EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
White House, GOP Battle for Supremacy on Tar Sands Pipeline
With President Obama’s decision on the Keystone XL pipeline looming, the White House and Republicans will spend the next several weeks trying to win the messaging war over the controversial project.
The stakes are high for both sides. Obama risks backlash from key union supporters if he rejects the project, but faces the ire of environmental groups if he approves it.
By arguing that the GOP-backed measure will force the administration to reject Keystone on a technicality, the White House can avoid having to weigh in on the substantive issues raised by the pipeline — including whether it will boost the economy or harm the environment. (photo: Will Wysong)
Republicans, meanwhile, stand to score a political victory if Obama green lights the pipeline. But their successful effort to force a decision could backfire if the president rejects the pipeline and pins blame on the GOP for rushing the review.
TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline would carry oil sands crude from Alberta, Canada, to refineries along the Gulf coast. The proposed project, which has been under federal review for years, has set off a firestorm in Washington, with supporters arguing the pipeline will boost the ailing economy and opponents raising concerns about oil spills and greenhouse gas emissions from oil-sands production.
Both sides are mobilizing to win the messaging war. White House and Obama administration officials have said they will have little choice but to reject the pipeline under the 60-day timeline that was outlined in the payroll tax package that passed in December.
By arguing that the GOP-backed measure will force the administration to reject Keystone on a technicality, the White House can avoid having to weigh in on the substantive issues raised by the pipeline — including whether it will boost the economy or harm the environment.
Obama sought in November to delay a final verdict on the pipeline by calling for review of alternative routes around the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska. The move delayed a decision on the project until 2013 to give the administration time to conduct additional review of the new route.
The State Department, which is leading a multi-agency review of the proposed pipeline, has said the administration will have no choice but to reject Keystone because the expedited timeline pushed by Republicans will not leave enough time to conduct the review.
Other administration and White House officials have echoed that line. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said earlier this month on Twitter that the GOP-backed Keystone provision “simply shortens the review process in a way that virtually guarantees that the pipeline will NOT be approved.”
Environmental groups echoed the administration’s comments this week, arguing that Republicans have sealed Keystone’s demise.
“The president is going to have no choice but to reject the pipeline,” said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of international programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “I don’t see any wiggle room.”
Proponents of the project are pushing back. Marty Durbin, a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, said the measure in the tax package allows for rerouting the pipeline around the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska, a requirement the Obama administration has said is essential for approval of the project.
“It gives them the time they need, however much time they need, to review what’s going on in Nebraska,” Durbin said.
Under the Keystone measure, if Obama approves the pipeline, the final permit must require the rerouting, along with necessary review of the new route by the state of Nebraska. But it specifically bars additional federal environmental review of the project, as the State Department has proposed.
Supporters of the pipeline are upping the pressure on Obama to quickly approve the project, arguing there will be political consequences if he rejects it.
“In our view it’s a slam dunk decision because it benefits the country in terms of jobs and national security,” Durbin said. “I think there will be a potential backlash if he rejects the project."
Matt Letourneau, spokesman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, said Obama needs to make a decision on the merits.
“Right now, the issue in front of the president is whether the pipeline is in the national interest or not, and that’s where we think the discussion should be,” Letourneau said. “Using some other issue as a reason to avoid making that decision, to us, is not sound policy.”
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
39 Comments so far
Show AllMy prediction: The pipeline goes through with the approval of Obama, but with certain "safeguards:" enhanced inspections, "fail-safe" methods of containing spills, a fund with money set aside to pay for environmental damage, avoiding certain "sensitive" ecological areas and so on. In other words, the President will put lipstick on a pig, an act he has done before with his okay of the Bush tax cuts. You can't erase the spots of the leopard--they are genetically a part of the animal.
You might end up being correct. However, two months is still not enugh time to complete an environmental assessment of a route of routes alternative to the current one - something that has to happen if it is supposed to avoid the Oglala acquifer. It may be possible to load the plan up with all kinds of "safeguards" as you say, but that really doesn't get to the heart of the matter or one of the key arguments Obama is using to delay a decision.
Cancelling the pipeline is still a possibility, but the White House will have to do a huge PR campaign to get the accurate message out that this pipeline is not the big job creator that TransCanada, the oil industry machine, and the GOPers are pushing. The unions need to get real. What they should be pushing is Green Jobs, not this boondoggle.,
I suspect that you are right. Obama will approve it, using the same type of weaseling he has used before. And none of the oil will end up reducing our dependence on Mid-East oil, because no one buys oil from a particular country anymore. They buy it from "jobbers," who find it wherever it happens to be at a particular price.
The only way to stop this pipeline project would be if Nebraska were to tie the project up in court so long that Canada decided to ship the oil to Pacific ports by building a different pipeline.
