Environmentalists went into fits of delight when the EPA left some critical comments on the State Department’s draft environmental impact review of the Keystone XL pipeline on Monday (apparently, “the State Department is incapable of doing a proper analysis of the climate, wildlife, clean water, safety and other impacts of this disastrous and unneeded project” because, woe betide them, they didn’t come up with the answers the eco-radicals wanted to hear); but as you might imagine, members of the House GOP were less amused.
House Republicans are livid that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is objecting to the State Department’s plans to proceed with the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and accuse the regulatory agency of trying to shut down the project by saddling it with endless delays and analysis. …
“EPA’s comments yesterday on the State Department’s draft EIS are the perfect example of government run amok,” said a statement from Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.), who in March introduced a bill that would force the State Department, which is reviewing the pipeline proposal, to approve the project.
And if American lawmakers in favor of the pipeline’s construction are peeved by the administration’s neverending environmental reviews and limitless stalling maneuvers, I’d think that was nothing to how the Canadians must be feeling. Part of the environmentalists’ crusade rests on the notion the blocking the pipeline will slow down climate change, but as one Canadian government minister put it during a visit to D.C. on Wednesday, the only thing the United States would accomplish with shutting the project would be undermining our own economy. Those oil sands are getting developed, whether the green lobby likes it or not:
Canada’s minister for natural resources, Joe Oliver, said Wednesday that U.S. rejection of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline “would represent a serious reversal in our long-standing energy relationship.” …
“Make no mistake: Canadian resource development and export, including from the oil sands, will continue, Keystone or no Keystone,” he said, taking direct aim at environmentalists who hope that blocking the high-profile pipeline will be a death knell for future development of Canada’s heavy crude.
“Anyone who equates the rejection of Keystone XL with some kind of body blow to the oil sands is just plain wrong,” Mr. Oliver said, talking up the prospects of pipelines within Canada that could carry oil-sands crude to the East or West coasts where it could be exported.
The Keystone XL pipeline really is pretty unremarkable, as far as our already existing pipeline network goes, and these endless delays signal just how thoroughly the eco-radicals and green lobby have succeeded in trumping it up into some kind of environmental bogeyman.