It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Palin says Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy. Not true. Not even close.

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 11:25 PM

Palin claims Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." That's not true. Alaska did produce 14 percent of all the oil from U.S. wells last year, but that's a far cry from all the "energy" produced in the U.S. Alaska's share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. And if by "supply" Palin meant all the energy consumed in the U.S., and not just produced here, then Alaska's production accounted for only 2.4 percent.

Palin on energy

I am posting this here because I feel it belongs here. Although my last couple threads calling out the candidates were either moved or deleted. So if this is in the wrong place, it wasnt done on purpose.

I feel that this is a crack on the platform of Gov. Palin's energy stances. If she is wrong about what her own state does for energy in our country, I fear for the U.S energy crisis in the future.

This is not one sided to call out Palin, I have done this for all the candidates. This one time, happens to be against Palin. For me, global warming, and alt energy is a Very important issue, and Palin's alarming misguidedness (is that a word) on the topic for her own state is concerning.

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 12:34 AM
Interesting find Bknapple

Theres this ignorant assumption being made by americans that Alaska will somehow solve their energy needs, and its a lie. Not only will Alaska not solve even a significant fraction of our energy crises (not even in the short term) but the resources in Alaska have been exploited for years. This notion that Alaskas resources are virtually untouched is BS. Take the northern slope for example, BP has already been drilling in a large area of that part for over a decade now and theyve ended production because they simply cannot produce anymore. Anwr is just west of that large drilling area, its like an extension, a small minor extension that wont dont anything to solve a nationwide crises.

"drill drill drill" will not be the answer to sorting out the energy needs, its just political pandering in my opinion and Obama was stupid to fall for it as well I admit. Sooner or later alternative fuels will have to be focused on, why wait for the worst to come?

[edit on 13-9-2008 by southern_Guardian]

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 12:46 AM
I think this is just another case of someone who is not ready for the "big time" exagerating the facts to further her own goal. sure, it may work in a small town, or state, but to make statements as she has done, especially in this case, are just assinine. To not know that EVERY word and statement she makes will be under a microscope is typical of a government official not in the national public eye.

Wake up Palin.....exagerations and lies won't fly when dealing with the "big boys" that you are so hell bent on breaking down.

And this is coming from someone who is not from the USA, and is, IMO, very objective when it comes to US politics.

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 12:58 AM
Well, she didnt know what the Bush doctrine was... this all sounds to familiar to when bush jr was asked to name the worlds foreign leaders and he couldnt name hardly any... Scary cause that same bush was elected

[edit on 13-9-2008 by bknapple32]

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:10 AM
I would venture to say that quote comes from this :

North Slope oil fields account for an average of 20 percent of the nation’s domestic production.

Alaska's oil and gas industry has produced more than 16 billion barrels of oil and 6 billion cubic feet of natural gas, accounting for an average of 20 percent of the entire nation's domestic production.

Current Alaska production accounts for approximately 15 percent of U.S. domestic production.

Bad Choice of words, Substitute Oil/Natural Gas for Energy and the statement is accurate, taking an average of percent of domestic production.

Go ahead and hang her for a poor choice of words if you must, I hope you do that with every candidate.

Moving on.

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:20 AM

Originally posted by bknapple32
Well, she didnt know what the Bush doctrine was... this all sounds to familiar to when bush jr was asked to name the worlds foreign leaders and he couldnt name hardly any... Scary cause that same bush was elected

[edit on 13-9-2008 by bknapple32]

Which particular part of the "Bush Doctrine"

These principles are sometimes referred to as the Bush Doctrine although the term is often used to describe other elements of Bush policy and is not universally recognized as the single concept.

