Quote of the Day:

How’s this for American exceptionalism: It has now officially taken longer for the federal government to review the Keystone XL pipeline’s permit application than it did to build the entire transcontinental railroad 150 years ago.

Luke Hilgemann in The Hill

Hillary Clinton's announcement yesterday that she opposes the Keystone Pipeline XL means that, if she become president, the U.S. will lose out on a project that would create jobs and bring us fuel from a friendly neighbor.

Canada has waited through years of Obama delaying tactics on the pipeline, which the unions want but the environmentalists oppose. The Keystone Pipeline XL has been repeatedly vetted for environmental concerns and repeatedly given a clean bill of health by the Department of State.

Hilgemann, who is CEO of Americans for Prosperity, has a theory why environmentalists are so adamantly opposed to it:

Environmental opposition to Keystone XL is based on the belief that without the pipeline, the Canadian and North Dakotan oil would stay in the ground. But this is wishful thinking at best. As we are already seeing, it will simply be shipped via rail instead. Even Obama’s own State Department admits as much. In its Final Environmental Impact Statement last year—the product of years of investigations involving eight federal agencies—federal officials noted Keystone XL “is unlikely to significantly affect the rate of extraction in oil sands areas.”

Given this reality, the State Department concluded Keystone XL’s construction would be unlikely to alter global greenhouse gas emissions. Put another way: It wouldn’t harm the environment.

But from an environmental point of view, it could be worse than that. It is also quite possible that Canada will sell the fuel elsewhere, possibly China, where environmental safeguards are nil, if it becomes clear that the project will never be accepted in the United States.   

Mrs. Clinton's reason for opposing the pipeline, made in response to a question from a school girl, is telling:

“I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone XL pipeline as what I believe it is: A distraction from the important work we have to do to combat climate change, and, unfortunately from my perspective, one that interferes with our ability to move forward and deal with other issues,” she said during a campaign event in Iowa Tuesday.

“Therefore, I oppose it. I oppose it because I don’t think it’s in the best interest of what we need to do to combat climate change.”

Note that there is nothing about the pipeline, nothing to indicate that it is good, nothing to indicate that it is bad, in the statement. It is a "distraction" that keeps Mrs. Clinton from moving forward on "other issues," which one may reasonably take to mean the more important business of getting herself elected president. Interestingly, "distraction" is also a favorite term of dismissal from President Obama.

Hat tip: Hot Air