Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Palin urges America to stay addicted to oil

By Joe Romm  

"Palin urges America to stay addicted to oil"

Share:

google plus icon

Even Bush wanted to “move beyond a petroleum-based economy,” but not Sarah ‘Four Pinocchios’ Palin

Palin Big Oil

In 2006, President Bush famously said in his State of the Union:

Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.  The best way to break this addiction is through technology….

By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.

On the solution side, Bush was mainly following the advice of GOP spinmeister Frank Luntz on how to pretend you are interested in solving our energy problems without actually doing anything (see  Bush follows Luntz playbook: “Technology, technology, blah, blah, blah”).

But the news that night was how the former Texas oilman bluntly stated both the problem, our addiction to oil, and the ultimate goal, to  “move beyond a petroleum-based economy.”

Now along comes FoxNews contributor Sarah Palin, who has devised the perfect way to put forward for her backward energy policy — Facebook.  That way she can avoid any substance, avoid those pesky questions from reporters, and not bother to spend even two seconds editing her posts so she doesn’t utter blather like this:

Where’s the Oil in Our National Energy Policy?
Yesterday at 3:41pm
America’s energy challenges are getting more and more serious every day, and yet the Obama administration just doesn’t get it. Please see this informative article that sheds light on one aspect of the president’s problem. It starts by explaining our energy demand will increase, and oil will be part of that demand.

Well, what do you know? The Obama administration, whose entire energy posture going back into the presidential campaign has been both ideologically and practically stridently anti-oil, both as an industry and as a form of energy, has suddenly become “concerned” about China’s oil grab.

This is, to say the least, disingenuous.

The U.S. government under Barack Obama has yet to acknowledge once, in spite of widely held estimates, that oil will continue to account for 40% of world energy demand 25 years from now “” this while total world energy demand will increase by 50%, at least.

Read the rest here. I look forward to hopefully hearing President Obama acknowledge America’s need to ramp up domestic energy production, including oil and natural gas developments, during Wednesday’s State of the Union address. Let’s hope his advisers advise him accordingly.

- Sarah Palin

This is unmitigated nonsense.

The piece Palin quotes, from uber-right-wing Investors Business Daily is outraged that Energy Secretary Chu said, “We must move beyond oil.”  Yet that is precisely what President Bush said, “move beyond a petroleum-based economy.”  This is, to say the least, disingenuous.

As for what Obama actually supports, let’s just go back to December (see “Graham says Obama has his back on climate bill“):

Sen. Lindsey Graham may be under fire from conservatives back home in South Carolina. But the Republican got a personal assurance from President Obama yesterday that the White House is supporting his efforts to craft a sweeping Senate energy and global warming bill.

“The president told me personally he was very open, that nuclear power would be part of the mix, that clean coal would be part of the mix, that he’s for offshore drilling in a responsible way,” Graham said today in describing his Oval Office meeting with Obama. “But we have to have a price on carbon, an emissions standard that’s real, that’s good for the environment and good for business. And I was very pleased.”

Palin seems to have no advisers advising her, else her advising advisors would have hopefully and accordingly told her that President Obama campaigned on a strategy of expanding domestic resources while aggressively pushing clean energy and greenhouse gas reductions.

I reported back in August 2008 on the Obama-Biden energy plan (“Breaking news “” A real energy plan for America: Efficiency now, 10% renewables by 2012, and one million plug-in hybrids by 2015“).  Here’s what it says about domestic energy:

Promote the Supply of Domestic Energy

With 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, the U.S. cannot drill its way to energy security. But U.S. oil and gas production plays an important role in our domestic economy and remains critical to prevent global energy prices from climbing even higher. There are several key opportunities to support increased U.S. production of oil and gas that do not require opening up currently protected areas.

“¢ A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Leases. Oil companies have access to 68 million acres of land, over 40 million offshore, which they are not drilling on. Drilling in open areas could significantly increase domestic oil and gas production. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will require oil companies to diligently develop these leases or turn them over so that another company can develop them.

“¢ Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will set up a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in:

o Bakken Shale in Montana and North Dakota which could have as much as 4 billion recoverable barrels of oil according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

o Unconventional natural gas supplies in the Barnett Shale formation in Texas and the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas.

o National Petroleum Reserve”Alaska (NPR”A) which comprises 23.5 million acres of federal land set aside by President Harding to secure the nation’s petroleum reserves for national
security purposes.

“¢ Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.

“¢ Getting More from our Existing Oil Fields. [from enhanced oil recovery (EOR)]

Of course, Palin is so practiced at repeating falsehoods “” even in her supposed area of expertise (energy) “” that during last year’s presidential campaign, the Washington Post itself gave her its highest (which is to say lowest) rating of “Four Pinocchios” for continuing to “to peddle bogus [energy] statistics three days after the original error was pointed out by independent fact-checkers.”

I’m not sure what is scarier — Palin trying to participate in the discussion over energy policy with nonsensical posts like this one or conservative thought leader Newt Gingrich calling her a conservative leader on energy issues.

Related Posts:

‹ Travels in Ecuador: Choosing the riches of life or of oil

Global Boiling: Preparing For Frankenstorms ›

34 Responses to Palin urges America to stay addicted to oil

  1. anniversary says:

    Pentagon, CIA Eye New Threat: Climate Change
    Global warming is now officially considered a threat to U.S. national security.
    For the first time, Pentagon planners in 2010 will include climate change among the security threats identified in the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Congress-mandated report that updates Pentagon priorities every four years.

    The drafters of the Quadrennial Defense Review were instructed by Congress to accept the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international body established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization to gather and report world climate data.
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121352495

  2. Dave and brewster says:

    Al gore has a great housboat.

    http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/06/name-al-gores-hugetastic-boat/

    How about large airplanes/ Addicted to energy?

    If we were to calculate the amount of carbon emitted from Al Gore’s trip from Nashville to San Francisco, it would be 45,000 pounds of carbon. From Camarillo to San Fransico [sic], it would be 10,000 pounds of carbon, for a total of 55,000 pounds of carbon.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/10/will-media-report-al-gore-s-hypocritical-private-plane-flights#ixzz0deJuqmCa

  3. Chris Dudley says:

    Seems to me we do OK developing natural gas, but all of our oil development requires a high price for oil so we shoot ourselves in the foot since a high price for oil exports our money more than it drives energy independence. We would do much better cutting oil consumption to the point where domestic production is discouraged and oil exporters’ profits are cut to the bone. Aiming for under $20/barrel for the world oil price gives us the financial elbow room to quickly cut oil consumption further and keep ahead of the reduced supply that reduced investment would portend. Once our demand is well below the technical ability of domestic supplies to deliver what we use, we can let the price go back up and keep our cash to ourselves while at the same time allow others to pay for securing shipping lanes so that their costs rise with the price. But, pushing for domestic production now is a recipe for funding our enemies.

  4. SecularAnimist says:

    Joe wrote: “Bush was mainly following the advice of GOP spinmeister Frank Luntz on how to pretend you are interested in solving our energy problems without actually doing anything …”

    And now Luntz is helpfully advising Democrats and liberals to STOP talking about global warming, and instead talk about “energy independence” (which legitimizes offshore oil drilling and increased coal mining and nuclear power, none of which do anything to reduce CO2 emissions), and “jobs” (which legitimizes the propaganda that “energy taxes” will “destroy jobs”).

    It’s no wonder that Senate “liberals”, having taken Mr. Luntz’s advice to heart, are now planning to “focus” their climate/legislation on — what else? — offshore oil drilling, “clean coal” technology, and massive public subsidies to the failed nuclear power industry.

    [JR: Actually, what Luntz is saying has been misrepresented. He's actually saying the reverse -- that global warming is a good issue. I'll post on it soon.]

  5. Doug Bostrom says:

    Dave and brewster says: January 25, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    I don’t suppose you have anything to say beyond “Al Gore! Scrawwk! Al Gore! Scrawwwk!”?

  6. mike roddy says:

    The standard for becoming a commenter on Fox is about the same as posting on Climate Depot. Karl Rove and even Tom DeLay lend their weight to the nation’s issues there, and Bill O’Reilly is their resident intellectual. At least Palin lends porn star looks.

    Sarah will fit right in, especially since the reason she resigned the governorship of Alaska was a mounting ethics scandal. She’s “Rogue”, all right.

