That’s a decision that the Obama administration has been weighing for the entirety of its six years, leaving the Canadian company behind the proposal frustrated and the Canadian government, which is deeply interested in ramping up operations at the Albertan oil patch that would be serviced by the pipeline, even more so.
Indeed, Canada’s leadership, including its prime minister, Stephen Harper, has repeatedly made clear its annoyance with the Obama administration’s Hamlet-like deliberations over the pipeline, suggesting that American rejection of the proposed project — which requires a special permit from the White House to cross the border — was simply not an option.
“It is not a question of if this project will be approved,” Canadian Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford said in an emailed statement this week. “It is a matter of when.”
That sentiment is in keeping with Harper’s own tendency toward Keystone XL bravado over the years. “My view is you don’t take no for an answer,” the prime minister declared before a 2013 gathering of business leaders in New York. “We haven’t had that, but if we were to get that, that won’t be final.”
This was likely a veiled reference to legal action. Ottawa has reportedly discussed the idea of suing the U.S. for violations of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), should an approval of the Keystone XL project not be forthcoming. Speaking to Politico on Wednesday, former Canadian ambassador to the U.S. Derek Burney suggested such a tack would have merit under the agreement. “If the pipeline is actually vetoed on so-called environmental grounds,” Burney was quoted as saying, “I think there is a very strong case for a NAFTA challenge.”
The tough talk occurs alongside a dramatic backpedaling of Canadian environmental and climate commitments under Harper, including the slashing of funding for conservation and related research; backtracking on plans to cut emissions in the energy sector; alleged muzzling of government scientists; and the amending or repealing altogether of nearly two-dozen environmental laws — much to the delight of the mining and energy industries.
Canada also became, in late 2011, the only participant to summarily withdraw from the emissions-cutting Kyoto Protocol.
That deteriorating environmental record, of course, is brought into further relief by Obama’s chief public concern about the pipeline: That in tapping and transporting a particularly dirty and polluting form of heavy crude oil, Keystone XL will exacerbate climate change — a problem that Obama has staked his legacy, at least in part, on tackling.
That fact struck former New York City mayor and current U.N. climate envoy Michael Bloomberg as presenting an opportunity for Obama to twist Harper’s arm a bit, securing some climate-friendly concessions in return for Keystone’s approval.
“The Canadian government has been pressing the White House to approve the pipeline, which would bring many more economic benefits to Canada than it would to the U.S.,” Bloomberg wrote at his eponymous publication this week. “That gives the White House enormous leverage, which it should use to negotiate a broader, climate-friendly deal that far more than offsets the potential impact of the pipeline.”
It’s not an entirely new idea – and it’s one that Harper himself had floated during an earlier phase of American rumination over the project. In 2013, the prime minister even went so far as to send Obama a letter proposing “joint action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector” in return for approval of Keystone XL, according to CBC News.
“The letter, sent in late August,” the news agency reported, “is a clear signal [that] Canada is prepared to make concessions to get the presidential permit for TransCanada Corp.’s controversial $7-billion pipeline.”
Of course, that was nearly two years ago. Whether any sort of concessionary dickering is still an option between the two nations — emissions cuts for pipeline approval — is unclear. The statement issued this week by Canada’s natural resources minister, while insisting that the country would work closely with all nations to achieve a fair and effective international climate agreement, seemed to suggest not.
“This is not a debate between Canada and the U.S.; it’s a debate between the President and the American people, who are supportive of the project,” Rickford said. “The environmentally responsible choice is for Keystone XL to be approved on its merits.”
Where does that leave this long-running North American melodrama? Hard to say, but no matter what President Obama ultimately decides on Keystone, it seems clear that Canada, already the largest source of foreign oil for the U.S., isn’t likely to let the project go down without a fight — or at least it wants the world to think so.
Original Article
Source: forbes.com/
Author: Tom Zeller Jr.
No comments:
Post a Comment