Keystone XL pipeline: Did Obama just drop a big hint about his decision?

Obama said the Keystone XL pipeline would only be approved if it won't increase greenhouse gas emissions. That cheered some foes of the project, but others see the president finding a way to say yes.

LM Otero/AP/File
President Barack Obama, seen here speaking last year at the TransCanada Pipe Yard in Cushing, Okla., announced Tuesday that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project from Canada to Texas should only be approved if it doesn't worsen carbon pollution.

President Obama broke his silence on the Keystone XL pipeline Tuesday, saying that the controversial project should be approved only if it will not produce a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

The politically charged issue has hung over the Obama administration for years, as environmentalists have competed with energy interests and some labor unions for the president’s ear and public opinion. If approved by the State Department – and ultimately by the president – the pipeline would carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, 1,200 miles to the Gulf of Mexico.

“Our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution,” Mr. Obama said in a major speech on climate change at Georgetown University. “The net effects of the pipeline's impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.”

Obama did not provide specifics on how the environmental impact of the pipeline would be measured. A final decision on Keystone XL is not expected until later this year or early next year. Critics have charged that drilling in tar sands, and turning the extracted bitumen into crude oil, causes significant air and water pollution.

Obama has long described his energy policy as “all of the above” – leading many observers to conclude that he would eventually approve the pipeline, balanced with more renewable energy and stricter limits on carbon emissions from coal-fired plants.

But some environmentalists cheered Obama’s remarks yesterday, pointing to studies that show the pipeline would produce higher emissions, leading them to conclude that the president will ultimately reject Keystone XL. Others weren’t so sure, suggesting his language was sufficiently vague to leave him wiggle room to approve the project.

Bill McKibben, a leading voice among environmentalists and founder of the activist group 350.org, reacted positively.

"This is an appropriate standard that the president appears to be setting on Keystone XL,” Mr. McKibben said. “The president is saying what the science has always demanded. It's encouraging news for certain."

Another activist suggested that there’s no way the pipeline can pass Obama’s test – and therefore he can’t approve it.

“The president made it emphatic: He won't green light a tar sands pipeline that means more carbon pollution, more climate chaos, more drought, heat, fire, and floods,” said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of the international program with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

But a leading Senate opponent of the pipeline, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont, sounded as if Obama’s statement meant he was planning to go ahead and approve the pipeline.

“The president must not give speeches about the dangers of global warming and then turn around and allow construction of the Keystone pipeline from Canada’s tar sands oil fields which would result in a huge increase in carbon emissions,” Senator Sanders said in a statement.

In a follow-up comment, Sanders’ spokesman said the standard that Obama referenced in his speech is one that a State Department report issued in March already claims would be met.

Obama is walking a political tightrope over Keystone XL. Though safely reelected, he still needs to keep his political base with him, lest his job approval ratings keep falling, reducing his clout. But elements of his base fall on both sides of the issue: Environmentalists fear for the pipeline’s impact on the global climate, while labor unions are eager for the jobs that the construction and maintenance of the pipeline would produce. And if Obama is seen as going too far to the left on energy and the environment, that could hurt vulnerable Senate Democrats running for reelection next year, and potentially jeopardizing Democratic control of the Senate. 

One reason for rejecting the pipeline has diminished over time. Initially, the Republican governor of Nebraska opposed the project, saying it could endanger the water supplies in a major aquifer. When the owner, TransCanada, redrew the proposed route, the governor approved it.

Two portions of the Keystone pipeline system have already been constructed. Last year, Obama approved construction of the lower remaining portion, which runs from Cushing, Okla., to the Texas Gulf Coast. It’s the upper remaining portion that remains in limbo.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.