A Political Horse Race: Keystone XL is Not a Game of Poker

Believe it or not, it was a horse race that solidified my understanding of the inner workings of the United States government. As my American Politics professor once explained, horse race coverage refers to our penchant for covering politics as if it were a competitive sporting event, rather than focusing on policy stances, philosophical differences, and substance matter. We like to count votes; to know who is winning and who’s losing and we create artificial sides- you against me. Some people live for this type of theater and posses a politically competitive spirit. They’re good at their jobs and will tenaciously defend a position; exaggerating information to support their argument; refusing to admit when there are gaps or are flat-out wrong; or even consider that the other side might have a legitimate point. 

It’s unfortunate that we've been reduced to comparing politics (something that ought to be treated as a serious matter)… to betting games.

For the past several months, I have listened and watched the Keystone XL pipeline become one of the most important environmental issues of my generation. I participated in the November 6 rally around the White House. I submitted letters to the Obama Administration and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. And I am now frustrated that it has become the latest lightning rod for all manner of competing political agendas. 

The back-and-forth, "he-said/she-said" volley is what makes it all so difficult to understand the underlying policy stances, philosophical differences and substance matter.

Four days after the rally, the Obama Administration announced the need to conduct a new environmental review and an in-depth assessment of potential alternative routes in Nebraska for the proposed Keystone XL. The State Department stated that this process would be completed no earlier than the first quarter of 2013. Only after obtaining such additional information would the State Department make a national interest determination.  

My colleagues quickly deemed this a major victory, a win for US energy security, and possibly a “fatal blow” to the project. But the truth is, the fight is far from over. This is not just a fight about one pipeline.

Proponents of the pipeline immediately admonished the Obama administration for delaying the pipeline due to political reasons. They claimed Obama was punting the issue until after the 2012 election out of fear that a decision (one way or the other) would cost him the election. 

But this wasn’t politics. Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones reaffirmed that “this is not a political decision. We have been – in this national interest determination – out there as listening to what the public has to say, and this message about the Sand Hills of Nebraska has been coming strong and increasing intensity over the discussion we’ve been having since the end of August, when we released the Final Environmental Impact Statement.”

What happened this week in Congress was all politics. In an effort to avert a government shutdown, the Senate and House agreed upon a two-month extension of the payroll-tax bill and today they passed their “holiday tax” package. However, included in this legislation is a completely unrelated provision requiring President Obama to make a fast-track decision on the pipeline within 60 days.

There was an urgent need to extend the payroll tax and unemployment benefits, but by forcing a fast-track Keystone decision, lawmakers have held American pocketbooks hostage to the pipeline in the midst of an economic crisis.   

Obama condemned House Republicans for “holding out to wring concessions from Democrats on issues that have nothing to do with the payroll tax cut; issues where the party fundamentally disagrees.”  Obama asked, “Has this place become so dysfunctional that even when people agree to things we can't do it?” 

Yes.

Earlier that day, a House Republican referred to his own strategy as “high-stakes poker.”

Obama replied: “He’s right about the stakes, but this is not poker, this is not a game — this shouldn’t be politics as usual.”

Perhaps this is a good metaphor for political brinkmanship- but not when OTHERS are playing games with OUR money, environment, safety, and health.

The Obama Administration has stated that this pipeline project must not be rushed.  Obama will sign the bill to deliver those tax benefits. But the bill leaves him no choice but to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.

As the 2011 calendar year quickly comes to an end, I’d like to look back on the Keystone XL pipeline odyssey, in an attempt to clear the fog of confusing political rhetoric.  When we examine the simple underlying issues, it becomes quite apparent that the pipeline is NOT in our national interest-- perhaps most importantly because we, as Americans will use NONE of the dirty fuel it will transport to our fragile gulf for export overseas. And it makes me wonder, why anyone would fight so hard to put all their eggs in this one basket? I call their bluff. 

