Approve the pipeline
Early in his second term President Obama will have the opportunity to reverse course and approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which will transport oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast and pump an estimated $1.8 billion into the U.S. economy.
But envirocrats have stepped up their efforts to derail common sense with doomsday scenarios, arguing that the intensity of “greenhouse gas” from Canadian tar sands and petroleum coke (petcoke) from the refining process will accelerate “climate change.”
Gang Green's latest scenario, however, fails to account for the greater risk if the pipeline isn't completed — namely, the transportation of oil via tankers to Chinese refineries, which poses far greater environmental harm, writes Nicolas Loris for The Heritage Foundation.
Moreover, the alleged danger to Nebraska's main water source, another supposed pipeline killer, has been dispelled by a state Department of Environmental Quality review, according to The Wall Street Journal. A new route proposed by pipeline operator TransCanada Corp. bypasses regions that had drawn concerns.
Anticipated approval of the new route by Republican Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman will put the ball back in Obama's court.
At stake — energy security and economic growth without a substantiated threat to the environment. The pipeline is a no-brainer.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Drilling laws: Your rights
- U.N. Watch: The aid ingrates
- Ban felon-lobbyists? A better idea
- A misdialed number suggests a criminal conspiracy in the IRS scandal
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- Those Penn State sanctions: Rescinding them is premature