But GOP Could Use Keystone XL as Wedge Issue Against Dems?
Rep. Kristi Noem will be in Rapid City Monday evening raising a whole lot of money to further her political ambitions. Hopefully she won't head out for the Hills until after lunch: I wouldn't want her to miss the chance to discuss why she should ask President Obama to reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline. Concerned citizens will gather at Noem's Sioux Falls office at 11:30 CDT tomorrow (Monday, September 26) to discuss the unnecessary tar sands pipeline with Noem's staff.
Citizens explaining (in small words) why South Dakota doesn't need Keystone XL may want to cite the International Energy Outlook 2011 just issued by the Energy Information Agency. Big oil booster Mike McDowell (whose promotes his industry's interest in selling more electricity to TransCanada) linklessly cites this study to holler that world energy use will increase 53% between now and 2035. McDowell emphasizes that fossil fuels will dominate that increase. I suspect he makes this claim in continued shillery for the Keystone XL pipeline.
What McDowell fails to mention is that demand here in North America will remain almost flat over those 24 years. After receding to 19 million barrels during the recession, the United States' liquid fuel consumption will creep back to its 2007 level of 21 million barrels per day by 2016, then remain at that level until 2033, when EIA says we'll use 22 million barrels per day. If oil prices climb at the traditional rate or higher, our liquid fuel demand will not exceed 2007 levels.
The takeaway for explaining the issue to Kristi Noem: The tar sands oil coursing through our prairie veins won't be used in South Dakota or anywhere else in America. We don't need it. Keystone XL will drain Midwest supply, raise our gasoline prices, and send all that oil overseas. Keystone XL will make no direct contribution to American energy security.
Of course, if Kristi and her people find facts and figures "unreasonable and unconvincing," maybe we can get them to oppose Keystone XL on political grounds. The Washington Post has picked up on a story discussed here previously on the vigorous lobbying done on behalf of TransCanada by former Hillary Clinton campaign honcho Paul Elliott. According to Friends of the Earth, e-mails between Elliott and the State Department show a "pro-industry bias" that undermines the credibility of State's final Environmental impact Statement on Keystone XL and indicates President Obama has broken his pledge "to ensure that lobbyists' 'days of setting the agenda are over.'"
Come on, Kristi: you could use Keystone XL to make Obama look bad. Isn't that your party's whole raison d'être?
Bonus Celebrity Opinion: Dave Thomas to TransCanada: Take off, hosers!