Image credit.
Justin Amash explains his pro-Keystone vote:
I voted present on H R 3, Northern Route Approval Act. The Keystone XL pipeline is a private project owned by TransCanada Corporation. This bill improperly exempts TransCanada Corporation—and no other company—from laws that require pipeline owners and operators to obtain certain government permits and approvals.
I support construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and holding it up for over four years (with no end in sight) for political reasons is wrong. It's improper, however, for Congress to write a bill that names and benefits one private project, while doing nothing to address the underlying problems that allowed such delays to occur. The Constitution gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," but the Rule of Law requires that legislation be of general, not specific, applicability. A proper bill would address the circumstances that allow *any* such project to be held up for political reasons, not just Keystone XL.
Read the entire declaration at the source.
I was reluctant to publish the below clip portraying the beautiful Sandhills of Nebraska, as I am in no position to know what the involved parties especially WWF stand for politically, and whether I like their position concerning this issue or not. But having declared my initial agnosticism, my genuine interest in this fascinating area of Nebraska and my desire to gradually understand the issue more fully, I feel I can publish the clip without giving the impression of partisanship. If anything, I begin to understand , how little I know about Keystone XL.
At any rate, the film gives you a sense of what a great place Nebraska is.
See also Keystone (2/2), Keystone (1/2), and Is There Anything Behind the Delay of the TransCanada Pipeline?
Keystone certainly represents an interesting case in terms of studying how people try (or fail) to define and establish the public interest - a topic that preoccupies me at the moment.
UPDATE:
Keystone Pipeline Pros, Cons, Stes to a Final Decision, Keystone XL Pipeline Facts ..., State Department ..., New Report ..., Keystone XL ..., these are some of the summaries of the pros and cons I have skimmed so far.
First impressions:
Remarkably, much of the (national) debate over Keystone XL entirely ignores locally Nebraskan concerns, focussing amongst other things on world climate or US energy independence.
The environmental arguments, even the ones referring to local issues, do not convince me of the presence of dimensions of danger that merit a calling-off of the project. In a country criss-crossed by pipelines that never have brought about serious environmental damage, I see no reason why we should not expect further progress and wholesome business in that field.
So far I seem to be looking at the customary pattern: The environmentalist is typically ignoring risk-return trade-offs (because her hidden agenda is full of absolutes in the form of unsubstantiated foregone conclusions), feeling victorious in an argument simply by stating "x could happen," usually without offering facts to back up the concrete and reasonably substantiated processes, proportions and consequences of the presaged events of impairment.
Of course, I am open to new insights and better arguments.
Where I am still pretty much in the dark is the entire vast and complicated subject-matter of eminent domain, whose careful study - especially of the laws and legal practices in Nebraska - will probably take care at least of the frivolous claims of crony capitalism that are so easily bandied about. The way the project has been dealt with so far does not exactly suggest that a certain company is "wagging" government.
Of course, I am open to new insights and better arguments.
But the eminent domain issue may well contain very weighty and knotty problems - many of which may not be visible to the national eye, but only to him who studies the local circumstances carefully.
More generally, consider that in the case of Keystone XL a private economic decsion may turn into one of high public relevance - or would you be willing to apply eminent domain in favour of a project that according to your calculations is not viable? Tricky.
What worries me far more than the prospect of TransCanada "wagging" the governments of Nebraska and the USA is that the likelihood of destroying a project like Keystone by slander, crucible-type of malice and political obstructionism is as high as it is, presenting a massive handicap that stands in the way of getting a complex business project properly accomplished, thanks to a massive nationwide industry geared towards stopping projects like Keystone as an absolute aim in its own right, the majority of whose vast constituency being not fact-driven but entranced with a false faith.
In an awkward way, is it not a case of abuse of eminent domain, when a local project gets effectively prohibited by a national audience driven by an agenda not shared by those most affected by such remote interference?
Of course, I am open to new insights and better arguments.
Comments