More pipeline prattle: Obama's empty insights
As if anyone needs more evidence of Barack Obama's resistance to the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada, the president serves up plenty in a recent New York Times interview.
With regard to jobs and the economy, the president says there's “no evidence” that the pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast would be a big jobs generator, The Times reports. Why, it might create only 2,000 jobs, he said — as if he can afford to turn up his nose at that number in an anemic economy.
Au contraire, says TransCanada, the company behind the 1,600-mile pipeline. Just the pipeline's southern leg, which is nearly complete, has seen the creation of 4,000 jobs, The Washington Times reports. In total, TransCanada projects at least 13,000 jobs during the pipeline's construction phase.
In a May letter to Congress, the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department along with labor leaders estimated that the pipeline would create “tens of thousands of good-paying jobs.”
Mr. Obama also said it's not clear whether Canada will do enough to address pollution concerns. Yet his own State Department, in a draft report released last March, said the pipeline would not significantly increase carbon emissions.
Notes Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., “What more could (Obama) learn after over 15,500 pages of reviews?”
Obama's position on the Keystone XL pipeline has been well documented. His latest pipeline prattle fuels far more skepticism than any credibility.
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.
- The rise of ISIS: Obama’s bus
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Saturday essay: Flying voices
- America’s nukes: A timely effort
- The climate debate: Better science
- A chilly reception
- U.N. Watch: Fanning hate’s flames
- The AG’s randy emails: Selective disclosure
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances