(These comments were submitted by Matthew Roy, Policy Analyst for Americans for Prosperity.)

The future of America’s energy market will be shaped by two major upcoming decisions on free trade of American Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and Canadian oil. President Obama’s energy policy should focus on long-term economic realities, not short-sighted distractions from protectionists and environmentalists. Allowing exports of domestic LNG and imports of Canadian oil will grow business, encourage employment, and increase U.S. economic investment.

Protectionists, primarily large natural gas-consuming corporations like Dow Chemical, Nucor Steel, and Alcoa Inc., are lobbying to block the creation of LNG export terminals. They argue (correctly) that exporting American LNG to the world will increase demand and likely increase the price of natural gas products. However, they miss the bigger picture. Increased global demand will be met by increased domestic supply. According to a study by consulting firm ICF International, opening exports and increasing production would create 213,000 new jobs and add $720 billion to GDP from 2015 to 2035.

Opponents also ignore the inevitability of a global natural gas price. In a joint letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, 110 members of Congress explained that other countries, like China, Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa, also have abundant natural gas reserves and want to export to the global market. At the moment, U.S. producers have significant technological, processing, and infrastructure advantages over foreign competition, but this will not last forever. Global competitors are quickly catching up and when they start exporting LNG the demand and price of natural gas will increase worldwide regardless of America’s participation. Obama should support LNG exports and allow domestic producers to capitalize on America’s position to bring more investments and jobs into the economy.

LNG exports are not the only international energy decision facing this administration. Environmentalist cheered when Obama rejected TransCanada’s permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline in 2012. Since then, TransCanada has reapplied for a permit to construct the pipeline in the U.S. Despite every state along the proposed route agreeing to the pipeline, environmentalists still oppose the project because they fear the increased carbon emissions from the oil it will transport.

Their reasoning is flawed, however, because the Canadian oil will be extracted and consumed regardless of whether Americans are allowed access to it. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has openly discussed exporting the oil to China if Obama refuses to authorize the pipeline. So if Obama rejects Keystone XL again, the net effect on the environment will likely be worse as the oil will simply be shipped to and burned in China (a country with more lax emission standards and less efficient engines than the U.S.).

The pipeline would provide a stable supply of oil that would stimulate American business and add 250,348 new permanent jobs, according to The Perryman Group financial consulting firm. Rejecting Keystone XL pointlessly denies vital resources and employment opportunities for American businesses and the 22 million unemployed.

The principle of free trade is basic economics. When individuals, firms, and even countries specialize in an area where they hold an advantage and then trade for what they do not have, the greatest number of goods is made available to the greatest number of people. All parties win when they engage in trade. In 2008, candidate Obama acknowledged, “trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development.” This is the mentality we need to see from the President now. If Obama lets American business lead, we will all benefit. If he obstructs free trade, we all lose.

The Keystone XL Pipeline has undergone a lengthy review process by the federal government over the past few years. In 2011, the State Department determined that the pipeline would have limited environmental impact and recommended to eight other federal agencies that the project be approved. And a State of Nebraska report also indicated the pipeline would have limited environmental impact in that state and the governor has approved a new route. Despite these factors, the State Department last year ultimately rejected the pipeline application – and the application still lingers in the midst of a game of bureaucratic chess.

The Keystone XL Pipeline would improve the nation’s energy security. It has the strong support of many members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, organized labor, hundreds of mayors, veterans and businesses across America, and hundreds of thousands of individual citizens who want to see the jobs and opportunities created by the pipeline -- and the energy it will transport -- realized in their communities. An affordable and reliable supply of all energy sources is essential to maintain and enhance the international competitiveness of American manufacturing, particularly in energy-intensive industries like steel. The production and transmission of energy also provides key markets for steel products which are vital to the national economic recovery.

While it was extremely disappointing that the President did not even mention Keystone in his State of the Union address, the pipeline is an opportunity for President Obama to show leadership and commitment to our nation’s energy independence and job creation. The President can end the stalemate by directing his new Secretary of State to move forward with the application. Then he should approve the Presidential Permit when it comes across his desk. Anything less puts our country’s energy development future in checkmate.

The Keystone XL pipeline will certainly enhance trade between Canada and the United States of raw crude and finished petroleum products. But proponents of the pipeline try to misconstrue the benefits with talk about “North American” energy security. Real energy security requires stable sources of fuels produced in America at affordable prices that do not sacrifice other strategic national interests. Importation of Canadian crude won’t help our balance of payment deficit either.

The Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook for 2013 (Early Release) projects continuing production growth of natural gas and liquids from tight formations – shale gas – in the U.S. That will ease consumers and businesses costs for heating and electricity, but it won’t help in the transportation sector. Refiners continue to shut down domestic refining capacity, so prices at the pump are still likely to spiral, even with the importation of marginal crude sources from Canada. Those costs will still impact our military readiness and undermine our energy security, as shown in a cogent paper from the American Security Project.

The EIA projection also clearly indicates that fuel efficiency and production of domestic biofuels make important contributions to the affordability and availability of transportation fuels in the future – achieving a real measure of energy security.

The Keystone XL pipeline should be judged on its own merits – including enhanced trade and economic growth. And that should be weighed against the environmental costs. But drop the illusion of energy security.

People often ask how the Keystone XL pipeline has become such a notorious cause. Indeed, walking the dogs the other chilly Sunday I passed two elderly protesters, still holding their signs but obviously in dire need of something hot to drink and soft upon which to rest. I think the answer to the intensity can be found in the lack of other understandable environmental issues available to protest -- if you don't live in an area where shale gas production has spawned "ban the frack!" signs in yards everywhere.

