ANGUS S. KING, JR. United States Senator

Nemoj automatski prevoditi na sljedeći jezik: engleski

Dear Stjepan, Thank you for getting in touch with me about the recent Senate vote on the Keystone XL Pipeline. As you are likely aware, on November 18th, the Senate rejected S. 2280, a bill which would have legislatively approved the Keystone XL Pipeline and bypassed the established permitting and environmental review processes provided for under current law. The reasoning I employed in casting my vote against the bill was quite different than that of most of my colleagues, and I welcome this opportunity to share with you what guided my decision. I do not subscribe to the extreme claims made by stakeholders on both sides of this debate. The extraction of bituminous (tar) sands, the means by which they are transported, as well as their refinement and eventual use, will have lasting environmental and economic implications, and I do have real concerns about the environmental impacts of the pipeline, but I am not convinced that this specific project will, on its own, turn our economy around or doom our environment. My vote against the bill was based on my firm belief that Congressional action is an inappropriate way to determine the suitability of individual infrastructure projects.  Permitting this section of pipeline, which would connect Canadian oil sand deposits to Gulf Coast refineries, must be based on an assessment of the impacts it might have on both the ecosystems and communities it traverses as well as our economy and climate. I am glad the State Department is not only weighing the impact the pipeline would have on the places it passes through, but also what its existence might mean to the acceleration of climate change. As we have learned, the pipeline is not the only way for tar sands oil to reach the market; trains and even trucks are already being used to move the product from the oil fields to refineries—both of which are riskier conveyances than pipelines. I support the need for a presidential permit for the project and the State Department's authority to investigate the potential environmental impacts of the pipeline—both direct and indirect– and do not believe it is the place of Congress to categorically allow or prevent the pipeline's construction. Surely people on both sides of the debate can agree that Congress should not be in the business of issuing construction permits. There is already an established process for approving pipelines that cross international boundaries, as Keystone XL does, and that should be followed.   I do, however, think that the approval process has dragged out far too long in this case–we can and should have both sound environmental policy and expeditious, predictable decision timelines. I am deeply frustrated that the President has taken so long to make a decision on this project. I urge President Obama to make a decision soon, and if he does not do so, I will work with my colleagues in Congress to put a timeframe on this decision.   Through my analysis of the Keystone XL approval issue, I have had numerous opportunities to learn about, and evaluate, the project's merits. While I strongly believe these merits should be evaluated administratively through already-established means, I do find it difficult, from all that I have learned, to see what is really in this project for us, the American people. Transporting the oil in question would create jobs in the construction phase but few permanent ones, and when that oil makes it to American refineries, it is not expected to have an appreciable effect on US gas prices: the price of refined petroleum products is determined by a very large and liquid world market in which this new production is a figurative drop in the bucket. What I believe we are left with in the construction of this pipeline is the new risk of a catastrophic spill of the world's dirtiest oil as it is transported across over a thousand miles of this country, with a few new jobs, all under great dependence on a finite and incredibly damaging energy source—something I am reluctant to pass along to future generations.  When weighing my decision, I thought a great deal about how I would vote if the proposed project passed through Maine. In that case, I would certainly have demanded a thorough environmental review and full permitting process, and I would not have accepted a Congressional waiver of those requirements. Applying this standard to the Keystone project led me to oppose it. I will continue to stand by my support for a transparent and objective environmental review as part of the presidential permitting process for the Keystone XL Pipeline; thank you for sharing your thoughts on the recent developments. Best Regards, ANGUS S. KING, JR. United States Senator