Energy, jobs at stake

The ink was hardly dry on President Obama’s inaugural day promise to address “climate change,” when the governor of Nebraska approved changes in the route of the planned Keystone XL pipeline to link the oil fields of Alberta with Gulf Coast refineries. That puts this hot potato back in the president’s lap.

Environmentalists already are howling that the president should block the pipeline — which he can do, since the State Department has to approve cross-border pipelines. The Sierra Club put out a statement immediately after the president’s address saying it was “heartened” by Obama’s remarks and again urged the administration to reject “the dangerous tar sands pipeline.”

Environmentalists argue that burning oil adds to the earth-warming load of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and therefore a new source should not be opened up. They also say producing the oil from Alberta sand formations adds to the carbon emissions more than the usual production methods. (Their fears of damage to the Ogallala Aquifer and the delicate Sand Hills region ought to be allayed by the new route skirting those features.)

In a letter to Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Gov. Dave Heineman said the newly reconfigured project would have “minimal environmental impacts in Nebraska.”

Appearing in March in Cushing, Okla., Obama backed construction of the Cushing to Texas coast leg of Keystone XL. It would be inconsistent for him to stop the northern sections now with 20,000 construction jobs at stake.

He could face down his environmentalist friends with an unassailable argument: The oil will be produced and burned no matter what. Canada will use it or sell it to China, already participating in pipeline construction in western Canada.

But this second-term Obama Unleashed gives us little confidence that such logic will enter into his decision making.