This is classic cognitive dissonance. People feel guilt, shame and anger of the moral dilemma of using oil. So instead of minimizing its use in their life and being the change they want to see in the world, they attack the messenger of the moral dilemma. No one likes to feel guilty for violating their own ethical standards, so they project this anger out into this world. In this case they project their terrible feelings of violating their own ethical standards by consuming oil towards the project sponsor, for triggering the moral dilemma and the hurt feelings. That way they can still look in the mirror in the morning and say "I'm not a bad person because I'm opposing this project."

People don't want anything near them, even when that thing is providing good middle class jobs for their hard working neighbors in an area of high unemployment. What people really need down there is a golf course, a country club and another gated community.

Actually I am a cougar, WSU Psychology classes are where I learned all my psychobabble bull$hit at.

I would be cranky too if I have to use stairs to get into my SUV to take the lab to the park and carry around a Baggie of shat with all of the other douche nozzles in the neighborhood. Let alone do it in an AC/DC shirt and black Capri pants.

You carry sh!t in a bag because it's a snack for later.

Who's the token Asian near the end?

When the price of crude oil drops by 2/3 or more, that's a good thing for the environment. Who'da' thunk it?

You mean The Great Climate Change Hoax narrative may have to do with money, instead of science?

Perish the thought.

Fish on...

Todd