Don't Be Fooled on Keystone

Is the American public really this fooled by Keystone XL politics?  Republicans are painting the president as being dangerously opposed to job-creating, energy independence-creating fossil fuel production, when there is little evidence that is the case.

On Keystone, the Secretary of State said she was “inclined” to support it.  The Administration was doing its due diligence and appeared on the cusp of approving it when the State of Nebraska, at the 11^th hour, called a special session of its citizen legislature to discuss passing a law to give it a better say over the location of the pipeline.  Something the state should have done long ago.

Citizens clearly had concerns about the pipeline crossing their aquifer, and while their approach to protesting was irresponsible at best, it didn’t change the fact that so many of them wanted a different route.  So the president responsibly said we should move the line.  That, by law, restarts the process of environmental assessments, delaying the project by a year or more.

It seems likely the president will approve the line once the new application takes its due course.  There is no reason to deny the Keystone XL pipeline.  We have pipes criss-crossing our country.  Some environmentalists want us to deny it because of the impact of tar sands production in Canada on carbon emissions, but implementing climate change on a case-by-case basis is horrible policy.  And when you take into account that it’s a global pollutant that needs attention by dozens of nations, the idea of applying restrictions ad hoc seems even more ludicrous.

But the GOP would have you believe Obama is opposed to the pipeline and drilling, but this is not reality.  Obama's five-year drilling plan opens huge new areas in the Gulf and the Arctic.  Also remember that unilaterally, without a hint of quid pro quo, he opened the Eastern U.S to exploration.  Obama has, due to the BP spill, removed this from his plan until companies can prove they can contain a major spill in the Atlantic, but it doesn't negate the fact that Obama is willing to drill where we are technologically and environmentally ready to drill.

Now let’s look at BP.  The Republicans screamed about the moratorium on drilling.  Is it a good idea to start drilling again when we have no idea if we can respond to a large spill in a timely manner?  As soon as the oil majors put a credible plan forward, permits began flowing.  In fact, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management restarted drilling without proper compliance with numerous environmental laws, for which BOEM is now being sued.  They also have allowed resumed drilling with the knowledge that the blowout preventer fleet is dangerously inadequate, a true disaster waiting to happen.  Do these sound like the actions of an administration that is against drilling?  

Republicans are betting that when it comes to traditional energy jobs and energy independence, they offer the clear choice.  My guess is that many voters will see the truth: we have a president committed to fossil fuel production.