Obama's Keystone Decision Puts Politics Over Jobs
President Obama's decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline was met with near universal outrage from both ends of the political spectrum. With good reason. The construction and operation of the Keystone pipeline would create 20,000 direct jobs and as many as 118,000 related jobs. By expanding access to oil from our allies in Canada, the pipeline could greatly reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil -- a vital step toward enhancing national security and lowering fuel prices. Just days ago, the president's own Jobs Council warned that failing to capitalize on energy opportunities "would stall the engine that could become a prime driver of U.S. jobs and growth in the decades ahead."
The Obama administration claimed it is denying Keystone's application because it did "not have sufficient time to obtain the information necessary to assess whether the project, in its current state, is in the national interest." This is, frankly, nonsense. Even House Democrats, in a letter urging the president to approve construction of the pipeline, emphasized the "exhaustive three-year, multi-agency review process" to which the project was subjected. So thorough was the investigation that former U.S. ambassador to Canada David Wilkins described it as "the longest permitting process in the history of the world."
Claims that Keystone was blocked due to environmental concerns are equally implausible. No less than three times, extensive environmental impact studies issued findings affirming that the project would have "no significant impact" on the environment. Governors from all the states along the planned pipeline route, including Oklahoma, support its construction. Even the left-leaning Washington Post editorial board was compelled to point out that stopping the pipeline "wouldn’t do anything to reduce global warming, but it would almost certainly require more oil to be transported across oceans in tankers" from Middle Eastern countries.
It is obvious to editorial boards across the country that President Obama's decision was based not on concerns about the environment or timeline but solely on campaign strategy. With the environmental extremist faction of his political base threatening to withhold their support, the president first sought to delay the Keystone decision until after the election before ultimately pulling the plug entirely. USA Today described the move as "the most craven sort of election-year politics." The Houston Chronicle declared, "Obama has openly proclaimed the primacy of his own re-election over the nation's long-term energy and economic security.”
The president's hometown Chicago Tribune points out that the Keystone-created jobs "may well be gone for good" by the time Obama "gets around to making a decision on the pipeline." This is the worst aspect of the charade. TransCanada doesn't have to wait for U.S. permission to build its pipeline. The company can simply build the pipeline west instead of south and export the oil to China, which will certainly not hesitate to accept the oil, the jobs, and, as the Detroit News puts it, "yet one more competitive advantage over the United States."
Speaker of the House John Boehner pledged that Republicans in Congress will continue fighting for Keystone. However, the patience of our Canadian neighbors is surely running out. At best, the president's decision has delayed the creation of urgently needed jobs. At worst, he has ensured the irreversible loss of the jobs and energy to China. Either way, President Obama's irresponsible and indefensible actions have unacceptably jeopardized both our economic and national security interests.