No. Let’s go home.
But if you want an intelligent discussion of this question, check out Bret Stephens’s column by this title in today’s Wall Street Journal. I’ve grown weary of pointing out the defects of environmental moralism, and have been grateful for fresh reinforcement from folks like Pascal Bruckner (review forthcoming). But Stephens really nails it. If you don’t have a WSJ subscription or print copy, here’s a highlight:
When it comes to the question of how best to transport oil, environmentalists tend to act like rabbis being asked for advice on how best to roast a pig: The thing should not be done in the first place. So opposition to Keystone XL becomes an assertion of virtue, indifferent to such lesser considerations as efficiency (or succulence).
Stephens points out that the shipping of crude oil by rail has increased from 9,500 carloads in 2008 to 233,000 last year, and since rail accidents are more prevalent than pipeline spills, guess what? Environmentalist opposition to pipelines like Keystone will lead to increased environmental damage. It’s almost enough to merit a Green Weenie Award. (Sigh.)
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.