The Obama administration’s decision to kill the Keystone XL pipeline (which would bring oil down from Canada’s province of Alberta to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast) is emblematic of the pervasive, systematic hostility the administration has shown to all forms of fossil-fuel production and consumption.
Whether it’s coal production and use, oil production and use, or natural-gas production and use, the Obama administration has been consistent in its efforts to stymie production and force conservation (a.k.a. rationing) by limiting access to supply or jacking up price through regulations.
Given the extensive network of crude-oil pipelines that already criss-cross the United States, and its history of largely safe operation, it seems clear that the decision to deny the Keystone XL pipeline was political. Over at the Daily Beast, Daniel Stone suggests that the administration acted in order to deny Republicans a victory, and to get the issue out of the way so Obama can focus on his own grand energy vision in the upcoming State of the Union address. I have my doubts about that, given the utter debacles that the administration has made with regard to Solyndra and their entire renewables/electric-car agenda. On the other hand, this President has a history of doubling- and tripling-down on his more absurd energy policies, and isn’t afraid of over-the-top Orwellian speaking.
Whether it represents Obama’s ongoing crusade against fossil fuels; a fit of pique over Congress’s decision to force the President’s hand (he had until February 21 to decide); or the Obama campaign thinks that the inevitable response from Republicans will help to rally his base, the decision is guaranteed to make regular appearances for the rest of the presidential-campaign silly season.
Finally, Obama has certainly strengthened Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper’s hand in pushing for a West Coast terminal to send oil-sand oil off to China. Harper should send him a commemorative hockey puck.
Why is there any other campaign issue than these 2 facts:
1) Democrats have controlled policy by holding 2 or 3 of the following: House, Senate, Presidency since 2006.
2) In those 6 years of policy control their implicit energy tax has decimated the American economy which for all intents is built on cheap energy. When they were a minority in the Bush presidency they blocked drilling, refineries, and nuclear development. The mortgage crisis alone could not have hurt us as badly if it weren't for the Democrat energy policy tax. And - through these policies we have enriched America's enemies as well.
All the arguments about tax cuts for the poor and middle class are BS. This 6 year reign of energy hostile policies and its resultant gasoline prices are the biggest tax you could lay on the poor and middle class.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are correct. Energy is the foundation of our economy. Obama's war on energy hurts business, hurts consumers, costs jobs, reduces our standard of living, weakens America's national security and standing in the world, strengthens our enemies, and hurts the environment (less domestic production means more imports over longer distances by riskier shipping, ethanol mandates consume marginal land and vast amounts of water for no benefit, etc). Unfortunately this is not widely appreciated by the public.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs in "get pucked?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe decided to kill the project back when he delayed announcing the decision for political reasons. The GOP took away the Dem calculation that they wouldn't lose their supporters and wouldn't alienate fence riders. We can now look forward to outright demagogy and linking it to the class warfare narrative casting GOP as money-hugging neanderthals against hope and change. That is so wrong, but class and race resentment resonates even with the upper classes and the non-minorities. Here's to clear-headed thinking, but it's going to be a close call whether we choose opportunity or a Greek slide.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, of _course_ the decision was politically based. The Canadian firm which want(s)(ed) to build the pipeline cannot legally contribute to Dear Leader's reelection campaign fund.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse