President Obama surely is in a no-win situation on the Keystone decision.
Pleasing one side will inevitably alienate the other. Obama is beholden to both the environmentalists as well as the unions for his re-election. And never mind the impact on Canada which has been a loyal neighbour and ally.
Heading the anti-Keystone side are special interest groups like the Sierra Club, 350.org and various others funded by deep U.S. pockets.
You would wonder why these environmental groups wouldn’t go after dirty coal in the U.S. (they have to do something with all that money ya know) but alas, Obama is beholden to various coal-intense States too. So targeting Canadian ‘Tar’ Sands seems to be the easier route (Globe):
“With coal plants, you’ve got to be fighting all over the place,” said David Pumphrey, an energy and security analyst at Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. “But you can rally around the Keystone project and turn it into a slogan and make it into an icon in the climate fight. And it becomes less about facts and more about ideology.”
Obama’s decision won’t really be based on environmental impact and science. Rather it will have to be some kind of clever compromise that ameliorates the favourable sustainability of his political legacy.
* * * *
Canadian ambassador slams press coverage of Keystone XL pipeline battle – The Hill. Liberal media are part of the problem for sure.
Jack Mintz: The absolute case for why the U.S. should approve Keystone XL – Financial Post (H/T Jen)