Danielle Droitsch, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, says the “two steps the Obama administration can make today to combat global warming would be to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and take measures to cut carbon pollution from power plants.” That, she adds, “would allow the US to make a serious dent to reduce carbon pollution ... while preventing more production of the dirtiest oil on the planet.”
Indeed, in his inauguration speech Monday, the president signaled a renewed interest in protecting what he described a “our natural treasure – our forests and waterways, our croplands and snowcapped peaks.” He also said, “The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it.”
Supporters of the Keystone XL say the pipeline would generate thousands of jobs and unprecedented construction and property-tax revenues in states that could certainly benefit. To such advocates, Heineman’s support now makes Obama’s approval a “no-brainer,” says Richard Dunbar, a commissioner of Phillips County in Montana, the proposed location of the pipeline’s first substation. Mr. Dunbar says the pipeline would generate about $5 million in annual property-tax revenues for his county.
“I was glad the governor stepped up and did it. I think it answers all of our concerns in Nebraska. I hope there’s no delay in the State Department,” Dunbar says.
The US State Department is involved in the environmental review because the pipeline crosses a federal border. The agency says its review of the project is likely to extend beyond the first quarter of the year.
As for Obama’s comment regarding sustainable energy, Dunbar acknowledges that “it’s not a thing you want to hear when you want a pipeline approved.” He adds, “I don’t think we can live on green energy, not yet anyway.”