Sarah Palin's Energy Plan for the US: Oil, Oil, and More Oil
Image via Climate Progress
I know many would prefer it if Sarah Palin's ideas for US policy were to never again grace another blog post, seeing as how she left public office behind. But now she's gone and joined Fox News, so we have to take her ideas seriously again, right? And boy does she have some ideas for our energy policy--and they lean more heavily on oil than George W. Bush did.Climate Progress reports that Sarah Palin's latest commentary on US policy appeared where most of her ideas do: on her FaceBook page. This is her posting:
Where's the Oil in Our National Energy Policy?As CP notes, "This is unmitigated nonsense." The article she refers to is from the right-wing mag Investors Business Daily, which was incensed when Stephen Chu said that it's time for the US to start moving away from oil. How dare he, right?
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.
Anyhow, there are about a million things wrong with Palin's post--most glaringly, that Obama is entirely open to some responsible domestic drilling for gas and oil. Always has been--he's advocated doing as such since his presidential campaign, as long as it was included with clean energy initiatives as well. Senator Graham (R-SC) has been helping forge a bipartisan clean energy and jobs bill on the grounds that it will include some domestic drilling--and Obama's not opposed.
Second, the post seems to suggest that the only viable way forward for US energy policy is more oil. That is patently ridiculous. There are an overwhelming number of reasons that we need to do exactly as Chu suggests and cut our dependence on petroleum, but you already know all of those--to create clean energy jobs domestically, to innovate and compete in cleantech in the global market, to halt the flow of US funds to unstable foreign governments for oil, and so on and so forth.
I'll leave the final word to Climate Progress, because Joe Romm says it best:
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.
More on Sarah Palin:
Sarah Palin : Climate-gate is Reason to Not Act on Energy Addiction
Sarah Palin Slams Cap and Trade in Op-Ed, Completely Misses the Point