Is strengthening the current energy paradigm a
state-corporate crime?
David Eggink (D_b_e_2@hotmail.com) Tutor: Andres Verzijl
10648801 Second reader: Richard Ronald
Bachelor thesis project for urban planning
Political Ecology – Andres Verzijl & Beatriz Penida Revilla Word count: 14953
Table of Contents 1 Introduction ... 4 1.1 Background of the Keystone XL project ... 4 1.2 Problem statement ... 6 1.2.1 Research gap ... 6 2 Theoretical framework ... 7 2.1 Concepts ... 7 2.2 Discourse ... 8 2.3 Political discourse & Political discourse analysis ... 8 2.4 Party politics ... 9 2.4.1 Conservatism ... 10 2.4.2 Progressivism ... 11 2.5 Energy paradigms ... 12 2.6 Advocacy networks ... 13 2.7 Global warming as state-corporate crime ... 13 3 Research question ... 14 3.1 Sub questions ... 14 4 Data and Method ... 16 4.1 Study proposition ... 16 4.2 Data ... 16 4.3 Method ... 17 4.3.1 Type of research ... 17 4.3.2 Data collection ... 17 4.4 Data analysis ... 17 5 Results ... 19 5.1 The public’s perspective ... 19 5.2 Precedents of a pipeline ... 19 5.2.1 The fuel for a pipeline ... 19 5.2.2 The lands of a pipeline ... 20 5.2.3 The costs of a pipeline ... 21 5.3 From conception to near completion ... 21 5.3.1 The first application period ... 21 5.3.2 The second application period ... 23 6 Conclusion & Discussion ... 29 References ... 31 Notes ... 32
1
Introduction
Today there are over 4 million kilometres of pipelines that run through the United States. This is an indirect result of the biggest oil based and the biggest overall economy in the world. Multiple projects are under construction for the further expansion of this infrastructure network. The Keystone XL (KXL) project is one of them and is getting closer to completion. A strange development in the wake of the United States (US) signing the Paris Agreement, which binds the nations who sign it in keeping global warming under the 2.0 °Ci
.
These somewhat paradoxical developments have led to this bachelor thesis. The US seems to be committing to a cleaner future and speaks about leading the fight against climate change, but their actions show them moving in the opposite direction. This Janus-face aspect of the US government can be seen especially well within the developments of the KXL pipeline. Development that show that, from the announcement until the near completion of the pipeline, the US government’s interests and actions influencing the project are anything but stable. In Obama’s first term his administration was tended to allow the KXL project, but during the second term of his presidency it seemed as the US government was moving towards a cleaner future, as mentioned the Paris agreement was signed, and suddenly the KXL project did not get the necessary presidential permit. All this changed on 20 January 2017. This was the day of the inauguration of Donald Trump. Where the Obama administration was actively trying to address climate change Trump’s political aims have him actively denying the existence of climate change. So now it seems that the small steps which were made in recognizing this problem are disappearing into thin air.
President Obama once said: “The federal government is like an aircraft carrier, not a speed boat. Turning, it is hard” ii
. This seems like a solid statement but seems to be not entirely true when it comes to the KXL project. For, what if the carrier just started turning in the right direction? Then a small turn could be able to set the course towards a more climate unstable future. Within these volatile administration goals there appears to be a gap of scientific knowledge, because it is not known how the assessments of all possible impacts of the KXL project can under one administration result in a blockade of the project and in the other
administration in its near completion. Hereto, research into the political discourse regarding the KXL project should be conducted.
Before this research can be presented it is important to understand more of the background of the KXL project.
1.1 Background of the Keystone XL project
The KXL project was announced by TransCanada in 2005. The pipeline would create a way to transport the expected increase in oil production by the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. When the line gets completed it will be capable of transporting 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day (Parfomak et al., 2013). The line will transport it from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska, where it is connected to the existing Keystone Pipeline (Figure 1).
iii
The KXL project crosses the U.S. border and therefore belongs to the jurisdiction of the state department and a presidential permit is needed. To get this permit the state department should determine in 60 days after application whether the project is in ‘national interest’. This means accounting for environmental effects, the economy, energy security and foreign policy among others. The first application was in 2008 and it was denied because of a lack of time to assess the projects impact. The second application in 2012 was rerouted so that it no longer passed the sand hills of Nebraska (Parfomak et al., 2013). In 2015 President Obama rejected the request from TransCanada to build the KXL pipeline. He did so because he stated that this would not be in line with global climate change action leadership that the U.S. had shown during the Paris climate change conferencesiv.
During the last few decades the U.S. has shown to be a key player in the climate change debate. But their intentions in this debate vary from on the one moment wanting to be the leader in the debate and actively push for new agreements and solutions, to on another moment backing out of these same agreements. This volatility is shown in the Kyoto protocol, a protocol which the U.S. backed until it withdrew itself (Gupta, 2010) and in the more recent past in the Paris climate accord from which Trump has withdrawn the U.S.v
while a year ago backed by Obama.
This relation of the U.S. to the global climate change resolving efforts can be best explained by the varying concerns of U.S. citizens regarding climate change. As Brule, Carmichael & Jenkins (2012) have shown that the percentage of the U.S. citizens that are
concerned ‘a great deal’ with climate change varies from 26% in 2004, to 41% in 2007, but back to 28% in 2010. These numbers show that the U.S. and its citizens have at least until 2010 not yet decided if they think climate change is a real issue. This therefore also plays a key role in the political debate around the KXL project.
1.2 Problem statement
Now that some background has been given to the KXL project the problem which arises with the project can be formulated: By building the Keystone XL pipeline the U.S. gets further entangled in a system which uses resources unsustainably.
What is meant by this statement is the following, unsustainable resource use is something what has been a system in place during the entire life of people who live in the modern-day society. Therefore, it safe to say that those people will not from one day to another be able to change their whole lives in order to change their use of resources. In that way, it can be stated that the system of unsustainable resource use is something which everyone is addicted to. To end an addiction, it is important to create practical alternatives. Building the KXL pipeline is the opposite of that, it is as if when someone wants to quit smoking the government makes cigarettes cheaper.
1.2.1 Research gap
Most of the economic, technological, ecological and political impacts of the KXL pipeline are known. It will create 28,000 jobs according to Trump, but 3,900 according to a report of the state departmentvi
, and thus add at least some GDP, the technology is not new and it guarantees, at least short term, energy security; long term and wider environmental concerns have also been put forth. But as secretary Clinton said in 2010: “we’re either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the [Persian] Gulf or dirty oil from Canada … until we can get our act together as a country and figure out that clean, renewable energy is in both our economic interests and the interests of our planet.” It is thus not the question how the line gets build or what impacts it might have, the question is why it gets build. Because it should be assumed that the more sustainable alternatives will be better in any way. Therefore, research should be done to the political discourses that have led to the construction of the pipeline. To do so the following research question was formulated: “Why did political discourse that was influencing the
Keystone XL project change since the inception of the project and are the outcomes evidence of a state corporate crime?”
