Today's New York Times (Jan. 2, 2012) editorial criticized Republicans for including the Keystone Pipeline in the legislation extending the payroll tax cut. In the Times' view, it isn't environmentally responsible, won't create the estimated number of jobs and delays the move to green energy sources. The urge more time for studying the potential environmental impact.
First, who knows if the number of jobs to be created is exaggerated or not? It doesn't matter - we know that a number of jobs will; they are high-paying jobs, and we need all the jobs we can get. Second, this project has been studied to death. "Study" in this case means "stall" until the proponents give up. But most importantly, their argument employs a false choice. It isn't a choice between a pipeline and anything. We need all the energy we can get to become energy independent. And, if one believes in the electric car, as I do (qualification: like the Tesla; not the boring Volt or the insipid Leaf) then we are going to need a lot more electricity.
Come on NYT: we need that pipeline with its jobs and fuel.