Keystone's just another pipeline: Difference between revisions

From Discourse DB
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{Item |author=USA Today editorial board, |source=USA Today |date=November 18, 2014 |url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/11/17/keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-house-vote-s...")
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 21:40, February 25, 2015

This is an opinion item.

Author(s) USA Today editorial board
Source USA Today
Date November 18, 2014
URL http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/11/17/keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-house-vote-senate-editorials-debates/19198737/
Quote
Quotes-start.png On the merits, the Obama administration should long ago have said yes. The line would bring a reliable new supply to the United States, which still imports almost 30% of its oil. But the White House seems to have been paralyzed by its fear of angering ally Canada if it says no or infuriating Democratic environmentalists if it says yes. The result has been six years of dithering and the rise of arguments on both sides that are exaggerations at best or lies at worst. Quotes-end.png


Add or change this opinion item's references


This item argues for the position Pipeline should be built on the topic Keystone XL pipeline.