Keystone XL Veto Draws Support from Catholic Eco-leaders

Catholic organizations welcomed President Barack Obama's Feb. 24 veto of a bill approving an oil pipeline through the country's midsection, saying that it allows more opportunity to consider moral questions about the environment and climate change.

Representatives of the groups told Catholic News Service they are hopeful that the Keystone XL project would not be approved by the White House after the Department of State concludes its years-long evaluation of the project that would carry oil from the tar sands region of Alberta, Canada, to Gulf Coast refineries.

Advertisement

"He's doing the right thing by vetoing it. The Keystone pipeline would be very damaging to the environment," said Patrick Carolan, executive director of the Franciscan Action Network, which has played a major role among faith-based organizations raising concerns about the project.

"As a person of faith, you have to really look at whether it's just making money for people. You have to look at the whole moral and ethical issue," Carolan said.

The veto will allow for "more time to reflect on and look at it and hopefully we'll decide we don't need this," he added.

However, supporters of the pipeline criticized the veto.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who is Catholic, labeled the president's action "a national embarrassment" and promised not to give up on the project.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, promised to seek a vote to override the veto by March 3. It is unsure if he can convince enough Democrats to reverse their vote to achieve the two-thirds majority needed to override.

And TransCanada, the company building the pipeline, said in a statement that it remained "fully committed" to the project despite the veto.

Gerry Lee, executive director of the Maryknoll Office of Global Concerns in Washington, said the president took "the right stand."

"All along we've been opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline largely on concerns on the impact of the indigenous communities (in Canada) and impact on the environment. We just feel it was the right call by the president and we hope he would continue to stand firm on the issue," he told CNS.

Dan Misleh, executive director of the Catholic Climate Covenant, said the veto calls the country to look more closely at renewable energy sources.

"This (veto) is pointing in the direction of the realization that we can't continue to burn fossil fuels and still keep the planet within reasonable limits to avoid catastrophic climate change. The Obama administration seems to be getting that," Misleh said.

"Hopefully, the Senate and the House will begin to understand that this is important. This provides an opportunity for dialogue about the issue. More importantly this provides an opportunity to power our economy with cleaner and renewable energy," he added.

Sister Patricia McDermott, president of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, said in a statement posted on the congregation's website that caring for the earth is a "moral and spiritual obligation" and that extracting tar sands oil would have wide impact on the environment.

"We must all grow in our awareness and our commitment to how the choices we make impact our earth and all creation, especially those persons who are poor," Sister Patricia said. "In this case, we must seriously consider the health of indigenous peoples near the extraction sites in Alberta, Canada, and of low-income communities of color near refineries along the Gulf of Mexico who would be harmed by the building of this pipeline for the gain of others."

She also called upon Obama to "reject the pipeline whenever he has the opportunity."

The veto does not end the 1,100-mile pipeline project. Obama still has the final say on whether the project moves forward. He is awaiting the Department of State's findings on the impact of the northern segment of the pipeline from the Canadian border to Nebraska where it would connect to a section already in place.

Obama explained his veto in a brief statement, saying the bill "conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest" including the country's security, safety and environment.

Pipeline supporters, including a congressional Republicans and Democrats, said the project would provide thousands of construction jobs and lessen the country's dependence on foreign oil.

Opponents said the pipeline would disrupt sensitive environmental regions and that a possible leak would contaminate underground aquifers used by farmers and residents. They also are concerned that the process of recovering the oil from Alberta's arboreal forests spews high amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, hastening climate change.

TransCanada has said the $7 billion project would generate an estimated 40,000 U.S. jobs, including 9,000 created over the two years of construction.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
David Eveld
2 years 8 months ago
The weak link in the argument against the pipeline is the same weak link in the argument for electric cars. The transfer of oil via a pipeline creates a much smaller "carbon footprint" than via tankers or rail cars. And, it's much safer for the environment. Just as more carbon is burned creating the electricity for an electric car than a is burned by a regular gasoline-powered car. The limiting or constraining of the use of fossil fuels leads to higher energy prices, which hurts the poor the most. Environmentalists have great intentions, but we all know where the road paved with good intentions leads.
Tim Morgan
2 years 8 months ago
What is a Catholic "Eco-Leader"? It is foolish to be drawn into secular, ecological arguments over the non-issue of a carbon footprint. A real issue is the transport of crude products from point a to b, this should be accomplished in the safest, cleanest manner possible. That is NOT through the use of the railway system.
Joshua DeCuir
2 years 7 months ago
If these "eco leaders" were fully informed on the full impact of this issue, they would understand that by vetoing the pipeline, & by blocking its construction, only shifts the transportation of the oil from the pipeline (very safe) to ship & train (more risky). Furthermore, it ignores the economic impact it will have on our economic neighbors. Their view is very short-sighted, contrary to their rhetoric.

Advertisement

Don't miss the best from America

Sign up for our Newsletter to get the Jesuit perspective on news, faith and culture.

The latest from america

Men walk near destroyed buildings as thousands of Somalis gathered to pray at the site of the country's deadliest attack and to mourn hundreds of victims at the site of the attack in Mogadishu, Somalia, on Oct. 20. (AP Photo/Farah Abdi Warsameh)
Mogadishu was rocked to its core on Oct. 14 by a truck bombing that left 358 dead and hundreds wounded. The missing are still being sifted for among the scorched rubble.
Kevin ClarkeOctober 23, 2017
Pope Francis issues public correction to Cardinal Robert Sarah on who has final say over liturgical translations.
Gerard O'ConnellOctober 22, 2017
It is astonishing to think that God would choose to enter the world this way: as a fragile newborn who could not even hold up his own head without help.
Ginny Kubitz MoyerOctober 20, 2017
Protestors rally to support Temporary Protected Status near the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Sept. 26. (CNS photo/Tyler Orsburn)
Around 200,000 Salvadorans and 57,000 Hondurans have been residing in the United States for more than 15 years under Temporary Protected Status. But that status is set to expire in early 2018.
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 20, 2017