So how many more tons of carbon emissions could be thrown into the atmosphere at the behest of LCFS advocates?  The answer:  up to 19.1 metric tons per year!

LCFS would stop American refiners from importing Canadian oil— and the U.S. would be forced to purchase petroleum from the Middle East and other crisis-ridden areas.  Our friends to the north—the Canadians— would switch and sell oil to China.  Tankers— instead of pipelines—would then be used as the primary conveyance mechanism for petroleum.

In the ensuing “great oil shuffle”— the heavy usage of tankers would create a higher amount of greenhouse gas emissions than conventional pipeline usage. Good Canadian oil formerly consumed in U.S. markets would be shipped to non-LCFS nations.  In the process, we fall on the losing end of a strategic North American energy partnership.

It’s a game of “bait and switch” and LCFS advocates need to understand one thing:  let’s keep petroleum flowing into America from our Canadian friends.  The last thing America needs is more oil from some of the world’s most unstable regions.

A report released Friday by the Canadian government— the 2009 National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) — highlighted the proactive stance of Canadian oil producers with respect to industry transparency.  The data also provided important context on oil sands mining north of the border.

Unfortunately, activist groups misrepresented the data in order to portray oil sands exploration as “deadly” and “posing a threat” to humans and the environment.  Statistics on tailings ponds— engineered dike systems used to responsibly allow byproducts of oil sands mining to settle after extraction— were used by groups to falsely illustrate the possibility of an environmental cataclysm in the Canadian wilderness.

The scare tactics are laughable:  tailings are simply not released into the environment— they are contained in tailings ponds. Canadian oil producers invested more than one billion dollars in tailings research and upgrades.  Also, a network of collection and groundwater monitoring systems gather and monitor tailings— to date, there is no evidence of tailings causing harm to streams or rivers.

Tailings ponds are also used by oil producers to recycle water for the extraction process—reducing demand on fresh water resources.

Oil producers even work with the Canadian government to reclaim tailings ponds in an ecologically sound fashion— returning them back to the environment for productive land usage.

The only thing unsound in the debate on oil sands is the illusion of “dirty” Canadian oil.  The real dirt is found in the misrepresentation of NPRI statistics by activist groups.

The ad campaign: “Rethink Alberta,” is paid for by a U.S.-based activist group and attempts to foster a negative view of the Canadian province among American tourists.  The ads frame oil sands exploration in the region as destructive to local communities and the environment.

The truth is Canadian oil producers adhere to some of the most stringent environmental regulations in the world— and the LCFS illusion of “dirtier” Canadian oil is a fabrication of such groups.  Now more than ever, the U.S.-Canadian strategic energy partnership must be preserved.  Tumultuous times in other energy bearing regions of the world should only strengthen the bond between the two neighboring countries.

Rob Renner—Alberta’s environment minister— slammed the misleading ad campaign:

“I think most people, given the opportunity to see both sides of the story… are going to see through what amounts to a significant amount of rhetoric in these anti-Alberta campaigns.”

Canada provides the American public with one out of every six barrels of oil.  As proponents of LCFS continue to focus on limiting the importation of Canadian oil, Americans still need the resource to maintain their modern lifestyles.  More importantly— unity with our friends to the North is a major component of America’s strategic position in the world.

In fact, Alberta’s oil producers are more efficient than ever— and oil production in the province counts for a mere 5% of the country’s total greenhouse emissions.  This is a far cry from the sentiment found in the misleading ad campaign targeting the province.

Americans need affordable energy—and restricting the flow of Canadian oil to America based on mythologies like LCFS end up inflating prices at the pump.  In fact, LCFS proponents hurt the very people they claim to protect:  everyday Americans.

• “Even the guys that have created this program will admit none of the low carbon fuels that they are trying to force drivers into using are ready for primetime. And the vernacular that they use is that this is a technology-forcing regulation, which means that if we mandate that people use it, then someone will come along and make it.  Our economy can’t stand that kind of whipsaw right now.”
• “Consumer Energy Alliance actually put out a study about a month ago that showed that if you put a low carbon fuel standard in place, it’s going to raise gas and diesel prices by 90 percent over five years, and up to 170 percent over ten years. So we’re basically going to go anywhere from doubling to tripling our gas prices for the next ten years…”
• “You can get people to drive less. You can get people to burn less gas … These are all different ways that you can try and reduce emissions, [but] at the end of the day when you’re talking about diesel or you’re talking about gasoline, a gallon is a gallon is a gallon. [Y]ou cannot reduce the carbon emissions that are coming off of combusting a gallon of diesel or a gallon of gasoline.  They call it a hydrocarbon for a reason.” 
• “Cellulosic ethanol, and renewable diesel; those are great things.  But the fact is that our economy is completely dependent on being able to move goods around the country, and being able to move people around the country and so we can’t take gasoline and diesel off the table until those other fuels are ready for primetime. “
• ”We did a forum on low carbon fuel standards in Boston last month and we had Anne Lynch from  the Massachusetts Motor Transportation Association up there come and speak at the forum and she said … 93.5 percent of all goods in Massachusetts are coming from the bed of a truck. … Now if you’re going to double your transportation costs for everything that goes in the grocery store or everything in a furniture store in the northeast, what is that going to do to the prices of those things? The economic ripple effect … would be absolutely extraordinary.”
• “There is a climate change and energy bill that Senator [Harry] Reid intends to bring up sometime this fall and we fully expect to see folks trying to impose a low carbon fuel standard on that bill. And we also expect, frankly, that we’re going to see some folks talking about an amendment on the OCS bill and try to get a low carbon fuel standard in there… So fortunately right now it looks like we’ve dodged a bullet, but we can’t really rest on our laurels at this point.”

WASHINGTON — As efforts continue behind closed-doors in Washington to attach a job-killing Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to upcoming energy legislation in the Senate, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) announced today the purchase of television and radio time all across the Midwest with an eye on educating residents about how an LCFS could lead to fewer jobs, less security and more expensive fuel for them and their families.

“At at time of record unemployment and great economic uncertainty, the only way to advance a policy such as the LCFS that kills Midwest jobs and drives gas and diesel prices through the roof is to hope and pray your constituents don’t do their homework on it,” said CEA president David Holt.

“Unfortunately, LCFS supporters aren’t all that interested in telling the whole story – like what will happen if an LCFS is used to prevent sources of secure Canadian energy from getting to consumers who need it,” added Holt. “The effort we’re announcing today represents an attempt to paint a more complete picture on the consequences of an LCFS, and hopefully inspire folks to take a closer look at how the policy will impact them and their families.”

According to a recent study by Charles River Associates, a nationwide LCFS could result in the loss of as many as 4.5 million jobs by 2025, with as many as 1.1 million jobs lost throughout the Midwest. The study also finds an LCFS may result in a decline in average household purchasing power for the region of as much as $2,000 a year – all while spiking the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel by as much as 170 percent.

At its core, an LCFS would discriminate against certain sources of reliable, affordable petroleum used to make gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene and heating oil. The theory justifying the LCFS says that if the supply of these resources is cut, enough alternatives will arrive on the market to replace them – even if sufficient amounts are currently considered decades away from commercial realization.

The CEA television and radio ads are available here: http://www.secureourfuels.org/multimedia/

It’s long been an accepted practice among those who oppose oil in general to frame their opposition in terms of being against “foreign” oil in particular. And it’s not hard to understand why: While very few Americans support the idea of shutting down an energy source in petroleum that accounts for nearly 40 percent of U.S. energy consumption and millions of U.S. jobs, even fewer Americans think we ought to be importing more petroleum from countries whose interests might not always align with our own.

So what is a good activist to do about oil resources that don’t actually originate half-a-world away? What argument is he supposed to use when those resources are secure, affordable, proximate, and responsible for thousands of jobs here in the U.S.?

That’s the challenge facing those who would like to see the energy derived from the oil sands in Canada sent somewhere else, or better yet: nowhere at all. It’s hard to rail against “Canadian oil” (Canada’s as foreign as apple pie) and cross-border energy doesn’t seem to present much of a threat to U.S. energy security. The only arrow left in their quiver? Proffer an argument that Canadian oil is more “carbon intensive” than oil anywhere else on the planet – 300 percent more intensive if you believe a letter sent recently by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) to the State Department. To wit:

The “project” to which Chairman Waxman is referring is the Keystone XL Pipeline, a $7 billion pipeline project that will transport 900,000 barrels of secure petroleum a day from Canada’s oil sands region to energy consumers in the United States – first to the Midwest, then through the Mid-Continent, and on down to the Gulf Coast. Once that oil is refined, it’s off to consumers, business, manufacturers and truckers along the East Coast — who receive a significant portion of their refined fuel products via the Colonial Pipeline starting in Pasadena, Texas. But before that energy can start on its cross-border and cross-country journey, the Department of State needs to grant a permit allowing the pipeline to enter into the United States.

Although a permit of this sort may seem like a formality, there’s a lot depending on State’s decision. In addition to the $7 billion that TransCanada will invest in the project, the Keystone project will result in the creation of 13,000 family-supporting jobs in the initial construction phase alone. Maybe that’s why union officials from Canada and the Midwest flew all the way out to Washington, D.C. last week to tell State to approve the permit and allow work to get underway. Russ Breckenridge of the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters may have made the most poignant case of all (audio available):

With nearly one in 10 Americans out of work, signing-off on a project that has the potential to generate 13,000 jobs almost overnight would seem like a no-brainer. And to its credit, the State Department certainly appears to be leaning in that direction – having completed a draft environmental impact statement concluding that the project would result only “in limited adverse environmental impacts,” a finding on which both the U.S. Department of the Interior and Fish and Wildlife Service concurred.

All of which brings us back to the Waxman letter in opposition to the Keystone Pipeline. His main (and only real) concern with the project? Not the pipeline itself, but the stuff that will run through it: specifically, energy from Canada’s oil sands. By his math, it’s an energy resource that requires “three times the energy” to produce than conventional sources of crude – an assertion echoed by 50 other House Democrats in a letter sent to State in June. Unfortunately, this argument is both misleading on its face and, not for nothing, technically wrong.

 Take a look at the chart below:
 

 Observe that even though two of the four oil sands scenarios (on the right-hand side) register a carbon intensity marginally higher than their rivals, none of them comes anywhere close to requiring “three times the energy” to produce relative to other sources of crude represented above. And wouldn’t you know it? The only nation on this list that comes in below 100 grams of CO2 is … Saudi Arabia.

The chart comes from a report issued last summer by Jacobs Consultancy, a respected modeling and analysis shop based in Chicago that relied on the same lifecycle GREET modeling system used by EPA, the Department of Energy and environmental groups around the world. Take a moment to look at the methodology. Instead of just applying a stock lifecycle calculation to all the crude sources identified throughout, Jacobs actually models the carbon intensity outputs assuming a range of real-life, on-the-ground production scenarios – such as the flaring of gas in Nigeria, and the use of cogeneration technology (heat recycling) in Canada. The upshot? It’s clear that energy from the oil sands is nowhere near 300 percent more carbon intensive than other sources of crude.

Of course, as we know, the Keystone Pipeline is merely a stalking horse for a much more expansive policy design being pursued by the same folks who spurred the Waxman letter to State. The bigger prize is the nationwide imposition of a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), a purposefully complicated initiative put forward for the simple purpose of preventing secure, affordable Canadian energy resources from reaching consumers here in the United States. Last month, a first-of-its-kind study on the LCFS (commissioned by Consumer Energy Alliance, and authored by Charles River Associates) found that a nationwide low-carbon fuel policy could result in a 170 percent increase in fuel costs, and the hemorrhaging of 4.5 million American jobs.  

That’s an awful lot of lost jobs in the long-term – but let’s not lose sight of the 13,000 jobs that could be created in the short term thanks to the Keystone project. Toward that end, we hope the Department of State looks at all the facts regarding energy security, job creation, economic growth and lifecycle carbon emissions when making its final decision on permitting for the Keystone XL project. If they do, it will look like a no-brainer to them as well.

More from SecureOurFuels.org:

• Column: Foggy Bottom should OK Keystone pipeline
• Study: Nationwide LCFS could send fuel prices skyrocketing, result in loss of 4.5 million jobs
• PowerPoint: Carmen Difiglio presentation on LCFS  
• Interactive Map: See which states stand to lose the most under an LCFS
• Letter: GOP state rep from Tenn. asks Sen. Alexander to reconsider support for LCFS [WSJ]
• Column: Why Are We Conceding Canadian Oil to China?
• Blog: Sierra Club Attempt to Venue Shop on Alberta Clipper Lawsuit Struck Down in Federal Court

If implemented in the region, an LCFS could prevent secure and affordable Canadian energy from reaching consumers in the Northeast, making refined products like home heating fuel hard to find – forcing New England states to increase imports from foreign, far-away suppliers to make up the difference. Massachusetts alone imports more than 2.8 million barrels of petroleum products from Canada a month – supplies that would be put in danger under an LCFS.

During the forum, Michael Whatley, CEA’s vice president and the emcee of the forum, explained what an LCFS is and the state of this policy in the Northeast and stated this about an LCFS to the participants:

“During this time of unprecedented economic uncertainty, instituting a region-wide policy designed to drive up gas and diesel prices and make essential energy commodities such as home heating oil a whole lot more scarce doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Maybe the more unfortunate reality of the LCFS, though, is that it won’t do a thing to reduce global concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But that’s the LCFS: All pain, no gain.”

Following these comments, Rob Renner, the environment minister of Canada provided participants with an overview of the latest technological advances being deployed to develop Alberta’s oil sands in an environmentally sensitive way. Renner also discussed why an LCFS will not reduce carbon emissions and highlighted that CO2 emissions from the production of oil sands has come down by an average of 39 percent per barrel since 1990. 

Reporting on this event under the headline, “U.S. emissions laws could backfire, Alberta minister warns,” Archie McLean in the Vancouver Sun reports:

New low-carbon fuel standards proposed in the Northeastern U.S. could actually slow the greening of the oilsands, Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner warned Monday. “We need to make sure that whatever we do doesn’t have the unintended consequence (of discouraging further investment) into technology that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” Renner said from Boston, where he was attending an energy forum.

A number of eastern and Midwestern states are weighing similar laws, which would force refiners to cut back on the amount of oilsands fuel or buy offsets or credits. They recently signed a memorandum of understanding urging the U.S. government to impose national standards but warning they could go ahead on their own if those don’t materialize.

According to a recent article in Diesel Fuel News by Jack Peckham on the LCFS forum, titled “Truckers Fear Huge Diesel Price Hike from Low-carbon Fuel Standard”:

Massachusetts Motor Transport Association Executive Director Anne Lynch last week told a Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) panel discussion in Boston about a proposed U.S. Northeast regional low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) that such rules potentially could cause a 90% cost increase for diesel fuel.  Any regionally-based LCFS mandate would put local truckers at a disadvantage to fleets operating in border areas outside the LCFS mandate, she added. What’s more, “there’s no [commercially competitive] powertrain that could handle these kinds of changes” contemplated by the proposed LCFS scheme, she said.

Peckham continues with an overview of how a broader LCFS could force a conversion of the U.S.light-duty vehicle fleet to electric power:

The problem is that relatively quick, massive conversion to electric power or high-level ethanol blends would require U.S. vehicle fleet turnover rates that far exceed historic turnover rates, expert panelists said. If the vehicle turnover rate (or ultra-low-carbon biofuels volume expansion) is “too slow” to meet LCFS “carbon reduction” deadlines, then forced, artificial restrictions on gasoline or diesel sales could result, causing huge fuel price increases, panelists warned.

