Keystone Pipeline Fallout Includes Union vs. Union Kerfuffle

The Keystone XL Pipeline saga continues with Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar leading the effort to revive the project. The Competitive Enterprise Institute looks at the union divide that was deepened by President Obama’s decision to kill the job-creating movement of oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast.

Terry O’Sullivan, head of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA ), has called Obama’s action "politics at its worst," saying that "once again the President has sided with environmentalists instead of blue collar construction workers." O’Sullivan angrily vowed that "workers across the U.S. will not forget this."

The Keystone project has long pitted the two key Obama constituencies against one another. Green groups agitated against the pipeline over worries of water contamination and other (largely baseless) environmental fears, while many building and trade unions lusted after the thousands of construction jobs the pipeline would create in the United States.

Mark H. Ayers, president of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO has publicly hammered the jobs issue. In a January 18th press release, Ayers voiced the frustration of many union workers, saying "…with a national unemployment rate in construction at 16 percent nationally, it is beyond disappointing that President Obama placed a higher priority on politics rather than our nation’s number one challenge: jobs."

James T. Callahan, president of the International Union of Operating Engineers, agrees, complaining to the Washington Post  that Obama’s decision was "…a blow to America’s construction workers," who are struggling in "the sector hardest hit by the recession."

In his rejection of the pipeline, Obama blamed Republicans for forcing him to meet what the While House deemed an arbitrary deadline. This despite the fact that the State Department has had the application for Keystone since 2008, held 20 meetings on the subject, and produced a gargantuan 1,000 page Environmental Study to assess the possible consequences of the pipeline, which would bring oil from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf Coast of the United States. As Rep. Joe Barton of Texas ruefully noted, the U.S. "fought and won World War II" in a shorter amount of time.

Besides causing a fissure between the President and some of his key union allies, the Keystone issue has also ruptured the once-strong Green/Labor alliance between environmental and union organizations, and has even pitted union against union. LUINA announced on January 20 that it left the so called "BlueGreen Alliance," citing "Job-killing attacks on the Keystone XL pipeline by some of the alliance’s labor and environmentalist members."

The Alliance describes itself as "a national, strategic partnership between labor unions and environmental organizations dedicated to expanding the number and quality of jobs in the green economy."

While LIUNA has left the Alliance, many unions remain committed to the partnership between the Democratic Party’s two most powerful special interests and staunchly oppose the pipeline. O’Sullivan has called this emerging divide "as deep and wide as the Grand Canyon."

To these unions, the LIUNA President said he was "repulsed by some of our supposed brothers and sisters lining up with job killers like the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council to destroy the lives of working men and women."

Rallying Cry: Stop the EPA

We reported last week on the efforts of several states (Texas being the latest to file suit) to stop Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases. The reasons are many, including devastating impacts on the economy.

Add a few more powerful players to the mix — Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and a leading Senate committee member. Both want to employ the Congressional Review Act. Here is an explanation:

Barbour is floating a draft letter to governors at their winter meeting asking Congress to use the Congressional Review Act to reject EPA’s endangerment finding. That finding cites climate change as a risk to public health and welfare, which the agency is using as justification for pursuing regulations.

"In addition to placing heavy administrative burdens on state environmental quality agencies, regulating greenhouse gases through the Clean Air Act will be costly to consumers and hurt the U.S. economy, resulting in job losses," according to Barbour’s draft.

This echoes an effort by Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Lisa Murkowski, who is expected to call for a vote on a resolution in March to use the Congressional Review Act to block EPA, spokesman Robert Dillon said.

She needs 51 votes and has 40 co-sponsors for her disapproval resolution, including three Democrats led by Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln.

Murkowski’s effort, and those by Energy and Commerce ranking member Joe Barton and others in the House, are not expected to be successful, given Democratic control of Congress and opposition from the president, who could veto a resolution even if it gets through both chambers.

But it continues to raise the argument that efforts by the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leaders to limit U.S. greenhouse gases are serious threats to the economy heading into this fall’s elections.