By Sarah Palin, Washington Post Op-Ed

Hmm. I wonder who she had write that for her. She's not smart enough to come up with that herself, at least based on what she presented to the world while she was running for VP and in the public eye subsequently to that.

It's high time Ms. Palin read up on global warming and renewable energy, instead of worrying about "me, me, me" and the "First Dude".

You're aware, aren't you, that she was at one time in charge of energy in Alaska and was considered extremely successful at it? In fact, that's how she became known in Alaska.

Other than the fact that you disagree with her politically, is there any good reason you can see to continue to bash a successful woman?

Don't you mean "global climate change?" The "sky is falling" crowd has adopted that term, since "global warming" is just not working (since 2008 was a very cool year, and no "global warming" has occurred since 1998)>

If you think your utilities and taxes are high, you should try living here, Cindy. Yesterday was the first day of the year I actually worked for myself; everything I earned prior to that this year went to the government/social security contributions. Fuel costs are 3 -4x what they are in the U.S..

Food costs and rents (in some areas) are lower in Germany, but that's it.

No, he'll just say that it's imperative to pass the bill RIGHT NOW without reading it or knowing what's in it, and then when nothing good comes of it he'll pull out the "we underestimated the damage that Bush did" line. Hey, it's worked for the economy, right?

Very well written and well thought out piece. Not one reference to the First Dude or me, me, me. Or even to her wardrobe, idiot children or seeing Russia from her house. Funny how those red herring arguments come out whenever she's mentioned. Yes, keeping energy resources closer to home would benefit Alaska. No doubt. It would also benefit Texas and West Virginia and Wyoming too, and she has no vested interest in those states.

One of the funniest things I've seen in a while was when Juan Williams, of NPR and very liberal commentator, was filling in for Bill O'Reilly and was interviewing the underling of the Obama's Press Secretary. When pressed about how the Energy Bill would, even in Obama's own words, raise energy prices for every household in America, and how that was in direct juxtoposition to Obama's campaign promise not to raise taxes on households earning less than $250,000, this guy actually kept a straight face in answering that "you can't blame the President when the companies raise their rates to the consumer". Huh? Does he actually expect the companies to just eat the massive penalties they would face and not pass it along?

I'm confused. What correlation do government taxes have to a private company raising their energy rates? Or, have I misunderstood and the companies are owned and run by the government (Obama)?

For the record, I don't believe all the hype about the sky falling either. The earth has gone through thaw and freeze ages since the beginning of time so depending on which time you live in you will experience either the freeze or the thaw.

Economics 101. If you add a tax to a corporation, the corporation will collect that tax from its customers, plus their normal profit markup on that tax. Corporations do not pay taxes. Their customers do.

If a coal company has to pay, oh, say, a $100/ton tax on carbon emissions, that tax will be paid by the buyers of the coal, and ultimately the users of the products and services produced by that coal.

The lowest figure that has been bandied about is that the current cap-and-trade tax would add about $167 per year to the average family's utility bills, alone. Other analyists say it will be almost $200/month per family, and that is JUST utilities, not the increased cost of everything else.

If you want to see this in operation, check out how much the cost of everything has risen just due to the increased cost of diesel fuel, which contributes to the cost of everything we buy.

In other words, the cap-and-trade program is a regressive tax, falling most heavily on those who can afford it least.

Thanks for that - I was wondering how Obama was again responsible for the actions of others - seems pretty clear now.

In Canada at least, diesel prices have gone back down and are a fair bit lower than gasoline now which is good for me and my TDI.

Diesel is about 10% above regular here in TX, but I hear it is on par elsewhere. The problem in the U.S., of course, is that diesel fuel is also heating oil, so it always starts climbing as winter approaches. Also, diesel taxes are higher than gas taxes in a lot of states, the idea being to put the tax on the trucking companies. Who (guess what?) pass it on to their customers, who pass it on to the consumer.

Economics 101 also says that if another company can provide the same services for less money, they'll outcompete the company that raises their prices. So if someone builds a nuclear plant down the street, they aren't paying the carbon tax and they can offer electricity at lower prices and steal all the customers from the coal plant. Everyone seems to act as if the utilities will just throw up their hands, keep building coal plants, and accept the taxes, but why would they if they can produce the same amount of electricity for less money using a lower-carbon method?

And when our diesel prices soar to $10 we're going to end up paying through the nose for our utilities anyway unless we have converted to forms of power that are less reliant on oil. We have an energy crisis in the U. S. (and more generally on the planet). We have the luxury right now to bury our heads in the sand and pretend we have no problem, but if we do that one day we'll have to pay for our selfishness. If my parents' generation had been willing to pay a little extra every year to address the problem in the 70's, we would have solved it by now. Now, since we're closer to the precipice, the cost is higher. If WE choose to be selfish then one of these days the burden we leave our children will be absolutely crushing. If I can help them avoid that fate by driving a slightly cheaper car, eating out less often, or raising the thermostat a degree or two I'm willing to do that.

We whine and complain about a lack of leadership in Washington, but if any politician dare suggest we need to pitch in and make sacrifices to fix the problems of the day, we vote him out of office so fast their heads spin. So we end up with pretty much every politician promising to simultaneously lower taxes AND improve the quality of government. We vote for the one who seems the least like a crook, and then wonder why he turns out so lousy.

