How the Keystone XL pipeline would help the US, and why some oppose it

So why did the administration delay approval of the project?

Evan Vucci/AP
Demonstrators march with a replica of a pipeline during a protest to demand a stop to the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline outside the White House on Sunday, Nov. 6, 2011, in Washington.

The State Department said it “needs to undertake an in-depth assessment of potential alternative routes in Nebraska” to address the “environmental sensitivities” of the current route.

The president issued a statement that acknowledged the environmental concerns as well as questions that had been raised about the State Department’s vetting process.

But it may all just boil down to election-year politics. It would have been hard for Obama to avoid paying some political price.

A green light would have meant the president would likely become a convenient target of the protesters currently storming the nation’s major financial districts. They would say his decision was further evidence he is less interested in limiting greenhouse gas emissions and endorsing an energy policy that reduces the demand for fossil fuels than he is serving the interests of big oil companies.

However, Obama likely had more to lose if he stood in the project’s way. Campaign foes would say he was working against the national interest by harming energy security and preventing job creation, the same argument that worked against him when he declared a moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after last year’s oil spill.

As it is, his decision to delay the process came under immediate fire from House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, who called the move “a thinly-veiled attempt to avoid upsetting the President’s political base before the election.”

“More than 20,000 new American jobs have just been sacrificed in the name of political expediency,” Mr. Boehner said. “By punting on this project, the president has made clear that campaign politics are driving US policy decisions – at the expense of American jobs.”

6 of 6
You've read 3 of 3 free articles. Subscribe to continue.
CSM logo

Why is Christian Science in our name?

Our name is about honesty. The Monitor is owned by The Christian Science Church, and we’ve always been transparent about that.

The Church publishes the Monitor because it sees good journalism as vital to progress in the world. Since 1908, we’ve aimed “to injure no man, but to bless all mankind,” as our founder, Mary Baker Eddy, put it.

Here, you’ll find award-winning journalism not driven by commercial influences – a news organization that takes seriously its mission to uplift the world by seeking solutions and finding reasons for credible hope.

Explore values journalism About us