NYT Editors and Oil Pipelines

This is precisely the moment for him to argue the case for alternative fuel sources and clean energy jobs — and to lambaste the Republicans for doubling down on conventional fuels while ceding a $5 trillion global clean technology market (and the jobs that go with it) to more aggressive competitors like China and Germany NYT

The NYT favoring long term persuasion over short terms jobs.

The persuasion is cheap as long as common sense science prevails. Its the short term jobs that conflicts with current NYT approach. Refined oil products are now a leading export for the USA, want to give that up?
What gambit does the NYT refer too?

American voters are smart enough to see through the ridiculous pipeline gambit.

How does shipping oil to refineries for export become a gambit? Maybe I am missing something. The pipeline proponents simply want the federales to avoid halting the pipeline, or perhaps exercise some regulation of commerce. Don't see anything more or less corrupt, or more or less gambity than any other functions going on. They tie the request to a wage bill. Standard bizareness for DC.

If the NYT wants to get alternative fuels, then I would recommend basic research in solving this equation:
Sun + SeaWater +CO2 makes Methanol.