As Bill McKibben and his environmental supporters bask in a well-deserved satisfaction of the now-infamous Keystone XL pipeline denial, a close reading of the president's statement indicates reason for concern.
Both sides are hyping the presidential decision as pivotal, with Bill McKibben hailing it as "a brave decision" and Jack Gerard characterizing it as "a clear abdication of presidential leadership." Let's try to deconstruct the hype to assess what the decision really means.
in the pristine prairies of the Great Plains states, ranchers have been engaged in the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline. At stake is the country's most important groundwater resource -- the Ogallala Aquifer.
The Obama administration's decision Wednesday to reject a pipeline that would have carried crude from Canada's tar sands deposits to Texas oil refineries isn't likely to end investment in the carbon-rich fuel, industry analysts say.
When Congress forced the Obama administration to stop dithering on its decision to support the Keystone XL Pipeline, it revealed a White House's determined to cleave to ideology in the face of all common sense.
Clearly the White House has decided that in an election year caving to oil industry pressure and approving a pipeline to help a foreign oil company export dirty tar sands oil to China is not a winning strategy. But what about next time?
Let's face it: Big Oil is used to getting its way. But not today... and we have President Obama to thank for standing up to them in spite of the political risk. This was a prime-time fight. The oil giants made sure of that.
Any Keystone XL permit issued now would be a blank check written to an oil company with a proven record of disregarding the rights of the American farmers and ranchers whose land the pipeline would cross and threaten.
Whether the pipeline "serves the national interest" is the threshold for deciding whether it can move ahead. The decision should be a no-brainer. Here are five reasons why Keystone XL is not in the national interest.