"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. And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we’ve got lots of both." That's how a car salesman sounds...

Na...that sounds like the governor of Alaska blatantly lobbying the country at the RNC convention for a huge government earmark for her state.

I think we need to focus on developing our nuclear program.

If all you have in the toolbox is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

And if your expertise in energy is based being governor of Alaska, then your entire energy policy is "drill in ANWR."

Since oil will run out I want to make sure that the last military on earth with access to it is ours. That is why I don't support drilling our last reserves to ship to Asia. Short sighted welfare queens is what they got up there that is all.

Congrats Ezra, you found someone as ignorant and void of logic as yourself.

“And also in Alaska! What for most of the world is the “problem” of sky-high energy prices is the solution for places like Alaska and Russia that don’t have real economies but are seeing prosperity anyway thanks to skyrocketing oil and gas prices.”

Going to throw Montana and Wyoming in there as well? Does Texas have a real economy or is imaginary as well? Does this apply to all states or just those with your issue De jour? Nevada’s reliance on gaming must surely mean it doesn’t have a “real economy”. Do any of the fly over states have “real economies”?

“Alaska politicians never worry that energy may be getting too expensive and think about how to respond.”

That’s right cause in Alaska you just kick your heal in the group and gas come bubbling up to fill your car. This comment shows a level of cluelessness on par with yours of HSAs and healthcare. They are paying over $4.00 a gallon for gas in Alaska, is Matt claiming they are all so rich that doesn’t effect them? They can walk, or your favorite ride a bike, it’s only hundreds of miles between towns. How long do you think it would take to google Alaska and energy prices and see what comes up;

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/06/get.fuel.or.die.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

For some, energy prices are threatening lives

BARROW, Alaska (AP) -- A gallon of unleaded gasoline: $10. Heating fuel: $9.10 a gallon. Electricity: $1.17 per kilowatt hour -- 11 times the national average.

“Alaska’s energy prices rose by 12.8 percent in 2005, the largest single-year increase in the past decade.”

“Because of Alaska’s unique geography and diverse population, Alaska has over 200 remote, stand alone electrical grids serving villages as well as larger transmission grids in Southeast Alaska and the Railbelt.”

“A Railbelt Energy Study (RES) indicates that electric power generation needs of Alaska could grow by 38 percent from 2008 to 2028. During that time, reliance on fossil fuels could grow by 90 percent, while emissions per kilowatt-hour of generation are reduced. The RES shows there is a surplus of power generation capacity on the Kenai Peninsula, with deficiencies projected in other areas of the Railbelt.”

“Along the Railbelt, some of the thermal units were installed in the early 1960s. Most of the thermal generation is considered aged and may need to be replaced within the next decade or so”

“In 2003, the average cost of power in Anchorage-Fairbanks-Juneau for residential customers was 10.6 cents per kilowatt, whereas in rural communities, the average residential cost of power was 27.6 cents per kilowatt.”

“In PCE communities, approximately 70,000 people, or 13 percent of the state’s population, live in communities whose primary source of electricity is diesel fuel.”

Alaska State Chamber of Commerce2008 Priority

www.alaskapower.org/docs/EnergyPolicy.pdf - Energy Policy and Strategy Recommendations

So besides the hundreds of studies, reports, meetings, policy papers Matt’s 100% right they don’t care at all.

It’s amazing someone even says something as stupid and ill-informed as what Matt claimed. To then seen people get worked up and link it is even sadder. It took only 3 seconds on google to see they have major energy cost concerns in Alaska. Granted people that share your ideology are usually too lazy to do even that minimal amount of work but then why waste the time writing an article just say Palin bad and watch the clueless Baaaa along. This is just as bad as your factually challenged post on HSAs and women’s health. And to think you actually get paid to be this wrong. Your so far off base you can’t even defend it as partly factual or an opinion. It’s just a flat out lie spun by someone with no clue of which they speak.

Read the CNN piece then say they don’t worry about energy cost.

“Soaring oil prices that swelled Alaska's treasury have come back to slam the state, particularly its 170 rural villages.”

“The seasonal barge shipments of fuel have yet to arrive, meaning villages are still paying last year's prices, already a minimum of 60 cents higher than the U.S. average.”
“Alaskans in rural areas will spend 40 percent of their annual income on energy this winter compared with 4 percent for the average Alaska household, according to a University of Alaska Anchorage study published in May.”
“Alaska politicians don’t develop expertise in energy conservation measures or alternative fuels,”

Really Matt, I bet Alaska gets a higher % of it’s energy from renewable sources then most of the lower 48. Again a baseless claim with 0 fact in it.

Isn't the invocation of "Drill here! Drill now!" what got Bristol Palin in her current predicament?

...not someone who recognizes that the essential instability of a scarce and highly-prized resource requires massive collective action to hasten the development of an effective alternative.

You really should refrain from writing about things that you clearly have no clue about.

Here's all you need to know, you can no longer believe the smear merchant press:

Obamas' main public push to solve gas prices was to tell us to inflate our tires.

Palins main contribution to the energy criss was to get the LARGEST ENERGY PROJECT PASSED AND ENACTED INTO LAW WITH HER SIGNATURE.

Something Obamas also has never done, signed a piece of legislation.

Palins energy pipeline project: 40 Billion dollars.

Obamas...ZILCH

Making your public focus the drilling of more oil rather than the effort to get off oil as quickly as possible simply lengthens the dependence...

There are two issues you are conflateing. The first is dependence on foreign nations for energy, and the second is the dependence on oil itself.

The first is a national security issue and takes precedence, by far. The mistake of the left is listening to the envioronmental groups that are in their pocket and ignoring the first.

Telling voters that you will move to a yet-to-be-developed alternative is what bothers voters.

We have two oilmen in the White House now. We'll get get two oil-persons in the White House if we vote for the Republican ticket. Deal with it.

"

...not someone who recognizes that the essential instability of a scarce and highly-prized resource requires massive collective action to hasten the development of an effective alternative.

You really should refrain from writing about things that you clearly have no clue about.

Posted by: David Andersen | September 4, 2008 5:06 PM

Physician, heal thyself.

Alaska politicians never worry that energy may be getting too expensive and think about how to respond.

Untrue, as Nate said. Just last month, the Alaska legislature held a special session to respond to rising energy prices (highest average gasoline price of any state). However, the main question was how much of the surplus from oil industry taxes to shower on Alaskans, lest the people become fat & lazy.

"The first is dependence on foreign nations for energy, and the second is the dependence on oil itself."

Since domestic drilling does nothing for either of those issues, and since neither Palin nor McCain have an answer for either, I'm not sure what point you think you're making. All you're doing is confirming Ezra's point.

So it's as if a politician from a coal producing state advocated spending federal funds on expensive, environmentally destructive, unproven "clean coal" technology?

Oh, wait.

Since domestic drilling does nothing for either of those issues....

Mmmm....we need more oil. We can either get it ourselves or we will buy it from other nations, some which are unfriendly.

Which would you prefer?