One of the holiest words in the Democratic economic lexicon is “infrastructure.”
Yet the proposed Keystone XL pipeline represents a big, honking $7 billion, 1,700-mile-long infrastructure project that the Obama administration is delaying and the environmentalists are opposing. If Pres. Barack Obama thinks the country lacks its former economic verve, he need look no farther than the Keystone XL fiasco for a demonstration of one reason why.
Advertisement
Keystone XL meets every possible standard. President Obama wants “shovel ready” jobs. The materials to build the pipeline from Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf Coast are waiting to go. The president rightly notes that construction has been hard hit in the recession. Building Keystone XL will create thousands of construction jobs. The president criticizes our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Keystone XL is projected to pump as much as 830,000 barrels of crude oil a day from our friendly neighbor to the north.
President Obama should want to sign the permit himself and send Vice Pres. Joe Biden to take credit at the groundbreaking. At this rate, though, the project will get underway sometime in the second Obama or first Cain administration, if ever. For more than three years, the administration has been dragging TransCanada, the prospective builder of the pipeline, through a review process involving about a dozen federal agencies and a cast of thousands. In the time the federal government has been considering TransCanada’s project, Al Smith and the gang could have built three Empire State Buildings, at one year and 45 days each.
The proposed pipeline crosses an international border, so the State Department has been the lead agency in charge of ceaseless bureaucratic delay. Its environmental-impact statement runs to eight volumes. It informs us that “tree squirrels depend on forested habitats, usually deciduous or mixed hardwood forests with abundant supplies of acorns and hickory nuts.” It examines the proposed project as “an undertaking under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,” the implementing regulation of which is “36 CFR Part 800 (2004).” It takes a hard look at the possible spread of “137 federally restricted and regulated noxious weeds,” as well as “state and local noxious weeds.”
The upshot is that the pipeline poses little risk to the environment. But the reviewing must go on. The State Department is now considering whether the pipeline is in “the national interest.” A department official told the Los Angeles Times that the continuing process will include, “if needed, gathering and assessing additional information.” Such is the fate of 21st-century infrastructure, no matter what gauzy visions President Obama conjures of “nation building at home.”
The environmentalists turned out thousands of protesters to surround the White House over the weekend in opposition to Keystone XL. They charge that the project is a threat to the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska, although there’s no evidence for this. Their real objection is that Keystone XL is an instrument in the destruction of the planet. It aids and abets the extraction of crude from the oil sands of Canada that enviros worry is intense in carbon emissions and unsightly to boot. (Wired magazine complains of “the apocalyptic landscapes” of the oil sands, as if they should be picturesque.)
Whether we allow Keystone XL or not, Canada is going to exploit its natural resources. It’s a question of whether it benefits us, or whether Canada is forced to build a pipeline to the Pacific Coast instead, and send its oil to China. For us, this shouldn’t be a close call.
In a promotional spot for her show, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow praises the wonders of massive projects like the Hoover Dam. She must have missed that the environmental Left has been busy working to tear down existing dams. The Democrats are the party of the regulations that hamper infrastructure projects and of the environmentalists who work to kill them outright. If that weren’t so, Joe Biden would have cut a ribbon for TransCanada long ago.
You are correct, Rich. Maddow's comments were laughable. If they had the same environmental regulations and NIMBY special interest groups back in the '30s as they do today, they would be ready for ribbon-cutting on the Hoover Dam sometime next year.
I have no problem with infrastructure spending on "green" energy. But how many of those "environmentally friendly" projects have been held up by desert tortoises or limousine liberals having their views from Nantucket spoiled?
Lowry: "It’s a question of whether it benefits us, or whether Canada is forced to build a pipeline to the Pacific Coast instead, and send its oil to China."
No.
These same environmentalists have already said that if they succeed at blocking Keystone into the U.S., they will then go to Canada and work to shut down the Pacific Coast pipeline as well.
These environmentalists aren't just out to stop the U.S. Keystone pipeline. They're out to stop the oil sands from being used by any nation.
The more serious problem lies in the fact that the federal government has sold us all out - and for a long time. They have NOT created nor implemented any energy policy. Rather they have let more radical environmental groups set the agenda and effect restrictions through a litany of liberal, non-elected judges. Mass. vs. EPA is one such example.
That Obama has no belief toward this extremely important, beneficial project is but again, another affirmation of his abject lack of leadership and cowardice. It will be interesting how he comes down on this as it pits two of his base constituencies against each other - unions (for jobs) and enviros for ridiculous myopia.
It is likely he'll side with the unionists as the enviros really have nowhere else to go. As such, they're just political window-dressing and will be allowed their 3 years of protest, then shut down. What will be interesting is if TransCanada tolerates much more. Dealing in emerging markets in Africa and South America is far, far easier than the US. TransCanada's problems are not overlooked around the world. Ask most firms and they'll tell you they'd rather invest elsewhere than the US due to political climate and anti-business regulatory approach. A sad, sad result of the left's conquest of American political power.
Consider the words of the man Comrade Obama hired as his top adviser on science and technology, John P. Holdren:
“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to DE-DEVELOP the United States. . . . Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries. This effort must be largely political.”
Comrade Obama considers the US to be that "over-developed country". He is out to weaken the US by weakening our economy and military.
While the environmental acitivists / EPA officials are out of control, there is another aspect to this Keystone Pipeline that people seem to be forgetting.
The proposed pipeline would go through a lot of privately held lands, land that would be forcefully confiscated by the government though eminent domain and given to the Keystone project.
Why does this get little or no mention? Will Conservatives here at NRO be defending the private property owners if the local or federal government tries to confiscate privately held lands via eminent domain?
When conservatives correctly oppose the environmental lobbyists or the EPA for harming the economy or imposing illegal rules and regulations, they should also be defending the property rights of the local property owners.
If the government had more respect for property rights and stayed out of the economy, we would be a lot better off.
Lastly, if the oil companies build a giant pipelne, givem them ownership of the land. That way, they have incentive to minimize the damage to the environment. If they do damage the environment, well then they will have a hard time selling the land.
90-95% of the easements have already been voluntarily sold for the pipeline in Nebraska which is the only state that has yet to sign on to the pipeline so bringing up eminent Domain is a red herring. There is no legitimate reason to oppose the pipeline
The Greens are going about this wrong. They should be FOR the construction of pipelines and new extraction areas and methods. The sooner we run out of these pesky resources, the sooner we can usher in a new era of carbon free energy sources.
Although it mat be difficult to construct a solar panel without plastic... details to be worked out later.
Follow
