Andy Revkin has a good writeup on the interview between Sarah Palin and Katie Couric. In the interview, Sarah Palin makes many fuzzy points which Andy Revkin (as I) request clarification: what does ‘pollution’ mean? How do we solve a problem if we don’t care what the causes are?
Just got done watching the VP debate between Palin and Joe Biden. Joe Biden made it explicitly clear that he thought climate change was anthropogenic. It is not clear to me if Sarah Palin really knows what she is talking about. How do other people feel? I don’t have a problem with statements on how it’s not all our fault, how there have been fluctuations in the past, etc…but overall she seems very dodgy on how she answers questions. Anyone will agree with “stop polluting” but what exactly does this mean, how do we do it, and why should we do it as it relates to global warming?
On energy issues, I don’t follow these candidates stances rigorously, but this “drill baby drill” thing she seems to support turns me off. This is really a short-term “solution” and probably a way to get out of the alternative energy discussion. The United States itself reached “peak oil” in October 1970. There is an increase for a short amount of time in the late seventies, which actually correspond to big oil finds in the late sixties, but it doesn’t last long.
Offshore drilling is not going to make a huge difference, so I’d like to see greater discussion on developing a country which makes much more use of alternative energy. There was also discussion on clean coal.
Overall, I’m not yet sure Palin really has a stance on climate change. I’ve heard no clear answers yet.