The government or environmental groups are always cloaking themselves in this going after the big bad corporations mantle. The corporations don't pay. You remember a while back the DOJ went after AEP. This was during the Bush administration. AEP had refitted a power generating plant and the environmental groups stand was that it had been extensive enough to qualify as a new plant and that all these extra things had to be added. AEP lost with all the massive monetary penalities along with the costs of the add ons. The DOJ and the environmental groups were out there talking about what a great victory it was and they were making the big bad corporation pay. Of course our rates went up and the company has lost nothing because their income comes from their customers. This cap and trade scheme has been tried in other countries and nothing good has come of it except added revenue for a growing government. Of course now it's entrenched because governments simply do not give up revenue sources and contract. Increases in energy costs are always regressive. The further down the economic ladder the more the negative effect.

We don't reach that point until near the end of October!!!

That might be stretching the truth somewhat.

No, I don't believe so

You know, it's funny. Every time there's a cold day you see guys like Glenn Beck saying "See, look! I told you global warming was a hoax!" But when there's a warm, you never hear a peep out of them. It was a near-record high today in Tucson, so I guess that means global warming is real.

Actually, here's what NASA has to say on the subject:

Apparently, people who have a vested interest in denying global warming are quoting the first sentence from the quote and ignoring the rest. Assuming a symmetric distribution, the probability 10 straight years would all be higher than average would be (0.5)^10 = 0.1%. The probability that all 10 would randomly be at the extreme upper temperature tail of the distribution is more on the order of (0.1)^10 = 0.00000001%. Your chance of getting a royal flush in poker is about 100 times larger than that.

Also, from further down in the article:

He's not a very vocal supporter unfortunately, but he's never said anything against nuclear. I remember him giving nuclear power a somewhat lackluster endorsement during the debates. Something to the effect of, "nuclear will be an important piece of our energy technology, but we'll be looking at all available technologies including wind, solar, clean coal, etc." Still, I think he's an intelligent guy who knows that right now nuclear power is the only non-fossil fuel technology we have that's fully mature and could support 100% of our electrical needs right now. Based on what I know of his background, I imagine that's exactly what the Secretary of Energy is whispering in the President's ear.

The energy crisis exists because there are a couple billion people living in Asia who want to have the same standard of living (and hence energy consumption) as we do. There's just not enough oil left in the world to sustain that. Even if we strip mine Canada for every last drop of oil in the shale I don't think we can ever keep up with the rate of oil consumption that would entail. "Drill, baby, drill!" might delay the ultimate problem a bit, but it would be a short term fix at best, assuming the oil companies didn't decide to sell it to higher bidders outside of the U.S.

I'd heard it was around June 1. Can you link me to the data source that says October? I'd be interested in reading it.

Global warming doesn't mean that every place will be warmer. It means that the average temperature, if you were to take it at every place on earth will be higher. So if some places have colder climate, others will have hotter climate to compensate. The problem is when you get extreme highs and extreme lows. For example, winter arriving three months early in one place may mean proportionately higher temperatures in some other place where higher temperatures aren't expected.

This is completely untrue. It isn't a matter of opinion. I linked the department of energy several months ago in a different thread. We don't have enough reserves to maintain our lifestyle. Especially, as another poster pointed out, with Asian countries trying to maintain the same standard of living that we have in America.

Actually, the burden of the tax falls on whoever is more sensitive to price changes. If the consumers don't buy enough gas at that price- the corporation will take the burden of the tax upon itself & its profits.

ETA: I don't have much to say seeing how there are some people here who actually don't even acknowledge global warming...I like to agree with science for the most part, ESPECIALLY when it's a matter of caution... even if it is contrary to my opinions regarding policy.

I don't know about Germany, but seeing how I was born in a country that's part of the EU- I have to comment that I don't know anyone who pays more taxes there than in the US. The difference is the US spends a ridiculous amount of money on defense & military- we don't have such huge expenses. So many people fail to realize that this is where most of your taxes are going, not welfare or any social program. The US social programs cannot even compare to those we have in most EU countries and we have a much more even distribution of wealth and pay less taxes...But then again, you don't see anyone in the EU going around the world and trying to give "freedom" to the nations who are oppressed. No other country in the world has as many military bases outside of its own territory as the US.
Anyways back to OP..

And that's something to be proud of?! There are a bunch of wars going on right now that are largely the result of a war mongering US President (George Bush) initiating the large scale attacks.

Can you name any besides Iraq? Are you referring to Afghanistan, that was backed by the entire world, including your country? Two hardly counts as "a bunch of wars". Maybe those "large scale attacks" are in those mass US government conspiracy books you've read. I sure don't recall them.

But, besides arguments about if global warming exists and more of the "blame Bush" arguments or opinions about Palin's looks or intelligence or husband, I believe this thread about the opinion piece Ms. Palin wrote about Obama's Cap and Trade bill. Can we please get back to that discussion?

I don't think there is any disagreement where Palin's head is at concerning what type of energy source she thinks is important (drill baby drill). Her piece doesn't even acknowledge that while we may cap spending on one source of energy, we would have to grow other energy sources. Yes, the oil industry would lose jobs. But how many jobs in other energy sectors would be created? I see her trying to rationalize her limited understanding of energy with this article. It's neither a worldly or long term view. Our fuel reserves are going to run out. Granted that could be years away, but why wait until there is a national (or world) crisis on our hands to grow alternative industries?

I shouldn't care about this topic because I don't have any children that will inherit the planet after I die. But I do, and Palin is just showing off her narrow understanding of things.