The McCain Campaign’s Big McMansion Mystery Mistake
Posted by dday, Hullabaloo at 9:51 AM on September 5, 2008.

What exactly was that giant building on the screen behind John McCain last night?

To a man, everyone on the liberal blogger side of the aisle was stunned that the McCain campaign would allow the TV shot to go out to the world on his big night to be him in front of a lime green background. Cottage cheese and lime Jello, in the vernacular of the blogosphere. Surely they WATCHED the shot through a monitor and knew that it would make him look sickly. {Actually he looked older then he really is and did not give him an aura of environmentalism green - this is something he totally lost in the last half year of his campaign,}

But that’s not the only head-scratcher with the RNC staging, which the set designers had months to organize. The giant screen was useless outside of the room, always putting the speaker at the podium behind monochrome, or worse, in the East River (in Rudy Giuliani’s speech).

Putting the seats for dignitaries along the side of the stage was OK, but the white line across the boxes designating them looked to the TV angle like the seats were empty, in a wide shot. And then there’s this, which is absolutely amazing:

{ But The Real goof-off Seems to be More Serious: }

A lot of people were asking tonight: what the hell was that mansion up behind John McCain tonight during the first part of the speech? As I noted below, the TV close-ups only showed McCain’s head against the grass in the picture, which made it look like he was reprising his famed green screen performance. And when they panned out, it looked like McCain was showing off one of his mansions.

Well, several readers have written in to tell me that the building is actually the main building on the campus of the Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, California. And sure enough, this page on the school’s website makes it pretty clear that they’re correct.

Could this be? Could the producers have wanted a shot of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and they farmed it off to the intern who picked Walter Reed MIDDLE SCHOOL? I mean, is that possible? None of the consultants and muckety-mucks charged with picking the backgrounds know what Walter Reed looks like? As Josh Marshall says, “is this the RNC or a scene out Spinal Tap or Waiting for Guffman?”

You know, it wasn’t so long ago that these guys were the pros at this. Say what you will about Mission Accomplished Day, putting Bush in that flight suit was brilliant theater. Where did those people go?

UPDATE:

Here’s another fun wrinkle: It turns out that the building behind McCain was also used as the backdrop for Matt Santos’ announcement of his presidential candidacy on The West Wing. {So, was this a liberal Hollywood make-believe look-alike effort?

GRIST TOP STORY September 4, 2008

Veep It Up: Palin digs into energy issues in convention speech.

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin hit on a number of energy issues during her forceful convention speech on Wednesday night — and didn’t bring up climate change at all. She talked up her battles with Big Oil and touted a natural-gas pipeline project in Alaska. “We Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas. And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we’ve got lots of both,” she said. “Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America’s energy problems — as if we all didn’t know that already. But the fact that drilling won’t solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all. Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we’re going to lay more pipelines and build more nuclear plants and create jobs with clean coal and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources.”

Other speakers last night also raised the issue of energy independence, including Rudy Giuliani, who let out a cry of “Drill, baby, drill!” Check out more Grist convention coverage.

—————–

Sarah Palin’s much-anticipated VP acceptance speech on Wednesday night included a lot of energy talk — and extensive criticism of Barack Obama.

RNC: Palin bullish on energy: VP acceptance speech hits on energy issues.
Posted by Kate Sheppard at 8:22 PM on 03 Sep 2008

Sarah Palin’s much-anticipated VP acceptance speech on Wednesday night included a lot of energy talk — and extensive criticism of Barack Obama.

“We are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and a servant’s heart,” she said. “I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States. This was the spirit that brought me to the governor’s office, when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau … when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good-ol’ boys network.”

Palin emphasized her call to expand domestic drilling, and called for more nuclear, “clean coal,” and renewables.

“Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America’s energy problems — as if we all didn’t know that already. But the fact that drilling won’t solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all,” she said. “Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we’re going to lay more pipelines and build more nuclear plants and create jobs with clean coal and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources. We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers.”

