Tags: Keystone | Canada | Obama | sands

Financial Post: NY Times Is Urging Keystone Pipeline War

By    |   Thursday, 14 March 2013 08:00 AM

The Financial Post fired a broadside south of the border, accusing The New York Times of trying to incite President Barack Obama into declaring a war on Canadian energy exports.

The Canadian daily was responding to a lead editorial in Monday’s Times that urged Obama to block the Keystone XL pipeline that would bring oil squeezed from tar sands from Canada to the United States.

The Times editorial called on the president to focus on adverse long-term consequences of tapping Canada’s tar sands, which by Canadian estimates could hold 170 billion barrels of oil or more.

Editor's Note:
Use This Single Loophole to Pay Zero Taxes in 2013

“Given its carbon content, tar sands oil should be among the first fossil fuels we decide to leave alone,” the editorial said.

The Post responded, “The Times editorial, ‘When to Say No,’ essentially urged Mr. Obama to declare a war on Canada’s oil sands.”

The Times “played right into the hands of a U.S. environmental movement that has turned Keystone into religious crusade,” according to the Post.

According to the Times, Obama should stand on principle in the Keystone debate.

The editorial stated, “A president who has repeatedly identified climate change as one of humanity’s most pressing dangers cannot in good conscience approve a project that — even by the State Department’s most cautious calculations — can only add to the problem.

But the Post characterized the Times’ position thusly: “If Canadians want to develop the oil sands … they can develop their own effing pipeline to China or wherever. But the U.S. should not accommodate Canadians.”

Obama is set on a dangerous policy course with Canada, according to the Canadian newspaper.

“The president has declared his intentions to declare war on fossil fuels as a threat to humanity, a war backed by mainstream scientists,” the Post said.

“Canada produces fossil fuels from the oil sands, deemed by green activists to be the worst of all. This is war somebody is going to lose, and The New York Times has decided on Canada.”

More evidence the Keystone debate will be played out in the court of media attention came in Monday’s The Wall Street Journal, where Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Budget Committee, wrote a guest column that said his new budget proposal requires approval of the Keystone pipeline.

The Canada-to-Texas pipeline would create 20,000 direct jobs and 118,000 indirect jobs, according to Ryan.

“Our budget puts the country on the path to North American energy independence,” Ryan wrote.

A recent State Department draft review of the Keystone proposal was favorable.

The Hill reported Obama’s eventual Keystone ruling could displease a significant portion of his base, regardless of which way he lands.

Green groups, which have strongly supported Obama in the past, believe the decision will be Obama’s defining moment on climate issues, The Hill said.

Many unions, however, an even more reliable Obama constituency in most cases, want the project to move forward because it could provide many jobs for union members.

Editor's Note: Use This Single Loophole to Pay Zero Taxes in 2013

© 2019 Newsmax Finance. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
Markets
The Financial Post fired a broadside south of the border, accusing The New York Times of trying to incite President Barack Obama into declaring a war on Canadian energy exports.
Keystone,Canada,Obama,sands
514
2013-00-14
Thursday, 14 March 2013 08:00 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
MONEYNEWS.COM
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved