In taking full responsibility for the decision on permitting the Keystone XL pipeline to deliver Alberta crude oil to the United States, President Obama and his administration gave the nation a welcome example of political accountability this week. That determined, now let's get moving.

Activists who were pushing the EPA's proposed new air quality standards on ground-level ozone fumed with outrage when President Obama instructed EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to pull the proposal because of its impact on jobs and the economy. (It was the most expensive environmental regulation in history ever proposed, after all.) The President "intervened" in the process, they complained. No, the President is an intrinsic part of the process. After being elected by the American people, President Obama gets to make the decision.

The same is true with the Keystone project, as well, and the President articulated his responsibility in an interview with Omaha TV station KETV this week. He told reporter Rob McCartney the State Department would send a report to him on the Trans-Canada Corp. project, which would  bring crude oil from the Alberta oil sands to Texas for refining: "[State] will be giving me a report over the next several months and, you know, my general attitude is, what is best for the American people? What’s best for our economy both short-term and long-term? But also, what's best for the health of the American people?,” the President said. Or, as Rolling Stone put it, "Obama Mans Up on the Keystone Pipeline Decision."

White House Spokesman Jay Carney followed up on Wednesday in the daily press briefing in a response to a reporter's question. Carney explained the process of Executive Branch review before making it clear: "It is also true that this is the Obama administration, and we certainly don’t expect, and the President doesn’t expect, and you should not expect, that the ultimate outcome of this process will do anything but reflect the President’s views."

Now that accountability is established and the approval process running according to long-standing rules, it's time to move on to the decision. The project will create an estimated 20,000 jobs, buttress U.S. energy security, and is backed by organized labor and business alike. Environmentalists' opposition is inaccurate and fear-mongering; the National Petroleum and Refiners Association on Wednesday issued a thorough update on the Keystone XL pipeline permitting, refuting the claims of the anti-energy groups.

And delays could seriously hurt an economy struggling to recover. As Trans-Canada Corp. Chief Executive Russ Girling explained in a conference call Tuesday (from The National Post):

No Keystone XL could mean gasoline shortages. TransCanada said it has binding contracts in place to ship 975,000 barrels a day of oil from Canada and from the U.S., and expects to sign additional contracts in the next few months that will fill the entire Keystone pipeline system capacity of 1.3 million barrels a day. This oil replaces imports from Mexico and Venezuela under contracts that are set to expire. The shipments would account for a significant portion of the oil consumed and imported by the U.S. Mr. Girling said denial of Keystone will not change the demand for oil in the United States, which consumes 15 million barrels a day and imports 10 million to 11 million a day.

Girling wants presidential approval within two months, which seems a reasonable timeline. As he says: "“We believe this project is very much in the national interest of the United States, it will be the safest crude oil pipeline ever built in North America, it will enhance U.S. national and energy security, it will create jobs and we do expect to receive a presidential permit by the end of the year."

News coverage, commentary:

• Investor's Business Daily editorial, "Keystone Pipeline Delay Puts Energy Future On Hold"
• Bizjournals.com, "Americans want more Canadian oil, survey says"
• Montreal Gazette, "Harper not worried by Obama's cautious approach to pipeline"
• Bloomberg, via Vancouver Sun, "Keystone ruling will send signal, Canadian Natural chief says"
• Reuters, "Canada's PM says oil pipeline still has US support"
• NPR, "Pipeline Decision Pits Jobs Against Environment"
• National Post, "America's newest oilsands expert, Seinfeld's Elaine Benes" Get out!

UPDATE (1:50 p.m.): Just getting to The Wall Street Journal and the always-insightful Kimberly Strassel's column on the issue, "The Democrats' Blue-Collar Blues," with the secondary headline, "Why is the president considering tanking thousands of union jobs in a 9% unemployment economy?" It's a political take.

The pipeline officially needs State Department approval, though this week Mr. Obama further elevated the controversy by announcing that he would be making the final call.

Which gets us to his blues, or rather the 20,000 blue-collar construction jobs that would come with the pipeline, and the further 118,000 spin-off jobs. The unions—from the Teamsters, to the Plumbers and Pipefitters, to the Laborers—are out in force pushing for this giant job creator. "We can't wait to get America building again," blares a union-sponsored website in support of Keystone, poking at the president's latest political rhetoric.

Keystone is more than just the administration's latest headache. It's the clear culmination of an Obama governing philosophy that has consistently put green priorities ahead of blue-collar workers, and that is now one of the biggest threats to his re-election.

But that's why the White House's affirmation of the President's responsibility was so welcome this week. The President has promised not to dodge the issue, which means voters can hold him accountability no matter how he decides.