They failed to stop the Keystone XL pipeline, which they said posed particular environmental hazards. They failed to stop the Dakota Access pipeline, which they say represents an adulteration of sacred Indian grounds. OK. Whether you agree with their objections to either pipeline (and I don't), at least they offered some specific rationale for why they were opposed.
It's not as if they're just going to mindlessly oppose every pipeline anyone ever proposes, because that would be nothing more than knee-jerk opposition to energy-related infrastructure driven by reflexive opposition to fossil fuels. You do that, no one is going to take you seriously anymore because they'll know you just hate oil and you'll concoctt some sort of rationale to oppose everything that facilitates its use. Right. Good thing they're not going to do that.