To answer this question, the next chapter a theoretical framework will be presented in which political discourse and the main concepts of this thesis are clearly introduced and defined. After that the research question and its justification will be addressed in the third chapter. The fourth chapter will give insight in the data and methods that are used to answer the research question. The fifth chapter will contain the results of these methods and will provide an answer to the research question. In the end, conclusions will be drawn and the thesis and its results will be critically discussed.
2
Theoretical framework
In this chapter, a framework is presented in which the research will take place. Hereto, first the outlines of the framework are given in a visualization. After this the concepts are defined and discussed. First discourse needs to be defined and after that political discourse will be
introduced. When a clear definition of this concept is given, the method of analysis should be theoretically substantiated. In the remainder of this chapter, theory about the factors that shape the political discourse are discussed. These factors are: Party Politics, Energy paradigms and Advocacy networks. I will conclude this chapter with a concept called global warming as a state-corporate crime. This concept is introduced because the outcomes of the discourse in the
decision-making arena could be an example of state-corporate crime.
2.1 Concepts
To understand the theoretical framework which will be presented, first a visualization of how the different concepts are to be understood in relation to one another is presented.
In figure 3, 3 factors are given which influence the political discourse. These factors can have all sorts of influence, when there is a conservative or progressive majority or administration this will have an influence on the political discourse, when certain energy paradigms are believed or not it will have an influence on the political discourse, when certain advocacy networks are in place they will have an influence on the political discourse. So, to understand the political discourse these factors should all be determined.
When this political discourse is understood, its influence on the decision-making progress will be clear. This influence can be that the KXL project at a certain time is blocked or permitted. When a blockade or permit is given, this will be an outcome of the decision-making arena, because these decision aim to be final. However, as history has learned, a decision is only final until it is overturned. Therefore, there are 3 final decisions until know in KXL project and of all these decisions it can be questioned if they are state-corporate crimes.
Now that the relations of the concepts to one another are clear, the concepts themselves will be defined and discussed.
2.2 Discourse
For thirty years the term discourse is used in scientific research. The term is however sometimes used too vague and other times too precise. But in almost all cases, the idea on which the term discourse is based is “that language is structured according to different patterns in that people’s utterances follow when they take part in different domains of social life, familiar examples being ‘medical discourse’ and ‘political discourse’ (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002).
The theory about discourse starts with the assumption that every object and every action has meaning. This meaning is produced by historically specific systems of rules. Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe (1987; 84) use the concept of discourse to “emphasize the fact that every social configuration is meaningful”. Hereby they call discourse the totality which includes within itself the linguistic and the non-linguistic. With this Laclau & Mouffe do not mean the totality of speech and writing, “but rather that speech and writing are themselves but internal components of discursive totalities” (1987; 82). When researching these discursive totalities, which are conterminous with the being of objects, it is important to understand that no meaning can ever be fully independent of something else (Howarth, 2000). When defining discourse Howarth states that it is important to identify three main categories, namely the discursive, discourse and discourse analysis. These categories will now be explained.
The discursive means that all objects are objects of socially constructed system of rules and significant differences, or discourses (Townshend, 2003). This makes the discursive into a horizon of meaningful practices and significant differences. Sceptics would argue that the world might as well be non-existent and therefore the discursive would also be nothing. But this argument is smartly avoided by stating that we always are in a world of signifying practices and objects. This makes the denial when assuming the former logically impossible (Howarth, 2000).
“Discourses are concrete systems of social relations and practices that are intrinsically political, as their formation is an act of radical institution which involves the construction of antagonisms and the drawing of political frontiers between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’” (ibid). Constructing discourses is thus an act of power and could be followed by a structuring of social agents in accordance with this power.
Analysis of discourse can be done by looking at a wide range of linguistic and non-linguistic materials and place those into concepts and methods to compare them to the assumptions that were made (ibid).
2.3 Political discourse & Political discourse analysis
Political discourse is about the linguistic and non-linguistic practices of professional politicians or political institutions. With professional politicians is meant a group of people who get paid for their political activities (van Dijk, 1997). This is different from general discourse theory, because it focusses on a specific set of actors and especially because it focusses on a specific kind of utterances. Hereby it should be noted that politicians do not always talk politically, they only do when they are busy with politics, so when they speak for election campaigns, during parliamentary sessions or while they are giving interviews.
However, the political discourse is not only made up by these politicians because other participants in political communication appear on stage when we locate politics and its
protesters and their organizations could become actors in political discourse. “A broad definition of politics therefore implies a vast extension of the term ‘political discourse’ if we identify such practices by all participants in the political process” (ibid). This makes the scope of political discourse very broad, yet different from corporate, medical and educational discourse. Even though these discourses may have a major influence on the political discourse. Which is also the case for politicians that ‘act politically’ outside of political events and the same is true vice-versa, so when any person enters a political event their discourse becomes political (ibid).
Although, the theory about political discourse is very interesting, it has not (at least not yet) so far developed a clear distinction between political discourse and other sorts of discourse (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2013; 17). To create this distinction the focus should not be that in which the question of representation is central, but the questions of decision-making and action. Hereto, Fairclough suggests that there should be more reflection on “the connection between views of politics, views of political discourse and analytical approaches to political discourse” (ibid; 17). The definition of political discourse analysis (PDA) they use is adopted from van Dijk (1997), therefore this is also the definition that will be used here. Van Dijk (1997) defines PDA “is the analysis of political discourse from a critical perspective, a perspective which focusses on the reproduction and contestation of political power through political discourse” (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2013; 17).
At this point, clear definitions of discourse and political discourse are given. Therefore, the method of analysis could now be theorized. However, it would be useless to do so if we do not know what the possible use of such analysis could be. An example of this could be extracted from the debates about integration. Assume a right-wing member of parliament that holds a speech about immigration. This speech might not be racist, yet some people could intuitively feel that something is off about the way things are said. The point of such a speech could be
spreading xenophobia, that is a fear of strangers (ibid). These revelations could be given by PDA. Because then an examination could be made of the argumentative structure in documents and other written or spoken statements in the political process, as well as the practices through which these utterances were made (Howarth & Torfing, 2004).
