The story on Hillary Clinton and Keystone Pipeline shows the Left’s dominance of the Democrat Party and the cluelessness of the media.
Politico reports on Hillary Clinton and Keystone Pipeline politics: “Hillary’s Keystone pivot draws greens’ cheers.”
Hillary Clinton’s left turn on the Keystone XL oil pipeline won her heaps of praise Tuesday from the same climate activists who had spent five years denouncing her silence on the most divisive environmental controversy of Barack Obama’s presidency.
But it also opened her to fresh attacks from Republicans who accused her of putting ideology ahead of the thousands of construction jobs the proposed Canada-to-Texas pipeline would create — and of showing obvious political calculation in announcing her stance just as the media were distracted with Pope Francis’ arrival in Washington.
This all seems like a naïve interpretation of what is going on.
Was American “Big Oil” happy or sad about the fracking revolution and the resulting lowering of oil prices? I suspect they were not happy about it. They didn’t want prices to go down. Likewise, they probably are not thrilled that Iran will probably be able to sell oil to the world markets without being restricted.
Why would the oil industry want to see more fuel flowing from Canada?
I know some construction firms would benefit for awhile. Perhaps some American refineries also have an interest in the deal. But I would expect the oil companies in general would like to keep Canada out of the market as much as possible.
So why assume that Hillary Clinton’s decision is purely due to pressure from environmentalists who believe in global warming?
If that is why she made her decision, then she is being stupid. Even if man-made climate change were true, stopping the Keystone pipeline is likely to have little or no effect.
I find it interesting that Clinton isn’t quoted as saying that the Keystone pipeline would be bad for the global environment:
“We need to be transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy,” Clinton told the crowd, while criticizing the pipeline as “a distraction from important work we have to do on climate change.”
It sounds like she is more concerned about presenting some kind of unified “message” than she is worried that the Keystone Pipeline will accelerate climate change.
But, unless she plans on betraying her constituents once she wins the primary, she has now boxed herself into a corner. She may need to commit herself to opposing the Keystone Pipeline to compete with Bernie Sanders for the nomination to be the Democrat’s nominee to run for President, but will it help her win the national election?
I think that depends on what kind of Republican she ends up running against. If we have a candidate who will challenge the global warming scam, then I think Clinton will have to worry about losing. But if we get someone who hints that global warming may be caused by human use of fossil fuels, I think she won’t have much to worry about.
In other words, she is hoping to run against Jeb Bush.