It is becoming quite apparent that our actions as humans are impacting the environment and our global climate. Palin's stance on it is slightly confusing. I'll explain it as simply as possible. Sarah Palin said, "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made." Oddly, this differs a little from the Republican platform approved for 2008 which states, "The same human activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere...Increased atmospheric carbon has a warming effect on the earth." Sarah Palin = Man is not changing the climate. Republican Doctrine = blah blah blah we burn a lot of carbon... carbon warms the earth. This must not be that important an issue to them as their entrusting the #2 spot in their party to somebody who pretty much disagrees with their patriotic filled definition of global warming. I've debated with my Republican friends for quite a while about the merits of their position on the climate issue. The central issue always comes back to money. Now it might just be my warped opinion from our conversations together, (i'm going to go out on a limb and say it isn't) but they argue the main consequence of changing our policies on the climate is the effect on our economy. Essentially it's more important to protect our way of life than our actual lives. I'll let that soak in for a minute... It is more important to be wealthy, than to be alive. That is the most basic interpretation of that belief. I for one don't agree with that. It's a simple equation really, we can't afford not to do anything. I'd rather be alive than wealthy. Is that a sensationalist statement? Yes. But if we are blinded so much by our own greed, maybe the only way to change it, is with extreme measures. One of the reasons we view ourselves as more advanced and having a better quality of life than our ancestors is that we're advancing at an unprecedented rate. That comes through technological advancements, agricultural advancements, medical discoveries, educational methods, etc. As a result, our impact (and the fact that there are between 6 and 7 billion people on the earth) far outweighs that of our co-inhabitors. Birds aren't causing the climate to change, we are. The equation fits even if we take the other end of the spectrum. Suppose global warming isn't as serious as we think it is. Suppose there's a 20% chance that our actions are directly causing significant changes to our climate. There's more of a chance that our actions aren't doing anything than there is a chance that they are. Now let's apply this equation, calculation, whatever you want to call it to another election issue. Every Republican's favorite topic: Terrorism. Would you argue so feverishly against terrorism if there was a 20% chance that you, your children or your children's children could die if you didn't act to stop it? I'll bet you wouldn't. So why is it acceptable to risk such uncertainty with regards to the environment but you're damn sure that terrorists won't win because you're going to make it so. With 100% certainty. Don't you think if there's even the slightest sliver of truth to global warming or climate change that it would be worth the risk to ensure that future generations have a clean world to live in? I just don't think it's fair not to. Unfortunately, neither does Sarah Palin.