There wasn’t much news created during Jackie Calmes and Michael D. Shear’s interview with the president. But I did notice a few tea leaves related to the XL Keystone pipeline.
NYT: A couple other quick subjects that are economic-related. Keystone pipeline — Republicans especially talk about that as a big job creator. You’ve said that you would approve it only if you could be assured it would not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon in the atmosphere. Is there anything that Canada could do or the oil companies could do to offset that as a way of helping you to reach that decision?
MR. OBAMA: Well, first of all, Michael, Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator. There is no evidence that that’s true. And my hope would be that any reporter who is looking at the facts would take the time to confirm that the most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline — which might take a year or two — and then after that we’re talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 [chuckles] jobs in a economy of 150 million working people.
NYT: Yet there are a number of unions who want you to approve this.
MR. OBAMA: Well, look, they might like to see 2,000 jobs initially. But that is a blip relative to the need.
So what we also know is, is that that oil is going to be piped down to the Gulf to be sold on the world oil markets, so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United States. In fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in the Midwest to go up where currently they can’t ship some of that oil to world markets.
Now, having said that, there is a potential benefit for us integrating further with a reliable ally to the north our energy supplies. But I meant what I said; I’m going to evaluate this based on whether or not this is going to significantly contribute to carbon in our atmosphere. And there is no doubt that Canada at the source in those tar sands could potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon release.
NYT: And if they did, could that offset the concerns about the pipeline itself?
MR. OBAMA: We haven’t seen specific ideas or plans. But all of that will go into the mix in terms of John Kerry’s decision or recommendation on this issue.
It might seem like President Obama is sending a warning to Canada that he needs to see some additional efforts on carbon capture before he’ll approve the pipeline, but don’t forget that this question was unsolicited. And his words and tone show him to be deeply skeptical that the pipeline is worthwhile. For a long time, the vibe I’ve been getting from the White House has been that the left needs to prepare itself to lose this battle over the pipeline. But the vibe the president sent out here is completely different. He may be giving false hope, but he’s given himself no cover for approving the project.
If the project is going to create a literally laughable number of permanent jobs in this country and quite possibly drive up energy prices in the Midwest, while obviously increasing substantially the carbon in the atmosphere, then there just isn’t much left to justify it. All he points to on the other side of the ledger is a “potential benefit” of coordinating with Canada.
The decision, as the president mentioned, will ostensibly be made by Secretary of State John Kerry. But it seems clear that the president doesn’t approve of the project as things currently stand.
BooMan,
I know diplomatic concerns are involved here, but why the SoS, and not the SoEnergy?
I’m no great fan of Ernest Moniz, and would have preferred Chu to handle this, but it would seem to be more in Energies wheelhouse, than States, no?
And I know that Moniz is still awaiting confirmation, is that why?
Sorry to ask, but if I’ve read why, then I’ve forgotten. Do you know?
Secretary Moniz was confirmed on May 16th and took office on May 21st.
But the State Department is in charge because it is cross-border project. Clinton worked the issue before Kerry.
Some may see Kerry as a moderate, but his environmental record is actually pretty strong. You may remember his leadership role in preventing drilling in Alaska’s protected areas during the Bush years.
Thank you.
And yeah, Kerry’s got a pretty good record over the decades.
And Oooooooops!!!
Jeez, I must have slept through the SoE’s confirmation – probably because there wasn’t a big fracas about it.
I’m so used to the imbecile Republicans trying to block everything, that I missed his confirmation.
.
Executive Order No. 10485 of September 3, 1953
Executive Order 11423 of August 16, 1968
Executive Order 13212 of May 18, 2001 (Cheney/Bush)
Executive Order 13337 of April 30, 2004
All that is at stake is a trans-border permit for the pipeline. That is why it is at State. State issues trans-border permits.
Meanwhile Transcanada is working like gangbusters, moving northward from Texas to get the pipeline in place, and having property owners who objected to eminent domain taking and environmental activists arrested by the scores. This conflict is not making the national media at all.
