By no means am I an expert on the Keystone Pipeline project, but it's become a hot-button issue once again after yet another delay on the decision whether to greenlight the project has been announced. This time the ostensible reason is that legal issues in Nebraska should be resolved before a final decision is made. Critics of the delay are crying foul, stating that politics and not real concern for the legal process is behind the delay. From what I can tell, the critics are correct.
Many different supporters are pushing for the final go-ahead: Canadian oil producers, American refineries, state and local governments eager for additional revenues, ordinary citizens looking for work, construction workers. Those that oppose it basically boil down to environmentalists who are concerned that the net effect of the approved project will be more global warming/climate change/whatever-the-next-euphemism-is.
There is probably some truth to the argument that the environment will be harmed by the construction and usage of the Pipeline. For that matter, name an activity that humans engage in that doesn't negatively affect the environment. Our mere footprints do damage. The issue is a matter of degree, a cost-benefit analysis that needs to be weighed by people competent to render such an opinion. From what I know, the EPA issued its study's findings in January and found that the Pipeline would be unlikely to alter global greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, the most competent government department in the country within a government run by a man who disagrees with fossil fuel usage has said that the Pipeline would do no more harm to the environment. That should have cleared the way for its construction.
Ironically, without the Pipeline, the oil would be transported by either trucks or trains that would cause far more fossil fuel emissions, thereby harming the environment more than the Pipeline ever would. If environmentalists believe that by getting the Pipeline cancelled, less oil would be used, they're dreaming. It would simply go elsewhere, much to America's harm.
But this president does not accept results that are contrary to his mission. On one hand, that would be laudable. But in real terms, this stubbornness, when invoked on every single disagreement, is neither attractive nor good for the country. After all, the President was elected to run the country based on the will of the people. According to polls, sixty-six percent of Americans support the Pipeline. Considering that the effect on the environment would be negligible, jobs for nearly two thousand people for two years (and probably longer) would be created, dependence on foreign oil would be reduced, stronger ties with a friendly neighbor would be strenghtened and cheaper oil prices might result, it's not as if the public is supporting a return to separate but equal or the Korematsu decision. Disagreement does not mean that something is wrong. And just because the President believes something to be so doesn't mean that he's right about it.
What's troubling about this delay is that is continues the trend for this administration to bend the rules whenever it needs to do so to further its goals. With immigration and gay rights, the administration would not defer to local concerns. With the Pipeline, all of a sudden local concerns are paramount. As with the employer mandate in Obamacare, reworking deadlines by executive fiat is fine. That the result is inequality is of no matter.
The political impetus for this is huge. With midterm elections a mere six months away, the need to remove from discussion a somewhat controversial issue is convenient. That way no one has to answer for the administration and thereby offend a voting class. As with the employer mandate, any decision on the Pipeline is now to be made after the elections, when the fallout can't harm anyone in particular.
The problem is that already, Democratic senators from Louisiana and Arkansas are loudly condemning the decision, since the delay hurts their states. With recent calls from the White House to maintain the majority in the Senate and keep what seats they have in the House, this decision can't help. With the need for jobs still the highest priority, the President is miscalculating on the negative effect the Pipeline decision is going to have on his party. Between the employer mandate and the Pipeline decision, it's quite possible the President has handed control of Congress to the Republicans. If he's done enough damage, the decision can provide a veto-proof Congress. If that happens, Obamacare's in jeopardy. Presidential appointments will never see the light of day, thanks to the gutting of the filibuster by the forward-thinking Democratic senators and the grand legacy Mr. Obama envisioned for himself will dissipate like smoke from a campfire.
Sometimes, just graduating from an Ivy League school isn't enough.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment