Palin Is No Environmentalist

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:24:01 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Gov. Sarah Palin is no friend of the environment.

Palin, McCain's vice presidential running mate, has had frequent run-ins with environmentalists. ... "Her philosophy from our perspective is cut, kill, dig and drill," said John Toppenberg, director of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, maintaining she is "in the Stone Age of wildlife management and is very opposed to utilizing accepted science."

Palin challenged the Bush administration's decision to classify the polar bear as an endangered species. Nor does she agree with the National Marine Fisheries Service that the beluga whale population is endangered. She opposed ballot initiatives to better protect salmon streams from mining operations and to outlaw the shooting of bears and wolves from aircraft. Let's not even talk about her lust for pipelines despite their impact on caribou populations. And, unlike John McCain, she refuses to acknowledge that human behavior might have had an impact on climate change. [more...]

Rep. Brad Miller says:

"She is disturbingly part of the pattern of the Bush administration in their approach to science generally and the science of the environment in particular."

Given her indifference to polar bear habitat, she may be even more anti-science than the Bush administration has been. Certainly she's worse than John McCain. Is this someone our nation wants to have as a potential president?

< Insurers Will Pick Up Tab For Police Brutality in St. Paul | Gloria Steinem: Palin is The Wrong Woman >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Palin Is No Environmentalist | 25 comments (25 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Just for an example of her radical (5.00 / 4) (#8)
by scribe on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:43:44 PM EST

anti-environment policies, consider the proposed "Pebble Mine" on Bristol Bay.

Bristol Bay is, rightly, considered the "Salmon Factory of the World". Pebble Bay would be the world's largest open pit gold and silver mine (and that's saying something). Trout Unlimited has set up a separate web site devoted to preserving the salmon resource and stopping the mine, located here.

The Pebble Mine complex, covering some 15 square miles, would include the largest dam in the world, larger than Three Gorges Dam in China, made of earth not concrete, to hold back the toxic waste created in the mining process.

The mine itself would use a "cyanide leach" process, in which cyanide (one of the few chemicals which will dissolve gold) in a liquid form would be sprayed over ground ore. The cyanide would dissolve the gold and the leachate would be collected from the bottom of literal mountains of ore, then refined to yield the gold.

Take five seconds and you can begin to see the scope of the problems.

Palin sees none.

: Are PETA people Obama supporters? (none / 0) (#23)
by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 06:22:25 PM EST

What about other environmental groups? They need to start putting serious pressure on Obama/Biden NOW.
That being said, I have the feeling those folks are loathe to constructively criticize Obama for anything.

Palin's environmental stances (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Grace on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:49:50 PM EST

are the one thing I've found so far that I find really objectionable about her (though I haven't really finished researching her yet).

I'm pro-environment. I live in a state where you can see the differences between highly polluted areas and pristine areas and that alone is a good reason to want to save our environment.

I'm also against opening up all federal lands for off-road vehicles and hunting.

: TChris, FANTASTIC POST & RESEARCH! (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 06:37:36 PM EST

The environment is, quite literally, a matter of life and death. However, on the whole, I am dumbfounded by the evident lack of interest from Obama supporters.
I deeply appreciate many of the comments on this thread, but it seems there should be a lot MORE feedback than there is.
Palin has generated thousands of comments in the past few days. The environment? Maybe dozens at most.
Maybe the way to drum up interest, is to tie the albatross around Palin's neck, as you have done. Thank you.

Cut, kill, dig, and drill (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Coral on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:50:31 PM EST

Great quote! Thanks, this is the kind of ammo I need to persuade friends to vote Obama in November.

It needs to come directly from Obama/Biden: (none / 0) (#20)
by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 06:02:21 PM EST

I wish they had been the one's to make such a strong statement about the GOP's environmental record.

However, Obama has been PITIFUL on the environment; i.e. with his own stated openness to drilling in Alaska (and elsewhere); his support for natural gas and nuclear power. I hope they, at least, have the guts to quote some of the following on the campaign trail:

"Her philosophy from our perspective is cut, kill, dig and drill," said John Toppenberg, director of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, maintaining Palin is "in the Stone Age of wildlife management and is very opposed to utilizing accepted science."

My daughter (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Coral on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 07:49:25 PM EST

works on environmental issues. Says Obama's website energy plan comes close to her "dream wish list."

Okay, leave out "clean coal", and openness to nuclear. But it's far and away better than McCain.


: Obama/Biden need to get out there (none / 0) (#26)
by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 08:26:21 PM EST

on the campaign trail, talk to reporters, and go on TV, to TELL us about the energy plan on his WEBSITE.

All time high. (2.00 / 1) (#2)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:29:11 PM EST

Palin challenged the Bush administration's decision to classify the polar bear as an endangered species.

Given that polar bear population is reported to be at an all time high, that is not entirely unreasonable. More to the point, since the restrictions that flow from that classification will very likely adversely impact Alaska more than any other state, it would seem that her duty as governor would compel such a challenge.

'Reported' inaccurately (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by TChris on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:35:19 PM EST

according to this source.


Interesting (2.00 / 1) (#9)
by Matt in Chicago on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:44:11 PM EST

But I am not sure if I trust a source from Polar Bears International... They don't seem like a disinterested party, they seem like a group that is advocating for something... in this case conservation which means that they have a vested interest "disproving" that the population has increased.

The story says that we don't know what the population was in the 50's so it was just a guess... thereby "disproving" that the population has increased. OK, fine. I can buy that.

But then the rest of the reply goes on to "prove" how the population has declined.

Is it just me, or does it seem like both groups are more than willing to lie and distort the facts to make their point?


: That should (none / 0) (#17)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:48:46 PM EST

That should be enough to prove it was based on the "best available" science. Best available can be very poor quality if there is nothing better at hand.

: After I read the story about how (none / 0) (#18)
by hairspray on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:49:57 PM EST

the Palin administration was conducting wolf kills from airplanes I decided to check it out, after all I am a contributor to about 4 of these wildlife groups. I did find a cite that explained the justification and spelled out the biologists role in determining where the wolf packs were growing rapidly (see loss of caribou)and how the process was carried out. The source was a college biology unit and seemed to have little stake in its position. What I didn't know is how rapidly wolf populations expand and the ramifications on other wildlife. the report also cited that 4000 wolves had been killed by trapping in the previous year, but that plane hunts had killed less that 300. Wolf hunts in winter seem cruel but are more effective because snow makes wolves visable. Population control can be ugly sometimes. Sad

: Fiver2, you said it all... (none / 0) (#21)
by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 06:12:13 PM EST

The evidence of polar bear population decline that was presented to Bush must have been THOROUGHLY IRREFUTABLE. It's still somewhat surprising that he managed to do the right thing though.

: Matt, I doubt that the evidence presented (none / 0) (#22)
by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 06:14:02 PM EST

to Bush came from Polar Bears International.

Water Vapor (none / 0) (#1)
by cawaltz on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:29:05 PM EST

is the number 1 greenhouse gas. Guess what? Human behavior has no effect on it. This doesn't mean we ignore CO2 but it should make you pause when you start making comments about how whacked out it is to question how much of human behavior has contributed to the greenhouse effect.

: But (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by TChris on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:43:05 PM EST

water vapor stays in the atmosphere for days, while CO2 stays for years. That makes a difference, according to this article.

Obama/Biden must create contrast on environment (none / 0) (#3)
by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:32:25 PM EST

The AP has just given Obama/Biden a huge gift.

They need to get out front ASAP and issue a SUBSTANTIVE and DETAILED statement on the ENVIRONMENT. Now's the time to clearly outline how they intend to protect the environment in ways that McCain/Palin won't.

Hmm... it appears (none / 0) (#6)
by Matt v on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:40:10 PM EST

McCain's brought some pretty good "cosseting" insurance for himself, with his selection of Palin.

: To clarify... (none / 0) (#13)
by Matt v on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:54:47 PM EST

Should his ticket win, I'm certain that, given the alternative, both sides of the aisle will do absolutely everything possible to insure that he remains in the very best of health for the duration of his tenure. ;>)

I think Sarah needs to take a trip (none / 0) (#12)
by Grace on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:51:34 PM EST

to some of the countries outside of the USA that suffer from horrible pollution -- like China or India. Let her see what happens if you stop having environmental controls.

: You call it horrible pollution (none / 0) (#15)
by Steve M on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:08:27 PM EST

around here we like to call it a "free-market solution."

Thank goodness I live in WA State (none / 0) (#16)
by shoephone on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:24:36 PM EST

where our state and local goverments actually care about our salmon habitats!

Believe me, I don't think it'll (none / 0) (#19)
by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:59:34 PM EST

happen either.

Nevertheless, I'll still keep agitating for Democrats to ACT like Democrats.

Palin's Support of Aerial Wolf Hunting (none / 0) (#27)
by Robbie on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 10:30:16 PM EST

Voters should view the horrifying video Defenders of Wildlife is circulating showing Palin's support of aerial wolf hunting. She approved a $400,000 campaign to promote it, introduced legislation to make it easier to hunt wolves and bears from planes, and suggested a $150 bounty for the left foreleg of each dead wolf! It goes beyond poor environmental policy. This is a disturbed individual.