What if America discovered it had a Saudi Arabia worth of oil under its own soil? It could change global energy politics overnight. At the very least, it would make the United States much less vulnerable to Middle Eastern oil powers.

Guess what? We found that oil—rather, the Canadians did. Reserves are already drilled and measured. And new advances in technology make it ours for the asking. It just needs a way to get to market.

But here is the catch: The oil is trapped in Canadian oil sands and will stay there if we can’t disentangle ourselves from a mess of special interest politicking, bickering and environmental tunnel vision.

The question went all the way to the highest office in the land. But on November 10, President Obama announced he will postpone his decision on the TransCanada Keystone Oil Pipeline until after the 2012 elections. With Obama’s environmentalist base at war with his labor union supporters (who want the jobs), the delay might have been a keen political move—but at the detriment of the oil project.

The Keystone pipeline was to deliver a whopping 700,000 barrels of oil a day—each and every day—for at least the next 50 years—to U.S. refineries in Texas.

Besides the thousands of construction jobs, it would have brought decades of annual revenue through transit levies and taxes for the U.S. economy. Plus it would have created thousands of operation and maintenance jobs, and thousands of new refinery jobs, and would have provided new pipeline capacity to fully harness all the new oil being produced in the massive Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana.

Best of all for consumers, all the extra supply would be almost guaranteed to push gasoline prices down.

Who doesn’t want energy security and lower gas prices?

Only radical environmentalists.

Those fighting the Keystone pipeline cited risks to Nebraska’s ecologically fragile and barren Sandhills region. Oil leaks could contaminate the groundwater there, they said.

Fair enough. There is always a risk of a leak with pipelines, even if just a small one.

So TransCanada’s alternative route skirting the Sandhills should be acceptable then? Not according to the greenies, and apparently not according to the Obama administration.

The real reason the environmentalists oppose the Keystone is because of their belief in global climate change—not their concern for the “ecologically sensitive” Sandhills. They believe, the New York Times points out, that if the oil is allowed to reach market the extra gas emissions will be “devastating for the planet.”

It doesn’t matter what route the Keystone would take. Activists don’t want a different pipeline route. They want no pipeline at all. Their goal is to replace dirty but inexpensive oil with clean but expensive renewables.

And unfortunately, the leftist green movement is driving the Obama administration. “We don’t think that we will be able to effectively mobilize our members until the president keeps his promise to fight climate change effectively and stand up to big polluters,” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune told reporters late last month.

That “mobilization” means votes for Obama—badly needed this coming election year.

So the State Department, which had previously approved the Keystone pipeline, issued a newly worded statement concerning the rerouted pipeline. It would review “whether the proposed pipeline was in the national interest, considering … environmental concerns (including climate change), energy security, economic impacts and foreign policy.”

It is that phrase “environmental concerns (including climate change)” that has the environmentalists rejoicing. “In all likelihood this will kill the pipeline project,” wrote Green Conduct News.

But even if the Obama administration did not officially stop the pipeline project, the delay may produce the same effect.

In Canada there is a strong movement to diversify away from America. Canada is the only major oil producer in the world that does not have an outlet to the global oil market. And up until this time, with the U.S. being a loyal customer, none was needed.

Yet now, Enbridge’s competing Northern Gateway pipeline project to the Pacific Ocean—and the Asian market—is getting huge domestic support.

President Obama’s decision is “disappointing,” said Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. “This project would have provided thousands and thousands of jobs in the United States.”

“We hope it will still happen,” he said, but it “may mean that we may have to move quickly to ensure that we can export our oil to Asia through British Columbia.”

Shell Canada, Enbridge, and hsbc bank president Lindsay Gordon have all come down on the side of a pipeline to the Pacific. And now the heavyweights in China may be backing them too.

China has spent tens of billions snapping up large tracts of Canada’s oil sands in recent years. And now that it is mastering oil sands technology, it is also working to get the oil home. China is undoubtedly using this opportunity to capitalize on American environmentalism and apply political pressure for the pipeline to the Pacific. If Canada chooses to take its oil to the Pacific, America would be cut off from most of this oil too because environmentalists have shuttered much of California’s refining capacity.

America’s loss is China’s gain.

For Americans, that loss includes thousands of jobs, billions in revenue and gasoline savings that would trickle into almost every industry. And most importantly, it includes losing the lock on Canadian crude coming to the American market at a time of constricting global oil supplies.

In February it was reported that China was financing the construction of a railway from Venezuela through Colombia to the Pacific. It would allow Venezuelan oil to avoid the Panama Canal, which is too small for the largest of oil tankers. Currently, Venezuela provides 10 percent of America’s oil imports.

Canada is currently America’s largest oil provider. Venezuela is America’s fourth-largest oil provider. Both of these countries may soon have an alternative market with a huge appetite. This does not bode well for America, especially since oil is already near $100 per barrel.

And this was a situation that was completely avoidable.

Wouldn’t it be nice if one of our leaders would actually take a stand on his principles? If you believe your job is to save the world from something you believe is dangerous, then stand up and say “no,” we are not going to build this pipeline now or ever. But if you think that oil still needs to play an important role in the economy, then say that. But say what you believe.

More than anything, in today’s volatile and combustible world, America needs direction—it needs strong, decisive leadership.

America needs a healthful environment, but it needs a strong economy too. Leaders should stand up and be counted for their beliefs and then let the voters decide, instead of deceitfully pushing agendas while misleading supporters for political gain.

“Weak people try to force others to follow them. In this they are very strong!” wrote Gerald Flurry in his booklet Winston S. Churchill—The Watchman. “Their reasons are very weak because they don’t have the truth. That leads them to demonize those who oppose them.”

As Gerald Flurry pointed out, “That condition is rampant in American … politics today.”

That is sad, because with all the natural wealth and abundance of natural resources available to America, there is no reason America should not be the most prosperous nation on Earth. Sadly, those blessings seem to be draining away faster than oil into the sand.