    I don’t think she’s in danger of becoming President, although there is no doubt a committee under way to do just that. Americans are just not that dumb.

  7. #2. Dave and brewster,

    Feel free to learn basic critical reasoning skills:

    Fallacy of the argumentum ad hominem tu quoquehttp://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

    Fallacy of the weak or specious analogy (no meaningful comparison between what the two are saying and doing) — http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html

    More generally, the fallacy of the Ignoratio Elenchi or red herringhttp://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

    (5th try)

  8. Sam says:

    Sarah Palin is so cute she’s scary.

  9. Dave and brewster says:

    Is this a male chavinist site?

  10. East Coast says:

    Sam – That’s certainly not her best photo, but she is a Looker. Although, the thought of her running for President IS SCARY.

  11. PSU Grad says:

    Doug Bostrom says: January 25, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    “I don’t suppose you have anything to say beyond “Al Gore! Scrawwk! Al Gore! Scrawwwk!”?”

    No, but I think that misses the point. It’s kind of like people who blabber “Support the Troops!!!”, and then do……nothing, except maybe put a sign magnet on their cars. What’s the easier message, blabbering about Al Gore (implicit message….why you should do a darn thing?), or having to comprehend all that “stupid” science stuff.

    It was 60F + today here. I haven’t heard a peep from Neil Cavuto or any of the other climate denier Katzenjammer kids. But let the temps dip this coming weekend, and they’ll be out like white on rice.

    Maybe the scientific community needs its own “porn star”. Or maybe it’s as simple as something mentioned previously, James Hansen invoking his grandson.

  12. Bill W says:

    Mike Roddy: “I don’t think she’s in danger of becoming President, although there is no doubt a committee under way to do just that. Americans are just not that dumb.”

    I hope you’re right, but I can’t help remember the adage that “nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”

  13. dhogaza says:

    Mike Roddy: “I don’t think she’s in danger of becoming President, although there is no doubt a committee under way to do just that. Americans are just not that dumb.”

    I remember saying that about Reagan and W. I’m not going to risk striking out by saying the same about Palin …

  14. Wit's End says:

    I think denialism is increasing, and people have and will flock to the likes of Palin, because the reality is becoming clearer:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8478770.stm

  15. SecularAnimist says:

    PSU Grad wrote: “Maybe the scientific community needs its own ‘porn star’.”

    I nominate Krista Allen.

  16. Dave and brewster says:

    Her first printing of Going Rogue was 1.5 million copies.

    It came out 2 days before Climategate.

  17. The danger of TV media is the time constraints… “Sorry, we’ve run out of time” will be our epitaph.

    Palin really cannot survive a long, careful discussion of the issue. Scratch the platitudes and she will get mired in the issue – with no solution or else repeating her mantras.

  18. Sameer Ranade says:

    Joe,

    Thanks for this article. I’m currently researching the politics of global warming and looking for ways to get more conservatives to support environmental efforts. One thing I think we should do more often is remind folks that the first environmental President was Republican Teddy R.

    Here is a website that you may want to look at: http://www.rep.org/index.html

    It’s called Republicans for Environmental Protection. Palin must be the odd woman out!

  19. espiritwater says:

    PSU Grad– we’ve had the windows open, the heat off and shorts on all day. (Actually, we’ve had the heat off for several days except sometimes at night.) And I live up north (U.S.) Keep wondering what it will be like in the summer if its this hot now!

    People have to realize its happening! All they have to do is look out the window! We don’t have hardly any distinctions in the seasons anymore!

  20. espiritwater says:

    Mike said: “I don’t think she’s in danger of becoming President, although there is no doubt a committee under way to do just that. Americans are just not that dumb.”

    Mike, they voted for Bush twice! Cross that. Guess it was only once. (first time was illegal). The point is, she’s Bush#2– only more feminine looking. Neither can talk, think, or add. Just 2 little idiotic puppets.

  21. espiritwater says:

    Mike, they voted for Bush twice! (…oops! First time he was placed into office). The point is, there’s no difference between the two: neither can talk, think, or add. Both are idiotic puppets willing to pulled by strings. She just looks more feminine.

