by Stephen Lacey and Zachary Rybarczyk
The House of Representatives under the 112th Congress has been dubbed “the most anti-environmental House in history.” From a refusal to give up on styrofoam in the congressional cafeteria to the push for more uranium mining in the Grand Canyon, this House has an astonishingly deep resume of bad decisions on climate, energy and conservation issues.
Rounding out 2011 was a bill forcing President Obama to approve or deny the Keystone XL pipeline in 60 days — taking further federal environmental reviews off the table, even while a former Keystone pipeline inspector called the project a potential “disaster.”
A new analysis of two years of campaign contributions to House members conducted by the non-partisan research group MapLight shows a strong correlation between money flowing to Congress and House votes in favor of pushing a decision on Keystone XL.
In total, American oil and gas industry lobbyists have spent nearly $12 million in campaign contributions to both Republicans and Democrats since 2009, when the Keystone XL building permit was originally filed.
Of the 195 representatives who list oil and gas lobbyists in their top-20 campaign contributions, 185 voted for a bill in July that would have expedited the approval and construction of Keystone XL. That bill eventually died in the Senate. However, in December, the House passed an extension of the payroll tax cut that included a mandatory executive decision on the pipeline by February.
Here are the top 10:

Oil Change International highlighted a couple key pieces of information not outlined by the MapLight analysis:
- In total, Representatives who voted for the pipeline have received $10,922,161 from the oil and gas industry while those who voted against the pipeline have received only $717,552. In other words, those that voted for the pipeline have received 15 times more money from the oil and gas industry.
- Maplight’s data also shows that the oil and gas industry has contributed more than ten times as much to members of Congress as environmental interests have. This is worth noting in particular because Maplight’s presentation referenced “high-contributing environmental groups” without this important piece of context.
So when American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard threatened “huge political consequences” if Keystone XL isn’t approved, he meant it.
Note: If Obama avoids making a decision on Keystone XL in February, Republicans are now crafting legislation that would again force his hand in April. “Any and all legislative options are in play,” said Nebraska Republican Congressman Lee Terry to Reuters.
— Zachary Rybarczyk and Stephen Lacey
Related Post:
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga

I am really on the fence on this issue and would like to understand more. I am 99% certain if we do not build the pipeline then the Canadians will build it to thier west coast and sell the oil to China/Japan. If we do build the pipeline to the USA it WILL create jobs, improve our energy security and slighly reduce our oil costs as we can ship across the border rather than tank it across the oceans.
Even under the most optimisic cases it will be years before electric vehicles and even hybrids make up more than 10% of our vehicle fleet.
So do we build the pipeline here or have Canida send the oil to other countries?
Big Tar isn’t looking for just one pipeline.
Their plans are to increase production by 4.5 million barrels a day by 2035. That will require seven more huge pipelines to salt water for export out of north america. Keystone XL has always just been one of many pipelines in the works. Three more are already planned across BC, though opposition is fierce there too.
By the way that 4.5mbbld increase means an increase of 850 MtCO2 into our climate system every year. That is more than 188 nations COMBINED emit today.
That is on top of the 300 MtCO2 that already comes out of the tar sands…making the carbon deposit in Alberta the source of over a billion tonnes of CO2 per year by 2035.
Each Keystone XL pipeline adds more climate damage than emitted by 76 nations combined. It is like doubling the number of cars and trucks in Canada. Each pipeline.
Game over.
why can you not show the names of those congressmen and the amount that they are receiving from the oil and gas industry to push the XL pipeline
It was just poor oversight our behalf to not publish the top names. We’ve put that into the post. Thanks for the comment.