Climate change, and our failure to reach an effective international agreement to do something about it, is certainly worth protesting, but the intergenerational, international equity nature of the problem makes it harder to boil down to a sign or bumper strip. Nuclear and coal plants aren't being built, due to low natural gas prices, so no opportunity to march and chant there. If you live in the Pacific Northwest, you can scratch your protester itch by opposing coal exports, but that's about all. Beyond that, pickings are slim; especially for residents of the DMV. So Keystone is what's left. It's a pipeline, it will cover a lot of territory, and it will transport crude from oil sands -- so it's easy for your average protester to get his/her mind around.

And the fact is that the President will be panned no matter what he and Secretary Kerry decide, while the irony is the decision won't make much difference in the scheme of things. And that's not because Canada will sell the oil to the Chinese if the pipeline isn't built. The US will still consume a great deal of it, but delivery will be via less efficient means -- in fact by more greenhouse gas emissions intensive means. So even if the protesters get their way, the oil will still be consumed, it will still largely be consumed here in the US, and it will carry an even bigger carbon footprint. So please, Mr. President, issue the permit and let's move on to more substantive issues.

Oil companies would like us to believe tar sands expansion is a foregone conclusion, but economic and political realities reveal the future of the industry hinges on the Keystone XL. They need to haul their land-locked product through America’s breadbasket to the Gulf of Mexico for export in order to escape the low prices and supply glut in their current Canadian and US markets.

Numerous financial analysts and oil executives agree that the current opposition to Keystone XL is already slowing expansion. In a January report, Standard & Poor’s forecast that delays in approving new pipelines are putting future tar sands production growth at risk. TD Economics, part of a major Canadian Bank, came to a similar conclusion, calling pipeline capacity constraints “a serious challenge to its long-term growth.”

Tar sands companies can’t simply choose another route if Keystone XL gets blocked; no other viable alternatives exist right now. CIBC, a major Canadian financial services firm, recently concluded the pipelines proposals for hauling tar sands oil to Canada’s West Coast have a less than 50 percent chance of being built. The Northern Gateway pipeline to the British Columbia Coast, for instance, is highly unpopular in that province, where 60 percent of residents oppose the project and aboriginal communities have refused to grant necessary easements.

In light of pipeline opposition—and competition from new oil fields—some companies are starting to shift investments out of tar sands. Canadian Natural Resources Ltd cut capital spending by $680 million from its Horizon tar sands project last year.

If President Obama rejects the Keystone XL pipeline he could help keep this dangerous fuel where it belongs: in the ground. The production of tar sands oil generates three times as many greenhouse gases as the production of conventional crude. The EPA estimates that building the Keystone XL pipeline will increase carbon pollution by the equivalent of adding 6.2 million cars to the road for 50 years. Rejecting the pipeline would prevent an even larger amount of carbon pollution from entering our air, because as market analysts are reporting, tar sands expansion without the pipeline would not be economically feasible.

The oil and gas sector represent Canada’s fastest growing source of carbon pollution. Four different ministers over the course of seven years have promised standards for the sector’s carbon pollution, but they have never materialized. Just this month the government said they are nearing completion, but standards to actually reduce Canada’s carbon emissions and especially tar sands pollution don’t seem to be forthcoming.

We must act now to shield ourselves from the pollution that fuels climate change and the extreme weather events that are pounding our communities. More than 40,000 people gathered in Washington DC two weeks ago to urge President Obama to lead our nation forward, not backward into darker, more polluted days. He can do that by promoting clean energy and reducing carbon pollution from power plants. But he must also reject the Keystone XL pipeline so that tar sands oil can be left where it belongs: in the ground.

The Keystone XL pipeline represents high-paying jobs, affordable and secure energy, and the possibility of North American energy independence. And unfortunately, the Keystone XL pipeline is also emblematic of the Obama administration’s failed policies – an unwillingness to embrace the job-creating power of private enterprise and move forward with a true “all-of-the-above” energy strategy.

The Keystone XL pipeline is a $7 billion private-sector infrastructure project that is expected to create thousands of direct and indirect middle-class jobs. As the nation’s economy has ground to a halt, the shovel-ready project’s job creating potential is a driving force behind its broad bipartisan support among congressional Republicans and Democrats as well as several labor unions. For many Americans, this pipeline represents the opportunity of reentering the job market with a good-paying job. The Keystone XL pipeline will get thousands of Americans workers back in the field fitting pipe, building electrical lines, welding, operating heavy machinery, and delivering equipment across the 1,700-mile route. There will be additional economic benefits felt beyond the immediate area of pipeline construction, as businesses across the country will be needed to supply materials, equipment, and critical technical expertise to help with construction.

Keystone XL is also an opportunity for America to increase its access to affordable and secure North American energy supplies. Canada’s recent oil sands discoveries have been a game-changer in the energy world, placing Canada now only behind Saudi Arabia and Venezuela in proved reserves. This newfound abundance of North American energy supplies is great news for America’s energy security, national security, and our economy, but we can’t take advantage of this opportunity unless we find a way to transport Canada’s oil to the United States. The Keystone XL pipeline is the answer. Once constructed, the pipeline will carry nearly a million additional barrels of oil each day from Alberta to U.S. refineries in the Midwest and Gulf Coast.

Canada’s dramatic energy growth, combined with our shale energy boom here in the United States, has finally put the goal of North American energy independence within reach, and the Keystone XL pipeline is a key component to achieve that goal. With the Keystone XL pipeline, we have the opportunity to take control of our energy future. Keystone XL provides access to Canada’s rich oil supplies which will displace our need for imports from hostile nations overseas and help free us from OPEC’s influence.

The Keystone XL pipeline is good for jobs, energy security, and for the environment. Pipelines remain the safest and most environmentally sound way to transport oil supplies, and if constructed, the Keystone XL pipeline would be the most technically advanced and safest pipeline ever constructed. The pipeline would incorporate 57 additional safety standards proposed by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and adhere to stronger new pipeline safety standards that were signed into law, the product of legislation I helped develop along with my colleague Rep. John Dingell.

It would seem approving Keystone XL would be a no-brainer. Thousands of middle-class jobs created, millions of barrels of oil from our North American ally and neighbor, and not a dime of taxpayer money spent. But for some reason, the president has still not found a way to say “yes” to this important middle class jobs and energy project. It has now been over four years, over 1,620 days, since TransCanada first applied to the State Department to build the Keystone XL pipeline and bring jobs and energy security to America. It is well past time to build the Keystone XL pipeline.

The delay in approval for the Keystone XL Pipeline represents the Federal government’s inability figure out what is in the “national interest.” It shouldn’t be a difficult question, but it has taken the Obama administration more than four years to assess the permit application, and the president still can't seem to decide if getting more oil from Canada is in the “national interest.” Something is terribly, terribly wrong with this picture.

Recently, a number of activists protested the Keystone XL in Washington. For some, including the Sierra Club's Michael Brune, actress Daryl Hannah and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the opposition has taken a sensational turn. Fastening their hands to the White House fence with plastic zip ties, 48 environmentalist provocateurs defied law enforcement in an effort that some reports labeled a "made-for-media" protest.

As passionate as these protests may be, the reality is that the oil in Alberta will go somewhere, and no amount of plastic zip ties -- made from refined petroleum products, I might add -- will change that. The price of Western Canada Select crude oil was $68.27 last Friday compared to $95.87 for West Texas Intermediate, and more than $110 for Brent crude oil. This price difference is why the Canadian oil will find its way to market regardless of whether the Keystone XL is built. Unfortunately, those markets will be in Asia where governments have little to no concern about pollutants.

Without the Keystone pipeline, the Albertan crude oil will be transported either by tanker or by rail cars, which would be far more energy intensive and dangerous than sending the oil via pipeline. Also, with approval of Keystone, the oil sands would be refined here in the U.S., with our stricter environmental standards.

Time after time, President Obama has claimed he is serious about job creation. If this is true, approving the Keystone XL should be simple. Americans have already sent billions of dollars overseas for oil instead of having a pipeline from our biggest trading partner and strongest ally.

The Keystone XL Pipeline is the front line of a dogmatic ideological battle about whether the United States should have affordable, reliable energy. This pipeline represents the trade off between abandoning access to inexpensive energy from an ally and increasing energy costs, stifling economic growth, and reducing energy security for Americans. Ultimately, the Federal government will decide Keystone’s fate. Will Washington choose jobs and prosperity or less economic growth? Let’s hope the feds make the right choice, after an unnecessarily long wait.

The Keystone Excel Export Pipeline is the next move in a complicated chess game by the oil and gas industry to assure sky-high future prices for its products – and unaffordable fuel for the rest of us. (In their minds the devastating environmental legacy is collateral damage – but the economic hit is a key ingredient in their model. They want us to pay too much.)

American natural gas and Canadian oil producers have cartel envy – they can’t get the outrageous prices that gas and oil fetch in Europe and Asia where OPEC has and used its monopoly power to keep oil above $100 and then effectively tied the price of natural gas to this artificially exorbitant price of oil.

North American producers are landlocked – tar sands oil can’t get to deep-water ports, and natural gas doesn’t have export capacity – so they must be satisfied with US prices. Oil in the Midwest runs about $15-$20/barrel less than OPEC gets. Natural gas is arguably underpriced– currently about $3 mcf, but a more stable $5-6 is still a fraction of the $19 OPEC extracts in Tokyo for LNG.

Exporting Canadian oil is the first step towards importing higher OPEC prices. The second step, already underway, is to obtain permission and build facilities to export US natural gas to Asia. And the third step, being teed up, is to allow the direct export of US crude oil to Asian and European OPEC markets, currently banned by US law.

Keystone is the linch-pin to the whole strategy. In addition to giving Canadian producers, including folks like the Koch Brothers, global markets and OPEC prices, Keystone also solidifies the alliance between the multinational oil majors, Canadian production and US refiners – creating an intimidating North American petroblock. And, conveniently, it soaks up excess refinery capacity in Texas, thereby helping make the bogus case for allowing domestic US tight oil – from the Bakken or Eagle Ford – to be exported, on the grounds that there isn’t enough refinery capacity in the US.

I say the bogus case because there is lots of refinery capacity on the East Coast – but Canadian and US oil companies don’t want to ship oil around Florida to be refined in New Jersey, because that would require them to hire US tankers and US crews. These not-so-patriotic multinational players have no use whatsoever for using the US except as a location out of which – or across which – to extract oil and gas. Indeed, in sourcing steel for the Keystone, its owners didn’t even ALLOW US or Canadian steel manufacturers to bid – only the Indians and Chinese were allowed to apply.

So what the oil and gas industry want is a bit hard to follow:

1) We will import Canadian tar sands bitumen we don’t want or need,

2) In order to lock-up refineries that domestic producers in the US will require, creating an artificial refinery shortage, and then exporting the refined gasoline and diesel. We will simultaneously sell low carbon natural gas cheaply to be converted to high carbon and expensive Asian LNG. This will raise US natural gas prices, giving away our current biggest competitive edge in manufacturing and raising costs for businesses and homes and electrical utilities.

3) By raising natural gas prices and exporting it, we will also foreclose the option of using cheap domestic gas to replace expensive imported oil as a transportation fuel.

