Why is EPA unhappy about Keystone? Because it’s oil

JohnKerryThe federal Environmental Protection Agency claims the Keystone XL oil pipeline poses a global warming danger.

But one organization thinks the agency is just out to stop the consumption of affordable energy.

A January 2014 environmental analysis by the State Department essentially raised no major environmental concerns with Keystone XL. The State Department added that oil companies would develop the tar sands with or without a pipeline.

Environmental groups have argued that oil from the Canadian tar sands is dirtier that traditional crude oil and therefore means more emissions, something they point to as a contributor of what they call “global warming” or, more recently, “climate change.”

The EPA raised similar concerns about emissions not long after that State Department report. This week, the EPA requested the State Department “revisit” how much of a toll the Keystone XL pipeline would have on what the EPA calls “global warming.”

“I think EPA is showing its true colors,” suggestsDan Kish, senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research

He alleges the EPA’s “singular mission” under the Obama administration is to “stop the consumption of affordable energy, in any form, whether it’s coal or natural gas or oil.”

In the case of Keystone, he says, the federal agency is “looking for an excuse to say something bad about the Keystone pipeline and that’s what they’re doing.”

The Senate voted last week to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. The House has approved a different measure to approve the pipeline.