The Journal Star editorial board, in more than a dozen editorials, has voiced opposition only to the proposed route of the pipeline -- not the pipeline itself. We recognize the nation's need for oil and the advantages of getting it from a democratic neighbor. It's the proposed location that is wrong.Today's editorial:
All along we've said we could live with it, conditionally, if it didn't go through the Sandhills, if reasonable safeguards apply, if authorities in Nebraska and Washington do their duty, if TransCanada bears appropriate responsibility for any damage the pipeline's contents may do in the future.Uh, no, that's not what they said all along. And...
As time passes, even after TransCanada agreed to alter the route, the differences don't get any easier to reconcile. The tar sands oil called bitumen doesn't get any less difficult to deal with, environmentally or politically, nor does U.S. dependence on the volatile Middle East, nor does our now chillier relationship with Canada. We are in one of those dilemmas that test rationality and judgment, and we may not know whether we did the right thing even in our lifetimes.On the other hand, this blog has been consistent. The original route was fine. Any dangers to the Sandhills and the aquifer are illusory. And the campaign to move the route was merely a prevarication, a delaying tactic that is merely the first step in a strategy to stop the pipeline altogether.
The Lincoln Journal Star's disingenuous participation in this strategy is now clear.