4) Because of the refinery shortage created in (2) we will then allow the oil industry to export US produced tight oil from North Dakota or Texas to Europe,

5) This avoids hiring US ships and crews to ship it to New Jersey to be refined by American workers. Once it gets to Europe, this oil will be able to command OPEC prices, but without paying any US wages.

6) More expensive gasoline refined from either Canadian or US oil, or from the Middle East, will be shipped back, fully marked up, to the US, to fuel cars and trucks. These vehicles could have filled up with Canadian oil (at pre-Keystone, lower Midwestern prices), or powered with North Dakota tight oil refined in Gulf Coast refineries not clogged with export designated tar sands bitumen, or even equipped to burn much cheaper, lower carbon domestic natural gas.

If this seems crazy, notice the common thread -- oil and gas wants OPEC prices, and they can’t get them in a North American market. Only by linking to OPEC controlled global markets can industry get the excess profits it wants. This is a sophisticated high-price set of moves – and they could easily work.

Washington is about to give oil its way. All signs suggest that the President is seriously considering, even leaning towards, approving Keystone, as a way to keeping peace with the Harper Government in Canada, our Northern neighbor’s equivalent of the Tea Party, complete with its petro-funding and climate denial. The DOE EIS prepared on the pipeline a year ago actually argues that the fact that Keystone will raise oil prices in the Midwest by $20/barrel is a good thing, because it makes world oil markets more “efficient”, by which DOE meant everyone pays the OPEC price. The recent federal analysis of exporting natural gas concluded that, hey, it couldn’t hurt anything, because we don’t have any way to use that gas in the US. For example, the DOE study ignored the question of whether it is a good idea to use natural gas in trucks, saying, “This sector (trucking) has limited ability to substitute other fossil fuels.” Meanwhile, Daimler US in Portland Oregon says if we only built a natural gas distribution network, it could not keep its natural gas trucks in stock, because the fuel is so much cheaper than diesel.

It’s time for everyone to wake up. Transportation fuel doesn’t have to cost $4 a gallon. The oil industry is terrified prices might fall. They want government to bail them out, and guarantee permanent high prices. That’s what the phrase “North American Energy Independence” means – unifying the US and Canadian markets for export, so that OPEC prices can finally reach Denver.

And the government is about to give them what they want.

President Obama went to Cushing, Okla., nearly one year ago. He stood in front of neat rows of pipe and promised Americans his administration would pursue an all-of-the-above approach to energy. Approving the Keystone XL pipeline would be a sizable down payment on that pledge while sending global markets a message the United States is serious about securing its energy future.In terms of energy, the Keystone XL would bring more than 800,000 barrels of oil per day to U.S. refineries. That’s oil from Canada, but also U.S. oil from North Dakota – because the pipeline would pick up about 25 percent of its capacity from the Bakken region. This is oil our country needs to run our economy and support our modern way of life, and every drop we can get from Canada and produce domestically is oil we don’t have to import from elsewhere.

Americans get the Keystone XL’s critical energy and economic role. A recent Harris Interactive poll pegged support for the project at 69 percent – support that was reflected across political affiliation, age and gender. Americans see this shovel-ready project as a job creator and shot in the arm for our economy. Builder TransCanada estimates the full project will create 20,000 new U.S. jobs and, according to the Canadian Energy Research Institute, the pipeline would be integral to oil sands development that could create 117,000 new American jobs by 2035. These are big numbers – especially for U.S. construction workers for whom the current unemployment rate is a staggering 16 percent.

There’s no question our strategic energy partnership with Canada also is being put to the test with this decision. Canada’s leaders expect the full Keystone XL to be approved. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has called the project’s approval a “complete no-brainer.” Alison Redford, Alberta’s premier, was in Washington last week talking about the pipeline and her country’s commitment to the environment, which is considerable. The pipeline itself would have virtually no greenhouse gas emissions, while Canadian oil sands crude has similar CO2 emissions to other heavy oils and is only 6 percent more intensive than the U.S. crude supply average, measuring emissions from production through combustion. Bottom line: Canada wants to sell its oil to the U.S., but they’re committed to exporting it to others if the United States says no.

The Keystone XL pipeline symbolizes many things: thousands of new U.S. jobs, significant economic investment and a great opportunity to strengthen our energy security. Completion of the full, 1,700-mile project would significantly advance each of these goals. After more than four years of review, Americans who overwhelmingly support building the pipeline are frustrated. The right choice is to approve the full pipeline, put thousands of Americans to work and make our energy future more secure.

The disingenuous opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline must be well acquainted with the saying, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” Over the past three years, the American people have heard a myriad of unsubstantiated claims to oppose the pipeline, none of which are supported by facts or science.

Facts –not overblown rhetoric and political pressure—should be the basis for the Obama Administration’s decision on the pipeline. The Keystone pipeline truly has the ability to unite all Americans along out common goals – more American jobs, lower gas prices, a stronger economy and more energy independence for the United States.

Over the past three years, anti-development activists have cited safety concerns, environmental impact on the Sand Hills, and the reliability of the drinking water in the Ogallala aquifer as arguments against Keystone. If nothing else, anti-development activists are consistently fickle, abandoning their sinking ship of false claims and jumping on board with a new, more improved idea. Clearly, opposition to Keystone by the environmental lobby has little to do with pipeline safety, and everything to do with a broader anti-oil agenda.

The most resent fabrication focuses on the carbon footprint of the pipeline. Yet, what many Keystone opponents fail to understand is that independent of their wishes, Canada will develop its oil sands. The alternative for domestic production is refining in locations outside of the EPA’s regulation, most likely China. The pipeline will provide a very cost-effective way to move petroleum and products, as well as ensuring higher environmental standards, especially when compared to alternative methods (ie. truck, tanker, or barge). By embracing the pipeline as an asset, our nation can buy a product made in the USA, rather than support our dependence on foreign oil.

There is no debating the fact that America needs safe and reliable energy and jobs. The Keystone Xl pipeline can provide both. If we turn our back on this important source of energy, we will only be imposing economic sanctions on ourselves.

The Keystone XL pipeline has unfortunately become the centerpiece of our nation’s overall conversation about the energy and environment nexus. Rather than a simple decision about a pipeline approval and the jobs and economic opportunity it brings, the final decision regarding Keystone XL will be one of the first big tests of the President’s second term. And the question still remains. Will the President side with labor organizations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the journal Nature and nearly 70% of U.S. residents that support the Keystone XL pipeline? Or, will he side with ideologically driven organizations who are working to derail the pipeline in an effort keep fuel prices high, and “that carbon in the ground.”

With gas prices rising more than 50 cents in the past nine weeks, well ahead of the summer driving season, Americans and the President should seriously consider a project that will bring a reliable source of crude oil to U.S. markets. When crude oil makes up 80% of the price of a gallon of gas, a pipeline that delivers 700,000 barrels of oil a day can have a big impact – particularly when that oil is priced at a very significant discount the overseas oil that we are bringing in from the Middle East. In addition to running up to $50 per barrel cheaper than Middle Eastern crude, it is not subject to regional instability and comes from a friend and ally which shares our world view.

Activists claim that stopping the pipeline will keep Canada’s oil sands in the ground thereby decreasing additional carbon emissions. Here again the facts tell a different story. Take for example the following, the energy sector accounts for 6.8 percent of Canada’s GDP. Over the past three years Asian investments in the oil sands have exceeded $15 billion, a staggering sum. This prompted Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to visit China last year where he discussed ways to expand trade with the Chinese for sources of Canadian energy. This makes sense, with billions invested the Chinese are just as eager to develop the oil sands as the Canadians. In fact, given all of this it becomes hard to envision how these two powerful nations would simply walk away from a project that is so clearly in their joint interest.

If these nations don’t walk away from the oil sands, which they likely won’t, a study conducted by Barr Engineering notes that shipping more Canadian oil to Asia, and shipping more oil from the Middle East to the United States, would increase greenhouse gas emissions because of the long sea voyages that would be required. This phenomenon would result in GHG emissions that are approximately twice as high as would be the case otherwise for crude transport. While the study was designed to quantify the impacts of a federal Low Carbon Fuel Standard, the phenomenon would apply to blocking the Keystone XL project as it would induce the same crude shuffling.. A restricted market that arbitrarily diverts Canadian crude to the Pacific rim and replaces it in the U.S. with oil from the Middle East.

Further, Canada contributes just 2 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases, and the oil sands account for a bit more than 5 percent of this amount. Comparing this to China, a nation that emits 25% of all carbon spewed into the air across the globe, makes it clear why activists efforts will do little to change the global mix of carbon emissions. This one simple fact provides a lot of credence to a recent Washington Post editorial which declared: “Mr. Obama should ignore the activists who have bizarrely chosen to make Keystone XL a line-in-the-sand issue, when there are dozens more of far greater environmental import.”

The State Department is currently conducting its review of TransCanada’s application for a permit to build Keystone XL. We hope that they will do so expeditiously and that President Obama will give the project a green light. In addition to being the safest pipeline project ever proposed, it will create high-paying American jobs, provide a significant boost to our wobbly economy and help reduce prices at the pump.

(This response was authored by Operation Free spokesman Dan Nolan.)

Twenty-two House Democrats announced Feb. 15 that they’re forming a Safe Climate Caucus. A member of the caucus will speak on the House floor about the effects of climate change every day that the chamber is in session.

Two days before, 50 people — including actress Daryl Hannah — were arrested after handcuffing themselves to the gates of the White House in a climate change protest.

And on Sunday, thousands of people bused into Washington from all over the country to march on the National Mall to urge Congress to work with the president to “start his second term with strong climate action.”

Too often, our efforts to address the dangers of climate change have been obstructed by theatrics from groups on both sides of the spectrum attempting to politicize the issue.

As a retired colonel in the U.S. Army who served in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, I’ve identified and confronted national security threats my entire career. Addressing climate change is a national security imperative that will take more than a divided offensive; it requires immediate action and cooperation across the political spectrum on Capitol Hill and at the White House.

A consensus of national security and military leaders recognize climate change as a threat to our national security. As the Department of Defense reported, climate change will “act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden on civilian institutions and militaries around the world.” Rising coastlines will create refugee crises in some of the world’s poorest countries. More frequent and extreme weather events, like the devastating flood in Pakistan in 2010 or Hurricane Sandy last year, will drain budgets and cost lives. Resource scarcity will spark conflict and raze fragile states across the globe. A lack of food and clean water will cause populations to migrate, and that is a harbinger of war.

The U.S. military will be involved in nearly every crisis precipitated or exacerbated by climate change, whether to provide disaster relief and recovery assistance at home, secure vital strategic interests abroad, or maintain international shipping lanes that are the lifeblood of global commerce. The U.S. will continue to rely on our military installations and garrisoned personnel as the first line of defense to citizens displaced by increasingly vicious storms. Every day, our armed forces grow more involved in counterterrorism activities in climate hot spots, like the battle against al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Our men and women in uniform will have to bear this burden, and we must come together to lessen the weight.