This analysis is thus especially interesting because forms of text and talk, which are, as stated before, internal components of discursive totalities (Laclau & Mouffe, 1987; 82), have political functions and implications. These forms can range from law to propaganda, from social media campaigns to interviews and from government regulation to party programs (van Dijk, 1997). By PDA these forms could be identified and when clearly structured could reveal the discursive patterns used by specific political actors (Howarth, 2000).
In sum, clearly structured PDA first provides direct insight into discursive political practices such as cabinet meetings, parliamentary debates, laws, bureaucratic documents, party propaganda, media interviews or protest by opposition parties and organizations. These political acts, events and processes need description and analysis. We need to know how they are
organized, structured and expressed, and what kinds of possible influence or effects they may have on the political cognitions of the public. Second, the contextual functionality of text and talk also allows reliable inferences about political context features, which may be taken for granted, hidden, denied or otherwise not explicitly known or formulated (van Dijk, 1997).
2.4 Party politics
For more than half a decade the hypothesis exists that different psychological motives and tendencies underlie ideological differences between the political left and right. Jost et al.
statistically researched this hypothesis in 2003 and they found that it is possible to predict politically conservative attitudes on the basis of a set of interrelated epistemic, existential and ideological motives. This is best explained by the figure they present and is presented below. In this figure, it is shown that environmental stimuli as uncertainty and fear lead to social cognitive motives and these motives on their turn lead to political conservatism (Jost et al., 2003; 368).
Figure 3 an integrative model of political conservatism as motivated social cognition (Jost et al., 2003)
From this point, it can thus be seen that a political attitude is a product of environmental stimuli and the social-cognitive motives which are gained from those stimuli. When there is a basic instinct imprinted on how to react to certain environmental stimuli someone’s political attitude will be decided accordingly. The imprinting of such basic instincts is something that happens at the early stages of life and therefore it could be stated that the way someone is raised is the main determinant for later political attitudes. On a basis like this Lakoff (2008) tried to explain the main right and left political attitudes, respectively progressivism and conservatism, with two family ideal metaphors in which the reaction to certain environmental stimuli is imprinted differently. These family ideals will now be explained, because this perfectly illustrates the American view on politics and the division that is inherent to those ideologies. 2.4.1 Conservatism
Conservatism is concerned with authority, obedience, discipline and punishment (Lakoff, 2008; 78), the question is however how these values came to arise in one’s mind. This is
family, the strict father is the moral leader of the family, and is to be obeyed. The need for such a strict father is that there is evil in the world from which he must protect them. Something
mommy cannot do. Competitions must be won by the father figure to support his family. These strict father is moreover needed to show his kids what is right and what is wrong, because without him they would do whatever they want. Here strict and painful punishment comes into place to keep the kids from wrongdoing to avoid these punishments. From this they gain an internal discipline by which they do right and not wrong. When they have this discipline, they can go out in the world, enter the market and start families for themselves, in which they are the strict father (Lakoff, 2008; 78).
When this metaphor is mapped onto politics it can be understood that when there is fear the father figure is the one who takes this fear away and when he does so his children, or in case of the state civilians, in return are obedient and show discipline in their behaviour. Jost et al. (2003) would see the environmental stimuli fear to be related to someone with the self-esteem to not be afraid and therefore people raised according to this ideal would have the social-cognitive motive to gain a conservative political attitude.
Why conservatism is concerned with authority, obedience, discipline and punishment is thus explained by the family ideal. These four parameters, extracted from the strict father ideal, can then be used to answer questions according to conservatives. For example, why can there be no gay marriage? Because in the strict father figure ideal masculinity and gender difference are crucial. Gay marriage would in this case be a threat to people who live by this ideal and those people are what is called conservatives (Lakoff, 2008).
2.4.2 Progressivism
Progressives come from a completely different viewpoint on family. This is the nurturant parent model. This model consists of two parents, with equal responsibilities, and no gender constraints – or one parent of either gender. Their job is to nurture their children and raise them to be nurturers of others. This arises from empathy, responsibility for oneself and others and consequently the strength to carry out these responsibilities. In this ideal, children are raised to care for themselves but also to care for others. Discipline relies on positivity; it comes out of the development of the child when it becomes more careful and responsible. Parents are needed to set limits and explain those limits. From these limits, mutual respect grows when parents follow these and children do as well. Restitution is preferred over punishment, if something is done wrong, make it right by doing it right the next time. Overall parents are thus needed for protection, empowerment and a sense of community (Lakoff, 2008; 81).
When this ideal is mapped on to a nation we see that it results in progressive politics of these same values. This is because as mentioned before the social-cognitive motives which one gets from environmental stimuli lead in this sort of family to a progressive attitude towards politics.
Progressive politics nowadays has according to Lakoff his book “Don’t Think of an
Elephant!” (2004; 4) a serious problem with succeeding against the conservatives. He states that there are six types of progressives:
1. “Socioeconomic progressives think that everything is a matter of money and class and all solutions are ultimately economic and social class solutions.
2. Identity politics progressives say it is time for their oppressed group to get its share now. 3. Environmentalists think in terms of sustainability of the earth, the sacredness of the
4. Civil liberties progressives want to maintain freedoms against threats to freedom.
5. Spiritual progressives have a nurturant form of religion or spirituality and their spiritual experience relates to their connection and service to other people and their community. 6. Antiauthoritarians believe there are all sorts of illegitimate forms of authority out there
and we have to fight them.”
The problem which arises with so many kinds of progressives is that they tend to conflict with one another. And herein lies a major problem when it comes to decision-making, because when they don’t form a single form they will always be overruled by the stronger voice of a united conservative front (Lakoff, 2004; 4). Some other beliefs of progressives are also important to mention, namely that they belief that people need facts to make right decisions, when
cognitive research points out that people think in frames. These frames will not be changed by facts (Lakoff, 2004; 5). Another also important misunderstanding which is commonly had by Progressives, is that people always will vote for their rational self-interest, when in fact people vote on someone they identify with (Lakoff, 2004; 5). These are just a few examples of
misunderstandings that are had by progressives and more can thus be pointed out.
2.5 Energy paradigms
Paradigms are lenses on reality (Goldthau, 2012; 199). Change in paradigms is triggered by abrupt change in circumstances or by crisis. When talking about energy there can be given two examples of triggers for paradigm shifts: the Chernobyl disaster and climate change. When the Chernobyl reactor collapsed and covered Europa underneath a cover of nuclear material, people started to see that Nuclear energy came with significant security risks. This has led to an anti-nuclear energy stance in most western countries and a more pro ‘green’ energy stance (). Since climate change is scientifically proved to be caused by humans, it has caused a shift from a ‘business as usual’ scenario to a more pro-active scenario, in which the consequences of climate change need to be mitigated (Goldthau, 2012; 199).
