- Texas man arrested for powder-letter hoax
- Islamic State opens ‘marriage bureau’ for single jihadists
- Drone almost blocks California firefighting planes
- Tornado rips off roofs, downs trees near Boston
- GOP: Environmental rules keeping agents from accessing border
- John Kerry: Millions displaced by religious fighting in 2013
- Federal appeals court rules against Virginia’s gay marriage ban
- White House says Russia ‘losing’ war in Ukraine
- Hamas turns to North Korea for weapons deal, Iran for money
- Syrian casualties surge as jihadis consolidate
Obama gives himself an out on Keystone
Question of the Day
President Obama on Tuesday used a hyped speech on climate change to signal — with a wink and a nod — that he's likely to approve the $7 billion Keystone XL oil sands pipeline.
On its face, Mr. Obama seemed to take a hard environmental line, declaring that the project will go forward only if it "doesn't significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution" and stressed that the "net effects" on the climate will be the guiding factor as he makes his decision.
But beneath this surface, with his own State Department having already concluded that the Canada-to-Texas pipeline won't significantly boost greenhouse gas emissions, Mr. Obama offered perhaps the clearest sign to date that he's willing to risk the wrath of environmentalists and green-light Keystone.
Republicans, along with the oil and gas industry — including TransCanada Corp., the company proposing the project — were heartened by what they heard from the president during his address at Georgetown University.
"TransCanada is pleased with the president's guidance to the State Department, as the almost five-year review of the project has already repeatedly found that these [environmental and climate] criteria are satisfied," the company said in a statement. "If Keystone XL is not built, it's clear that the oil will move to market by truck, rail and tanker, which will significantly add to global greenhouse gas emissions."
House Speaker John A. Boehner echoed those sentiments.
"The standard the president set today should lead to the speedy approval of the Keystone pipeline," said Brendan Buck, spokesman for the Ohio Republican, a vocal supporter of the project. "Based on the lengthy review by the State Department, construction of the pipeline would have a significant environmental impact. It's time to sign off on Keystone and put Americans to work."
The project, which would carry heavy Canadian crude oil from Alberta through the U.S. heartland to refineries on the Gulf Coast, undoubtedly is the most studied pipeline in history. Federal reviews have been ongoing since Mr. Obama came into office, and pressure to approve Keystone has mounted from all corners over the past five years, including from the Canadian government, desperate to find ways to move its resources to market.
The final word belongs to the State Department, which is expected to finalize an environmental study of the pipeline sometime this summer. A preliminary draft released in March determined that it won't lead to any major increase in greenhouse gas emissions, since the fuel is likely to be extracted, transported and burned whether Keystone is built or not.
There are, for example, proposals to build pipelines from Alberta through western Canada, allowing the oil to be shipped to Asia. The fuel also could be moved by truck or by train.
There's virtually no chance that the oil will remain in the ground, regardless of what happens with Keystone.
"Even if we don't build Keystone XL, the Canadians have made it clear they will sell oil from the oil sands. Some of the highest greenhouse gas emitting countries in the world, like China, are already lining up to purchase this oil if we don't," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican.
A potential wild card in the equation is Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who took over the post from Hillary Rodham Clinton about a month before the draft Keystone review was released in March.
Mr. Kerry for years was one of the loudest voices in Congress on climate and environmental issues, and it's unclear how involved he has been with the finalization of the State Department study.
© Copyright 2014 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Libya now nation at risk with weak U.S. influence; embassy closes as chaos grows
- White House readies for House GOP impeachment push: 'Foolish' to ignore
- White House adviser on 2016: Rand Paul more viable than Ted Cruz
- Obama takes aim at 'corporate deserters'
- Michelle Obama says money in politics is bad, asks donors for 'big, fat check'
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
By Scott Pinsker
- D.C. seeks to stay judge's order allowing gun owners to carry in public
- Illegal immigrants demand representation in White House meetings
- Hillary Clinton: Forget Obama, George W. Bush made her 'proud to be an American'
- Babson College, BYU win top spots in Money magazine's college rankings
- Iraqi Christians rally at White House: 'Obama, Obama, where are you?'
- White House defends Kerry failure to broker Middle East cease-fire
- Romney would win popular vote in rematch against Obama: CNN poll
- D.C. seeks stay in order striking down ban on handguns in public
- Tennessee Gov. Haslam slams White House for secret dump of illegals in his state
- Computer glitch caused odd Saturday release of D.C. guns ruling
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq