[quote=Brovo]
I don't know if this is sarcasm or not.
[/quote]

I'm like 99.7% sure it is. 'cause it's Nex.

On-Topic:
Literally everything I know about this issue comes from a brief Wikipedia search and reading this thread, but here's my two cents:

The environmentalists aren't wrong, in a sense. In an ideal world, I'd oppose Keystone XL too. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world, and sometimes we must sacrifice things for the sake of functionality and practicality. This is one of those cases.
However, I only believe things like this should be allowed to go forward if we are simultaneously, actively investing in alternative energy sources. It should be viewed as a "necessary evil", so to speak: we have to do it now because of current circumstances, but we should be working towards a world in which it's not necessary. The purpose of humanity's progress and development should be to make the world a better place, and we need to invest in that, particularly in regards to energy (we all know the issues around finite fuel sources etc.) Not simply to find something that works well enough, despite its numerous and fundamentally damaging flaws, and let that be the status quo until it goes horribly fucking wrong.