The [False] Keystone XL Political Dilemma

In case you haven’t heard, there’s a proposal to build an international pipeline to bring petroleum from Alberta’s bituminous oil deposits to Oklahoma, where it can go on to refineries in Texas. And the media, of late, has been harping on what everyone seems to see as a giant dilemma for Obama, who is required (at least superficially, and by his own action actively) to approve the proposal because the pipeline crosses an international border.

The perceived horns: On the one side, the oil companies (boo hiss) and union labor that would build it (yay?) who argue that the jobs are important to America, and are also playing the energy security card - not getting petroleum from countries that don’t like us.

On the other, environmentalists who would like to avoid the climatic and ecosystem impacts associated with burning all of that oil and deforesting the land (and are scientifically right, though it might get burned regardless of this pipeline). Also folks in Nebraska and Montana who would rather not have a pipeline over their shallow aquifer.

The dilemma, then, is that Obama has to choose one side to annoy - either the republicans who will smear him with it if he rejects it, or the environmentalists who will lose enthusiasm and not help out his grassroots campaign (which has significant value). What I don’t get is:

Why not make both sides happy?

Sideline punditry and policy suggestion alert: It’s easier to make decisions theoretically, and they’re worth a lot less.

But why doesn’t he come out, reject the pipeline on the basis of it being a scientific Bad Idea, and form an American goal of reducing our oil imports by the same volume that the pipeline would transport, in the process explaining where the jobs to make that happen would come from? Net gains: Jobs, energy security, emissions avoidance (or at least responsibility avoidance for the US).

There is, and will always be, issues if anything suggested costs money - and appropriate policies probably should, and probably wouldn’t get through Congress. But Obama, in the spirit of the TIME article looking at lessons from JFK (paywall, sorry), show me a vision that solves both of these problems and makes your base excited - particularly since the opposition is going to [irrationally] hate you regardless of how many jobs you create. You’re a phenomenal orator when you want to be, and you’ve hinted at pieces of this in the past - find some solid policies that could be implemented, or get the EPA to enforce a bunch of new [science-based] rules that will create construction jobs to meet. Ask for more money to pay for high-speed rail, or move highway funding to rail construction. You’ve got smart people - use them.

Don’t allow the Keystone XL pipeline, but there’s no reason not to step forward and deal with energy security and jobs at the same time. It would be bold, smart, and Hard - but if we’re going to fix our problems, Hard can never be a reason not to do things.