At the other end of the line, there has been a major tar sands spill in Alberta. And the Harper government has been running roughshod of the First Nations and environmental forces there as well. This is big oil’s last stand from the way they are trying to get it in place.
If the project is going to create a literally laughable number of permanent jobs in this country and quite possibly drive up energy prices in the Midwest, while obviously increasing substantially the carbon in the atmosphere, then there just isn’t much left to justify it.
Maybe the news about pipe bursts and oil spills are getting his attention?
.
“A couple of cities in northern Russia near 70 degrees north latitude may have registered the warmest temperatures so far north in global records.”
.
Oglala Sioux Chief will only meet the Chief of Washington DC
Go long in railroad stocks.
Warren Buffet already has that one covered.
MR. OBAMA: But I meant what I said; I’m going to evaluate this based on whether or not this is going to significantly contribute to carbon in our atmosphere. And there is no doubt that Canada at the source in those tar sands could potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon release.
NYT: And if they did, could that offset the concerns about the pipeline itself?
MR. OBAMA: We haven’t seen specific ideas or plans.
Classic Obama “soft no.”
Sure, we can approve the pipeline, Canada. All you have to do is come up with some ways that the tar sands production process gets ride of the carbon.
Sure, we can extend the SOFA, Prime Minister Malaki. All you have to do is get parliament to give American troops immunity from the law.
Sure, we can cut entitlement benefits, Mr. Boehnor. All you have to do is agree to a trillion dollars – no, wait, 1.4 trillion – in new taxes.
Sure, you can built coal-fired power plants. All you have to do is make the burning of coal clean. No problem.
That shouldn’t be too hard. Let me know when you work out the kinks.
yes indeed. another side of it, key to creating/ maintaining a progressive direction is civic participation; Obama, community organizer in chief.
My favorite line of the interview:
“my hope would be that any reporter who is looking at the facts would take the time to confirm that the most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline — which might take a year or two — and then after that we’re talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 [chuckles] jobs in a economy of 150 million working people.”
Translation: “You guys are from the NEW YORK TIMES. Could you all please DO YOUR JOB??”
yes, very nice.
There wasn’t much news created during Jackie Calmes and Michael D. Shear’s interview with the president.
You forgot one thing. His talk about getting away from a self-created problem. The whole austerity business.
The only reasonable argument for the pipeline I’ve heard is that absent the pipeline, oil will be transported by rail and there are significantly more accidents and thus corresponding spills of oil when transporting by train compared to the pipeline. That’s also leaving aside that when the tracks were laid, environmental concerns were not on the radar so they could spill in a much more fragile area compared to the pipeline which has to pass at least some environmental regulations for placement.
“…absent the pipeline, oil will be transported by rail and there are significantly more accidents and thus corresponding spills of oil when transporting by train compared to the pipeline.”
See recent rail accident involving an oil train in Quebec.
I was in Calgary earlier this year working with a few energy companies and the people I talked were bemused by the keystone debate. They absolutely knew that without the pipeline their oil would ship by rail over much the same ground at the pipeline and rail is much more likely to have an accident and much more likely to be near populated areas.
There is oil in the ground there and there is demand in the USA sufficient to make it economic to drill for it. Pretty simple.
“There is oil in the ground there and there is demand in the USA sufficient to make it economic to drill for it.”
I’d concede it appears economic in the short term for oil companies, their contractors, and others in their chain. It appears damaging to the economy in the near- and long-term for the rest of us. Which is more important?
One rail accident does little to help us understand the overall comparison in spillage rates between rail and pipeline. And, I’ll be damned if I take as gospel tossed-off “facts” from energy company personnel.
By the way, what are we to think about the significant Canadian oil leak which has been happening for 10 weeks now, using the method most frequently employed to extract oil from tar sands?
http://o.canada.com/2013/07/25/oil-spill-alberta-underground/
Neither the oil company or the Canadian government can figure out how to stop the leak. They’re also conspiring to prevent reporters and concerned citizens from observing what is going on.