At a press conference after meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper last month, President Obama was asked about his delay in approving the Keystone XL pipeline. Can you say awkward?
Harper has been pressing Obama to do the right thing and approve the pipeline that would pump oil from Alberta, Canada, to U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast.
But the president has been stalling, and this from the man who asserted in his State of the Union address that he wanted this to be a "year of action."
Indeed, Obama has been threatening that if Congress won't act on important issues he will. But in the Keystone XL case, it's Congress that is considering acting because the president hasn't.
Why the stall? It's not because approving the Keystone XL would increase carbon emissions. The U.S. State Department, which is run by the president's handpicked appointees, has asserted twice that the Keystone XL will not increase greenhouse gas emissions.
And as the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton said she was inclined to recommend approval of the pipeline.
New Jobs
Then came accusations that the State Department studies were flawed because of conflicts of interest.
But a new inspector general's report largely cleared the State Department of violating conflict-of-interest claims in selecting an outside contractor.
Obama also knows the pipeline would create high-paying infrastructure jobs in a U.S. that is sorely in need of new jobs. He knows there's no additional harm to the environment, in part because that Canadian oil will be refined and used somewhere.
And he knows that even if there is no pipeline, Canadian oil will be carried into the U.S. by rail and that Canadian oil is already coming to the U.S. through more than a dozen existing pipelines — including Phase 1 of the Keystone pipeline system that for three years has been pumping nearly 600,000 barrels of the same Canadian tar sands oil a day to U.S. refineries.
By delaying a decision, Obama is hoping to get past the 2014 election without hurting the re-election chances of several Senate Democrats running in red or purple states that strongly support the Keystone XL and the energy industry.
Those candidates include Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mark Udall of Colorado, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, plus two open seats in Montana and West Virginia held by two retiring Democrats.
Think about the political problems facing these Democrats.
Montana, where Democratic Sen. Max Baucus just retired, will be able to ship 100,000 barrels a day of oil from the Bakken shale formation. If Obama kills the Keystone XL, he kills Montana jobs and may hurt the chances of a Democrat holding that Senate seat.
Take A Stand
South Dakota has been cranking up its energy-producing efforts. Plus that Phase 1 of the Keystone system that has been piping Canadian oil to Illinois refineries or three years runs through the state — with no problems.
Landrieu's Louisiana is big in the Gulf Coast refining business, and the whole reason for the XL is to ship Canadian oil to the Gulf for refining.
And Alaska and West Virginia are two of the most pro-energy-producing states in the country. Pity the Senate candidate in those two states who's seen as squishy on energy production.
If Republicans win six of those eight seats, which is a distinct possibility, they will take control of the Senate. By keeping the Keystone XL decision on hold, those vulnerable Democratic senators and candidates can waffle on the issue. They can claim to be strong supporters of the energy sector but that there is nothing they can do because the president wants to be fully informed. Baloney!
Senate candidates should be pressured to announce where they stand on energy production generally, and the Keystone XL specifically. If they claim to support energy production, they should be willing to join the chorus of voices calling for a quick and positive Keystone XL decision.
A candidate who claims to provide bold leadership and yet runs away from one of the most important issues — to the U.S. economy and security — of our time will be neither bold nor leader.