Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew


New on NRO . . .
Close
No Credible Case Against Keystone
Republicans force President Obama to decide on the pipeline.

By Deroy Murdock


About Author Archive Latest RSS Send
Text  

To recap:  

Some 160 million Americans will watch their taxes rise about $1,000 each, if the current payroll-tax cut ends on January 1.  

Approximately 2.5 million jobless Americans will see their unemployment benefits run out, if the federal government does not extend them by year’s end.  

The Iranian government this week threatened to shut the Strait of Hormuz and cork a key route that oil tankers use to deliver petroleum to an energy-hungry planet.  

President Obama could fix the first two problems and ameliorate the dangers of the third, if he would sign legislation to extend the tax cut and unemployment benefits.  

The sticking point, of course, is Republican language requiring Obama to make a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport friendly oil from the Canadian oil sands to refineries in Texas. While America moans beneath an 8.6 percent unemployment rate, the pipeline would create 20,000 well-paying jobs in labor-happy industries. That’s why the AFL-CIO and other unions support Keystone.  

Obama and the Democrats claim that Keystone XL is environmentally risky. To hear them speak, Keystone would scar the pristine line separating America from its peaceful neighbor and then despoil sensitive land and habitat across the fruited plains. As this map shows, however, the U.S.-Canadian border and the path the project would take already teem with pipelines:  


While the map above shows pipelines that carry all commodities, those that transport crude oil and refined petroleum products are numerous all by themselves. At least twelve such pipelines already intersect the northern frontier, as this map illustrates:  

Obama and his comrades complain further that Keystone XL would jeopardize the Ogallala Aquifer, a sort of underground Great Lake that runs from South Dakota to Texas. Here again, Democrats might have a point if Keystone XL were the first pipeline to traverse the aquifer. However, as the map below confirms, this is a bit like standing on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon and warning about erosion. Too late!  

So, America either should install Keystone XL, with all of its benefits, or — if such pipelines really are as dangerous as Democrats argue — yank out all these pipelines that could destroy Ogallala.  

Most galling, the U.S. House–approved bill, which the Senate soon will consider, does not require President Obama to endorse Keystone XL. It merely directs him to make a decision on it within 60 days. Under the GOP-backed provision, Obama could kill Keystone XL — but he would have to make up his mind, either way.  

But rather than lead, Obama prefers to straddle. He wants to delay a decision until after the November 2012 election, to avoid offending either Big Labor or the environmental movement. If he can slither quietly between the two, Obama reckons, his reelection prospects grow.  

Agree or disagree with them, the Left used to make valid points, although their solutions usually were wrong. Now, increasingly and especially with Keystone, they have no case, no issue, and no argument other than: “NO!”

New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University. 

Text  

You Might Also Like...

Keune: 'Clean Coal' Means No Coal

Nordlinger: Obama’s name game, &c.

Zubrin: The World Wildlife Fund Targets Humanity

Gledhill: Who Is Barack Obama?

Steyn: The Great Barry

Malkin: White House Lied, Jobs Died



COMMENTS   17

EXPAND  

   12/17/11 04:59

Well said. I appreciate your clarity, conciseness but mostly your acute evisceration of the politics of decline.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Calvin Thomas
   12/17/11 11:23

It's consistently conservatives who do nothing but say "NO!" But I wouldn't expect anything resembling honesty from the National Review.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/19/11 21:24

It's not "no." It's "NO!"

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/20/11 12:52

Of course they're saying "No". The only thing the Dems throw out on the playing field are ridiculously stupid, inane, self-serving, union enriching, business killing, central control thriving legislation. Heck, I'm absolutely amazed that the GOP has any time to work on anything other than putting out the fires from Dems stupid agenda. Yet, they're the ONLY ones in the past 4 years to have offered a budget, the only ones to have proposed entitlement reform, the only ones who offered compromises on the debt ceiling. Like a good parent, they are having to say "no" a lot because of the irresponsible adolescents, er Democrats, running things.

Fortunately, next year this time they won't have that worry. Dems won't control the Senate. The dunce Reid will be put in some back office and left alone to blow bubbles in the wind, and Obama the fool, will be meeting with Bill Clinton learning how he can get money through unethical means to build his library and set up the Obama Foundation like Bill's (if anyone will donate to it).

