Obama administration expected to reject Keystone XL pipeline permit today
Thousands of demonstrators opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline listen to speakers in Lafayette Park across from the White House in Washington, DC, November 6, 2011.
/ KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty ImagesUpdated 2:29 p.m. Eastern Time
The Obama administration is expected to reject TransCanada's permit for the controversial $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline later Wednesday, a source familiar with the decision told CBS News, adding that a formal announcement is expected from the State Department.
Multiple media outlets have reported that the decision is imminent, citing unnamed sources, but the White House and the State Department have not confirmed an announcement, and a State Department spokesperson said early Wednesday afternoon that "as of 30 seconds before I walked in here my understanding was that a decision had not yet been made."
As part of deal last December extending the payroll tax cut for two months, Congress imposed a Feb. 21 decision on President Obama to issue or reject the permit. Language in the deal mandates that only the president can block the Keystone Pipeline project, and the impact of any State Department announcement is not clear. Shares in TransCanada Corp fell following initial reports about a decision.
While the administration plans to reject a permit for TransCanada to build the pipeline under the current proposal, the company could apply for backing for an alternate route for the planned 1,700 mile underground oil pipeline linking the tar sands fields of northern Alberta to oil refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast.
While environmentalists have strongly opposed the pipeline, Republicans have pushed hard for it. In response to early reports of the decision, Texas governor and White House hopeful Rick Perry said, "the president's focused more on the next election than on the next generation," saying the decision "sends a horrible message" at a time of rising gas prices.
"President Obama's decision to reject the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline is as shocking as it is revealing," added Mitt Romney, who is also seeking the GOP presidential nomination. "It shows a President who once again has put politics ahead of sound policy.If Americans want to understand why unemployment in the United States has been stuck above 8 percent for the longest stretch since the Great Depression, decisions like this one are the place to begin."
The Obama administration has long said it would not have enough time to make a final decision under the Congress-imposed deadline, and has accused Republicans of using the issue for political gain. It says that current law prevents it from moving more quickly on permitting with additional environmental reviews necessary.
"It's a fallacy to suggest that the president should sign into law something when there isn't even an alternate route identified in Nebraska" and with the review process incomplete, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday. He said Congressional Republicans have attempted to "short-circuit the review process in a way that does not allow the kind of careful consideration of all the competing criteria."
Backers of Keystone XL say it will increase America's domestic oil production with the help of a friendly ally and create tens of thousands of jobs in the process. Organized labor has teamed up with the oil industry to back the pipeline, and both have been pressuring the Obama administration for approval.
Critics of the pipeline say it will have a hugely negative impact on the environment and potentially put large portions of the U.S. water supply at risk, including a key aquifer in Nebraska. They also say it will not lower oil prices because the international market will simply adjust supply to account for increased production.
"Assuming that what we're hearing is true, this isn't just the right call, it's the brave call," said Bill McKibben, one of the leaders of protests against the pipeline. "The knock on Barack Obama from many quarters has been that he's too conciliatory. But here, in the face of a naked political threat from Big Oil to exact 'huge political consequences,' he's stood up strong."
The White House has said that an alternate route away from the aquifer in Nebraska has yet to be identified, and thus a decision about a permit doesn't make sense.
Popular in Politics
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 671 Comments
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
- Obama to view Oklahoma tornado damage Sunday
- House passes GOP bill to speed Keystone XL pipeline approval
- WH says criticism of its handling of IRS story is "legitimate"
- Former Miss America might challenge McConnell
- Drones, Gitmo part of broad Obama counterterrorism speech
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
NO...NO...NO...NO...not even close, even though NY is the 2nd highest for gasoline taxes in the U.S.
What a bunch of hooey!
First off, GASoline taxes are in cents -- not percentage like PROFITS.
ALL states have a 18.4 CENTS per gallon federal tax.
State GASoline taxes vary from 49.6 CENTS in Connecticut to 8 CENTS per gallon in Alaska.
The National AVERAGE -- state plus federal GASoline tax -- 48.9 CENTS
New York - 49.5 CENTS state tax PLUS 18.4 CENTS federal tax = 67.9 CENTS per gallon, or at the current $3.35/gal, or 20.3%
Please try and keep your useless propaganda to yourself!
BTW, here's the latest GASoline taxes by state:
http://www.commonsensejunction.com/notes/gas-tax-rate.html
Still, 20% taxes and less 10% profits. So the government is making twice as much as the companies that are providing the product.
I was off almost as much as you were with $15 to produce a gallon of gasoline.
Who benifits from low fuel prices the most? Could be the poor! Not only by spending less of their pay check on fuel but also because food transportation costs are directly tied to fuel costs. Not to mention the whales; the demand for whale fat dropped immensely with he introduction of petroleum refining.
