Clinton's Keystone opposition a victory for climate movement

Environmental groups are hailing Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton’s opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline as a turning point in the fight against climate change.

Clinton’s pronouncement as she campaigns for the nomination is a reversal of her previous stance on the project that would link the Alberta oilsands to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

“It’s a tribute to grassroots activism that she has now said ‘I’m against this project and I’m against this project on climate grounds,’” says Keith Stewart, a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace Canada. “That’s a huge shift.”

Tanking oil prices have helped, Stewart says, “but this is primarily a victory of the climate movement.”

In 2010, as secretary of state, Clinton said she was inclined to approve the pipeline proposed by TransCanada Corp.

“We’re either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Gulf or dirty oil from Canada,” she said at the time.

But Keystone has galvanized environmental groups, indigenous groups, farmers and others who live along the proposed Keystone route, whose cause has been backed by celebrities, such as Mark Ruffalo, Robert Redford and Neil Young.

“It’s another important nail in the coffin of Keystone XL,” says Tim Gray, executive director of the group Environmental Defence.

Public opinion has changed since 2010, he says.

“Now that she’s a presidential candidate I think she’s seen where the world is going, both from a public opinion perspective but also in terms of demand for oil, growth of alternatives,” Gray says.

While Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has called the pipeline a “no-brainer,” the project has stalled before U.S. lawmakers for years.

In that time, climate change has increasingly become a pressing global issue. The cause was even a focus Wednesday of Pope Francis, at the start of his first visit to the United States.

"It seems clear to me also that climate change is a problem which can no longer be left to a future generation," the pontiff says.

Clinton’s declaration means the full slate of Democratic presidential hopefuls oppose the US$8 billion Keystone expansion.

Davis Sheremata, spokesman for TransCanada, says the company will continue to focus on securing a permit.

Pipelines are the safest and least greenhouse gas-intensive way to transport Canadian and American crude, he says, and the U.S. State Department’s environmental impact statement on Keystone XL says it will support the creation of more than 40,000 jobs and $2 billion in earnings.

“The U.S. imports millions of barrels of oil every day, so where do Americans want their oil to come from? Do they want it from Iran and Venezuela — where American values of freedom and democracy are not shared — or do they want Canadian and American crude oil transported through Keystone XL?” Sheremata says. “We have always believed the answer is clear, and the clear choice is Keystone XL.”

Stewart says Keystone looks increasingly unlikely and the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline linking Alberta to British Columbia’s north coast “is dead,” but the battle is not won yet.

U.S. environmentalists will continue to campaign against Keystone — Republican presidential hopefuls have declared support — and any other proposals that might ultimately transport oilsands crude over the border.

In Canada, Greenpeace will focus on fighting TransCanada’s proposed Energy East pipeline and Kinder Morgan’s expansion of its Trans Mountain pipeline to Metro Vancouver.

Gray says the environment is a dominant concern for voters in the current federal election, as well, but other than the Conservatives who “support all and any pipelines,” the other parties’ positions are unclear.

“I think the challenge for all of them is to figure out an alternative path forward for the Canadian economy that is not wholly reliant on the oil and gas sector,” he says.