From the Couric interviews, to the Biden debate, to the May 28 Michael(?) Duke interview, to this op ed, it seems pretty clear that Palin buys into the gw/climate change theories - or at least she has yet to attack them.
The Waxman cap and trade bill is a current pressing issue, and she does a great job in her op ed tearing it down. However, she still seems to assume the faulty premise of global warming/climate change. Until that premise is proven false, all energy plans will be subject to an alleged “necessary” cap issue. If caps are set for carbon emissions, then there must be a penalty (or tax) for exceeding the cap or the caps will be meaningless.
Again, the current “cap and trade/tax” plan must be attacked, as Palin has done. However, in addition to what she pointed out in the op ed (the adverse economic effects of the cap and trade plan, alternative sources such as nuclear and clean coal, natural gas, etc.), it must also be pointed out that 1) gw/climate change is B.S. or at least must be HONESTLY debated; and 2) even if gw/climate change is true at any level, the current proposed cap and trade plan will only reduce carbon emissions by .02-.07 over the next 100 years (from what I’ve read), so the plan is meaningless in addressing the alleged core problem (gw/climate change) and the same results can be achieved using our own sources of energy.
Bottom line: the current cap and tax plan (and anything like it) must first be taken down, and then its faulty premises must be addressed.
“...reduce carbon emissions by .02-.07...”. I think those numbers actually refer to a reduction of temperature, not emissions. Either way, it is a meaningless number.
_____________________________________
Agree 100%.
As to Sarah, it is my considered opinion that she is unelectable at the national level (WH). That is not to say that she would not be a better potus than the pos in residence, she would. But, her pre-mature resignation did her far more damage than her apostles are willing to (or able to) acknowledge.