If she supports the pipeline,
she’ll run afoul of the Democratic Party’s increasingly vocal environmentalist
base, as well as climate-minded donors like billionaire Tom Steyer, who has
ties to the Clintons. That could provide an opening for a liberal opponent in
the 2016 primaries, similar to the way Barack Obama outflanked her with the
anti-war left in 2008.
But if she opposes Keystone, she’ll
go up against labor unions that welcome the project’s promise of thousands of
jobs — along with moderate Democrats and, according to polls, most of the
American public.
Clinton has offered no public
comments about the pipeline in 3½ years, and until now people in her circle
have declined to address it too. But people close to Clinton told POLITICO this
week that she won’t weigh in on the project anytime soon, saying it would be
inappropriate for her to appear to push either Obama or Secretary of State John
Kerry on an issue that’s still under review. . . .
But some in the party are worried.
“The nightmare is that Democratic primary voters would put withering pressure
on her to come out against the pipeline in the primary, a position that would
be a huge liability in the general election,” said former Clinton
administration climate aide Paul Bledsoe, who thinks Obama should approve
Keystone. “As a general election issue, it’s a no-brainer.”
That pressure is going to increase,
said one person with close ties to the environmental movement. “Once Obama
makes a decision, then the pressure on HRC will amp up on [Keystone] from
mainstream enviros,” the person said in an email. “In the meantime, if I’m
Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders or any other person running for POTUS
regardless of HRC, I would come out loud and hard against [Keystone] as a way
of rallying true believers in early states,” especially Iowa and New Hampshire.
Another potential rival in 2016 is
Vice President Joe Biden, whom a Sierra Club activist quoted last year as
saying during a rope-line greeting that he opposes the pipeline. Biden’s office
declined to confirm whether he said that, but it became instant lore among
climate activists.
Some Keystone opponents already
distrust Clinton based on her one public comment about the pipeline —
off-the-cuff remarks at a San Francisco speaking engagement in 2010 in which
she said the department was “inclined” to green-light the project.
“We’re either going to be dependent
on dirty oil from the Gulf or dirty oil from Canada … until we can get our act
together as a country and figure out that clean, renewable energy is in both
our economic interests and the interests of our planet,” said the
then-secretary of State, whose department was studying the Alberta-to-Texas
pipeline’s potential environmental impacts.
Her husband, former President Bill
Clinton, also indicated he favors the pipeline during remarks in 2012 that
still appear in pro-Keystone television ads.
Some Keystone opponents have
repeatedly accused the State Department of favoritism toward the project,
including during the years when she was secretary. Climate activist Bill
McKibben, co-founder of the group 350.org, also blamed her for the
disappointing outcome of international climate negotiations in 2009 in
Copenhagen, Denmark, which he called “certainly the biggest foreign policy
fiasco of the first Obama term.”
“And she wanted to approve Keystone
before there was any data on it,” McKibben said. “So I’d say there’s no huge
reservoir of trust just yet.”
Other environmentalists point to
the fact that Clinton has made climate change a major theme of several of her
speeches in recent months. During March remarks in Arizona, for example, she
called for a “mass movement” to tackle the issue.
Privately, Clinton allies said
those comments reflect concerns she’s heard from people, some of them donors,
about moving the issue to the forefront. . . .
Bledsoe said one person who can
take Keystone off Clinton’s plate is Obama, who could neutralize the issue by
approving the pipeline.
“Of all the reasons to approve
Keystone, clearing the way for Hillary Clinton may be the most salient,”
Bledsoe said. “If Obama denies the permit, Keystone will become a massive
litmus test issue in the Democratic primary for the left and a huge rallying cry
for Republicans in the general election.”
But environmental activists say
they’ll continue pushing Clinton to take a stance. Neutrality is an “untenable”
position for Clinton, Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica said.
“She’s going to have to have a
position on it,” he said in an interview. “She can’t urge young Americans to
rise up and lead on climate change if she herself isn’t willing to take
controversial positions on projects that exacerbate climate change.”
* * *
Andrew Restuccia and Maggie Haberman, “Hillary
Clinton’s Keystone headache,” Politico.
No comments:
Post a Comment