TransCana-Don’t

The Keystone Pipeline debate hinges on two key arguments — reason and opinion. Reason says, as argued in this article and elsewhere, that the project would create jobs, energy independence and would lower consumer prices. On top of that many studies have found that the project will not cause harm to the environment and is widely considered safer and more environmentally-friendly than alternatives, namely railway transportation of gas and oil. The opinion argument — of the opinion that approving the pipeline would be a environmental apocalypse and which comes from only 23% of Americans — is essentially winning the debate with social media, sharing posts and tweeting themselves to the center of public opinion. Policy makers see the incredible mobilization ability of this minority and are left with “a false sense of where public sentiments really lie.” This influence of social media seems to be outweighing the traditional lobbying efforts of groups like the American Petroleum Institute, who has spent $22 million in lobbying efforts supporting the pipeline alone.

The author of this article attributes the victory of the opinionated activists to a public policy paradigm shift saying, “Gone are the days when television and newspaper advertising, campaign contributions, and heavy lobbying fees all but guaranteed a successful corporate outcome.” Group theory might suggest that the cost of contributing to a group for an individual against the pipeline is significantly decreased by social media, exponentially increasing the amount of pressure this small group can apply. The regulator is in this case officially the State Department, in charge of international issues (the pipeline crosses the Canadian-US border). State sees this pressure and Kerry doesn’t approve the pipeline (some might say this decision may really be a White House decisions as the president could use executive order to grant permission to TransCanada). Weingast and Moran might disagree. Secretary of State is appointed by the White House but affirmed by Congress, and Congress controls State Dept. appropriations. They might suggest that the Keystone Pipeline is awaiting some kind of rent-transfer to the committee or committee chair who is the real decision maker. This could be Harold Rogers, KT, chair of Appropriations, or Fred Upton, MI, chair of Energy & Commerce or Doc Hastings, WA, chair of Natural Resources, or any number of subcommittee chairs. At this point it is only conjecture, but it is very curious why such a positive enterprise, which “By any measure…should have been approved by now,” is at a halt.