Delay is expensive to the project. So that is one good tactic, by a variety of means.
The land is supreme! It needs protection from humans-for humans. There will be environmental consequences- to say nothing of compromised communities. Look at BP in the Gulf and the Enbridge spill in Michigan. Priorities are skewed. Growth at all costs is killing us. We have to be able to sustain life in our world.
The politicians are losers-both parties.
"Growth at all costs is killing us." Good point, MW. We should all consider that uncontrolled growth within our bodies is called cancer.
We need to intensify pressure on Obama to just say NO to KXL. Approval of KXL would mean Obama caving to Republicans in a shotgun marriage that KXL pig and looking spineless and un-presidential in an election year. But worst of all Obama would be selling out future generations on a critical global warming issue. .
Oh I'm sure the puppet Emperor will do the right thing. After all he signed NDAA on New Year's eve. When he does "the right thing" CD will ignore it just like they ignore his signing NDAA. That's not important news.
" In our view it is a slam dunk decision because it benefits the country ". True Mr. Durbin, except you left out that it benefits 1% of the country! Yes, Mr. Durbin, the xl pipeline is a done deal, but not for your specious reasons of national security and jobs, but for the greedy 1% that are murdering our planet for their filthy lucre.
What battle? (D)s and (R)s are waging a PR war for who looks best when XL is approved. They are both framing XL as a job creator. You can see their common endgame is approval. Obama wants this project as much as Romney. Obama just does not want to take the heat for it. The boom will be lowered on Americans after the election. Make plans for living a more austere life.
Tension in the Straight of Hormuz helps proponents of the XL project. A spike in oil prices would help XL proponents. The real issue is, when are we as a nation going to move away from oil and go to Eco-friendly alternatives like solar? Not until the 1% has another vehicle to tax the masses. The dollars coming out of your pocket at the pump are a regressive tax on US all.
Water is the 21st century oil. Like oil, we all need water and "We the People" will have to pay the 1% dearly for it.
---"The dollars coming out of your pocket at the pump is a regressive tax on US all."---
Funny, I thought gasoline taxes had something to do with highway construction and maintenance - an avoidable aspect of burning gasoline. And if gasoline (or preferably crude oil) was taxed commensurate with its environmental damage, the taxes would be much higher.
I'm not so sure how regressive gasoline taxes are, the rich probably burn a lot more gasoline than the poor. Most of the poor where I live rely on the public transportation and are facing disastrous deep service cuts because car-drivers don't want to pay taxes.
Better that we tax the crap out of gasoline, and use the taxes for greatly expanded public transit - 24 hour service, no headways greater than 10 minutes, a route within a 5 minute walk from 95% of the population in a metro area. Using buses, such improvements could be put in place in a matter of months.
I find this creeping tendency of commenters here to apply neo-libertarian right-wing analyses to be troubling.
Most people don't know what a regressive tax is.
“The president is going to have no choice but to reject the pipeline,” said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of international programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “I don’t see any wiggle room.”
Hard to maintain any credibility as a prognosticator once this naive statement fails the reality test.
I would say: The President is going to have no choice but to accept the pipeline. I am sure Susan means right, but I will give you 10:1 odds that she will have to eat crow for that sophomoric and moronic statement!
I might take those odds-- not because I disagree with your position, but because I think that "eating crow" has become passé.
I don't know beans about Susan Casey-Lefkowitz or the Natural Resources Defense Council, but I bet that even if she's dead wrong, she won't "eat crow".
Instead, at worst she'll ruefully acknowledge that she may have misunderestimated the situation, or even that she "didn't see it coming".
But this will be a mere gloss, or preface, to insisting that who was right and who was wrong isn't important: now the battle is beginning in earnest.
And there's no point in, or time for, indulging in recriminations when we should be coming together and redoubling our efforts to hold Obama et al's feet to the fire, etc.In short, these days people avoid eating crow by instead pre-emptively serving up popcorn bullshit with butter.
Rather than being naive, I think Ms. Casey-Lefkowitz is being more realistic than the president or the unions. What the president should do -- right now, this minute -- is to reject any further consideration of the pipeline and should speak the truth about it: (1) tar-sands extraction is destroying a huge section of Canadian forest and the river that runs south from it, and (2) there is NO benefit for the US to allow a possibly/probably leaky pipeline carrying the world's dirtiest oil to Texas for (most likely) export. The unions should be pushing for jobs in the development of renewables.
Well put bernice. If they want to ask what is best for the country, and make a decision only on that basis, this is where there thinking should be.
The lady from NRDC is not deluded. She is signalling that the NRDC intends to sue if Obama approves the pipeline. This is what she is telling Obama. You think the White House doesn't read these comments? That statement was directed to the White House. Not only that, it meant that NRDC not only is going to sue, but they intend to win. It means, don't bother to get up in the morning if you are going to sign this thing, because you will get hit with the lawsuit that will end your career.
She may be bluffing, but I wouldn't bet on it.
“In our view it’s a slam dunk decision because it benefits the country in terms of jobs and national security,” Durbin said.
Why no push back on these two bogus claims? Some jobs, yes, but not nearly as many as proponents claim.
But the "national security" argument is 100% bogus. The gulf refineries will make high end diesel fuel, which will in turn be sold to Europe!! It won't add to the petroleum available to the US.
Has there ever been a serious argument about building a refinery right where the tar sands are 'harvested?" I know, green energy and all that, but as an alternate interim solution? Better than digging up half of the US with the greatest risks and the dirtiest of consequences. I would love to study the cost/benefit/risk analyses.
I love it. Pushing the planet pass the point of no return with green house emissions is a "job creator" and in the best interests of "national security". I guess launching WW111 would also be a great source of employment.
If Americans really want 'jobs', then simply elect a socialist government that implements a policy of full employment. Wouldn't you think it would be better to employ millions more in education, healthcare, building infrastructure, replacing fossil fuels with alternative forms of energy production, replacing the Marine Corps with the Peace Corps, housing and feeding our poor, ending a 'culture of consumerism', prosecuting corporate criminals and tending to our most vulnerable rather than adding just 1,500 temporary construction jobs for a pipeline?
As usual the MSM will spin this as a jobs and national security issue versus a small group of tree hugging environmental fanatics supported by a huge, underground, mysterious, well funded, liberal conspiracy to undermine America.
I believe drosera is right on... the pipeline will pass with a bunch of rhetorical safeguards added to appease the majority of people who have some environmental reservations. The fix is in.
So Obama has a decision to make and the extraction of oil from tar sands, refinement, environmental destruction from building the pipeline and the risks that go along with it are large,
In looking into fracking and its risks and damage it has caused/can cause seem to be much larger at this point. Natural gas is not used for automobiles and the Co2 emmisions it creates from the process of extraction, processing and burning, is greater than oil and gas, from what I read. It will not lessen our dependence on foreign oil and the chemicals that are used (some of them are trade secrets and do not have to be disclosed) are really nasty and have hurt, injured and killed life. they also have the potential to pollute aquifers. E.G. The Delaware River Basin.
A huge amount of water is needed for the fracking process. Thousands of fracking stations have been built or being planned to be built.
Some places have banned fracking.
Whether it is Keystone or fracking, I don't think the American people will stand for business as usual unless they are "lulled to sleep" by TV, the Kardashians, and the like.
Why are we looking at this pipeline in isolation from other green energy projects?
If you just look at one dirty energy project at a time, rejecting it will seem like losing jobs.
There are plenty of green jobs to replace dirty "brown" jobs, see
http://www.greenjobsconference.org/agenda/2012/0/55
I don't really think this is a battle between unions and environmentalists.
It is a battle between TransCanada pipeline lobbyists, Hillary Clinton, Obama and most of the US government versus environmentalists.
Obama wants to approve this deal but he is calculating if it will cost him too many votes.
Perhaps he is counting on Ron Paul to run independent and create a 3-way race, thereby giving Obama more "wiggle room" to approve the deal. Perhaps he's been told not to care about winning the 2012 election when his mirror image Romney takes power.
I do not speak for the Tar Sands movement, though I have actively participated in it. What I am trying to do is avert an eco-holocaust. Truly, the term "climate change" is a euphemism for what is taking place-an unfortunate framing for a crisis that is effecting life as we know it. It is of course no coincidence that Republicans have made the pipeline a wedge issue, tying it to a completely unrelated bill.
If the pipeline is approved, it will be another pivotal moment in human history-that will be met by oil company profits and the agonizing cries of suffering from the poor, weak and vulnerable who will see their lives torn asunder for the benefit of the 1%. As climate change progresses, disease will spread, economies will be brought to their knees, great cities will be underwater, mass extinction will accelerate, agriculture will collapse, water supplies, already threatened, will be exhausted, nations will need to go to war to compete for dwindling resources. Attempts will be made at geo-engineering- attempts will be made to darken the skies-but they will fail. As this suffering intensifies, your children and your children's children will ask, over and over again-why? Why did you do this to us? And the answer will be...profit and greed-indifference and complacency. You will not be remembered well.
I second this post.
drosera nailed it with the first post. Its not a qurestion of "if", it's only a question of "when".
No matter the emotion or opinion's involved, the energy sector is going to be opened up. The discussion is over, only the theater remains.
