With the spotlight shining on clean energy, the stage has been set for the U.S. to rid itself of a harmful addiction to foreign oil. The stars are aligned and the cards have been dealt. Soon we’ll have kicked the dirty habit, right?

Sarah Palin seems to think so. Perhaps you’ll remember her proposal to tap the natural gas supply found under the pristine Alaskan wilderness. As Governor of Alaska she “fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history . . . a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.”

While it may be true that part of America’s energy independence lies under Alaskan soil, there’s more to the story than simply drilling for oil. Drilling for Alaskan oil may be even dirtier than it seems.

Alaska’s 35 trillion feet of natural gas could be used to wean the U.S. from our mother in the Middle East, but that isn't quite what the authors of the pipeline have waiting on the next page. Much of the natural gas harvested in Alaska would be used to expand the oil sand (tar sand) projects in Alberta, Canada. Such expansion of the tar sands projects would bring the finished tar sands product to our front doors. Now what’s wrong with that? Isn’t tar sand a way out of our dependency?

“The tar sands of Canada constitute one of our planet’s greatest threats. They are a double-barreled threat. First, producing oil from tar sands emits two-to-three times the global warming pollution of conventional oil. But the process also diminishes one of the best carbon-reduction tools on the planet: Canada’s Boreal Forest,” said Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University.

The Alberta tar sands project has gained the moniker “the most destructive project on earth.” Al Gore stated that “For every barrel of oil they extract there, they have to use enough natural gas to heat a family’s home for four days.” Tar Sands operations currently use about .6 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day. By 2012, that level could rise to 2 billion cubic feet a day. I guess that it would be important for them (the Big Oil companies who are harvesting oil from the tar sands) to have a reliable ‘domestic’ source of natural gas. It would certainly save them a few bucks.

It isn't simply the horrendous amounts of natural gas consumed that is disturbing about the tar sands projects. Most of the tar sands rest peacefully under Canada’s Boreal Forest, the world’s largest intact forest. Alberta’s oil sands underlie one-fifth of the province, and it is possible that oil sand exploitation could affect an area 40 times larger than the mine-able area. Now if the natural gas and land depletion aren't enough to get you thinking; the water consumption is heinous. It takes two to four barrels of water to produce one barrel of bitumen (which is what they are really after). The used tailings are then stored, unusable, in tailings lakes, which have potential negative effects on the health of the environment and the population surrounding the contaminated area.

Oil Sands Facts

Climate Change
-- Alberta’s greenhouse gas regulation does not require real reductions in emissions from oil sands operations.
-- Oil sands production is much more greenhouse gas–intensive than conventional oil production.
-- Oil sands are the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.
-- Continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions show that Canada’s commitment to address climate change falls far short of what's needed.
-- Large-scale carbon capture and storage for oil sands emissions is currently a distant and uncertain prospect.
-- Companies are allowed to switch to burning dirtier fuels as a source of energy for oil sands extraction — further increasing greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands.

Water Impacts
-- Oil sands mining uses two to four barrels of water for every barrel of bitumen produced.
-- Oil sands companies are not required to stop withdrawing water from the Athabasca River, even if flows are so low that fisheries and habitats are at serious risk.
-- Capping toxic tailings waste in end pit lakes with water is an unproven and risky concept.
-- For over 40 years, oil sands mining companies voluntarily managed tailings on their own, in the absence of concrete government regulations.
-- Tailings lakes seep toxic waste. It is uncertain exactly what is seeping, how much is seeping and what ecosystem components are affected.
-- Tailings lakes house compounds known to be acutely toxic to aquatic organisms.
-- Reclamation of tailings lakes has not yet been demonstrated.

Boreal Forest Impacts
-- Alberta’s oil sands underlie one-fifth of the province, and development is already planned for more than 79,000 square kilometers.
-- The Athabasca Boreal Forest will not be restored to its native state following mine closure.
-- Oil sands mining reclamation standards are weak and lack transparency; only one square kilometer of land has been certified as reclaimed to date.
-- The security bonds that are supposed to protect Canadians from costly environmental liabilities may be inadequate.

Perhaps Alaska's natural gas store will help America achieve oil independence. But it is going to take strong regulations to stop the spread of "the most destructive project on earth"

Reprinted with permission from Red Green and Blue