During his acceptance speech, a freshly re-elected President Obama spoke of a message that he received from the American people, a message to “focus on your jobs” and to tackle the challenge of “freeing ourselves from foreign oil”.
With that in mind, there is one project in the international spotlight that would quickly and easily address both of those issues – approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
And now, our Canadian allies are urging the White House to stop playing politics, stop sending mixed signals, stop stalling, and approve the project that would not only benefit our neighbors to the north, but the United States economy itself.
For the past year, the Obama administration played politics with the Keystone project in an attempt to placate the far-left environmental contingency in the Democrat party, creating confusion about the future of the pipeline and leaving Canada to wonder if their support and friendship were being taken for granted.
Peter McKenna, chair of the Political Science Department at the University of Prince Edward Island stated, “It made sense for Obama to put that (Keystone) on the back burner to deal with the environmental constituency of the Democratic Party”.
He added however, that issues affecting Canada need to be addressed now that the election is over, citing the Keystone XL Pipeline as “the most important issue”.
While the President’s initial decision to reject the pipeline was blatantly political in nature, it came at a cost to the American people, delaying real job creation and energy progress. Now however, approving construction should be a no-brainer.
In a post-election editorial, The Globe and Mail wrote:
Last January, President Barack Obama rejected TransCanada Corp.’s proposal to build a pipeline carrying Canadian bitumen from the Alberta oil sands to refineries in the United States, including some in Texas on the Gulf of Mexico coast. The rejection was a calculated election-year move aimed at appeasing Mr. Obama’s supporters in the powerful environmental movement. With his re-election, the President should now move quickly to approve the Keystone XL pipeline on its merits alone.
While Peter McKenna sees approval of the pipeline happening in the next six to twelve months, and with Moody’s also predicting approval, Stephen Ewart, Editor of the Calgary Herald’s Energy and Economics section isn’t quite as optimistic.
Ewart counters that approval of the pipeline is anything but a ‘no-brainer’, citing scheduled protests over the pipeline that will apply pressure to the White House, as well as looming concerns from environmental activists over the effects of climate change, concerns freshly renewed by the impact of Hurricane Sandy.
Ewart adds that despite the election results seemingly freeing the President to make the right decision on the pipeline, concern for his legacy means politics will continue to play a role in that decision.
He writes, “Obama has provided little insight into his views on Keystone XL, but it seems unlikely politics will not play a role in the decision that will impact his presidential legacy.”
Uncertainty north of the border has been amplified by the administration’s silence thus far on the project. Rather than following his campaign slogan by moving ‘forward’ with the project, President Obama has remained non-committal.
James Wood, also in the Calgary Herald, concurs.
“… Obama, who earlier this year rejected TransCanada Corp.’s initial application because it needed more environmental review, has remained noncommittal about the fate of the line”.
Uncertainty for our Canadian allies creates another major concern for the U.S. – the threat of oil and economic resources being exported to China.
The Globe and Mail editorial cites this possibility:
“The pipeline has even been touted as the best way for Canadian producers to export crude to China, by putting it on ships once it arrives in the Gulf.”
Most importantly, the same editorial spells out in simple terms why the Keystone XL Pipeline should easily garner approval. Aside from the many economic and energy benefits, the project has worked around areas that were of greatest concern to the environmental obstructionists.
The “merits are many, and they serve both Canada and the United States. TransCanada Corp. has proposed a new route that avoids environmentally sensitive areas in Nebraska and reduces potential impact on the vital Ogallala aquifer. The pipeline’s construction will create jobs, secure a hungry market for the heavier crude from the oil sands, decrease North American dependency on overseas oil, and help lower the price of gas in the United States.”
Will the Obama administration follow through on their promise to focus on jobs and free the United States from the constraints of foreign oil? Perhaps of equal import, will they make a decision before these valuable resources end up benefitting other foreign countries such as China?
The economic benefits to our nation and our neighbors to the north are far too numerous to allow this opportunity to slip away.
Cross-posted at FreedomWorks
Canadian Study Says Soda Doesn’t Cause Childhood Obesity, NYC Mayor Immediately Calls For Ban on Canadian Studies
Actually, the report was seven pages in length, so Nanny Bloomberg is requesting a ban on Canadian studies over four pages long. You’ll just have to purchase two in order to read the whole thing.
