Light at the End of the Pipeline
At a time when the national debt exceeds $16.5 trillion, the unemployment rate is 7.9 percent, and the United States is searching for ways to reduce dependence on oil from the Middle East, it sure would be nice to have a project that assuages all three concerns at the same time. Such a project exists – it is called the Keystone Pipeline. Yet despite the overwhelming evidence of the positive impact that the pipeline would have on the American economy, as of March 7, 2013, the Obama Administration and the State Department had delayed making a decision to approve or reject the project for 1,630 days.
Keystone XL, as it is formally designated, would transport crude oil sands from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. If the project is approved, proponents say that the pipeline would create tens of thousands of U.S. jobs in construction and manufacturing. Keystone XL would transport 700,000 barrels of oil a day to U.S. refiners, which amounts to roughly 4 percent of the country’s daily consumption of 19 million barrels. Because the route crosses international borders, TransCanada, the pipeline’s operator, must acquire a presidential permit from the State Department in order to proceed with the project.
Opponents of Keystone have long argued that the Obama Administration should reject the project due to the adverse effects it would have on the environment. However, a March 1, 2013 report released by the State Department found that there would be no significant environmental impact to most resources along the proposed route. The report further states that, regardless of whether or not the U.S. approves the pipeline, Canada is likely to develop the tar sands and ship them to alternative markets.
In a move that some viewed as surprising, the AFL-CIO issued an apparent endorsement of Keystone by passing a resolution at a February 26, 2013 meeting in support of new pipeline projects. According to a February 27, 2013 article in The New York Times, “Richard Trumka, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s president, acknowledged that the federation statement ‘can be interpreted in different ways.’ Yet he voiced support for building the Keystone pipeline, saying that ‘there’s nothing environmentally unsound about the pipeline’ and that what environmentalists opposed was opening up Canada’s tar sands.” Given the conclusion by the State Department that the Canadian tar sands will likely be developed regardless of whether or not Keystone XL is built, it is different to see why environmentalists would still be opposed to the project.
As President Obama has pointed out, the essence of leadership requires making the tough, though not always popular, choices. In a December 11, 2011 interview with 60 Minutes, President Obama stated, “… if my goal was to maintain the extraordinary popularity that I had right after I made my convention speech in 2004, then I would have never left the Senate. I would have been sitting on 70 percent approval ratings. I wouldn’t have been leading this country, but people would be really attracted, because I wouldn’t have had to make any choices and make any decisions and exercise any responsibility. I took a different path. And as Michelle reminds me, ‘You volunteered for this thing.’ So I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about the criticisms day to day.”
Although he may offend certain interest groups, approving Keystone XL is the right decision for the country. President Obama should ignore the criticisms leveled at him and do the right thing for the American economy.
— PJ Austin
