Eco-end run: Thwarting Keystone XL
True to its bad form — doing end runs around obstacles to its agenda and buying into climate alarmism — the Obama administration is stretching a Nixon-era law to subject projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline to global-warming impact reviews, giving its enviro-wacko allies a new basis for court challenges that delay or derail projects and increase costs.
The GOP-controlled House won't pass legislation rooted in blame-mankind climate pseudoscience. So, the White House Council on Environmental Quality's upcoming global-warming review standards will make good on President Obama's “go it alone” State of the Union climate-change rhetoric, Bloomberg News reports.
Applicable to all federal project reviews, those standards will stretch 1970's National Environmental Policy Act — which was aimed at air, water and soil pollution — by forcing consideration of, for example, not just the Keystone XL pipeline's direct effects, but also those of the greenhouse gases emitted by burning the tar-sands oil it carries.
The standards alone won't stop projects, but their chilling effect as grounds for lawsuits will accomplish much of this administration's extreme environmental agenda that it otherwise can't.
These nonsense-based, politically driven global-warming reviews promise what America's struggling economy, crumbling infrastructure and burgeoning energy industry don't need — less growth and job creation, more red tape and litigation.
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.
- An ObamaCare ‘re-do’?
- The Moody’s downgrade: Inaction’s price
- The flood of illegals: Misplaced blame
- Same old Cuba
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- The EPA: Another power grab
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- The federal budget: Here we go again
- Greensburg Tuesday takes