candidate.
Politically she is unqualified for VP, and from an environmental standpoint she clearly has no depth for handling national issues or the realities of our current un-sustainable lifestyle.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Joan McNeil, September 01, 2008
Speaking of green technology, just thought I would pass along the name of another company that is doing it's part for the environment, its called ShieldSafe. It is a green identity theft protection company that gives direct donations to charities for each member it protects. Plus, if you use the promotion code "green" you save 50% off the annual price, making it only $24 for an entire year. It's their way of thanking those that are environemtally responsible. You can check them out at www.shieldsafe.com
-
- +0
-
-
written by Delmar Jackson, September 01, 2008
Don't just worry about the polar bear. Obama, Mccain and Biden voted for Comprehensive Immigration reform which would have increased the current tidal wave of immigration that will nuetralize any energy saving pro environment solutions we come up with. We are on track to increase out population to nearly 450 million in a few years. That means we will have added a population as large as the current population of Mexico and Canada combined.WHY?? Without massive immigration, chain migration and birthright citezenship our population would be nearly stable. If we enforced our laws we would not need "reform".Biden never met an increase in worker visas that he didn't like and is working to bring in millions of Iraqis refugees, only not to Delaware his home state. Go to Numbersusa.com to get the immigration grade of your elected representatives. Palin is an unknown on immigration but I can only hope she would be a litle better as she did support Pat Buchanans presidential run. All you environmentalists that will hate me for bringing up overpopultaion or immigration, I am willing to say we need less immigration and no illegal immigration. I want limits. are you for endless immigration and no limits? If so, how is that sustainable? If you want limits too then we just differ on details. Palin is a breath of fresh air.
Delmar Jackson-Florida democrat
Delmar Jackson-Florida democrat
-
- +1
-
-
written by cannon, September 02, 2008
in think palin has the right idea concerning energy. she wants to do it all, wind, solar, nuclear(yes it can be done safely, just ask france or japan), and oil. why oil?? can you tell me, with some degree of certainty, WHEN alternative energy will be available to START taking the place of the oil we are using today, on a NATIONAL SCALE???
five years???ten years???20years??? you can't say for sure?? untill then what is going to provide our energy, and transportation needs?? more imported oil?? is that a good idea much less an answer?? and after solar is providing 20% of our electricity, and wind another 20%, how are you going to move the lettice from california to new york city?? trasins require diesel fuel. converting them to run on electricity sounds good, but would add a huge demand to an already nearly maxed out supply system. and how are you going to get the grain from the field to the mill?? trucks need more power that electric motor technology can deliver. how are you goingh to get your kids to grandmas house for thanksgiving day when she lifes 500 miles away?? take a week vacation and spend 4 days trasveling??
truth is we are going to need oil for as long as we can see into the future. the sooner we start drilling, the sooner we take the first step to energy independance.
yes, we need alternative energy, and there are steps each and every one of can and should take to reduce our usage. but radically reducing our standard of living is not one of them. sarah palin makes much more sense to me on the energy issue than the (idle)hopes, (empty)promises, and (vague) dreams of obama/biden
five years???ten years???20years??? you can't say for sure?? untill then what is going to provide our energy, and transportation needs?? more imported oil?? is that a good idea much less an answer?? and after solar is providing 20% of our electricity, and wind another 20%, how are you going to move the lettice from california to new york city?? trasins require diesel fuel. converting them to run on electricity sounds good, but would add a huge demand to an already nearly maxed out supply system. and how are you going to get the grain from the field to the mill?? trucks need more power that electric motor technology can deliver. how are you goingh to get your kids to grandmas house for thanksgiving day when she lifes 500 miles away?? take a week vacation and spend 4 days trasveling??
truth is we are going to need oil for as long as we can see into the future. the sooner we start drilling, the sooner we take the first step to energy independance.
yes, we need alternative energy, and there are steps each and every one of can and should take to reduce our usage. but radically reducing our standard of living is not one of them. sarah palin makes much more sense to me on the energy issue than the (idle)hopes, (empty)promises, and (vague) dreams of obama/biden
-
- +0
-
-
written by bluerider, September 03, 2008
"agent of change."
Hahaha. Isn't that what Obama is supposed to be??? You are not "frightened to consider" that????? She is "only" a VP candidate, HE is on the top of the ticket.
Hahaha. Isn't that what Obama is supposed to be??? You are not "frightened to consider" that????? She is "only" a VP candidate, HE is on the top of the ticket.
-
- +0
-
-
written by cmnsns, September 03, 2008
The republicans will win because they have the money, the media and the power to control events. Look forward to the next 8 years: our McCain/Cheney vs. Russia's Medvedev/Putin, the continuation of the Oil Wars and the "sacrifice" of the American people (blood and treasure) to that cause that benefits....who????
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Hmm...
OK, so this actually wasn't a very interesting comment, but I figured, if you can do it, so can I.