Recently Sarah Palin, who recently announced her voluntary resignation by the end of this month, has slammed Obama for hijacking the security of our energy supply in considering imposing cap-and-trade measures on businesses (in essence the limiting of carbon emissions) in a Washington Post article.

She argued that “domestic” solutions are the best way to deal with the energy crisis, such as building of a pipeline from Alaska. She also said that every state can consider nuclear energy, and that Obama’s plan would “outsource [our energy supply and its environmental impact] to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia”. Obama, on the other hand, feels that America should be at the forefront of the green revolution, and also mentioned other countries in his first address to Congress, “We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century. And yet it is China that has launched the largest effort in history to make their economy energy efficient.”

Palin wrote that the carbon caps would put more burden on the poor in the form of higher energy bills. She ardently supported drilling in ANWR, below is a quote:

We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Palin, while making some good points in regards to how cap-and-trade would negatively affect businesses, especially those polluting industries that use oil and oil based products, seems blind to the ultimate goal of preserving the environment by decreasing oil consumption and allowing animals that small section of land that was set aside for their protection. She also is in a bad position of lecturing the President after suddenly announcing that she will be resigning at the end of this month. Formerly the champion of the “bridge to nowhere” until that “bridge to nowhere” was going nowhere, Palin lacks the authority to change our current more environmentally friendly energy policy.

In the global scheme of things, I think it’s best that people take the hit in the short term while looking forward to the advantages that come with increases in technology in renewable energy. Nuclear power is good as well but comes with increased risk of meltdown or subverse activity and also there is a limited supply of uranium and plutonium, and nuclear waste is a major headache.

With oil prices so low, it is harder to make money making renewable energy solutions, but with government backing to a tune of $15 billion a year, the industry should survive and hopefully come up with something is ready by the time the next oil price spike comes along. As someone who is accustomed to mass-transit (bus, subway, train), while also accustomed to the gas-guzzling lifestyle of a suburbanite (driving a car back and forth from school round-trip duration around 1 hour) I must say that sacrifices must be made and our current rate of consumption is unsustainable given the increases in demand across the world and the limited production capacity and most importantly the limited supply of the very dirty substance known as oil.