And who...are you- to make this august declaration?
The NRDC is a great lobby. Why bag on it? It's encouraging to here Susan say Obama will reject the pipeline. Maybe they feel they have the cards. It doesn't mean it's not going to happen but perhaps not on his watch. Energy companies are reinvesting billions of dollars back in to tar sands infrastructure. It's making lots of money .. How to bring pressure to bare on this industry is the useful discussion.
There is no battle. Do you really believe another environmental study is needed because somehow they overlooked the aquifer the first time? The only "battle" is to approve it a way to make it look like we have a functional democracy, and voting and protests matter. Hey, I didn't see any massive marches of CEO's & stockholders in favor of the pipeline. If you don't want the pipeline all you have to do spread a few more million around DC than the corps have.
This is no time become lulled into believing that Obama really wants to stop the pipeline or commit to clean energy. He is too busy threatening Iran. signing away our rights to a jury trial, selling weapons, and still up to his neck with lobbyists. He has just hired one for his campaign, one who has a recent history lobbying for Keystone.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/obama-defies-base-hires-wall-street-lobbyist-for-re-election-campaign/?print=1.
Activism is the only appropriate response to these perpetually staged and fixed conflicts between the Ds and the Rs, conflicts in which the winner is always some dirty corporation.
To me the question is what is in it for the US? The risk benefit ratio indicates to me that there is no profit in it for the us and therefore needs to be abolished in its present form. To say that this project will lower the cost of fuel is absurd. To say that we need to receive our oil from a friendly trading partner is a nice notion, but we already receive much more oil from Canada then anyone else. All our eggs in one basket is dangerous, in my opinion.
This stuff doesn't matter anymore; the tipping points are past. Start thinking about how you are going to live after it all goes down, or how you are going to stop living. Your choice.
Posted by cosmaustrian
Jan 2 2012 - 1:01pm
I'm with you on this. Sure seems you could build the refinery right there. Why have a pipeline carry the crap thousands of miles to be refined? Probably it's Mature Capitalism at work. Create inefficiency to create more waste, middlemen and layer upon layer of corruption! It creates jobs! Remember: After Katrina the cleanup contracts sometimes had 50 subcontractors before it got to the people who actually DID THE WORK!
It seems fairly simple to make a good argument for each hypothesized action Obama could bring down on himself and/or the planet. It must have occurred to someone besides me that this site has a more or less progressive audience, and that we are all preaching to one choir or another. Cynicism is easy for many of us to fall back on, while optimism is becoming a harder commodity to pull up in the face of glaring evidence of greed based decision making, particularly the Keystone project. Whichever way Obama tilts, for all we know he does not want a second term, we are all up a creek and more and more people are boarding the local food movement as a more logical and timely use of finite energy. I would like to mention here that gas from fracking is an important part of the tarsands extraction process, using 4/5ths of all energy available from each drop of oil, all of which is taking place on 55,000 square miles (size of Fla.), Boreal forrest taken from First Nation people, and all of us. Despite this horrific crime and my wish to stop it, I vote for local food, thereby voting against a hopelessly corrupt system which is crashing with or without our assistance. I feel that the audience who needs to hear all your heartfelt offerings is not even aware of this site, Another challenge. sincerely
President Obama has to do what he was bought and paid for by Poppy and the Wall Street Gang. To finish what President Bush/Chaney failed to do.
Poppy didn't create this mess. Slick Willy did. Then this president, our worst made it worst. Sometimes it's important to lose one to win one later which really counts, and some just can't figure that out. This is a high stakes card game. We have the deck stacked against us for this presidential race. Let's just deal with that and keeping as much leverage in the congress and else where as we can.
Backlash from Union supporters? If he doesn't take any notice of the much more numerous progressive movement and women who are the population majority, why would he be concerned about a few disgruntled temporary jobs that may not even be filled by union labor?
Follow the money. It leads to the Boardroom not to the Union Halls. It's the owners that are going get filthy rich destroying the planet, not union workers.
Obama has made it clear he is a servant of the rich. He's doing his customary tap dance before he caves into to their demands; only for the sake of appearance.
Matt Letourneau, spokesman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, said Obama needs to make a decision on the merits.
“Right now, the issue in front of the president is whether the pipeline is in the national interest or not, and that’s where we think the discussion should be,” Letourneau said. “Using some other issue as a reason to avoid making that decision, to us, is not sound policy".
If this criterion is used then the pipeline is a dead rat. We now export more refined petrolium products then we ever have. So much thet they are our number one export. Building another pipeline from the oil shale beds across a major aquifer just to enrich Canadian and American oil barons is not in the national interest. The whining about jobs is just simply A destraction not worthy of an audiance. I for one am just fed up with the corporate welfare kings.