On Tuesday, President Obama vetoed a bill that would have approved the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline is known more than anything for the debate it has stirred between Republicans and environmentalists. While Republicans largely support the measure as a job creator, environmentalists condemn it as a threat to our atmosphere and climate because of the potential for larger amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.
It is important to note that Obama’s veto is not simply a ploy to stunt Republican political progress. There are both administrative and environmental factors that support his decision. This veto also does not signal the end of the pipeline project. However, economic considerations might.
In a letter detailing his reasons for the veto, Obama wrote, “Because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest—including our security, safety, and environment—it has earned my veto.” Apart from these issues, which have been discussed by both sides of the debate extensively, Obama has other motives behind the veto. As an article on Mother Jones mentions, the State Department is usually responsible for dealing with these types of international infrastructure projects, not the President.
Therefore, Obama’s denial of the bill may simply be an assertion of the fact that it is not his role to approve or deny these types of projects. If the State Department chooses to give the pipeline the go-ahead, then it might still be built. Yet, as stated on its website, the State Department bases its approval on “national interest.” That Republicans are trying to bypass this official process may imply that there really is not much national interest in this project, an idea Obama confirms in the White House document.
Even so, the Republican Congress will likely continue to try and pass the bill despite this executive veto. According to an article by The Associated Press, “Republicans are about four votes short in the Senate and need about 11 more in the House” in order to override the veto. If they manage to get these votes, what exactly could happen? Well, actually, not much.
According to a Forbes article, “The United States has surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world’s biggest producer of oil.” This has led to higher supplies of oil than the country has ever seen and, as these supplies surpass demand, prices are starting to fall. As the article explains, for producers these cheaper prices means far less profits and, in some cases, losses.
This precipitous drop in prices will eventually lead oil producers to stop hiring people, and even to start firing. If that’s the case, the likelihood of a brand new international pipeline being built, at least in the near future, is slim to none. When oil producers can barely sustain all of their current employees, why would they spend money on a whole new project that would be unlikely to sustain or create jobs? It is somewhat irrational then to expect the 42,000 new jobs that some claim the pipeline will produce, especially since many of those will come solely from the construction of the pipeline, disappearing whenever the project is completed.
If Congress does not want to consider the environmental consequences of greater greenhouse gas emissions, they don’t have to (although they should, especially since the drop in oil prices will increase the likelihood and extent of environmental damage). At this point, the project does not seem economical or even likely to happen—ideas that politicians might be keener to listen to as they consider overriding this veto.
More on the Keystone Pipeline:
Keystone Confusion
Energy in the Next Congress
Forward on Climate
Image source: shannonpatrick17/Flickr, Wikimedia
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.