Fodder for the Fire (Keystone)

There were two news items regarding the Keystone XL pipeline project that struck me this week, both raising issues I've touched on in previous posts. Late last week, Saskatchewan Premier, Brad Wall argued that Canada needed to give the Obama Administration more "environmental elbow room" to approve the project. Speaking in Ottawa last Friday at the Manning Networking Conference, Wall suggested that Canada could help its cause on Keystone by getting serious about curbing greenhouse gas emissions. In doing so, Canada would undercut the criticism of its own climate change record swirling beneath the Keystone debate and allow President Obama to save face with his most ardent supporters even as he approves the line.

In light U.S. poll numbers released today, Wall's suggestion might actually do the trick.
A Washington Post/ABC News poll on Keystone XL found that the national as a whole was strongly in favour of approval of the project (65% for). Not surprisingly, among Republicans, that number jumps dramatically to 82% support in favour of approval. However, beyond that is where the politics of climate change make Keystone XL a little more problematic for Obama, and where he could use some "elbow room." Fully 47% of Americans believe Keystone XL will negatively impact climate change efforts; this in spite of the State Department's finding earlier this year that Keystone XL would not have a significant impact (my blog post on this). Interestingly, 65% of independents would also like to see the project approved, along with a slim majority of self-identified Democrats (51%). Only liberal Democrats remain strongly opposed (47%).

From the poll numbers alone, it would seem the President has some wiggle room to approve Keystone XL without fear of political repercussions for Democrats in this fall's mid-term elections. Yet, what's striking to me about these numbers is how strongly Keystone XL is linked to climate change policy in the minds of many Americans. Whether Keystone contributes directly to climate change is no longer the issue. It represents a thicket of issues on the minds of many Americans, including how best to transport energy safely. Rail (Lac-Mégantic, Quebec), Ship (Exxon Valdez), and pipeline (too many recent incidents to list), do not have great reputations for safety. Moreover, there are lingering worries among many Democrats about how approval of Keystone may prolong America's dependence on fossil fuels. Supporters of Keystone XL might claim that the linkage of a pipeline to much larger climate change issues is unfair, particularly given the evidence of the project's negligible impact on climate change. Dismissing this linkage as unfair, or the product of environmental extremists ignores an inconvenient truth (with a nod to Al Gore). Climate change politics are here to stay.

Relative to almost every other nation, the American environmental community is well-organised, well-financed, and comprised of as many sophisticated professionals as street protesters. Collectively, they deserve a lot of credit for putting a piece of infrastructure high in the American political consciousness and keeping it there. Keystone is more than an infrastructure project, and those opposed to it have tapped into something bigger. It, and the politics swirling around it, are emblematic of the angst in the United States over climate change and what exactly to do about it. Hurricane Katrina (2005), Super Storm Sandy (2012), severe drought in the American West (2013-2014), and the brutal Winter of 2013-14 in the U.S. east and mid-west have all gotten American's talking about climate change.

My bet remains that Keystone XL will be approved on its merits as piece of energy infrastructure, but the President is in no rush. I doubt Mr. Wall is a regular reader of this blog, but we are on the same page in terms of the need for "environmental elbow room" as a way to shorten that time horizon (see end of my February 2 post).