As his re-election campaign ramps up, President Obama emphasizes one message above all others: add good-paying jobs to our economy. Unfortunately his actions don’t back up the rhetoric as evident by his personal decision to delay the Keystone XL pipeline—a project that would have immediately created 20,000 jobs and sustain 340,000 long-term jobs—until after the 2012 election cycle.

The delay announcement came amid considerable environmental activism in opposition to the project—even threats that this voting bloc would sit out the 2012 election if its members don’t get their way. It appears the President’s move to delay is meant to secure the green funding and support he needs now, while leaving the door open to approving this important pipeline if re-elected. While politically savvy, the real casualty is the country. One need to only look at the impact this short-sighted decision has had on U.S. energy prices. Moreover, there is real concern his actions will result in this $7 billion USD privately funded shovel ready opportunity to slip away altogether. It calls to mind the Clinton Campaign’s famous slogan from the 1992 presidential election in which Clinton intimated it is all about the economy, and the President would be well advised to revisit Mr. Clinton’s slogan.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harpe has reaffirmed that his country will move forward with plans develop its resources regardless of the Obama administration’s ultimate decision. That would mean shipping its crude to Asia as opposed to U.S. refineries in the Gulf. This move would strip our country of its chance to benefit from Canada’s energy boom and leave America’s energy security more vulnerable to many of the hostile nations on which we rely to fuel our growing energy demand.

Moreover, the recent 180-degree turnaround on Keystone XL seems indicative of a larger trend in which the Obama administration performs extensive research and then ignores the results when the answer isn’t to their base’s liking. The administration undertook environmental studies on the pipeline spanning 3 years (it should have taken 18 months) and 10,000 pages which found it posed no significant risk only to then bow to environmental special interests who want to see the project killed regardless of its safety specs.

The Bush administration was virtually castigated when it dared to question government scientist conclusions, yet the same groups now feel free to completely ignore government reports when it does not suit a particular political agenda.

In a similar fashion, the EPA has seemingly ignored its own previous studies which found no evidence of water contamination from the natural gas drilling technique known as “hydraulic fracturing” and continued to push for new and expanded federal rules in an attempt to intervene in existing, effective state regulations.

The White House’s failure to capitalize on a real private sector opportunity to boost energy production, security and employment stands in a stark contrast to Solyndra and other recipients of its failed taxpayer-funded “green” stimulus programs. The President’s focus on jobs suddenly appears discriminatory and politically driven, handing out millions of dollars to unproven, yet favored industries while blocking efforts of others.

Unfortunately the government cannot be in a position to determine which areas of the private sector should be successful while at the same time intentionally holding back other areas. This lack of focus has resulted in an uneven domestic policy which in turn has left much of our available capital on the sidelines because corporations are simply too afraid to commit resources toward re-building our economy when faced with such an uneven playing field. In other words, the federal government’s policies are themselves responsible for the continued economic malaise we find ourselves in today.

The reality of the situation is that oil and gas will be an important part of the U.S. energy supply for several decades to come, and Canadian oil presents preferable alternative to energy from less friendly regimes around the globe. Many are surprised to learn that we already import more oil from Canada than any other country in the world. Should this monumental opportunity to put Americans back to work be lost, it will mark the apex of a shortsighted and unrealistic national energy policy.

All signs point to one conclusion. The Administration is simply waiting until after the election to approve the deal. Unfortunately, that means that at least 20,000 people will have lost the opportunity to put food on their tables this holiday season. The vast majority of these jobs are also unionized and unlike the fundamentalist environmentalists, those affected by this decision will likely remember where the President stood when they enter the polling booth next year.

Remember way back when in 2008 when then-candidate Obama was traveling the country, making many campaign promises. By their nature, we all know that campaign promises are hard to keep because a President doesn't have 100% control of most of them.

But there was one promise that always struck me as inspiring. It was "I'm not going to tell the American people what they want to hear, I'm going to tell them what they need to know." Now that is seems like the state of Nebraska and Keystone have agreed to move the route, Obama has no reason NOT to be a leader and keep this campaign promise.

What we want to hear is that we won't need crude oil in our future. What we want to hear is that greenhouse gas emissions will drop because we no longer will need oil from Canada. What we want to hear is that our environment will be safer because the Keystone pipeline won't be built.

However, what we need to know is we'll need crude oil for the forseeable future. What we need to know that this project will a drop in the bucket when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions because the Canadians will produce the oil anyway and ship it to countries that want it. We need to know that there are thousands and thousands of pipelines crisscrossing this country and they are the safest and most efficient way to transport crude oil, refined petroleum products and natural gas.

