Did Palin Put Children and Public at Risk by Favoring Industry Over Environment?
Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is fond of citing both her energy expertise and her love for the environment, but the longer Palin is on the national stage the more we learn about her troubling, and in some cases disastrous, environmental record. And the more we discover how often her support for polluting industries and energy producers trumps her environmental concerns—even when it means placing the health of children and the general public at serious risk.
Two Sides of Alaska: Unspoiled Wilderness and Toxic Mess
Alaska is home to some of the world’s most pristine wilderness, but it is also a repository for a wide range of toxic chemicals—such as arsenic, mercury, lead and PCBs—that are byproducts of mining, energy development and other industries, and pose serious risks to public health. Alaska also has a birth-defect rate that is twice the national average—nearly four times the national average on the North Slope, an area larger than Minnesota that produces most of Alaska’s oil—and many of these toxic chemicals are known to damage the neurological and physical development of unborn children.
Yet, an investigative article published in The New Republic shows that, as governor, Palin did little to stop the flood of toxic chemicals and all-too-often cleared the way for more pollution.
Palin Opposed Measures to Protect Environment and Public Health
Palin’s administration opposed legislation that would have banned a flame retardant that interferes with brain development as well as another bill that would have given parents 48 hours notice before schools were sprayed with pesticides or other toxic chemicals—sufficient time to make other arrangements for their children.
"She doesn't have a good understanding of the science," said Ruth Etzel, former research director at the Alaska Native Medical Program in Anchorage, in an interview with The New Republic. "What she tends to do is talk about personal responsibility as the key to good health."
Palin Allowed Toxic Dumping by Oil Companies and Mining Operations
Palin also allowed oil companies to dump toxic chemicals in Cook Inlet, the only U.S. coastal fishery where toxic dumping is allowed. And she opposed the Clean Water Initiative, which would have limited the runoff of toxic metals from all mining operations in Alaska. The measure was aimed partly at stopping the proposed Pebble Mine, which is projected to have a serious negative impact on Bristol Bay, site of the world’s largest commercial wild salmon fishery.
Palin’s personal opposition to the Clean Water Initiative, known as Proposition 4, is cited by many observers as the reason it failed to pass. In a television interview less than a week before the vote, Palin said, "Let me take my governor's hat off for just a minute and tell you personally: Prop 4, I vote no on that." Before Palin’s statement, the measure was expected to pass, but Alaska's mining industry used the Palin soundbite in an advertising blitz that turned victory into defeat.
The list of Palin’s controversial environmental actions and decisions doesn’t end there. For the full story, read the article in The New Republic titled “Northern Exposure.”
Photo by William Thomas Cain/Getty Images
Also read:
Comments
This turns my stomach. We’ve seen what happens when toxins in the environment are at high enough levels to cause birth defects - China is a disturbing example. As the mother of a large family, I can’t understand her shortsightedness in this area. Is it lack of vision? Greed? Laziness when it comes to exploring all angles? I had no idea that the North Slope had such an elevated risk of birth defects. If Republicans were Democrats, there’d be a TV spot trumpeting this terrible situation.
I agree with Linda in terms of the coverage this should have received. I’ve been dismayed (but I suppose not surprised) by the lack of attention paid to Sarah Palin’s environmental record, as well as to her stance on endangered species, the aerial wolf hunts and other questionable positions with respect to ecology. Thanks very much for posting this information.
Why pick on Palin? She’s only been governor for two years. What about her predecessors who failed to act on these points? Could it be your scientific judgement is clouded by your politics?
ps/ If you’re going to use birth defect rates as supporting evidence, please provide data that (a) Alaska’s rate varies in a statistically significant manner from the norm, and that (b) pollution (and not just genetic differences in a small gene pool) is the cause of those defects.
Palin is responsible for her actions or inaction in not protecting the environment, this is an example of favoring mining and big oil over clean water and the health of the Alaskan citizens. I would rather error on the side of health babies, a clean environment, and stopping toxic polluters. I fish could vote, Palin might take a different stance.
Let me see if I can answer your questions, Guido. First, I’m not picking on Palin. It’s not that she is responsible for the relatively high rate of birth defects in Alaska compared to the rest of the United States, but during her time as governor she has not only failed to take action to protect public health–including the health of her state’s children–but has actually made decisions and implemented policies that have put public health at greater risk. For that, she is responsible, and her record as governor doesn’t bode well for what she would do as President McCain’s chief advisor on energy and the environment (a role he recently said he will ask her to take on if he is elected) or as president if she ever reaches the White House herself.
The New Republic article I cited in this blog post reports that the incidence of birth defects on Alaska’s North Slope is 11 percent, compared to 6 percent statewide in Alaska and 3 percent nationally.
No doubt there are other states that are high as well–that 3 percent figure is the national average, after all–but Palin is the only state governor running for vice president this year and asking for votes (at least in part) on the basis of her energy and environmental expertise. Naturally, voters are interested in taking a close look at her record on those, and many other, issues.
First, get your “facts” straight: the north slope has the LOWEST birth defect rate in the state; Alaska’s infant mortality due to birth defects is AT the natl. norm, and the biggest birth defect rate appears to be due to neural tube malfoemations: known to be caused by folate deficiency. Maybe they don’t get enough green veggies in Alaska.
http://www.epi.hss.state.ak.us/mchepi/pubs/facts/fs2005na_v1_11.pdf
The document you’ve offered is talking about infant mortality due to birth defects, not the actual incidence of birth defects. Two different topics.
The issue of birth defects is actually a relatively small part of this blog post, having less to do with Palin directly than with some of the general environmental health problems associated with Alaska. But the fact remains that Palin and her administration authorized toxic dumping and other actions that could have serious impacts on human health. That seems at odds with her claim to be a candidate who understands and has special expertise in how to balance energy production and the needs of industry with environmental protection.
I still think it’s an unsubstantiated cheap shot made for political, not scientific reasons. Alaska has about 1/3rd of the land area of the continental states. Perhaps they can spare a few acres for a dump site without appreciably affecting the habitat or the health of the citizens. Unless we’e willing to foresake civilization for a prehistoric lifestyle, there are certain compromises that must be made with Nature.
We’re not talking about dumping chemicals in some isolated corner of the state, Guido. Palin allowed oil companies to dump toxic chemicals in Cook Inlet, and fought efforts to limit the toxic runoff from mining operations into Bristol Bay. Both those bodies of water are sites of important commercial fisheries that supply food to the nation.
Of course compromises have to be made, but dumping toxic chemicals into the food supply is a compromise no one should have to make with the oil and mining industries. Let them figure out another way to dispose of their waste, one that doesn’t threaten public health.
You’re right in principle, but give us some numbers to determine if it makes a difference in practice. Eg: last yr, the state of Indiana was criticized for relaxing its regs on USSteel for dumping bleach into L. Mich. It turns out they would allow a 10ft x 10 x 10 volume to be leaked each day. That would be virtually undetectable 30 ft from the spigot. That’s certainly a compromise we could live with.
Palin is a savage wolf slaughterer and moose shooter. Her son is most likely poisoned by her neglect, ignorance and pure slovenly stupidity.