Kelly McParland has a thoughtful column in the print copy of today’s Post regarding Keystone XL.
We already discussed Obama’s dilemma here, but Canada also has some tough decisions to make on the Environmental file depending on which actions the U.S. takes.
As McParland notes, ours is the not-so-subtle policy of matching the US:
…should Obama be inclined to approve the pipeline, he needs something to show environmentalists to justify the decision. As Washington’s ambassador to Canada noted: “Obviously the more that the energy industry — whether it is the oil sands in Canada or the energy industry in the United States, or any place else — the more progress they can make to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to reduce their consumption of water, to other environmental consequences, the better off we all are.”
Hence the “same here” policy. How can Americans portray Canada as an environmental villain if Ottawa matches or surpasses Mr. Obama’s own policies?
Do we have a choice if we want Keystone approved?
* * * *
...Wall said Canadians should be alarmed by suggestions that Americans would approve or reject a pipeline not on the merits of the project, but on domestic environmental policies.
“Imagine if this was the Bush White House and the Bush White House was saying ‘Look, our approval for an important Canadian project in our country is contingent on you, Canada, changing your domestic policy in some area,’ ” said Wall. “Heads would explode and rightfully so. People would be apoplectic.”