CEA’s Michael Whatley said that a proposed Northeast region LCFS, patterned after the existing California LCFS, seems designed to favor electric vehicles, compressed natural gas (CNG) and certain types of supposedly low-carbon ethanol. However, much of today’s U.S. corn-based ethanol is produced at coal-fired, relatively high-carbon production facilities, according to California Air Resources Board calculations.

Following the myriad of concerns highlighted by the LCFS forum panelists, Northeasterners can only hope that the 11 governors from Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States currently considering an LCFS don’t follow the Golden State’s model. After seeing the potential economic harm that California may suffer through if they continue on their path implementing A.B. 32 and the law’s LCFS provisions, states would clearly be wiser to say no to the prescription laid out by an LCFS—higher fuel costs and increased imports from unstable regions of the world.

CRA found that a nationwide LCFS program, implemented in 2015 with gasoline prices at today’s level, could result in an average national price for gasoline of nearly $5 per gallon in 2020 and close to $7.50 a gallon by 2025. The study also projected that a nationwide LCFS program would cause an estimated net loss of 2.3 million to 4.5 million American jobs by 2025 from baseline levels. As many as 1.5 million of these jobs would be in the manufacturing sector, while as many as 3 million would be in the service sector.

According to a recent article in Diesel Fuel News by Jack Peckham on the LCFS forum, titled “U.S. Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Hikes Fuel Prices 90% to 170%; Shuts 55 Refineries: Study”:

A new study released June 17 by Charles River Associates (CRA) for Washington, D.C.-based energy producer/ consumer group Consumer Energy Alliance finds that a national U.S. nationwide low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) starting in 2015 could cause diesel and gasoline prices to soar by 90% to 170% by 2025, while drastically reducing U.S. oil refining capacity… “It is highly unlikely that it will be possible to produce sufficient quantities of fuel with sufficiently low emissions to meet the [notional LCFS national] standard without drastically reducing the total amount of fuel consumed,” according to CRA.

An LCFS could also drive down household annual purchasing power by between $1,400 and $2,400 by 2025 and cause the U.S. Gross Domestic Product to decline by approximately 2 to 3 percent, or $410 billion to $750 billion, by 2025.

Given these dramatic study findings, Michael Whatley, vice president of CEA and a leading policy expert on the LCFS, stated the following during a media teleconference last week:

“Any way you slice the data, the future projected by this study is a frightening one – higher fuel prices, fewer jobs, and lower consumer purchasing power. This nightmare scenario is clearly one that policymakers in the United States should avoid at all costs.” 

 “Intuitively, it’s always made sense that policies such as the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, which seeks to restrict Americans’ access to secure and affordable sources of energy, would result in higher fuel costs and fewer jobs. But with the release of this study, we can now quantify those impacts under several different scenarios, and understand how they apply to different regions across the United States.”

Reporting on this launch under the headline, “Low carbon fuels will bite deep into economy, says industry study” Tom Fowler in the Houston Chronicle adds:

The LCFS is supposed to hurry up the development of new fuel technologies, according to the study. The LCFS will drive major changes “because the targets are beyond reach with foreseeable fuel technology,” the study says. “None of these changes are likely to involve new technology, because again the time frame is too short to provide new transportation infrastructure or new vehicle technologies on a large scale. Thus the LCFS is turned into a policy that in effect rations gasoline until the required improvement in emissions per gallon is met.”

Colin Sullivan with E&E News writes about the CRA study under the headline “Study claims national low-carbon fuels rule would spike gasoline prices,”: 

The firm modeled a 10-percent reduction in carbon intensity over 10 years and found the cost of fuel and goods would experience a price shock because of supply constraints caused by so-called low carbon fuel standards. The study was completed by Charles River for the Consumer Energy Alliance, which represents truckers, shippers and airlines, among other sectors.