Via Yahoo! Philippines:
As New Yorkers continue to debate a controversial proposal to ban supersized sodas, a new study out of Canada says the link between the consumption of sweetened beverages and childhood obesity is weak at best.
It’s the latest study to weigh in on the controversy which has divided the city, with supporters lauding Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s initiative to combat rising obesity and others calling the strategy shortsighted.
The Canadian study, to be published in the October issue of Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, determined that more than the consumption of sugary drinks, the main predictors of childhood obesity among Canadian children were household income, ethnicity and household food security.
Ethnicity? Were the researchers aware that their study was inherently racist?
I wonder if somebody could present this study to Bloomberg and ‘force him to understand‘.
Who knew the Obama administration was so good at government versions of three card monte?
Erika Johnsen at Townhall reports:
Just add it to the Obama administration’s ever-lengthening list of ridiculous stimulus-related schemes: a well-subsidized solar company received a federal loan guarantee (backed, it goes without saying, by The American Taxpayer) to sell solar panels… to itself.
And here’s the story from the Washington Examiner:
First Solar is the company. The subsidy came from the Export-Import Bank, which President Obama and Harry Reid are currently fighting to extend and expand. The underlying issue is how Obama’s insistence on green-energy subsidies and export subsidies manifests itself as rank corporate welfare.
Here’s the road of subsidies these solar panels followed from Perrysburg, Ohio, to St. Clair, Ontario.
First Solar is an Arizona-based manufacturer of solar panels. In 2010, the Obama administration awarded the company $16.3 million to expand its factory in Ohio — a subsidy Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland touted in his failed re-election bid that year.
Five weeks before the 2010 election, Strickland announced more than a million dollars in job training grants to First Solar. The Ohio Department of Development also lent First Solar $5 million, and the state’s Air Quality Development Authority gave the company an additional $10 million loan.
After First Solar pocketed this $17.3 million in government grants and $15 million in government loans, Ex-Im entered the scene.
In September 2011, Ex-Im approved $455.7 million in loan guarantees to subsidize the sale of solar panels to two wind farms in Canada. That means if the wind farm ever defaults, the taxpayers pick up the tab, ensuring First Solar gets paid.
But the buyer, in this case, was First Solar.
A small corporation called St. Clair Solar owned the wind farm and was the Canadian company buying First Solar’s panels. But St. Clair Solar was a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar. So, basically, First Solar was shipping its own solar panels from Ohio to a solar farm it owned in Canada, and the U.S. taxpayers were subsidizing this “export.”
|Pipeline to nowhere?|
President Obama recently unleashed his first campaign ad for the 2012 election year. The 30-second spot is described as such:
President Obama has taken steps to make us energy independent and create an economy that’s built to last. He’s been a strong supporter of domestic energy production, has made historic investments in clean energy technology, and has nearly doubled fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. Because of the progress we’ve made, our dependence on foreign oil is the lowest it’s been in 16 years.
The Washington Post gave the ad a rating of ‘three Pinocchios’ for misleading viewers with a suggestion that Obama was responsible for creating 2.7 million clean-energy jobs, and for cherry-picking certain citations to back up its claims. The resulting descriptions of the ad included such words as ‘slippery’, ‘slick’, and ‘misleading’.
The Obama administration in a nutshell.
But the irony that the first ad campaign of the season touts Obama’s strengths in making the United States more energy independent, while he is simultaneously thwarting further energy independence via the Keystone pipeline, can not be overlooked.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue called the decision to deny the Keystone XL pipeline permit ‘dumbfounding’. He added, “the President’s decision will make us more dependent on oil from foreign nations that don’t share our interests.”
So why would the energy independence-touting President deny construction of a pipeline that has the potential to improve said independence, along with an added bonus of creating a minimum of 20,000 jobs?
Aside from kowtowing to environmental groups, Obama cites “the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment”.
That smokescreen doesn’t hold up either. A new report from Fox News indicates that the Keystone pipeline would actually pose less of an environmental danger than pipelines currently running in the U.S.
Several energy experts who represent the oil and gas industry say the controversial Keystone XL, a 1,700-mile pipeline that would run from Canada to Texas, poses less of a risk to the environment than the estimated 50,000 miles of oil pipelines already crisscrossing the U.S., a network they say is safe and efficient.