Good review of the candidates’ positions on energy from the Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell entry on it’s Foundry blog, “Palin Powers Party Today, American Consumers Tomorrow”:
The left says it wants to reduce American dependence on foreign energy, but many of them continue to demonstrate outright ignorance on the issue. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for example, appears to be completely unaware that natural gas is a fossil fuel that requires drilling. Barack Obama is slightly better. He says he wants to drill for more gas and he says he wants to build a natural gas pipeline from Alasaka, but he never has actually done anything to make these dreams a reality. Palin’s record is different.
For years former-Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski tried to strike a deal with the major oil companies to construct a new natural gas pipeline. After Palin defeated Murkowski, she bypassed the oil companies entirely and struck a much better deal for the taxpayers with North America’s largest pipeline operator, TransCanada, a Calgary-based company. The pipeline is set to be completed by 2018 and will give Americans access to 35 trillion cubic feet of gas that need to be drilled from Alaska’s North Slope. The pipeline will ship 4.5 billion cubic feet of gas a day, through Canada, to U.S. markets. That represents about 7% of current U.S. demand. This pipeline will lower American consumer energy bills. As Palin said last night: “Families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.”
Palin wins definite points for being pro-development, pro-energy, pro-economic-growth.
And Heritage’s formulation of Alaska’s energy politics is one we prefer. Far preferable — rhetorically, politically and economically — to emphasize that you “struck a much better deal for the taxpayers” — than boasting about beating back the oil companies, the kind of talk that just feeds populist know-nothingism.