She talked up her moves as governor to suspend the state fuel tax, and said she “championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.” She also repeated the line from her introduction speech last Friday about the “Bridge to Nowhere” — “I told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks,’ for that Bridge to Nowhere” — a claim that has been since disputed. Palin was actually for the bridge before she was against it.

“If our state wanted a bridge, we’d build it ourselves,” she said in tonight’s speech. Actually, the state still got the federal money, and they’re using millions of dollars from that pork to build a road meant to link up with said bridge that doesn’t yet exist.

She also talked up the tax she imposed on the oil industry in her state. “When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged — directly to the people of Alaska,” she said. “And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.”

She talked about the natural-gas pipeline she has pushed for as governor and her call for increased drilling, both of which she asserted will bring the country closer to energy independence.

“I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion natural-gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence,” she said. “That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.”

She continued on the topic of energy security, delving more into the issue than any other speaker so far at this convention.

“When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil,” she continued. “With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.”

“To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries, we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas,” she said. “And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we’ve got lots of both.”

And later in the speech, “What does [Obama] actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet? … America needs more energy — our opponent is against producing it.”

—————————-

 

Palin comparison: Alaskan greens say McCain’s VP pick has anti-environmental record.
Posted by Kate Sheppard at 4:33 PM on 31 Aug 2008

John McCain’s surprise pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate has a lot of environmentalists in the state worried about the influence she might have on the presidential candidate’s environmental policy. McCain has worked hard to portray himself as a green Republican, but Palin has developed an anti-environmental reputation during her 20 months as governor, according to many in the state.

Her office in downtown Anchorage sits beside the ConocoPhillips building. “When I look every day, the big oil company’s building is right out there next to me, and it’s quite a reminder that we should have mutually beneficial relationships with the oil industry,” she said recently. Most people in the Alaskan environmental community see her as an ally of Big Oil, willing to set aside both science and the public good to benefit the industry.

“I think it’s a really extreme choice from a conservation perspective,” says Peter Van Tuyn, an Anchorage-based environmental lawyer who has advocated for the state’s native and conservation groups on environmental concerns for the past 15 years. “Picking Palin moves [McCain] even farther to right.”

Like Van Tuyn, many enviros in the state express concern about her push to open up more areas to oil and gas drilling, her stances against protecting endangered species, and her past denials of anthropogenic climate change.

But even environmentalists praise her for taking on political corruption related to the oil and gas industry. And other observers note that Palin has gone to battle against Big Oil on a number of issues, most notably pushing through a big tax increase on oil companies last year. “She’s viewed … as almost anti-oil” in her home state, Alaskan GOP pollster Mark Hellenthal told the Associated Press. “She’s probably pro-oil from a national perspective, but she’s not in the pocket of Big Oil. She’s fought them at every step.”

An inhospitable climate

Palin’s beliefs on global warming contrast sharply with those of McCain, who has long warned about the dangers of human-caused climate change and who in 2003 cosponsored the first major bill in the Senate to address the problem. McCain consistently talks up his climate change plan on the campaign trail and in his TV ads.

Palin’s got a different take. “A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location,” Palin told Newsmax in an interview published on Friday. But, she added, “I’m not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made.”

In 2006, while running for governor, Palin said of climate change, “I will not pretend to have all the answers,” and cautioned against “overreaction” on the issue. A Palin spokesperson in 2006 said, “She’s not totally convinced one way or the other. Science will tell us … She thinks the jury’s still out.”

After Palin joined McCain’s ticket, her spokesperson said, “Gov. Palin not only stands with John McCain in his belief that global warming is a critical issue that must be addressed, but she has been a leader in addressing climate change.” Note that the statement dodges the issue of whether humans are responsible for global warming.

“I wouldn’t call her a climate change denier, but she is extremely close to that position,” John Toppenberg, director of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, told Grist. “She seems to be failing to acknowledge virtually all credible science.”

Still, Palin has taken some small steps on climate change, creating a committee to develop Alaska’s climate-change strategy and making Alaska an observer, though not a member, of the Western Climate Initiative.

