President Obama’s decision to pander to environmentalists by scuttling the Keystone XL pipeline (which, by the way, had been extensively vetted with regard to genuine environmental concerns) was bad enough.

Now, two infuriating new reports show some of what apparently was behind the president's decision. These reports should make you plenty angry.

The first report is from the Daily Caller, which today revealed that much of the campaign against the pipeline was ginned up by the $789 million Rockefeller Brothers Fund, which poured money into environmental and anti-corporate groups.

The Rockefeller Fund and other funds built from great American fortunes have spent hundreds of millions demonizing the Canadian energy industry and promoting green energy.

Canadian researcher and writer Vivian Krause explained to the Daily Caller how this campaign of vilification has been financially advantageous to the greenies:  

“The campaign against Canadian oil, put on steroids by U.S. foundations, has created a negative foil,” Krause wrote, “a background of bad press and fear without which it would have been more difficult to push through the billions in U.S. government grants, loans and subsidies that were made in the U.S. in order to develop renewable energy.”

The second report is even more infuriating: the president may have been pandering not to the entire environmental movement but to one very rich woman: Susie Tompkins Buell.

SF Gate reports:

In October, Buell made headlines after she led a protest of monied Democrats in San Francisco against the controversial 1,700-mile Keystone XL oil pipeline. Her fellow protesters outside an Obama fundraiser included Michael Kieschnick, co-founder of CREDO Mobile and Working Assets, which has donated $75 million to progressive causes; IT executive David desJardins; and Anna Hawken McKay, wife of Rob McKay, a wealthy philanthropist whose father founded Taco Bell.

The Democrats, who could have easily afforded the $5,000-a-plate Obama fundraiser, stood on the curb outside the W Hotel as Buell delivered a tough assessment of the president: "I don't know where he stands on anything," she said.

Kieschnick said Buell's decision to take an aggressive stance was pivotal to the eventual outcome – a White House announcement last month that the application for the pipeline from the Canadian province of Alberta to Texas refineries would be rejected.

Buell has since said she is disappointed with the president because he hasn’t done enough.

I’m sure that the folks who don’t have resources comparable to Ms. Buell’s and might have found jobs if the Keystone XL project had gone through have an entirely different perspective.

Hat Tip: Kenneth P. Green of The American