Which part of the Doctrine do you wish to discuss:

Out of the National Security Stategy, four main points are highlighted as the core to the Bush Doctrine: Preemption, Military Primacy, New Multilateralism, and the Spread of Democracy.[

The National Security Strategy issued on September 17, 2002 was released in the midst of controversy over the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war which is contained therein. It also contains the notion of military pre-eminence that was reflected in a Department of Defense paper of 1992, "Defense Policy Guidance", prepared by two principal authors (Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby) working under then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. The NSS 2002 also repeats and re-emphasizes past initiatives aimed at providing substantial foreign aid to countries that are moving towards Western-style democracy, with the "ambitious and specific target" of "doubl[ing] the size of the world's poorest economies within a decade." [NSS 2002, p.21]. The Bush doctrine emerges in the context of moving from the old Cold War doctrine of deterrence to a pro-active attempt to adjust policy to the realities of the current situation where the threat is just as likely to come from a terrorist group such as al-Qaeda as from a nation state such as Iraq or Iran.[1] The Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis argued that the NSS 2002 "could be...the most important formulation of grand strategy in over half a century." In an article published in Foreign Policy Magazine in 2002, Gaddis notes that: "It was sufficient, throughout the Cold War, to contain without seeking to reform authoritarian regimes: we left it to the Soviet Union to reform itself. The most important conclusion of the Bush NSS is that this Cold War assumption no longer holds. The intersection of radicalism with technology the world witnessed on that terrible morning means that the persistence of authoritarianism anywhere can breed resentments that can provoke terrorism that can do us grievous harm." [2] The 2002 NSS was criticized by Noam Chomsky for allowing the United States the right to attack any country of choice, since the document only required an 'intent and ability' to develop weapons of mass destruction, which (as Chomsky notes) is 'in the eye of the beholder.' Henry Kissinger deemed the document 'revolutionary' because of this right to attack countries of choice. He added, however, that the right could not be a 'universal principle available to every nation.'[3] The document also treats AIDS as a threat to national security, promising substantial efforts to combat its spread and devastating effects.

The question wasn't as simple as Mr. Gibson tried to make it sound.

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:34 AM
I could be wrong, but I heard almost every drop of alaskan oil goes straight to Japan. She was also dead wrong about something or another on a morning show interview as well.

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:35 AM
I agree with Pavil.

Alaska provides almost 17 percent of domestic U.S. oil production, according to the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company.


On top of that politicians are always quoting numbers and most of the numbers they quote are the ones that work to their favor.

The least somebody could do is ask her to clarify if that is what she meant to say.

I agree that th Bush Doctrine covers many areas not just one issue.

But I do applaud you for taking two swipes at her in one thread. Nothing mean, just an observation.

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:35 AM
reply to post by pavil

Look pavil, you answered the bush doctrine in such a way that would be considered educated. the VP nominee couldnt do the same. I would suggest you are a better choice.

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:38 AM
reply to post by pavil

Bad choice of words? Either way shes WAYYY off. since you had to venture a guess where the quote came from, I doubt you looked at the article to back this up.. another quote from it might help.....

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin sat down with ABC News' Charlie Gibson for an interview, part of which aired Sept. 11. In the exchange, the Alaska governor misstated a basic fact about her state's energy production:

Palin: Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

It's simply untrue that Alaska produces anything close to 20 percent of the U.S. "energy supply," a term that is generally defined as energy consumed. That category includes power produced in the U.S. by nuclear, coal, hydroelectric dams and other means – as well as all the oil imported into the country.

Palin would have been correct to say that Alaska produces just over 14 percent of all the oil produced in the U.S., leaving out imports and leaving out other forms of power. According to the federal government's Energy Information Administration, Alaskan wells produced 263.6 million barrels of oil in 2007, or 14.3 percent of the total U.S. production of 1.8 billion barrels.

But Alaskan production accounts for only 4.8 percent of all the crude oil and petroleum products supplied to the U.S. in 2007, counting both domestic production and imports from other nations. According to EIA, the total supply was just over 5.5 billion barrels in 2007.

