Share This Page

More posturing

| Monday, March 11, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Released in a classic late-Friday “document dump” this month, the State Department's long-awaited environmental-impact assessment of the Keystone XL pipeline couldn't find so much as a sandworm threatened by the project.

Neither wetlands, nor water resources, nor vegetation, nor fish, nor wildlife, nor soil, nor endangered species — not even so-called climate change — would be adversely affected by a pipeline that would carry oil from Canada to Texas. So much for the “carbon bomb,” as the pipeline is characterized by eco-wackos.

Oh, and the pipeline also meets 57 safety requirements specified by the administration.

But now, the State Department has thrown a curve ball:

With rail transit among other options, America doesn't need the pipeline. What's needed is more vigorous (if not delaying) public debate, according to a State official.

Excuse us, but for three years and for no valid reason the administration has held up a project that's expected to create 179,000 U.S. jobs and deliver up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day, based on figures compiled by The Heritage Foundation.

And while the administration searches for more pipeline non sequiturs, other nations, most notably China, are scrambling to secure as much oil as they can.

If the U.S. doesn't build this pipeline, the oil simply goes elsewhere. Some “energy policy,” eh?

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.