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/14/12 17:49
   12/17/11 12:43

It is giving Obama too much credit to think his motivation here is environmental. Remember that the Keystone XL pipeline is competing against his solar cronies, who only stand to gain if Obama's energy policies keep the cost of petroleum high.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/17/11 22:39

Obama's reaction can't be explained by his loyalty to environmentalists. Rather, he is evidently opposing Keystone XL because it would diminish the value of the investments of his Solyndra and other green-energy cronies, who are depending on $4/gallon gas for their investments to pay off.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/18/11 10:53

For a president that repeatedly decries "kicking the can down the road" he certainly knows something about it, first with deficit reduction by assigning it to Simpson-Bowles to sort out, then ignoring the recommendations that were necessary, now by claiming that the pipeline merits further study until, oh, let's see, right after the next election. You can't argue that his isn't transparent. He might as well come clean and admit letting it go forward will hurt his chances of reelection.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/18/11 18:51

If we, unlike Obama, look at the facts, we'll see that pipelines traverse this country and, for the vast majority, there is never a problem. Are there some accidents? Yes, of course. But modern life has such things. Airplanes crash, cars bang up, houses catch on fire. But we don't discard these modern conveniences because the probability, regardless of how low, that some type of accident might befall us.

Radical environmentalism, which is what is running the EPA and American energy policy, is based on two precepts: (1) move to renewables and block carbon fuels at every turn, (2) use the hypothetical concern of "accidents" to inject unrealistic fantasies into both the American political consciousness and into judicial review.

Renewables will not now or ever replace fossily fuels. There are neither enough geographic locations where wind is sufficient to power the windmills of the size to generate anything. Secondly, so much natural gas fired generation has to be built to back- up the intermittent and inconsistent wind power that no "carbon reduction" is really ever achieved. Just look at Denmark as a prime example. Solar is fine, just make sure the sun is shining - right! So, in effect, renewables rely on our weather to generate electricity that keeps our lives - well, going and us alive. Our march to current modernity from the rural, antiquated vestige of life in the late 1800s to early 1900s came for many reasons. BUT - one of the absolute, fundmental reasons we live so well, so long, so comfortably and have the accoutrements of a modern life is because of cheap power - especially gasoline and electricity. Not wind, Not sun. Not ethanol. Fossil fuel!

Now Friends of the Earth and Sierra Club might not like that, but frankly, I don't give a s _ _ t what they think anymore! They are NOT my elected representatives. They are not speaking for me and they are NOT speaking in my interest. They are speaking for themselves, the money they pull in, the lawsuits they file, the money they'll make and the cushy lifestyle they live.

I want someone in Congress (likely only GOP, Dems are too timid to take on the enviro lobby) to actually act like THEY represent the people, not some unelected zealot who has no understanding about how the real world works or how regular folks look at life.

Simon and Garfunkel might ask..." .... where have you gone Joe DiMaggio", but I'd like to know, "...where have you gone political leaders? Standing up when the lights go out is having guts when it's easy. Is anyone out there who'll stand up to this bull s _ _ t?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Baxtyre
   12/19/11 17:43

The strangest thing about the environmental lobby is that they used that same fear of accidents to destroy the one clean energy source that had an actual chance of largely replacing fossil fuels: nuclear.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Jaden65
   12/19/11 06:56

The pipeline is good for america,which meams it's bad for the president.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
LindaF
   12/19/11 09:14

His disinclination to make a decision that would cost him votes will cost him in 2012.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/14/12 17:48
Northern Lights
   12/19/11 20:16

The amazing part is America doesn't have to put up any money. The billions that go into this pipeline will be put up by a private Canadian company, hiring Americans with very high paying jobs. And get this- the Canadians that make money- all they want to do is come down every winter and spend it in Palm Springs, Phoenix and Florida!
Wonder where the Arabs that get your oil money spend it?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/20/11 12:47

I calls it the Keystone Cop-out. Our phoney-baloney president knows the pipeline would be great for our economy, our fuel situation, and everything. But he's gotta play politics, while he tries to dream up a rationalization the proles will buy for cancelling it entirely.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/14/12 17:54

Good article except I didn't like the way it started.
Why celebrate the payroll tax cut? It reduces money for the already in danger Social Security trust fund. It was a terrible idea to cut that tax. Unless you are going to privatize SS, what good does it do to fund it less than it already is funded?
Also unemployment should not be extended any more than it already has been. People have to find jobs, not be given incentive to stay home on our dime. We are so in debt and what is the solution of dems? They spend more.
But the rest about the pipe line is great.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact