Fresh Greens

Palin Changes Position on Climate Change

By Maura Judkis

Posted: September 12, 2008

Sarah Palin's remarks on climate change to Charles Gibson in last night's interview conflicted with her previous position. Palin told Gibson, "I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change." You can see the clip here:

This contrasts with previous statements from Palin, which the Associated Press points out:

She has told the Internet news site Newsmax, "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location.... I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made."

In an interview with a Fairbanks newspaper within the last year, Palin said: "I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity." ABC cited the interview as being at odds with her statement.

"Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that," said Palin to Gibson.

John McCain believes that humans cause climate change, so this switch brings Palin more in line with the candidate's views. However, they still disagree on whether the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be drilled. Regarding the ANWR, she told ABC, "We'll agree to disagree, but I'm gonna keep pushing that [with McCain] and I think eventually we're all going to come together on that one."

Given Palin's previous anti-environmental stances, is her new opinion on climate change a comfort?

Brandon,

Did you even read this article!

You just shouted out a bunch of critical claims without actually saying anything at all. Can you disprove what the author says, or do you just choose not to recognize the facts?

If you are going to write a comment saying an author is incorrect in quoting a 'Great Leader' then you should at least attempt to include evidence to support you claim.

Vivian of TX @ Oct 03, 2008 08:37:18 AM

Reality Check

Ben There seems a tad skeptical about the oil drilling footprint that would result should a 2000 acre, bogey area (frozen in winter) in Anwar be developed for energy production. In the interest of brevity I thought I'd simply list some fun facts most worriers of the Environmentalist Gaia Religion apparently don't know.

1. When the Alaska pipeline was built in the early 1970's enviro's worried over the bear and caribou populations. They predicted the presence of the pipeline would so disturb and disorient them that they wouldn't be unable to mate, thereby causing a devastating decrease in their population. If fact their numbers have more than doubled and they seem able to mate right under the pipe. I guess the caribou aren't as concerned about aesthetics during sex as the greenies. Umm... perhaps the greenies will go extinct - another reason to drill more oil wells.

2. More than a hundred wells can be drilled per acre and the pumps can be submersed in the oil reservoir, so no part of the pumping operation need be visible above ground - Just in case the caribou stop having sex.

3. There are no trees within a hundred miles of the proposed site which is mostly fly and mosquito bog.

4. Ben wonders why they need gravel roads instead of ice roads. I'm guessin' here, but I would suppose because ice roads melt in summer. I wonder why the concern... Are caribou somehow disturbed by gravel? Does the crunching underfoot cause them anxiety?

Just a few additional fun facts for the neo-Pagans;

1. More oil spilled into the sea every 2 months of World War II than in the entire 63 years since its end.

2. More than 1700 barrels of crude oil leak into U.S. Territorial waters from natural, undersea fissures every day. Leakage from the 3600+ oil platforms account for less than 5 barrels a day. And, the natural seepage would more than double if we stopped off shore drilling.

3. The greatest oil spill in history took place in Truk Lagoon in August, 1944. 77 Japaneses ships filled with chemicals, fuel oil and munitions were sunk by hundreds of bombs from American dive bombers. The enviros would deem this a "Super Fund Site"...In reality it is an underwater wonderland and world famous dive resort. Many of the ships still leak oil and there is a continual sheen over much of the lagoon - Life still flourishes.

4. When Juan Cabrillo explored the California coast in the mid-16th century he sailed thru an oil slick that stretched from what is now San Diego to Santa Barbara. He found the natives using tar and pitch to seal their canoes and the beaches covered with it. No beach clean up crews spending millions wiping off sea gulls in those days.

5. All asphalt roads eventually emulsify and rain washes millions of gallons of this and other road pollutants into the sea every year. Should we tear up millions of miles of asphalt roads? Then what do we do with the asphalt?

Find a real worry - Maybe a terrorist with a nuke or bio weapon.

R.L.Schaefer of CA @ Sep 16, 2008 12:58:49 PM

The silly lies of 2,000 acres

I wish Sarah would explain exactly how the 2,000 acres area is determined and exactly what is does and does not include. Does it include the roads, the airstrips, the grave pits, production pad, drilling pads, pipeline and warehouses? Ask her to explain how the ice roads will be used and why they build gravel roads instead of using the ice roads.

Ben There of @ Sep 16, 2008 08:27:05 AM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

Fresh Greens

Fresh Greens

Maura Judkis is a producer at U.S. News. She writes about the green movement and looks for ways to be an ecofriendly consumer without breaking the bank. Send her your green tips.

advertisement

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!