Drill here, drill now

Palin has a complicated relationship with the oil industry. Last year, she pushed through new oil taxes in Alaska, arguing that the tax plan proposed by the previous governor, Frank Murkowski, was too favorable to the industry. The new tax brought in about $6 billion during the last fiscal year, contributing to an expected budget surplus of as much as $9 billion. Palin used some of that excess to give each Alaskan $1,200 to help them deal with rising energy costs.

Palin says that she, like McCain, opposes the idea of a “windfall profits” tax on oil companies. And yet her strategy in Alaska looks an awful lot like Barack Obama’s plan to impose a windfall-profits tax and use the money to give each American $1,000 to help offset pain at the pump. Palin even praised some aspects of Obama’s energy plan earlier this month.

With billions from the new oil tax pouring in to Alaska’s treasury, it’s no wonder that Palin wants to give the oil industry more opportunities to drill — and more opportunities to be taxed. She has been an avid supporter of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, as well as offshore areas, and has even chastised the Bush administration for not pushing hard enough to allow more drilling in her state.

“We have so much potential from tapping our resources here in Alaska. And we can do this with minimum environmental impact,” she said in her recent Newsmax interview. “We have a very pro-development president in President Bush, and yet he failed to push for opening up parts of Alaska to drilling through Congress — and a Republican-controlled Congress, I might add.”

In the past, Palin has been critical of McCain’s stance on drilling in the refuge. “Sen. McCain is wrong” on the issue of oil drilling, she said during a June 25 appearance on CNBC’s “Kudlow & Company.” “I think he’s going to evolve into eventually supporting ANWR opening … I’d like the opportunity to change his mind about ANWR,” she added.

While McCain previously opposed offshore drilling, this summer he changed his position; he now calls for the moratorium on offshore drilling to be lifted. He has long been a staunch opponent of drilling in the Arctic Refuge, but he’s been sounding a little less staunch lately. In June, he indicated at a campaign event in Missouri that he’d be “happy to examine it again.”

“ANWR is something that so far Sen. McCain has stood strong on,” said Alaska Wilderness League Executive Director Cindy Shogan. “We’re very concerned. Gov. Palin is a typical Alaska Republican. She wants to drill everywhere regardless of the impacts on the environment and the people.”

On Friday, McCain spokesperson Michael Goldfarb said, “Though Sen. McCain opposes drilling in ANWR, he continues to examine the issue in light of America’s energy needs.”

“I have really appreciated John McCain’s hard work on the Arctic Refuge in the past,” said Van Tuyn, who has previously worked with McCain on the issue. “It’s just been great. But I have seen the man change before my eyes on so many issues — even offshore drilling — and he’s said recently he’d reconsider the Arctic Refuge.” Van Tuyn said that Palin’s selection makes him worry that McCain could shift on this issue as well.

Frank Maisano, who represents the energy industry with the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, said Palin will lend some first-hand knowledge of the oil industry to the Republican ticket.

“Anybody who has any understanding of the oil industry and what it takes to get a barrel of oil out of the ground and to a consumer eventually, and the hard work and complexity that goes into that, is going to be a value,” said Maisano. “Anybody that has to deal with these industries on a regular basis like the governor of Alaska has to is going to have a much deeper understanding of the complexity and the difficulty of doing the work.”

Despite her pro-drilling stance, Palin has expressed reservations about drills moving into Alaska’s Bristol Bay, which Bush opened to drilling last year. Bristol Bay is home to the world’s largest sockeye salmon population and other big salmon runs. Said Palin, “the fear would be that our very rich fish resources would be put in jeopardy.” Her family owns a commercial fishing business. At the same time, Palin’s husband is an oil production operator for BP on Alaska’s North Slope.

Palin made a name for herself in Alaska a few years ago by fighting corruption as chair of the Alaska Gas and Oil Conservation Commission from 2003 to 2004. She ended up resigning from the post to protest the “lack of ethics” demonstrated by fellow Alaskan Republican leaders. Her campaign for governor in 2006 was based largely on promoting transparency in government; she pitted herself against the party establishment to defeat incumbent Gov. Frank Murkowski in the primary.