To understand the impact of political discourse which relies on old or new paradigms, it is important to understand on which timescale the paradigm changes are happening. At this moment, we are in the middle of one, if we look at climate change, something of which the prove becomes more and more commonly accepted, we can understand that this shift is now
happening. But how long can this shift take? The answer to this question will not be given right now, but it is needless to say that such a shift needs to happen sooner rather than later. Devezas et al. (2008) describe timescales of shifts in energy use paradigms with primary sources which were commonly used and are used less now. These are primary sources such as wood and coal. It was expected in the 1970-1980 that the use of these sources would now be totally substituted, it however has not (Devezas et al., 2008). Instead of replacing these fuels, people kept using them on a stable somewhat lower level than before. This has led to a stable energy regime from the 1980’s onward. An explanation for this is the growing efficiency in energy use. We can now fulfil a higher demand then we could 10 years ago with the same amount of energy. This trend however also has its peak. When this peak has been reached they predict that the stable use of fossil fuels will start to gradually decline again (Devezas et al., 2008). At the same time,
renewable energy use will gradually rise, but the time span will thus become bigger through the economic efficiency which is provided by the fossil fuels. It is therefore important that
renewable energy sources become more efficient, because only then the current energy use paradigm will be fully replaced (Devezas et al., 2008).
2.6 Advocacy networks
Agenda setting theory, is a concept formed in the 1970’s that suggested the media have the power to determine the important issues of the day. This seems however, outdated. Because with the growing access to social media everyone can generate news (Conway et al., 2015). Due to there is now uncertainty in who determines which agenda. It could be that the public is once more in control over the political agenda, but it also could be that the politicians themselves are.
Groups always have been important in the political debate. Nowadays, they have gained a lot of mobility and minimized the costs of information acquisition (Hodges & Stocking, 2016). Because of this, movements are being formed everywhere. The question however remains who is in control of these movements. Due to the fairly newness of social media, this question could not be answered for all movements. Besides the tactics and structure of these movements are
dependent of their political goals. An example of this is that conservative groups are still relying on hierarchy structures and with that oppose bottom-up processes. Whereas environmental movements clash with the ‘elite’, who want to do business as usual through established political actors (ibid).
The debate on this subject will therefore be considered when looked at the discourse, but it is at this moment hard to be exact about how this influences the discourse What is clear however, is that the role of media has been redeveloped and that the uprising of social media should thus be considered of influence on the political discourse.
2.7 Global warming as state-corporate crime
There is a growing body of research into the action or inaction of nations in the field of criminology concerning global warming. Because it is likely that the coming generation will look at us as criminals or heroes regarding our policy to mitigate or greaten the effects of global warming. Hereto a concept called global warming as state-corporate crime was theorized.
State-corporate crimes are illegal or socially injurious actions that result from a mutually reinforcing interaction between (1) policies and/or practices in pursuit of the goals of one or more institutions of political governance and (2) policies and/or practices in pursuit of goals of one or more institutions of economic production and distribution (Bradshaw, 2015). These crimes take two forms, facilitated by the state or initiated by the state. The firmer occurs when policies from the government fail to regulate deviant business practices and the former occurs when government agencies employ corporations in organizational deviance with directions or approval from the government (Bradshaw, 2015).
In a 2010 paper by Lynch et al. the politicization of global warming under the George W. Bush administration was examined. This was an example of a state-corporate crime because they found extensive intersection and cooperation on the global warming policies which had the intention to promote fossil fuel interest. Herein science was obscured and controlled by the administration.
This section is added here, because the impacts of climate change will be neglected if the KXL project is completed, such an act of neglecting by the state but also by corporations could just as well be a state-corporate crime as the politicization of global warming was under Bush. Conclusively it is thus important to have a basic understanding of this concept to assess whether or not the outcomes of the political discourse inserted into the decision-making arena are a state-corporate crime.
3
Research question
Why did political discourse that was influencing the Keystone XL project change since the inception of the project and are the outcomes evidence of a state-corporate crime?
The answer to this question will lead to a better understanding of the influence of political discourse on the decision-making progress towards big energy infrastructural projects. When deciding about these projects it is important to understand the potency and impotency of different actors, because then and only then clarity can be given over the governing body his ability to decide over this kind of project. This question also uses the concept of state corporate crime, with this concept it could be made visible if the decisions which are made willingly or unwillingly are an example of this type of crime.
3.1 Sub questions
(1) How did party politics influence the political discourse towards the Keystone XL project?
The answer to this question will show if there are differences in political ideologies and if these differences lead to different outcomes of the political discourse in the decision-making arena. If party politics has that kind of influence it will become evident from the actions which are made by administrations. It can namely be said that an administration is conservative or progressive. The answer will thus show if different administrations lead to different outcomes of the political discourse, by looking at the motives for these different outcomes it can then be said if party politics is a motivation for the changing of the outcome. Also, the outcome can then be evaluated and classified as state-corporate crime or not.
(2) How did advocacy networks influence the political discourse towards the Keystone XL project?
Advocacy networks are rapidly changing due to growing number online media advocacy organizations. These organizations have and always had an influence on political
discourse, but it is now questioned how this influence changes the political discourse specific for the KXL project. Because when the advocacy networks change their influence should also change. If it for example becomes easier to influence the political discourse through online media, the influence should also become smaller and of less importance. This question has the hypothesis that the relation between the ease of advocating online is not represented equally in the eventual influence on the discourse but bigger then should be. It is thus questioned if it becomes easier to influence political discourse surrounding the KXL project. This can explain why and if there are changes in the political discourse.
(3) How does political discourse towards the Keystone XL project influence the foothold of the current energy paradigm?
The answer to this question will show what the influence is of energy paradigms on the political discourse and vice versa. If the political discourse towards the KXL project has an impact on the current energy paradigm it must be possible to analyse this. If no analysis of such an influence can be made it will mean that political discourse has no
significant influence. The current energy paradigm is one in which we rely on fossil fuels as primary energy sources. An influence could be that the discourse around KXL slows or fastens the transition toward a new energy paradigm and therefore this is the focus in the analysis. The answer will thus be (when there is an influence) that the influence strengthens or weakens the foothold of the current energy paradigm. When it strengthens the foothold and this is done knowingly by the state and corporations this is an example of state-corporate crime.
4
Data and Method
In this section, a clear overview of the research that will be conducted is given. Hereto, first my study propositions are presented. Second the places where the data were found and the kind of data that is found are explained. Last the methods of my research will be explained and should logically follow out of the data which is presented.
