WASHINGTON—It sounded, note for note, like the death knell of Canada’s Keystone XL pipeline.

A resolute President Barack Obama, mopping his brow for effect Tuesday afternoon as he laid out major plans to combat climate change, put Ottawa’s most prized export project in the crosshairs, questioning whether it is in America’s “national interest.”

The decision on whether to approve the last crucial leg of the Alberta-to-Texas pipeline, said Obama, remains in the hands of the U.S. State Department.

But the pipeline, he warned, will only move forward if it “doesn’t significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”

The climate factor — Keystone XL’s overall net effect on global greenhouse gas emissions — cannot be ignored, he said. “It’s relevant.”

So that’s it, then — the most significant climate speech this two-term president has ever made amounts to a “no” to Canada? Is there any other way to interpret such a hard line against a pipe intended to convey higher-carbon diluted bitumen from the Alberta oilsands?

Yes, in fact, there is. For evidence, you need only rewind three months in the seemingly endless pipeline saga, when the State Department dealt a withering blow to environmentalists in a draft report concluding the Keystone XL pipeline would not accelerate development of Canada’s oilsands.

The draft Environmental Impact Assessment report took no firm position on whether the pipeline itself would exacerbate global warming. But it also said that “approval or denial of the proposed project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oilsands, or the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area.”

Obama’s own Environmental Protection Agency took issue with the report, urging the State Department to review its draft conclusions that the oilsands will find their way to market with or without the pipeline.

Subsequently, activists and lobbyists on both sides of the pipeline debate bombarded the State Department with 1.2 million comments. And now Secretary of State John Kerry’s staff is absorbing the heft of those remarks. In a process expected to take another 100 days, they will finalize their decision on whether Keystone XL is good for America.

So Obama’s “no” is not necessarily a firm no to the TransCanada Corp. project. What it means, precisely, remains to be seen.

But make no mistake: the inclusion of Keystone XL, after days of White House hints that there would be no mention of the Canadian pipeline in Obama’s climate speech at Georgetown University, was embraced immediately by environmental activists as evidence that a hard “no” is forthcoming.

“With this promise to the American people to reject the pipeline if it will increase climate pollution, the president has taken a huge step toward rejecting Keystone XL, given that evidence has already shown it will increase GHG emissions and have serious climate consequences,” said Rachel Wolf, spokeswoman for the anti-Keystone coalition All Risk, No Reward.

Greenpeace Canada also seized on Obama’s remarks, pointing to the conclusions of both the oil industry and the Canadian government itself. “The Keystone pipeline is key to accelerate tarsands expansion plans, which would lead to more carbon pollution,” spokesman Mike Hudema said in a statement.

Likewise, the Washington-based Natural Resources Defense Council drew final conclusions from Obama’s words in a statement titled “Pipeline Fails Presidential Test.”

But other longtime watchers of the Keystone XL controversy saw enough wiggle room in Obama’s remarks to assuage all Harper government anxieties.

“I believe Ottawa and everyone else who supports Keystone can be cautiously optimistic about the words ‘significantly exacerbate’ because they are the key to the pipeline’s ultimate approval,” said former Canadian diplomat Paul Frazer, a Washington consultant.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“Obama’s language is purposeful. There’s wiggle room there. It allows for the approval of Keystone on the grounds that whether by pipelines south, east or west, or as rail freight, barge traffic or tanker truck, this oil will get to market one way or another,” Frazer told The Star.

“And at the same time, the rest of Obama’s message — particularly in coming down hard on emissions from existing coal plants — gives environmental groups a huge opportunity to fight the good fight alongside the president. Coal is a huge issue in America, as much for national health as it is for climate. I think, taking Obama’s remarks as a whole, there’s not a lot for Ottawa to worry about here.”

Joe Oliver, Canada’s minister of natural resources, tried to avoid interpreting Obama’s words after the speech.

“I won’t say that I’m more or less confident,” he told reporters. “I’m pretty much the same in that regard.”

When pressed, he stuck to his script.

“I think it’s still a serious issue. I do not take it as a given,” he said. “I just think if you look at the facts and the science, we’re comfortable the project will be approved.”

Oliver argued that Keystone XL will carry about 20 per cent light crude from North Dakota and Montana — and that will displace heavy crude from Venezuela with a heavier environmental footprint.

TransCanada took Obama’s remarks in stride, saying the company “is pleased with the president’s guidance to the State Department, as the almost five-year review of the project has repeatedly found that these criteria are satisfied.”

“These reviews have found that, from a global perspective, the decision whether to build the proposed project would be unlikely to substantially affect the rate of extraction or combustion of Canadian oilsands crude and its global impact,” TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard said in a statement.

The Alberta-based Pembina Institute, meanwhile, said the overall effect of Obama’s climate plan adds pressure for Canada to respond in kind with aggressive pollution measures. Ottawa, the institute noted, is five days away from its latest deadline to announce rules for the Canadian oil and gas sector, which accounts for a quarter of Canadian greenhouse gas emissions.

“(Tuesday’s) announcements also draw a sharp contrast between Obama’s determination to cut greenhouse gas pollution and the lack of serious action from the Harper government,” said Pembina’s Ed Whittingham. “The best way Ottawa could respond to Obama’s announcement would be to make an equally serious commitment to hit Canada’s 2020 climate target, starting with strong regulations to reduce emissions from the oil and gas sector.”

With files from John Spears

Read more about: