The Political Voices of Women » Global Warming

Fact-checking The Sarah Palin Acceptance Speech

Catherine Morgan — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:17:23 +0000

Here is an extensive fact-check of the statements Sarah Palin made in her speech last night, that I received in my email earlier today.

If you missed the Sarah Palin speech you can see it in full here.

STATEMENT	RESPONSE
PALIN: “Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America’s energy problems – as if we all didn’t know that already. But the fact that drilling won’t solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.”	REALITY: PALIN SAID SHE WOULD BEG TO DISAGREE WITH ANY CANDIDATE WHO SAID WE CAN’T DRILL OUR WAY OUT OF OUR PROBLEM Palin Said She Would Beg to Disagree With Candidate Who Said We Can’t Drill Our Way Out of Our Problem. Asked by Invester’s Business Daily “Some politicians and presidential candidates say we can’t drill our way out of our energy problem and that drilling in ANWR will have no effect. What’s your best guess of the impact on prices?” Palin responded, “I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can’t drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won’t ultimately affect prices. Of course it will affect prices. Energy being a global market, it’s impossible to venture a guess on (specific) prices.” [Investor's Business Daily, 7/11/08]
PALIN: “Senator McCain also promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest – and as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.”	REALITY: PALIN OPPOSED CRUCIAL EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE AND SENIORS FUNDING EDUCATION/CHILDRENTotal: 396,000. Anchorage – Fire Lake Elementary School Replacement of Unsafe Sports Equipment. Palin vetoed $10,000. [FY08 Budget] Tanana City School District – Repair School Bus. Palin vetoed $36,000. [FY08 Budget] American Lung Association of Alaska – Asthma Control Program and Champ Camp. Palin voted $350,000. [FY08 Budget] HOSPITALS/HEALTH CARE Total: $4,527,500. Ketchikan General Hospital Surgical Suite Expansion/Relocation. Palin vetoed $4,400,000. [FY09 Budget] Ketchikan General Hospital – Replacement of Outdated Equipment. Palin vetoed $70,000. [2007 Legislature Supplemental] Sitka – Community Hospital – Medical Equipment. Palin vetoed $31,000. [2007 Legislature Supplemental] Kenai Peninsula Borough – Diagnostic Hospital Equipment. Palin vetoed $26,500. [2007 Legislature Supplemental] SENIORS Total: $600,000. Ketchikan Senior Citizens, Inc. – Access Road for Pioneer Heights. Palin vetoed $300,000. [FY08 Budget] AARP Ketchikan – Access Road for Ketchikan Senior Housing Project. Palin vetoed $100,000. [2007 Legislature Supplemental] Catholic Community Services – Angoon Senior Center Stove, Refrigerator and Freezer. Palin vetoed $20,000 twice. [FY08 Budget, 2007 Legislature Supplemental] Alpha Omega Life Care, Inc. – Delivery Van and Moveable Building. Palin vetoed $20,000. [FY09 Budget] Older Persons Action Group – Senior Voice Equipment Upgrade. Palin vetoed $20,000. [FY09 Budget] Statewide Independent Living Centers – Assistive Technology for Alaska’s Centers for Independent Living. Palin vetoed $125,000. [FY09 Budget] Kodiak Senior Center – Facilities repair and Equipment. Palin vetoed $15,000. [2007 Legislature Supplemental]
PALIN: “Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.”	REALITY: UNDER PALIN, WASILLA GOVERNMENT SPENDING & DEBT SKYROCKETED. Total Government Expenditures Increased 63 Percent Under Palin. In fiscal 2003—the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget—the total government expenditures of Wasilla, excluding capital outlays, were $7,046,325. In fiscal 1996—the year before Palin took control of the budget—the expenditures were $4,317,947. The increase was 63 percent. [Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, Table 1] Palin Supported Increasing Wasilla Sales Tax From 2 to 2.5 Percent to Build $14.7 Million Sports Center. “Wasilla residents have given the go ahead to building a new multiuse sports center in town and to raising the city sales tax to pay for it. With the final votes counted Friday, residents voted 306 to 286 in favor of a measure to raise the city sales tax from 2 percent to 2.5 percent to pay the estimated $14.7 million cost of building the center…Mayor Sarah Palin, who supported the measure, said the tight vote will motivate city officials to keep a close eye on the budget for the center.” [Anchorage Daily News, 3/9/02] Palin Left Behind Almost $19 Million In Long-Term Debt, Compared to None Before She Was Mayor. In fiscal 2003—the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget—the bonded long-term debt was $18,635,000. In fiscal 1996—the year before Palin took control of the budget—there was no general obligation debt. [Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, Table 10]
PALIN: “It was the spirit that brought me to the governor’s office, when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau … when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good-ol’ boys network.”	REALITY: PALIN HAS A LT. GOVERNOR WHO IS A FORMER OIL LOBBYIST, HIRED WASILLA’S FIRST FEDERAL LOBBYIST (A FORMER STEVENS STAFFER) & HAD THE SUPPORT OF ENTRENCHED ALASKA POLITICIANS DURING HER 2006 RACE. Palin’s Oil & Gas Appointee Is Former Lobbyist for TransCanada. “Marty Rutherford, who leads Gov. Sarah Palin’s gas pipeline team, made $40,200 in 2003 while consulting in Juneau for a pipeline subsidiary of TransCanada. TransCanada is one of the companies bidding for a state license to build a pipeline to carry gas to market from Alaska’s North Slope. It’s not a disqualifier, but the past connection deserves a second thought.” [Anchorage Daily News editorial, 12/15/07] Palin “Counting on Her Lieutenant Governor Candidate… Former Oil Lobbyist” to Help Win Oil Industry Support. “The defiantly grass-roots nature of the campaign may have distanced her from certain traditional centers of power in Alaska. The oil industry is one — but the campaign says it is counting on her lieutenant governor candidate, Parnell, a former oil lobbyist and legislator, to help there.” [Anchorage Daily News, 10/24/06] Palin’s Former Chief of Staff is Stevens’ Campaign Manager. “Monegan says pressure came from those around Palin, including former Palin chief-of-staff Mike Tibbles, Department of Administration Commissioner Annette Kreitzer, and director of boards and commissions Frank Bailey. Tibbles, who is now the campaign manager for Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, said Friday he couldn’t comment on whether he spoke to Monegan about Wooten.” [Anchorage Daily, 7/19/08] As Mayor, Palin Hired a Washington Lobbyist to Help Get Earmarks for Wasilla – Lobbyist Was Former Chief of Staff for Indicted Senator Ted Stevens. “And as mayor of the small town of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, Palin also hired a Washington lobbying firm that helped secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, known as earmarks, according to public spending records compiled by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste and lobbying documents. Wasilla’s lobbying firm was headed by Steven Silver — a former chief of staff to Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, a key proponent of the bridge project.” [USA Today, 8/31/08] The Usual Alaska Suspects – Ted Stevens, Don Young, And Lisa Murkowski Fundraised For Palin. “Will we see Ted Stevens stumping for Sarah Palin? Palin said this morning that Stevens appeared at a fund-raiser for her in Ketchikan and gave a speech about ‘moving Alaska forward.’ But does that mean he’ll pop up in any advertisements? (Remember his arguably pivotal role at the end of the Knowles and Murkowski Senate race?) Palin said she doubts it and hasn’t asked… She said Don Young came to one of her fund-raisers two days ago, and she expects Lisa Murkowski at an upcoming event. Tonight she planned to talk with John Binkley, who she says is writing a letter to his supporters on her behalf, and she planned to meet with Frank Murkowski tomorrow morning.” ["The Trail" blog, Anchorage Daily News, 10/13/06] In Her 2002 Campaign for Lieutenant Governor, Palin Raised ‘About 10 Percent Of Her Campaign Fund’ From Veco, An Oil Company At the Heart of Federal Investigation. “While mayor of Wasilla, Palin ran for lieutenant governor in 2002. She gathered $5,000 — or about 10 percent of her campaign fund — from Veco officials or their wives along the way.” [Anchorage Daily News, 9/6/06]
