Sarah Palin: A Big Boon for Big Oil
Commentary: Palin has a rep for taking on oil companies, but if elected vice president she'll be positioned to deliver what the industry wants most—access to untapped Arctic terrain.
September 9, 2008
|
|
Long thought of as a remote wilderness separated from the rest of the United States in both distance and temperament, Alaska is now perched on the frontier of the 21st-century economy, ready to live up to its once overly sanguine state motto, "North to the Future." But in Alaska, as it turns out, the future means more of the past: More fossil fuels extracted under the frozen tundra and ocean; more industrial development of pristine wilderness and more destruction of Native lands; and perhaps even another Cold War with Russia over who will control the Arctic's crucial energy supplies. Poised to help propel Alaska into this future is its governor and now the Republican vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin.
Alaska once boasted genuine political mavericks like Democratic senators Ernest Gruening and Mike Gravel, but they long ago gave way to right-wing Republican pork-barrelers with close ties to the oil and gas industry, like Sen. Ted Stevens and Congressman Don Young. Both championed the Alyeska Trans-Alaskan pipeline that connects Prudhoe Bay on Alaska's north coast to Valdez in the south, the source of countless spills over its 30-year history; both support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); and both are longtime climate-change skeptics. (Young once declared that environmentalists are "a self-centered bunch of waffle-stomping, Harvard-graduating, intellectual idiots" who "are not Americans, never have been Americans, never will be Americans.")
Palin has at times sought to separate herself from these political veterans on ethical grounds, though between 2003 and 2005 she served as a director of a 527 group organized by Stevens. (Both congressmen have been investigated—and Stevens is now under federal indictment—for dealings with Veco, an oil services company.) She has even won kudos for "taking on the oil companies" over state control and state taxes on the industry. But when it comes to core energy policy, she is up to her neck in the same barrel of oil as her fellow Alaska Republicans. Should Palin become vice president, state Republicans will be well positioned to put federal clout behind Alaska's back-to-the-future approach to energy.
Palin's political experience consists of governing a state whose economy has more in common with Kuwait or Venezuela than it does with any other part of the United States. The oil and gas industry provides 85 percent of the state's revenues, and thus pays for most of its public services. Alaska's residents pay no state income or sales tax. While Palin's push to impose a state version of the windfall profits tax on the booming industry compare not favorably to the actions of congressional Republicans, she is an enthusiastic supporter of what the oil giants want most: to extract more oil and gas from Alaska and its adjoining waters. "We Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas," she said last week in her vice presidential acceptance speech. "And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: We've got lots of both."
The oil and gas currently being extracted from Alaska's North Slope and the adjoining areas is but a trickle from the energy trove that lies beneath the frozen waters of the Arctic Ocean. One 2007 study by two British consulting firms calculated that the already known reserves in the Arctic Basin total some 233 billion barrels, with "potential additional resources" estimated at 166 billion barrels. In a grim case of poetic injustice, it is global warming that stands to make the Arctic's fossil fuels more accessible to oil and gas drilling. As the Arctic warms at almost twice the rate of the rest of the world and ocean ice melts, the industry is poised to launch a blitzkrieg to exploit these resources and bring them to the lower 48, and abroad to what will soon become the largest energy market in the world—China—with India not far behind.
In particular, the rapid melting of Arctic ice will reduce the costs of transport by opening up the frozen Northwest Passage, providing an ocean-to-ocean "Suez of the North." Michael Byers, a Canadian legal expert on this subject, has noted that changing ice conditions offers a sea route between Asia and the East Coast of the United States that is "7,000 kilometers shorter than the route through the Panama Canal." The Northwest Passage could also accommodate supertankers and container ships that are too large for the canal. Byers writes, "International shipping companies are eyeing the fuel, time and canal-passage fees that could be saved; some are already building ice-strengthened vessels."
In addition to opening new shipping routes for oil tankers, the industry has long dreamed of transporting the Arctic's abundant natural gas via a pipeline running through Alaska and Canada to the lower 48. Palin made support for the pipeline a major issue in her 2006 campaign for governor—and here, again, she has been praised for running a hard bargain with Big Oil over the terms of the pipeline deal. She recently chose the Canadian energy company TransCanada to receive $500 million in state subsidies for a pipeline stretching over the Brooks Range and down through Alberta to US markets. Oil giants BP and ConocoPhillips—which along with ExxonMobil hold leases to much of the North Slope's natural gas, and which also had a pipeline proposal on the table—have since announced that they plan to build their own pipeline, without help from the state.
However it is transported, Palin's elevation to national office would help give the companies a free hand when it comes to extraction, with little concern for environmental impact: This spring, the state of Alaska announced that it would sue the US Fish and Wildlife Service to block the addition to the endangered species list of Alaska's polar bears—which, if their habitat were protected, might pose an obstacle to the pipeline and other development. She has also opposed protecting beluga whales in waters slated for oil and gas drilling (and she has backed a plan that allows the aerial hunting of bears and wolves). She is a steadfast booster of opening ANWR to drilling (a move that McCain opposes). And she has said that while she is concerned about climate change, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made."
Fully exploiting Alaska's petroleum resources, however, could wind up drawing the United States into an international conflict. The national demarcation lines beneath the waters of the Arctic Ocean are already disputed, and tensions will only increase as the ice continues to melt. The United States will also need to defend its right-of-way to one of the world's most salient choke points, the Bering Strait, where it faces Russia across a few miles of water—raising the potential for a new Cold War. The struggle for control of Arctic energy promises to create some more surprising enmities, as well. Already there is friction between the United States and Canadian defense establishments over who is to dominate the defense of the Arctic, with Canada putting more ships and weapons into its North to protect itself—not from the Russians, but from its neighbor America. Should these kinds of tensions heat up, Big Oil will want an administration in the White House that is willing to protect the industry's global interests.
James Ridgeway is Mother Jones' senior Washington correspondent.
Most Americans don't see the big picture here. They are too busy following the gossip to recognize that McCain/Palin are going to continue on the same path that America is on. Keep the public fat and happy or better yet, full of fear and they'll simply overlook the importance of what is taking place. I really wish people would get their head out of their asses and pay attention.
gotten Wyoming's Barbara Cubin.
The big picture is that is we are going to go to alternative energy sources(in which I support), we ARE going to need oil to do it.
Let's say wind. To design and manufacture windmills takes steel and OIL. Lest you are so damned green that you want the windmills to be built elsewhere in the word. Delivering these windmills, diesel trucks, i.e. OIL. Erecting these windmills on sight, three guesses-OIL. Of couse let's not forget about maintaning the capability of those big tines twisting in the wind; grease, i.e. OIL. And, what about the electric generators attached to these behemoths? OIL, you say?
Now of course after we build an infinite amount of these and the infinite morphs to a finite amount of these things cluttering the landscape (the Sierra Club is going to go bonkers), we then, and only then, may be winding our need for the black gold which enables you to live such a comfortable lifestyle down to a minimum.
Let's do it faster! Let's RE-introduce a technology that is proven to be green now. Carbon neutral! Let's say it all together ...NUCLEAR!
Some of you liberal folks are so much smarter than we average Americans even with your noses on top of your heads.
More on this in a moment. But first, if this is truly a crisis, why don't our elected representatives, in the fine form of the true statesmen and women they are, step up to the microphone and announce that effective immediately, we are going to increase our fuel available for transportation by 7%? They could do it TOMORROW by passing a national speed limit.
That's right, a national speed limit would put 7% or even MORE fuel back into the system. I wrote to my congress critters, I think you should, too.
Regarding drilling, the supply of crude oil has never affected our dependence on it before. It's like heroin. It reminds me of the Cream cover of what's probably a Willie Dixon tune, "Spoonful". "Some of them lies for it, some of them dies for it". We all know who does the lying. We all know who does the dying. We'd rather antagonize an entire region of the world, make bad deals with bad rulers who kill their own people, bleed our own children and theirs, and spend our national defense budget on unnecessary wars than slow down to 55. Amazing, isn't it? What ever happened to America's moral values? Hijacked by the GOP moral brigade, where God is an American and a Republican.
