President Barack Obama announced yesterday that he is rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have transported tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast of the U.S. Earlier in the week, TransCanada had asked the Obama administration to suspend its review of the pipeline project, presumably hoping to “delay the review process in hopes that a more sympathetic Republican administration will move into the White House in 2017.”
I enclose below the full text of the president’s statement on Keystone and reaction from members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation. U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst sharply criticized the decision, as did Republican Representative David Young (IA-03). I have not seen any comment from GOP Representatives Rod Blum (IA-01) or Steve King (IA-04) but will update this post as needed. King is currently visiting the Middle East. Both he and Blum have consistently backed the Keystone XL project.
Democratic Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) refrained from criticizing the president’s decision, instead calling on politicians to “focus on the issues that are important to the American people.” Loebsack’s voting record on Keystone XL is mixed, but earlier this year he twice supported a bill that would have authorized the pipeline. (Obama vetoed that legislation.)
All three Democratic presidential candidates welcomed the news about Keystone’s demise, while most of the GOP field denounced Obama’s decision.
The USA Today reported that Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement, “The critical factor in my determination was this: moving forward with this project would significantly undermine our ability to continue leading the world in combating climate change.” Kerry’s outstanding lifelong voting record on environmental issues was a major reason I became a precinct captain for him before the 2004 Iowa caucuses and continued to volunteer during that year’s general election campaign. I wish he had acted much sooner on Keystone XL, but better late than never. He doesn’t seem to have entirely convinced the president, though; speaking yesterday, Obama asserted that the pipeline would not have been “the express lane to climate disaster proclaimed” by climate hawks.
I enclose at the end of this post a joint statement from Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement and the Bakken Pipeline Resistance Coalition, which called on “all the other pipelines proposed from the Tar Sands of Canada and the Bakken Oil fields of North Dakota” to be rejected on the same grounds as Keystone XL. Energy analyst Aurelien Windenberger published an interesting commentary this week questioning whether the Dakota Access (Bakken) Pipeline even makes “economic sense” anymore for parent company Energy Transfer Partners. Click here for more background on the Bakken proposal.
UPDATE: Added below a statement from Pat Murphy, one of the Democratic candidates in Iowa’s first Congressional district.
Full text of President Barack Obama’s statement on rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline, November 6:
11:58 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. Several years ago, the State Department began a review process for the proposed construction of a pipeline that would carry Canadian crude oil through our heartland to ports in the Gulf of Mexico and out into the world market.
This morning, Secretary Kerry informed me that, after extensive public outreach and consultation with other Cabinet agencies, the State Department has decided that the Keystone XL Pipeline would not serve the national interest of the United States. I agree with that decision.
This morning, I also had the opportunity to speak with Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada. And while he expressed his disappointment, given Canada’s position on this issue, we both agreed that our close friendship on a whole range of issues, including energy and climate change, should provide the basis for even closer coordination between our countries going forward. And in the coming weeks, senior members of my team will be engaging with theirs in order to help deepen that cooperation.
Now, for years, the Keystone Pipeline has occupied what I, frankly, consider an overinflated role in our political discourse. It became a symbol too often used as a campaign cudgel by both parties rather than a serious policy matter. And all of this obscured the fact that this pipeline would neither be a silver bullet for the economy, as was promised by some, nor the express lane to climate disaster proclaimed by others.
To illustrate this, let me briefly comment on some of the reasons why the State Department rejected this pipeline.
First: The pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy. So if Congress is serious about wanting to create jobs, this was not the way to do it. If they want to do it, what we should be doing is passing a bipartisan infrastructure plan that, in the short term, could create more than 30 times as many jobs per year as the pipeline would, and in the long run would benefit our economy and our workers for decades to come.
Our businesses created 268,000 new jobs last month. They’ve created 13.5 million new jobs over the past 68 straight months — the longest streak on record. The unemployment rate fell to 5 percent. This Congress should pass a serious infrastructure plan, and keep those jobs coming. That would make a difference. The pipeline would not have made a serious impact on those numbers and on the American people’s prospects for the future.
Second: The pipeline would not lower gas prices for American consumers. In fact, gas prices have already been falling — steadily. The national average gas price is down about 77 cents over a year ago. It’s down a dollar over two years ago. It’s down $1.27 over three years ago. Today, in 41 states, drivers can find at least one gas station selling gas for less than two bucks a gallon. So while our politics have been consumed by a debate over whether or not this pipeline would create jobs and lower gas prices, we’ve gone ahead and created jobs and lowered gas prices.
Third: Shipping dirtier crude oil into our country would not increase America’s energy security. What has increased America’s energy security is our strategy over the past several years to reduce our reliance on dirty fossil fuels from unstable parts of the world. Three years ago, I set a goal to cut our oil imports in half by 2020. Between producing more oil here at home, and using less oil throughout our economy, we met that goal last year — five years early. In fact, for the first time in two decades, the United States of America now produces more oil than we buy from other countries.
Now, the truth is, the United States will continue to rely on oil and gas as we transition — as we must transition — to a clean energy economy. That transition will take some time. But it’s also going more quickly than many anticipated. Think about it. Since I took office, we’ve doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas by 2025; tripled the power we generate from the wind; multiplied the power we generate from the sun 20 times over. Our biggest and most successful businesses are going all-in on clean energy. And thanks in part to the investments we’ve made, there are already parts of America where clean power from the wind or the sun is finally cheaper than dirtier, conventional power.
The point is the old rules said we couldn’t promote economic growth and protect our environment at the same time. The old rules said we couldn’t transition to clean energy without squeezing businesses and consumers. But this is America, and we have come up with new ways and new technologies to break down the old rules, so that today, homegrown American energy is booming, energy prices are falling, and over the past decade, even as our economy has continued to grow, America has cut our total carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth.
Today, the United States of America is leading on climate change with our investments in clean energy and energy efficiency. America is leading on climate change with new rules on power plants that will protect our air so that our kids can breathe. America is leading on climate change by working with other big emitters like China to encourage and announce new commitments to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions. In part because of that American leadership, more than 150 nations representing nearly 90 percent of global emissions have put forward plans to cut pollution.
America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change. And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership. And that’s the biggest risk we face — not acting.
Today, we’re continuing to lead by example. Because ultimately, if we’re going to prevent large parts of this Earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we’re going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky.
As long as I’m President of the United States, America is going to hold ourselves to the same high standards to which we hold the rest of the world. And three weeks from now, I look forward to joining my fellow world leaders in Paris, where we’ve got to come together around an ambitious framework to protect the one planet that we’ve got while we still can.
If we want to prevent the worst effects of climate change before it’s too late, the time to act is now. Not later. Not someday. Right here, right now. And I’m optimistic about what we can accomplish together. I’m optimistic because our own country proves, every day — one step at a time — that not only do we have the power to combat this threat, we can do it while creating new jobs, while growing our economy, while saving money, while helping consumers, and most of all, leaving our kids a cleaner, safer planet at the same time.
That’s what our own ingenuity and action can do. That’s what we can accomplish. And America is prepared to show the rest of the world the way forward.
Thank you very much.
END
12:08 P.M. EST
Statement released by Senator Chuck Grassley, November 6:
Grassley: Keystone XL Pipeline Rejection Doesn’t Make Sense
Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline.
“It’s completely non-sensical. A lot of jobs in this country are tied to energy and construction. This was a chance to add more of those jobs. It was a chance to help meet the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on less reliable foreign sources. The government’s own environmental reviews time and again found no significant impact from this project. The State Department, in its final Environmental Impact Statement, indicated that blocking the pipeline was unlikely to significantly impact the production of the Canadian oil, so in effect, blocking the pipeline won’t change the climate impact, because the oil will still be produced and get to market. The rejection of the pipeline is clearly a misguided political decision, rather than one made on the facts and merits.”
Statement released by Senator Joni Ernst, November 6:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) issued the following statement after President Obama once again rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would authorize construction of a cross-border pipeline to transport oil from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast:
“Once again President Obama is illustrating just how out-of-touch he is with workers and families across the country in his rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline. However, this reckless decision comes as no surprise following his veto of the critical legislation that Congress and the American people overwhelmingly support.
“It is unfortunate that the President has once again turned his back on a historically vetted energy project that would have created good jobs for the middle class and moved us one step closer to energy independence.
“I remain committed to advocating for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline despite the President’s eagerness to make it a political symbol.”
About the Keystone XL Pipeline:
U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), is an original cosponsor to the bipartisan Keystone XL Pipeline Act.
On January 29, the Senate passed the Keystone XL Pipeline Act with bipartisan support by a vote of 62 to 36.
On February 11, the House of Representatives passed the Keystone XL Pipeline Act with bipartisan support by a vote of 270 to 152.
The cross-border pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta, Canada to U.S. refineries along the Gulf Coast.
According to the U.S. State Department, oil would be transported safely with minimal impact to the environment, and cause no disruption to the development of Canadian oil sands. This project contains strong protections and will comply with federal, state and local authorities.
The Keystone XL Pipeline sets up basic energy infrastructure for future needs and is necessary to the progress of our country.
Construction of the pipeline will stimulate the American economy through the creation of 42,000 new construction jobs and add an estimated $3.4 billion to GDP.
This project has been under review for over six years and encountered numerous unnecessary delays by the Obama administration.
There is broad-based support behind construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO.
From an article published in the Iowa City Press-Citizen on November 7:
Rep. David Young, R-Iowa, said the rejection was largely expected and underscored the need to “rise above politics” and get serious about creating jobs and providing a reliable source of energy in “these uncertain times.” […]
With a decision reached, Rep. Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa, was hopeful that lawmakers could move on to other issues.
“It is time to put the political back and forth aside and focus on the issues that are important to the American people, including growing the economy, creating jobs, addressing climate change, and ensuring Social Security and Medicare remain strong,” said Loebsack, who has backed the pipeline.
Young spoke to KCCI-TV as well on November 6:
Rep. David Young, R-Iowa, criticized the decision, saying the pipeline would have been an economic boost for Iowa, though it would not have crossed into the state.
“Am I disappointed?” Young said. “Yeah, these are jobs.”
Young said the project meant opportunity for Iowa workers.
“They would have been working this pipeline,” he said. “The drivers and truckers out there, they would have been hauling pipeline. This would be money in the pockets of Iowans.”
Statement released by Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, November 6:
With Keystone rejection, Bakken Pipeline Resistance Coalition calls for rejection of proposed Bakken Pipeline
Fight against pipeline proposals in the Midwest will continue with Dakota Access Pipeline and Upland Pipline
Des Moines, IA. The Bakken Pipeline Resistance Coalition (BPRC) and Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (Iowa CCI) celebrate the State Department and President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone Pipeline. This decision demonstrates political courage and environmental wisdom by recognizing that fossil fuels need to stay in the ground. There is no safe way to transport these hazardous chemicals, whether it is by rail or by pipeline. For this reason, it is time to reject similar pipelines proposed to transport oil from the region of North Dakota and Alberta Canada.
The BPRC notes that Iowa Utilities Board hearings for a parallel crude oil pipeline begin in Iowa next week. The Dakota Access pipeline, or Bakken Pipeline, is slated to carry 570,000 barrels crude oil a day from North Dakota across Iowa into Illinois. Opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline should be aware that the Dakota Access Pipeline is a bait and switch for the KXL.
“The Keystone XL pipeline is a disaster that’s part of the broader picture of what the fossil fuel industry is bringing upon the planet” said Ann Christenson, a 78 year old member of 100 Grannies from Iowa City. “I’ve been to protests with my husband, my daughter and my grandchildren to fight against these proposals. It’s heartening to see all the people that are realizing how bad fossil fuel energy is for the world. We must and we can get off fossil fuels.”
Keystone and all the other pipelines proposed from the Tar Sands of Canada and the Bakken Oil fields of North Dakota are a threat to groundwater and the well-being of our communities. Iowa farmers should not be forced to give up their land for the sake of an out of state company that has no interest in the future of our state. No benefits will be brought to Iowa by the Bakken Pipeline- the only outcome is tremendous risk shifted onto the shoulders of Iowans.
The Dakota Access Pipeline starts at the North Dakota border- a very short segment of a pipeline called the Upland Pipeline has already been proposed by TransCanada and is before the federal State Department now. When these two pieces of infrastructure are considered together, it appears that Big Oil is working on an alternate route for KXL just east of the original proposal.
In light of President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone pipeline, the Bakken Pipeline Resistance Coalition calls on the President to follow through on strong climate leadership by setting a national energy plan that is not “all of the above” but that is based on renewables, that guarantees good, clean jobs and that protects future generations. Clean drinking water, a stable climate, and local control over our energy infrastructure must be the priorities of this energy plan.
“We call upon not only Iowans but people around the country to stand up to this new threat and help us say NO to Bakken oil,” shared Rev. Barbara Schlachter of Iowa City. “The pipeline struggle continues, and we need the help of all those who so firmly and faithfully opposed the Keystone XL.”
Iowans are doing our part by expanding wind energy and other renewables. Now that the Keystone Pipeline has been rejected, the Bakken Pipeline Resistance Coalition and Iowa CCI demand that both the federal and state governments take the next step in implementing a renewable energy policy and reject the proposed Bakken Pipeline.
Iowa CCI is part of a growing number of organizations, landowners, and everyday citizens across the state committed to stopping the proposed Bakken Pipeline under the banner of the Bakken Pipeline Resistance Coalition.
Iowa CCI is a statewide, grassroots people’s action group that uses community organizing to win public policy that puts communities before corporations and people before profits, politics, and polluters. For more information, visit www.iowacci.org.
Statement from Pat Murphy, November 6:
DUBUQUE – Pat Murphy issued the following statement on President Barack Obama’s decision to oppose the Keystone pipeline.
“I applaud President Obama’s move to block the Keystone pipeline and wholeheartedly agree. This #lifelongdem is proud that the President I supported in 2008 is following through on his plans to protect the environment while creating jobs, as evidenced by today’s jobs report. We can do both and today’s decision was the right move.”
For more on Pat’s record, visit: http://patmurphyforcongress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Pat-Murphy-for-Iowa-Families-Record.pdf