What Was Missing from Sarah Palin’s Focus on “Energy Independence”
By Jesse Singal - Oct 3rd, 2008 at 12:04 pmSarah Palin talked a lot about energy independence during last night’s debate. This is admirable, as the United States’ runaway consumption of oil brings with it numerous economic and environmental problems. But, if you take a look at a transcript of the debate, something was missing from her discussion of this topic.
Palin used the phrase “energy independent” or “energy independence” eight times last night. Absent, however, was any mention on her part of wind, solar, or geothermal power. (She did make one reference to “alternative energy” in the context of an “all of the above approach” to dealing with climate change, but when she used a similar phrase later on she mentioned only nuclear power and “clean coal.”)
At no point during the debate did Palin express an interest in developing alternative, renewable energy sources. She mentioned “domestic [supplies or sources] of energy” three times, and a “domestic solution to the energy crisis,” all in the context of drilling.
Emphasizing energy independence without also emphasizing developing renewable energy sources doesn’t make sense. Offshore drilling–the only specific policy Palin talked about in depth–will not address America’s energy crisis in a meaningful way.
Palin did have a point, if accidentally, in highlighting the importance of the United States’ domestic energy supplies. Because that’s how the energy and climate crises will be solved: by developing the infrastructure to tap into the energy we already have access to. These supplies won’t be oil, though. They will be some combination of solar, wind, and geothermal sources (combined with efforts to increase the efficiency of our current, dirtier means of producing energy).
Throughout the debate, Palin talked about energy as though people hadn’t already put a lot of thought into how we can best wean ourselves off of oil. Luckily, some very smart folks have. Big, ambitious plans are all over the place, and are being disseminated, discussed, and debated by people and institutions ranging from Google to Scientific American to organizations that have sprung up up just to address this topic.
Are any of these plans perfect? No. Will any of them be enacted exactly as they are proposed? No. But we should be discussing them, comparing their relative merits, and figuring out a way to move toward the massive changes in spending needed to build next-generation energy infrastructure. Domestic drilling is a red herring, and it was a bad sign that there’s been so much focus on it lately.
If Palin is serious about energy independence, she should start looking at more realistic ways of achieving it.
as biden pointed out, you KINDA need to know what’s causing a problem before you can attempt to fix it…her stances on climate change suggest that palin is either clueless or in the pocket of big oil…er…or both
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:39 pmAnother interesting aspect of the energy debate was the insistence on the oxymoronic ‘clean coal’ by both candidates. Biden has a really good stance on energy and environmental issues, but was pressured in the past weeks to tone down his sane anti-coal platform in favor for an insane love for the dreamy ‘clean coal’.
Sarah on the other hand has no idea what coal is used for (not necessarily true, but wouldn’t surprize me). She says she supports ‘clean coal’ because when she was a hockey mom, in Alaska, she liked clean things (and could see Putin’s head from her window).
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:04 pmWhy would we waste our time and money on the least efficient power sources available? solar is currently the most money for the least power. geothermal works in very few places, and the few places it does work in will end up getting polluted. wind is also very limited in the areas it can be used.
If the government just stops subsidizing everything (or banning) the market will find the most efficient source of power.
October 3rd, 2008 at 4:55 pmEfficient in terms of power money, sure, but unless somehow the free market forces power generators to pay for all of their externalities, such as pollution clean up and health care for people sick from it, then that measure will be skewed. There is more at stake here than the cost per kilowatt.
October 3rd, 2008 at 6:25 pm[...] 3. Palin never mentioned alternative energy during the debate. [...]
October 3rd, 2008 at 7:31 pmExactly, you could almost say that in a way polluting power sources such as oil, coal, etc have been subsidized because they have been allowed to pollute for free. Even if you are a global warming skeptic there is a lot more stuff that comes out of those smoke stacks besides CO2. If the companies burning these fuels don’t contribute towards the public health problems this pollution eventually causes then the public are subsidizing them by taking on that burden ourselves.
But beyond all this solar is slowly coming in to its own, and soon enough will be cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels without subsidization. However, it is a good thing to subsidize it now to help it get off it’s feet. We need to plan ahead and its stupid to be short sighted and only worry about what can get us the cheapest energy right now, because if we don’t plan ahead then we will end up paying for it in the future anyway.
October 3rd, 2008 at 7:42 pm[...] Another commentator focused on this as well in What was missing from Sarah Palin’s Focus on “Energy Independence”: Palin used the phrase “energy independent” or “energy independence” eight times last [...]
October 4th, 2008 at 7:13 am