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 18:57:33 -0400

So we¹re officially cutting Keystone and here¹s the domestic energy section
that remains, with a few small additions:

While we were pursuing all this work abroad, there were also exciting
developments at home. American innovation was at the forefront of unlocking
new energy supplies, whether it was hard-to-reach oil and gas or cutting
edge renewables. And, it turned out that our country was blessed with far
more energy resources than we realized. By 2013, the United States surpassed
both Saudi Arabia and Russia to lead the world in oil and gas production.
And production of wind and solar doubled between 2009 and 2012, when clean
renewables accounted for more than half of new U.S. energy capacity for the
first time ever. 
 
The boom in domestic energy production, especially in natural gas, opened
major economic and strategic opportunities for our country.
 
Expanded energy production has created tens of thousands of new jobs, from
oil rigs in North Dakota to wind turbine factories in South Carolina. Cheap
and plentiful natural gas is helping drive down costs for energy-intensive
manufacturers and giving the United States a big competitive advantage over
places like Japan and Europe, where energy prices remain much higher.
Researchers project that all the ripple effects from our domestic energy
revolution could create up to 1.7 million permanent jobs by 2020 and add
between 2 and 4 percent to our annual gross domestic product. The shift to
natural gas is also helping lower carbon emissions, because it¹s cleaner
than coal. Greater domestic production is reducing our dependence on foreign
oil, easing a major strategic burden, and freeing up supplies elsewhere that
might have otherwise gone to the American market that can instead help our
European allies lessen their dependence on Russia.
 
There are legitimate climate change concerns about the new extraction
practices and their impact on local water, soil and air supplies. Methane
leaks in the production and transportation of natural gas are particularly
worrisome. So it¹s crucial that we put in place smart regulations and
enforce them, including not drilling when the risks are too high.
 
If we approach this challenge responsibly and make the right investments in
infrastructure, technology and environmental protection, America can be the
clean energy super power for the 21st century. That means creating a
positive environment for private sector innovation and risk-taking, with
targeted tax incentives, a commitment to research and development, and
policies that encourage rather than undercut the transition to clean,
renewable sources of energy. And it means investing in the infrastructure of
the future, including next-generation power plants to produce electricity
more cleanly, smarter grids to deliver it more effectively, and greener
buildings to use it more efficiently. China and others are already racing
forward with big bets on renewables. We cannot afford to cede leadership in
this area, especially since American innovation holds the key to the next
generation of advances, and our capacity to employ them at home and in our
hemisphere is almost limitless. 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.

From:  Dan <[email-masked]>
Date:  Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 4:43 PM
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]>
Subject:  Re: Keystone in the book

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.