GOP Says Obama Has To OK Environmentally Unsound Keystone XL Pipeline Because It Will Create Jobs-- But It Won't

Do you find it odd that there are some labor unions who contribute to Republicans? By far the building trades unions are the biggest culprits, especially when it comes to Mafia-backed candidates like Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm. And, as Slate reported yesterday, the building trades have dragged the AFL-CIO into backing the GOP position on Keystone XL.

This has some people surprised on the grounds that the project is set to create very few permanent jobs. The issue here, however, is all about the building trades unions. The building trades have been backing Keystone for a long time because from the viewpoint of a construction worker all jobs are temporary jobs. Actually building the pipeline will involve thousands of construction workers.

The larger union federation had been staying studiously "neutral" out of concern for larger issues of coalition politics, alliance with the environmental movement, etc. But there's no big countervailing forces inside the labor federation against the building trades' interest in the pipeline. The State Department's recent report that gave a favorable verdict to the pipeline changes the calculation in terms of the bigger coalition. If the State Department is giving it a thumbs up, then for all the unions that don't care it's not clear what's gained by neutrality. And for the building trades the upside of building the pipeline remains what it ever was-- construction jobs.

When Republicans challenged Van Jones' assertion that the whole Keystone Pipeline project would only create 35 permanent jobs-- no, not 35 thousand or 35 hundred, just 35-- Politifact investigated and they found Jones telling the truth and the Republicans lying-- as usual.

The State Department report puts the total at 42,100 jobs, though the definition of a job in this sense is a position filled for one year. Much of the construction work would come in four- or or eight-month stretches. About 10,400 seasonal workers would be recruited for construction, the State Department said.

When looked at as "an average annual job," it works out to about 3,900 jobs over one year of construction or 1,950 jobs each year for two years.

The rest of the jobs would be the result of spillover spending (formally called indirect or induced economic activity) as Keystone workers buy equipment and materials to complete the project and spend their money on an array of services, including food, health care, and arts and entertainment. As you might expect, it’s much harder to measure the widespread effect on job creation.

There’s no doubting that most of the economic activity comes during construction. Jones honed in on jobs after construction, which aren’t really a source of sharp debate.

"There’s very few jobs operating pipelines," said Ian Goodman, president of the Goodman Group Ltd., an energy and economic consulting firm in Berkeley, Calif. "That’s one of the reasons why pipelines are attractive to the oil industry. They’re relatively inexpensive to build and operate."

The report says the project would provide jobs for about 35 permanent employees and 15 temporary contractors.

The full-timers would be "required for annual operations, including routine inspections, maintenance and repair." Some would work in Canada. The U.S. employees would work at pump stations along the pipeline route as well as a Nebraska office.

The project’s impact on housing, property taxes and service industries once in operation? Not much. Not much is known about the contractors’ workload except they would provide additional specialized support.

Still, arguments about the relatively small number of permanent jobs from the pipeline often belie the nature of construction jobs, which are comprised of temporary projects by definition, said Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for a coalition of pro-Keystone groups known as Oil Sands Fact Check.

"You build it, you move on," Dempsey said.

Our ruling

Jones said the Keystone pipeline will only result in 35 permanent jobs after construction.

The numbers, as reported by the State Department, back him up, though that’s the nature of any big construction project, be it a highway or monument.

Jones’ claim is True.

Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), one of the biggest supporters of unions and working families in America, gets it. "This pipeline will carry Canadian tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico for export. It's not about creating jobs in this country-- it's about lining pockets already full of cash. That's not in the national interest and it's not how we should be doing business." He's asking progressive sot continue pressuring President Obama not to give in. "It's about more than the environment, although that's an important part of our effort. It's about ending special treatment, taking conflicts of interest seriously, and restoring public trust in government decisions. When TransCanada, Keystone's parent company, gets to handpick the contractor that writes its environmental impact assessment-- and when the State Department doesn't think that's a problem-- we know things have gone off the rails. Well, let's fix that."

Unlike Raul and a handful of intrepid progressives, many Democratic elected officials are reluctant to go up against Obama and the Big Money interests that are pushing for this horror. That's why we're taking a close look at the independent candidacy of Marianne Williamson to replace Henry Waxman in one of the most progressive districts in the country, CA-33. The Democratic Party is backing a little-known state senator with a solid liberal reputation, Ted Lieu, but Williamson's main opponent is a former Republican who is being run by EMILY's List, Wendy Greuel, the careerist from the Valley who was just defeated by Eric Garcetti when EMILY's List tried to push her into that job. The worst kind of garden variety candidate of meaninglessness, Greuel says whatever her consultants think will position her best for a win in a district that she has no relation to whatsoever. An incredibly authentic person, Marianne Williamson can always be counted on to speak exactly what she thinks and feels for real. “I am disappointed by today’s strong indication that the AFL-CIO will support the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline," she said in a press release yesterday, "particularly when it creates very few permanent jobs for American workers while doing potential permanent damage to the environment. What we should be doing is creating large numbers of permanent jobs by investing in clean energy for the future, reducing our carbon footprint and becoming free of our addiction to fossil fuels. I strongly urge President Obama and all candidates in this race for Rep. Henry Waxman’s seat to continue Waxman’s legacy of preserving the environment while creating jobs through green energy production. We don’t have to trade our economy for our conscience, in this area or in any other.”