Clinton dodges Keystone pipeline question

NASHUA, N.H. — Days after unveiling the first plank of her energy and climate platform, Hillary Clinton again refused to commit to approving or rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline were she to win the White House — and her hedge on the topic is not sitting well with progressives or Republicans, both of whom are criticizing her hesitancy to take a position.

“This is President Obama’s decision, and I am not going to second-guess him,” she told an audience member here who implored her to “please” commit to either approving or vetoing the pipeline. Clinton explained that while she helped start the process of reviewing the pipeline during her tenure as secretary of state, she doesn’t want to interfere with the White House or current Secretary of State John Kerry.


“If it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question,” she said.

When asked by reporters to clarify her position after the town hall, Clinton doubled down.

“I was involved in this process and my assessment is that it is not appropriate, nor fair, for me to prejudge in a public arena what Secretary Kerry and President Obama eventually have to decide, and therefore I will not do it,” she said.

“And I’m sorry if people want me to. I have been very clear: I will not express an opinion until they have made a decision, and then I will do so.”

Clinton has steadfastly refused to come down on either side of the pipeline, even as environmental groups have made it a key component of their agenda. While climate activists largely cheered Clinton’s climate proposal that landed on Sunday night, many have long seen Keystone as a litmus test.

Liberal Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s main Democratic challenger and a longstanding opponent of the pipeline, did not mince words after hearing of the front-runner’s answers in New Hampshire.

“It is hard for me to understand how one can be concerned about climate change but not vigorously oppose the Keystone pipeline,” he said in a statement that also highlighted his own environmental work.

Influential climate activist Bill McKibben — who has appeared with Sanders — was scathing in his criticism.

“More Americans have commented on this than any other infrastructure project in history, it’s not alright to be coy with her opinion,” he said. “In the largest sense, it’s her hedging-of-bets that makes the rest of us so wary. Dealing with climate change in a serious way will take enormous commitment in the face of many strong opponents: we need strong signals that our president would be resolute in this crucial task.”

Earlier in the day, the Republican National Committee’s Michael Short was similarly skeptical of Clinton’s commitment to the environment: “With her second dodge on Keystone in as many days, Hillary Clinton is making it abundantly clear she’ll say or do anything to get elected.”

The blow-up comes at an uncomfortable time for the former secretary of state: her campaign unveiled the new details of her energy policies on Sunday night after a weekend of answering questions about her use of a private email address during her time at the State Department. She wants the country to produce enough clean renewable energy to power every American home by 2027, her team says, and to install over 500 million solar panels by 2021.

Her political team had been focused on calling out Republican skepticism of climate change — but her refusal to take a position Tuesday has turned the spotlight squarely back to Clinton herself.

Some climate activists viewed Clinton with a wary eye prior to her policy roll-out, primarily due to her longstanding silence on Keystone: Her town hall in front of over 450 Granite Staters at the Amherst Street Elementary School was her first such event since climate-focused protesters interrupted her last one in mid-July. And her refusal to take a stand on the pipeline has cast a shadow over her candidacy since before she was even a declared candidate, as the debate reached Obama and the White House earlier this year.

Clinton’s campaign apparatus includes noted Keystone skeptics — including campaign chairman John Podesta, who was more outspoken about his opposition to it prior to joining the White House in 2014 — and she attended a fundraiser at the northern California home of billionaire donor Tom Steyer, a pipeline opponent.

But the pipeline joins the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement as an issue where Clinton has consistently refused to be pinned down due, she says, to ongoing conversations within the administration.

Still, both of Clinton’s primary Democratic challengers, Sanders — whose poll numbers are approaching Clinton’s in New Hampshire, according to recent surveys — and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, have been outspoken about their opposition to approval of the pipeline, which they assert would be harmful to the environment.

Clinton said on Tuesday that her perspective and restraints are distinct from theirs because of her experience in the Obama administration.

“I’m in a different position from any other candidate. I was there. I put this process together. I oversaw it for four years,” she said. “I know what the president’s standard is to make sure it does not increase greenhouse gas emissions.”

Nonetheless, Clinton’s skeptics refused to buy this argument.

“Saying ‘I’ll tell you my position if I’m elected president’ can’t be the real answer,” said McKibben. “I mean, in that case why bother with campaigns and so forth? And it’s not like this is a small issue: it generated more public comments than any infrastructure project in U.S. history, sent more people to jail than any issue in many years, and so forth. It really does seem wrong to duck it.”