“The [New York] Times seems to accept the argument that fossil fuel consumption can be reduced by restricting production and availability. The same logic was behind New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s attempt to ban soft drinks in large containers, as a means of containing obesity. A Manhattan judge dismissed that argument Monday as ‘arbitrary and capricious,’ terms that might as easily apply to a country that complains about oilsands emissions while producing 42% of its electricity from coal, which is responsible for 27% of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. That figure is expected to grow by a third by 2025.
“ ‘Given its carbon content, tar sands oil should be among the first fossil fuels we decide to leave alone,’ insists the Times, even though getting the country off its dependency on coal would have a far greater impact.
“But perhaps the Times is right in one respect. If the U.S. rejects the pipeline, Canada may simply ship the oil to the east coast and export it from there. The jobs will be kept in the country, as will the greater economic benefit. The U.S. will get no benefit. Seems an odd way to boost a struggling workforce, but perhaps the U.S. economy, like Canada, is something the Times has trouble understanding.”
Maley's Energy Blog 
So the New York Times is throwing labor unions, who support the pipeline, under the bus because they believe in environmentalism even more than the working man? Oh how times have changed.