Subject: Keystone in the book
From: Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>
To: Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>, PIR <[email-masked]>, Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>, Huma Abedin <[email-masked]>
Cc: Ethan Gelber <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:35:11 -0400

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.