Head Scratcher of the Week: Sarah Palin Speaks at Solar Panel Manufacturer, Promotes Fossil Fuels
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY 
on 10.30.08
photo: McCain-Palin 2008
In case you missed it, Sarah Palin gave a speech on energy policy yesterday at the Xunlight Corporation in Toledo, Ohio. In the speech she called for a break from the Bush administration’s energy policy. Too bad the break from policy that she and John McCain advocate really doesn't move us towards a greener renewable energy future, nor towards meaningful energy security.
Frankly, though her rhetoric on energy at Xunlight is little different than what’s been said so far on the campaign trail—check out Palin’s prepared remarks and how she made ad lib modifications—she really amped up the confusion with some of her statements:
Our Opponents Don’t Get Energy Security
Energy security is one of the great questions in this election. Sometimes I think that it’s no wonder that our opponents don’t wanna talk a whole lot about this, because they don’t get it. It doesn’t seem that they understand that we have the ingenuity and the domestic solutions right here. They don’t wanna talk about it. But it tests our ability to confront and solve hard problems in Washington, instead of constantly takin’ the easy way out and just putting the problem off for later. And it brings together so many other issues also — from the value of our pay checks to our nation’s most vital interests abroad. Americans blame Washington for doing next to nothing about our energy problems, and on that front, they are right. The American public is right when they understand that not enough has been done in D.C. to get us off the path that we’re on, put us on a better path.
Sounds wonderful, right? Domestic energy security. The trouble is that with all the emphasis that the McCain-Palin campaign has placed on new nuclear plants and offshore oil drilling, it drastically shortchanges the only true way whereby the United States (or any nation) can achieve lasting energy security and independence, by developing renewable energy sources. I won’t reprint the ever-popular graph of how much more fossil fuel we gain by pulling out all the stops on offshore oil drilling, but its miniscule.
Expanding domestic oil and natural gas production—let’s make it clear that that’s what Palin’s talking about—will do nothing in terms of improving US energy independence or security. Demand is so high that we will still have to import the vast, vast majority of our fuel. Again, only by expanding domestic renewable energy sources like wind, solar and geothermal can we actually create a lasting energy independence.
Every time John McCain or Sarah Palin talk about domestic energy security and expanded domestic fossil fuel production in the same breath, they are simply obfuscating.
Not Producing More Domestic Fossil Fuels Harms the Environment
So policies that forego domestic production don’t protect our environment. They simply accelerate and reward dirtier and more dangerous methods of production elsewhere, in countries that apply few if any environmental or workplace safeguards. While our opponents like to posture as defenders of the environment, in practice their refusal to support more domestic production does nothing more than harm, it ultimately harms the environment. It doesn’t do any good.
Whoa! This one’s so far off the wall I can’t believe it could be said with a straight face. Let me get this straight: Not expanding domestic production of fossil fuels (again, that’s what’s being talked about first and foremost here) is harmful...wait for it...to the environment. How one can connect dirtier production of fuels in other countries and not expanding domestic fossil fuel production to not protecting the environment within the United States is simply ludicrous. This is one of the closest things to Orwellian doublespeak I have heard from the McCain-Palin campaign.
Obama-Biden Campaign is About “No we can’t”
They’re always talking about things that we cannot do in America, stifling the entrepreneurial spirit with more government control saying to the American public why we can’t do something, why we can’t produce, and why refineries can’t build, and why we can’t approve more plants, and coal why we cannot use that, why we cannot master new technology. And As John McCain has observed, for a guy’s who’s slogan is Yes, we can, Barack Obama’s energy plan sure has a whole lot of No we can’t.
A brief fact check: The Obama-Biden campaign has actually expressed support for many of the things which Palin accuses them of saying no to. They repeatedly talk about clean coal, expanding nuclear energy (with safety safe guards), and even have expressed sentiments not entirely opposed to offshore oil drilling at times. So they actually don't say no to some of the same things that McCain and Palin say yes to.
However the thing that they do emphatically say yes to (and clearly and properly prioritize much higher than does the McCain-Palin ticket) is that renewable energy must be the foundation of the energy future in the United States.
So if anything, the thing which Barack Obama has said no to is a status quo mentality which fails to recognize that the future is in renewable energy first and foremost, and that while fossil fuels may have to play a subsidiary role for longer than we like, they are all of a different era.
And if anything, the thing which Sarah Palin continues to advocate for, even more strongly than does John McCain, though clearly he too supports the position, is an outdated modality which views fossil fuel as the go-to choice in energy production. The fact that Palin spoke at a company which manufactures thin-film solar panels hardly changes the fact that she apparently firmly believes that “alternative energy solutions are far from imminent and would require more than 10 years to develop.”
transcript via: Think Progress
2008 Elections
Note to Sarah Palin: The Cause of Global Warming Does Matter
My Bottom Line is Green: McCain v Obama on Renewable Energy
Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel: McCain v Obama on Offshore Oil Drilling & ANWR
It’s Still a Dirty Business: McCain v Obama on Clean Coal
The Nuclear Option: McCain v Obama on Nuclear Power
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Cooking on a Budget: Use Everything
- Yes, There is Such a Thing as an Optimistic, Green American: Be One!
- Convenient, Tasty, Healthy Water is Only a Tap Away
- 5 Reuses for Altoid Tins
- French Pressed Coffee: A Surprisingly Green Luxury, On the Cheap
- How to Use a Solar Cooker: What Works and What Doesn't
"I won’t reprint the ever-popular graph of how much more fossil fuel we gain by pulling out all the stops on offshore oil drilling, but its miniscule."
I would really like to see that graph.
Thanks
This woman is the head scratcher of THIS ENTIRE CAMPAIGN.
That middle quote is not off the wall. I'd like to think that most people think about protecting the environment of the entire planet, not just the United States. The same people that are up in arms about factories being moved to countries with little to no environmental regulations seem to have no problem with oil wells being outsourced. The same people that count the miles their vegetables have traveled do not care how far their oil has traveled. The same people that claim that our energy can be 100% renewable in 10 years use graphs that predict us consuming more oil than we do today in 20 years. In my opinion the McCain campaign is being realistic. You wouldn't believe him if he said he could power the country on a solar tie and one of those multicolor propeller hats. What do you want him to say? If he told me we will not consume petroleum products in 10 years I would straight up laugh in his face and tell him he really has gone senile.
a headline worthy of The Onion.
Hmm
Q:What did Sarah Palin say on her first plane ride?
A:WHEE!
Q:What's Mrs. Palin's husband's name?
A: TODD
Q: What was Johnny Carson's sidekick's first name?
A: ED
Say the answers really fast in order to get my opinion of Sarah Palin. She's....
Thank for Early Voting!
I'm hoping that by this time next week none of us will ever have to hear this woman's name mentioned again.
@Jim:
Says who?
Canada? And anyone who claims any kind of energy consciousness would absolutely speak out for using renewable fuels made domestically and not importing oil. I can't help but feel that these so-called people you're talking about just don't exist.
Right. The projected increases in oil consumption underscores the importance of moving to renewables ASAP. Those graphs are usually "if we continue to consume at the current rate, this is what it will look like in 20 years." Unfortunately, there is no data about how it would look if we were using renewable fuels since we aren't yet on a large enough scale.
Excuse me. What? Solar powered tie? What are you talking about? Your opinion is clouded. You think McCain is being realistic when he tells people that we can solve our energy needs by drilling more? You think he's being realistic when he balks about Nuclear Safety? You think he's being realistic by mischaracterizing and flat out lying about Obama's energy plan?
I'm sure people like you laughed just the same at the Apollo project. But that's beside the point. No one is saying that we will be off carbon-based fuels in 10 years. That should certainly be a goal that we should work toward, but no one is saying that it's going to happen.
Before you try to argue against a point or set of points, maybe you should understand them first because clearly you don't.
I think that very last line is important to pay attention to and why I do not respect the McCain/Palin energy plan. The ten years of development is the saddest excuse ever and is why Siemens and Vestas are building wind turbines in America. If we fail to support the new technologies then we will be forced to buy from other nations. And that is not a method for national security.
My favourite is:
"And you don’t hear a lot of talk about that also. The need for all of us to conserve these energy sources. Especially, obviously on renewable sources of energy. "
Yes, let's conserve all those renewables in case we need them later...
She is why I'm voting Obama.
Obama does the same thing. He talks about kids staying in school and education while you see high school and junior high kids who CUT school in the background.
Here's the link to the graph:
Graphic of the Day: Shill, Baby, Shill
@ Eric
I'm sorry Eric, do you want names and copies of social security cards? I'm making a general point about environmentalists. There are very legitimate concerns about the environmental impacts of outsourcing to countries where environmental regulations do not exist or are not enforced. I don't see why the same thinking that applies to a factory doesn't apply to an oil well. They must harm the environment on some level if people object to them so much. I think it would be better to have them in a country with better environmental standards. The point I'm making is that I was a little surprised that the author was only thinking about the environment of the U.S.
I come to TreeHugger because I love reading all the new renewable energy projects. I don't come to TreeHugger to read blatant and unfair attacks on politicians, which I think this was. Don't get me wrong, I'm no McCain fanboy and his energy policy probably leaves a little something to be desired. You won't find me chanting "Drill baby DRILL!" or even saying we should be in ANWR. All I am saying is that if we have to use oil, which I believe we will for at least a decade, there are real environmental merits to producing it domestically and you shouldn't trash a politician for saying so.
As far as the rest of your post...
Says who? Says me.
Canada? Yes we get a lot of oil from Canada and Mexico, but a large portion comes from very far away. Do you think about the emissions that could be saved of a tanker going halfway around the planet. Hint: It's a lot more than you save by biking to work.
Maybe I would have laughed at the Apollo Program. More likely I would have been inspired. I definitely would not have said it was impossible. The same is true today for being 100% renewable in 10 years (which the author apparently thinks saying otherwise is ludicrous). I agree with you that it certainly is a worthwhile goal to at least strive for. You know what they say; If you shoot for the stars, you might hit the moon.
You're all cool aid drinkers! I won't bother you with the facts, simply because ignorance is bliss. After all....who doesn't want to be in a state of "bliss?"
BTW...which bias source is your "graph" from?
O.K. fine...just a couple of facts.
Nobody...and I mean NO ONE with half a brain wants to eliminate the search and development of new energies. Common sense folk however DO want to get what we have, while developing those NEW sources.
The evidence is mounting, and more and more...now former "global warming" scientist are second guessing themselves as the evidence continues to establish itself.
1. Ice caps have actually INCREASED in the Arctic sense 1997.
2.Average temperatures have cooled in the last then years.
3. Prior to 1972 Scientists were predicting a new ice age.
4. Last year alone, the average temperature decreased ONE FULL DEGREE!
5. More climate scientist have signed a petition claiming climate change is NOT likely man made...than have signed the U.N. petition claiming it is man made.
The "environmental" lobby is made up of people who fall into one of two category's.
One...the completely ignorant! Or as I like to call them....
"Sheeple."
Two...Marxist socialist who hate Capitalism and is intent on destroying it though misinformation and government mandates....but can't admit that fact because most people reject out and out socialism.
What many people don't recognize however is the old lab trick the left is quit effective at implementing. You know..the one where you put a frog into boiling water and it jumps out...but if you put it into room temperature water..and turn the heat up slowly...it will allow itself to boil to death!
If you are intellectually honest...don't just give me your knee jerk reaction by calling me names and dismissing out of hand the claims I just made. Either admit who you are and why...or find out for yourself if I'm full of crap and do your own research with an open mind. My guess is that you have Google.
I understand that challenging deeply held beliefs and accepting facts that contradict those beliefs, take tremendous courage...but you can do it!
Which of the two groups above do you fall into?
Oh..almost forgot! There is a third group....
One that I fall into. The one who wants energy independence from our enemies! One who wants more energy because I'm frugal (you may say cheap) and I want to go see family and friends, or even just get to work, without taking a second mortgage to do so.
There is much more..but this is already turning into an essay..so bye for now.
This lady is amazing and very courageous. Had I embarassed myself in public so many times, I would not show my face for a decade.