Sen. Jon Tester of Montana
Last year, shortly after he was elevated to
lead the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Sen. Jon Tester of Montana explained
on MSNBC how Keystone XL pipeline supporters could box in President Obama so that he would have to sign the Republican's Keystone legislation.
“If we had in that pipeline bill to keep the energy here in the country, I can't see how the president would veto it to be honest with you — because I think it would provide some real benefits here to the country and to the job market here.”
Unfortunately for Sen. Tester, Republicans took that avenue away last week
when they blocked an amendment from Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) that would have kept Keystone petroleum here exclusively in the U.S.
Back in 2012, Tester also took a stab at laying out for his constituents his rationale for what he called the "common sense project" known as Keystone XL.
"Built with respect for private property rights and to the highest safety standards, the pipeline will safeguard our most treasured places and increase our energy independence," he wrote.
The words may have sounded good then, but they sure ring hollow now. In fact, the nation seems to be moving toward energy independence quite rapidly without the Keystone XL.
Ten years ago, for instance, only about 70 percent of the energy we consumed was produced here in the U.S. In 2014, that number—including energy from fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewable sources—was closer to 86 percent. In the last decade, net petroleum imports have dropped from 60 percent to below 27 percent, its lowest percentage since the mid-'80s.
Please continue reading about the changing Keystone debate below the fold.
So now that Tester's "energy independence" explanation has lost its luster, what about those high "safety standards" he cited in building the pipeline?
A couple weeks ago, some 30,000 gallons of crude oil spilled into the Yellowstone River, the longest undammed river in the contiguous United States. Montana's governor declared a state of emergency. Residents of Glendive, MT, a small town about 10 miles downstream from the site of the spill, were told to stop using their tap water because a cancer-causing agent called benzene was detected in it. The oil company rushed to get fresh water supplies to Glendive's 5,000 residents.
That pipeline rupture offers a small window into the damage the Keystone XL could do. According to the National Resources Defense Council, Keystone XL would cross 1,904 streams, reservoirs, and rivers, including the Yellowstone.
Unfortunately, pipeline spills happen often. In 2011, an ExxonMobil pipeline leaked 63,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River. TransCanada, the company that's building the Keystone XL, has already had at least a dozen leaks on the southern portion of the Keystone XL it has already built. That doesn't sound like the "highest" safety standards.
While any type of pollution has national implications, local residents like those in Glendive usually bear the brunt of the consequences. And spills involving tar sands oil—the type of crude that would be pumped through the Keystone XL—are particularly hairy. Just ask anyone who lives near Marhsall, MI. That's where an underground tar sands pipeline—much like the one that will be built through Montana—ruptured in 2010, spilling 843,000 gallons of diluted bitumen into the Kalamazoo River. The spill is still being cleaned up to this day and has now cost, Enbridge, the Canadian oil company that's responsible, a cool $1.21 billion.
All this has us wondering, what's Sen. Tester's rationale for continuing to back the Keystone XL now. Is he still pushing the GOP myth that Keystone is a "jobs bill"?
Because as we know, at the very most, the pipeline would create about 1,950 jobs over a couple years of construction that would be spread out over several states. In fact, a 2011 study by Cornell University's Global Labor Institute found that the Keystone XL would only create between 93 and 257 jobs for residents in Montana.
Then there's the fact that Montana's unemployment rate is at around 4.3 percent—1.3 points lower than the national average. Most economists consider five percent unemployment to be full employment.
Building the Keystone XL has largely been a non-issue in Montana, where many of Tester's constituents have favored the pipeline. The state's Native American residents, who account for around 6.5 percent of the population, have been the most vocal in their opposition. Those are votes that Sen. Tester and Democrats have worked hard to keep—at least during election years.
But if ever there were a time for Tester to reconsider his position, Montana's most recent Yellowstone River contamination has provided it. True leaders don't simply follow the polls, they shine a light on the future and ask people to go with them on that journey. And the Keystone XL's future impact on Montana quite literally isn't pretty.
So the question for Sen. Tester is simple: Are a few hundred jobs really worth the risk of polluting a precious resource like the Yellowstone River?