No more excuses, Mr. President; approve the Keystone XL pipeline
Now that his own State Department has declared the proposed Keystone XL pipeline a climate “wash,” undercutting environmentalists' objections, President Obama has little choice but to approve its construction. But don't count on any quick decision.
The State Department has a major say because of the project's cross-border nature. While it concludes that the Canadian crude the pipeline would carry — from Alberta tar sands to Gulf Coast refineries — emits more carbon when burned than does crude oil from other sources, it's going to be used with or without the pipeline. And with fiery, often deadly accidents on the rise as producers increasingly ship Canadian crude to refineries via rail, that makes the pipeline a public safety boon.
The report triggered a 90-day comment period before State makes a final recommendation to Mr. Obama, who has final say. But he faces a tricky balancing act among his political backers. Unions, which urge Keystone XL approval for jobs, as do some Senate Democrats facing re-election in energy-producing states, are at odds with environmentalists.
That said, a White House spokesman reminds that the EPA, Department of Energy “and other federal experts” still must weigh in. Sounds like a delay tactic to us.
It's past time for the Obama administration to do what's best for America, building this bridge to a safer, more independent, secure and prosperous energy future. As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in response to the State Department report: “Mr. President, no more stalling — no more excuses.”
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 Arneson firing: Legally dubious
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- Radar searches: Get a warrant
- U.N. Watch: Somalia aid sieve
- The Box
- The Penn State deal: Focus lost