Yes, you read that right; the GOP's gambit of imposing an arbitrary deadline on the Keystone XL decision is not sitting well with David Jenkins, vice president for government and political affairs for the nonprofit Republicans for Environmental Protection.
Although Keystone XL isn't a signature issue for his organization, he admits to cringing back in December when Congress insisted that Obama give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down to the 1,702-mile oil sands pipeline within 60 days.
..."This is part of a GOP pattern of reactionary politics," Jenkins said in an interview. "Instead of taking a more nuanced stand, they make their position the polar opposite of their opponents’ without thinking through how it could backfire.
By using the heat of the moment to score a victory, the Republicans clearly weren't thinking about the consequences for the environment, the economy, the business community or a company such as TransCanada, he said.
"It's political posturing instead of trying to solve problems. The Republicans who are in charge now are doing this pingpong thing where they can't predict where the ball is going to bounce."
With Congress' approval rating hovering around 13%, that had to hurt. I certainly hope so; he even described Boehner et al as "bullheaded" and said they handed Obama a gift-wrapped campaign platform in defying State's reiteration of regulatory policy. But all of this pales in comparison to what the ostensible beneficiaries of the GOP's Keystone XL policy had to say about it:
Now that President Obama has at least temporarily quashed the Keystone XL pipeline, TransCanada executives have to be wondering if they really need enemies when their supposed friends, the House Republicans, have placed them in such a financial and strategic bind.
Obama's Wednesday ruling not only means the Calgary-based company will have to reapply for a permit to construct the $7 billion hotly contested Keystone XL. But it has also sent rumblings of doubt through the entire oil industry and into boardrooms of other Canadian energy companies that are worried about progress on their own separate oil sands pipelines.
...While TransCanada is trying to appear calm, its competitors admit to being flustered.
Enbridge chief executive officer Pat Daniel said he feared that Obama's decision could fire up anti-pipeline groups..."To have [Keystone XL] turned down for the reasons being indicated is horrible for our industry and it's a horrible precedent," Daniel said during an investment conference Thursday, according to Reuters. "It's bad in terms of future approvals. It will only embolden those opposed to Gateway and other new project developments."
Yes...adhering to the law and protecting sensitive aquifer lands is just a "horrible precedent," donchyaknow! Still, I do hope he is right that this is just the start of a slew of permit denials for purveyors of CO2 sludge. If we're lucky, CA will prevail in its fight for tougher fuel standards and set a precedent for everyone to follow.
A high-stakes legal battle is underway in California over whether the state's clean air agency can enforce a first-ever rule to slash carbon emissions in transportation fuels. The fight is being closely watched because the rule could choke global market demand for Alberta's carbon-intensive oil sands at a very precarious time for the industry.
...California's low-carbon fuel standard is the world's first attempt to require oil suppliers to slash the carbon footprint of their motor fuels, measured not just by emissions from tailpipes but across their full lifecycle, from extraction to combustion. Eleven Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, and the European Union, are closely tracking California's case because they are working to adopt similar rules.
If this regulation is left to stand, it would certainly be game-changing. It is intuitively and patently obvious that fossil fuels pollute with CO2 long and well before they are ever actually burned for fuel themselves; extraction, transport, refining are all processes that require energy input themselves. A big issue with tar sands oil is that its low quality makes it an even more energy-intensive source of fuel. It's low and quality and sludgy consistency also make it very difficult to move it through a pipeline, hence the multiple leaks and other safety issues that caused the Keystone I to be shut down. But I digress; let's get back to California and why everybody is (and should be) watching the CARB developments as they wend their way through the CA legislature and courts.
The state's influential Air Resources Board, or CARB, adopted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard in 2009 as part of its landmark global warming law, A.B. 32. The agency was supposed to begin enforcing the rule on Jan. 1, 2012. But oil companies, which say it unfairly penalizes high-carbon fuels like oil sands crude, have fought furiously to kill the standard.
Both sides are playing for huge stakes.
...If CARB and the conservationists win the appeal, the agency can immediately mandate that oil importers, refiners and fuel blenders meet the target they've set for 2012—to cut the "carbon intensity" of their fuel mix by a quarter of one percent. (The policy calls for a 10 percent reduction by 2020.)
Both opponents and supporters of the rule say that whatever happens will have a big impact on the market for Alberta's tar sands in California and across the world.
Let's hope so! Not only is the EU engaged in a similar regulatory battle, but this CARB standard could take California -- the 5th largest economy in the world -- right off the client list for tar sands oil. More importantly, it would dampen enthusiasm for such pipeline projects overall. It's already got the marketeers walking on eggshells. For example, Valero had committed to purchasing at least 100,000 barrels a day from Keystone XL; as if the uncertainty about the tar sands oil ever hitting the market at all weren't bad enough, a Valero spokesman indicated that the CARB ruling could impact their decision to purchase Canadian crude, but that he "couldn't comment."
the tar sands industry is eyeing California, the nation's third-largest refining market, as a crucial future destination for its oil. The low-carbon rule would constrict that market...
...Second, the stigma from California that oil sands are dirty could make other oil-importing states and countries reluctant to invest in or deepen dependence on the fuel source, given rising public concern worldwide over oil and gas safety and inaction over climate change.
...California’s fuel standard would make it harder for Alberta to increase exports to the state, simply because it would cost more. Firms that import, refine and blend oil sands crude would likely see their carbon intensity scores exceed limits mandated by the rule, and force them to reduce those scores by purchasing credits from the CARB program or investing in greener fuel sources.
According to Simon Mui, a scientist at NRDC, the standard "would basically prevent an expansion of [oil] sands use in California."
With no market demand for tar sands oil, the incentive to extract it evaporates the way oil spills really ought to, but never do. Speaking of oil spills, let's have a quick reminder on precisely why the Keystone XL is not a sound development plan from someone who really should know. Mike Klink, civil engineer, acted as an inspector for TransCanada during the construction of the Keystone I pipeline, XL's predecessor/connector. I suppose it's true that familiarity breeds contempt, as they say:
Despite its boosters' advertising, this project is not about jobs or energy security. It is about money. And whenever my former employer Bechtel, working on behalf of TransCanada, had to choose between safety and saving money, they chose to save money.
...What did I see? Cheap foreign steel that cracked when workers tried to weld it, foundations for pump stations that you would never consider using in your own home, fudged safety tests, Bechtel staffers explaining away leaks during pressure tests as "not too bad," shortcuts on the steel and rebar that are essential for safe pipeline operation and siting of facilities on completely inappropriate spots like wetlands.
...When I last raised concerns about corners being cut, I lost my job — but people along the Keystone XL pathway have a lot more to lose if this project moves forward with the same shoddy work.
...Let's be clear — I am an engineer; I am not telling you we shouldn't build pipelines. We just should not build this one.
But hey; what do engineers and NASA scientists know, anyway!? The anti-geniuses in the House GOP caucus are bound and determined to push this pipeline no matter what. Boehner has already hinted that we may well see a replay of last year's gambit of holding relief for working families hostage to approval of the pipeline. Sen. John Hoeven has introduced a bill that would give Congress sole power to green light the pipeline and Rep. Lee Terry has his H.R. 3548, introduced last year, that would cede approval of the Keystone XL to FERC instead of the Administration/State.
They seriously just do not stop. Bastards.