EPA Head Gina McCarthy – Now That It’s Safely Vetoed, Maybe We Were A Bit Hasty On Keystone Pipeline

Posted on March 31, 2015 by Rick Wells in Climate Change, EPA, Global Warming, Politics // 0 Comments

On Monday, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Chief Gina McCarthy strayed from her agency’s historic position on the Keystone XL Pipeline, saying in response to a question that it actually wouldn’t have been disastrous for the climate. She can tell the truth now. The bill to construct it has already safely been removed from the energy production battlefield, a victim of Obama’s infamous pen and a veto.
She made the comments despite the agency’s stated position in February that lower oil prices could lead to a surge in oil sands production and that supposedly negative situation would only be exacerbated by the pipeline project. It’s a nonsensical argument, but that won’t stop the EPA from making it. The United States is not the only oil-consuming country on the planet and oil prices are generally subject to the same market influences regardless of where the oil customer resides.
If the United States doesn’t buy the Canadian oil or commit the ultimate heresy against the Earth and actually drill our own, another nation that is not engaged in economic suicide surely will. The Canadian desire and commitment to sell their commodity is not contingent upon an American willingness to buy. They will sell to someone, irrespective of the price or their location.
The comments came during an event hosted by “Politico,” in response to a question from Mike Allen as to whether a functional Keystone would be a disaster for the climate. McCarthy replied, “No, I don’t think that any one issue is a disaster for the climate.” She referenced the EPA position that the oil sands drilling and their refining process emit more greenhouse gases than other oil production methods and their stance that an examination of the impact of low oil prices would be prudent.”
If a higher greenhouse gas emission concern truly exists for the EPA, perhaps they should consider removing the shackles on American productivity and prosperity and allow us to actually harvest our own natural resouces in a conventional, more “environmentally friendly” way. That won’t happen under this administration. She and her ilk don’t want America to have either energy or the associated prosperity.
In her failed attempt to ward off any appearance of a contradiction, McCarthy said, “It was simply the normal way in which EPA comments, which is to take a look at the analysis … and to make sure that people are looking at the changes in oil prices and what that means.”
The excuse is in place, ready and available for use in any future obstruction, if it’s needed. She does need to learn, though, that when referring to an action taken by the EPA, “normal” is never the appropriate way to characterize it.