PALIN: “I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.”	REALITY: PALIN SIGNED WEAK ETHICS REFORM BILL & HAS HAD NUMEROUS ETHICAL FLAPS OF HER OWN. Palin Signed Ethics Reform Legislation That Anchorage Republican Bob Roses Said Didn’t Go Far Enough. “An ethics reform package for state officials was signed into law Monday by Gov. Sarah Palin, just minutes after a former state representative was convicted on seven federal extortion and bribery counts. Palin said the law will help re-establish trust between the public and elected officials by improving on existing statutes. … Ethics reform had been a recurring theme throughout Palin’s election campaign, and she pushed hard for the bill to become a bipartisan effort in the Legislature this session. She said she remains determined to clean up Alaska politics. … Rep. Bob Roses, R-Anchorage, who succeed Anderson in the Legislature when Anderson didn’t seek re-election in 2006, said the law didn’t go far enough. Campaign contributions should be available for immediate public scrutiny, he said, and all contributions should be reported, even those below the current $1,000 threshold. ‘Quite frankly, I thought some of the things should have been a little tighter than what they were, but this is a first step,’ he said.” [The Associated Press State & Local Wire, 7/10/07] AUGUST 2008: Ethics Complaint Filed Against Gov. Palin Over Alleged Involvement in Hiring a Campaign Contributor. In August 2008, former state House member Andree McLeod” filed against Gov. Sarah Palin and her staff today with the Attorney General’s Office. It accuses the governor’s office of using its pull to get a Palin supporter hired to a [Department of Transportation] job in Fairbanks.” McLeod said ” ‘Executive branch employee shouldn’t be getting involved in the recruitment process unless it’s based on merit,’ said Andree McLeod, who wrote the complaint based on a series of e-mails between members of Palin’s team…The complaint accuses Palin, her acting chief of staff and others of breaking executive ethics branch and hiring rules. It centers on the hiring of surveyor Tom Lamal, who once co-hosted a Palin fundraiser, for a state right-of-way agent job in Fairbanks.” The complaint is available at http://community.adn.com/sites/community.adn.com/files/McLeod Ethics Complaint1.pdf [Anchorage Daily News, http://community.adn.com/adn/node/128527, 8/6/08; Anchorage Daily News, http://www.adn.com/front/story/486163.html, 8/7/08] July 2008: Special Counsel Appointed Last Month to Investigate Palin Abuse of Power Claim. In July 2008, the Alaska State Legislator voted 12-0 to approve $100,000 for a special investigator to begin an investigation into claims Palin fired a former state official because he would not fire a state trooper who was involved in a bitter custody battle with Palin’s sister. The legislator’s intent was to investigate the events surrounding the termination of former Dept. of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan and potential abuses of power and improper action by Palin and her administration. [KTVA 11, 07/28/08]
PALIN: “I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.”	REALITY: ALASKA HAS REQUESTED $589 MILLION IN PORK SINCE PALIN TOOK OFFICE & AS MAYOR, SHE HIRED WASILLA’S FIRST FEDERAL LOBBYIST TO SECURE EARMARKS FOR THE TOWN.Over $589 Million in Federal Pork Requests During Palin’s Tenure as Governor. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, www.cagw.org, under Palin’s tenure as Governor the state of Alaska has asked for $589,599,715 in pork barrel projects. [2007 and 2008 Pig Book, www.cagw.org] · Alaska Has Sought 31 Earmarks Worth $197.8 Million in Next Year’s Federal Budget. “But under her leadership, the state of Alaska has requested 31 earmarks worth $197.8 million in next year’s federal budget, according to the website of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.” [LA Times, 9/1/08] As Mayor, Palin Hired a Washington Lobbyist to Help Get Millions in Earmarks for Wasilla – Lobbyist Was Former Chief of Staff for Indicted Senator Ted Stevens. “And as mayor of the small town of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, Palin also hired a Washington lobbying firm that helped secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, known as earmarks, according to public spending records compiled by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste and lobbying documents. Wasilla’s lobbying firm was headed by Steven Silver — a former chief of staff to Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, a key proponent of the bridge project.” [USA Today, 8/31/08] · Under Palin, Wasilla Received $26.9 Million in Earmarks. “As mayor of Wasilla, Palin made regular trips to Washington seeking federal aid. The city received $26.9 million in earmarks during her tenure from fiscal year 2000 to 2003, according to the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense, which tracks pork barrel spending.” [LA Times, 9/2/08] McCain Criticized Earmarks that Palin Sought as Mayor. “Three times in recent years, McCain’s catalogs of “objectionable” spending have included earmarks for this small Alaska town, requested by its mayor at the time — Sarah Palin… In 2001, McCain’s list of spending that had been approved without the normal budget scrutiny included a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in Wasilla. The Arizona senator targeted $1 million in a 2002 spending bill for an emergency communications center in town — one that local law enforcement has said is redundant and creates confusion. McCain also criticized $450,000 set aside for an agricultural processing facility in Wasilla that was requested during Palin’s tenure as mayor and cleared Congress soon after she left office in 2002. The funding was provided to help direct locally grown produce to schools, prisons and other government institutions, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group.” [LA Times, 9/3/08]
PALIN: “In fact, I told Congress — I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on that bridge to nowhere.”	REALITY: PALIN WAS FOR THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE BEFORE SHE WAS AGAINST IT.October 2006″ Palin Supported Bridge To Nowhere. In 2006, Palin was asked, “Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?” She responded, “Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now–while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.” [Anchorage, 10/22/06, republished 08/29/08] 2006: Palin: Don’t Allow “Spinmeisters” To Turn Bridge To Nowhere Project “Into Something That’s So Negative.” “Part of my agenda is making sure that Southeast is heard. That your projects are important. That we go to bat for Southeast when we’re up against federal influences that aren’t in the best interest of Southeast.’ She cited the widespread negative attention focused on the Gravina Island crossing project. ‘We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative,’ Palin said.” [Ketchikan Daily News, 10/2/06] REALITY: PALIN ONLY ANNOUNCED OPPOSITION TO ONE “BRIDGE TO NOWHERE,” STILL SUPPORTS THE OTHER ONE Palin Refused to Fund Ketchikan Bridge, But Did Not Stop Funding for Knik Arm Bridge.“Among the earmarks: $449 million for what critics have ridiculed as two ‘bridges to nowhere’ — one in Ketchikan and one across Knik Arm in Anchorage formally named Don Young’s Way. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, also a Republican, last month refused to use any more money for the Ketchikan project, redirecting it for other purposes.” [Anchorage Daily News,11/11/07] As Recently as June, State Asking for Cost Estimate Proposals for Knik Arm. “An independent party will be called in to look at one of the most elusive aspects of a proposed bridge linking Anchorage and Mat-Su: the price tag. Gordon Keith, regional director for the state Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, said his office will be putting the job of estimating the cost of the controversial project out for bids in coming weeks. He said the task of coming up with a price could cost up to $200,000 and take up to 3½ months. ‘The issue keeps swirling around, so we thought it best to go ahead and do an independent estimate,’ he said. The cost to get the estimate is going to be high ‘if you want to do it correctly,’ he said. The cost of a span reaching across Knik Arm from Anchorage to Point MacKenzie has ranged over the years from $450 million to $1 billion, depending on what kind of bridge is envisioned and what starting date is plugged into the formula… Randy Ruaro, a special assistant to Gov. Sarah Palin, said the administration, even in the face of the recent lengthy report from the bridge authority, was having trouble getting an accurate picture of everything that is involved in the project, of the timing of the phases, and of the costs. He said the independent estimate is expected to answer those questions. Mary Ann Pease, spokeswoman for the authority, said she welcomes the effort to get updated costs.” [Anchorage Daily News, 6/22/08]
PALIN: “But we are expected to govern with integrity, and goodwill, and clear convictions…”	REALITY: PALIN UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR ABUSE OF POWER. Former State Official Accused Palin, Palin’s Former Chief of Staff and Current Ted Stevens Campaign Manager and Palin’s Husband Of Pressuring Him to Fire Trooper. In July 2008, former state official Walt Monegan accused Palin, Palin’s former Chief of Staff and current Stevens’ campaign manager Mike Tibbles and husband Todd Palin of pressuring him to fire Palin sister’s ex-husband Mike Wooten. [Anchorage Daily News, 07/18/08] July 2008: Special Counsel Appointed Last Month to Investigate Palin Abuse of Power Claim. In July 2008, the Alaska State Legislator voted 12-0 to approve $100,000 for a special investigator to begin an investigation into claims Palin fired a former state official because he would not fire a state trooper who was involved in a bitter custody battle with Palin’s sister. The legislator’s intent was to investigate the events surrounding the termination of former Dept. of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan and potential abuses of power and improper action by Palin and her administration. [KTVA 11, 07/28/08]
PALIN: “As Governor, I have a record of being a strong fiscal conservative and have vetoed millions in special projects pushed by legislators.”	Palin Increased Taxes on Oil Companies to Pay for $1,200 Giveaway to Every Resident in the State. “One of her most significant accomplishments as governor was passing a major tax increase on state oil production, angering oil companies but raising billions of dollars in new revenue. She said the oil companies had previously bribed legislators to keep the taxes low. She subsequently championed legislation that would give some of that money back to Alaskans: Soon, every Alaskan will receive a $1,200 check.” [New York Times, 8/30/08]
PALIN: “I understand that we must reduce our dependence on foreign energy. I’ve worked with our state’s energy producers to expand our production so that we can have a safe, reliable supply of energy produced here in the United States.”	REALITY: PALIN SUPPORTED EXPORTING NATURAL GAS WHILE ALASKA BUSINESSES CLOSED BECAUSE OF SHORTAGESPalin Backed A Two-Year Extension Of The Export License To Export Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) To Japan And Other Asian Countries—Criticized Because Alaska’s Gas Reserves Are Declining. “Alaska producers can continue shipping gas to Asia after DOE last week approved an extension of the export license for the Kenai liquefied natural gas plant owned by ConocoPhillips and Marathon. The companies will be allowed to export up to 98.1 Bcf to Japan and other Pacific Rim countries over a two-year period through March 31, 2011. […] The application came under fire from local end-users, including gas distribution companies Enstar and the Chugach Electric Association, as well as fertilizer maker Agrium, all of which claimed the exports would exacerbate the problem of declining gas reserves in south-central Alaska. Agrium permanently closed its plant near Kenai due to an inability to find enough local supply for the facility that used 53 Bcf/year. In January, ConocoPhillips and Marathon reached a deal in which they agreed to step up development in the Cook Inlet region in return for the state’s support of the export license extension. The producers also agreed to divert gas from the LNG plant as needed to meet the peak winter supply needs of the local utilities. […] Alaska Governor Sarah Palin welcomed the DOE approval. “In these times of economic uncertainty, this is great news for the state and its residents. This extension will secure a future for the LNG operation and is another step toward ensuring energy supplies and energy security for Alaska,” the Republican governor said. [Platts Inside FERC, 6/9/08] · Agrium Closed Manufacturing Plant Because Of Gas Shortage. “Reserves of gas in producing fields in Southcentral Alaska are declining, posing concerns for supply to local utilities. A manufacturing plant on the Kenai Peninsula owned by Agrium Corp. recently announced it would close because the gas shortage.” [Alaska Journal Of Commerce, 11/25/07] · Gov. Palin: Agrium Closure Is Unfortunate. “Agrium announced yesterday that the plant will close in December due to a shortage in the supply of Cook Inlet natural gas, leaving about 100 of the 140 employees without employment. ‘It’s unfortunate to see the closure of a facility that has provided so many jobs that support families on the Peninsula,’ said Governor Palin. ‘I am heartened to hear that Agrium is willing to keep its options open if sufficient long-term supplies of gas can be found. We know there is more gas to be found and developed in Cook Inlet, so I remain hopeful that those jobs can be preserved.’” [Palin press release, 9/26/07]
PALIN: “And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.” This	REALITY: PALIN IS CLOSE TO THE OIL INDUSTRY Sierra Club Director Carl Pope Said “No One is Closer to the Oil Industry Than Governor Palin.” “No one is closer to the oil industry than Governor Palin,” said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club in comments reflecting the views of a cross section of environmental activists. They cite her eagerness to embrace expanded offshore oil development, her lawsuit against further protection of polar bears so as not to hinder oil drilling in Alaska’s ice-filled waters and her ardent support to allow oil companies into the Alaska wildlife refuge. [Associated Press, August 30, 2008]Palin Took $13,000 from Lobbyists Representing the Oil Industry in Her 2006 Campaign for Governor. The lobbyists who donated to her campaign represent a range of industries, including oil and gas, tobacco, education and the Native Alaskan community. “She’s fought oil companies and party bosses and do-nothing bureaucrats and anyone who puts their interests before the interests of the people she swore an oath to serve,” Mr. McCain said Friday at an Ohio rally to introduce her as his running mate. But since Mrs. Palin leads a major oil-producing state, that industry is one of her top donors. She collected nearly $13,000 from lobbyists who represent oil and gas industries in her primary and general campaigns, according a review of her campaign donations and 2006 registered state lobbyists. [Washington Times, September 1, 2008]
PALIN: “Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we’re going to lay more pipelines … build more new-clear plants … create jobs with clean coal … and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources.”	REALITY: PALIN CUT FUNDING FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY2007: Palin Vetoed $20 Million Toward A Fire Island Wind Farm Project. “[Sen. Hollis] French and [Anchorage Mayor Mark] Begich both lamented the [Palin] veto of $20 million toward a Fire Island wind farm project and connecting transmission lines. That money was part of Railbelt Energy Fund cash that Palin said she doesn’t want to spend until a study on energy needs is finished.” [Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), 7/30/07]2008: Palin Cut $20 Million For Chugach Electric Association Wind Farm. As part of a large package of budget cuts, in June 2007, Gov. Sarah Palin, R-AK, cut $20 million in funding for a Chugach Electric Association wind farm. The funding was expected to come from a fund called the Railbelt Energy Fund. Palin said she cut the $20 million because she wanted more information before dipping into the Railbelt Energy Fund. [Anchorage Daily News, 6/30/08]
PALIN: “Taxes are too high … he wants to raise them.”	REALITY: PALIN HAS REPEATEDLY SUPPORTED TAX INCREASES Palin Supported Increasing Wasilla Sales Tax From 2 to 2.5 Percent to Build $14.7 Million Sports Center. “Wasilla residents have given the go ahead to building a new multiuse sports center in town and to raising the city sales tax to pay for it. With the final votes counted Friday, residents voted 306 to 286 in favor of a measure to raise the city sales tax from 2 percent to 2.5 percent to pay the estimated $14.7 million cost of building the center…Mayor Sarah Palin, who supported the measure, said the tight vote will motivate city officials to keep a close eye on the budget for the center.” [Anchorage Daily News, 3/9/02] Palin Increased Taxes on Oil Companies to Pay for $1,200 Giveaway to Every Resident in the State. “One of her most significant accomplishments as governor was passing a major tax increase on state oil production, angering oil companies but raising billions of dollars in new revenue. She said the oil companies had previously bribed legislators to keep the taxes low. She subsequently championed legislation that would give some of that money back to Alaskans: Soon, every Alaskan will receive a $1,200 check.” [New York Times, 8/30/08]
PALIN: “It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves.With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost – there was no hope for this candidate who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war.But the pollsters and pundits overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off.They overlooked the caliber of the man himself – the determination, resolve, and sheer guts of Senator John McCain. The voters knew better.”	REALITY: MCCAIN COUNTED MCCAIN OUT TWICE February 2008: Palin Wouldn’t Endorse McCain. “Top Alaska Republicans were downcast Thursday as Mitt Romney suspended his presidential campaign just two days after overwhelmingly winning the state party caucus. Romney’s decision makes it nearly certain Arizona Sen. John McCain will be the party’s nominee for president. McCain finished dead last in the Alaska Republican preference poll, behind Romney, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. McCain opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and has repeatedly battled with Sen. Ted Stevens over federal spending on Alaska projects… Republican Gov. Sarah Palin said she won’t make an endorsement until she can speak to McCain. [Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), 2/3/08] July 2007: Palin Was Waiting For A New Player In GOP Primary. ‘A lot of us are sitting back and waiting to see if there will be new players in there,’ Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said. ‘That’s probably why that box that says ‘none of the above’ is so popular right now.’ [The Associated Press State & Local Wire, 7/23/07] Palin Couldn’t Support McCain Because Of His Opposition To ANWR. “Some Alaska Republicans are conflicted over McCain, including Gov. Sarah Palin. They like his maverick reputation and military background but not his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ‘She said she’d like to support McCain but felt she couldn’t at this particular time because of his stand on ANWR,’ said the governor’s spokeswoman, Sharon Leighow.” [Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), 2/3/08]
PALIN: “They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America … who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars.”	Palin Backed A Two-Year Extension Of The Export License To Export Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) To Japan And Other Asian Countries—Criticized Because Alaska’s Gas Reserves Are Declining. “Alaska producers can continue shipping gas to Asia after DOE last week approved an extension of the export license for the Kenai liquefied natural gas plant owned by ConocoPhillips and Marathon. The companies will be allowed to export up to 98.1 Bcf to Japan and other Pacific Rim countries over a two-year period through March 31, 2011. […] The application came under fire from local end-users, including gas distribution companies Enstar and the Chugach Electric Association, as well as fertilizer maker Agrium, all of which claimed the exports would exacerbate the problem of declining gas reserves in south-central Alaska. Agrium permanently closed its plant near Kenai due to an inability to find enough local supply for the facility that used 53 Bcf/year. In January, ConocoPhillips and Marathon reached a deal in which they agreed to step up development in the Cook Inlet region in return for the state’s support of the export license extension. The producers also agreed to divert gas from the LNG plant as needed to meet the peak winter supply needs of the local utilities. […] Alaska Governor Sarah Palin welcomed the DOE approval. “In these times of economic uncertainty, this is great news for the state and its residents. This extension will secure a future for the LNG operation and is another step toward ensuring energy supplies and energy security for Alaska,” the Republican governor said. [Platts Inside FERC, 6/9/08] · Agrium Closed Manufacturing Plant Because Of Gas Shortage. “Reserves of gas in producing fields in Southcentral Alaska are declining, posing concerns for supply to local utilities. A manufacturing plant on the Kenai Peninsula owned by Agrium Corp. recently announced it would close because the gas shortage.” [Alaska Journal Of Commerce, 11/25/07]· Gov. Palin: Agrium Closure Is Unfortunate. “Agrium announced yesterday that the plant will close in December due to a shortage in the supply of Cook Inlet natural gas, leaving about 100 of the 140 employees without employment. ‘It’s unfortunate to see the closure of a facility that has provided so many jobs that support families on the Peninsula,’ said Governor Palin. ‘I am heartened to hear that Agrium is willing to keep its options open if sufficient long-term supplies of gas can be found. We know there is more gas to be found and developed in Cook Inlet, so I remain hopeful that those jobs can be preserved.’” [Palin press release, 9/26/07]
PALIN: “As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man. I’m not a member of the permanentpolitical establishment.”	1999: Campaigning In San Francisco, CA, McCain Said “I Would Not Support Repeal Of Roe v. Wade.” In August 1999, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that McCain said he “would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade”: “I’d love to see a point where (Roe vs. Wade) is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations.” [The San Francisco Chronicle, 8/20/99] · McCain Said Roe v. Wade Should Be Overturned. McCain said, “I do not support Roe v. Wade. I think it should be overturned.” [New York Times, 2/24/07]At A Private Meeting With Hispanic Community Leaders, McCain “Assured Leaders He Would Push Through Congress Legislation To Overhaul Federal Immigration Laws If Elected.” ”Republican presidential John McCain assured Hispanic leaders he would push through Congress legislation to overhaul federal immigration laws if elected, several people who attended a private meeting with the candidate said Thursday. Democrats questioned why the Arizona senator held the meeting late Wednesday night in Chicago. But supporters who were in the room denied that McCain held the closed-door session out of fear of offending conservatives, many of whom want him to take a harder line on immigration. … ‘He’s one John McCain