In Illinois, Obama's home state, he knows all these things because we've got pipelines and refineries that rely on Canadian oil.

A leader would take this opportunity to tell us what we need to know and add a long-term vision of how we might be able to use less crude oil in the future if we develop alternative ways to move our cars and trucks through natural gas or electricity.

Unlike his other campaign promises, this one is totally in his hands.

This decision is deeply disappointing and troubling. Whether it will help the president retain his job is unclear, but it will cost thousands of shovel-ready opportunities for American workers. There is no real issue about the environment that requires further investigation, as the president's own State Department has recently concluded after extensive project reviews that go back more than three years. This is about politics and keeping a radical constituency opposed to any and all oil and gas development in the president's camp in November 2012.

Besides creating thousands of jobs almost immediately for Americans, this project would also have helped strengthen our energy partnership with Canada and helped reduce America's reliance on oil from less stable sources. A recent poll found that nearly 80 percent of Americans favor more oil from Canada, already our number one supplier of foreign oil, according to API. And the Keystone XL pipeline has the support of organized labor, business, mayors and veterans groups from across the country as well as many members of Congress from both sides of the aisle.

It is time to stop putting politics above jobs and start putting Americans back to work.

Postponing the decision on Keystone till after the next election sends a message to the markets that no energy investment is safe. This indecision and delay may undercut the investment rationale in the Keystone project and eventually kill it. Policy instability has also been a millstone for the biofuel and bioenergy industry as it has sought investment, so I for one do not view this as a positive outcome.

Building infrastructure for any new energy source is capital intensive. In fact, a 2009 Sandia National Lab report showed that the capital investment needed to build a 90 billion gallon biofuel industry was the same as the capital needed to bring the equivalent gallons of new petroleum sources to market. To raise sufficient capital for construction projects that can take years to complete requires multi-year plans and projections. Those projections usually assume a continuation of current tax and regulatory policies.

Whether the capital comes from private sources alone or from public-private partnerships, government policies must remain stable and forward looking over many years for all energy sources. The nation’s energy security and economic health are at risk if they do not.

Energy policies also need to be comprehensive. If we want viable alternatives to petroleum, we need replacements for the entire barrel of oil – meaning all of the chemicals, plastics and other products derived from oil. Current energy policy does not adequately cover production of biobased products and renewable chemicals. But Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) has recently introduced legislation that could correct this oversight.

(These comments were submitted by John Engler, President of the Business Roundtable.)

When the State Department announced its delay of the $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline last week, a decision affirmed by President Obama, many of project’s supporters wondered, “Aren’t jobs supposed to be a national priority?”

The project’s delay into 2013 (or beyond) puts 20,000 new high-wage U.S. jobs in construction, engineering and other pipeline-related fields on the sidelines. It also postpones the flow of an estimated $5 billion in new property taxes to state and local governments along the pipeline route – revenues that could help pay for the teacher and police jobs so often stressed by national political leaders.

One thing the State Department’s delay does not do is stop the production from Canada’s abundant oil sands. Asian economies like China could prove eager markets for Canadian crude oil. After all, pipelines can take oil westward to Pacific Ocean ports for shipping by tanker.

“If they [the Americans] don’t want our oil … it is obvious we are going to export it elsewhere,” Canada’s natural resources minister, Joe Oliver, told the Toronto Globe-and-Mail last week.

Neither will the State Department’s decision reduce oil imports from overseas, including countries that may pay less attention to environmental protections than Canada. The delay does nothing for U.S. energy security.

Russ Girling, TransCanada's president and chief executive officer, observed, “Supplies of heavy crude from Venezuela and Mexico to U.S. refineries will soon end. If Keystone XL is continually delayed, these refiners may have to look for other ways of getting the oil they need.”

American economic growth relies on dependable supplies of affordable energy; energy security and jobs are interrelated. The Keystone decision demonstrates that the White House has yet to find the right balance among job creation, economic growth, pragmatic environmental protection and sound energy policy.

The Administration’s delay of a decision regarding the TransCanada’s Keystone pipeline does raise some interesting policy questions.

Opposition to the pipeline (which would bring Alberta oil down to the heart of the U.S. distribution network and refinery infrastructure) is driven by two main environmental factors. The first factor being concerns about pipeline safety and construction impacts related to the pipeline crossing major Midcontinent aquifers. The second factor being concerns about the process of oil-sand development – along with the greenhouse-gas effects of that development – have led to opposition against the pipeline to consuming markets, as a delivery mechanism that would encourage that development.

In order to truly understand the issues, they need to be examined individually: Can the pipeline be built safely, perhaps with some degree of rerouting? And, what is the overall impact of delaying or prohibiting an outlet for the oil to the United States?

On the first issue, we must defer to the many experts who routinely review and approve large energy pipeline projects for the U.S. government. The U.S. energy industry has been able to build hundreds of thousands of miles of oil and gas pipelines across the country, creating one of the largest and most flexible energy-transfer networks in the world. Current issues in Congress involving pipeline safety have primarily focused on older pipelines, not new construction (which has a good record of safe and successful construction and operation). Thus, it is hard to believe that this particular pipeline could not be rerouted and safely built.

As to the second and larger issue, the impact that building/not building the pipeline would have on the pace of development of the oil sands, and on the United States economy, is significant to say the least, and makes it difficult to see the logic in holding off on putting the pipeline in place.

The following is a look at the differential impact of having or not having the Keystone pipeline (i.e., where would the U.S. be with it, vs. where would the U.S. be without it):

• It appears that Alberta’s oil sands will be developed regardless of the existence or absence of the Keystone pipeline, and subject to whatever environmental regulation or restriction the province and the Canadian federal government choose to impose—the pace of development could be faster or slower depending on the pipeline, but the oil sands are likely to be developed regardless. Thus, the impact of their development is not a differential impact based upon development of Keystone.
• Without Keystone, the resulting oil will primarily go to export markets including Japan, Korea, and China—displacing oil these countries presently buy from the Middle East. As long as the U.S. is importing any Middle Eastern oil, every barrel plus or minus from Canada has a direct impact on our displacement or requirement of an equal amount of Middle Eastern oil. Thus, any Pacific Rim oil from the Middle East displaced by the Alberta exports will likely come to the United States.
• Without Keystone, the U.S. will be differentially more dependent on imports from geographic regions much less friendly to the U.S. than Canada is, but again, there will be no material difference in Canadian environmental impact since the oil sands will still be developed—as noted earlier, the existence of the pipeline might have an impact on the pace of development, but will not determine whether development happens at all.
• The only differential environmental impact is the pipeline itself which, as noted earlier, is manageable under existing laws and procedures.]

The bottom line to this examination of the differential impact is yes, energy development should occur in a safe and environmentally responsible manner, wherever it takes place. The Canadian and Alberta governments will undoubtedly be successful in finding ways of optimizing the development of the oil sands while minimizing the environmental impacts. Yes, pipelines can be built safely, with sufficient mitigation of the impact of their construction, and we should expect EPA, DOT and others to ensure that Keystone would be sited and built correctly. And yes, massive oil reserves developed in North America, if they are to be developed under any circumstances, are most valuable if used in North America in order to reduce our dependence on overseas oil. Implications of these principles for Keystone are ultimately up to the political process, but it seems pretty cut and dry that continuing America’s progress toward greater energy independence (which this pipeline would help bring about) would be a good thing.

For President Obama, approving the Keystone XL Pipeline should have been a no-brainer. All the State Department had to do was conclude the obvious – the pipeline is in the U.S. national interest.

What other reasonable conclusion is possible? Building the 1,700-mile, shovel-ready, $7-billion, private sector-funded project would create thousands of construction jobs, stimulate tens of billions of dollars in business spending, and generate billions of dollars in tax revenues.

Once operational, the pipeline would displace oil imported from undemocratic, unfriendly, or unstable countries with up to 830,000 barrels a day of tar sands oil from our friendly, stable, democratic neighbor to the north. Canada already ships us more oil than all Persian Gulf states combined, and Keystone would significantly expand our self-reliance on North American energy.

Obama had only two policy choices. He could either disapprove the pipeline on the grounds that environmental concerns over incremental greenhouse gas emissions and oil spill risk outweigh Keystone’s substantial economic, fiscal, and energy security benefits. Or he could approve Keystone on the grounds that its benefits outweigh its potential environmental impacts.

Obama did neither. Instead, he punted a final decision until first quarter 2013, that is, after the November 2012 elections. Despite White House denials, political calculations appear to have dictated his decision not to decide.

Had Obama approved the pipeline, he would have alienated the green wing of his political base. "Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune told reporters recently that Obama’s decision on the pipeline would ‘have a very big impact’ on how the nation’s largest environmental group funnels resources toward congressional races rather than the race for the White House," Politico reported two weeks ago. Green groups made Keystone a "litmus test" for Obama. As one blogger put it, "if the president cannot stand with the environmental community against the pipeline, some say, why should they stand with him at all?"

On the other hand, had Obama disapproved the pipeline, he would have alienated parts of his union base, such as the United Association of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters. In addition, outright disapproval would make Obama more vulnerable to GOP criticism that he cares more about green ideology than about job creation and energy security.

Former Shell Oil exec John Hofmeister concisely explained Obama’s political calculus: "It’s much easier to avoid a decision than to make a decision," and delay allows Obama to dangle the hope before each group that he’ll eventually decide in their favor. Some might even work harder for his re-election, believing that Obama will approve or disapprove the pipeline in 2013 depending on which group delivers more campaign contributions and votes in 2012.

Accordingly, the political challenge for Keystone supporters is to persuade organized labor that Obama has effectively killed the pipeline already. That’s what top anti-Keystone organizer Bill McKibben proclaimed in a recent fund raising letter: "The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that we’ve been fighting for months has been effectively killed. The President didn’t outright reject the Keystone XL pipeline permit, but a few minutes ago he sent the pipeline back for a thorough re-review that will delay it ‘til 2013. Most analysts agree: the pipeline will never get built."

Although many Keystone foes in Nebraska are NIMBYs, the Occupy Washington crowd does not want it built anywhere. As actress Margot Kidder said on the day she got arrested outside the White House: “It’s bound to leak, there’s no way it’s not going to. They always assure us these things are safe, and they never are.” By that logic, no pipeline should ever be built, all should be dismantled, and, since tankers also have accidents, all commerce in oil should stop. And then we could all live in medieval squalor: Planet Saved!

Not even a failsafe pipeline would satisfy McKibben. In the same fund raising letter, he writes: "There’s no way, with an honest review, that a pipeline that helps speed the tapping of the world’s second-largest pool of carbon can pass environmental muster." He vows: "We'll be stepping up our efforts in the months ahead, expanding our work to take on all the forms of 'extreme energy' now coming to the fore around the world: mountaintop removal coal mining, deep sea oil drilling, 'fracking' for gas and oil."

McKibben seeks to create artificial shortages in the carbon-based fuels on which, like it or not, U.S. and global prosperity are going to depend for decades to come. He may even believe that a policy-induced energy crisis will finally jump-start the transition to a "clean energy future." Presidents are supposed to take a more sober view of things.

Even if the President believes there are legitimate concerns with the existing pipeline route, he should still have affirmed that it is in the U.S. national interest to expand our access to secure, increasing, non-subsidized supplies of North American energy. Instead, Obama chose to play politics with the nation’s economic and energy future.

The U.S. State Department’s announcement that it will delay making a final decision on the tar sands Keystone XL pipeline is a big win for our environment and our democracy. We strongly applaud the Obama administration’s prudent delay of this dangerous pipeline, which would increase global warming pollution. The Keystone XL pipeline is simply not in our national interest and should ultimately be rejected.

Tar sands oil is the dirtiest oil on earth. The extraction and transportation process associated with tar sands oil would produce more carbon emissions than traditional oil – while also causing extreme environmental damage along the way, including threatening the Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska.

Thankfully, the Obama administration is clearly listening to the concerns of the American people. Last week’s announcement represents a significant victory for those of us who care about protecting our environment and ushering in a clean energy future.

We look forward to working with the Obama administration to ensure that they ultimately reject this dirty pipeline and continue their work to build a clean energy economy.

Punting on Keystone XL is a mistake, but consistent with the President’s record. While touring the country blaming Congress for all his political ills, President Obama is pulling the plug on 13,000 private sector jobs, an infusion of $7 billion into the economy, and a secure supply of future oil.

Let’s start with why Obama punted on Keystone XL. The Ogallala aquifer isn’t exactly a new discovery, and this wouldn’t be the first pipeline to traverse it. The White House is playing the politics of punting not out of concern for the environment, but out of concern for their hide. The pipeline is dividing two of Obama’s key constituencies: unions that are advocating for new construction jobs, and environmentalists arguing against Canadian oil. Unable to please both sides, the president is meeting this latest challenge with his practiced response of political cowardice (see also: healthcare reform, super committee).

If the environmentalists think they’ve won, they’re foolish. Canadian tar sands will be developed, no matter who burns the oil. Instead of a steady supply from a friendly neighbor, we’re challenging Canadian producers to find another buyer. Instead of sending the tar sands oil through a pipeline to some of the most efficient refineries in the world, we’re asking Alberta oil developers to pack up their oil and ship it via freighter to China (funny how China always seems to be there to capitalize on our missed opportunities) and other Asian countries with less stringent environmental regulations. At the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Honolulu, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper noted that this delay, “does underscore the necessity of Canada making sure that we’re able to access Asian markets for our energy products.” Is this a better alternative? Instead of focusing on ways to kill the pipeline, the environmental community would have been much better charged with solving the challenges of turning tar sands into a cleaner supply.

The president’s non-decision is a meaningful blow to the energy investment climate in the United States. TransCanada has sunk $1 billion into this pipeline plan and considered – and rejected – over a dozen alternative routes to bring Canadian bitumen to Gulf Coast refineries. The administration is thumbing its nose at TransCanada with this delay in approval. If the investment that TransCanada has made is insufficient to break through the administration’s driving desire to limit fossil fuel development, what effort is enough? This delay will discourage investment in new fossil energy infrastructure as long as Obama is in the White House.

Moreover, while the administration can explore alternative routes for the Keystone XL, there’s no guarantee that TransCanada is going to stick around to see what happens. This delay means refineries may seek other sources of crude and producers may seek other means of transport. With minimal certainty on when or if the Keystone XL project will advance, existing investors are reasonably nervous. Other companies are eager to step into the void – competitor Enbridge, for example, sees this as an opportunity for more customers for its own proposed pipelines – but we have no assurance that approval of these lines would go any better.

President Obama has failed to lead meaningfully on energy and this failure forecasts a bleak future for the energy community. Obama is turning down a significant investment in jobs and energy security in exchange for political points. In the process, the White House is cultivating an environment that discourages investments in energy infrastructure and destroys confidence that major investments will pay off. President Obama is paying the price for failed economic policies and his approach to energy is but one, sorry example.

President Obama made the right decision when he placed the interests of Nebraskan farmers and ranchers over the interests of a few oil companies.

Keystone XL proponents are complaining this is a “political” decision. The last time I checked Nebraska was not a swing state. The President stood up for constituents that probably didn’t vote for him in 2008, and probably won’t do so in numbers that would deliver an electoral vote in 2012. But they are Americans. If that’s a political decision, we could use more such decisions.

This permit was being evaluated by the State Department through the prism of US-Canadian bilateral relations and oil industry infrastructure. Those are valid considerations, but to receive a Presidential Permit based on a National Interest Determination, the pipeline should be evaluated by the President, not mid-level State Department bureaucrats. What got Mr. Obama’s attention was the mobilization of thousands of his supporters pleading for him to remember his words about ending “the tyranny of oil.” If mobilizing to remind our leaders of their own promises is “political,” then again, we could use more of it in this country.

Mr. Obama saw through the hyperbole on jobs and security. It would create a few thousand jobs in an economy that needs 6 million jobs to get back to 2008 levels. By comparison, the 2^nd avenue subway project employs 16,000 temporary construction workers. When subway construction goes on hold every now and then as it has for 75 years, we don’t hear the American Petroleum Institute cry about the great tragedy for national employment levels. Nor is the pipeline a boost to US energy security. In fact, Valero and the other intended buyers of tar sands oil from KXL are planning to create an export hub in Port Arthur. KXL would provide heavy crude supply security for a few refineries. That’s not the same as energy security for Americans.

TransCanada and Canadian officials misled the State Department about this project, and the controversial nature of KXL only got to the President’s attention recently. Moreover, the Department’s process of evaluation is under investigation by the Inspector General. Under those circumstances, anything short of a delay to re-evaluate this project from the ground up would have been irrational. If risking the wrath of the most powerful industry on earth for the sake of a rational evaluation is political, we could use more politics in this country.

There is absolutely no justifiable reason behind the Administration’s decision to delay the Keystone XL pipeline construction, a project that is absolutely critical to our country’s future. The announcement flies in the face of a thorough, three-year scientific evaluation and environmental impact assessment, overwhelming public support and a long-standing regulatory approval process. So where does that leave us?

The loud, but weak, rhetoric against the project, which is perhaps the only thing the Administration is paying attention to these days, cannot stand up against even a cursory review of the facts: a full and complete Environmental Impact Statement found that the Keystone Pipeline would be one of the safest, most efficient ways to transport Canadian Oil; the same report also identified the current chosen route as the safest and best route; and finally more than a half a million positive comments have been filed on this issue to the State Department. Not surprisingly, the public is behind this project that would bring much needed jobs, energy security and affordable energy to our country.

