The Keystone Pipeline is an oil pipeline system in Canada and the U.S. that runs from Alberta to refineries in Illinois, Texas, and Oklahoma. There are four total phases of the pipeline; three are in operation, and the fourth, known as Keystone XL, is still awaiting government approval.
Thus far, the Keystone XL pipeline proposal has faced rough disapproval from environmentalists and some members of Congress. In 2012, Obama rejected the construction of the pipeline amid controversy in Nebraska (the environmentally delicate Sand Hills Region was in danger many said). Many times, a Canadian corporation has interfered to change the original proposed route of Keystone XL to minimize disturbances of land and water resources. In April, it was announced that the review of the Keystone XL pipeline will be extended, as the result of a legal challenge to a Nebraska pipeline has not yet been resolved. This issue has been in the Nebraska Supreme Court for some time.
It was recently announced by the White House press secretary John Earnest that Obama is planning to veto the Keystone XL bill if Congress passes a measure “green-lighting” the oil pipeline. Currently, the pipeline is approved by the State Department, which has already concluded that it would have minimal environmental damage. However, it has also become apparent that Keystone would create about 42,000 jobs directly, but only 50 permanent jobs.
Obama’s main issue with the legislation is that he does not want Congress to continue to attempt to take the decision out of his hands. Earnest said, “The President has been very clear that he does not think that circumventing a well-established process for evaluating these projects is the right thing for Congress to do.” While the bill has some bipartisan support, environmentalists and all sorts of progressives have intensely lobbied the White House to oppose Keystone XL.
Democrats have been seeking to delay facing this issue by insisting that the new congress be confirmed before proceeding. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee still plans to meet this coming Thursday to vote to send it to the floor. The tactical delay by the Democrats probably means a Senate vote will not happen until late January, though the House is expected to pass its Keystone bill on Friday.
House Speaker John Boehner recently released a statement calling the President “hopelessly out of touch” with Americans and ridiculing his strategy for opposing the pipeline. Boehner said in his statement, “Fringe extremists in the President's party are the only ones who oppose Keystone, but the President has chosen to side with them instead of the American people and the government's own scientific evidence that this project is safe for the environment.”
This issue raises many questions about topics we have been learning about in class. First off, interest groups. It is interest groups (environmentally concerned ones, like the Sierra Club for example) that are making this problem so hotly contested. Secondly, the controversy over the Keystone XL pipeline is rooted in policy gridlock and poor relations between the executive and legislative branches. Furthermore, this issue is an economic one, as it both creates jobs, but not sustainable ones. The questions I pose are these: in this case, are the interest groups involved in attempting to block this legislation positive or negative? How can policy gridlock be controlled? Is it vital that we create Keystone XL? Do you agree with Boehner that Obama is just listening to the Democratic extremists and not acting in America’s best interest? Is this legislation a valid use of the presidential veto?
Sources:
4 comments:
Kristin, I think the interest groups involved in blocking this legislation are negative. While the jobs created by the Keystone XL pipeline may only be temporary, that is still better than no jobs at all. The State Department verified that the project will only create minimal environmental damage so it seems like the project will only benefit the economy and should be carried out. If Obama's main issue with the legislation is that he does not want Congress to take the decision out of his hands then there do not seem to be any real issues with the Keystone XL, just a technicality in the political system. I think Obama should act in America's best interest and put aside his difficulties with Congress to create Keystone XL. Since the project is safe for the environment the President should listen to the majority of Americans and not veto the Keystone bill.
Kristin, I think you raise very good points about the Keystone XL pipeline. Recently, whether or not this pipeline will be approved has been a hotly debated topic. According to Democratic Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, “[n]ow that President Obama has said he will veto the latest attempt by Republicans to approve the Keystone pipeline, Keystone is now just political Kabuki theater… With gas prices falling, and domestic oil supplies rising, one has to wonder why congressional Republicans would use their first chance to prove they can get things done on a Canadian export pipeline that is dead before it ever even gets a vote.” Market effectively bashed Republicans for pushing the Keystone forward despite the threat of a veto.
This is an ideal illustration of policy gridlock, one example of the inability of the American government to function in a coherent way. Policy gridlock could be controlled if Obama and Congress were willing to compromise, but they have yet to show that they are. In an interview with NPR last December, Obama said, “I haven’t used the veto pen very often since I’ve been in office… Now, I suspect, there are going to be some times where I’ve got to pull that pen out.” This kind of comment raises questions about whether or not Obama would be able to reach some sort of compromise, if the chance arise. If he is anticipating a standoff, that does not foreshadow an easy elimination of policy gridlock.
