Obama's Keystone Moment: Will He Finally Be Nice to Republicans?

[G_j]

http://www.fair.org/blog/2014/02/03/obamas-keystone-moment-will-he-finally-be-nice-to-republicans/

By Peter Hart

The State Department's review of the Keystone XL pipeline got a lot of attention when it was released on Friday. As the New York Times put it (2/1/14), the report found the pipeline project "would not substantially worsen carbon pollution, leaving an opening for President Obama to approve the politically divisive project."

That framing carried over to Meet the Press (2/2/14), where NBC news personalities Chuck Todd and David Gregory wondered if Obama would seize this as an important historical moment. No, not to take a stand against climate change and the burning of untapped fossil fuels. The moment they meant was Obama's opportunity to do something Republicans might like:

DAVID GREGORY: I mean, I know the left can be upset with the president. But there's a real opening to say to Republicans: "Hey, you say this is a priority? Well, I studied it, and I think it's a priority, too. We'll go ahead and do it."

CHUCK TODD: Well, I–you know–

DAVID GREGORY: It could be a big moment for him.

CHUCK TODD: It could be. I was surprised. You do get a sense that the president doesn't want…did not like the statement that he got out of State. Because now they're emphasizing, the White House is emphasizing, "Well, other agencies have to weigh in." So it feels as if a little bit of–

(OVERTALK)

RICH LOWRY (National Review): Well, for a month, they've been saying it's all about the State Department.

CHUCK TODD: It's all about the State Department thing. So it does feel like as if, politically, they're in a vise. Look, the politics of this, with Arkansas, let's not forget this, where the pipeline might be going through–

(OVERTALK)

CHUCK TODD: Mark Pryor, Democratic senator. So, you know, at some point you do figure the politics is going to sort of impact where the president comes down here. But on the big picture legacy thing, you know, the other part that the president was elected on was changing politics as we know it in this town.
And that's what sort of has stunned, from the David Remnick interview to the State of the Union itself, which all paints a picture of, you know what? He's resigned to the constraints of the office and the constraints of the politics of this town. He's given up on trying to break the polarization addiction that this town has. And some will say he added to it. But he's given that up. And to me, that's going to be something that I think historians are going to be writing about as the great disappointment of the Obama era.

So the "political" issue here might be how a pipeline could impact the electoral fortunes of a senator from Arkansas. But bigger than that, we've got the matter of Obama's historical legacy, and for people like Todd and Gregory, this is mostly a question of whether he did enough to make Republican politicians happy.
It's doubtful that historians living in an era when sea level is 40-70 feet higher than it is today, and many coastal cities are entirely underwater, will be looking at Obama's failure to make common cause with Republicans to accelerate the burning of fossil fuels as "the great disappointment of the Obama era."

[villager]

1. Pretty much all he's done for 6 years is try to "make nice" with rightwingers

He certainly has very very few "at-bats" for those dastardly... liberals!

(or are they "Paulites" or "malcontents" now? I can't keep up with the center/right phrase du jour...)

[walkingman]

2. At some point

the President and our political heroes have to stop the madness. The choice is simple. Transition to a sustainable energy source and move away from the fossil fuel dependency or continue our path of corporate capitalism which says that nothing is more important than money/jobs. Great leaders sometimes have to make tough decisions.

[jmowreader]

3. "Carbon pollution" was not the main concern

The fact pipelines leak and this one traverses half the country's drinking water was the main concern.

[walkingman]

5. Agreed, but

I think that it is all connected. Pipelines, fracking, fossil fuels, offshore drilling, drilling in protected zones are all part of the attack on our planet. All of those mentioned are not necessary in the 21st century and the more we allow to happen the cheaper the cost. We all now that the major factor in discouraging sustainable energy is always cost. Mass production lowers cost.

In my home state, Texas, oil and gas are GODS and even though water is scarce in most of Central/West Texas very few seem at all concerned.

I'm cynical of picking these small individual battles because it just gives political cover for those who view profit as a primary motive. I just cannot understand why issues such as environment are meet with such political fervor except for the profit motive of these industries. It's not like we won't continue to need energy just a 21st version that is basically free (sun, wind) and will create a millions of jobs around the planet.

I notice you used the word "was" instead of "is" - hoping that is not the case.

[jmowreader]

6. Carbon pollution is always a concern, but here not the most pressing

That oil is all scheduled for export, and a lot of the places it will go to are really good stewards of the environment. The damage from burning the oil will be minimized.

The damage from that shit seeping into the Ogalalla Aquifer, we can't export.

[grahamhgreen]

4. Who paid for the review?

[RobertEarl]

7. Quit buying oil

When everyone quits buying oil there will be no need for pipelines.

And if this one is built and people quit buying oil the pipeline will run dry.

The only way to win is to stop buying oil. Who will be first?

[walkingman]

8. You know

and I know that we cannot just stop buying oil. Transportation, heat, plastics, and tons of other things require oil. The answer is to move to sustainable energy for transportation and energy needs and that will reduce the impact of fossil fuels to a negligible level. With increased population and much of the world becoming more developed that is our only chance to maintain the quality of life we now have - it is not a political issue at all it is simply an issue of greed.