Skip to main content
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Here are President Barack Obama's words from his second inaugural address: "We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations." Thence followed 10 sentences about climate change.

In Edmonton and Ottawa, where governments had grown confident that Mr. Obama, once re-elected, would give the green light to the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta's bitumen oil deposits to the Gulf of Mexico, those sentences were at least worrisome, if not menacing.

Why did Mr. Obama do it? Climate change was scarcely raised in the election campaign. A Republican-controlled House of Representatives will block any cap-and-trade system for greenhouse-gas emissions, plus just about anything else to reduce emissions.

Story continues below advertisement

With so many other priorities – the budget deficit, gun control, immigration – why did the President spend so much of his inaugural speech on an issue the Alberta and Canadian governments figured had disappeared from his radar screen. Maybe he was just playing to history, in which case the sentences will disappear into the political ether. Or maybe he actually believes what he said.

Once re-elected, Canadian governments presumed Mr. Obama would approve Keystone – and, on balance, he probably still will. But his speech sent a frisson of apprehension through Canada and the private companies backing the project.

Mr. Obama had delayed a decision on Keystone before the election, despite Prime Minister Stephen Harper's saying U.S. approval should be a "no-brainer." Mr. Obama actually has a brain and, like Mr. Harper, he has political antennae. Just as Mr. Harper nixed a foreign takeover of Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan for largely political reasons, Mr. Obama delayed Keystone to please environmentalists who'd supported him.

Now, as then, the President's decision will swirl around politics. TransCanada Pipelines, Keystone's proponent, has changed the route in Nebraska, thereby bringing the Republican governor onside. Trade unions, a key part of the Democrats' constituency, want the jobs and economic spinoffs Keystone would bring. Fifty-five senators, including nine Democrats, signed a letter urging Mr. Obama to approve the project.

Oil from Canada, bitumen or otherwise, is deemed by foreign-policy analysts to be more "secure" than that from elsewhere. If Alberta oil didn't make it to the Gulf of Mexico refineries, oil from somewhere else would arrive. Canada is safe, reliable and friendly. Who could ask for anything more?

So foreign-policy considerations plus parts of the Democratic Party coalition would suggest that Keystone will get the nod, if not soon then perhaps by midyear.

And yet, what about those inaugural sentences? The largest U.S. environmental groups overwhelmingly oppose Keystone, although the journal Nature recently said bitumen oil isn't as dirty as critics say and thus the pipeline should go ahead.

Story continues below advertisement

These groups, who hailed Mr. Obama's pre-election delay, supported him on voting day and still do. They expect payback. And what about the new Secretary of State, John Kerry? He spent years in the Senate railing against greenhouse-gas emissions, sponsoring bills and urging action.

His department has to make a recommendation to the President, who is free to ignore or accept it. In one ear, he will hear the national security arguments for Keystone and the negative impact its rejection would have on relations with the Harper government; in the other, he will hear echoes of his own words as a senator. (He was non-committal on Friday after meeting Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird in Washington.)

Ultimately, Mr. Obama will decide. He has identified climate change as a major challenge and spoke in that inaugural speech about taking the "path toward sustainable energy sources," a path that, by definition, would exclude or minimize the use of fossil fuels.

He once promised a cap-and-trade system for emissions, but that idea died in Congress even when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. It has no chance of being revived any time soon.

What's left to him are executive orders that don't need congressional approval. Did Mr. Obama mean what he said? Is Keystone his line in the sand?

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies