- GOP hopes taking shutdown off the table with budget deal will pay dividends
- Chinese Death Star: The moon cited as the perfect launch pad for ballistic missiles
- Help wanted: Homeland Security plagued by vacancies at the top
- We are not amused: Queen’s protection officers warned to keep ‘sticky fingers’ off the royal cashews
- Unleash the crossbows: Gov. Scott Walker creates new hunting season
- Bubonic plague kills 20 in Madagascar
- G-20 diplomats fell for hacker attack promising nude photos of former French first lady Carla Bruni
- Minnesota guardsman charged with stealing private soldier data for fake IDs
- Florida appeals court rules universities can’t regulate guns
- Vladimir Putin defends Russian conservative values
Canada campaigns for Keystone pipeline
Canada is counting on its oil sands for sustained economic growth for the next few decades, but first it needs a reliable customer — preferably the United States.
Canadian officials are in Washington again this week pressuring the Obama administration to approve the long-awaited Keystone XL pipeline, a massive, $7 billion project that would carry crude oil from Alberta through the U.S. to refineries on the Gulf Coast.
Alberta Premier Alison Redford said that a White House rejection of the project would become a significant thorn in relations between the two nations. This is her fourth trip to lobby for the project, and other Canadian officials also have come to Washington in recent months to make their case.
Officials with TransCanada Corp., the company proposing the pipeline, also are in Washington this week to make that very argument, casting Alberta’s abundance of energy as the cornerstone of their nation’s future growth.
“The oil sands are truly the economic engine that will drive Canada’s economy for the next 50 years,” said Alexander Pourbaix, president of energy and oil pipelines for TransCanada, in testimony Wednesday before the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on energy and power.
The measure, while symbolic, has virtually no chance of becoming law. Even if it clears the Senate — a possibility, given the strong, growing bipartisan support for Keystone — it almost certainly would be vetoed by the president.
Meanwhile, the Keystone debate has boiled down to two main issues: the jobs it will create and the effect it will have on climate change.
“The benefits of this project are too great to allow it to be derailed by environmental extremism,” said David Mallino Jr., legislative director the Laborers’ International Union of North America, just one of the labor groups that stand to benefit from the thousands of jobs Keystone will create.
“This project is not just a pipeline, it is a lifeline,” Mr. Mallino said, adding that the construction sector he represents faces one of the most stubbornly high jobless rates in the American economy.
But the environmental movement and many Democrats in Congress still bitterly oppose the project and believe those economic benefits don’t outweigh the carbon footprint of more Canadian crude oil development.
Rep. Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat and vocal opponent of Keystone, accused Republicans of doing favors for the oil and gas industry by seeking to rewrite law to approve the pipeline while ignoring carbon emissions.
“The oil people get special treatment. The people who care about climate change don’t even get the chance to be heard from,” he said.
Some Canadians are disputing the notion that Canadian crude will be developed and used somewhere, regardless of what Mr. Obama decides to do. They argue the Keystone decision truly will have a significant impact on global carbon emissions.
Mark Jaccard, a professor and research director at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia, said that there’s mounting opposition to the project in his province.
Pipelines from Alberta to the Pacific Ocean, needed to send the oil to Asian markets via British Columbia, are by no means a sure thing, Mr. Jaccard he said.
“If we ask if denial of Keystone will slow oil sands development and the carbon it causes, the answer is a resounding yes,” he told the subcommittee in testimony Wednesday.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Ben Wolfgang covers the White House for The Washington Times.
Before joining the Times in March 2011, Ben spent four years as a political reporter at the Republican-Herald in Pottsville, Pa.
He can be reached at email@example.com.
- Biden guarantees victory on immigration reform
- High court likely to allow Obama's clean-air rules
- Funding boost of $100M for mentally ill a 'small step'
- White House PR blitz hits states that rejected Medicaid expansion
- Obama tries to calm Israeli fears over Iranian nuke deal 'not based on trust'
Latest Blog Entries
By Mangosuthu Buthelezi
- NAPOLITANO: A conspiracy so vast
- Obama's Afghanistan experts stumped on U.S. death toll, war costs during hearing
- House votes for bargain to end budget drama
- Comma on!: Twitter erupts over Obama-Castro 'marriage'
- Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement
- Jane Fonda Foundation fails to make single contribution in 5 years: report
- Atheists smug as Hindus join Satanists to demand display at Oklahoma Statehouse
- U.S. debt jumps a record $328 billion tops $17 trillion for first time
- Biden guarantees victory on immigration reform
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Covering the world of soccer, including the World Cup, Major League Soccer, D.C. United and the English Premier League and other interesting sporting events.
Born in 1930 in rural Missouri, Charles Vandegriffe, Sr., brings his time and place to the Communities.
Columns from Voices around the World talking about the events, people, politics and social issues that concern us wherever, and whoever, we are.
Extraordinary day at Redskins Park
White House pets gone wild!
Let it snow