Forbes – It’s Time To Repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard

A "consensus has concluded that EPA fuel standards are sorely at odds with the interests of fuel and food consumers in the United States,” writes contributor Robert Bradley. “The direct economic cost of implementing and enforcing these fuel standards far outweighs the questionable benefits."

The Washington Post – Keystone XL Opposition Wanes Among Nebraska Landowners

With the Keystone XL debate set to head back to Nebraska today, the Post reports that folks in the state “largely support the pipeline project.”

Star-Gazette – Anti-Fracking Equals Pro-Poverty for New York

In the heart of the fracking moratorium debate in New York’s Southern Tier, Corning resident  Mike Morrongiello writes a guest column on the booming econom... more »

LA Times – EPA: U.S. Greenhouse Gases Drop 

The newspaper highlights the latest good news from the EPA: Increased use of natural gas, much of it developed with  hydraulic fracturing, has helped the United States lower its greenhouse gas emissions 1.6 percent from 2010 to 2011 and nearly 7 percent since 2005.

Roll Call – Redford: Keystone XL an Environmentally Sound Way to Enhance Energy Security

Alberta  Premier Alison Redford’s  op-ed argues that Canada is “the safest, most secure and responsible energy supplier to the United States and a reliable trading partner.” This comes after her recent visit to the U.S. advocating  approval of the Keystone XL pipeline project.  Approving the pipeline “is the choice of reason,” she writes.

Master Resource – EPA’s Tier 3: Transportation Ove... more »

The Hill – Energy Taxes Are No Budget Solution

Steve Forbes writes on The Hill’s Congress Blog that higher taxes on the oil and natural gas industry would cost jobs, lower energy production and actually reduce revenue to government over time. He cites a study showing that “a new tax on the industry would sacrifice 170,000 direct and indirect energy jobs by 2014.”

Houston Chronicle – It’s Wrong to Penalize the Oil and Natural Gas Industry

“Singling out our oil and natural gas industry for taxation penalizes producers,” writes the newspaper. “Bad guys? You mean the folks who employ our neighbors in good-paying jobs, contribute mightily to our tax base, civic life and sports and cultural/arts scenes? We don't think so.”

Star-Tribune – How Fracking Transforms Fortunes, Land

AP phot... more »

To hear the other side, you’d think the Keystone XL pipeline project would be nearly 1,200 miles of all pain, no gain for the United States. No rewards? The U.S. State Department has reviewed the Keystone XL four times now and finds rewards aplenty. While Keystone XL opponents don’t like State’s fourth favorable analysis any more than they liked the previous three, they should pay attention nonetheless. Let’s go down the list:

Jobs: Opponents minimize the number and duration of Keystone XL-associated jobs. State says:

“Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, the proposed Project would potentially support approximately 42,100 average annual jobs across the United States over a 1-to 2-year construction period …

Economy: Opponents dismiss the boost the Keystone XL woul... more »

We’re working on a new ad in support of the Keystone XL pipeline. Here’s a preview look:

The ad reinforces the main reasons the full Keystone XL project should get the green light from the president:

• Job creation – Approval of the full, 1,179-mile project could put thousands of Americans to work – more than 42,000 average annual U.S. jobs over the project’s construction period, according to a recent State Department analysis. As the president said recently, job-creation and a growing economy should be “true North” for policymakers. The Keystone XL is that true North.
• Energy – The full pipeline project would bring more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day to U.S. refineries from Canada and the Bakken region of North Dakota, strengthening the energy partnership with our to... more »