ShareThis Page

Keystone pandering

| Sunday, Nov. 10, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

With a new study demolishing environmentalists' arguments against the Keystone XL pipeline — which would carry Canadian tar-sands oil to Gulf Coast refineries — it's clear that the Obama administration's foot-dragging opposition to the project is pure political pandering to anti-growth leftists.

Even Gina McCarthy, head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, acknowledges that without the pipeline, Canada will export tar-sands oil elsewhere — including China, which will burn it without U.S.-style emissions controls. And Canada still will export tar-sands oil to America, mainly by rail. Either way, more pollution will be emitted to move it than if the pipeline's built.

Now, The Washington Free Beacon reports, IHS Cambridge Energy Resource Associates confirms that Keystone XL rejection actually could increase emissions, violating President Obama's criterion for approval: no increase in U.S. carbon emissions. The IHS study says “wheel to well” — extraction point to refining point — emissions for domestic oil are potentially higher than those for Canadian tar-sands oil.

IHS also says tar-sands oil is no more corrosive to pipelines than other forms of crude oil. And American Action Forum data show that per unit of oil, pipelines have fewer hazmat incidents than any other large-scale transportation method.

By not embracing this job-creating, safe, environmentally friendly pipeline plan, the Obama administration pleases only those still opposed despite all these facts — who truly redefine “eco-wacko.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.