Sarah Palin on Cap-and-Trade
Sarah Palin has written an op-ed piece in the Washington Post about why she thinks Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan is bad for our economy. Responses to the piece range from the ridiculous (some folks are complaining to the ombudsman that she must not have written the article) to the fairly moderate (some people aren’t fans of Palin but aren’t fans of cap-and-trade either).
I consider myself to be a moderate environmentalist; meaning, I am pragmatic and think we need to compromise in order to achieve things. I always felt that Palin was a somewhat moderate conservative – while she’s not a proponent of global warming, she has seemed all too willing to try to reach out and say, “hey, let’s come up with solutions we can all benefit from.”
This is why I never got the extreme animosity towards Sarah Palin by many people on the left. I believe a lot of it is sheer sexism (she’s pretty, doesn’t speak like an Ivy-League snob, and must therefore be a moron), a good portion of it is outright hate towards anyone labeling themselves conservative, and then the rest is classism. (She’s a “snowbilly” and eats mooseburgers instead of tofuburgers.)
So that said, I’d like to take a look at precisely what it is that Palin is proposing, without resorting to knee-jerk reactions. I’ll comment on a few excerpts from her piece:
American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.
This is true, our prosperity has been built upon cheap oil. Without cheap energy, we would not have the lavish lifestyles we do.
Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.
In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.
The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.
The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.
I have to admit, I am not happy at the prospect of paying more for my electricity. It is already my most expensive utility bill. And as a small business owner, I have seen – much more so than my friends with steady jobs – how bad the economy truly is. It is very bad out there. So I am concerned about cap-and-trade causing inflation at a time where we really can’t afford it. This is where my environmental pragmatism comes in – yes, we should cut carbon emissions, but if it ends up stalling our economy and creating havoc in people’s lives, maybe we should find another way to do it? Or a better time to do it?
I’m one of those folks who feels that environmental awareness is a by-product of prosperity. In other words, it’s my richer friends who have the luxury of shopping at Whole Foods. Poor people with no jobs aren’t going to be buying the more expensive recycled toilet paper. They aren’t going to be buying organic vegetables that sometimes cost twice as much when they are short on cash and have to feed their kids. Now, I have no statistics to back this up, but my feeling is, the more people struggle, the less time, energy and money they have to live a more “sustainable” lifestyle.
In other words, the only people I know with solar panels on their homes are rich people. Deepening a severe recession and putting people out of work just ends up creating tent cities – where people are using ravines as toilets. Not good for the environment.
Let’s continue:
In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.
Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.
I am all for the natural gas pipeline…I think it is a good idea, and I’m glad she’s pushed for it. I am not a fan of off-shore drilling and drilling in ANWR. I would like to see Palin push more for alternative energy sources. That said, my pragmatism tells me that we might need to engage in off-shore drilling and whatnot because we’re on our way to a peak oil catastrophe. America turning into a post-apocalyptic Mad Max world of energy wars is certainly not going to help the environment either. We may need to drill. It’s either that or we could see the collapse of Western Civilization as we know it.
As for coal and nuclear energy…I’m not a fan of either (and my grandfather was a coal miner!). But considering Obama’s EPA allowed more than 40 mountain-top removal permits for mining, I really don’t think he’s going to be protecting us from the environmental impact of coal mining too much. So same difference there.
We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter.
My pragmatism comes up here and I will agree with her – I think it is probably better that Americans drill for oil here in a more environmentally controlled environment than simply purchase oil from other countries that might not be so mindful. Let’s not forget the human cost of the wars going on in the Middle East because we need to secure our oil supply!
If you had a choice – America fully out of Iraq and the Middle East, but that meant we had to engage in off-shore drilling here, which would you choose? And let’s say, we set up guidelines to make sure the drilling here had the least amount of impact on the environment as possible? I’d say, take us out of Iraq and drill, baby, drill.
See, these questions aren’t so cut and dry in my mind.
My biggest beef with Palin is that she has not latched onto alternative energy sources. But given that we as of yet have no alternative source that can replace cheap oil, I do think an “all of the above” approach may be our only energy option for the foreseeable future.
My hope is that, instead of extremism on the right and left causing us to fight over these issues without giving some thought to compromise, we can find a middle ground that works for America. The fact is, most Americans are going to care more about their wallets more than the environment. I know, I grew up in the Midwest. I get where average people are coming from. If you push them too hard and too fast on environmental laws that hurt their wallets too much, then people are going to backlash. And then going green could be as “out” as pet rocks.
I think you are too pessimistic about what can be achieved with the right technology. http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com proposes what seems like an ambitious, but feasible, plan to reduce Britain’s CO2 emissions to nil. This would give more space for people in the developing world who aspire to improve their standard of living. An equivalent plan for North America would have the major advantage of a lower population density and would demonstrate a real commitment to positive international relations. At the same time as creating a net increase in employment and improving the security of essential services.
Who’s in favor of more unemployment? Please raise your hands. If we don’t get pipeling jobs, oil and gas jobs or any jobs going in the new future, we’re all going to be lining up for unemployment. Sure, it stinks to see drilling is wonderful pristine places. But what are we to do, keep giving money away to Saudi Kings and princes? Let’s take care of our own. So we can all buy those organic veggies.