Subject: Re: Keystone in the book
From: Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>
To: John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Cc: Ethan Gelber <[email-masked]>, Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>, PIR <[email-masked]>, Huma Abedin <[email-masked]>, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:43:46 -0400

Great. The Secretary is open to cutting and thinks maybe we¹ll add a few
more lines on the promise of clean energy instead.  John, if you have ideas
on that, please let me know.

From:  John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date:  Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 4:42 PM
To:  Dan <[email-masked]>
Cc:  Ethan Gelber <[email-masked]>, Cheryl Mills
<[email-masked]>, PIR <[email-masked]>, Huma Abedin
<[email-masked]>, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: Keystone in the book

Cut

On Apr 22, 2014 10:37 AM, "Dan Schwerin" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Our editor Jonathan Karp has suggested to HRC that she cut the reference to
> Keystone from the book, a change that apparently is still manageable in the
> production process even at this late date (lets hope it doesn¹t open the
> floodgates).  His view is that it "reads like you¹re punting on an issue I
> don¹t think readers are expecting you to address in the first place.  Unless
> you feel some need to mention it, I¹m not sure what the gain is.  You say
> you¹re waiting for the study before making a determination, but I question
> whether any study is capable of defining a clear course of action, and some
> readers might think that relying on a study is a stalling tactic.²  As
> background, she decided to write about Keystone because her daughter suggested
> that it would be a glaring omission and look like an even worse dodge if she
> left it out.  Podesta, copied here, helped us craft the language below, which
> HRC/WJC edited again this week.  I¹d like to present her with a recommendation
> as soon as possible as to whether we think this should stay or go.  Thoughts?
> 
> 
> Our economic recovery, our efforts against climate change and our strategic
> position in the world all will improve if we can build a bridge to a clean
> energy economy.  
> 
>  
> 
> There will be tough questions along the way. One high-profile example is the
> controversy over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would transport oil
> from the tar sands of Canada to refineries in the United States.  Proponents
> of the pipeline say it will produce jobs and spur economic growth. Opponents
> warn about potential environmental damage, locally in Canada and along the
> transportation route, and globally because of the high life-cycle carbon
> content of the fuel produced from tar sands. Because the route of the pipeline
> would cross the border, the State Department has jurisdiction over approving
> it. When I was Secretary, I launched a careful, evidence-based process to
> evaluate the environmental and economic impact. Unfortunately, politics in
> Washington intervened and Republicans in Congress forced a decision before the
> government had the necessary facts. The Obama administration had no choice but
> to say no. As of this writing, another evaluation is underway and a final
> decision is up to Secretary Kerry and President Obama. I¹ve refrained from
> weighing in on this question since leaving the Department out of respect for
> my successor¹s process. But I do hope that this important decision can be
> insulated from politics and made based on evidence rather than ideology or
> political pressure.
> 
>  
> 
> Whether Keystone is approved or disapproved, we should keep heading toward a
> future of less imported oil and more domestic clean energy production. That¹s
> how we¹ll continue to grow our economy and reduce our emissions.