4.1 Study proposition
The research questions are based on study propositions, that are based on the theoretical framework. These propositions do not mean to steer the results towards any goal, but are established to give the explanatory character a form of direction (Yin, 2009). The probability of these propositions is undetermined, which also means they do not exclude other possible propositions.
Ø The only reason that a permit for the Keystone XL project was not given until the Trump administration was the presidential veto of President Obama
Ø Due to the abstract cause of climate change belief in the existence of climate change is still low in the U.S. and therefore it fails to get addressed by the U.S. government Ø Protecting the environment might be in the interest of all people
4.2 Data
The data which are collected are specific for each of the sub questions. To answer my research question, these sub questions need to be answered first, this is done by using the following data sources.
Ø What is important in energy infrastructure for the public? a. Find this in scientific literature
Ø Political discourse during Obama administration:
The party politics, energy paradigms & advocacy networks in place during the Obama administration will be examined.
a. Extract out of scientific literature b. Extract out of news articles c. Extract out of Tweets on subject
Other actors
350.org: in scientific literature, webpages, news articles, opinion articles. Sioux Indians: in scientific literature, news articles
Ø Political discourse of Trump campaign and administration:
The party politics, energy paradigms & advocacy networks in place during the Trump administration will be examined.
a. Extract out of scientific literature b. Extract out of news articles c. Extract out of Tweets on subject
Other actors
Labour groups: in scientific literature, webpages, news articles, opinion articles. TransCanada: in scientific literature, webpages, news articles, opinion articles.
4.3 Method
To extract these data a certain kind of research should be done. An overview of the methods of this research will now be presented.
4.3.1 Type of research
In social sciences, there are two types of researches: quantitative and qualitative research. quantitative research is trying to test an existing theory. This is a deductive research type,
because inferences will be made from a general theory into specific cases. This research does not do such things. This research examines the practices in one specific case and makes inferences to a general theory. This is called inductive reasoning. This is done by interpreting and that makes the research type qualitative (Bryman, 2012).
To do so, this research will collect data to find three types of discourses. These discourses are (1) general discourse towards energy policy (2) the discourse during the Obama
administration (3) the discourse during the Trump administration. These political discourses will be constructed by using a table. The table is a representation of all actors that are analysed within this thesis. Their arguments will be extracted out of the literature and other data sources and the research will try to discover the political reasons behind their arguments. By doing so their place in forming the political discourse can be found. These actors are however not the only possible actors which could have an impact on the advance of the KXL project. The schematic overview could become bigger if the research allows it. The aim is to create the most qualitative overview of the subject as possible in the given timeframe. This is therefore also included in my timetable. With the use of this matrix a structured analysis of the political discourses at play can be given.
After the overview, of the involved actors with their respective identities and motivations for involvement, is given another table will be constructed. This will be a timetable with two columns in which the date and actions of influence on the political discourse surrounding the KXL project will be shown. From this timetable, the developments in the political discourse will become clear and then the research question can be answered.
4.3.2 Data collection
The most common qualitative data collection methods are analysis of text in literature or other sources and interviewing (Bryman, 2012). In this thesis analysis of literature, news articles and social media will be used. By reading and analysing the scientific literature, newspapers and social media feeds the arguments which are used to create the political discourse can be found. Hereto, a critical approach is essential. The statements of politicians should always be critically evaluated and only when they are essential for the discourse incorporated in the research.
4.4 Data analysis
The method of analysis is political discourse analysis (PDA). As stated in the theoretical framework, PDA provides direct insight into discursive political practices. This includes
analysing the structure of debates and how they are organized and expressed. Once this is known the possible influences or effects on the political cognitions of the public could be described. When this part, giving an overview of the political debate, is completed, inferences could be made of the contextual functionality of the text and talk of politicians. These features of political
debates may seem clear at first hand, but could be very complex and well-formed and therefore serve a whole other purpose then one might think.
The starting point of our analysis therefore is that our ways of talking do not neutrally reflect our world, identities and social relations but, rather, play an active role in creating and changing them. This starting point is used by three approaches which are Laclau & Mouffe’s discourse theory, critical discourse analysis and discursive psychology (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002). For all discourse analysis, it is important to understand that theory and method are intertwined, herein the content of the two combined should form an integrated whole but it is possible to create and combine one’s own element in the research. Because by doing so new perspectives will be added to the field of discourse and from that new forms of knowledge can arise (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002).
For this thesis, this means that the assumption is that words do only reflect a part of a statement, there is a second part namely their purpose. This purpose can be extracted from statement as a will now show. Let us for example consider the following statement made by Obama about the KXL project: “It has become a symbol too often used as a campaign cudgel by both parties rather than a serious policy matter, and all of this obscured the fact that the pipeline would neither be a silver bullet for the economy, as was promised by some, nor the express lane to climate disaster proclaimed by others” vii
. This statement shows a nuance in the effects of the KXL project, it will create jobs, but not that many, it will pollute the environment, but not so much. From this nuance, it could be understood that the project is not that important at all, and Obama’s purpose with this statement therefore simply could be to shift attention to other more important policy matters, but when looked at this statement from the context of the debate one knows that it is not that simple. The statement namely is a justification for rejecting the KXL project. The purpose of the statement therefore could also be to encourage U.S. citizens to evaluate their opinion about the pipeline, because most voices that are heard are resting on one perspective.
In this thesis, every statement every new article and all literature will be critically evaluated and looked at through a neutral perspective in the way described above. By doing so, the real purpose of the political statements will become visible and then it will be possible to explain why discourse has changed. If this is done correctly, so with a critical view towards myself and my sources, reliable inferences could be made, which are not subjective or unscientific in some way. Most important for the method of analysis is thus that it is clearly structured. This is the only way to provide a valid argument and consequently build a valid case of my findings. After which conclusions can be drawn.
5
Results
In this chapter, the results of my research will be presented. First the importance of public opinion in relation to the KXL project is shown. From this it can be understood that opinion is an influencing factor for the shape of the project and the surrounding political discourse. Second there will be a written chronology of all actions that have or had an influence on the political discourse. This chronology will contain three periods, namely the first, second and third
application period. The information presented in this chronology is presented in two tables. From these overviews, not only the actions will be clear, but also the when, the why and the
consequences of these actions can be understood. All these results will make it possible to draw conclusions about how the political discourse has changed regarding the KXL project.
