Listen as John McCain lies about Sarah Palin:
Almost every word the McCain/Palin campaign has uttered about Palin’s Pipeline has been an exaggeration, a stretch, a fib, a misstatement—you know: A LIE.
And more than that, it is a web of lies designed to hide and protect a project that will:
Destroy Indigenous Communities,
Turn Alberta, Canada into a moonscape,
Increase toxic pollution in the USA,
Accelerate Climate Change and the destruction of our planet, and
Cost US taxpayers Billions of dollars.
Perhaps Celina Harpe, an Elder of the Cree Nation in Alberta, Canada best explained the McCain/Palin Energy plan:
"As long as they get their money, they don’t care how many of us they kill off"
Let’s jump to the dark side...
A couple of weeks ago I wrote a Diary about the scandal and climate change acceleration machine also know as Sarah Palin’s Pipeline to Doom (ALERT: Palin’s Pipeline is a Climate Crisis Acceleration Machine). Since then I’ve been spending my free time digging into the details of this story and almost nothing that Sarah Palin, John McCain or any of their sycophants have said about this pipeline and Palin’s "energy" record has been true. Really, it is all bullshit designed to keep your eyes off of the billions of gallons of oil embedded in the Alberta Tar Sands.
This is another long dengre Diary. There is a lot of news in here and I hope it will be worth your time. It will be if you want to bust the myth of the McCain/Palin Energy plan.
Perhaps an annotated map will help:
I flipped on the teevee Saturday and Sarah Palin had come out of hiding to speak at a rally in Pennsylvania (McCain’s poodle, the "independent" Senator for Connecticut, was there to whisper talking points into her ear). Once again, she said that John McCain would put her in charge of US energy policy. That would be a very, very bad thing for the planet.
The myth of Sarah Palin is that she is some kind of Energy Expert because:
- Alaska has oil & gas reserves and a large extraction industry to exploit those resources, and
- Sarah Palin became Governor by understanding that industry and showing a willingness to "fight" it on behalf of Alaskans, and
- that she pushed through the Alaskan Legislature a plan to build a pipeline to move more of these resources to market, despite the wishes of the oil & gas industry, and
- Sarah Palin’s Pileline will deliver "clean" natural gas to the Lower 48, and as a result we will become energy independent and fight climate change at the same time.
The myth of her pipeline and "energy experience" is always mentioned whenever Palin’s defenders list her top qualification to be a 72-year-old heartbeat away from the Presidency.
It is a strong myth that is also absolute nonsense. It is repeated and repeated and repeated as a fact. This is a standard tactic of the Bush/McCain/Rove/Gingrich Republican era of deceit and corruption. As a result, another lie is easily taken as gospel and repeated as fact by McCain’s sycophants in the media. There are many examples, but this Editorial in the Washington Post is a typical regurgitation of the hype:
The result was a commitment by an experienced pipeline company, TransCanada, to build the project, which may take 10 years, in return for $500 million in state seed money derived from Alaska's recent oil windfall.
The oil companies still control the gas. So, if TransCanada actually gets all the necessary permits, assembles financing and builds the pipeline, the Big Three will have to be persuaded, years from now, to ship their gas through it on reasonable terms. Meanwhile, BP and Conoco Phillips have announced plans to build a pipeline of their own without the state's backing -- a sign that the political and economic wrangling over this immense and risky project is far from over. But it is also a sign that Ms. Palin's outflanking of the oil companies injected some competition and urgency into a process that was previously stalled. Perhaps her Democratic opponent for the governorship in 2006, who campaigned on similar ideas, would have achieved these results. Nevertheless, Ms. Palin actually did.
It all sounds so good, so reasonable: taking on the oil companies; fighting for the taxpayers; reforming the system; delivering "clean" natural gas to the Lower 48 from energy rich Alaska.
Governor Palin may be wrong about this or that; she may be on a learning curve here or there, but you can’t knock her "energy experience" and the success of her pipeline.
So, it is not surprising that so many news organizations, reporters, pundits, bloggers, commentators and voters buy into the myth of Sarah Palin’s energy credentials.
I mean, who could argue that this isn’t a great record of accomplishment?
And it would be—if any of it was actually true, but it isn’t.
This is a myth that would be totally busted by just about anybody who took the time to research the facts and double check the claims. At the core of these lies is a plan to build a pipeline to supply Alaskan natural gas to Canada for the extraction of oil from the tar sands in Alberta. According to Environmental Defence of Canada this is The Most Destructive Project on Earth. I’ve been looking into this and they are correct. The report is damning and there are plenty of other sources detailing the harm this project is inflicting on people and the planet. Here is a short list of resources for those who are concerned about their future and how this project puts it in jeopardy:
The Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) has put out an excellent two part report on the negative environmental and social justice impacts of the Alberta tar sands. Here is Part One of Crude Awakening: Canada's oil sands...you've heard about the economic benefits...but what about the environmental costs? and this is Part Two.
The Environmental Integrity Project recently released a Report on U.S. Refinery Expansions to Process Dirty Oil from Canadian Tar Sands. Take a look; if one of these refineries is going to be near you, then Palin’s Pipeline is a direct threat to your health and wellbeing.
Oil Sands Truth is a great source of information and links to track the environmental, social and economic impacts of Alberta’s tar sands.
Oil and Sands Watched by The Pembina Institute of Canada is another great resource. For eight years they tried to work with the oil industry to stop the environmental damage and have just pulled out of that effort because the oil industry does not care about the damage they cause in the pursuit of profits.
The Polaris Institute’s Energy Program maintains the Tar Sands Watch. This is another site with deep resources and information. They have a campaign calling for a MORATORIUM on expanding tar sands production until real safeguards are in place for people and the planet.
Canada’s DeSmogBlog (a site dedicated to clearing the PR pollution that is clouding the science on climate change) recently posted the Top 10 Facts About the Alberta Oil Sands.
As mentioned, Environmental Defence of Canada is a great resource on this issue. They even launched a campaign to fight the destruction that included an open letter to the 22 Governors of the Western Governors Association in the US (including Governor Palin).
The oil embedded in the Alberta tar sands are under boreal forests covering a land mass the size of Florida. These trees and eco-systems are scraped away. Then massive amounts of energy, chemicals and fresh water are required to extract the oil. Left behind is a toxic moonscape and a destroyed eco-system. For the indigenous peoples in and near the Alberta tar sands, the project leads to the destruction of their land, lifestyles and culture. It also leads to increased cancer rates and death. This is why Celina Harpe, an Elder of the Cree Nation in Alberta said:
"As long as they get their money, they don’t care how many of us they kill off"
And it is not only the destruction near the tar sands that impacts native peoples, there is also the process of stealing land and rights to run proposed pipelines through the lands of indigenous peoples without their approval—this is why the oil companies needed Sarah Palin to push through her pipeline and give away $500 million dollars to help evade laws protecting native peoples and the environment, but more on that in a moment.
The big lie that McCain/Palin tells about her pipeline and "energy experience" is that the pipeline will deliver "clean" energy to the Lower 48. It will not.
According to estimates, over 170 billion barrels of heavy dirty oil are embedded in Alberta’s tar sands. At $125 per barrel that is $17.3 TRILLIAN dollars worth of oil and currently it costs about $28 a barrel to extract the oil from sands. With growing oil prices, Alberta’s tar sands are a modern gold rush. All the damage done to date represents only a tiny fraction of the tar sands reserves being exploited. Plans for rapid growth and profits are on the drawing boards and that requires massive wastes of energy, water and resources. It also will accelerate the climate crisis beyond any possible solution.
Using current production standards, it will require over 850.25 TRILLIAN cubic feet of natural gas to heat the over 680 Billion barrels of fresh water required to extract the oil from the tar sands. Canada’s natural gas reserves are almost exhausted by the production done to date. They need more gas. And if every single cubic feet of gas from Alaska’s proven estimated reserves of 32.3 Trillion cubic feet went directly to feed the tar sands it would only make a small dent in extracting the estimated oil in the tar sands. You would need 26 times the proven gas reserves of Alaska to get it all out.
Now, to believe the McCain/Palin Campaign’s big lie you would have to be gullible enough to believe that energy companies would bypass the record setting profits to be made from converting low cost natural gas into high profit dirty oil from the tar sands just so they could deliver "clean" energy to heat your home. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in Alaska.
A blog, The Alaska Gas Pipeline, by an Alaskan energy engineer, breaks down the profits to be made by energy companies in this post, Alaska Gas & Canadian Tar Sands - Do the Math:
Production of Canadian Tar Sands requires 1,200 SCF (standard cubic feet) of natural gas per barrel. The 4.5 BCFD of Alaskan gas can be used to support 3.75 MMBPD of tar sand oil production. If oil is selling for $125/BBL when the gas starts flowing the Alaskan Gas will support gross revenues of $169 Billion annually.
Obviously there are lots of other cost associated with tar sand production, but this analysis show just how important Alaskan Gas is to North American oil production.
Here's how the projected Tar Sand projects stack up: ConocoPhillips is partnered with Encana, BP with Husky and ExxonMobil with Imperial - Collectively the North Slope producers can use 1,080 MMSCFD of their own gas captively to produce tar sand oil in Canada. The remaining 3,420 MMSCFD can be sold <span style="font-style: italic;">at a profit</span> to other tar sands producers.
Even at this rate of North Slope Gas production the new projects will demand 1,000 MMSCFD more. This volume of gas could come from the Mackenzie Pipeline Project (1,200 MMSCFD).
When completed, Palin’s pipeline would have the capacity to deliver five billion cubic feet of gas per day. Current planned expansion of production in the Alberta tar sands will require almost three billion cubic feet of gas per day by 2015. Deduct some gas to stay in Alaska or to be shipped to China as Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) and it is easy to see how almost none of the gas will get to the Lower 48 even if somebody puts up the money to build natural gas pipelines to actually connect Palin’s Pipeline to existing pipelines flowing gas to the rest of America.
In a nutshell:
Palin’s Pipeline and her political career is all about the oil and the profits to be made.
Among the many myths about Sarah Palin being hyped these daysis the tall tale about how she became Governor in 2006. To hear the McCain/Palin Campaign tell the story, it was because she took on the corruption in her Party and took the fight to a very corrupt Frank Murkowski. The trouble with this myth is that it wasn’t true.
Of all of Alaska’s long-serving Congressional delegation, Murkowski was the least corrupt. He was the only Republican to take on Jack Abramoff when Jack was at the height of his power in DC. Murkowski was and is a hero in the fight to bring justice to the workers of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI). While other Republicans praised the abuse as a "petri dish of capitalism" or a "laboratory of liberty", Murkowski saw the sweatshops, labor abuse, human trafficking and sexual slavery for what it was. He tried to stop it. He fought DeLay, Young and Abramoff and he lost. In 2002 he decided to leave Washington and he became Governor of Alaska.
As Governor, he was arrogant and he made many enemies. He appointed his own daughter to his Senate seat. By the summer of 2006 it was clear that he would lose a fall election to Democrat Tony Knowles. The GOP decided to throw him overboard and support one of the lesser Republicans running against him. The Party decided to go with Sarah Palin.
In her race for Governor she had the support of super corruptionists like Ted Stevens and Don Young. She had the support of the power structure in Alaska. She won.
And once she was in office she served the folks who put her into office and that meant supporting the oil companies. And the best way to support them was to create a myth that she "oppose" them.
Since the late 1970s a natural gas pipeline from Alaska has been approved and a goal of every Alaskan Governor. By the time Governor Murkowski was in office there were two competing proposals:
Two primary paths for a pipeline are currently on the table. One path, proposed by the Alaska Gasline Port Authority (AGPA) — a coalition formed by several Alaskan cities, including the city of Valdez — would rescue the "stranded" gas by piping it along a route that follows the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System from Prudhoe Bay to the Port of Valdez. There, the gas would be compressed into liquified natural gas (LNG), shipped to Kitimat, Canada, and transported by pipeline to Edmonton.
That project — touted by its proponents as an "all-Alaska" pipeline because it keeps potential future jobs in Alaska, rather than Canada — hinges on the construction of a plant to convert the gas to its liquid state to reduce its volume. [snip]
The second proposed pipeline would also follow the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System to Delta Junction, but would then track the Alaska Highway east into Canada. That route, known as the "southern route," was first approved by President Carter and Congress in 1977, when the reserves at Prudhoe Bay were discovered. It is still the favored route by many, including both Murkowski and environmental groups, such as the Northern Alaska Environmental Center.
When she ran for Governor, Sarah Palin supported the "all-Alaska" pipeline and went after Murkowski on the pipeline route that would go through Canada. Once she was elected, she flipped, she flopped and abandoned the idea of an "all-Alaska" pipeline.
She pushed through legislation she called the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA). This set out a series of requirements to build a pipeline. The law firm that Palin hired to put any AGIA deal together, review the applications and defend the winning bid was Greenberg Traurig (GT). Not only were they Jack Abramoff’s employer at the height of his corruption, they are also tied to many, many other scandals and questionable deals. While Jack was a lobbyist for GT he hired an Alaskan lobbyist, Steven Silver, to work on "Issues Relating to Indian/Native American Policy" and "Exploration for Oil and Gas". It turns out that Silver was also Palin’s lobbyist and that Jack hired him at the same time that GT moved into the "Oil & Gas" business by opening offices in Texas. This is a curious "coincidence" and it should raise a red flag or two, but I digress.
The requirements of AGIA were crafted so that only one company would win and that was TransCanada. Suddenly, there was a third player in the pipeline battle. It was argued that they were a better choice because they were not an oil company; instead they built and maintained pipelines.
The AGIA legislation did not guarantee that a pipeline would ever be built, but it did give the winning company access to $500 million from Alaskan taxpayers. This is money that TransCanada will use to promote an unique legal theory to get a proposed pipeline through US and Canadian regulations and application processes.
Naturally, the Alaskans in favor of the "All-Alaskan" route felt a bit betrayed by Governor Palin, but this was business and the Alberta tar sands needed the gas. During the fight to push through her AGIA legislation one of Governor Palin’s key supporters in the Alaskan House, Rep. Carl Gatto, explained why the TransCanada deal had to be approved (emphasis added):
TransCanada tells us it has all the permits required to build in Canada. Is that important? It's invaluable. The pipeline route goes through First Nations Property. Without current permits it would take some time (if not forever) to obtain them. I recall the lengthy legal process to build the Alaska pipeline across Alaska Native lands. Likewise, in Canada it's nearly impossible to cross First Nations, unless you already have the permits. TransCanada has legal access.
Canadian petroleum production is regulated by the National Energy Board while in the USA it is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Both governments eagerly await a pipeline. Canada needs Alaska gas in Alberta to produce oil from the Alberta Tar Sands. The tar sands hold more oil than Saudi Arabia. Alaska needs a pipeline for scores of reasons known for years: regional economies, local/national market demands, contribution to U.S. energy independence, and contending with the exorbitant cost of energy in Alaska. For both Alaska and Canada, the Alaska-Canada gas pipeline is a natural marriage.
Once the deal was pushed through, Wally Hickel a former Governor of Alaska condemned the diversion of gas to the tar sands and punctured the "lie" that the gas was needed in the Lower 48 (emphasis added):
This was a terrible blunder. There are not many Alaskans who believe that a Canadian company will do a better job than we would in looking out for Alaska's interests. At a time of high energy costs in Alaska and a national economy threatened with recession, we need action. This decision will only cause delay. [snip]
It's time our leaders admitted that the South 48 doesn't need Alaska gas. As the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month, thousands of wells are being drilled in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma, and analysts are talking about a "gas glut."
And they need to be honest that the motivation for a Canadian line is not to get Alaska gas to America after all. The oil producers want to use our gas to heat up the Alberta tar sands to produce crude oil, an environmental disaster in the making.
It may take a future governor and a future Legislature to wake up to reality.
Meanwhile, the oil and gas companies with leases to extract oil and gas from Alaska have decided to build their own pipeline at the same time. It is the Denali Pipeline. So naturally this would seem to put Governor Palin and the Oil companies at odds, but not really. A closer examination reveals that the two pipelines are working in tandem and that the projects will be merged when the time is right and regulations to protect the environment and indigenous communities have been bypassed through a loophole exploited by Palin’s Pipeline and paid for by Alaskan taxpayers.
It is a curious thing that both the TransCanada Pipeline and the Denali Pipeline both follow basically the same route. Neither proposed pipeline is designed to primarily deliver gas to the Lower 48. Both will terminate approximately in Boundary Lake, Alberta. From there, the gas might be pumped though some yet to be built pipelines connecting the Alaskan gas to the Lower 48. And if it did, then the pipelines would deliver a tiny amount of "clean" energy to the Lower 48. That "if" is a mighty big "if". Far more likely is moving gas to the tar sands through other pipelines that TransCanada is currently building. These two proposed pipelines overlap because they each serve a temporary purpose.
The Denali Pipeline is the one that is actually being planned and funded for construction. It is getting ready to go, but it has a regulatory problem. The route the pipeline will have to travel—as noted by Rep. Gatto—crosses land controlled by the indigenous peoples of Canada. The Denali Pipeline would have to get approval from the First Peoples of Canada and meet strict environmental regulations in the US and Canada.
This was not the case thirty years ago when both the USA and Canada first approved building a pipeline to move Alaskan gas to market. And this is where the TransCanada deal finally makes sense.
The TransCanada Pipeline provides a "work-around" to the indigenous rights and environmental regulatory "problems" facing any proposed gas pipeline from Alaska to the Alberta tar sands.
Unlike most news organizations in the United States, the Canadian press has been reporting on the big lies being told by the McCain/Palin Campaign about the TransCanada Pipeline deal. A recent story in the Globe and Mail explained why a TransCanada deal was pushed through (emphasis added):
Anyone listening to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin at the recent U.S. Republican convention would believe that TransCanada workers are poised, shovels at the ready, to start construction of a 2,760-kilometre pipeline bringing natural gas from Alaska through Canada to the lower 48 states. They would be wrong. [snip]
It's true that the project would fail if the major oil companies went ahead with a rival pipeline, or if the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission did not issue the necessary certificate. However, it is equally true that unless Canadian conditions are also met, Alaskan natural gas will remain stranded in Alaska. [snip]
The company is counting on using the Northern Pipeline Act, federal legislation that was passed 30 years ago when a similar pipeline was envisaged, as a way to fast track regulatory approvals for the project in Canada. That act set up the Northern Pipeline Agency, a one-stop shop for all the federal approvals the pipeline required. That agency is currently mothballed, with a skeleton staff of two.
In correspondence with the government of Alaska earlier this year (which can be accessed at the governor's website ), TransCanada said that parliament "made irrevocable judgments and decisions" with respect to the Alaska pipeline when it passed that legislation in 1978, including that it was in the public interest and would have acceptable social and environmental impacts.
While TransCanada concedes it would have to update the social and environmental assessments of the project, it wants to do so under the Northern Pipeline Act and not through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 1992 or similar Yukon legislation passed in 2003. [snip]
Another potential hurdle is ensuring that all the affected aboriginal communities are onboard - the pipeline would cut across the southern Yukon, northern British Columbia, and northern Alberta. In recent years, aboriginal consent has become a crucial element in major natural resource projects.
So, here is the big secret about Governor Palin’s Pipeline deal with TransCanada: it is a creative dodge to get around any Canadian environmental laws or safeguards for indigenous peoples that have been passed since 1980.
It is a novel legal strategy and will require a lot of lobbying, lawyers and bullshit to get it passed Canadian Courts and regulators. TransCanada will argue that an obscure agency created 30 years ago should have the final say over providing waivers to current Canadian laws protecting the rights of indigenous peoples and the environment. Such a campaign will require a lot of time and money. Fortunately for the oil companies, Governor Palin has arranged for Alaskan taxpayers to pick up the tab and give TransCanada $500 million to push their novel legal theory through the Canadian regulatory system.
And while TransCanada works to skirt current laws and regulations, the oil companies and the Denali Pipeline will focus on actual construction efforts. Already the FERC is planning to merge the two gas pipeline projects into one effort:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will work on combining two competing natural gas pipeline projects in Alaska.
Dow Jones reported Friday that the energy body volunteered to help merge the competing projects of TransCanada Corp., supported by the Alaska government, and a joint venture by ConocoPhillips and BP PLC.
Sarah Palin has NOT been "opposing" the oil companies or "fighting" them. She has been working for and with them.
This is another McCain/Palin lie that needs to be exposed.
This isn’t being done by the large media outfits—yet. But as the netroots have proven time and time again, we can force them to take a look at the claims that Sarah Palin is an "energy expert" and that her pipeline would deliver "clean" energy to the Lower 48.
Now, so many lies are being told by the McCain/Palin Campaign about Sarah Palin, her claims of energy experience and her pipeline that some of them have been Busted by various fact checking organizations. It is not enough, but it is a start.
For example the NYTs recently took on McCain/Palin suggestions that Palin’s Pipeline was an accomplished fact (emphasis added):
The reality, however, is far more ambiguous than the impression Ms. Palin has left at the convention and on the campaign trail.
Certainly she proved effective in attracting developers to a project that has eluded Alaska governors for three decades. But an examination of the pipeline project also found that Ms. Palin has overstated both the progress that has been made and the certainty of success.
The pipeline exists only on paper. The first section has yet to be laid, federal approvals are years away and the pipeline will not be completed for at least a decade. In fact, although it is the centerpiece of Ms. Palin’s relatively brief record as governor, the pipeline might never be built, and under a worst-case scenario, the state could lose up to $500 million it committed to defray regulatory and other costs.
And CQ Politics took at look at the pipeline and even touched on the Palin "energy expert" myth:
That all sounds quite impressive. But it’s not true that Palin got an agreement to build the pipeline, as we explain here. Nor does the evidence support the claim that it would cost $40-billion and be the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history, as we explain here. [snip]
Before her election as governor, Palin opposed the idea of routing the pipeline through Canada, a version of which her predecessor, Frank Murkowski, had advocated. Instead she pushed for what she and other proponents called an "all-Alaska" pipeline — one that would go to the Alaskan port city of Valdez, from which the gas could be shipped to market.
She even appeared in advertisements endorsing the all-Alaska option, and on the wall of her gubernatorial campaign headquarters in 2006 was a sign saying, "Canada my ass, it’s Alaska’s gas." [snip]
After she was elected governor, Palin expressed a willingness to consider all options, as long as there was competition for the project. She pressed the Legislature to pass the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, known as AGIA, which provided $500-million in state funds to whichever company offered the best proposal for the project.
The Alaska State Legislature accepted TransCanada’s proposal in a bill Palin signed on Aug. 27, 2008. [snip]
It’s also worth considering whether Palin’s pipeline proposal would, as she frequently claims, "Help lead America to energy independence."
It would be constructed by a Canadian company and run through Canada. Critics of the plan in Alaska have seized on this, framing it as an issue of state and national pride.
CQ Politics also exposed that Palin’s Pipeline was all about putting Alaska First—and Canada second! If built as planned, Palin’s Pipeline would terminate in Alberta, Canada to feed the boundless energy requirements to extra oil from the tars sands—little, if any, of the gas would ever get to the Lower 48. The United States of America is seen as a chump, an "easy mark" to fund the project. It is a dirty little secret of Palin’s Pipeline that it depends upon US taxpayers putting up the money while others get the gas and industry keeps the profits. This is a core fact about Palin’s Pipeline that has had very little exposure. More people should be talking about it and asking her about it (if she ever takes any questions).
As it is, McCain and Palin just keep hyping the pipeline and Palin’s energy experience. Each time they tell the tale it gets a wee bit taller.
CQ’s PolitiFacts found that their claims about the cost and certainty of the pipeline were Barely True (emphasis added):
There is no agreement to build, and it's not $40-billion
In her early campaign appearances, Gov. Sarah Palin has repeatedly boasted about her role in advocating a new natural gas pipeline in Alaska. [snip]
Palin's accomplishment sounds impressive in her words — far more than it actually is. The agreement she reached — with the help of the Alaska State Legislature — is not a commitment to build, but rather a commitment to begin planning the massive project. Palin's claim suggests that construction is assured, but that's just not true. And if it were, it wouldn't be a $40-billion pipeline. Those are two significant flaws in this claim Palin makes repeatedly.
Still, there is a new agreement that was forged with Palin as governor, so we rate her boast as Barely True.
And CQ rated the McCain/Palin claims about the cost of the pipeline and Palin’s role in getting it done as an example of her "energy experience" as being Half True: Not quite the largest, and not quite "brought about" (emphasis added):
Since Sen. John McCain named Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin his vice-presidential running mate, she has repeatedly touted her push for a new pipeline in Alaska as evidence of her executive experience and energy expertise.
But she has often fudged the truth in the process [snip]
Palin was right to say she "fought to bring about" the pipeline. But she implies that it's further along than it really is. And she was wrong — though not egregiously so — to say it would be the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. We judge her claim to be Half True.
It is also worth noting that this so called Alaskan Energy Expert doesn’t seem to know even the baseline facts about the resources in her State and how much energy Alaska supplies to the Lower 48. FactCheck.org looked into the claims of McCain/Palin campaign and found that Palin says Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy. Not true. Not even close:
It's simply untrue that Alaska produces anything close to 20 percent of the U.S. "energy supply," a term that is generally defined as energy consumed. [snip]
Sen. John McCain has also has used this inflated, incorrect figure.
And even the AP went after the McCain/Palin campaign for wildly exaggerating Alasaka’s energy resources and impact on US markets:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain and running mate Sarah Palin, Alaska's governor, say her state's production of one-fifth of the country's domestic energy supply is an important credential to put them in the White House. Their figure is inflated.
THE SPIN: Palin and the McCain campaign repeatedly have claimed her status as governor of an energy-producing state as a national security credential, most recently in the interview with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson. But Palin has been sloppy in how she states her argument that Alaska is a major player in the energy market.
In the interview, she claimed the state "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." McCain, too, has said Palin is "in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply." More recently, Palin modified her claim to "20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of oil and gas."
THE FACTS: The statements are exaggerated, some wildly so, according to figures from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
FactCheck.org also called out Palin on her evasive statements whenever she is asked about climate change:
When Gibson accused Palin of flip-flopping her stance on the causes of global warming, Palin denied her position had changed on whether humans are partially responsible. But that doesn’t quite jibe with what she’s said in the past...
The Energy plans of the McCain/Palin Campaign are dangerous, irresponsible and destructive. The heavy oil from Alberta is the crack cocaine of oil production. If it is allowed to expand, an expansion of oil shale extraction in the United States will followed. And then the rest of the world will follow our lead and the addiction to oil will only end when an accelerating climate crisis destroys life and civilization as we know it.
It doesn’t have to be this way. And it won’t be if we defeat John McCain in November.
Barack Obama is on record as being against the production of dirty oil from Alberta’s tar sands:
Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed he would break America's addiction to "dirty, dwindling, and dangerously expensive" oil if he is elected U.S. president - and one of his first targets might well be Canada's oilsands.
A senior adviser to Obama's campaign told reporters it's an "open question" whether oil produced from northern Alberta's oilsands fits with the Democratic candidate's plan to shift the U.S. sharply away from consumption of carbon-intensive fossil fuels.
"If it turns out that those technologies don't advance . . . and the only way to produce those resources would be at a significant penalty to climate change, then we don't believe that those resources are going to be part of the long-term, are going to play a growing role in the long-term future," said Jason Grumet, Obama's senior energy adviser.
The remarks amount to a shot across the bow of Alberta's oilsands industry, which is planning to boost production from 1.3 million barrels a day to 3.5 million barrels over the next decade.
This is yet another reason we must work as hard as we can to defeat McCain and elect Barack Obama on November 4, 2008.
Every day counts.
Volunteer.
Register folks to Vote.
Take Action.
Donate.
We have Country to Take Back and a planet to save.
We can do this.
Yes. We. Can.
Cheers