She has also gone head-to-head with Big Oil over construction plans for a trans-Alaska natural-gas pipeline. She wants one big enough that smaller companies can use it as well as the oil giants, and she didn’t like the terms the big companies had been negotiating with the Murkowski administration, which she said would have locked in pipeline-transit rates for decades and given the companies “a sweet deal.” ExxonMobil, ConocoPhilips, and BP have fought her pipeline plan, but she’s pushing ahead with it.

As for other forms of energy, there is some question as to where Palin stands. McCain has talked up renewables during his campaign, but Palin has been less bullish about their possibilities. “Alternative-energy solutions are far from imminent and would require more than 10 years to develop,” she said earlier this month.

Still, some environmental leaders in the state say she has voiced support for wind, hydro, and geothermal power, making her seem more open to renewables than her predecessors in the statehouse. Kate Troll, executive director of Alaska Conservation Voters, said Palin met with her group and seemed enthusiastic about the potential for renewables. But so far there’s been little more than verbal support for alternative energy sources.

“She presents a mixed bag of results. She’s a real strong supporter of drilling offshore and in the Arctic Refuge, and very strong on oil and gas issues, but at the same time she’s very strong on renewable energy,” said Troll. “How it all fits together, we don’t know, because she’s never really articulated her energy policy.” Troll says Palin pledged in June to outline a comprehensive energy plan and appointed an energy czar.

Clear and present endangerment

Another major concern for enviros is Palin’s stance on endangered species in the state. After the Bush administration’s Department of Interior listed the polar bear as a threatened species in May, the governor sued the department. “We believe that the … decision to list the polar bear was not based on the best scientific and commercial data available,” said Palin, who also penned an op-ed in The New York Times on the subject.

Palin and other state officials expressed concern that listing polar bears as threatened would impair oil and gas development in the state. Palin argued that the listing decision was based on “the unproven long-term impact of any future climate change on the species” and that a “comprehensive review” of the federal science by state wildlife officials found no reason to support listing the bears as endangered.

But emails released via a public-records request later showed that Alaskan state scientists agreed with federal researchers that polar bears are threatened by shrinking ice. “Overall, we believe that the methods and analytical approaches used to examine the currently available information supports the primary conclusions and inferences stated” in federal reports, wrote Robert Small, head of the marine mammals program for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

“This was the Bush administration Fish and Wildlife [Service]. It’s not like these people are bear-huggers,” said Van Tuyn. “State scientists looked at it and said that’s the best science, and Palin said, ‘Keep your mouths shut,’ and she turned around to the public and said, ‘I do not support listing the polar bear, the science doesn’t support it.’”

Palin has also opposed efforts to protect Cook Inlet beluga whales, a genetically distinct population of whales located only in this Alaskan inlet. Scientists estimate that they numbered 1,300 in the ’80s; now they’re down to just 375. Environmental groups have been pressing for a listing to protect the whales, but Palin has urged the federal government not to list, again citing threats to the oil and gas industry. “I am especially concerned that an unnecessary federal listing and designation of critical habitat would do serious long-term damage to the vibrant economy of the Cook Inlet area,” said Palin in a statement last year.

Many in the state say she’s demonstrated again and again a willingness to protect business interests over environmental concerns. “There isn’t a threatened or endangered species that she likes in this state,” said Van Tuyn.

Palin has also drawn heat from conservationists for pushing to let citizens shoot wolves from the air, and for supporting looser bear-hunting rules aimed at reducing bear populations in order to inflate numbers of moose and caribou, which draw big-game hunters to the state. She opposed a ballot initiative to change the law so that only Department of Fish and Game personnel could shoot wolves or bears from the air. She drew even more criticism for using $400,000 of taxpayer money to “educate Alaskans” about “predator control.” The ballot initiative was voted down last week.

“Decimating them with ongoing perpetual programs is in no way in line with environmentally responsible predator management,” said Toppenberg of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance. “The ecosystems up here are intact, but they certainly won’t be if we decimate the population in order to artificially inflate the population of moose and caribou.”