5.1 The public’s perspective
In a 2015 research paper by Gravelle & LaChappele the politics around the KXL project are described. They make a short summation about the proponents and opponents of the project. The proponents are the Obama administration, environmental groups opposed by republicans and a contingent of democrats in the U.S. congress. Where the republican leadership of congress ushered a new commitment to press forward with KXL they face threats from the Obama administration which will veto every such attempt. These dynamics show the high profile which the KXL project has got. Due to this high profile and the elections in 2016 it has become
increasingly important what the public attitudes are about the project (ibid).
But what factors are important in shaping these attitudes? When the project was first proposed in 2008 the republicans said it was good energy security policy, because instead of importing oil out of middle eastern countries the U.S. would import more oil from a stable democracy and ally, namely Canada (ibid). Most democrats oppose this together with environmental groups like Greenpeace and No Tar Sands Oil Coalition, because they say it would further increase greenhouse gas emissions and place local communities and aquifers at risk of contamination from pipeline spills (ibid). So, for the public attitude it is important in which of these groups they find themselves.
Another factor which is important for the basis of public attitude is ideology. For example, we could expect more conservatives support the project because they represent
individual rights, free enterprise and the promise of jobs. These are the things that conservatives value most. In contrast to this, liberals value the issues of equality and collective goods more and because of these values they are less likely to support the pipeline (ibid).
The third parameter which they found is the spatial proximity. It is stated that the spatial proximity to events comes with more news coverage. This is because media organizations have economic incentives to emphasize local events. At their turn, they inform the public that they are close to an infrastructural project. Due to this people get increasingly aware of the economic benefits and environmental risks which are attached to the project. From this it is not hard to understand that these risks lead to an increase in opposition (ibid).
5.2 Precedents of a pipeline
5.2.1 The fuel for a pipeline
Tar sands are unconsolidated sand deposits that are impregnated with high molar mass viscous petroleum, normally referred to as bitumen. This dirty oil because before the bitumen can be
transported it needs to be treated. The matter is not liquid enough to flow through pipelines otherwise. This treatment and the extraction of the oil from the sands make that the oil is far dirtier then oil from regular sources (Masliyah et al., 2004). Three of the biggest sites where bitumen can be found are in the province of Alberta, Canada. The Athabasca area is the largest of those three and also the largest tar sand deposit in the world. Together these three sites cover 141,000 square kilometres (ibid.).
viii
Figure 4 Location of tar sands
Figure 5 Total amount of collectable oil deposits (Masliyah et al., 2004)
The total volume of oil which is estimated to become collected is 300 billion barrels with the current method of open pit mining. This makes that at the current rate of consumption, namely 2 million barrels a year, there will be enough oil there for at least the coming centuries (ibid.). 5.2.2 The lands of a pipeline
The pipeline runs through multiple states of the U.S., among which South Dakota and Nebraska. These states are worth mentioning because here the pipeline was opposed the most. The nature of this conflict is that the pipeline runs through land of the Lakota peopleix
. These people are native Americans and they live in the Dakota’s but also in other states of the U.S. They oppose the pipeline because it runs over natural aquifers. This aquifer is the Ogallala aquiferx
, which is for the greatest part in Nebraska, but also in South Dakota and other states. This is shown in the figure below. It can be understood that they will resist the installation of a pipeline over this aquifer because they rely on it for clean drinking water, something which can be polluted if the KXL pipeline would leak. The details of some of their actions contributing to the political discourse will later be given.
xi
Figure 6 Ogallala aquifer
5.2.3 The costs of a pipeline
The estimations of the costs of constructing the pipeline vary. In the summer of 2007 TransCanada stated that the total construction cost would be $2.8-billion U.S. dollars but in October that year they doubled that estimate to $5.2-billionxii. This variation can be a strong influence on the political discourse because if the costs-benefit are presented too optimistic people are more likely to support the project and when presented too sceptic it would be likelier that people oppose the project. The governing body should thus be transparent and neutral when these costs are presented, because if they spin the costs to get support for something that will turn out to be not worth the costs they do so knowingly. This point is thus very important when evaluating the outcomes of the decision-making process.
5.3 From conception to near completion
Because the KXL project crosses the U.S. border a presidential permit is needed. This permit is given when the U.S. Department of state determines that the project is in national interest. To get this presidential permit a company or organization can admit an application to the U.S. State department (Kalen, 2012). Since the inception of the KXL project in 2005, three applications were admitted during a period from 2008 until 2017. These three applications will now be discussed.
5.3.1 The first application period
TransCanada Corporation is the company that took the initiative of building the KXL pipeline. They are a major North American energy company based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. They have built and own many kilometres of oil and gas pipeline; besides this they also have
interests in power generation. In short, they are an all-round energy company and their main goal with the KXL project is to expand their cross-border oil pipeline operations. Hereto, they first proposed the project in 2005 and in 2008 they filed the first application for the federal approval process. This triggered a national dialogue on climate and energy policy (Kalen, 2012).
When the Obama administration got the application for the permit of the KXL pipeline, the State Department should, as mentioned before, decide whether it is in national interest. Therefore, this department had to produce an environmental document in pursuant of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This is called the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In 2010 when there was a draft EIS it got the worst rating from the environmental
protection agency (EPA)xiii
. Furthermore, there were concerns by the State of Nebraska and others about the potential environmental effects of routing the pipeline through the Nebraska Sand Hills region and over the Ogallala Aquifer. These two things combined led to the State department postponing the final EIS and with that their decision.
In an attempt to influence the final EIS, the national resources defence council provided a study in which they listed multiple concerns about the environmental impacts of the KXL
pipeline. These concerns varied from terrorist threats, migratory birds, clean drinking water and increased CO2 Emissions. On these expressed uncertainties, they found enough ground to file a suit against the U.S. State Department, in which they argue that this Department’s draft
environmental statement is virtually ignoring the environmental impact of refining and extracting tar sands oil (Cherry, 2011). However, the aim of the NRDC was ambitious it was also outside its authority according to a federal court judge. Due to this the judge dismissed the case (ibid).
At the same time, the Secretary of state Hillary Clinton made comments that sparked the debate and placed her in the middle of it. She stated at a press conference on this day that she was ‘inclined’ to approve the KXL pipeline projectxiv. To understand why these comments are important an overview [sic.] of this interview will now be presented:
Question: Another international issue that you signed in on last year was the Alberta Clipper, a pipeline from Alberta that brings tar sands, oil sands directly into Wisconsin to the U.S. Midwest. This is some of the dirtiest fuel in the world. And how can the U.S. be saying climate change is a priority when we’re mainlining some of the dirtiest fuel that exists.
Secretary Clinton: Well, there hasn’t been a final decision made. It is – Question: Are you willing to reconsider it?
