The Tea Party Faction’s Keystone XL Mistake

David Burwell Op-Ed June 27, 2012 Roll Call

Summary

Making the Keystone XL pipeline an earmark on the transportation bill hurts important objectives such as ensuring energy independence, creating more jobs, ending wasteful spending, and maintaining America’s global exceptionalism.

Related Topics

The House leadership and its rambunctious tea party wing have bolted mandatory approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline to the transportation bill.

Whatever one thinks of the tea partyers’ politics, this is a strategic mistake from their own point of view because it contradicts one of their core policy goals — a permanent ban on earmarks — and hurts other objectives such as ensuring energy independence, creating more jobs, ending wasteful spending and maintaining America’s global exceptionalism.

Burwell is director of the Energy and Climate Program at the Carnegie Endowment. His work focuses on the intersection between energy, transportation, and climate issues, as well as policies and practice reforms to reduce global dependence on fossil fuels.

David Burwell

Director
Energy and Climate Program

More from this author...

The tea party is effectively killing a transportation bill without gaining anything in return. It should be pushing for the bill instead. Here’s why:

Energy independence. The reality of the 21st century is that there are a lot more fossil fuels stored in the earth than we ever realized. While no country is truly energy independent in a globalized world, the newly discovered stores of oil and natural gas here in the United States give us new leeway to think hard about how dependent we want to be on Canadian tar sands.

Regardless of whether one is for or against Keystone XL or believes sourcing 100 percent of the oil we consume within North America is actually possible, it is certainly true that passage of the transportation bill would advance energy independence. Transportation represents 70 percent of U.S. oil consumption, and much of that consumption is wasted through congestion, travel delays and too few trip choices. The transportation bill addresses all of these inefficiencies. Jeopardizing the bill by forcing immediate approval of this pipeline risks losing the benefit of an improved transportation system.

Jobs. Sure, Keystone XL will provide some new jobs, but the number is highly uncertain. And oil jobs are not something the United States is lacking right now. Unemployment in North Dakota, home of the Bakken shale oil field, is 3 percent. In Oklahoma, another shale oil producer, it is 4.8 percent. In contrast, the unemployment rate in the construction industry is more than 14 percent and weighs down economies in virtually every state in the nation.

Plus, transportation infrastructure is crumbling. America, according to the World Economic Forum, has fallen from fifth to 24th place in the quality of its infrastructure. Latching Keystone XL to the transportation bill as a “non-negotiable” demand to gain a few thousand oil-sector jobs risks hundreds of thousands of ready-to-go construction jobs in the middle of the construction season. There’s no sense in that.

Global competitiveness. One of the more pointed tea party criticisms raised against federal transportation spending is that it is just that: spending, not investment. More than 85 percent of federal transportation funds are now distributed by formula to states and localities with little accountability beyond verifying that the money distributed has actually been spent.

The transportation bill hits hard on this subject. In its current version, the bill would reduce the amount of money spread around like peanut butter and instead focus on actual need by requiring states and localities to establish specific performance metrics and demonstrate progress as a condition of continued federal support.

Killing the transportation bill will simply assure the perpetuation of transportation as a federal spending program, not an investment program.

The most ironic result of attaching Keystone XL to the transportation bill will be the demise of the tea party’s greatest contribution to good governance — a permanent ban on earmarks. The transportation bill codifies this wise policy into law with zero earmarks allowed.

And if Keystone XL is truly a non-negotiable condition of House approval, the bill is doomed.

This means that the present law, enacted in 2005, will be extended for a 10th time. It contains 6,229 earmarks, more or less, including the famed “Bridge to Nowhere.” States will continue to receive earmarked funds in direct proportion to the number and cost of earmarked projects.

The tea party is endangering these benefits to energy independence, job creation and global competitiveness for a project that will almost certainly be approved within a year pending environmental review of a new pipeline location.

Attaching Keystone XL approval to the transportation bill serves no other purpose than to kill a good transportation reform bill outright.

This article was originally published in Roll Call.

Comments (1)

Sort by: Date Posted | Recommended

Email Updates

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article. Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.

Screen Name Email Address* (Nevermind this field if you have CSS turned off)
Subscribe

RobChapman June 28, 2012 3:00 PM
Whatever one thinks of the tea partyers’ politics, this is a strategic mistake from their own point of view because it contradicts one of their core policy goals — a permanent ban on earmarks — and hurts other objectives such as ensuring energy independence, creating more jobs, ending wasteful spending and maintaining America’s global exceptionalism.
The tea party is effectively killing a transportation bill without gaining anything in return. It should be pushing for the bill instead

The TEA Party's ineptitude is rapidly becoming their distinguishing characteristic, they are incapable of effectively advocationg for their professed goals, because they themselves neither seem to understand or believe in them.

Tweet

Recommend

Reply to this post

Post your comments (2500 character limit. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.) Screen Name
(Nevermind this field if you have CSS turned off)
Characters Used

Close Panel

Comment Policy

Report Abuse

Source: http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/06/27/tea-party-faction-s-keystone-xl-mistake/cc48

More from The Global Think Tank

Guardian

America's Love Affair With the Motor Car Is Running on Empty

Summary Legislators should design transportation policies that support Americans' demand for cheaper, cleaner, and on-demand travel choices. More >

Understanding Unconventional Oil

Summary With a shift from the production of conventional oil to unconventional oil, the world is at a key moment to determine the future energy balance between oil and low-carbon alternative fuels. More >

CNN

Keystone XL Pipeline, a Poster Child for Political Posturing

Summary The battle over the Keystone XL Pipeline has become so heated it's easy to lose sight of whether the project is in America's national interest and what are the measurable benefits and costs. More >

Huffington Post

Of Oil Prices and Elephants

Summary Washington must grasp the reality that the price of oil is directly related to how it is wasted. More >

January 26, 2012 Washington, D.C.

Turning the Right Corner: Ensuring Development Through a Low-Carbon Transport Sector

Summary The World Bank report examines the intersection of transport, growth, and carbon emissions, compares transport sectors in developed and developing countries, and calls for broad sector reform. More >

October 31, 2011 Washington, D.C.

California's Performance-Based Policy Model for Transportation, Energy, and Climate: Lessons Learned

Summary California is adopting a mix of policies, regulations, and incentives that together provide a coherent and durable framework for creating a more sustainable transportation system. More >

July 11, 2011 Washington, D.C.

Transforming America’s Transportation

Summary Failure to reform the U.S. transportation system risks deepening the country's dependence on oil and eroding global economic competitiveness. Is there a long-term strategy that can stabilize gas prices, finance America's transportation infrastructure, and decrease the deficit? More >

Twitter

@CarnegieEndow

In Fact

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

million people killed

in Cold War conflicts.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

new airports

are set to be built in China by 2015.

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

million Russian citizens

are considered “ethnic Muslims.”

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address in the field below to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840 Contact By Email

Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.

请注意...

你将离开清华—卡内基中心网站，进入卡内基其他全球中心的网站。

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Regions

Countries