Keystone pipeline rejection doesn’t mean debate ends

Neither Democratic President Barack Obama nor Republican leaders on Capitol Hill can claim the moral high ground in the seven-year, controversy-laden discussion about the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Partisan politics, spiced with a heavy dose of claims and counterclaims on the environmental front, overshadowed what should have been an issue for the American people to decide.

After all, the 1,179-mile pipeline from the oil sands of Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf Coast would have gone through areas where Americans live.

And yet, the Keystone project was so politicized that true public discourse became impossible.

Thus, when President Obama announced Friday that he had turned down a request from TransCanada Corp. to build the pipeline, the public reaction was understandably muted.

Indeed, Obama acknowledged the fact that Keystone had become a political football when he said, “It has become a symbol too often used as a campaign cudgel by both parties rather than a serious policy matter. And all of this obscured the fact that this pipeline would neither be a silver bullet for the economy, as was promised by some, nor the express lane to climate disaster proclaimed by others.”

It is disingenuous for Obama to bemoan the fact that Keystone was not treated as a “serious policy matter” given that he has the bully pulpit and could have used the power of the presidency to lead the nation in an objective, apolitical discussion.

In announcing his decision, the president obviously had weighed the political fallout against his legacy on international environmental issues, most especially climate change.

“America is now a leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change,” Obama said. “And, frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership.”

LITTLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT iN US

It should be noted, however, that Keystone’s environmental impact would have been felt largely in Alberta with the extraction of the oil from the oil sands. By contrast, the danger to the United States from the oil being moved in the mammoth pipeline would have been minimal.

On the flip side, Republicans, both in Congress and those seeking the GOP nomination for president, had argued that the pipeline had the potential to be an economic boon. They claimed that thousands of American jobs would be created. But, like the environmentalists, many of the proponents of Keystone exaggerated.

An analysis by the U.S. State Department shows that the construction phase would have resulted in 40,000-plus jobs, including 3,900 directly involved in the two-year building phase of the pipeline.

Once in operation, Keystone would have created 35 permanent jobs.

But if the reaction of the American people certainly didn’t match the political rhetoric triggered by Obama’s decision, neither did the response from Canada’s new prime minister, Justin Trudeau.

During the election, Trudeau and his Liberal Party came out in support of the Keystone XL pipeline, but he criticized Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper for clashing with President Obama and the White House over the project.

Trudeau said he was disappointed with the rejection, but made it clear that the decision would not affect Canada-U.S. ties.

Indeed, Trudeau and Obama are scheduled to meet later this month in Turkey, with the agenda expected to include the pipeline and other issues of interest to both countries.

The prime minister also indicated that Canada would explore other ways of sending the oil to overseas markets.

It is instructive that TransCanada, which sought U.S. permits to build the pipeline, had asked the Obama administration to delay any decision on the project. Not surprisingly, the president refused the request, obviously aware that the Canadian company was willing to wait until a new president is in office.

The election of a Republican as president would make the Keystone pipeline project a reality.

Given that, the American people certainly deserve to hear from both Republicans and Democrats seeking the presidency about the overarching issue of climate change and whether projects like Keystone are cause for concern.