As the country gears up for the midterm elections this
November, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership
have made the Koch Brothers Public Enemy Number One. So why did 11
Democrats just
sign onto a bill supporting the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would add billions to the brothers’ coffers?
Democratic hostility toward the Kochs is well-known and oft proclaimed. On Wednesday, Sen. Reid called the Koch brothers “
one of the main causes” of global warming. That’s building on a couple weeks ago, when Reid
accused the Kochs and other moneyed interests of “influencing
the politics in a way not seen for generations.” Reid went on to call
their vision of America “radical” and “dystopian.” The Kochs
responded that they were “disappointed” Reid was “attacking private citizens.”
As it turns out, Keystone XL is right at the center of the Kochs’ vision of a brave new world. According to a
report by the liberal
International Forum on Globalization (IFG),
the 800,000 barrel-a-day pipeline would lower the costs of transporting
tar sands, driving up profit margins and making other reserves more
economically viable. More importantly, it would help unlock the Canadian
tar sands, where a Koch brothers-owned subsidiary is the
largest non-Canadian leaseholder. When the Pulitzer Prize-winning SolveClimate News conducted an
analysis of the Koch’s holdings, they concluded the brothers were positioned to be “big winners” if Keystone XL is approved.
How big? As much as $100 billion,
according to the IFG report,
although the number is being disputed by … well, the Koch brothers. But
even if the total benefit was just 10% of that sum, that’s another $10
billion for the Kochs to spend attacking workers’ rights, dismantling
environmental protections, eviscerating health care and electing climate
deniers.
How Fort McMurray became an energy industry gold mine
Even if President Obama blocks the Keystone XL pipeline, the blow
would barely dent U.S. reliance on Alberta's rapidly expanding tar sands
operation.
No surprise then that the brothers and their Big Oil buddies
have been spending big to try and get Keystone XL approved. According to
new numbers
from Oil Change International, the oil industry has now given over $20
million in donations to pro-Keystone XL members of Congress. Senators
that support Keystone have received an average of five times as much oil
industry money as senators that oppose the project. And the vast
majority of the money has gone to Republicans.
So why are 11 Democrats supporting Keystone XL? For some of them, like Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, you just need to
follow the money.
Sen. Landrieu gets so much cash from the fossil fuel industry that she
could be the Koch Sister. It’s no surprise she’s looking to pay back her
wealthy donors.
Other Democrats, like Sens. John Walsh, Mark Warner and Kay
Hagan, are no doubt worried about their reelection bids this November.
They’ve seen
some polls saying the majority of the American public supports Keystone XL and they’re running scared.
But they’re running in the wrong direction. Midterm elections
aren’t determined by candidates’ positions on far off infrastructure
projects, they’re determined by turnout, which in turn is supported by
voter intensity. And all of the intensity is on the side of pipeline
opponents – when was the last time 50,000 people rallied in Washington,
D.C. to
support Keystone XL?
That intensity was on display last week, when pipeline activists
turned out across the country
to keep other on-the-fence Democrats from supporting Keystone XL. The
pressure worked: Despite all of Big Oil’s spending, Republicans have
been
unable to muster the 60 votes they need to pass a bill supporting Keystone XL. As
Bold Nebraska Director Jane Kleeb
said on the Ed Show Wednesday
night, “$21 million couldn’t buy Big Oil this vote. Intensity is on our
side. We will never have the amount of money they have. But they will
never have the kind of heart and soul we have fighting this pipeline.”
The 11 Democrats supporting Keystone XL want to have their
climate action and eat their tar sands, too. But while an “all of the
above” approach might sound nice on paper, the actual planet doesn’t
work that way. Physics and chemistry don’t negotiate. You’re either
building more massive carbon polluting infrastructure or you’re not. The
Democratic party can’t continue to say it wants to kick the fossil fuel
habit when its own lawmakers are voting for Big Oil. Eventually, the
mixed-messaging is going to catch up with them.
Which is all the more reason for the president to deny the
permit for Keystone XL. By saying no to the pipeline, Obama would send a
clear signal that he’s serious about tackling the climate crisis. He’ll
also help the country, and the Democratic party, begin the fossil fuel
detox that our top scientists have ordered.
That would be bad news for the Koch brothers – and great news for the rest of us.
Jamie Henn is the communications director for 350 Action, a nonprofit environmental organization, and co-founder of 350.org.
