Keystone XL Pipeline Decision a Test on Obama, Environmentalism

August 26, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (8)

President Obama cancelled the rest of his Martha's Vineyard vacation plans to be in Washington for the impending hurricane. But, perhaps worse than the high winds and heavy rains expected to hit the capital, he'll be coming back to a storm of criticism from environmentalists who are lashing out against the State Department's just released findings on the Keystone XL pipeline project.

The State Department report, released Friday, found that the proposed pipeline project—which would bring oil from Canada's oil sands as far as Texas—would have little significant impact on the natural resources in its path. For the oil industry, and for the pipeline's sponsor Transcanada especially, the report's findings signify a major hurdle crossed in getting final approval for the project. For Transcanada to move forward with the project, the State Department still needs to decide whether the pipeline is in the "national interest," a decision which should come later this year. [Check out our gallery of editorial cartoons on gas prices.]

But until that final decision, environmentalists—a significant political base for President Obama—seem poised to turn up the pressure on the administration, especially after Friday's setback. "Whether to approve this pipeline is the most important environmental decision President Obama will make before the election," said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, an environmental advocacy group, in an E-mail Friday. "If he sides with greedy oil companies instead of people and the climate, he will essentially be urging a huge part of his base to sit out the election. With this supposedly final review of the pipeline's environmental impacts, the State Department has let him down by once again trying to sweep the serious dangers posed under the rug."

Other groups, like the Natural Resources Defense Council argue that the State Department's assessment didn't go far enough. According to Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, international program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, the administration "failed to do its homework" on the pipeline's effect. "It is utterly beyond me how the administration can claim the pipeline will have 'no significant impacts' if they haven't bothered to do in-depth studies around the issues of contention," she said in a statement Friday. "The public has made their concerns clear and the administration seems to have ignored them. If permitted, the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will be a dirty legacy that will haunt President Obama and Secretary Clinton for years to come." [Read: Do Americans care about climate change anymore?]

Before Friday's announcement, hundreds of environmentalists had been arrested in Washington while protesting the project. And already let down by Obama's energy and environmental policies, some environmentalist groups have said that they would sit out the 2012 election if President Obama doesn't side with them to block the pipeline. NASA scientist James Hansen, who's been on the forefront of climate change science, told Climatewire that if the administration approves the pipeline, "it will confirm that Obama was just greenwashing all along, like the other well-oiled coal-fired politicians, with no real intention of solving the addiction." [Read about the effect of the climate change debate on the 2012 presidential election.]

But, even despite all the recent environmental howling, with today's announcement, it looks even more likely that the Keystone XL pipeline will get the okay. So, apart from being a test on Obama, the final decision will be a measure of just how much force the environmentalism movement still has in Washington.

Tags:
energy,
energy policy and climate change,
oil,
environment

Reader Comments Read all comments (8)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

HOW CAN THE SPILL FROM THE XL KEYSTONE PIPE ON THE LAND CAN HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE SOIL???? THINK ABOUT IT!!!!

THE PIPE IS ONLY 2 FEET IN DIAMETER. HOW MUCH DAMAGE CAN IT DO TO THE

LAND??? --- BESIDE THEY CAN QUICKLY TURN IT OFF ON THE GROUND - IT IS NOT LIKE 4000 FEET UNDERNEATH THE SEA BED..

<<<< smart up !!!! stop acting like a fool!!!!!! zero impact ok>>>>>>

William of CA 9:04PM October 02, 2011

!. Nuclear is about as green as it gets. Start building plants now! Find a nice deep cave for the waste. Maybe the same place where we used to test nuclear bombs under ground - can't do much harm there!

2. Wind farms and solar produce very little net energy for the land (ecosystem) consumed by them. Windmills are nothing more than giant, whirling scarecrows, and as such, cause animals to flee the area and be killed in the blades. Most of the turbines have short life spans - barely producing any net energy when all factors are considered, and are built in China and South America - no American jobs there.

3. Increase off shore drilling. Studies prove that drilling offshore actually reduces the amount of "natural seepage" from undersea fissures. Aprox. 1700 barrels of oil seeps from the seabed off North America daily - which is 150 times the amount lost through extraction and transport. Furthermore, if off shore drilling is curtailed then the amount of natural seepage would more than double! In the last 25 years less than 0.001% of oil extracted in U.S. Waters has been spilled. (Source, National Academy of Science, U.C. Santa Barbara and U.S. Dept. of Interior.)

4. Build (don't tear down) more hydroelectric dams. They are a great source of renewable energy. We need energy - not "scenic rivers and salmon". Let there be scenic rivers and salmon "below" the dam, and fish, ducks, geese and water skiing behind it. See how all that works out?

5. Get the enviro-regs out of the way of clean coal, natural gas and shale oil. Subsidize as necessary.

6. Hydrogen is about as clean and efficient as it gets. Pursue it!

7. Stamp out the State Religion of Environmentalism.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 7:49PM August 29, 2011

The sole purpose and underlining reason behind my none political, none religious, but yes rhetorical comment below was to get small-minded people and even open-minded people to acknowledge that all your doing is bickering and arguing continuously over and over and over when the solutions are much more blatant and blunt than not or just totally neglecting the overall concept of what is being said at large as well as the gravity of the situation in and of itself. All this for what? Oh Yeah! To do something along the lines of coming up with the most logical, non-expensive, non-harmful, and progressive solutions to help our country thrive and get to a state of balanced, clean, renewable industrialization so we can actually hone in on the much bigger problems in our country as well as the world.

People are going to choose what is seemingly enough more convenient. cheap, easy to get to, just like people, in essence, doing what they want, saying what they want and believing in whatever it is that they want no matter what the literal factual facts universally are saying.

Now honestly to say the least.

All the ignorance aside, and politics, and religions, and bias, and my side, your side, my team, your team, what is the sole reason behind all the bickering, all the arguing, all the fighting, etc. in regards to choosing the most progressive, efficient, cheapest, cleanest, most renewable ideas, concepts, answers, and solutions for helping this country as well as this world, thrive and have a balanced, clean, progressive, renewable, unlimited source of industrialization, or in other words a subsidy for an pure, unlimited, clean, renewable energy source so we can acknowledge the much bigger problems in our country and world.

With that said in the fewest words and to conclude in the fewest words,

-Wind

-Waves

-The Sun

These are all Clean, Free, Renewable, Unlimited pure energy sources that have been around for such a long time, along with the technology even at it most early state of production have been around and been functioning for quite a long time yet for some particular reason, there's still all this fighting, all this bickering, all this anger in regards to coming up with the most progressive, reliable, and overall purest in regards to renewability, cleanliness, cost, unlimitedness, etc. etc. and all the above on be half of progressive, wise, educated, and knowledgeable solutions for not only our country, but clearly our whole world at large.

Is there actually

Wind?

Waves?

Sun?

Then honestly why is it that Wind Mills, Solar Panels, etc. etc. etc. and all the efficiency, renewability, cleanliness, and costlessness that are LITERALLY FACTUALLY on a FACTUAL BASIS are literally just that, aren't being supported not only to the degree FREE and CLEAN energy SHOULD BE supported, but frankly to any degree of support at all what so ever.

And with that context, I believe thats enough said, literally saying the least.

John of CA 9:30PM August 27, 2011

On Energy

Perspectives from all sides of the burning energy issues of the day. Follow it on Twitter @USNewsOnEnergy

advertisement

Economic Intelligence

How Trade Pacts Threaten Public Health

Far reaching trade pacts make a mockery of the democratic process.

Latest Videos

advertisement