Take 60 seconds to read 6 reasons why America needs to say 'No' to the risky and reckless Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

NRDC Fact Sheet: Keystone XL rider in H.R. 3630 would rubber stamp Keystone XL tar sands pipeline while blocking efforts to protect America’s landowners, fresh water and environment

 

Timeline of Keystone XL Developments:  

• September 19, 2008: TransCanada submits application to State Department for a permit for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. The State Department commences the environmental review process.
• February, 2009: Thousands of citizens, including many who live along the pipeline route, express to the State Department serious concerns about the proposal in public hearings and in written comments.
• April 16, 2010: State Department issues its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
• July 16, 2010: Environmental Protection Agency finds the State Department’s DEIS to be inadequate, and asks the department to provide new analysis to address a wide range of issues including pipeline safety and greenhouse gas emissions.
• July 25-26, 2010: A tar sands pipeline operated by Enbridge Inc. spilled 819,000 gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River.
• October 29, 2010: 12 senators write Secretary Clinton expressing serious concerns about the adequacy of the environmental review, including the pipeline’s impacts to clean air and water.
• April 15, 2011: A Supplemental EIS is released by the State Department following significant flaws with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
• June 1, 2011: 34 members of Congress tell Secretary Clinton that the Supplemental EIS failed to address the inadequacies of the first EIS.
• June 7, 2011: U.S. EPA issues a comment letter critical of the Supplemental EIS, stating it was “environmentally objectionable” and provided insufficient information on the safety and environmental impacts of the pipeline.
• July 1, 2011: A pipeline operated by ExxonMobil spills more than 42,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River— in a similar part of the river as would be crossed by the Keystone XL pipeline.
• August 20, 2011: Over a two-week period, more than 1,000 people are arrested in a historic civil disobedience action at the White House urging the President Obama to deny a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.
• August 26, 2011: The State Department issues the Final Environmental Impact Statement, seeking public comments on it, and starts the National Interest Determination process (a special process for transboundary energy pipelines)
• September 7, 2011: Nine Nobel Peace Prize laureates, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa and His Holiness the Dalai Lama, write to President Obama to reject the pipeline.
• September-October, 2011: Thousands of citizens flood State Department hearings to oppose the pipeline along the proposed pipeline route as well as in Washington, D.C.
• September 22, 2011: The Washington Post reports that TransCanada had sought special access to Secretary Clinton through its lobbyist for the pipeline, Paul Elliott, who had served as national deputy campaign manager for Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid in 2008. The story also revealed bias within the State Department favoring the pipeline.
• October 24, 2011: Citing environmental concerns, Nebraska Governor Heineman calls a special session of the legislature to seek alternative routes for the pipeline.
• November 6, 2011: Thousands of Citizens from across the United States joined together in Washington D.C. to encircle the White House to send a message to President Obama to stand for a healthy climate and reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.
• November 10, 2011: The State Department formally deferred its decision on the Keystone citing the need to assess pipeline route alternatives.  The new process will include a fresh environmental review followed by public comments, consultations, and a thorough evaluation of new information and input.  That process, the State Department said, "could be completed as early as the first quarter of 2013."
• November 14, 2011: The State of Nebraska announced an agreement with TransCanada to investigate alternative routes for the pipeline that would skirt the sensitive Ogallala Aquifer and Sand Hills region.
• December 23, 2011: Congress passes a massive year-end tax-cut extension bill, which includes a provision forcing an Obama administration decision on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Comments (Add yours)

Join the Conversation

Comment on this post:

First and Last Name:

Email (Your email address will not be published or shared):

URL (optional):

Comments (please note comment policy, below):

All pertinent comments offered in the spirit of civil conversation are welcome! Off-topic comments, commercial spam, obscenity and other rude behavior are not, and will be removed. We are also required to remove any express or implied statement endorsing or opposing any political party or candidate for political office. Valid email addresses are required. (NRDC respects your privacy; we will not use, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.)