“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 overseas 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?