Tweet This Post

Breaking: Cheney Pushed for Trims to EPA Testimony

Catherine Morgan — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:35:25 +0000

Breaking: Cheney’s Office Pushed for Trims to EPA Congressional Testimony

Vice President Cheney’s office pushed for major deletions in congressional testimony on the public health consequences of climate change, fearing the presentation might make it harder to avoid regulating greenhouse gases, a former EPA officials said.

—

TPM is reporting…

Vice President Dick Cheney’s office apparently worked to cut swaths of the Center for Disease Control’s congressional testimony on the effects of greenhouse gases.

The information was revealed in a letter from recently-resigned associate deputy EPA administrator, Jason Burnett, obtained by the AP, to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA):

From Think Progress…

The White House’s deletions — which were “overwhelmingly denounced” by scientists and environmental health experts — included “details on how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming and the scientific basis for some of the CDC’s analysis on what kinds of diseases might be spread in a warmer climate and rising sea levels.” (See the unredacted testimony here.)

Much more to come on this.

Tweet This Post

Defense Department Is Nation’s Biggest Polluter

Catherine Morgan — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:31:56 +0000

The Defense Department is the nation’s biggest polluter. But, the Pentagon doesn’t want to clean up their mess, even when the health of the environment and the American people are at risk.

From The Washington Post

The Defense Department, the nation’s biggest polluter, is resisting orders from the Environmental Protection Agency to clean up Fort Meade and two other military bases where the EPA says dumped chemicals pose “imminent and substantial” dangers to public health and the environment.

DoD Defies EPA on Military Site Cleanups…

In other words, the Pentagon’s response is a blend of “I’ll do it because I want to, not because you tell me to” and “who’s gonna make me?” Aren’t you comforted to know that a third-grade mentality is driving the response to dangerous chemicals leaking into soil and groundwater?

Pentagon to EPA: You and what army?

The law gives the EPA administrator final say in cleanup disputes with other agencies, a rule that the Pentagon refuses to recognize. Instead, Defense Department officials have asked the Justice Department and the White House to intervene.

If it were a private polluter and not the Pentagon, the EPA would most likely go to court to force compliance, but an executive branch policy prevents federal agencies from suing one another.

Other agencies, including NASA and the Department of Energy, have complied with the EPA’s Superfund cleanup orders without protest.

Sentators Want a More Environmentally Friendly DoD…

If the people defending the country are poisoning its wells, who needs enemies?

The Washington Post reported Monday that the Defense Dept. is refusing its legal obligation to sign toxic cleanup agreements surrounding 12 Pentagon-run Superfund sites. The DOD is also fighting Environmental Protection Agency orders to clean up military bases in Maryland, Florida and New Jersey, where EPA says the pollutants pose an “imminent and substantial” danger to public health, the Post reported.

From EnviroWonk…

Of course, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson has the authority to step up and tell the Pentagon what to do … except the Pentagon refuses to recognize that authority. Other agencies, like NASA and DOE have cleaned-up their messes without fanfare. But, as long as the Commander in Chief of the military isn’t telling them to follow orders, the Pentagon is going to continue doing what it does best: fight.

[cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog]

Tweet This Post

The Election Politics of Offshore Oil Drilling

Catherine Morgan — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:06:32 +0000

Roundup: Election Politics of Offshore Oil Drilling — by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)

Yesterday was my first post in a series on the gas crisis and offshore drilling. For that reason, I decided today’s political blog roundup will focus on the different opinions and reactions from around the blogosphere on this issue. We have some for drilling, and some against it. Let me know what you think in comments.

I’ll start with my personal opinion/theory regarding the relationship between high gas prices and the recent announcement by Bush/McCain to lift a ban on offshore drilling…

With regards to the gas & oil crisis — Does anyone else get the feeling we have been manipulated and duped AGAIN by the Bush administration? It’s all starting to feel really familiar.

1. Scare the American people (in this case with increasing gas prices).
2. Appear to be doing everything you can to get to the bottom of the crisis (go to OPEC, hold hearings, etc.)
3. Just when there appears to be nothing anyone can do…The Bush administration comes to the rescue and announces a plan to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling, because it’s the only way to help the American people and lower the price of gas.

Sound familiar?

What came first? The crisis or the solution?

I think with closer inspection (most likely after there is nothing anyone can do to change the outcome) – Revelations will come to light, that the Bush administration manipulated the “speculators” to cause an unnecessary but dramatic rise in gas/oil prices…For the ultimate purpose of lifting the ban on offshore drilling, and giving the brass ring to the oil companies.

Additionally, this is going to be the GOP “ace” in the hole, and “the perfect storm” for facilitating a third Bush presidency. I imagine it will go something like this…

The Democrats want to continue making you pay high gas prices during a weak economy…But the Republicans want to help you keep more of your hard earned money….bla, bla, bla.

The trouble is…there is no evidence that offshore drilling will help in the short or even long term. But that is not the “spin” you will be hearing from Bush/McCain. What at first appeared to me as a campaign killer for McCain, could actually be part of a carefully orchestrated campaign winner. Give McCain the experience, the Iraq war, and now the illusion of helping the economy (the number one issue of the American people). I shutter to think.

So, that’s what I think. However, not everyone agrees with me.

Shocking!

Well, not really.

But, I do want to take a look at all sides of this issue. Admittedly, mine is a very visceral reaction to the news of possible offshore drilling.

Let’s take a look at what other bloggers are saying about this. We’ll start with my good friend, Kay B. Day, from Covering Florida and Right Commentary, who has a totally different opinion from mine.

Earlier in the week I reached out to a couple of people to see what their take was on offshore drilling, and she was kind enough to send me her thoughts in an email. Although I don’t completely agree with her on this one…I must admit, she has a much more thought-out response to it. Here it is…

Lookit, Congress (both parties) has known this crisis would come. At least since 1992 when congressional hearings began to be held about climate changes. And then when real global warming science ended up thoroughly botched in the hands of media, a frenzy ensued, complete with the UN screaming for the US to reduce emissions while other countries don’t (as in China who basically said ‘you’ve had your turn and now it’s ours.’)

Meanwhile, good news. All the aid we sent China and India over the years resulted in success (for once!) The result is an emerging middle class who, no surprise, reacts much like the West to consumerism. Then countries like Venezuela nationalized the oil, removing private corporations and giving the properties to the government (just like Cuba so long ago.) And of course production fell. Even where we can get oil, there is unrest and tribal conflict, further impeding product movement.

Concurrently, due to the power of marketing and branding, Americans fell in love with SUVs and other gas guzzlers. Also concurrently, the Middle East continued to go bananas and Iran emerged as a major player and the dollar fell and whammo. Speculators entered, because oil was now an even hotter commodity. Back at the farm, the man-made global warming theorists cried doomsday and began to see a valid legislative response. Speculators got even more excited because oil was now a sizzling commodity. As all these events played out, Congress fiddled just like Nero (Dems and Repubs). Through at least two 8-year terms under Clinton then Bush. And bear in mind we haven’t built any new refineries in years and much of the land under lease for drilling must go through an exhaustive environmental process, which is as it should be. While all these events boil, we are somewhat justified in our concerns about increasing our nuclear facilities.

The result: a quagmire. You have a commodity that everyone needs. Demand goes up, price goes up. Gold’s done the same thing.

Now have the Repubs made it a campaign issue? You bet. But frankly, the Dems did too, by embracing some of Al Gore’s theories that even the scientists who came up with the research dispute. The difference is the Dems followed Gore’s GW alarmist scenarios, pushing green. Is that good? Sure it is. But does that fuel speculation even more? Yes it does because developing alternative forms of energy takes time.

Note: I am not saying the earth isn’t warming. I am saying the results are inconclusive when it comes to whether it’s induced by man and whether we can really do anything about it with the emissions approach. Frankly, I don’t think we’re planning in the right way. And the fellow who did the original research that started the whole ball rolling agrees. You will never hear this from mainstream media. Why? Because a whole new energy industry has sprung up. Is that good? Yes. We need to be energy independent. But the truth is both political parties have politicized this issue, just each in their own relevant ways. What you’re hearing from Bush is basically the truth about drilling. He wasn’t crazy enough to bring it up before, because he’s been on the hot seat over the war and he is at odds with a congress controlled by the opposing party. You won’t hear it from Obama because he has to take the alternative energy approach.

What’s my bottom line: both parties have delayed the inevitable too long as have we, the US people. Now we’re paying the price. And let me tell you. If we start drilling the price will go down. You can bank on it. The very thought of that will impact. Why do you think the Saudis have defied OPEC to produce more? Writing’s on the wall for them too.

Through two presidents, I have criticized both parties, not so much either prez as the congress. Because for 16 long years, our congressmen have let us down time and again and that has simply not changed.

Gosh. Sorry that’s so long, but that’s my take on it. Admittedly, my take is more an industry-centric take because I have several folks in industries related to commodities. BTB, not only gas has been affected this way. If you know anyone in an industry reliant on copper, ask ‘em how easy that is to get right now.

Thanks Kay.

Now, let’s see what other bloggers are saying…

Robert Reich’s Blog…

First, the crude oil market is global. Oil companies sell all over the world. The price of crude is established by global supply and demand. So even if 3 million additional barrels a day could be extruded from lands and seabeds of the United States (that sum is the most optimistic figure, after all exploration is done), that sum is tiny compared to 86 million barrels now produced around the world. In other words, even under the best circumstances, the price to American consumers would hardly budge.

*Also check out the over 40 comments on Robert’s blog.

Peter from the Switchboard…

We can’t drill our way to lower fuel prices. As I’ve said before, efficiency is the fastest, and cheapest, way to lower fuel costs and combat global warming.

Joe Sudbay at AMERICAblog…

2030 isn’t quite the “short term.” If we had a national energy strategy, we should be able to develop alternative sources of energy and much, much better fuel efficiency by then.

*Also see 28 comments.

Sabrina from Life’s A Beach…

I got an email from the surfrider foundation today…

and I can’t BELIEVE this recent move by our government to ruin our seas! Yes, I realize gas prices are high, but I honestly don’t believe offshore drilling is the answer.

It would just break my heart to go anywhere on the coast and see it ruined with refineries and whatnot, and see the sea life compromised…and all because of the greed for oil!

On Our Offshore Drilling Phobia…

It’s not an either/or proposition. We need to be doing it all, wind, solar, bio-fuels, nuclear, clean coal, and good-old fashioned fossil fuels, wherever we can get our hands on it. And of course do it as safely and ecologically sensitively as possible. But the more expensive alternatives on all these fronts will only pursued by the markets when prices are high.

None of it is going to happen very quickly, regardless of the choices we make, and no, it won’t make an immediate dent in oil prices that would make us all happy. But turning this ship around will take a lot of time (pardon the pun). So we need to get on with it, balancing pragmatism and our ideal wishes.

This is from The Next Right…

The American Family Association sent out an alert to its massive list and got 400,000 letters sent to Congress for more oil drilling. Why is this important? In presentations, I often cite the AFA’s monster list as the biggest on the Right. And in my years on their list, I’ve never seen them focus on anything other than social issues. Their focus on oil is a big, big deal.

And Jerome Armstrong is waving Democrats off this issue, with a telling anecdote about Charlie Crist’s rather abrupt about-face on offshore drilling.

This is from Ido’s Blog…

I think that America, and pretty much the rest of the world at some point, needs to face the fact that oil is a dwindling natural resource and we need to look forward towards the future to a world without oil…or where oil has a vastly reduced role. This will be painful, yes, but it can be done. Brazil has done it with ethanol from sugar cane (which I have recently read about and I’m pretty impressed) and we can do it as well — whether it’s from solar, wind, biofuels or a mixture of all three.

Looking forward to an uncertain future is scary… it’s much easier to look back at what you know rather than forward into the unknown. However, it’s that forward vision that has made this country great and we need to be leaders in this effort if we are ever to break the stranglehold that OPEC has on us.

Wayne at unEARTHED talks about what offshore drilling means to him…

So I ask myself, what’s the real agenda here? Besides the obvious get-McCain-elected agenda?

Profits, of course. But in terms of policy, my guess is the Arctic. These guys have talked about the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge this week. But they know Americans are attached to the Refuge and so that idea won’t play. Besides, ANWR is onshore. I think offshore + ANWR = the Arctic Ocean.

This is from Brandon at Roanoke Red Zone…

The Democrats are flipping out over the increasing pressure to allows states to drill off their shores. I just watched an interview with the Chief Financial Officer of Florida (D) Alex Sink. She was particularly exercised over Gov. Crist’s willingness to have Florida open to offshore drilling. Her argument was that Floridians long ago decided to keep it’s waters free of drilling in order to preserve their tourist industry. HELLO! Lady, you aren’t going to have a tourist industry because no one will be able to fly or drive to your great state. Unbelievable! Great move by Crist–keep it up.

Josh Painter at Conservative Superiority says…

Yes, it’s still “the economy, stupid” and especially pump prices for gasoline and diesel, not to mention the high costs the airlines are incurring for jet fuel. The GOP seems to be waking up to what conservatives already knew. Make energy your number one issue and offer doable solutions to the problems of energy security and high prices.

The Democrats, meanwhile, have sentenced themselves to doing hard time in Al Gore’s lockbox, and they’ve entrusted the key to the Sierra Club. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch of people, one which has consistently put its own selfish political interests ahead of America’s security and her citizens’ bank accounts.

So, there you have it. What do you think?

Tweet This Post

McCain Flip-Flops on Offshore Oil Drilling

Catherine Morgan — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:53:37 +0000

McCain Flip-Flops on Offshore Oil Drilling – by Catherine Morgan

John McCain is using our sky-high gas prices to justify his flip-flopping on the issue of offshore oil drilling. I mentioned this yesterday in a post, and questioned why the MSM didn’t seem to notice. Today, they have noticed.

However, there is no evidence that allowing more offshore drilling will help in reducing the price of gas in the near future (as McCain is suggesting), or even the far future. But, I guess the McCain campaign is hoping you will be fooled, and vote for McCain in the hopes of lower gas prices.

Here is an interesting clip from The Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer…

SEE VIDEO AND READ FULL POST AT THE CARE2 ELECTION BLOG

Tweet This Post

Al Gore Endorses Barack Obama (see video)

Catherine Morgan — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:35:21 +0000

Tweet This Post

Bush-McCain Challenge (video)

Catherine Morgan — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 02:18:10 +0000

The Bush-McCain Challenge

Tweet This Post

How High Will Gas Prices Go? Tips For Saving On Gas.

Catherine Morgan — Tue, 27 May 2008 23:18:30 +0000

How High Will Gas Prices Go? – by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)

I think the gas crisis is here to stay, and I don’t think drilling for more oil will ever be the answer. And for the life of me, I can not understand why we don’t already have automobiles that get excellent gas millage? If we did, high gas prices wouldn’t really matter so much.

What is more important – lower gas prices or cars that get better gas millage?

Congress Considering Bill that Could Raise Gas Prices…

Congress is considering a bill that may raise the cost of gasoline. The Heritage Foundation recently came out with a study examining the state-by-state affects of this proposed legislation. Nationally the bill could raise the cost of gasoline by 20% over the next 17 years!

On the surface, this seems like a strange move for Congress considering the current frustration over the high price of gasoline. Like everything, however, there are tradeoffs to consider. What is Congress attempting to achieve with this legislation? Lower carbon emissions (yes, the bill in question is S. 2191 the Global Climate Change legislation). Are you willing to pay an extra $300 a year for gasoline? Perhaps a better question is whether you are willing to force everyone to face this price? This is important to think about when considering this legislation (other concerns that the study looks at are job loss and other energy prices).

$8 a Gallon Gas?

Ben Lieberman of the Heritage Foundation writes that legislation pending in Congress – set for a vote next week- could raise gasoline prices to $8 a gallon. The bill is called the America’s Climate Security Act and is sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) and John Warner (R-Virginia).

In an effort to reduce global warming, it would place limits on the amount of gasoline and other fossil fuels Americans can use, writes Ben Lieberman. Europe has similar anti global-warming measures, he writes, and gasoline is $8 a gallon.

But he argues that even if Americans reduce driving because of the bill, China and India will continue to use more, offsetting U.S. gains. Read analysis here.

Should Congress delay the fight against global warming if it will mean drastically higher fuel prices and further jeapordize the U.S. economy?

Sally at Tree City Times…

Gas is now flirting with $4 a gallon ($3.99 a gallon, so figure, yeah, it’s already up to $4, so to speak) and the oil companies literally have us over a barrel. They know that we need gas to run our cars and oil to run – and produce – just about everything else, so Wall Street speculators can run up the price of oil as high as they want and not suffer the consequences, because they’re all filthy rich anyway and it really doesn’t pain them to fill up at such high prices. But for the rest of us, we’re all wondering how on earth we can manage to make it in this economy. I’ve literally been reduced to living paycheck to paycheck, with no ability to save any money whatsoever. And I’m hardly living beyond my means, either. Just paying monthly bills, filling my car with gas and buying groceries, in addition to paying for ridiculous health care costs, is leaving me scrambling to figure out how on earth I am going to survive on the $25,000 a year I currently make. There is literally no slack in the budget anymore. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. It costs me literally almost every dime I make a month just to survive on bare bones basics.

From Sean Vrbica at The Young Raging Bull – How to save money on gas prices…

Change your driving behavior: 1) Accelerate more gradually (the harder you press the gas pedal, the more fuel gets consumed) 2) Anticipate stops (coasting then braking saves a lot of fuel instead of slamming on the brakes at the last second) 3) Drive slower on the highway (the more you push your car to the limit, the more gas it burns) 4) If you drive a manual, shift gears earlier (the higher your engine revs the more gas it burns so try shifting gears at a lower RPM). NOTE! I totally understand that changing your driving behavior isn’t much fun, but just keep your mind fixed on all the money you’ll save doing so (the above 4 tips, on average, increases fuel efficiency by about 10-15%!).

Ensure your tires are properly inflated: Tires that are under- or over-inflated can change how your car handles (by adding drag and accelerating wear) and ultimately consumes fuel. According to the Alliance to Save Energy, tires improperly inflated reduce fuel efficiency by 3.3%. Thus, check out your owner’s manual or your driver’s side door panel to find out the proper inflation for your tires and check your tire pressure once every 3-4 weeks.

Clean out your trunk: You can save quite a bit of gas if you just shed some of the weight from your car. Now I’m not suggesting you go out to your garage and rip the back seats out. But check out what’s in your trunk. Most of the supplies you needed during the winter are likely not needed during the spring/summer/fall. So clean it out!

Change your air filter: A clogged and dirty air filter can significantly reduce your gas mileage, not to mention lower your car’s performance. It usually costs less than $20 and takes less than 10 minutes to install, but too many car owners forget to check the lungs of their car when trying to find ways to improve mileage.

Forget the premium stuff: If you really want to save on gas prices, buy only regular unleaded gas, not the pricey premium stuff. Just because your Honda Civic is tricked out with high performance parts doesn’t mean it needs high performance fuel. NOTE! If you do drive a high performance vehicle (like a high-end Porsche, BMW, Ferrari etc) that requires you to pump only premium fuels, than by all means, disregard this tip.

Drive with your windows closed: Driving with your windows open reduces fuel efficiency by 5-10% (depending on how fast you are traveling) because it creates excessive drag. Thus, close your windows, especially if you’re heading for high-speed roads.

Also See:

What Is The Real Reason Gas Prices Are So High?

Skyrocketing Gas Prices + Fear = Billions of Big Oil

Is Big Oil Going Green?

What Gas Crisis

American’s In Denial About Oil

How Gas Prices Got To Be Near $4 a Gallon

Tweet This Post

Is ‘Big Oil’ Going Green? Don’t Bet The Car On It.

Catherine Morgan — Thu, 22 May 2008 18:21:57 +0000

Oil Companies – How Green Are They? — Posted by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)

Are the oil companies going green? If by “green” we are talking about cold hard cash…The oil companies are very, very green. In fact, their cups runneth over with greenness. However, in this case, the oil companies (a.k.a. Big Oil) are spending a lot of money on commercials designed to convince you and me that they are investing in our environmental future. So, how green are they?

So what do you think? Are the oil companies really going green? Or, are they just playing green on tv?

Personally, I think they should be required to spend a certain percentage of their profits on green alternatives to oil…at the very least.

Tweet This Post

Would John McCain Be Good For The Environment?

Catherine Morgan — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:47:34 +0000

Would John McCain Be Good For The Environment? — by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)

Does John McCain really care about the environment? Or, is it more McCain double-talk, masquerading as McCain straight-talk?

See what the press and the pundits are saying about McCain’s environmental policy. And let me know what you think in comments?

From Media Matters…

Summary: Reuters reported that Sen. John McCain would pledge “to take the lead in combating global climate change if elected president in a speech that set him apart from the policies of U.S. President George W. Bush.” However, in reporting on McCain’s environmental positions that his campaign believes will “win support from independents and centrist Democrats,” Reuters did not mention his voting record and did not include any criticism of McCain’s positions. By contrast, The Washington Post noted that “McCain’s lifetime League of Conservation Voters score is 24 percent, compared with 86 for Obama and 86 for Clinton.” — read full Media Matters article

From The CarpetBagger Report…

When pressed on his differences with George W. Bush, John McCain now relies on a three-prong answer: McCain is more committed to cutting spending than Bush has been, McCain disapproved of the Rumsfeld strategy, and McCain cares more about the environment.

All three struggle under scrutiny. McCain talks about spending, but comes up short when pushed for specifics. He criticizes Rumsfeld years later, but while Rumsfeld was failing, McCain was urging Americans to “stay the course.”

And then there’s environmental policy, which McCain is emphasizing heavily this week as a way of making him appear more moderate, helping him with independents, and distancing himself from the far-right wing of his own party.

. . .

It all sounds very nice, just so long as you don’t look past the surface.

If we’re judging McCain on a sliding Republican scale, then sure, he’s not quite as reckless and irresponsible on environmental issues than some of his fellow conservatives. He believes global warming is real and he doesn’t believe trees cause pollution. If the soft bigotry of low expectations means anything, McCain looks pretty good in comparison to, say, James Inhofe.

But part of the problem is that McCain’s commitment to sensible environmental policies is a bit like the weather in Chicago: if you don’t like it, wait a few minutes, because it’s bound to change.

This is from Red, Green, and Blue…

McCain’s stance on climate change is out-of-step with many Republicans. Some of those Republicans, including President Bush, suggest governmental efforts to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, like those found in a ‘cap-and-trade,’ will cripple our economy; while other Republicans challenge the validity of global warming and climate change altogether.

As part of McCain’s PR push, his campaign just released a new television ad. I was surprised to find out that the ad’s tone is much more apocalyptic than I would have expected. And I was also struck by the claims in the ad that somehow McCain’s proposed cap and trade policy would somehow circumnavigate regulatory involvement, when that is not the case at all – McCain’s plan will just delay that regulatory involvement.

From Framing Science…

While McCain’s commitment to climate change policy is welcome, the advertisement’s false balancing of climate change denial against the type of tough measures we need to solve the problem is deceptive and self-serving. That’s also the lesson from a front page lead story today at the Washington Post by Juliet Eilperin.

Also See:

Press Release by The League of Conservation Voters…

Six Questions For John McCain on the Environment

The New York Times

AlterNet – McCain’s Not-So-Straight Talk on the Environment

Tweet This Post