A passing grade for Keystone

President Obama came under renewed pressure to decide on the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, after a long-awaited State Department report released last week found that the $5.4 billion project would have no “significant” impact on climate change. According to the report, the 875-mile pipeline, which would transport 830,000 barrels of crude oil daily from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to existing pipelines in Steele City, Neb., would add as much carbon emissions to the atmosphere every year as 5.7 million cars would. The report concludes, however, that the Canadian oil would be burned in any case, leaving no environmental reason to block the pipeline.

Federal agencies now have 90 days to present their views on the pipeline. The president has said he will give his approval “only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”

Obama has “no more Keystone excuses” left, said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. Last week’s report proves the pipeline won’t impact climate change. In fact, “the hilarious irony is that the anti-Keystone campaign is creating more carbon emissions.” If Obama rejects the pipeline, the oil will travel by rail, increasing overall transportation emissions by up to 42 percent. So Obama would be not only denying the American economy an estimated $3.4 billion from the project but also “harming the planet” in the process.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

This report “doesn’t even ask the right question,” said Jeffrey Sachs in HuffingtonPost.com. It’s this: Should America sanction the continued devastation of the environment? The overwhelming scientific consensus is that we either keep some of the world’s fossil fuel reserves under the ground “or we wreck the planet.” Shouldn’t the “future survival and well-being of humanity” matter more to Americans and Canadians than making a quick buck?

Just don’t expect a decision from President Obama on Keystone anytime soon, said Jonah Goldberg in LATimes.com. Last week’s report may have removed Obama’s “only expressed reservation” about the project, but environmental groups remain determined to make Keystone “a litmus test issue for climate seriousness.” The president is likely to keep avoiding that test for as long as he can.