Palin: A Hypocrite, Liar, or Just Confused?

L

Landis82

"Sarah Palin’s debut op-ed piece in the Washington Post, “The ‘Cap And Tax’ Dead End” is a dizzying display of conflation, mixing carbon emissions policies with energy independence policies to such an extent that she seems to have just cut and paste a bunch of recycled campaign talking points about how much energy resources Alaska has. Aside from that distraction, she did actually manage some harsh words of criticism in her piece about the cap-and-trade plan:

…I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302852.html

So at least one thing is clear, Palin does not support a cap-and-trade energy plan. Or does she? She supported and endorsed a cap-and trade plan just about a year ago while running for Vice President."

I seem to recall that John McCain and Sarah Palin were going to establish a market-based system to curb greenhouse gas emissions, mobilize innovative technologies, and strengthen the economy.

They proposed a cap-and-trade system that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions while encouraging the development of low-cost compliance options during their Presidential campaign:

http://www.seethroughthepodium.org/issues/climate/environment_mccain.pdf

During the VP debate, she was asked by the moderator,
"Do you support capping carbon emissions?"

PALIN: "I do. I do."

She states her support quite clearly. So what happened in the time between then and now that she decided to completely reverse her position? And why then, in her op-ed did she not mention that astounding revelation once?
 
Because cap and trade is popular talk now, many against it. So she has to be on the popular (right side of the bet, against it, against Obama) to win the people? And to take a focus away from her quiting her job of governor?
 
Quote from Landis82:

Bingo.
We have a winner!!!
:p
More...


Then that maybe means Palin does not understand all of the cap and trade, but goes against it for a tool to help herself. Strategy.

Landis, you understand that cap and trade, and I see in another thread you say it is corporate welfare to give the free permits. Do they give the free permits to the business with the biggest pollution so that business does not have a big expense in the beginning of the cap and trade, compare to other companies with smaller pollution?
This way the company with the biggest pollution will have more permits, but have more incentive to make less pollution so they can make money by selling the free permits they can not use if they make a less pollution? You understand my question?
 
Yes.
All of what you have said is true.

If Cap & Trade had any "teeth" at all, the pollution "credits" would be auctioned off. But the majority of them are not, and the biggest polluters hold a lot of the cards. They already "bought" their votes in the House of Representatives a long, long time ago.

Business as usual in the U.S. Congress.
 
Quote from Landis82:

Yes.
All of what you have said is true.

If Cap & Trade had any "teeth" at all, the pollution "credits" would be auctioned off. But the majority of them are not, and the biggest polluters hold a lot of the cards. They already "bought" their votes in the House of Representatives a long, long time ago.

Business as usual in the U.S. Congress.
More...

Ok, I think I understand what you are saying. The big companys will be protected from the profit loss in the beginning because they did not have to pay any money for the credits. But with cap and trade, there is always the (cap), so it will make less pollution in time, true? And that will be less fossil fuel used for all the business, and then make a market for other energy? If that happens in that way, then that big company will have to change their energy source to compete, and they will have to spend money to do that.
I am not questioning you are right or wrong, I am asking the difference in auction all the credit or giving them for free because I do not understand the difference in time.
 
There are so many "loopholes" that no one in Corporate America is gonna have to be making any significant changes in how they do business, anytime soon.

For example, BIG COAL is exempt until 2025.

Agribusiness is EXEMPT altogether even though it's responsible for up to 1/4 of greenhouse gas emissions.

The legislation that passed the House contains enough loopholes to make its claimed performance standards worthless, one of which prohibits the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate future greenhouse gas emissions. That alone means they'll proliferate beyond what new technology reduces on its own, and only then if it's profitable to do it.
 
Quote from Landis82:

There are so many "loopholes" that no one in Corporate America is gonna have to be making any significant changes in how they do business, anytime soon.

For example, BIG COAL is exempt until 2025.

Agribusiness is EXEMPT altogether even though it's responsible for up to 1/4 of greenhouse gas emissions.

The legislation that passed the House contains enough loopholes to make its claimed performance standards worthless, one of which prohibits the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate future greenhouse gas emissions. That alone means they'll proliferate beyond what new technology reduces on its own, and only then if it's profitable to do it.
More...



I see, thank you for explaining that. Who will regulate how much pollution is ok if the EPA can not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top