IS IT FINALLY HAPPENING? – AT 8:37 A.M. ET:  Is it possible that even some economic writers for liberal papers are getting disgusted by the behavior of the "environmental movement"?  We certainly hope so.

Robert J. Samuelson of the Washington Post has written a "must read" column about the struggle to get approval for the Keystone Pipeline from Canada's oil sands in Alberta to refineries on our Texas coast.  For people with brains, this is a no-brainer.  For people who live their lives according to an ideological script, it's all kinds of anguish.  Samuelson:

When it comes to energy, America is lucky to be next to Canada, whose proven oil reserves are estimated by Oil and Gas Journal at 175 billion barrels. This ranks just behind Saudi Arabia (260 billion) and Venezuela (211 billion) and ahead of Iran (137 billion) and Iraq (115 billion). True, about 97 percent of Canada’s reserves consist of Alberta’s controversial oil sands, but new technologies and high oil prices have made them economically viable. Expanded production can provide the U.S. market with a growing source of secure oil for decades.

We would be crazy to turn our back on this. In a global oil market repeatedly threatened by wars, revolutions, and natural and man-made disasters — and where government-owned oil companies control development of about three-quarters of known reserves — having dependable suppliers is no mean feat. We already import about half of our oil, and Canada is our largest supplier, with about 25 percent of imports. But its conventional fields are declining. Only oil sands can fill the gap.

Oh, oh, Mr. Samuelson, you're forgetting the destruction of the Earth, which surely would follow any development of oil sands.  All humankind would stop, and Hurricane Irene would be reborn.  I mean, the greenhouse gases!

If Obama rejects the pipeline, he would — perversely — increase greenhouse gas emissions. Canada has made clear that it will proceed with oil sands development regardless of the American decision. If the United States doesn’t want the oil, China and other Asian countries do. Pipelines would be built to the West Coast. Transporting the oil by tanker to Asia would almost certainly create more emissions than moving it by pipeline to closer U.S. markets...

...By all logic, the administration’s Keystone decision — overseen by the State Department, which issued a final environmental impact statement last week — should be a snap. Obama wants job creation. Well, TransCanada, the pipeline’s sponsor, says the project should result in 20,000 construction and manufacturing jobs. Most would be American, because 80 percent of the 1,661-mile pipeline would be in the United States. Continued development of oil sands would also help the U.S. economy; hundreds of American companies sell oil services in Canada. Finally, production technologies are gradually reducing environmental side effects, including greenhouse emissions.

COMMENT:  That is great stuff, and I encourage you both to read the Samuelson column and to circulate it. 

What will Obama decide?  Well, the left wing of his party is becoming hysterical over the issue, but the arguments for Keystone are overwhelming.  I don't know what he'll decide, or whether he'll move to put off his decision until after the election. 

I know what a Republican president would decide, which is one reason why next year's election is so important.

August 29, 2011