Keystone Kops

Working on the environment file. Curbing pollution from existing coal-fired power plants and refineries. Phasing out those hydrofluorocarbons that took the place of those destructive chlorofluorocarbons (freon) cooling agents that we thought were even worse, before we realized the HFCs brought their own problems with them. Slashing methane gas leaks from natural gas production. Boosting energy efficiency.

In his fifth State of the Union address President Obama awoke from his long slumber on the environment to acknowledge what his environmental supporters have been clamouring for: action on climate change. He as good as pledged himself to address their concerns with whatever it takes to make them happy "for the sake of our children and our future." 

"We will respond to the threat of climate change." If Congress wasn't anxious to act on that important file, he would be prepared to do so himself, through executive action. Without, of course, saying just what he planned to do. But perhaps he already signalled that in large part by his choice for new Secretary of State, John Kerry, a champion of climate change action.

And while a whole lot of messy and polluting energy extraction sources and energy production in the United States can be bypassed because they are, after all, on their own turf, and wholly self-owned, there is one outstanding file that requires a final address. One of those things that President Obama promised to get back to, after the presidential election.

And since he's being pressed to go forward on climate change solutions for the United States, there's a ready solution more or less that would satisfy the environment constituents.  It wouldn't, if he turned down the Keystone pipeline, make construction unions happy, nor those within the unions hoping to grab some of those tens of thousands of employment opportunities. Nor would it please corporate interests.

Those fifty-three senators who called for the quick approval of Keystone wouldn't be thrilled. But Keystone XL is under fire. "The right thing to do is to simply make the strong decision, be controversial if you need to be and show the kind of leadership that brings people around to your decision rather than going halfway to theirs", commented Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. No middle ground. You approve it or you don't.

There's an awful lot of interests hanging on the tenterhooks of anticipation. Regardless of which way the decision goes, there will be disappointment and equal elation. Eventually the U.S. will be energy sufficient, the release of billions of barrels of shale oil in Montana and North Dakota will help, but that's a decade down the road. In the meantime, there is Alberta's oilsands.

TransCanada is still holding out hope that its argument that friendly Canadian oil equates with safer energy security.  As for pollution; the oilsands account for less than 7% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions compared to transportation accounting for about 25%.  On the home front, there is more than enough resistance from First Nations bands and concerns over water use and land pollution.