So we're addicted to oil, it's plain to see, and changing the supply won't make any difference about that. Unless by changing it you mean running out, in which case it wouldn't make any difference.
It's common knowledge among those who know anything about Alaskan oil that it will take several years to get it into the system and once it is online, we'll suck it dry in 4 months at the current rate. So what, exactly, is this supposed to be... some kind of "solution"? I think not... I think it's some kind of misadventure that will spoil one of our wilderness areas and produce nothing but some big profits for a handful of people.
Given that we have an instantaneous but politically unpalatable bandaid that would give us some breathing room, and given that we won't use it but instead talk about more supply, we're either in denial, incredibly stupid, or both. Drilling is just a political distraction from the real solution, which is an ugly truth. We have to cut consumption.
Nothing repels politicians more than the truth.
-Wexler
I don't care how you "like" to drive. It's NOT your right to drive however you want, especially when your actions endanger other people's lives on the road and contribute to a foreign policy debacle.
I'll bet when you were a kid you didn't share your toys, much, did you?
And yes, it did start with me, 45 years ago when I became aware of the simple notion that leaving the place in better shape than you found it in was a good thing and it didn't have anything to do with my "right" to trash it.
-Wexler
How people living in non-sustainable concrete jungles such as LA, DC, and NYC get off patronizing others on how to preserve the environment is beyond me. Whew, need to cool down. Anyone up for a swim in the Hudson?
Mona Charen Tue Sep 9, 3:00 AM ET
There were basically two things known about Sarah Palin when her name was announced on Aug. 29 and the media sphere began to shudder and pulsate: She was a recently elected governor and the mother of five children including a handicapped infant. The scorn from the mainstream press and the left-leaning blog world was both intense and instantaneous. Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic immediately began circulating rumors that Trig was not the governor's baby — that she had engaged in a huge charade to cover up her teen daughter's illegitimate child. The New York Times reported on the front page that Palin had been a member of the Alaska Independence Party. Eleanor Clift of Newsweek described the reaction of most newsrooms to Palin's elevation as "literally laughter." US Weekly rushed out a cover story picturing Palin holding her baby son with the headline "Babies, Lies, & Scandal."
And that was just the throat-clearing phase. NBC's Brian Williams wondered whether she could discharge her responsibilities with all those kids. Sally Quinn of the Washington Post asked, "Will she put her country first, or will she put her family first?" Mort Kondracke called her a "wacko right-winger."
Now it hardly needs mentioning that Brian Williams and company would sew their own lips closed before ever uttering such heresy about a liberal woman candidate. Nor would it even occur to them to question any male candidate's fitness because of the number of children he had.
How do the media poobahs explain it? They say (and to her credit, Sally Quinn has apologized for her comments) that it was Palin's inexperience that prompted their contempt. But aren't these the same people who had just the week before been defending Barack Obama's thin resume?
Something about Sarah Palin set them off before their own politically correct impulses ("Must Avoid Sexism") could inhibit them. By the ferocity of the response, you might have thought Palin was a secret member of a polygamous cult or had forced her daughter to give birth after a rape. But no, she was just the mother of five, hunting, fishing, NRA member, and governor.
I wonder if it was that baby.
Sarah Palin is no ordinary pro-lifer. She is an attractive, intelligent, ambitious, successful woman who has actually lived her convictions. Told that the baby she was carrying would be handicapped with Down syndrome, she and her husband made the only decision their consciences would permit — to welcome this child with the same love they would give to any other. That decision is comparatively rare in America. Fully 80 percent of parents who receive a diagnosis of Down syndrome in their unborn children elect to abort. But it's not unusual at all among committed pro-lifers. I have met many in the course of speaking to pro-life audiences. And for every couple that has chosen life for a handicapped child, there are thousands and perhaps millions more who have abjured prenatal testing because under no circumstances would they abort their children. I cannot count the times I've amazed pro-choice people with the news that there are even waiting lists of couples who stand ready to adopt Down syndrome babies.
