Keystone caper: Pipeline politics
Having sat on the Keystone XL oil pipeline decision for six years, President Obama told a group of governors recently that he expects to make up his mind “in a couple of months.”
Then the White House refused to acknowledge that much, The Hill newspaper reports.
According to the official administration line, a decision will come “only after careful consideration of the environmental impact statement and other pertinent information.”
But the State Department already has conclusively determined that the crude oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf would not increase greenhouse gas emissions. So now the administration supposedly is awaiting a “review” on whether the project is in the national interest, along with a recommendation from Secretary of State John Kerry — who reportedly is being urged not to make any snap judgments. Seriously?
Clearly the administration is holding as hostage a vital U.S. energy project that will create jobs and poses a minimal environmental threat. And for what other conceivable reason except out of fear that eco-wackos deep in the Democratic Party will go ballistic during the midterm elections if the pipeline is approved.
As for going through the “process,” as this administration likes to say, “there is no more process,” says Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D.
Obama & Co. have hemmed and hawed enough. It's time to stop playing politics and approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
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 Corbett administration gives itself a headache with selective transparency
- The Thursday wrap
- The flood of illegals: Misplaced blame
- The Moody’s downgrade: Inaction’s price