Keystone XL vote is energy policy madness

An 11th-hour deal by US Senators this past weekend paved the way for a two-month extension of unemployment benefits and a cut in payroll taxes. But Republicans wouldn’t say yes until they got something in return: an agreement to fast-track approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. (And now their counterparts in the House say they won’t say yes at all.)

The controversial planned pipeline would carry heavy crude from Canada’s Alberta tar sands to oil refineries on the US Gulf Coast. Supporters tout the project as a promising job-creator, pointing to a study conducted for the developer TransCanada that found the pipeline extension could create nearly 119,000 “person-years of employment” (not the same as actual jobs, since two person-years could mean just one job that lasts for two years).

However, opponents — leading US climate scientist James Hansen among them — say the expansion of dirty and environmentally damaging tar-sands production would mean “game over” for the planet’s climate. They also cite studies showing the project would generate far fewer jobs than TransCanada says.

US President Barack Obama had earlier delayed a decision on the pipeline until 2013. However, some people looking at the implications of this latest vote see it not as a way to circumvent the president and launch construction ASAP … but as a move that actually kills the project.

How? By forcing a decision on Keystone XL in a two-month time-frame, the US State Department would not be able to complete the studies needed to make a recommendation. As a result, the State Department would be forced to say no.

So where’s the logic in that? The most likely explanation: it’s all about politics. The 2012 US presidential race is about to go into high speed. Unemployment, while it has recently dropped, is still high. The consumer economy and job growth both remain anemic. By forcing a decision to reject the tar-sands pipeline ahead of the November 2012 election, Republican opponents can brand the Obama administration as a “job-killer.”

But what does any of this have to do with energy security, fossil-fuel-based or otherwise? Absolutely nothing. As a post on ThinkProgress today noted, it’s “Keystone Kabuki,” pure and simple.