The example of people living their principles by embarking on the undeniably difficult path of raising a handicapped child is a hard one to dismiss. In fact, it's hard not to admire. Don't most of us, deep down, really think that the most humane and honorable thing is to treat all life as sacred? Even if you are not religious or have no belief in God — doesn't it appeal to an enlightened humanism to give support and love to the handicapped? In fact, most pro-choice people probably treat the handicapped with terrific compassion and care. They doubtless support civil rights legislation like the Americans with Disabilities Act, additional school spending, and generous Social Security benefits. They'd be the first to hold the door for someone in a wheelchair, and they'd be friendly toward anyone with obvious mental retardation.
But for themselves, they would abort. And there stands Sarah, Trig Palin in her arms, a beautiful ambassador for the path of humility, duty, honor, and grace. It's no wonder she was in their crosshairs from the get go.
To find out more about Mona Charen and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
1) Bush was ever elected President, twice
2)That McCain is a serious candidate for President of the US
3) How an ultra right wing "religious"
fanatic could lie incessantly, want to destroy the planet, kill wild life from a plane, have a total disregard for endangered species, be under investigation for abuse of power, and be considered as a good candidate for Vice President.
I feel like I am in the Twlight Zone.
Peter Principled from the governor's chair to higher office. First, her get-tough-on Exxon policy in Alaska- which forced action by Exxon on its large state lease and raised taxes on oil- would end. Second, she would be
a cheerleader for exploration on land and sea. Two wins for Exxon.
Let's let the Alaskans secede from the Union as so many of them want to do. Indeed, let's even encourage them to become their own country. But, do not negotiate any mutual defense treaties with the new nation, or give it any special diplomatic status. Then let Russia take them over. It would serve them right.
Russia would of course destroy Alaska's wilderness, but a Russian Alaska would not be any different than what the Alaskans will likely succeed in making of it anyway.
Pass this on and let's help these folks along.
vicki, he got elected because he got more electoral votes, it's just that simple. And it said that liberals are so much smarter than the common man. I figured that one out. And, Wexler, that's your problem; you don't care what others want or even think.
Going 75 on a highway on a motorcycle built to sustain those speeds contributes to a foreign policy debacle, and is a sin against nature? Wow! Did you forgert that 75 mph is legal on most interstates? Do you find it necessary to trample on my liberties just because you are another of the self anointed demigods that introspectively rank supreme. Again, don't project your boorish idealisms on me. I have shared, and I have put my GREEN where my mouth is.
Don't worry, be happy. The US will get to alternative energy at sustainable levels. Only, it will need to be evolutionary not revolutionary. Did we get where we were at by declaring all at once that the horse and buggy were no longer to be used by a certain date in history. No, of course not. It took T-I-M-E. I ask, is this too simple a concept?
Remember, Freedom, Liberty & Limited Gov't is what made this the greatest nation on earth. If you do not believe these things, look around, there are countries that directly tell you how you will live. See you on the highway! (I promise, 76...tops!)
Besides, it's a KNOWN FACT that Earth has undergone WARMING in the past, and whatta ya know, the Earth kept on cranking along!
Besides the theory that Global Warming will turn France into a desert, then a glacier when things reverse... Sounds like an EXCELLENT idea to me!!!
EARTHLINGS FOR GLOBAL WARMING!
Your problem is, as is with all of you Libertarian people, is that you put your own perception of what your "rights" are ahead of the needs of the community and state from which you still suck all of the protections and benefits from but abhor whenever it comes to your "rights".
That's why I like having political arguments with you, because you are so easily eviscerated by that simple fact. You say you want your rights but you're still addicted to the nanny state. To me that equals poor social skills. Maybe even anti-social behavior, in the psychological sense, not the economic sense.
Tsk tsk. You want to drive 75 because you think you have the "right" to do it. What about my right to use the public highways safely? What happens when you drive me off the road or run over some kid on a bicycle, Mr. 75 mph? What about those "rights".
That's just moronic, and you KNOW IT.
-Wexler
Explain to me what difference that makes.
