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.
So this now becomes little more than a fight-pipelines-wherever-you-find-them movement, as if they were terrorist cells, or cockroaches, or zebra mussels. If some oil company is proposing a pipeline, damn it, you'll find a reason to object to it!
Which begs the question: If the left is just going to try to stop pipelines everywhere, what exactly is their ultimate objective? It can't be environmental protection because oil spills from tanker accidents and train derailments represent a far greater threat than pipelines, not to mention the fuel usage they require. I think with a lot of these people, they really don't think it through that thoroughly. Oil companies like pipelines. Oil companies are evil. Therefore, oppose pipelines.
I also think there is a reflexive hatred on the left to anything the public sector might facilitate that causes a corporation to be more profitable. It could be as simple as a road easement that needs city council approval, but if some corporation is going to make more money as a result of it, the left will think it's a sop to the fat cats at the expense of the sainted, salt-of-the-earth people.
It really comes down to sides, and they think the government should be on the side of the "working class" or the "poor" or the "middle class," all of which requires them to oppose the interests of corporations with every fiber of their being. And if that corporation produces something that people need to buy, it's all the more reason for politicians to make their lives as difficult as possible. It makes no sense, of course, because if you add to the production costs of a commodity-producing corporation, you raise the price, and you screw the very people you claim to be on the side of.
But try to explain that to a liberal and they'll just demand "price controls" or some such thing. If you want to know how that works out, check in with Venezuela, where the entire country is on a weight-loss binge because they can't find enough food to eat.
Anyway, if protesters are just going to show up at the siting of every pipeline and do the same song and dance, I suspect it won't be long before even the media gets tired of paying attention to them. But regardless, it's nice to be able to finally say that no one in the White House is taking them seriously. That's a long overdue and most welcome development.