Secretary Clinton: Probably not. And we – but we have not finish all of the analysis. So as I say, we’ve not yet signed off on it. But we are inclined to do so and we are for several reasons – going back to one of your original questions – we’re either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Gulf or dirty oil from Canada. And until we can get our act together as a country and figure out that clean, renewable energy is in both our economic interests and the interests of our planet – (applause) – I mean, I don’t think it will come as a surprise to anyone how deeply disappointed the President and I are about our inability to get the kind of legislation through the Senate that the United States was seeking.
From this interview two things become clear, (i) that the U.S. Department of State will likely give its approval to the KXL pipeline and (ii) that President Obama and Secretary Clinton both know this is not a step they deem right for the people, so they are were unable to influence political discourse in such a way that all people can see what direction the U.S. government is going.
On another podium, the founder of 350.org, Bill Mckibben tries to create urgency for the fight against climate change. Herein he underlines the arrests of protesters that were made, by trying to explain that these arrests will become more and more frequent if Washington does not act in the interest of the Climate. He goes on in his battle to create urgency by making statements like the KXL pipeline would be the “fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet”. After this he goes on about which sways Obama the most and “if it’s money, it’s clear who wins”. Because it should by now be clear that money is no issue for the oil industry. Normally statements like these would have little to no impact on the political discourse, but because Mckibben is the founder of a movement and because he takes the ball to the court of president Obama, he is able to pressure the decision-making progress of the president some more. By doing so, he is making sure that the president would not rush into permitting the pipelinexv
. As a result, of all these political discourse dynamics, the U.S. Congress, which thought the decision-making process took too long, a provision was added to the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011, requiring that the president issued a permit within 60 days unless it was not in the national interest. This finally led to the rejection by President Obama in 2012 who stated that 60 days is an insufficient amount of time (Kalen, 2012).
In the aftermath of this rejection the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) stated, in a reaction on President Obama his decision to deny the permit, that “the project would create thousands of good jobs”, “Trans-Canada, …, have made clear the oil will be developed – and possibly sold to China – regardless of whether KXL is built.” and “the project would be the safest ever constructed”xvi
. With these statements, they want to make sure their dissatisfaction is heard in Washington in the hope that the Obama administration will face even more pressure to permit the project when the second application is admitted.
5.3.2 The second application period
To address the concerns expressed by the state of Nebraska to the proposed route of the pipeline a memorandum was constructed in March 2012. This memorandum was designed to structure the environmental review of the pipeline’s southern leg. For the northern segment, the Obama administration prepared a supplemental EIS, which will examine TransCanada’s
proposed new route in Nebraska (Kalen, 2012). By designing this memorandum and preparing the supplemental EIS, the administration cleared the way for a next application by TransCanada.
During the same month, Debra and Alex White Plume led a blockade against trucks that in her opinion were sneaking tar sands oil through Lakota lands and thus did not respect their sovereignty. These efforts led to the arrest of White Plume. The sovereignty seems to be the motivation behind this action but it is not, because “White plume’s opposition was based on a determined effort to resist the excesses of corporate colonialism in twenty first century America” (Smithers, 2015). With this action, the White Plume’s hoped that the coming application would not be permitted.
Logically, the next move of TransCanada was to navigate the political rhetoric with an alternative route through Nebraska and the splitting of the proposed pipeline into two
independent segments. A Southern, all American, segment which no longer routed through the sand hills of Nebraska and a northern segment which crosses the national border and needed the State Department’s approval. With these alterations to the original project they filed a new application on 4 May 2012 (Kalen,2012).
The southern segment was swiftly accepted, because there was no need for an EIS. The Northern segment however, needed a more cautious approach. Hereto, the supplemental EIS was
made. A decision was expected soon after this, but the subsequence of events and the political campaign went otherwise. The State Department under Hillary Clinton voiced no further environmental complaints in 2013, giving the project a go and in January 2014 the final
supplemental environment impact statement (EIS) was given out and herein is stated that market analysis has shown that there still would be a demand for crude oil even though renewable energy sources and energy conservation were considered as alternatives. This relies on the fact that crude oil’s main purpose is a transportation fuel and this led to the conclusion that even with renewable energy and conservation there would still be a demand for oil-sands derived crude oilxvii
. In a reaction to the EIS president Obama declared that he will not approve the project if it does worsen carbon pollution. Obama had just entered his second term as president and voiced that combatting climate change would be a major priority. Herein, the president seemed tending to use his power for the greater good, something that was not expected by TransCanada because that kind of veto would normally have election consequences, but since Obama was in his second term this did not matter for him (Davenport, 2015).
Later in 2014, when the congressional vote in the house of representatives voted 252-161 in favour of the pipeline, Cyrill Scott, president of a native American tribe in South Dakota, stated that he declared war on the KXL pipeline if the senate would also vote in favour of the billxviii
. The further implications of this declaration remained out because the Senate, who needed 60 votes in favour, fell short by one vote with 59 on November 18xix
.
Furthermore, 350.org the environmental rights organization founded by Mckibben, was organising online movements. This organization lends its name from the 350 parts per million of CO2 that can be in the air while the most serious consequences of climate change will then be
avoided. The current level is however going towards the 400 ppm, and this is something which should be lowered according to them. 350.org tries to get the government to limit emission by organizing, among others, online movements. These movements were an important new use of social media, because then resistance could be shown before it happens. This makes it much cheaper for 350.org to threat with big acts of civil disobedience and it is easier for people to actively oppose something because they would not have to march to Washington but can resist political decision from there phone or computer. Although it can be said that online movements make resisting easier for civilians it can also be argued that it makes it harder, because the resistance will be registered and that is something what could be of influence when someone later changes his opinion. So, an argument can thus be made that online registration will keep people from interacting in the political dialogue, an interaction which civilians should not be feeling any form of objection for. In 2014 however, it was shown by 86,000 students who signed an online ‘pledge of resistance’ that there is a willingness to interact online in the political
dialogue. In this pledge, they namely commit to engaging in civil disobedience to stop the pipelinexx
. Their main weapon of action thus relies on the willingness to act and this is actively promoted by engaging in online opportunistic advocacy, more known as ‘headline-chasing’ (Hestres, 2015).
So, after all it could be stated that 2014 was a key year in the development of the political discourse surrounding the KXL pipeline. Because at the beginning of the year the administration, with its EIS, gave an almost certain go. But due to Obama’s new-found power to stop the project, the Senate defeating a major approval bill and the growing resistance Obama also rejected the second application in 2015 with the following words: “America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change, and, frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership” (Davenport, 2015).
TransCanada who did not see this coming, were furious. Therefore, they decided to respond with a lawsuit in 2016. They sued the U.S. government to reverse the rejection by Obama and they want $15 billion in damages from a trade tribunal. TransCanada stated that it “had every reason to expect its application would be granted” as it had met the same criteria the U.S. State Department used when approving other similar cross-border pipelinesxxi
. In a reaction to this and as a prime example of ‘headline-chasing’ Jason Kowalski, policy director of 350.org, stated that: the lawsuit issued by TransCanada in 2016 “is a reminder why we should not be signing new trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) that allow corporations to sue governments that try and keep fossil fuels in the ground”xxii
.
With this lawsuit, the willingness to work with the U.S. government seemed to have faded for TransCanada. Therefore, it was not likely that there would become a third application. Until, a new campaign roared.
5.3.3 The third application or the Donald Trump era
During his campaign, it soon became clear that Donald Trump despised the way a
business opportunity was taken away from TransCanada and besides that he also could win votes by saying it would create jobs and be good for the economy. When he was inaugurated on 20 January, TransCanada stood at a new dawn and only had to wait for a formal invitation to apply for the third time.
This formal invitation was given after only 4 days in office. On 24 January 2017, Trump revived the KXL project by signing an executive order, clearing the way for a new application for the presidential permit. Unions praised the executive order given by President Trump. Stating that he has saved thousands of jobs for the heartland workers of Americaxxiii
.Logically,
TransCanada saw this momentum and applied two days later for the third presidential permitxxiv. Finally, the presidential permit was issued by the department of state to TransCanada for the construction, connection, operation and maintenance of the pipeline at the U.S.-Canadian border in Phillips County, Montanaxxv
on 24 March 2017xxvi
. With this permit came no new
environmental impact statement, because the situation has not changed substantially since the last application, according to the current administrationxxvii.
In a reaction to finally getting a presidential permit the lawsuit from TransCanada against the US government was dropped the same dayxxviii
. The reaction of the NRDC, a
non-governmental organization (NGO), was less laudatory, they are namely working on a campaign called “stop the assault” this campaign is aimed at urging the people to urge the U.S. Congress to oppose the Trump administrations “full-blown attack against the environment”xxix
. Table 1 Time table of actions with influence on the political discourse
When Keystone XL Political Discourse
developments
2005 Proposal of the pipeline
Fall 2008 First application for presidential permit
2008-2011 Postponing EIS by State department due to the
concerns of the State of Nebraska
15 October 2010 Secretary Clinton states that she is inclined to approve the pipeline, despite that she and the president don’t want to
2011 Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act
2011 McKibben states it is all or nothing for the
fight on climate change
2012 Rejection of First application
2012 LIUNA reacts on rejection
March 2012 Blockade by the White Plume’s
22 March 2012 Memorandum for structuring the
environmental review was designed
4 May 2012 Second Application (with alternative route)
2013 No further complaints from State Department
(no conflict with national interest)
2014 86,000 students pledged online to resist the
KXL project
January 2014 Final Supplemental Environmental impact
statement was brought out
18 November 2014 Senate defeats bill for approval of KXL
pipeline
2015 President Obama Rejects the application of
TransCanada
2016 TransCanada sues U.S. government for
Rejection
2016 Jason Kowalski (350.org) statement about the
lawsuit of TransCanada
2017 NRDC campaign: “Stop the Assault”
24 January 2017 President Trump signs executive order
24 January 2017 Laborers Unions praise Trump
26 January 2017 TransCanada Applies for the third time for a
presidential permit
24 March 2017 Presidential Permit was given by the U.S.
Department of State
24 March 2017 Lawsuit by TransCanada versus U.S.
Government was dropped Table 2 Representation of analyzed actors
TransCanada a major North American energy company based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada
TransCanada Corporation motivation for the initiative of building the KXL pipeline is the constraint oil pipeline capacity from Canada. This constraint means that there is limited access to the U.S. markets and depressed prices realized by oil sands producers (Parfomak, 2017).
Labor groups Organizations that protect workers and
non-unionized workers interests
when the argument is about jobs versus the environment they pragmatically chose the side of the employer and help resisting the environmental groups (McGarity, 1990). The latter is relevant in the case of the KXL project. Because multiple labor groups, who would benefit from thousands of construction and manufacturing jobs, continue to push for quick approval of the project (Cherry, 2011).
Trump
administration
Administration put together since the Inauguration on 20 January 2017
President Trump stated: “it’s a great day for jobs and energy independence,” and that the pipeline is “incredible” and “the greatest technology known to man or woman”xxx. On his twitter president Trump also stated the motivations “jobs” (20.000 or 100.000) and “energy independence”. So, these seem the most important causes of action for president Trumpxxxi
. U.S.
Department of state
The American Ministry of Foreign affairs
The State Department has jurisdiction over such a project because it crosses the U.S. Border. Before a presidential permit can be given it has thus to be determined that the project is in the ‘national interest’ of the United States (Parfomak, 2013).
National Resources Defense Council
The National Resources Defence Council
(NRDC) is a group of lawyers combined with an online activist
communion of 2 million people
To secure the rights of all people to clean air, clean water and healthy communitiesxxxii
350.org Environmental
organization founded by writer and activist Bill McKibben
The name of the organization is lent from the 350 parts per million of CO2 that can be in the air while the most serious consequences of climate change will then be avoided. The current level is however going towards the 400 ppm, which logically does not avoid these serious consequences (Hestres, 2015). In the own words of the organization they are building a global grassroots movement that can hold our leaders accountable to the realities of science and the principles of justice. This
movement they want to build from the bottom-up with, as they say, “ordinary people”. Their actions rely on three main motivations. (i) Keep carbon in the ground (ii) help build a new more equitable low-carbon economy (iii) pressure governments into limiting emissionsxxxiii
. Sioux Indians The Sioux are groups of
Native American tribes in North America. They consist out of many tribes; the Dakota, Lakota and Nakota.
They have been resisting the KXL project from day one, because the line runs through their tribal lands and water resources and thus conflicts with tribal sovereignty (Smithers, 2015).
Obama
administration
Administration put together since the Inauguration of his first term as President on January 20, 2009.
“The Obama administration’s approach to
achieving American energy independence has been a comprehensive and sustained effort, with
emphasis on boosting domestic energy production, increasing efficiency, and transitioning to cleaner energy sources”xxxiv
. Also, it can be extracted from President Obama’s and Secretary Clinton’s
statements that they want to do something about climate change, but they were mostly unable to do so. The president’s rejection of the second
application seems to be to further postpone the project until after his presidency.
