Skip to main content

Palin's incoherence on dangerous climate change

Youtube

Sarah Palin's answer here is terrifying in its ineptitude and in its mumbo-jumbo quasi-denial of anthropogenic climate change. Biden's answer is of course better, but hardly inspirational: note his backing for 'clean' coal, 'safe' nuclear and 'renewable' biofuels -- pass the sick-bag, please...

Palin's come-back line is perhaps even more terrifying: "Drill baby drill", she says. If only she could see the future children whose faces she stamps on, in gleefully saying this...


Comments

Unknown said…
I have just the You Tube video!

I worry that the USA do not appear to have the type of top politicians which we would like them to have!

As for Biden's answer of "clean" coal, "safe" nuclear - well we know the answers to those! As for "renewable" biofuels - the only biofuel I would think is a good idea is the type derived from old frying oil and other fuels recycled from other man-made materials (I recently read of a man who was going to set up a plant to convert plastic bags to fuel - does anyone know how he is doing? (I am reasonably confident he has plentry of raw material.....)
Greenbottle said…
Palin is in the pockets of oil companies in Alaska, sounds worse first off than George Bush 10 years ago. Its the weekend splattering of moose brains that worries me more!

I never think of the US as a democratic. Businesses choose two vetted affluent candidates and folks tribally vote for one or the other. Russian leaders probably have about the same or more current mandate as Bush. At least in the UK you can be modestly poor and get voted in as an MP. Or run as the raving loony party or eco-maoist green party.

Waste plastic can be converted to ethanol or hydrogen syngas so better than using virgin fossil fuel. All these sources are marginal to the overall needs.

Popular posts from this blog

Post-Growth: A new vision for a fairer and more sustainable Britain

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...