(Video) Sarah Palin On Obama’s Oil Spill Speech: Wrong, Wrong, Wrong & Scary

Sarah Palin: Obama’s Energy Policy Isn’t Based On Sound Economics

Over the last few months, and even again today, very unsettling revelations have come to light about the “settled science” of man-made global warming. With all of these shoes dropping you’d think every member of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would be barefoot by now.

One thing after another keeps popping up to further discredit the theory of man-made global warming. The IPCC’s supposedly definitive report proving the theory is riddled with serious errors. The organization has been publicly chastised by everyone from its former chair to the heads of the UK’s biggest funder of climate research and Greenpeace UK. One of the world’s top climate change scientists, Prof. Phil Jones, has conceded that there’s been no significant warming since 1995; that the medieval period may have been warmer than today; and that he’s had trouble even keeping track of raw data crucial to the global warming theory. Yet President Obama still seeks to create a federal office for global warming, and they’re still talking about mandating their cap-and-tax plan that's based on discredited data.

The Obama administration’s environmental extremism also shows up in its aversion to oil and gas development. A true all-of-the-above approach to energy would mean allowing oil and gas explorers to drill here and drill now because America has the proven reserves needed to meet our energy challenges. A new industry study reveals that the federal government's current restrictions on oil and gas drilling in Alaska and off the U.S. coastline will cost us $2.36 trillion through 2029. Think of the millions of U.S. jobs we could create, and how much more secure America would be, if we had a true free market approach to energy independence that allowed us to finally drill!

And though I applaud the President’s newly declared interest in nuclear power, it should be noted that he’s merely following through on loan guarantees authorized during the prior administration. What’s more, while the White House now touts the building of new nuclear power plants, its budget inexplicably calls for cutting funding to the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. A real nuclear energy plan requires a strategy for dealing with nuclear waste storage and recycling. 

The man-made global warming hysteria isn’t based on sound science, and the Obama administration’s energy policy isn’t based on sound economics. If the climategate revelations teach us anything, it’s that we need to cool down the rhetoric and fire up our common sense.

- Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin: Response to Joe Biden's Comments Today About My Position On Energy Independence

As the vice president knows, I have always advocated an all-of-the-above approach to American energy independence. Among other things, my alternative energy goal for Alaska sits at 50 percent because Alaska reached more than 20 percent during my term in office. The Obama-Biden administration, on the other hand, recently announced a renewable goal of only 25 percent. However, domestic drilling should remain a top priority in order to meet America’s consumption and security needs. 

The vice president’s extreme opposition to domestic energy development goes all the way back to 1973 when he opposed the Alaska pipeline bill. As Ann Coulter pointed out, “Biden cast one of only five votes against the pipeline that has produced more than 15 billion barrels of oil, supplied nearly 20 percent of this nation’s oil, created tens of thousands of jobs, added hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy and reduced money transfers to the nation’s enemies by about the same amount.” 

This nonsensical opposition to American domestic energy development continues to this day. Apparently the Obama-Biden administration only approves of offshore drilling in Brazil, where it will provide security and jobs for Brazilians. This election is about American security and American jobs. 

There’s one way to tell Vice President Biden that we’re tired of folks in Washington distorting our message and hampering our nation’s progress: Hoffman, Baby, Hoffman! 

- Sarah Palin 

Biden v. Palin -- The Re-Match ABC News’ Rick Klein reports:

Campaigning in an upstate New York congressional district, Vice President Joe Biden today attacked his one-time opponent, Sarah Palin, who has led a succession of big-name Republicans in backing the candidacy of the Conservative Party nominee.

Slow Joe's Comment: "Sarah Palin thinks the answer to energy is ‘Drill, baby, drill,' " Biden said at a rally this afternoon. Then he leaned in to the microphone: "It's a lot more complicated, Sarah."

Biden v. Palin --The Rematch

Obama's 3:00 AM Call

Conservatives 4 Palin put together an excellent video on the famous 3:00 AM weekly phone call Obama cannot seem to handle.

Gov Palin & Heritage Foundation: The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey

Conclusion

The Waxman-Markey bill proposes a new national tax of historic proportions. Though levied directly on carbon-based energy, the tax's impact spreads through the economy, increasing prices, reducing income, destroying jobs, and significantly expanding the national debt.

As with many policies coming from Washington these days, the Waxman-Markey bill seeks to "level the playing field" by making a more competitive player weaker, in this case hamstringing carbon-based energy sources, rather than ensuring an environment where less competitive players can become stronger. This policy hurts everyone, including alternative-energy investors, because it uses resources less efficiently, which creates deadweight losses. This means there will be underused resources leading to fewer opportunities in the future as slower growth reduces the resources available to help power the research and development investments that will create the technologies of the future.

As President Obama said about his cap-and-trade program during the presidential election campaign, "electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket."[12] The same applies to many other prices as the Waxman-Markey energy tax spreads through the economy. Businesses and consumers will adapt as well as possible to these higher prices. They will spend more for less energy. They will build smaller houses and buildings. They will drive smaller, less safe vehicles. They will turn thermostats up in the summer and down in the winter. They will divert income to more expensive energy-saving appliances. But these activities and more will not be enough to offset the higher energy costs. The net effect is lower income, higher prices, and fewer jobs.

In particular, the Heritage analysis projects that by 2035:

* Gasoline prices will rise 58 percent (or $1.38) above the baseline forecast, which already contains price increases;

* Natural gas prices will rise 55 percent;

* Heating oil prices will rise 56 percent;

* Electricity prices will rise 90 percent;

* A family of four can expect to pay $1,241 more for energy costs per year;

* Including taxes, a family of four will pay $4,609 more per year;

* A family of four will reduce its consumption of goods and services by up to $3,000 per year, as its income and savings fall;

* Aggregate GDP losses will be $9.4 trillion;

* Job losses will be nearly 2.5 million; and

* The national debt will rise an additional $12,803 per person.

(All figures are in constant 2009 dollars.)

All of these costs will be paid for no more than a 0.2 degree (Celsius) moderation in world temperature increases by 2100, and no more than a 0.05 degree reduction by 2050. Saddling the next generation with higher prices, higher debt, less income, fewer jobs, and more taxes does not seem like a worthy legacy--especially when the purported environmental benefits are so small they can barely be measured.

Full Report:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda0904.cfm

My op-ed on "cap and trade":

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=103080543434

- Sarah Palin