Furthermore, Palin said "energy," not "oil," so she was actually much further off the mark. According to EIA, Alaska actually produced 2,417.1 trillion BTUs [British Thermal Units] of energy in 2005, the last year for which full state numbers are available. That's equal to just 3.5 percent of the country's domestic energy production.

And according to EIA analyst Paul Hess, that would calculate to only "2.4 percent of the 100,368.6 trillion BTUs the U.S. consumes."

Palin didn't make clear whether she was talking about Alaska's share of all the energy produced in the U.S. or all the energy consumed here. Either way, she was wrong.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by bknapple32]

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:42 AM
Revenge of the Gaffe!!!

Was Obama trying to lie to us when he said there were 57 states?
How about McCain when he continuously brought up the non-existent Czechoslovakia?

Sure I know a lot of people have jumped on Obama for doing this when he was in Israel and speaking about the committee he worked with, even unfairly accused him of being a habitial liar, but I believe that in both cases the person in question made a simple mistake.

Something like that is too easily checked into.

She may have gotten campaign fatigue earlier than here counterparts.
Being thrust so fast into the limelight can be a bit overwhelming.

She's only human.

It's no big deal.

- Lee

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 02:25 AM
perhaps its not a big deal. It may just be that I consider this issue as relevant as the war on terror. After all, with no eco system , what good is this planet? Could be simple as a mistake, but I would think a CFO needs to know the ins and outs of finances of their company... As a gov should know the ins and outs of their environmental policy.

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 03:27 AM
Why is it always revenge of the gaffe when folks point out something important? Because Sarah Palin said "energy" and not "oil" still doesn't explain the enormity of her error. It's not just a case of semantics, even if she had said "oil" the accuracy of her full statement would still have been greatly compromised.

The other thing is that politicians know that the majority of the masses are not hanging on to every word politicians utter. So they say misleading things on purpose for the effect of influencing behavior, and if confronted in the national spotlight, they can always back track to excuse the "error" as a "gaffe".

Making gaffe's on purpose is a rhetorical device and tactic. It's up to the opponent to catch, clarify, and confront the person who made the gaffe. That's why in national politics making gaffe's in rhetorical context is so successful as a means of persuasion. Opponents are almost never in a situation where they are confronted with one another face to face. However, in live debates, surprise, gaffes are virtually non-existent.

Was Palin's "gaffe" made on purpose or was it genuine? Hard to tell. That's the genius of using the "gaffe" device in rhetorical context. However -- Palin's self-initiated comment about her credentials, national energy independence, and Alaska's energy supply to the U.S. was clearly a rhetorical deflection designed to get Gibson off of her case on the matter of national security. Gibson was not swayed. Neither were some other people.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by Areal51]

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 06:15 AM
As said earlier, most, if not all, of Alaska's oil ends up in Japan. So even if she had said "Alaska produces.000000000000001% of America's oil" she'd still be wrong.

Anyways, a minor gaffe as maybe she didn't know the oil companies sold the oil to Japan. Don't we have bigger fish to fry, like the sex for oil scandal in Alaska, or her "Abstinence only works!" Oops, underage daughter is pregnant. Doesn't that show her lack of leadership in a place where she should have power?

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 06:18 AM

Originally posted by bknapple32
Well, she didnt know what the Bush doctrine was... this all sounds to familiar to when bush jr was asked to name the worlds foreign leaders and he couldnt name hardly any... Scary cause that same bush was elected

[edit on 13-9-2008 by bknapple32]

Its been proven many times not that she was simply trying not to get caught in a trap. In fact, the guy who coined the phrase says it was charlie who got it wrong. Even he claims there is no single definition for what it is, since its been used to describe many different things.

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

Its the same thing with what she said about Russia. If Georgia is a NATO member and Russia attacks them, our alliance states that we defend them. Its a fact.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by Dronetek]

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 07:08 AM
reply to post by Dronetek

In your Washington Post link, I found this part to be something I have not seen much discussion on:

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

I thought that very thing at the time and couldn't remember ever seeing him behave in a similar fashion with anyone else he's ever interviewed.

