The pipeline that FWD.us has been touting would actually be in the "lower 48" --- it's the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would be intended to transport a particularly dirty form of petrochemicals ("diluted bitumen", which is something like sand soaked in crude oil) across sensitive land (some proposed routes have it going over the Oglalla aquifer, which is a major reservoir for American agriculture).
Wait, is the objection about the safety of the pipeline (Why is it less safe than any of a dozen other pipelines?) or the facilitation of carbon emissions from burning the contents of the pipeline?
Forgive me for being blunt, but most pipeline opponents seem to emphasize the former when what they really object to is the latter.
Not really, just saying that if there are so many leaks causing damages - questioning it is the least that can be done. May be the current capacity is enough and they could do more towards guaranteeing / eliminating leaks before building new ones. I don't know - just think that blindly accepting the leaks seems wrong.
"Opponents of the Keystone XL have stressed the environmental damage they say the pipeline would cause in the Sand Hills area, especially due to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and the destabilization of sensitive ecosystems."
I don't know how the pipelines fit FWD.us's agenda. Is it possible they were just supporting senators that supported immigration reform but also happened to support the pipeline? If so, it is kinda hard to blame the group.
It's right there in the article. They funded ads for senators that support immigration reform, but the ads also touted the candidate's general positions, which included supporting the pipeline. Paying for an ad that touted support of the pipeline was likely the problem, not that they supported the pipeline at all.
It's called consensus building. In the US, bills are often riddled with bits and pieces of pork barrel legislation that have nothing to do with the intent of the bill. In this case, FWD.us is trying to butter up these senators and representatives by advertising for something they want in hopes that the congressmen will return the favor when it comes time to vote for immigration "reform."
This is actually an example of providing political cover.
Immigration reform is not popular with conservatives, therefore politicians with conservative electorates (like Rubio, Graham, and Begich) might lose their next election if they vote for it. This makes them less likely to vote for it.
Running ads in conservative areas to promote immigration reform will not help; the dislike is too deeply held. FWD.us does not have nearly enough money or time to change such ingrained cultural beliefs.
So instead they run ads supporting the politicians on issues that conservatives already like--like energy development--to try to strengthen the conservative credentials of these politicians. That way the politicians will hopefully feel more secure in their seats, and therefore more comfortable with taking a risk by voting for immigration reform.
The hard part of this strategy is that you might have to run ads supporting things you personally disagree with, simply because it's a good political tactic. Musk probably decided that he cares about getting off oil more than he cares about passing immigration reform, so the balance was backward for him.
