Sarah Palin lied at least four times in an op-ed she wrote for the the New York Times (Bearing Up, January 8, 2008).
She was trying to argue against Bush's interior department's plan to list polar bears as a threatened species. But in an attempt to make her case she lied repeatedly. The state of Alaska then tried to cover up her lies.
In order to evaluate the security of the polar bear population, the US Geological Survey recently conducted nine studies of polar bears and the threats they face due to human-caused global heating.
In aggregate, the studies, released in September of 2007, concluded,
During a six-month period of intensive analysis of both existing and new data, the team documented the direct relationship between the presence of Arctic sea ice and the survival and health of polar bears. Polar bears depend on sea ice as a platform to hunt seals, their primary food. But sea ice is decreasing throughout their Arctic range due to climate change. Models used by the USGS team project a 42 percent loss of optimal polar bear habitat from the Polar Basin during summer, a vital hunting and breeding period, by mid-century.
and, most alarmingly,
Future reduction of sea ice in the Arctic could result in a loss of 2/3 of the world's polar bear population within 50 years according to a series of studies released today by the U.S. Geological Survey.
On this basis, the Interior Department decided to list the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. Sarah Palin, in order to oppose this listing, wrote an op-ed for the Times claiming that,
This month, the secretary of the interior is expected to rule on whether polar bears should be listed under the Endangered Species Act. I strongly believe that adding them to the list is the wrong move at this time. My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts.
The problem is that she lied when she said there was a comprehensive review and she lied about their conclusions. In fact, the officials, after being ordered not to make a comprehensive review, came to the opposite conclusion. The smoking memo (in PDF form, provided by the Anchorage Daily News), written by state wildlife official Robert J. Small and dated October 9, 2007, actually says,
From within the Division of Wildlife Conservation, Lori Quakenbush, Dick Shideler, and I have reviewed the 9 USGS [US Geological Survey] reports on polar bears relevant to the final determination being made by the USFWS [US Fish and Wildlife Service] on the proposed ESA [Endangered Species Act] listing. During previous discussions, we were informed that an in-depth review of each of the 9 reports was not being requested. Thus, among the three of us the depth of our reviews has varied. Overall, we believe that the methods and analytical approaches used to examine the currently available information supports the primary conclusions and inferences stated in these 9 reports.
The state official's appraisal was that the nine federal reports forming the basis of listing the polar bear as threatened were right. Sarah Palin lied by claiming the opposite. In the op-ed, she said we should make environmental decisions after "scientists debate and present information that policy makers need to make the best decisions." The information on the threat to polar bears was presented to Governor Palin by both federal and state officials, but she not only chose to disregard it, she lied about the information itself.
Palin claimed above that the state review was the basis of her decision. If it was, she would have reached the opposite conclusion. Thus, Palin also lied about how she made her decision.
We now know what this memo says, and know that Palin lied about it, only because University of Alaska professor Rick Steiner attempted to obtain the state scientists' emails. The state then attempted a cover up. According to a NYT article on September 14, 2008, "An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process." Steiner was finally able to obtain the email quoted above*, proving Palin lied.
Furthermore, in Palin's op-ed in the New York Times, she said,
That’s why state biologists are studying the health of polar bear populations and their habitat.
Despite these assurances, Palin was lying about "state biologists" studying polar bears, too. According to the Anchorage Daily News article about the memo quoted above,
None of the three is a polar bear specialist. The state has none, having relinquished its polar bear research to the federal government.
Palin makes another insidious argument in the conclusion of her op-ed, where she argues, "Americans should become involved in the issue of climate change by offering suggestions for constructive action to their state governments." Notice, Palin urges action at the state level, but not at the level of national governments or international treaties.
Her lies made it sound as if the state of Alaska was taking good care of polar bears, while her policies ("Drill, baby drill,") were designed to destroy the polar bear's habitat, both directly and through increased burning of greenhouse gas producing fossil fuels. These polices expose the apparent motivation for her opposition to listing the polar bear as threatened. Indeed, the Anchorage Daily News story reports, "State officials have expressed particular concern that a threatened-species listing gives environmentalists more leverage to oppose oil and gas development in Arctic Alaska and poses risks to Native subsistence."
Yet Palin's lies as a state governor both underscore the importance of vigorous national and transnational action to preserve the global environment, and the dangers of putting someone with such a track record in a position of even greater power to influence and control national and global policies.
So, in summary:
• Palin lied when she claimed there was a comprehensive review of threats to polar bears. It was a cursory review.
• Palin lied when she said that the state review of the USGS studies justified her decision to appeal designating polar bears as "threatened." The state review concluded the opposite.
• Palin lied when she claimed this review was the basis of her decision to appeal the Interior Department's designation of polar bears' threatened status. If it was, she would have supported the "threatened" designation.
• Palin lied when she claimed there are state biologists studying polar bear populations. The state has no polar bear specialists in its employ.
• In order to cover up Palin's lies, the state tried to prevent release of state government documents.
• Palin's apparent concern was about oil. Palin's polar bear lies were an attempt to cover-up this fundamental fact.
* P.S. It's not yet clear how Steiner obtained the memo, because the
Anchorage Daily News and
New York Times accounts differ as to whether he finally received it from the state or via a Federal records request.