Palin Weighs in on Cap-and-Trade in WaPo Op-Ed, Revealing Her Own Ignorance, Arrogance and Self-Absorption

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Meg White

Soon-to-be-ex-Alaska-Governor Sarah Palin just had to get an op-ed article into a national newspaper while she could still conclude her piece with the words "The writer, a Republican, is governor of Alaska."

Her target in today's Washington Post opinion section is the cap-and-trade proposal being debated in Washington. After cashing in to the tune of $200,000 in SarahPAC contributions in the 10 days after announcing her impending resignation, perhaps she's hoping to get some contributions from Big Oil before leaving office July 26? Or maybe she's looking for a lobbying job?

Of course, part of this is simply a continuation of the GOP's effort to distort the debate over climate change in general and President Obama's plan to combat the problem specifically. Remember, we're talking about the party that grossly misquotes the per-person cost of cap-and-trade, multiplying the amount by approximately 30 times, according to Environmental Protection Agency estimates.

Palin is eager to get back into the good graces of the GOP before the 2012 battle begins, and this op-ed is part of her effort to do so while still appearing mavericky.

But, as is always the case with Palin, this is mostly personal. Though she lied about her state producing 20 percent of the nation's domestic energy supplies while on the campaign trail, it is true that Alaska makes up 14 percent of our annual oil production and 3.5 percent of energy production on the whole in the U.S.

That's still a big chunk of production. But it's state revenues from oil that have Alaska in a true environmental bind. Some 80 percent of the state's revenues come from oil production, allowing Alaska to eschew income and sales taxes, while at the same time cutting annual oil revenue rebate checks to each and every resident (amounts of which were boosted significantly under Palin).

It should come as no surprise that that national politician who has the least understanding of the dividing line between public and personal life should jump into the climate debate, with its worldwide implications, just to talk about herself. Of course, Palin uses the op-ed to launch into an attack of the media before she even gets to her point. Here are the second and third paragraphs of the piece:

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

Alaska's energy output has fallen steadily in the past five years. Keeping this in mind when you read her piece in the Washington Post, you can hear the anxiety in her voice when she references her home state (emphasized by me, to illustrate the us vs. them attitude):

Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy...

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

She frets over job losses, which will occur in her state. But the most telling passage does not overtly mention Alaska at all:

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia?

Palin clearly sees cap-and-trade as a personal affront to her and to Alaska at large. "Noooo!" I imagine Palin whining. "I want to control the nation's energy supply!!"

It's not all about the Benjamins, though. Thanks to that special place oil has in Americans' hearts, cap-and-trade represents a much greater provocation than most analyses take into account. Not only does the majority of Alaska's budget come from energy production, but the prestige of oil gives Palin and others in similar situations (remember that Bush guy?) the clout to get extra money from taxpayers.

Palin is especially manipulative in her cultivation of this image, and has become astonishingly successful in using environmental challenges to stump for more federal investment into the exploitation of Alaska's energy resources. Last month I noted how Palin used the sad situation of Alaska Natives who are classified as the nation's first climate change refugees as a jumping-off point to ask the federal government for more money to explore Alaska's natural gas resources and to apply for federal disaster relief funds.

Now, to the comical part of the piece. Palin, with an imagined wink/grimace on the side, does have one nice thing to say about cap-and-trade:

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

Oh, that's a good one. Especially since Palin's version of a silver lining in the cap-and-trade proposal is indicative of her gross misunderstanding of economic theory. The only real way to affect any change in the current system is to make energy play by the same rules as the rest of the economy. After years of huge tax breaks and subsidies to energy companies, the Obama Administration wants the true cost of cheap oil and coal to be reflected in the real world.

Sounds like it's Palin who needs a lesson in Econ 101. She doesn't seem to understand that supply-side economics is the linchpin of this whole plan, and the reason it will work to reduce carbon output into the environment. Let me try and explain it to her:

"Hey, lady: Remember way back last year when gas prices were all high and stuff? While you were stomping around the country screaming 'Drill, baby, drill,' the rest of us were choosing a more rational way to solve our problems: using less gas."

(Incidentally, high gas prices mean enormous windfalls for oil-rich states such as Alaska, but whatever.)

Now, not everyone can afford to change their lifestyles around and use less resources. Which is why this particular iteration of cap-and-trade is the fairest option. Poorer consumers and working class individuals who are at risk to either pay more for energy which they can't go without or who might lose their jobs due to cutbacks at energy companies will get a hand up from the federal government. But big energy conglomerates who have been subsidized for years by the federal government, will have to choose to either pay more to pollute more, or pollute less.

After all, should the people of Tennessee be the only ones to pay the enormous cost of the "largest environmental disaster of its kind" alone, or should those of us who use the energy being stripped out of the country's mines and mountains have to pay some of that too? What about those climate change refugees in Alaska? Palin wants the money to relocate them to come from the federal government, so energy companies can keep up their record profits and she and her fellow Alaskans can keep their rebate checks.

I suspect that this is a part of Palin's real problem with the cap-and-trade proposal. Poor people getting a break on their energy bills sounds like "spreading the wealth around" to her.

While it's clear that this op-ed is merely an attempt by Palin to get into the debate before she's dismissed as a know-nothing quitter, it's sad that she'd be willing to take down the environmental future of the planet to advance her political goals. But it is a little comforting to know in this tumultuous time of global climate change that some things (such as opportunistic politicians) never change.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Technorati Tags: Analysis palin cap and trade environment green global warming energy cost oil prices gas sarahpac GOP alaska money