Will Obama Explain Why He Is Against A Pipeline From Canada When He Promised To Work With Canada To Build Another One In 2008?

In 2008, Obama Supported Working With Canada To Build A Pipeline From Alaska To Create Jobs And Ease U.S. Dependency On Foreign Oil

Obama In 2008: “Over the next five years, we should also lease more of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska for oil and gas production. And we should also tap more of our substantial natural gas reserves and work with the Canadian government to finally build the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline, delivering clean natural gas and creating good jobs in the process.”(Senator Barack Obama, Remarks In Lansing, MI, 8/4/08)

• Click To Watch Obama Call For A Pipeline 
  
• “Obama Also Said Yesterday That Completing The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline With Canada Would Help Ease U.S. Dependency On Oil.” (Mike Blanchfield, “Obama Unveils Plan To Wean Americans Off Foreign Oil,” The [Montreal] Gazette, 8/5/08)

Obama Cited The Alaskan Pipeline As Part Of His Energy Plan On His 2008 Campaign Website. “Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline. As president, Obama will work with stakeholders to facilitate construction of the pipeline. Not only is this pipeline critical to our energy security, it will create thousands of new jobs.” (“New Energy For America,” Obama For America Website, www.my.barackobama.com, Accessed 12/15/11)

• “Not Only Is This Pipeline Critical To Our Energy Security, It Will Create Thousands Of New Jobs.” (“New Energy For America,” Obama For America Website, www.my.barackobama.com, Accessed 12/15/11)

Obama Said The Pipeline Was “Promising” As A National Energy Resource And Was A Project That “Makes A Lot Of Sense.” “President Barack Obama on Wednesday called Alaska’s proposed natural gas pipeline ‘promising’ as a national energy resource and pledged to discuss it with Canadian leaders during his Feb. 19 trip to Ottawa. ‘It’s a project of great potential and something I’m very interested in,’ Obama said Wednesday during an interview in the White House with the Anchorage Daily News and 15 other regional newspapers. ‘As I mentioned during the campaign, I actually think that for us to move forward on the natural gas pipeline as part of a comprehensive energy strategy — that includes both more production as well as greater efficiency — makes a lot of sense,’ Obama said.” (Erika Bolstad, “Obama Calls Alaska Gas Pipeline Promising,” Anchorage Daily News, 2/11/09)

Now Obama Has “Punted” On The Keystone Pipeline To Avoid Alienating Key Voter Blocs

Obama Delayed Making A Decision On The Keystone XL Pipeline Until After The 2012 Election. “The Obama administration on Thursday said it was delaying a decision on the contested Keystone XL pipeline while it studies an alternate route through Nebraska, effectively pushing any action well past the 2012 election and into 2013.”(John M. Broder and Dan Frosch, “U.S.  Delays Decision On Pipeline Until After Election,” The New York Times, 11/10/11)

• The Pipeline Put Obama In A “Political Vise.” “The proposed project by a Canadian pipeline company had put President Obama in a political vise, squeezed between the demand for secure energy sources and the thousands of jobs the project will bring, and the loud opposition of environmental advocates who have threatened to withhold electoral support next year if he approves it.” (John M. Broder and Dan Frosch, “U.S.  Delays Decision On Pipeline Until After Election,” The New York Times, 11/10/11)

The Houston Chronicle: The Obama Administration’s Decision To Postpone Ruling On The Keystone Pipeline Is A “Poorly Disguised Political Punt” With “2012 Presidential Politics Written All Over It.” “The Obama administration’s decision to postpone a ruling on the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline till 2013 is a poorly disguised political punt. The ruling has 2012 presidential politics written all over it, despite the environmental reasons given. By delaying a decision on the $7 billion project, which is ‘shovel-ready’ and would immediately produce an estimated 20,000 well-paying jobs in this country, Obama has avoided offending environmentalists on his party’s left, a key fund-raising and voting bloc. We understand that. In a close election, these votes could make a crucial difference for the president. But the administration’s attempts to cover this self-evident situation with a variety of fig leaves are utterly disingenuous.” (Editorial, “Keystone Pipeline Delay Is The Wrong Call,” Houston Chronicle, 11/11/11)

The Detroit News: Obama’s Decision To Delay A Decision On The Keystone Pipeline Is “More Evidence That The President Is Now In Campaign Mode…” “Listen to chants of the Occupy Wall Street protesters: ‘What do we want? Jobs! When do we want them? Now!’ So when does President Barack Obama plan to give them the 18,000 direct construction jobs promised by the Keystone XL pipeline project? Maybe after the 2012 election. Maybe not. More evidence that the president is now in campaign mode comes from his announcement last week that he won’t make a decision on the pipeline that will carry crude oil from the Canadian oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries until after his re-election bid is over. Keystone XL is a major infrastructure project of the sort Obama said he wanted for America when he proposed the $450 billion Stimulus II. The only difference is that the jobs will be entirely funded by private investment, and not taxpayer dollars.” (Editorial, “Pipeline Delay An Insult To Jobless,” The Detroit News, 11/14/11)

Obama Put The Pipeline Decision Off Until After The Election To Avoid “Further Alienation” Of Key Voter Blocs. “The administration had in recent days been exploring ways to put off the decision until after the presidential election, fearing further alienation of environmental and health advocates who consider the pipeline decision a test of the Obama administration’s commitment to clean energy and air quality.” (John M. Broder and Dan Frosch, “U.S.  Delays Decision On Pipeline Until After Election,” The New York Times, 11/10/11)

The Keystone Pipeline Would Create Jobs And Lessen Our Dependency On Foreign Oil

The Keystone Pipeline Was Expected To Result In As Many As 130,000 Jobs. “Many of those 20,000 jobs on the construction of the pipeline would have been filled by skilled union members. Eventually, the completed pipeline was expected to result in as many as 130,000 jobs, many of them on the upper Texas Coast, where the heavy oil would be refined into 700,000 barrels of oil daily.” (Editorial, “Keystone Pipeline Delay Is The Wrong Call,” Houston Chronicle, 11/11/11)

• The Pipeline Would “Produce 20,000 Construction Jobs And 100,000 Indirect Jobs.”  “Gary Doer, the Canadian ambassador to the United States, said building the pipeline would produce 20,000 construction jobs and 100,000 additional indirect jobs in services and supplies. ‘It’s good for the U.S. economy, U.S. jobs and U.S. energy security,’ he said. ‘If you ask Americans, would you choose Canada over the Middle East, they’d say yes.’” (John M. Broder & Clifford Krauss, “U.S. Offers Key Support To Canadian Pipeline,” The New York Times, 8/26/11)

“The Keystone Cop-Out Couldn’t Be A Clearer Expression That This Administration Puts Its Anticarbon Obsessions—And Big Green Campaign Donors—Above Job Creation And Blue-Collar Construction Workers.” (Editorial, “Keystone Cop-Out,” The Wall Street Journal, 11/14/11)

 “The Oil From Canada Could Ultimately Supplant Much Of The Oil The United States Imports From The Middle East And Other Unstable Regions. It Could Give The Country A Measure Of Energy Security.” (Editorial, “Pipeline Delay An Insult To Jobless,” The Detroit News, 11/14/11)

Pipeline Is “Needed” To Maintain Supplies As Imports Decline.  “The pipeline is needed to maintain supplies of heavy crude oil to Gulf Coast refineries as imports decline, according to today’s State Department report.” (David Lerman & Jim Efstathiou Jr., “TransCanada Pipeline’s Environment Risk Limited, U.S. Finds,”Bloomberg, 8/26/11)