Yesterday were vice presidential debates, and it seemed to me that this event was both more exciting and informative than the presidential one.  The most interesting aspect was the immense focus on energy in the United States.  I thought it was ironic how the Governor of Alaska was so pro-drilling in the state that houses some of the most extrodinary wildlife and national parks (hello! Denali!!!) in the world.  I also thought it interesting that she was continually refocusing the debate on our national energy crisis.  Overall these are how I see the two candidates, and please correct me if you have facts otherwise, because it is important for voters like me to be properly informed:

Palin                                     

1. Does not entirely belive that global warming is man-made. 2. Does not care how global warming came about, just thinks we should fix it. 3. Is pro-drilling in ANWR. 4. Nuclear energy is a go. 5. Alternative sources, yes, but USA oil production a YES.

Biden

1. Yes, obviously global climate change is man made. 2. Because it is man-made, we then know how to fix it (reduce GHGs). 3. Anti-drilling in ANWR. 4. Nuclear energy is a go. 5. Alternative sources: HELL YES, USA oil production: thizz face.

Now, I, of course being a greeniac am biased, but i would just like to know why someone whom is an every-day witness to the beauty of Alaska, and the retreat of ice caps and the death of polar bears, can be so pro-oil?  How would drilling in ANWR reduce GHG emissions? I'm confused, can someone help me with this one?  

Comments (1)

1. 06-10-2008 09:23

Unfortunately I can not help you because I am equally confused-but you brought up some really good points. I, too, was frustrated that during the debates we continuously heard that Palin was pro-energy independance-but that means that we have to drill in the Arctic refuge.

Registered

greeniac1217

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.