Clinton's Opposition to Keystone XL Hurts Middle Class She Wants To Help

DALLAS - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton’s opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline not only hurts the economy and middle class, but also hinders energy security for both the U.S. and its allies.

“Clinton’s opposition to the pipeline is inexplicable if you know the facts behind the issue,” said Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) resident scholar Merrill Matthews, Ph.D.

“Without Keystone XL, Canada will just ship that oil by rail, which is neither as safe nor clean than the pipeline, or ship it overseas for refining,” said Matthews. “So there is no environmental benefit to killing the project, as her own State Department concluded.”
 
As former secretary of state, Clinton knows that national security depends, in part, on energy security, both for the U.S. and our allies, many of whom depend on imported oil and natural gas from countries that use energy access as leverage for nefarious behavior, said Matthews. “The Keystone XL would offset more than half of our Russian-Venezuelan imports, which would simultaneously hinder their mischief-making while strengthening economic ties with one of our closest allies.”
 
“Clinton kicked off her campaign asserting that she wants to focus on helping the middle class,” said Matthews. “Nothing has been a bigger boost to the middle class than the nearly decade-long U.S. energy boom. The number of new jobs in the oil and gas industry has increased by more than a quarter million between since 2003, paying nearly double the national average.  And approving the Keystone might save some of the U.S. energy-related jobs that are being lost due to low oil prices.”
 
"If Clinton wants to promote a more secure United States and create middle class jobs, unshackling the energy industry, and backing the wildly popular Keystone XL project, would be a good start," said Matthews.