of course we need it, that's why the market was creating the pipeline. pretending that a group of experts can determine what the market needs or is essential, is de facto tyranny. what I can say for sure is that we need cheaper more reliable energy, and it is clear that this pipeline would do that for our country. instead the money and jobs go elsewhere.
what is amazing about this decision is that there was no rush to the courts for an injunction, no reliant interests. the company doesn't even put up a fight. I wonder why that is?
Does 1) the market need the oil, or do 2) these particular oil producers need the pipeline in order to bring their product to market and compete with others, or do 3) these particular oil producers just want the pipeline to lower costs and increase profits?
The existence of a pipeline only proves 2 or 3, it doesn't necessitate 1.
what is amazing about this decision is that there was no rush to the courts for an injunction, no reliant interests. the company doesn't even put up a fight. I wonder why that is?