Sullivan continues with an excerpt from the press conference to explain an LCFS:  

David Montgomery, an analyst at Charles River, compared the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) concept to diluting coffee with cream. He said the dilution of fuels to trim their greenhouse effect is such that prices would spike as clean fuel supply lags behind the current pace of demand, especially as oil sands and other sources prominent in North America are forced out of the market.

“If enough cream is not on the table to achieve the desired mix, then the only alternative is to reduce the amount of coffee in the cup,” he said. “To reduce transportation fuel consumption sufficiently for the LCFS to be met requires very large increases in fuel prices, so that consumers will limit their driving and demand new vehicles that are much more costly.”

Interestingly, concerns about price impacts on consumers were echoed in both an Albany Times-Union story that highlighted the economic impact of an LCFS on the eastern United States, and an article in The Trucker that reported the devastating impacts that increased gas and diesel prices would have on truckers, titled “Low carbon standard could hike gas and diesel prices 80 percent, study shows.”

While a federal LCFS was added to the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill in 2008 and proposed as part of the Waxman-Markey bill in 2009, the LCFS provision was removed before the bill was passed by the House. Regrettably, supporters of a national LCFS continue to work for its enactment, even as proposed programs are being developed in several states and regions.

As highlighted in the CRA study, the real-life outcome of an LCFS will lead to higher prices at the pump and more economic distress – the last thing America’s struggling economy needs at this time. Instead, we need to ensure that Americans have access to secure and stable fuel supplies as our economy continues to move and grow.

WASHINGTON – Is the U.S. government ready to take meaningful steps toward reducing America’s reliance on far-away, unstable energy while leveraging secure, proximate energy sources to create jobs and opportunity here at home? That’s the conversation that took place today at the U.S. State Department, as the agency held another in a series of public forums on whether to grant a final permit in support of the Keystone XL pipeline project, which, upon completion, is slated to deliver 900,000 barrels of affordable Canadian energy a day to consumers in the U.S. who need it.  

“Some might consider the State Department an unlikely setting for a discussion on energy in the United States,” said Michael Whatley, vice president of Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) and on hand today to provide comments in support of the Keystone project for CEA. “But actually, the Keystone pipeline project is right up State’s alley – especially since the project has the potential to advance key national imperatives related to energy security, affordability and access for millions of Americans. The best part is: It has the potential to do all that without bringing harm to the environment. That’s why CEA supports the project, and that’s why we will continue to work with all stakeholders involved to ensure it happens swiftly and responsibly.”

Once completed, the Keystone XL project will consist of three new pipelines spanning roughly 1,380 miles across the United States from Canada, with the capacity to deliver roughly 900,000 barrels of secure, affordable Canadian energy to American consumers over the long-term. Despite that reach, the actual environmental footprint involved in executing the project is minimal – with the total disturbed area for the project only expected to be 150 square miles. Because the pipeline originates in Canada and crosses into the United States, State Department approval is required.

In addition to CEA, a number of organizations representing consumers, organized labor, and state and local governments appeared at today’s forum to lend their unique perspectives on why the Keystone project is so important to them and their constituents.

“We came here today to show our strong support for the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline,” said Russ Breckenridge, a legislative representative of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada. “Right now the construction industry is currently facing on average 20 percent unemployment, and in some areas our members are facing 40 percent. The TransCanada pipeline will begin to put our members back to work with high-quality jobs, with full benefits and worker protection.”

Added Breckenridge: “Our organization wouldn’t be supporting this project if safety was any concern. … As President Obama has told our organization many times, his number one priority is creating jobs and turning the economy around. The Keystone project will achieve these two goals.” (audio)

Richard Moskowitz, vice president and regulatory affairs counsel for the American Trucking Associations – a CEA member – told the forum that the trucking industry supports the use of renewable and alternative fuels in the transportation sector, but “for the foreseeable future we will be dependent on diesel fuel to deliver virtually 100 percent of the consumer products in the United States.”