In fact, in this sense, Boehner was write when he said Obama was just listening to Democratic extremists and not acting with America in mind. Obama is abusing the presidential veto by blocking the Keystone pipeline. While he may not like the pipeline, it would be beneficial to the economy. In fact, it is expected to garner around $2 billion in total economic benefits, according to a State Department review. Democratic West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin criticized Obama’s announcement of his intention to veto before the amendments had been offered and the final version of the bill determined, saying the move was “premature and does little to mitigate the congressional gridlock.”
Beyond the threats of policy gridlock, however, the involvement of interest groups is also a crucial facet of the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline. Many environmental interest groups have been protesting the instillment of this final part of the pipeline, like the Sierra Club, as Kristin pointed out. Yet the State Department concluded last January, despite objections from these environmental groups, that the impact on water quality in the aquifer near the anticipated pipeline location “would be limited.” In this way, the environmental impact is not nearly as drastic as it has been made out to be.
Regardless, there are still other groups who are against the pipeline. Native Americans, for example, are concerned about the social and tribal implications of this pipeline. Socially, they’re concerned about the possible sexual assaults from construction workers on the pipeline. Tribally, however, the proposed pipeline would run through sovereign tribal lands. According to Politico, “the Rosebud Sioux Tribe even declared that the House bill to approve Keystone XL last week amounted to a declaration of war.”
In conclusion, while there are many arguments that the Keystone XL pipeline should not be built, there are no real reasons for it not to be. Obama’s veto illustrates Congress’ inability to compromise, but poses no real threat to the bill. The pipeline should be determined not by the White House but through legislative action. White House press secretary Josh Earnest says “there’s already a well-established process in place to consider whether infrastructure projects like this are in the best interest of the country.” If we followed this process, then there would be no problems with the government.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/18/politics/keystone-pipeline-senate-vote-explainer/
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/white-house-keystone-veto-114001.html
I think that the environmental interest groups are doing the right thing by attempting to prevent the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The issue has devolved from a matter of jobs vs the environment and turned into a pure political battle. The Republicans want to show their power by passing the bill, while the Democrats are reluctant to give in and let the Republicans win this fight. A lot has changed in the six years since the pipeline was first proposed. The oil that would be transported in the Keystone pipeline would be extracted from tar sands, an extraction method that is very harmful to the environment. James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that if the Keystone pipeline is built, “it will be game over for the planet.” While conservatives say that job creation makes it worth the cost, only 59 permanent jobs will be created. The issue of job creation is still important, but nowhere near as important as it was six years ago. The positive impact due to job creation is practically negligible. Additionally, the need for the pipeline itself has gone down since it was first proposed. Despite people saying it would limit Canadian oil exports, Canadian exports to the Gulf Coast has gone up 83% in the last four years, even without the pipeline. On both sides of the argument, it makes little sense to build the Keystone pipeline. The political fights within our government over the Keystone pipeline are petty, we should be focusing on something more important. I agree that the bill shouldn’t be passed, however, President Obama is likely vetoing it to send a message to Republicans, not because of the bill’s content.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/01/06/the-pointless-fight-over-keystone/6rqGhuo80hpdnIKNdt7YkO/story.html
Kristin, I agree that this issue is an important one for many environmental, political, and economic reasons. First, assuming that there is not a direct environmental issue with finishing the Keystone XL pipeline, then I believe that it should be allowed to proceed. However, if there is going to be a negative impact on the environment, then the project should be cancelled at all costs. Government projects already cause vast problems for our environment and for environmentalist activists, and this pipeline will simply create more issues than solving them. Furthermore, if the pipeline is creating jobs, even if they are not lasting ones, this still is a positive impact; some of the unemployment in the area will drop for an amount of time, and the money that the workers will make may be helpful in their support of themselves and their families. I believe that the political gridlock that this pipeline may create is a result of the flawed American governmental system; however, this is not a reason to stop the project from continuing. Gridlock prevents legislation from being passed, so it is unlikely that the project will go anywhere if the government is divided on the issue, but it is better that the project attempt to proceed rather than simply do nothing and let the government forget about it.
Post a Comment