Pipeline Plans in North America

Barack Obama, the newly elected President of the United States, was widely believed to be the ‘Green Candidate’ in thAmerican elections. However, in a country where one of the two main political parties adopts the slogan of “drill baby drill” in its environmental policy, one can hardly be forgiven for meeting Obama’s green policies with an air of scepticism.

However Obama does have a record of action. In 2009, Obama passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, that lead to more than $80 billion in green energy investments, alongside with cutting $4 billion in annual tax breaks for oil companies in his last administration. In 2011, at the State of the Union Address, Obama called for 80% of America’s electricity to be provided by green means by 2035. Also, a strong Democrat stance on the environmental issues makes sense: in a recent survey, 70% of the so called independent voters classified themselves as environmentalists.

Therefore, what can we expect to see from Obama’s Administration in his second term? Well:

• Renewal of the tax credit scheme for utility scale wind producers, and has pledged to support to aid loan guarantees and grants for green energy companies.

• Has gained support from major motor-vehicle manufacturers to double fuel economy for light trucks and cars by 2025.

• Obama has pledged to uphold the power of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse emissions. Obama has also publicly supported the EPA’s stance on limiting emissions from old coal fired power plants.

However, perhaps the biggest challenge Obama shall face regarding his green ambitions shall come with the Keystone Pipeline System (KPS). The KPS, in its current guise, is a transport system used to transport crude oil from Alberta, Canada to multiple destinations in the USA – ranging from Oklahoma, the Gulf Coast of Texas and Illinois. In 2008, an extension to the existing pipeline was proposed, dividing the American political spectrum. Mitt Romney promised to give the project the green flag on his first day in the White House if he got elected, whereas Obama took a more considered approach. Obama was not alone– opposition to its expansion was heard from various bodies, most notably the EPA.

The EPA argued that the pipeline could risk the natural habitat of migratory birds and other wildlife, alongside considerable concerns over the pipeline crossing active seismic zones that would greatly increase the chances of a potential oil spillage – which in turn could not only destroy the natural habitat and wildlife, but also destroy the local drinking water and the entire mid western economy. However, as predicted, the Keystone XL pipeline has received great support from the Republicans, the Republican controlled Senate forcing Obama’s hand multiple times over a final decision on the pipelines future. Obama has managed to delay the date of final approval regarding the pipeline to the first half of 2013 – and it is this date that is likely to prove diagnostic of Obama’s green policy for the next four years.