  22. Richard Brenne says:

    In response to conservatives quoting Reagan’s line that the nine scariest words were “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” Bill Mahar said the nine scariest were actually “I’m Sarah Palin now show me the launch codes.”

    In increasingly complex times simple people are reassured by the simple world views of Bush and Palin. This is something we need to face and address.

    Maybe America and Americans aren’t behaving like Germans in 1933 or later yet, but if we someday suffer Weimer Republic-like hyperinflation our nation could be poised to behave something like that if we’re each not very, very careful.

  23. espiritwater says:

    To Anniversity, (#1):

    From Reinsurance Magazine: The Pentagon’s report says, “There is substantial evidence to suggest that significant global warming will occur during the 21st. century… It is quite plausible that within a decade the evidence of an imminent abrupt shift may become clear and reliable.” (2005, p.2)

  24. joe1347 says:

    Remember, a large percentage of the American public believes that there’s plenty oil in the good old USA and the only thing stopping the USA from becoming self-sufficient are a bunch of tree huggers that care more about polar bears and saving whales than about saving America. Palin is just playing to her ignorant base. What’s said is that no matter how many times this crowd is told that there’s no more oil – they simply won’t believe you.

  25. anniversary says:

    21) I think you mean this http://www.gbn.com/consulting/article_details.php?id=53 ?
    Task, update the technologies to bring order to the planet. Stop the industries of misinformation. The inteligence has the power and can gain reputation in doing so. The US is leader and it needs to lead now, the way into a clean sustainable energy future. Otherwise lookup vanished civilization. Or check china how they prepare already on big scale to lead future technologies.

  26. Jay Turner says:

    A gasoline tax would at least help keep some of torrent of petrodollars in the domestic economy. Oil prices will go up. We might as well keep some of that money here rather than letting so much of it go abroad. It may not be politically feasible until after the 2010 election season is over.

  27. Jeff McLeod says:

    A good post, but I just have a feeling that ignoring Palin is the best option. Just looking at her makes me sick, and it’s as if any time her name is posted out in to the blogosphere, even here, people tend to pay more attention to her, which is the last thing we need.

  28. espiritwater says:

    I agree, Jeff (above). I never click on any news articles about her (except here at CP). As the adage goes: “ignore it; maybe it will go away!”

  29. Richard Brenne says:

    Don (#29) -

    Just as I think it’s safe to say that George W. Bush was our most inaccessible president ever (rarely allowing anyone in the room who disagreed with him about anything), Sarah Palin is probably comparable in accessibility. No one with less educational, intellectual, scientific, foreign policy, legal and economic credentials has likely ever come as close to the White House as she did (and might still), and no one who’s come that close has likely ever made themselves less available to any and all reporters, let alone one that is as honest and transparent about his leanings and beliefs as Joe. Queen Elizabeth would be more likely to pose for Hustler than Palin would be to speak to Joe, and the outcome of each might be comparably unpleasant.

  30. Ihatedeniers says:

    Sarah “just drop the L” Palin scares me.

  31. Wit's End says:

    Well, I used to value $arah for the comedy, but lately, the soap operas that swirl around her are getting to be a tad sordid. Although, thanks to Sarah, a number of wonderful bloggers have found their voices. Check out immoralminority, where he has an excellent collection of videos of Shannon Moore interviewing scientists about climate change issues in Alaska. Without $arah, I doubt that would be getting the attention it is now.

  32. Chris Winter says:

    Dave and brewster wrote: “Her first printing of Going Rogue was 1.5 million copies.”

    And you can get a copy for $4 and change if you sign up for something like NewsMaxx. (Hope I spelled that right.) I wonder how many of those approximately 1.5 million sales were to similar bulk orders. I understand that’s how a lot of comparable books became best-sellers — purchased in bulk by right-wing millionaires for use as incentives to subscribe to the media outlets they sponsor.

  33. anniversary says:

    28, let the public know exactly who is responsible for inaction to the biggest threat in human history.

  34. David Herron says:

    Just why is it that Palin is being steered towards the Presidency? The media is being used to keep her in the limelight when she clearly doesn’t deserve any attention at all. She quit half way through her term. Her statements are full of fallacies. But she can spin a fundamentalist theocratic message that fits the goals of the power brokers who want to use theocracy for something or other.