Sascha Müller-Kraenner is the European representative & executive director of The Nature Conservancy, a leading international environmental organization with more than a million members and activities in over 30 countries.

Deutsche Welle: What is your reaction to President Obama's decision to postpone the construction of the Keystone pipeline pending a further review?

Müller-Kraenner: That's very positive news. It would have been even better had he cancelled the project because of the negative environmental impact that is to be expected, but at least it has been postponed until after the elections. There is time for further review of the devastating environmental consequences.

What's your conclusion? Why did Obama choose to postpone the final decision on this Canadian-American project?

I guess there are two reasons. Reason number one has to do with the election date. The pipeline leads through a number of US states, some of which are critical states for his re-election campaign. That's the political reason. He also reacts to the protests from the US environmental movement, also within the Democratic Party.

The other reason is that more and more information comes to light on the negative effects of oil extraction in the tar sand areas of Canada, but also on the possible negative effects of the actual pipeline building process.

Do you think the postponing was more due to political reasons as you've just alluded to than to real environmental concerns?

Let's just hope that the real environmental concerns at the end of the review process which will lead to a final decision will be at the forefront of the administration's considerations. It should make people a little suspicious and one should pause a little when one reflects on the decision just being postponed until after the elections.

The coming months will be the time when the arguments should come on the table and maybe they should also be made an argument in the election campaign.

As you've said: This decision doesn't mean that the pipeline ultimately won't be built. Essentially, Obama just kicked the can down the road. Isn't it likely that Obama will simply wait until after the election and - assuming he is re-elected - then decide to go ahead and build the pipeline anyway?

That could well be the case sadly - although I would hope that considerations like the negative climate change effects and negative effects on nature conservation, as well as the possible dangers of an oil spill will play a more prominent role.

It might also help that possibly the economy peaks up after the election. Then, the argument which so far has been very much at the forefront, i.e. the job creation effect expected from the pipeline, will not be so important any more and may be balanced against the negative environmental impact.

Canada, which has a big interest in building this pipeline, has also said that it could simply build the pipeline on a different route going west, not through the US, and deliver the oil to China instead of the US. Do you think that's a realistic threat?

That is a threat, but the US market is the most important market for the Canadians right now. So economically speaking, the US market is a much more plausible market for the Canadians, but I'm sure that the Canadians will look for alternatives. On the other hand, the Canadians should also take a closer look at the greenhouse gas emissions they're creating because of the extremely energy-consuming ways they're using to extract oil from tar sands in their country, at the negative impacts on biodiversity, on forests etc.

So I think in a next step, we need a similar debate in Canada and we also need the international community to ask the Canadians questions - not so much on the pipeline itself, but rather on whether the extraction of the oil that finally goes into the pipeline is really the economic development model the Canadians want to see for the future of their country.

Interview: Michael Knigge
Editor: Nina Haase