I was being factious about Republicans and evidently, a large percentage of America. 1) How could the majority of Americans have voted for Bush? George W graduated at the bottom of his class,and sounds moronic when he speaks. I guess this must be a plus for you. 2) George W has managed to alienate the entire world. Why not embarrass your country, I guess this is the way you show patriotism. 3) Nationalism or patriotism is not the waving of a flag, that is but a mere symbol. Following the rule of law makes you a patriot and a member of the world community 4) Our economy is in a shamble and we are having to borrow from your good friends : China, Russia and Iran. Why not vote for McBush another four years. You could loose your job, not be able to retire,and we could be in a depression much worse than the one in the 30's. You may dismiss this; But who will take our worthless dollar now? Why are there runs on banks? Why are so many houses be foreclosed on? Hmmm when has this happened before? Why don't we just sell off the country bit by bit as George W. has 4) The Iraq war was begun on a lie, which you and your ilk bought hook line and sinker 5) McSame has been right there with Bush. Why not, he also graduated at the bottom of his class and is part of the power elite. He is in bed with lobbist, who do not care about you. There goal is to steal you blind. You must like that or you would say, enough
6) I really don't care if you vote for McCain and his corrupt buddy, Palin. It only says you do not care much about yourself or your family.For those of us who care about the Constitution and the life of our grandchildren, we will fight for our country from the enemy within. Oh, that is you.
May I congratulate Mother Jones for having chosen James Ridgeway as its Washington correspondent.
The Village Voice’s loss is Mother Jones’ gain. And a most valuable one at that as Mr. Ridgeway is perhaps the most uncompromising yet sagacious independent journalist I know. My certainty of that statement comes from the fact that James is my model and was my mentor for years at the Voice.
Thank you James. Excelsior.
Jean Jean-Pierre
Journalist/Composer/Producer
Whether or not global warming is a reality, is somewhat irrelevant. I say irrelevant not because the environment doesn’t matter but I say irrelevant because whether or not it is real, the rest of the developed world is looking towards the new age of ET. For instance, Germany is rapidly approaching 22% energy production through renewables. Most of that from solar. Yes, Germany, a country not particularly well noted for its sunny climate . Norway , Spain, and Italy are right on Germany’s tale. The United States, on the other hand, has not attained even 1% production from ET technologies.
The US is, of course, a much larger country with many more complexities and the world’s largest consumer of fossil fuels. We consume about 25% of the world’s energy with a fraction of the world’s population. The point, however, is that the rest of the developed world is seriously looking to the future. While the rest of the world moves on, we in the US set here debating whether or not global warming is real while hopelessly clinging to the power sources from a bygone industrial age.
The world is moving to renewable energy with or without us. I hope we do not miss the boat. The opportunities for the country that takes the lead in ET research and development will be the wealthiest most powerful nation on earth. I hope that nation is the US but we are going to have to move and move fast because the boat has already left the port.
Take a look at First Solar’s stock market record. If I’m not mistaken, they just went public about two years ago. They opened at $18.00 per share. Today they are trading at over $300 per share. I wish, I’d been on that plane. I hope we can keep them and others like them here in the US. However, if Congress doesn’t renew the very meeker renewable energy tax incentives it is very likely that these emerging ET firms will pickup and move oversees. If they do, they will take with them, investment dollars, a huge brain trust, and thousands of jobs. They will leave behind lost opportunities for America.
The Three Mavericks. More of the same. No way! No how!
Taking a step back... I think vicki's theory is correct by half. As I remember, the last Dem candidate was a grade point behind our current president as it pertained to school grades.
"While Palin's push to impose a state version of the windfall profits tax on the booming industry compare not favorably to the actions of congressional Republicans ... "
"While Palin's push to impose a state version of the windfall profits tax on the booming industry compare not favorably to the actions of congressional Republicans ... "
I suppose that goes for midwestern farms too?
And I agree lets back down to Russia, just like Reagan did.
The people who chose her may want the Republican ticket to win the election, but that is not the big picture -- it's not even the most important result.
The big picture is to increase Palin's power on the national stage. If she's more powerful, her efforts to increase energy production in Alaska are more likely to succeed.
The multi-trillion dollar global energy industry is seeking to maintain the stauts quo.