2 thoughts on “NYTimes Columnist: Hansen’s tactics ‘not easy to admire’”

  1. Because we can buy that oil at a significantly lower price in-total than other methods of delivery, and it is less open to international disruption than other lines. While a small group of plants along the Canadian border lose their dirt-cheap oil, this significantly benefits the economies of both nations as a whole.

    Now, eminent domain is a different matter, and a valid objection. However, after the pipe is laid, the land can be used again, so it is much less objectional than most uses of eminent domain..

  2. I have no objection to the Keystone pipeline on environmental grounds. I do, however, oppose it for two other reasons. First, there is its intended and stated purpose: so that a Canadian oil company can sell its oil for a higher price. Second is the fact that these projects seize land by eminent domain and screw the owners of that land in the process. Why should Americans have to lose their land, homes and businesses, or even any of our publicly owned land, so that a Canadian oil company can sell its oil for a higher price? Why would any American support this?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.