Mining vs. salmon

Palin has come into criticism recently for using her post as governor to influence a ballot initiative on clean water, which voters also rejected last week. “Proposition 4″ would have prohibited or restricted new mining operations that could affect salmon in the state’s streams and rivers, and was crafted in order to prevent the development of the Pebble Mine, which if approved would be the largest open-pit gold and copper mine in North America. Toxic runoff from the mine would threaten the Bristol Bay ecosystem, and put drinking water at risk. It is widely opposed by commercial fishers, native populations, and environmentalists in the state. While state regulatory agencies will get the final say on granting permits for the mine, the initiative would have made it considerably harder to move forward.

Just days before the vote on the ballot initiative, Palin stated publicly that she opposed it. “Let me take my governor’s hat off just for a minute here and tell you, personally, Prop. 4, I vote no on that,” she said. Groups that supported the measure argued that Palin’s comments were highly unethical. They also filed a legal complaint against the state government for improperly weighing in against Prop. 4 on the state’s website.

The Alaska Public Offices Commission ordered the state to take down the questionable web content, but said Palin’s public statement was permissible because she made it clear it was her personal opinion. Polls before her statement showed voters strongly in favor of the measure, but in the end nearly 60 percent of the public voted against it.

“Conventional wisdom around here is that [her statement] changed the tide on the proposition, from narrowly passing to being defeated,” said Van Tuyn.

Richard Jameson of the Renewable Resources Coalition, a nonprofit group that represents sportsmen, commercial fishermen, and native subsistence users and that cosponsored Prop. 4, said it’s been hard to get Palin to listen to their concerns about potential damage to fisheries. “We really haven’t had a good dialogue with her on the Pebble Mine or Prop. 4,” he said. “On the bigger issue, Pebble Mine, frankly we don’t know how she stands.”

On the ticket

David Jenkins, government affairs director of Republicans for Environmental Protection, which endorsed McCain last October, on Friday said he believes Palin “will defer to the top of the ticket” on issues like the Arctic Refuge and climate policy. He also said he thinks she will be an overall benefit to the ticket.

“[McCain’s] campaign has shown no sign of wavering on the refuge, so I don’t think there’s any reason to wring our hands over the pick of someone from Alaska,” said Jenkins. “I think it’s sort of a wait-and-see situation. She’s a good choice from the standpoint of what they need to do in this election.”

But other national environmental groups see her selection as a sign that McCain is moving to the right on energy and environmental issues.

“Gov. Palin will simply continue the failed policies of the Bush-Cheney administration and their Big Oil friends — policies that could make us even more dependent on foreign oil,” said League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski. “Gov. Palin characterizes McCain’s flip-flop on drilling offshore as a positive step in his transformation from maverick to Big Oil’s best friend.”

Of course, it’s too early to know what sort of influence Palin will have on McCain as a candidate, much less what influence should would have if the two are elected this November. But her record in Alaska does raise questions about the McCain campaign’s commitment to environmental protection and climate action.

Comment For story: Palin comparison

Strategically smart move

I do not like the choice McCain made, but I fear he made a smart move. McCain does not have to please the moderate voters who may or may not vote for him. If he is able to mobilize those who voted for Bush again and get a few more, he will have the White House.
Although I believe that being a woman is not enough, many will think exactly that. Experience in office is not relevant either. Obama has little (some say), Bush displays little (others say). If Palin excites voters who are tired of the panic of global warming and prefer to ignore it, voters who wanted a woman in (or near the) office more than anything else, voters who believe that not changing your mind is a sign of strength, religious conservatives, etc., all those who until now preferred to stay home rather than vote for McCain and at least some of those who will not vote for Obama under any circumstances, McCain has found a useful running mate.