Truth is that oil companies have improved the quality of life and standard of living. You probably can't even imagine a life without petroleum or other mined products. You are surrounded by products that were mined from the ground. If it wasn't mined it was grown. If it was grown, chances are it was fertilized with products that were mined.
Now the framers don't matter?
----
You think that? Or did you simply misunderstand my comment?
Sure didn't stop your frantasy lover Obama
----
I don't know why you love Obama, but your projection was old months ago.
you claim defense yet there was no defense in our attack on Tripoli.
---
I don't - the Constitution does.
Would you like me to start listing the unConstitutional wars the US has engaged in?
Do you have any idea WHY we stayed out of Europe for the first several years of WWII? Hint: it's because we were following the Constitution.
.
Please stop projecting about your love of Obama. I'm for Ron Paul.
OPEC and Wall St. control the price of oil, opec cut's production everytime they want to raise prices. The oil from Canada will be sold at the world market price and we'll have to pay that price, pipeline or no pipeline.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What you say may well be true but it will not matter to the uniformed voter all they are going to see are $4.00 gallon gas and high unemployment and hundreds of ads telling them Obama rejected an oil pipe then that could have potential lowered the price of gas and employed thousands.
Do you really think the average person gets into the logistics of what goes into the price of gallon of gas? NO! All they are going to know is gas was a little over $2 a gallon when Obama took office and it is now over $3.50 a gallon and climbing. And for the last 4 years all Obama has concentrated on is failed green energies and never once done anything to try to ease the pain at the pump.
I promise this will be a major issue this election if gas prices stay above $3 a gallon, there is no way it can't be because every single American uses some sort of energy in their daily lives.
Truth is, you fox/rush parrots wouldn't know the truth if it bit you.
We pay about $3.00+ for a gallon of gasoline at the service station. But the real price of gas is much higher and camouflaged by myriad direct and indirect costs associated with maintaining our oil economy.
The federal government subsidizes the oil industry with numerous tax breaks and government protection programs worth billions of dollars annually. These benefits are designed to ensure that domestic oil companies can compete with international producers and that gasoline remains cheap for American consumers.
Current price of a gallon of gasoline: $3.35
Known Off-Balance Sheet Costs:
1. The "Security Premium," or military spending. ($700bn - 1 Trillion): +$4-6/gal
2. Externalized pollution costs on human mortality ($345 billion according to the Union of Concerned Scientists) : +$2-3/gal
3. Gov't subsidies, traffic, accidents, free parking ($200-400bn via Center for Technology Assessment), etc: +$1-3/gal
Actual cost of a gallon of gas = $10.70 to $15.70
Obama Rejecting Pipeline, Pokes Back At GOP
By Amy Harder
Updated: January 18, 2012 | 4:02 p.m.
January 18, 2012 | 12:56 p.m.
In a decision that quickly re-ignited a fierce energy debate, the Obama administration on Wednesday rejected the controversial Keystone XL pipeline because the 60-day deadline imposed by Republicans did not allow adequate time to review an alternate route through an ecologically sensitive area in Nebraska.
http://nationaljournal.com/congress/obama-rejecting-pipeline-pokes-back-at-gop-20120118?mrefid=subhplead_1
Open Secrets, a Washington, DC-based lobby watchdog, is reporting that the alternative energy sector spent a record $30 million promoting their industry to lawmakers in the US capitol in 2009.
While it is great news that the renewable sector is making the effort to ensure that its concerns are being heard in Washington by lawmakers and government departments, it remains an uphill battle when you consider that their main competitors in the the fossil fuel sector have spent more than two billion dollars on lobbying since 1998.
According to the database maintained by Open Secrets, the combined lobbying expenditures since 1998 of the oil and gas and electric utilities sectors is a whopping $2.3 billion.
In other words, the traditional fossil fuel sector has spent more than twenty-times the money the clean energy sector has when it comes to influencing federal laws and regulations.
The top five spenders last year on lobbying in the oil and gas sector were ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP and Koch Industries.
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=i
----
Welcome to politics, little one!
I'm not sure if these facts fly completely over your head, or through the empty space between your ears.
The fossil fuel industry has been dictating our energy policy for decades, keeping nuclear and alternative fuel sources at bay, and it's because of their huge lobbying campaign in Washington!
The sheer volume required and the tremendous cost of the facilities need to produce alts right now just run the costs off the viablity scale
----
Simply because the oil industry has kept it down.
--
I just don't get what "it" is Slappy my friend. We've thrown billions into various efforts, but none that I've seen can even project a time where they come close to the cents per watt cost of petro.
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/06/17/daily-show-obama-promises-independence-from-foreign-oil-just-like-the-7-presidents-before-him/
I hope the link comes through....
Of course, this discusses foreign oil, but it does go to show Congress' greedy have helped keep us on oil dependence.
"Will Obama be any different than Bush II, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford or Nixon? Doubtful. After all, our unstoppable, oil dependency-breaking machine runs on oil. Oops."