David L. Goldwyn, who until earlier this year had served as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs, said in an interview aired over the weekend that Clinton would likely approve plans for a contentious pipeline to deliver oil from Canada’s tar sands to the Texas Gulf Coast.
“I think that balancing jobs, energy security — a country which has increased production potentially the size of Libya — I think the case for a pipeline is overwhelming, and she will approve it,” Goldwyn said, speaking to Platts Energy Week, an energy-themed television program.
On Friday, the State Department issued its final Environmental Impact Statement, concluding that the proposed 1,700-mile pipeline would have “no significant impact” on the environment and recommending that the project move forward, despite warnings from environmental groups that, among other things, the project would help accelerate the warming of the planet.
Despite ongoing, somewhat well attended protests outside of the White House, we appreciate President Obama for at least flirting with reality in this instance with regard to energy policy. Somewhat surprisingly, The New York Times has chosen this issue to depart from the Obama Administration, repeatedly, with the latest column from Mark Bittman: “Profits Before Environment.”
The title itself shows that he’s not interested in actually performing any analysis, rather, to join the cheerleading of green groups who want the price of oil to rise, and think that the U.S. can dictate climate policy to the entire world:
If Keystone is built, we’ll see rising greenhouse gas emissions right away (tar sands production creates three times as many greenhouse gases as does conventional oil), and our increased dependence on fossil fuels will further the likelihood of climate-change disaster. Then there is the disastrous potential of leaks of the non-Wiki-variety. (It’s happened before.)
Proponents say the pipeline will ease gas prices and oil “insecurity.” But domestic drilling has raised, not lowered, oil prices, and as for the insecurity — what we need is to develop wiser ways to use the oil we have.
They say, too, that the pipeline could create 100,000 new jobs. But even the Amalgamated Transit Union and the Transport Workers Union oppose the pipeline, saying, “We need jobs, but not ones based on increasing our reliance on Tar Sands oil.”
A few points:
The sentence “domestic drilling has raised, not lowered, oil prices” is laughable, and the author is well aware that his claim is nonsense. He links to a Think Progress post that notes that oil prices are rising in spite of increased drilling. This DOES NOT MEAN that increased drilling has increased the prices, it means there are larger forces at work. Basic economics tells us that increasing the supply of a commodity lowers the price.
I’m curious as to why he didn’t cite the other unions support the KeystoneXL pipeline, namely the unions that stand to benefit from the jobs it will create. Just kidding, not surprised. This is totally standard for non affected unions to join the liberal consensus and only depart when it will harm their specific industry.