Although he said he would choose someone who reflects his values, it is not about being truthful right now - it is about getting into the White house. Politics in the US has little to do with politics.  It has been a big show for a long time. Intelligent and educated people are perceived as removed from regular people much more than those who are rich, powerful, and influencual. Those sort of people you get to see on TV and all it takes is some money and you could be like them. Or if you remove the money, they are like you. Palin will be perceived as a regular woman, mother, wife, etc. People will identify with her on a personal level, and her political attitude, reason, or wisdom will matter little.

What McCain needed to find for this election was the female political equivalent to George W. Bush, and on first superficial glance, he may have found her.

Karsten
 http://www.polluteless.com

Arctic Melting Shows Global Warming Serious - Expert.

CANADA: September 4, 2008

OTTAWA - The incredibly rapid rate at which Canada’s Arctic ice shelves are disappearing is an early indicator of the “very substantial changes” that global warming will impose on all mankind, a top scientist said on Wednesday.

Researchers announced late on Tuesday that the five ice shelves along Ellesmere Island in the Far North, which are more than 4,000 years old, had shrunk by 23 percent this summer alone.
The largest shelf is disintegrating and one of the smaller shelves, covering 19 square miles (55 square km), broke away entirely last month.

“Climate models indicate that the greatest changes, the most severe changes, will happen earliest in the highest northern latitudes,” said Warwick Vincent, director of the Centre for Northern Studies at Laval University in Quebec.

“This will be the starting point for more substantial changes throughout the rest of the planet…. Our indicators are showing us exactly what the climate models predict,” he told Reuters in an interview.

Global warming is forecast to generate more damaging weather extremes such as hurricanes, cyclones and floods.

Vincent, who has visited the ice shelves along Ellesmere Island every year for the past 10 years, said the impact of higher temperatures this year was “staggering”.

His team had estimated that the shelves would lose eight square miles this summer. The true figure was 83 square miles.

“What was extraordinary was just the vast quantity of open water … you could see open water to the horizon in an area that is typically ice-covered throughout the season,” he said.

The Markham Ice Shelf split away from Ellesmere Island in early August. Two large chunks totaling 47 square miles have broken off the nearby Serson Ice Shelf, reducing it in size by 60 percent.

The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, at 155 square miles the largest of the remaining four shelves, is disintegrating.

“Clearly the long-term viability of that ice shelf is now actually short-term,” said Vincent.

The peak temperature the team recorded was 67.5 degrees Fahrenheit (19.7 degrees Celsius), far above the average of 46 degrees Fahrenheit.

***

Vincent said he had no doubt that global warming was caused in part by human activity.

“I think we’re at a point where it is not stoppable but it can be slowed down. And if you think about the magnitude of effects on our society, then we really need to buy ourselves more time to get ready for some very substantial changes that are ahead,” he said.

Ellesmere Island was once home to a single enormous ice shelf totaling around 3,500 square miles. All that is left today are the four much smaller shelves that together cover little more than 300 square miles.

Scientists say the shelves, which contain unique microscopic ecosystems that have not yet been studied, will not be replaced because they took so long to form.

“More and more, we’re realizing that it is microscopic life that really dominates the biodiversity of planet Earth … we really need to understand what that biodiversity is,” said Vincent. 

Palin’s Alaska Reaps the Windfall Profits McCain Decries.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008.

by: Robert Scheer, Truthdig, distributed by Truthout.

 http://www.truthout.org/article/palins-a….

Thanks to Robert Scheer for having researched the US Alaska Oil-State. We knew all of that but were too lazy to do the research and write it up in an orderly way. Now we have it right here.

*- * -*———

*   *
“Welcome to the People’s Republic of Alaska, where every resident this year will get a $3,200 payout, thanks in no small measure to the efforts of Sarah Palin, the state’s Republican governor. That’s $22,400 for a family of seven, like Palin’s.

Since 1982, the Alaska Permanent Fund, which invests oil revenues from state lands, has paid out a dividend on invested oil loot to everyone who has been in the state for a year.

But Palin upped the ante by joining with Democrats and some recalcitrant Republican state legislators to share in oil company windfall profits, further fattening state tax revenue and permitting an additional payout in tax funds to residents.

No wonder she is popular with voters in a state whose residents pay no income or sales taxes but are blessed with state coffers rolling in cash at a time when all other states are suffering. Indeed, when the oil companies pay more taxes to the state of Alaska, they get to write that off against their federal tax obligation, leaving the rest of us to make up the shortfall.”

***

The state of Alaska owns most of the oil-producing land and was getting upward of 85 percent of its budget from the oil companies that lease the fields, even before Palin helped increase the state’s cut.

While other states fire schoolteachers because of the economic downturn, Alaska has, as Palin indicated in accepting John McCain’s offer to join him on the GOP ticket, more money than it knows what to do with.

In a display of plucky arrogance at her coming-out press conference, Palin boasted deceptively that if Alaskans wanted that infamous bridge to nowhere, “we’d build it ourselves.”

She originally had supported having U.S. taxpayers finance that boondoggle, before McCain and others in Congress blasted it.
***
Not that I blame Palin for wrangling for her state a bigger cut of oil company windfall profits; it’s just not an option that will work wonders for states without oil. Of course we can remedy that by having a federal windfall profits tax of the sort that Barack Obama dared propose, and which McCain and his fellow congressional Republicans have managed to quash. Their argument, rejected quite pointedly by Palin for Alaska, is that it would discourage oil companies from investing in boosting oil field yields.

McCain derided Obama’s call for the windfall profits tax, saying it would “increase our dependence on foreign oil and hinder exactly the same kind of domestic exploration and production we need.” I am far more interested in how McCain handles the contradiction between his and Palin’s position on windfall oil profits than whether he properly vetted her on her family-values commitment to the abstinence-only teenage sex education program.

Why is it a good thing for the folks up in Alaska to get a cut of exorbitant oil company profits, but not the rest of us, if we are all part of one nation? Didn’t taxpayers from across the U.S. buy the place from the Russians? Isn’t it our federally collected tax dollars that have been subsidizing Alaska more lavishly than any other state, both before and after the bonanza of oil?

***

Just witness the success of Palin, who, as mayor of the hamlet of Wasilla, hired a big-time lobbying firm intimately connected with the state’s now-indicted Republican Sen. Ted Stevens and thus obtained $27 million in federal earmarks during her tenure. As The Washington Post calculated in a devastating report on Mayor Palin’s assault on the federal treasury, her home town of Wasilla (with about 6,000 inhabitants in 2002 when she was mayor) received $6.1 million, or $1,000 per resident in earmarks, almost as much as Boise, Idaho, got this year with a population that is 30 times larger.

***

It obviously helped to have Alaska’s now-indicted senator as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. And despite McCain’s claims that Palin distinguished herself by breaking with Alaska’s discredited Republican establishment in February, the governor sent Stevens a request for $200 million to support various state projects.

With representatives like that, it’s no wonder that Alaska, despite its oil boom, is still at the top of states subsidized by federal dollars, receiving $1.84 back from Washington for every $1 that Alaskans pay in federal taxes. (California receives 78 cents for every $1.)

Unfortunately, looking to Palin for advice on helping the rest of us during the oil crunch, as McCain has promised, is a bit like asking a Saudi oil minister or Russia’s Vladimir Putin to provide a model for our nation’s economic woes. They hardly feel our pain at the pump.

———

Robert Scheer is author of a new book, “The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America.”

From:  newsdesk at brownrudnick.com
Subject: Brown Rudnick: The Case for Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standards & Tradable White Certificates ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Date: September 3, 2008

Energy efficiency has long been a great idea; however, not until the recent convergence of higher sustained energy prices and demand for carbon footprint reduction has the case for widespread adoption of energy efficiency measures become so compelling.

In the attached article, by Peter Fusaro and Howard Siegel, Howard L. Siegel, Co-Leader of our Energy and Utilities Practice Group, discusses how today’s technology is better, more reliable and ready to be massively deployed in a new trading market based on energy efficiency portfolio standards and white certificates. Peter Fusaro got into this two decades ago.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact your Brown Rudnick attorney or Howard L. Siegel at  hsiegel at brownrudnick.com / 860.509.6519.

