Pipeline not delivering oil, but plenty of politics

The Washington insider newspaper Politico described President Barack Obama’s decision to reject the planned Canada-U.S. Keystone XL pipeline as a political “win-win” for both parties.

The reasoning is that the Republicans would attract independent voters angered by high gas prices — although it would be years before the Canadian oil would reach the market and affect prices — and attract generous political contributions from the oil companies, a slightly better bet politically.

Meanwhile, the environmentalists would be jolted out of their political lethargy and hit the bricks for Obama’s re-election, and the construction unions, who really want the project and the jobs, would have no choice but to stick with Obama because the Republicans have become anathema to most of labor.

Whatever the political benefits of the decision, it is a lose-lose for domestic energy policy and our relations with Canada.

Technically, the pipeline is not dead; a final decision has only been delayed while a more acceptable route through an environmentally sensitive region of Nebraska is negotiated. Obama is merely rejecting the project to circumvent a Feb. 21 deadline imposed on him by Congress, giving him more time to review the route.

The White House would like to stall the whole business until after the election, but he may not have that luxury.

The Canadians professed themselves “profoundly disappointed” by the decision and pointedly noted that there is another energy project on the boards, a $5.4 billion pipeline from the Alberta oil sands to ports in British Columbia where the oil could be sold to eager Asian buyers.

Already, the Republicans are trying to make the pipeline a campaign issue. “Obama is destroying tens of thousands of American jobs and shipping American energy security to the Chinese,” said House Speaker John Boehner, exaggerating on both counts. (The number of potential jobs tends to fluctuate wildly depending which side of the argument is trying to make the case.)

Obama insisted that his announcement was “not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline,” but on “the arbitrary nature of the deadline.” OK. The deadline is now a moot point, but negotiations should begin on an acceptable route and protections for the water table. After all, the disputed section is only 65 miles in Nebraska, a small fraction of the line’s 1,700-mile length.

Sparsely populated western Canada and eastern Alaska have immense oil and natural-gas reserves, and the lower 48 states are the natural market for them. Ethanol, solar panels, windmills, dim light bulbs, bike paths and switchgrass are all very nice, but they’re not going to do it for us. At best, they chip away at the margins of our energy needs.

North America has the capacity to be self-sufficient in oil and gas, but we shouldn’t wait until a crisis point — or the politics are just right — to do something about it.

Short URL: http://www.dailyrepublic.com/?p=128042

Posted by Scripps Howard News Service on Jan 19 2012.

Filed under Our view. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry