Keystone XL Pipeline - Wise Public Affairs

MOVING THE MIDDLE
CASE STUDY: SHORT-TERM DEFEAT OF
KEYSTONE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION
Activists: Environmentalists, Native American tribes, NextGen, 350
Advocates: Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Energy Action Coalition, Tar Sands Action,
Credo Action, others
Academics: Multiple studies from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of State, UKbased Carbon Tracker Initiative, and other government agencies and NGOs
Antagonists: TransCanada, Koch network, Labor Unions, Conservative Think Tanks, Senate Republicans,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Energy Alliance
Mission
Stop the federal government from approving the fourth phase of the 300-mile Keystone XL oil pipeline
system.
Strategy
During debate over the merits of the pipeline by both parties, Activists sought to bring attention to the
issue, while their Advocate allies aggressively lobbied Congress and Academics warned of the risks
posed by the construction of the pipeline. Antagonists, in this case representing the majority of
Americans, energy companies, and lawmakers, were ill-prepared for the public stunts that made
support for the pipeline appear to be a minority position.
Tactics and Positioning
Opposition to Keystone XL began in 2010 and was a major
issue in the 2012 presidential campaign and 2014 midterm
election. Republican candidates nationwide adopted a proKeystone message in their campaigns, driving more attention to
the issue.
Activists (environmentalists and Native Americans) adopted an
aggressive grassroots effort that included public protests and
heckling lawmakers in public events, outside their homes, and
in the U.S. Senate chamber. In late 2013 activists successfully interrupted a speech by President
Obama, who was still mulling the approval of the pipeline. Activists also targeted former U.S. Senator
Mary Landrieu (D-LA) outside her D.C. home.
One of the best displays of their activism came in March 2014, when hundreds of activists were
arrested in front of the White House after fastening themselves with plastic ties to the White House
fences. Activists in the same rally, several of whom were clad
in white jumpsuits splattered with black ink that was meant to
represent oil, laid down on a black tarp spread out on
Pennsylvania Avenue to stage a mock spill.
What was particularly engaging and helpful for the activists
was their reliance on visual props. In numerous protests
organized by the group 350, activists placed an inflatable
pipeline in front of cameras. And in April 2014, an antiNote: Wise Public Affairs was not involved in this campaign. This case study was compiled using publicly available information.
MOVING THE MIDDLE
Keystone group, named the Cowboy and Indian Alliance, set up dozens of teepees and rode horses
around the National Mall in Washington, D.C., accusing TransCanada of “taking over” their sacred
land.
Advocates (in some cases sharing roles with Activists) pushed different talking points such as:
•
•
•
•
Tar sands are the “filthiest fuel in the planet” and contribute to climate change;
The construction of the pipeline would create only a few, temporary jobs;
The pipeline puts the environment at risk of an oil spill; and
A foreign corporation is trampling over the land rights of farmers and Native Americans.
The fourth talking point was assisted by local grassroots efforts that included protests whenever the
President visited a locality, and the passage of resolutions from state legislatures rejecting the
construction of the pipeline.
At the federal level, high-ranking liberal Democrats such as Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and
Sheldon Whitehouse adopted the rhetoric in the media, congressional hearings, and floor speeches.
Shortly after, the majority of the Democratic caucus followed suit.
For the Antagonists, there was no effective counterstrategy at the grassroots level. Despite spending millions
of dollars in lobbying, entities such as the American
Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and
Americans for Prosperity, failed to sway the White House.
Numerous polls had shown widespread support for the
project and multiple studies downplayed the
environmental impact of the pipeline. But the lack of a
grassroots effort led to less public support and action
from the Executive branch.
Outcome
Opponents of Keystone XL can take credit for three victories. Originally, the mission was to force the
White House to delay the review of the pipeline indefinitely. That was achieved in mid-2014.
In 2015, with a new majority in the Senate, Republicans approved the construction of the pipeline. The
House eventually approved the same bill and was ultimately sent to the White House. The White
House vetoed the bill thanks to pressure from the same set of activists and advocates.
Finally, the Senate attempted to override the President’s veto, but fell short of the two-thirds needed,
thus shelving the Keystone XL for an indefinite time.
Note: Wise Public Affairs was not involved in this campaign. This case study was compiled using publicly available information.