America remains the world’s most powerful nation because our singular commitment to innovation has never wavered. The U.S. military is bringing that commitment to the front lines. The Department of Defense is developing and implementing new technologies that minimize the military’s carbon “bootprint,” diversify its energy sources and reduce its demand for fossil fuels. The Air Force and Army are increasing the fuel efficiency of their thousands of combat, transport and support vehicles. The Navy is investing in advanced biofuels so it can power its ships and aircraft with fuels created and refined in America, instead of ones shipped from abroad. And Marines in Afghanistan are using compact solar technologies and developing enhanced energy storage solutions to reduce the number of fuel convoys supplying their combat outposts.

Congress — both Democrats and Republicans — and every climate advocate in America should follow the military’s lead in focusing on energy innovation. We have an opportunity to maintain our global leadership, fortify our economy and address our contribution to climate change through clean energy development. Advanced energy accounted for more than $1 trillion in revenue worldwide in 2012. But, while clean energy investment has soared in Western Europe and Asia, political partisanship has impeded our ability to tap into renewable resources here at home. As President Barack Obama said in his second inaugural address, “we cannot cede to other countries the technology that will power new jobs and new industry — we must claim its promise.”

Seizing the opportunity to strengthen our national and economic security will require serious, rational and urgent discussion. Obama brought climate change back into the national spotlight in his inaugural address and State of the Union. Now it’s time for Congress to work with the president to get the job done. Together with one voice, we must ensure that our future security and prosperity transcend the politics of the moment. Our military leaders understand how to put differences aside to get the job done. Our leaders in Washington must meet the standard they set.

The claim that global warming is a reason to oppose the Keystone pipeline has no more credibility than claims that we need to be on the lookout for zombies. Even the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently admitted that there had been no global warming in the past 17 years.

Advocates assert that 17 years is too short a period to draw definitive conclusions, arguing instead for 30 to 40 years. This caution might have some credibility if the same people had not rushed to judgment in 1989, asserting that global warming was a serious problem that had to be dealt with immediately. They had conveniently forgotten that in the mid to late 70’s, there was widespread scientific concern that we might be re-entering another little ice age. Advocates simply cannot have it both ways.

They also conveniently overlook the fact that U.S. CO2 emissions are not rising and are not expected to return to 2005 levels until 2035, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Robbed of any domestic climate benefit, opponents of the Keystone Pipeline are basing their opposition on rising global emissions. But for this argument to have any validity, two conditions would need to exist. First, the scientific basis for concluding that CO2 emissions were a serious climate problem would have to be stronger. It is not; it is weaker.

Second, advocates would need a convincing reason to stop the production of Canada’s oil sands. They don’t. Canada’s economic interest is served by producing its oil sands and developing the technologies that will come into play to further mitigate externalities associated with that production. If the oil sands are going to be produced, the only question is where the oil goes, how it is used and what difference that makes from an environmental risk prospective.

If Keystone opponents were really interested in reducing environmental risks, they should be lobbying the Obama Administration to stop slow-walking the approval process and expedite it.

The alternative to shipping oil via pipeline to the U.S. and refining it in our refineries is to ship it to China on tankers and refine it in Chinese refineries. Once usable, Chinese vehicles and facilities oil that are not as concerned with the same environmental quality standards will consume that oil. Is that really a better scenario for the environment?

At a time when the economy is moving sideways and unemployment remains at an unacceptable level of almost 8%, the continued opposition to this project is irresponsible. These opponents are so blinded by their opposition to fossil energy that they are willing to sacrifice long-term economic benefits to pursue their short-sighted and disastrous agenda.

As a nation, we have always prospered by taking a balanced approach to the major challenges that impact us. We will continue this approach because single-issue extremism rarely produces good outcomes, regardless of whether it is coming from zealots on the right or left. Energy is essential for economic growth and the energy that these zealots favor does not exist at commercial scale levels and is not commercially viable. Approving Keystone is critical as it will set a precedent for our future efforts to build a sound energy infrastructure.

The Keystone Pipeline decision represents much that is wrong with energy/environmental decision-making in the United States.

On its face, there should be no question about Keystone. It’s in our economic interests to encourage the line, to generate jobs and income, to encourage Canadian development of a large and secure source of oil, to reduce the cost of oil to the U.S., and to encourage the domestic refining industry. It appears too that environmental problems associated with Keystone other than carbon emissions have been resolved.

But the environmental community objects to the line nonetheless. They want the President to veto it on grounds that its development will release more carbon dioxide from oil sands than otherwise would occur. Basically, they hope to prevent Canadians from developing their oil sands further by choking off export elsewhere.

This is not how to conduct economic/environmental policy tradeoffs. Indeed, it is a poor way to manage economic development, international relations and environmental control. The United States should be able to do better.

The social cost of carbon should be made explicit to everyday decision-makers. That means pricing carbon to the extent its release imposes a cost on the rest of us. Whether this is done through a carbon tax or some other mechanism is of secondary importance, though the tax approach is by far the most open and straightforward.

What should not be done is to render judgment on a series of individual projects, allowing some but vetoing others, partially based on statistical projections but mainly on the relative power of opposing lobbies. It isn’t hard to see where such a process leads. To a political process where obtaining access to decision-making power is worth millions if not billions of dollars, and to a government decision-making process where money and propaganda dominate.

Many economists believe that the pricing of carbon is beyond America’s political reach. I’m not so sure. British Columbia has instituted a carbon tax where the proceeds are more than returned to taxpayers. So far it seems to be working. Are we so politically inferior to that province that we can’t do the same?

Similar to the Alaska drilling fights of earlier years, the Keystone XL pipeline has stepped into the "symbol" ring of Washington, DC energy politics. As usual, lots of claims, very little substance. The pro-XL lobby claims the pipeline will lower petroleum prices and have positive economic consequences - neither is really true. This oil goes into the world market and would have some stabilizing effect on global oil prices, but not much as global growth still will exceed new supply. Claims of actual US jobs are inflated with the only solid analytical study showing 2500 jobs for two years, and obviously some refining jobs in Texas. But the US is a pass-through processor and thus this Canadian oil has no impact on our balance of trade. If the pipeline doesn't get built, the Canadians will pipe to their west coast. And that's the conundrum President Obama has - there is no way the tar sands are not going to be exploited if the US blocks the pipeline - delayed slightly, yes, but not stopped. Now, our changing global climate is real, and use of these tar sands is as bad as burning coal in terms of atmospheric carbon release. But I am skeptical that the Administration will block it for that reason alone since Republican governors are now accepting minor pipeline route changes believing it now less threatens our country's largest aquifers. Of course in convenient hindsight, the passage of the 100-page Cantwell-Collins cap and dividend bill would have addressed this problem forthrightly. Rather than the 1100 page House-passed climate bill, this elegant bill would only create a "cap and trade" system at the domestic well and mine mouth and at our ports and entry ways of fossil fuels entering our country - some 2500 entities. These sources of fuel would increase in cost but each and every taxpayer would get the "dividend" at year end to compensate for that increase.

Every president since Richard Nixon has chanted the mantra of energy independence. But this time, it could actually happen. Thanks to hydraulic fracturing in shale plays and deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, domestic oil production reached its highest level since 1991 last year while natural gas output set a record for the fifth consecutive year. Five years ago we were importing 60 percent of our oil needs, but today the percentage is about 43 percent with less than a fifth of our imports coming from outside the western hemisphere. Friendly Canada is by far our largest supplier of imported crude, and the oil sands of Alberta are estimated to hold the second largest reserves in the world.

In 2009, President Barack Obama referred to oil and gas as “yesterday’s energy” and touted renewables as the energy of “tomorrow.” To that end, wind, solar, biofuels and electric vehicles have received $150 billion in subsidies since Mr. Obama took office. Then a year ago the President stated he was committed to an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy. But in his recent inaugural and state-of-the union addresses, he again reiterated his commitment to “sustainable energy sources.” Will Mr. Obama double-down on renewables during his second term, or will he acknowledge that fossil fuels will remain our primary energy sources for the foreseeable future and support policies that encourage their development?

The White House’s decision on the Keystone XL pipeline will indicate whether or not the president is serious about an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy. This pipeline, which will enable Canada to send more of its oil from Alberta to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast, is a critical component of North America’s energy infrastructure because it will allow the substitution of reliable Canadian crude for unreliable Venezuelan crude. What’s more, it will help move some of North Dakota’s abundant crude oil, much of which is currently being hauled in tanker cars, to markets in the Midwest. The Keystone decision will be particularly telling because for the environmental community, who unanimously oppose it, the pipeline has become their litmus test for the president’s commitment to green energy.

In view of growing political unrest and uncertainty in the Middle East, and an uptick in terrorist attacks against oil and gas facilities in the Maghreb, the prospect of North American energy independence should be embraced by politicians and pundits of all stripes, including President Obama. By approving the Keystone XL pipeline, removing unreasonable restrictions on offshore drilling, reining in the EPA, and encouraging LNG exports, the White House can accelerate the timeline for North American energy independence while simultaneously stimulating our moribund economy.

Sometimes in life, you need to say “no.” Such is the case with approval of Keystone XL Pipeline, which would transport millions of gallons of the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel every single day, and devastate both our environment and our economy for generations to come. The President needs to say “no” or else make, perhaps, the biggest political blunder of his career.

But let’s step back and try to define what this debate is really about. Both sides are very dug in. The lines of attack are familiar, almost banal. Here’s my key fact: at some point, our self-proclaimed greatest country on earth needs to get off the fossil fuel habit. It won’t be easy. It won’t be simple. Yet, it unequivocally needs to happen. The United States is by far the largest emitter of per-capita greenhouse pollution in the world, this pollution is causing extreme harm, and we must end it. Period. No reputable scientist disagrees with this point.

Now, admittedly, not everyone agrees with science. Some Republican members of Congress and groups like the American Energy Alliance either don’t believe in or are completely unfazed by complete change. To them, every last ounce of fossil fuel is on this planet to burn. Others like the American Petroleum Institute claim to be slightly worried about climate change but now brag that the United States has done enough (really, what exactly is THAT, Jack Gerard?) and then tout the jobs Keystone will bring (conveniently padding the pockets of API’s members at the same time). Still others wring their hands and say it’s a “tough call” as a means of clinging to some vague notion of a political center in America. Bull.

That’s right, hesitation over Keystone is bullshit. Here’s why: the United States is now in the midst of the greatest energy boom in its history. We are drilling for natural gas and shale oil at an unprecedented rate in almost every corner of the country. Obama rode this corporate cash cow to re-election (much like Bill Clinton did with the high-tech explosion in the 90s) and we are drilling so much natural gas that we now want to export a large portion of it. So much for previous worries about “American energy independence”! Now it’s a full-on embrace of drilling gluttony and international trade bragging rights. (Obama by the way is wrong about his natural gas love affair, but that’s another more complicated story for another day).

So, we are NOT building the Keystone pipeline because we need the energy source. We are not threatening a highly significant clean water aquifer because we need the energy source. We are not taking people’s land by eminent domain because we need the energy source. We are not destroying thousands if not millions of acres of wildlife habitat, not to mention risking the statistical certainty of oil spills, because we need the energy source. Let’s not delude ourselves. We are proposing the Keystone dirty tarsands pipeline because a very few WELL connected energy moguls are going to get VERY rich if Obama caves.

What about the jobs? Even the State Department’s review documents admit that there won’t be that many jobs and those that occur will be temporary. Voluminous economic studies clearly indicate we’d get far more jobs by investing in clean energy and smart grid programs from solar, wind and geothermal. It’s not even close. The Keystone debate is NOT about jobs.

And this leads precisely to the conclusion that sometimes you just need to say NO. No more dirty fuels when they are not truly necessary. No more massive and costly infrastructure to support more addiction. No more infatuation with the allure of short-term jobs that lead us in the wrong direction of sustainable future job growth.

My dear America, wake up, the last violent thrashes of old fossil fuel titans are intimidating and fooling you. We do not need Keystone. Approval would set us back decades on many fronts. Only a few existing billionaires would really benefit from Keystone. No, stopping Keystone won’t win us the fight against climate change by itself, but losing the Keystone fight will make the larger battle against global warming virtually impossible. Let’s stand up for our rights, our children and our country’s future. Today is the first day of the rest of our life. It’s time to take the first clean step. We can do it. Say “no” to Keystone, Mr. President.

While the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline is still unclear, one thing is certain: whatever decision the Obama Administration makes will elicit howls of criticism. The debate is now about more than a pipeline. It goes to the very heart of energy and economic policy in the United States and environmental policy worldwide. It also highlights a long-standing tension in the current Administration between a desire to harness the unforeseen boon of resurgent hydrocarbon production for economic growth and to pursue its goal of lower-carbon development.

The supporters of Keystone XL emphasize both its employment and energy security benefits. That there will be some near-term economic benefits to approving Keystone is not in doubt. But the scale and longevity of these benefits are open to question. With the Administration’s understandable prioritization of job creation in its policy making, a lucrative trade has sprung up in quantifying the number of jobs a certain project or sector will create. For the most part, these estimates are exercises in creative thinking, bounded only by the imagination of consultants in their definitions of “direct”, “indirect” and “induced” jobs. Depending on whom you believe, the Keystone XL will createhundreds of thousands of jobs or may have a negative net effect on employment.

On the energy security front, the case is equally hazy. In late 2011, many of the most vocal proponents of Keystone XL highlighted the benefits that of 800,000 barrels a day of additional Canadian oil would bring to the import-dependent United States. Today, the United States is still dependent on imports and will remain so for the foreseeable future. But in the intervening year, domestic oil production has surged. Last month, U.S. oil production exceeded 7 million barrels a day, up from an average of 6.1 million barrels a day in January 2012, when the original application for the pipeline was rejected. With a de-facto ban on crude oil exports, U.S. oil has to be processed in U.S. refineries (with some small exceptions for shipments to Canada), leading U.S. some refiners to reconfigure their plants to handle the light sweet crude that is produced from shale plays. As John Kemp, a Reuters market analyst pointed out earlier this month, “The problem for Keystone is that its original rationale of exporting oil to the United States has disappeared.” Like others, he sees the most likely market for the Keystone XL’s Alberta oil in China.

On the other side of the ledger, the environmental case for rejecting Keystone also seems overdrawn – at least at first sight. While the carbon intensity of the oil created from Alberta tar sands is higher than average (the extent to which it is so is also a matter of fierce debate), blocking Keystone XL will do very little to directly address the very real problem of the unsustainable growth in global carbon emissions. For many environmentalists, Keystone XL has become a lightning rod: many of the people who made their (jet-fuel or gasoline-powered) way to Washington DC last weekend to protest the pipeline see an opportunity to rail against hydrocarbons in general; some protesters even had placards criticizing nuclear power. As proponents of the pipeline will argue, the problem of carbon is a global one. The marginal increase in emissions that will come from permitting Alberta oil to enter the market, the proponents of the pipeline correctly point out, is as nothing compared with the huge increases carbon dioxide emissions coming from other parts of the emerging world. Yes, the challenge of carbon emissions has to be addressed, but why is the Obama Administration looking at this single pipeline – one of thousands that already crisscross the United States – as an opportunity to advance its climate agenda? Why not let the market work?

The answer to this question goes deeper than the molecules that would be transported down the pipe. It goes to the root of the role of public policy, and the challenge of collective action. If the Obama Administration believes that rising global carbon dioxide levels are an existential problem, and that there is currently a market failure in the externalization of the costs associated with production and use of fossil fuels, its job is to use public policy – both domestic and foreign – to correct the imbalance. The most widely accepted means of addressing the externalized cost of emissions is through the implementation of a carbon tax. However, pace Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders, the prospects of such a tax getting through the U.S. legislature under current circumstances are slim to none. This situation has implications beyond the borders of the United States: without serious American engagement on climate measures, the rest of the emerging (i.e. poorer) world has an understandable reluctance to impose costs on its own economic growth and relative competitiveness. In the absence of a legislated market-based solution, the Administration is faced with a decision: does it continue to exhort the nation to take the threat of climate change seriously hoping that the message will eventually get through, or does it take action where it can to address the problem (albeit at the margins), knowing that the world is watching for signs of U.S. leadership?

There have been some suggestions that the president may look to use the approval of Keystone XL as a bargaining chip for moving forward with his environmental agenda, either in the form of some kind of tax levied on Canadian oil at the border (a proposal that is fraught with potential WTO complications) or support for an economy-wide domestic carbon tax. As we argued in a recent paper, the practical conditions for such a grand bargain on energy and environment seem ripe. Political conditions, on the other hand, seem anything but.

It may be just look like 1200 miles of steel pipe, but whether or not Keystone XL is approved – and with what, if any, provisions attached – will set the tone for the second Obama Administration’s approach to energy and climate with long-lasting domestic and international consequences.