Moskowitz also addressed concerns related to the carbon output of fuels expected to be delivered by the pipeline: “The carbon required to transport that oil from Alberta down to Houston is going to be less than the amount of carbon required to transport that oil across Canada, load it on super-tankers, and bring it to China – which is what will happen if we don’t use that oil here in the United States.” (audio)

Additional resources and audio files available from today’s State Dept. event:

•  Audio file: Russ Breckenridge, United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters
•  Audio file: Jim Skillestad, Commissioner, Dawson County, Mont.
•  Audio file: Jeanne Barnard, Big Flat (Mont.) Electric Cooperative
• Audio file: Richard Moskowitz, American Trucking Associations
• Audio file: Hon. Thomas Corcoran, Center for North American Energy Security
• Audio file: CEA Vice President Michael Whatley
• CEA column in DC Examiner: Foggy Bottom Should OK Keystone Pipeline (6/28)
• Written statement: Delivered by CEA Vice President Michael Whatley

“Not fast enough” may be considered a vast understatement, if you ask residents in Wisconsin and the 13 other states hoping to improve job numbers on the back of a big transaction. The federal Export-Import bank denied the sale of U.S. coal-mining equipment to a company in India this week, citing concerns over supporting the use of a carbon-intensive fuel source. What was supposed to be a decision made with respect to the health of the environment became a sudden pink slip for thousands of Americans:

“The decision means “throwing 1,000 jobs in the ditch,” Tim Sullivan, chief executive officer of the South Milwaukee, Wis., maker of mining equipment, said in an interview. Bucyrus cited an estimate that the order would create or protect 984 jobs in 13 U.S. states.”

But the Ex-Im bank isn’t the only federal agency that hasn’t gotten the president’s memo on the importance of job creation. The State Department held yet another hearing on whether to grant a routine permit for a critical pipeline, the Keystone XL, seeking to deliver secure energy from the Canadian oil sands to U.S. consumers. If it’s ever approved, the project is slated to create 13,000 jobs in the construction phase alone. However, vocal environmental and native groups have thus far stalled the project, citing land preservation concerns, and even referencing the gulf oil spill as reason not to continue with the project.

We’re only hurting ourselves on this, says Russ Breckenridge, legislative representative for the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry in both the U.S. and Canada.  Attending the State Department’s public hearing this past week, Breckenridge was able to give his own employment report, explaining how uplifting the Keystone project would be to his industry:

“Right now the construction industry is currently facing on average 20 percent unemployment, and in some areas our members are facing 40 percent. The TransCanada pipeline will begin to put our members back to work with high-quality jobs, with full benefits and worker protection.”

And in the Houston Chronicle, the vice president of the company planning to build the pipeline explained how the project is a no-brainer:

“The significant benefit is energy security,” said Robert Jones, the TransCanada vice president in charge of the Keystone XL pipeline project. “If we don’t look at Canada as a stable source, then we’ll have to look more at the Middle East.”

So if an energy source from a single country could increase our nation’s energy security and decrease our dependence on unstable regions of the world, what’s the hold up? Nothing related to the pipeline itself, actually – but very much related to the stuff that’s expected to travel through it. It turns out some folks don’t like the Canadian oil sands, wrongly believing they emit more carbon than other petroleum sources.

It’s precisely this type of thinking that’s led some to support what’s known as a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Nevermind the benefits of where we get our energy, an LCFS looks at the carbon content of our everyday fuels and restricts those considered to be too carbon-intensive, which would include the very same fuel to be transported by the Keystone. By denying this fuel source, not only would it not prove to be any better for our environment, but would also force the hands of American consumers to rely on energy rich, yet expensive foreign nations not as friendly as our northern neighbors.

In the addition to paying more at the pump and seeing any number of industries flounder under the extra economic burden of an LCFS, Americans are already losing the very jobs that would be required to finance that burden.  While the jobs report may suggest a slow improvement, we have to ask of our leaders: why would we deny guaranteed job opportunities and a stable energy supply during a time when we could use it the most?