Learn more about Brown Rudnick at www.brownrudnick.com.

• Download the PDF here:
• brown-rudnick-energy-efficiency-and-white-certificates-utilipoint-8-08.pdf

 

Op-Ed Columnist Thomas Friedman, The New York Times, September 3, 2008 (written September 2, 2008)

.
AND THEN THERE WAS ONE.
As we emerge from Labor Day, college students are gathering back on campuses not only to start the fall semester, but also, in some cases, to vote for the first time in a presidential election.

There is no bigger issue on campuses these days than environment/energy. Going into this election, I thought that — for the first time — we would have a choice between two “green” candidates.

That view is no longer operative — and college students (and everyone else) need to understand that.

With his choice of Sarah Palin — the Alaska governor who has advocated drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and does not believe mankind is playing any role in climate change — for vice president, John McCain has completed his makeover from the greenest Republican to run for president to just another representative of big oil.

***

Given the fact that Senator McCain deliberately avoided voting on all eight attempts to pass a bill extending the vital tax credits and production subsidies to expand our wind and solar industries, and given his support for lowering the gasoline tax in a reckless giveaway that would only promote more gasoline consumption and intensify our addiction to oil, and given his desire to make more oil-drilling, not innovation around renewable energy, the centerpiece of his energy policy — in an effort to mislead voters that support for drilling today would translate into lower prices at the pump today — McCain has forfeited any claim to be a green candidate.

So please, students, when McCain comes to your campus and flashes a few posters of wind turbines and solar panels, ask him why he has been AWOL when it came to Congress supporting these new technologies.

***

“Back in June, the Republican Party had a round-up,” said Carl Pope, the executive director of the Sierra Club. “One of the unbranded cattle — a wizened old maverick name John McCain — finally got roped. Then they branded him with a big ‘Lazy O’ — George Bush’s brand, where the O stands for oil. No more maverick.

“One of McCain’s last independent policies putting him at odds with Bush was his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” added Pope, “yet he has now picked a running mate who has opposed holding big oil accountable and been dismissive of alternative energy while focusing her work on more oil drilling in a wildlife refuge and off of our coasts. While the northern edge of her state literally falls into the rising Arctic Ocean, Sarah Palin says, ‘The jury is still out on global warming.’ She’s the one hanging the jury — and John McCain is going to let her.”

Indeed, Palin’s much ballyhooed confrontations with the oil industry have all been about who should get more of the windfall profits, not how to end our addiction.

***

Barack Obama should be doing more to promote his green agenda, but at least he had the courage, in the heat of a Democratic primary, not to pander to voters by calling for a lifting of the gasoline tax. And while he has come out for a limited expansion of offshore drilling, he has refrained from misleading voters that this is in any way a solution to our energy problems.

I am not against a limited expansion of off-shore drilling now. But it is a complete sideshow. By constantly pounding into voters that his energy focus is to “drill, drill, drill,” McCain is diverting attention from what should be one of the central issues in this election: who has the better plan to promote massive innovation around clean power technologies and energy efficiency.

Why? Because renewable energy technologies — what I call “E.T.” — are going to constitute the next great global industry. They will rival and probably surpass “I.T.” — information technology. The country that spawns the most E.T. companies will enjoy more economic power, strategic advantage and rising standards of living. We need to make sure that is America. Big oil and OPEC want to make sure it is not.

***

Palin’s nomination for vice president and her desire to allow drilling in the Alaskan wilderness “reminded me of a lunch I had three and half years ago with one of the Russian trade attachés,” global trade consultant Edward Goldberg said to me. “After much wine, this gentleman told me that his country was very pleased that the Bush administration wanted to drill in the Alaskan wilderness. In his opinion, the amount of product one could actually derive from there was negligible in terms of needs. However, it signified that the Bush administration was not planning to do anything to create alternative energy, which of course would threaten the economic growth of Russia.”

So, college students, don’t let anyone tell you that on the issue of green, this election is not important. It is vitally important, and the alternatives could not be more black and white.