Shameful, if you ask me.

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 07:31 AM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 07:35 AM
reply to post by Dronetek

I just finished watching that comparison on my own on youtube. No question there is a HUGE difference.


Yup. Absolutely shameful.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by loam]

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 08:15 AM
reply to post by pavil

That's about what I expected. I knew she could probably cite the 20% of domestic oil/gas supply somewhere if necessary. She simply mixed up the words oil and energy during a hostile interview. As long as she doesn't continue repeating the error, its not a big deal. Candidates make misstatements like this all of the time. We could start dragging out verbal miscues from the other side to compare, but its a total waste of time, as is arguing over this particular issue.

As far as her statement on the so-called Bush Doctrine is concerned, yes, there are multiple definitions (in fact, I've seen others mention that Gibson himself has defined it differently in other interviews in the past). However, Gibson was obviously laying a trap for her. He was trying to tie her to the Bush administration's foreign policy with that question. If she had answered 'yes' to that question immediately, his follow up would have almost certainly been along the lines of 'so how does a McCain/Palin administration differ from that of the Bush administration?' She ducked it as best she could, although clearly, it was not her best moment of the interview.

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 08:59 AM
reply to post by Dronetek
The interview was not about Biden, Bush, McCain, or Obama. The interview was of Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin should have to endure an inquisition. Previous to Gibson's interview, who knew anything about her other than what she revealed at the RNC?

Palin is only in the running for the backup position of Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States. Knowing whether she has imperialist beliefs is important. Does the U.S. have the right to invade another country without its permission? Do other countries such as Israel have the right to invade other countries? Questions such as these are not a trap for someone whose qualifications for VP are not well known.

Sarah Palin would have done well to explain her own world view than attempt to suss the successes and failures of President Bush's. Does she have a world view that is compatible with the U.S.'s best interests? That's a serious question. At the moment it is hard to tell. It might not be of significance to rural U.S. citizens, but the U.S. economy and its domestic policy operates on a global scale with regards to the urban transnational corporations that are generating capital and jobs for all sectors of the U.S. Thoughts on foreign relations and current global conflicts should be asked of Palin, and well thought out answers are expected of her.

If Palin knew anything about the Bush Doctrine, it wouldn't be an issue. If she had straight answers for whether the U.S. or other countries have the right to imperialist action, it wouldn't be an issue. Instead Palin reverted to rhetoric responses over and over again.

Gibson's mannerisms may not have been the best, but then he didn't receive any straight answers to the questions he asked during the two segments focused on national security. And the questions that he did ask were meaningful enough.

Instead of putting up with Gibson's questions, Palin could have done what most other politicians have done. When asked a question about national security, she could have used the opportunity to state her position on some specifics of national security. It was her answers that led her into a tight space. After all, when Gibson first asked about the Bush Doctrine, he gave Palin the chance to provide an answer based on her own interpretation. Instead of doing that, Palin chose to explain what President Bush has tried to do. That was just a rhetorical deflection that didn't speak to the original question at all. Gibson knew enough about the Bush Doctrine to know that the answer Palin gave was neither a good or straight answer.

The questions were not difficult because Gibson asked them, they were only difficult based on Palin's ability to handle them. There wouldn't have been any bad light or peception of bad light shed on her if she had been straightforward and honest.

To the questions focused on Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran there would have been nothing wrong with Sarah Palin responding, "Those are questions that my running partner, John McCain, would be better qualified to answer. He is, after all, running for the office of President of the United States, and the position of Commander in Chief." What would have been wrong with the hockey mom saying that she was determined and willing to learn on the job?

Palin instead chose to try to make the impression that she would be able to be President and Commander in Chief if she were called upon to do it yesterday -- or at least, "in the blink of an eye." In my opinion, she did not succeed in this.

<<   2 >>

log in