The delay, issued by the Administration under the guise of wanting to review the science to determine the appropriate next steps and outcome, completely ignores volumes of science, which actually support the quick approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

This is yet another example of hiding behind regulatory shenanigans to thwart domestic energy development. And it smacks of politics more than policy. But why? Its hard to understand how environmental activists and their champions in the Administration continue to push an anti-energy development agenda despite a clear understanding of how important safe, reliable and balanced energy policy is to the nation, our jobs and our economy.

Our take on the delay of Keystone XL may be different if this was the only example of sacrificing energy security at the altar of politics in recent years. Unfortunately, we have seen the same when it comes to permits for exploration and production in Alaska, opening up the Atlantic and Pacific coasts for offshore development, the decision to shut down a nuclear waste repository that the government has spent billions of dollars studying for decades, and the development of a slew of environmental regulations designed to shut down coal-fired power plants nationwide. We need it all – both alternative and renewable energy sources such as advanced biofuels, wind and solar and traditional energy resources that have served our country for decades such as oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear. We cannot simply wish away the fact that hundreds of millions of Americans drive everyday to get to school, work and the grocery store – or the fact that higher gasoline and diesel prices are a drag on our already fragile economy.

We remain the only country in the world that actively blocks our ability to access domestic energy resources. Meanwhile, our economy continues to stagnate, oil prices remain high, and other countries continue to jump at the chance to access the oil that we are snubbing our noses at – who do you think is waiting in line to purchase Canadian oil sands if we do not? The Chinese are celebrating this decision.

I feel like a college student who studied for only one potential final-exam question and then sees it on the test page. This one's a no-brainer.

President Obama was correct to order that the State Department do a more thorough review of TransCanada's plans for the Keystone XL pipeline. By now, it's clear that the State Department's draft environmental impact statement was deeply flawed -- both in its scope and its execution, which was tainted by the sort of insider lobbying this Administration has claimed to shun.

Once the pipeline proposal has been properly evaluated, not just by the State Department but also by the EPA and other relevant federal agencies, President Obama will need to answer only one question to reach the right decision: Is this pipeline in the national interest of the United States of America?

Given the factors that the administration has said it will now consider -- "environmental concerns (including climate change), energy security, economic impacts, and foreign policy -- no reasonable person (or responsible president) could justify a decision that would increase tar sands development, push our climate past the brink, and enrich oil companies at the expense of the American people. As a rule, what's in the best interest of the Koch brothers and Big Oil will rarely be in the best interest of the United States.

What this decision says to me about President Obama's energy and environmental policies is that he's not ready to abandon his stated goal of moving America beyond oil and building a clean energy economy. I have never doubted that someday we will get there. But the magnificent, nationwide grassroots campaign against Keystone XL and President Obama's response have renewed my hopes that we won't arrive too late.

Dr. Bernard L. Weinstein is the associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute and an adjunct professor of business economics in the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University.

Close followers of Canada-US relations were likely disappointed by the Obama Administration’s decision to delay the Keystone XL pipeline past the 2012 election. The announcement, which caught the Canadian government off-guard, represents the latest setback in bilateral relations (another recent example was the ‘Buy America’ provision<http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110913/buy-american-in-obama-job-bill-110913/> in President Obama’s jobs bill this September).

It may be easy to brush off the impact of this decision as primarily affecting the giant landmass north of the 49th parallel, but Stephen Harper and the Canadian energy industry are not the only ones who lose from Keystone XL’s delay.

This capricious U-turn is a slap in the face to thousands of working families in the United States. President Obama’s decision has significant opportunity costs – more than 20,000 shovel-ready jobs and 118,000 thousand local jobs thereafter, in addition to meaningful economic and infrastructure investments.

It’s clear the cost-benefit calculus for President Obama was purely political. Facing a tough reelection battle, he couldn’t afford to risk losing any portion of his base – not least the extreme environmentalists who oppose any expansion of North America’s fossil fuel output.

On the flip side, he now is ignoring the real world concerns of labor, a major stakeholder in his 2012 success. Unlike millionaire celebrities, skilled pipefitters in Nebraska and others in the construction industry – facing a painful 13.3 percent unemployment rate – cannot afford to fly halfway across the country to protest in front of the White House. That doesn’t mean they don’t matter.

As for beyond 2012, it’s anyone’s guess what will happen to Keystone XL should Obama be reelected. This reversal comes after more than three years of public meetings and exhaustive environmental assessments. As noted by several media outlets, the State Department has already considered 14 alternative routes<http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-delays-keystone-pipeline-until-after-2012-2011-11-10?link=MW_story_latest_news>. Perhaps more foot-dragging will ensue until a point when the mounting costs of delay mothball Keystone XL indefinitely. While this is the ultimate aim of Washington’s environmental lobby, it won’t impact the environment, as Canada’s natural resources will definitely be developed and likely shipped to Asian markets if the U.S. refuses them.

Most importantly, we should acknowledge that this is a Pyrrhic victory for Obama as he has once again allowed politics to trump economic opportunity and energy security.

Whether President Obama was “right” or “wrong” to delay the XL oil pipeline decision is a deceiving question. Undoubtedly, there are enough significant concerns about this project that approving it now would have been highly negligent and reckless. Hitting the pause button was the most politically prudent and traditionally conservative decision. Thank you to the people in the streets for making this clear.

Yet refusing to make a final decision on XL begs the central question: what is Obama’s energy and environment agenda? What is his bottom line? What will be his legacy?

One must not look at XL in isolation. For example, the administration is seeking to ramp up oil drilling in both the devastated Gulf of Mexico and the fragile Alaskan Arctic. It has, to date, refused to regulate the dirtiest and oldest coal-burning power plants. It is at best timid, and at worst hostile, to using existing legal authority under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act and many other laws to combat climate change. The administration claims it is being pragmatic and centrist, but it appears to be bowing to the same fossil fuel corporate powers of the Bush Dynasty albeit with flowery rhetoric.

Consider the recent International Energy Agency’s report: “On planned policies, rising fossil energy use will lead to irreversible and potentially catastrophic climate change … we are on an even more dangerous track to an increase of 6°C [11°F]…. Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.” As the agency’s chief economist summarized, “We are going in the wrong direction.”

So, yes, let’s cheer the avoidance of defeat on XL last week. But no one knows where we are heading in the long term. The slog continues.

The Obama administration’s action to delay a decision for more than a year on the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline has nothing to do with environmental policy – but everything to do with electoral politics.

With extremist special interests ramping up political pressure on President Obama and generating Chicken Little hysteria over the 1,700 mile pipeline, the president and his political advisers have made a choice that goes against America’s national interest. They have chosen to make their all-consuming desire to preserve Mr. Obama’s popularity with the left wing of his party a higher priority than creating jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans through the development of Canadian oil sands.

Terry O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, told the Wall Street Journal after the Keystone XL delay was announced Thursday that the action would “inflict a potentially fatal delay to a project that is not just a pipeline but is a lifeline for thousands of desperate working men and women. The administration chose to support environmentalists over jobs – job-killers win, American workers lose.”

In addition to striking a blow against American workers who need jobs, the blatantly political action by the Obama administration to make no decision for now on Keystone XL so an alternate route can be studied strikes a blow against American consumers who need energy, and against America’s economic and energy security.

While the president gives beautiful speeches about job creation and the need for energy security and consumer protection, the ugly reality of his relentless assault on the oil, natural gas, refining and petrochemical sectors is job destruction, energy insecurity and harm to American consumers.

Instead of acting on the fate of the Keystone XL based on political science, the Obama administration has a responsibility to the American people to make a decision based on real science.

As the old saying goes, “Not to decide is to decide.” By not deciding, the Obama administration is threatening the future of an extraordinarily beneficial pipeline that would provide America with needed energy from our closest neighbor and ally Canada, and would give the U.S. economy a needed boost.

Some people have said that by delaying a decision, President Obama has punted the Keystone decision until after the 2012 presidential election. But in reality, Mr. Obama has intentionally fumbled.

Let’s look at some facts dealing with the Keystone XL pipeline:

· Pipelines are a safe, proven and reliable technology. A network of more than 168,000 miles of liquid pipelines already safely transports oil to provide vital energy to serve the American people all around our nation. The federal pipeline safety agency established 57 special conditions that the Keystone XL pipeline would have to meet – inaddition to generally established criteria – to ensure the pipeline’s safety.

· Detailed State Department environmental impact statements that are thousands of pages long concluded that the Keystone XL pipeline and the type of oil it would transport would pose no undue risk to people or the environment.

· In addition to creating 20,000 construction jobs, the Keystone XL pipeline could support close to 85,000 U.S. jobs in 2020, according to the Canadian Energy Research Institute. The institute estimates more than a half-million Americans could be working in jobs supported by Canadian oil sands investments in the United States by 2035.

· Our neighbor Canada is the largest source of oil imports to the United States, providing nearly 2 million barrels of oil a day. The proposed Keystone XL pipeline expansion would allow the U.S. to increase imports from an ally and reliable trading partner by more than 500,000 barrels per day – decreasing our nation’s reliance on imported oil from unstable regions of the world.

· There is no question that Canada will produce oil from its oil sands. Turning our back on Canada will exponentially increase the odds that this Canadian oil is shipped to China and other countries overseas. This would harm American consumers and American fuel and petrochemical manufacturers and their employees.

· The Keystone XL pipeline would help American fuel and petrochemical manufacturers continue providing vital products to the American people and continue supporting more than 2 million American jobs. Today American companies and American workers manufacture nearly all the fuels and petrochemicals that Americans use. It’s not in our national interest to have to rely on foreign nations and foreign workers for these products.

· A study last year by Barr Engineering found that shipping more Canadian oil to Asia and shipping more oil from other parts of the world to the United States would increase greenhouse gas emissions, because of the long sea voyages. Barr Engineering called this the crude oil shuffle. So using more Canadian oil in the United States would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There are absolutely no defensible reasons to delay the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline proposal has been reviewed intensively by federal agencies for three years and has been shown to be safe, environmentally sound and in America’s national interest. It’s wrong to play politics with America’s energy future and with jobs that American workers need.

In 1955, John F. Kennedy wrote Profiles in Courage, which described nine American politicians who displayed courage and individualism in the face of party and constituent pressures. Kennedy chose these men based on their willingness to risk their political careers to maintain their integrity and display love of country. In the wake of this month’s decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, President Obama would not likely qualify for a chapter in a sequel.

With 25 million Americans either unemployed or underemployed, the President’s decision is both callus and hypocritical. He has been traveling the country campaigning for his stimulus bill while unduly delaying a private sector investment that would quickly create 20,000 jobs and infuse $7 billion or more into the economy. This decision represents a triumph of environmental special interests at the expense of our economic wellbeing.

Objections raised by environmentalists are transparent in their lack of substance. Two major objections have been a threat to the Ogallala aquifer and a threat to endangered wildlife. The Keystone XL pipeline would cross the Ogallala Aquifer for some 250 miles. Currently almost 21,000 miles of pipelines cross Nebraska, including crossing the Ogallala Aquifer.

University of Nebraska hydrogeology professor Jim Goeke, has pointed out that the pipeline route would go over the far eastern portion of the Ogallala and that 75 to 80 percent of the aquifer is upgradient to the west. The eastward water flow means that it would be a physical impossibility for any oil spill to reach the vast majority of the aquifer to the west. And in the area of the proposed pipeline the aquifer is 100-300 feet below below rock formations. The location of the proposed pipeline and geological structure make any risk very low.

The wildlife hobgoblin is no more credible. Almost four decades ago, the environmental lobby used the same argument to oppose the Alyeska pipeline in Alaska. Time has shown that wildlife have thrived along its 800 mile route. One former Obama advisor, Daniel Kammen, in an act of political candor admitted “the real issue isn’t the route; it’s what’s in the pipeline.”

Environmentalists are hoping that another delay will cause TransCanada to throw up its hands, accept the loss of over $1 billion in sunk costs, and turn to an alternative that exports 700,000 barrels a day to some other country like China. Since we will not stop using oil anytime in the foreseeable future, turning away from these Canadian imports means that we will import from a less secure, less friendly country. That may be the ultimate outcome.

Thirteen alternative routes have already been considered, so the likelihood of an acceptable one now being found is not high or credible. If the Obama Administration thinks that there is one, is it willing to pay the incremental cost to develop it? If it believes that there is one area over the Ogallala that is most vulnerable, will it identify it as well as the corrective actions to reduce that risk? The answer to those questions is no because it is looking for a way to say no without saying no.

In the end, this delay is just another tactic to raise the cost of using oil products to reduce their use and make alternatives look more attractive. The continued efforts to drive out fossil energy from economic use will make our economy less competitive and consumer costs higher. President Obama has demonstrated that he may like higher employment in theory but just not actual good blue-collar jobs. Re-election and pandering has been shown to be a higher priority than an act of courage that would help the economy and jobs picture. If there was a Hall of Shame, he may qualify.