I did, read the pdf and while I do acknowledge that much of the words were detailing the push for Alaskan resources, there was this:
"...protect our national security by reducing America’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and confront the dangers of global warming."
Did others miss that part? Don't care about it?
and then this:
"Some would have you delay exploration and development in the federal offshore of Alaska over concerns related to global warming and its effects in the Arctic. First of all let me make it clear that the State of Alaska understands the effects of climate change in the cryosphere. We Alaskans are living with the changes that you are observing in Washington. The dramatic decreases in the extent of summer sea ice, increased coastal erosion, melting of permafrost, decrease in alpine glaciers and overall ecosystem changes are very real to us."
This is what was reported by the AP word for word. And while one can claim it is taken out of context, the acknowledgement that 'the state of Alaska _understands_ the effects of climate change', etc. etc. is pretty clear - that at least part of the premise has been bought. The further elaborations offer further agreement.
"Many believe that in order to mitigate these long term and systematic changes it will require a national and global effort to decrease the release of human produced greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, simply waiting for low carbon emitting renewable capacity to be large enough will mean that it will be too late to meet the mitigation goals for reducing CO2 that will be required under most credible climate change models, including the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) modeled scenarios. Meeting these goals will require a dramatic increase, in the very near term, to preferred available fuels - including natural gas – that have a very low carbon footprint and that can be used within the existing energy infrastructure. These available fuels are required to supply the nation’s energy needs during the transition to green energy alternatives."
Here, she obviously has a different view as to 'how to mitigate' the problem but that in itself _acknowledges_ 'the problem'. I agree that her solution is better but only because I know there is no actual global warming occuring as I've posted above, but she seems to think it that it _also_ helps 'solve the problem'. If you don't see that, then we have little else to discuss.
In the next revision it can be changed to "global climate change" to keep up with the latest politically correct jargon.
Thanks for posting the full text of her statement.