Just one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying. However, a plurality (48%) of the Political Class believes humans are to blame.
Palin leads every national candidate on this topic. And she should exploit the same sentiment among voters in Alaska by taking a strong stance on the issue by pointing out to the effect our new laws are having on off-shore natural gas and oil exploration in United States waters.
She has no reason to adjust her stance on the topic of climate change and if she does, then she is getting very lousy advice or she is using poor sense on the matter.
Her interview with Couric on the topic was spot on when Palin spoke about the the human impact on climate change and how national security issues were involved.
Where there is no resource development, there is no security
The topic of global warming will be felt in new legislation dealing with the cap and trade. The new laws will continue to weaken our national security and the laws may put us in a position of having to develop nuclear power plants to replace coal fired electric generators while we scrap the idea of building natural gas powered generators.
So I have to ask, is this a position we want to be in? Having to resort to nuclear power plants for electric generation instead of using natural gas or clean coal for electric generation?
When I first entered the Air Force, we were given a lecture on using nuclear energy and everyone in the class raised there hand in agreement with the instructor that we should.
I was the only one who didn't. I was the only one to speak up against it.
The argument from me was; if we develop the facilities, we risk losing a war. In effect once you develop the facilities, they become a target in war.
Back then, Iran was not much of a concern. Reagan was elected and we know what happened when he was elected. Iran backed down.
I however, use Iran as proof in that Iran's nuclear program development and Israel's statements to the development, show how a nuclear facility can be targeted in an act of war.
Moreover, there is also Syria and Israel.
This is not to say Israel is bad, because they have their own security to think of.
But once you have the facilities and if war did break out, would a country like North Korea have to launch a nuke missile or a missile with a conventional warhead to target a nuclear facility if built on the West Coast?
And if the facility was hit, what would be the outcome? Would it be a Chernobyl?
How about terrorists? Would they have to plant a "dirty bomb" to wreak havoc or just "hit" a nuclear facility.
Bill Gertz wrote an article in the Washington Times in July of 2002 and the topic headline was: Nuclear plants targeted
Gertz wrote:
U.S. intelligence agencies have issued an internal alert that Islamic terrorists are planning another spectacular attack to rival those carried out on September 11.
The detailed warning was issued within the past two weeks in a classified report that said one target was a U.S. nuclear power plant or one of the Energy Department's nuclear facilities.
The alert was based on sensitive intelligence gathered overseas that revealed discussions among terrorism suspects.
The latest warning was similar to other terrorist threats that prompted public alerts in October and December.
Officials familiar with the report said it contained six potential methods and targets of attack, among them:
A bombing or airline attack on a nuclear power plant or other U.S. nuclear facility, such as a weapons storage depot, designed to cause mass casualties and spread deadly radiological debris.
On GOPUSA the topic was brought up in a forum and Gertz's article in 2003 was discussed.
Terrorists have targeted the United States' largest nuclear power plant near Phoenix, and security officials are looking for Iraqi government "sleeper cells" that might carry out the attack, The Washington Times has learned.
The threat to the Palo Verde nuclear plant, located in the Sonora desert 50 miles west of Phoenix, prompted the deployment of National Guard troops to the facility, according to U.S. officials.
One could argue that any perceived threat against a nuclear facility could push popular opinion against the development of nuclear facilities.
It could also put legislators and politicians who endorse the idea of developing nuclear energy while pointing to the threat of terrorism in a position of looking foolish and willing to risk public safety for a type of energy development that is at risk of being a high valued target of terrorists.
The point of this is to show how we are now going to one extreme under the Obama administration and the effect will be a severe reduction in our natural resource development and that the pendulum in reaction may put us on a course of developing nuclear energy such as what France has done.
France as a role model
During the presidential elections, McCain pointed to the use of nuclear power in France and the success of it being used.
First question I would ask is; why did France have to develop nuclear energy to supply their energy needs. As stated in the information, nuclear energy was supported by the communists and socialists and with no oil, no gas and no coal, France was left with basically one choice.
The development of nuclear power plants.
The next question is, why is it that France has been opposed to the war in Iraq.
Where there threats made against France?
With the success of 9-11, the al qaeda became emboldened and credible in their threats and as such, the al qaeda issued threats against France and France reacted.
In 1994, there was a plan to hijack an airplane by Algerian jihadists. The target, the Eiffel Tower.
So given the success of 9-11 in terrorist threats being acted on, France has taken a benign stance on the war effort against the al qaeda. And when you consider the target rich environment in France with their nuclear facilities, you really have to question Sarkosky and his about face on American policy.
It is well known that Palin endorsed the McCain policy on building roughly 45 nuclear power plants by 2030. But she was against him on the policy on global warming and ANWR.
The question from this should be, do we really want to follow France as a role model or do we want to fight the trend in locking up our natural gas and oil resources?
As the people think, there is a majority that don't think that global warming is caused by human activity.
That is the Palin common denominator and hopefully she understands this.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment