WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Only Obama and Big Green oppose Keystone pipeline.

It’s not often that Big Labor’s James P. Hoffa and U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue agree on something, but once in a while an issue comes along that unites these two gentlemen. Such an issue is the Keystone XL pipeline that would link refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast and Canada’s oil-rich tar sands. All that stands between the start of work and the creation of thousands of good-paying jobs in America is a green light from President Obama. But Obama fears angering thousands of campaign contributors and workers associated with the Big Green environmental movement, which rabidly opposes Keystone. So he’s waffled and delayed a decision until after the November 2012 election.

But pressure across the political spectrum is steadily growing to persuade Obama to put the needs of thousands of Americans seeking jobs ahead of his own political concerns.

Well, we can hope.

Related: Rex Murphy: Thou must not question Big Environment.

The greatest advantage the greens have had is the relative absence of scrutiny from the press. Generally speaking, it’s thought to be bad manners to question self-appointed environmentalists. Their good cause, at least in the early days, was enough of a warrant in itself. And when it was your aunt protesting the incinerator just outside town, well that was enough. But when it’s some vast congregation of 20,000 at an international conference, or thousands lining up to present briefs protesting a pipeline, well, let’s just say this is not your aunt’s protest movement anymore.

There is no such thing as investigative environmental reporting — or rather very precious little of it in the established media. Environmental reporters rarely question the big environmental outfits with anything like the fury they will bring to questioning politicians or businesspeople. Advocacy and reportage are sometimes close as twins.

And so the great thing I see about Resource Minister Joe Oliver’s little rant against Northern Gateway pipeline opponents a few days ago — asking whether some groups are receiving “outside money” or if they are proxies for other interests — is not so much the rant itself, but rather the fact that at last some scrutiny, some questions are being asked of these major players. Big environment, however feebly, is being asked to present its bona fides. And that’s a good thing: The same rigor we bring to industry and government, in looking to their motives, their swift dealing, must also apply to crusading greens.

Where does their money come from? What are their interests in such and such a hearing? What other associations do they have? Are they a cat’s paw for other interests? Do they have political affiliations that would impugn their testimony? In hearings as important as the ones over the Northern Gateway pipeline, with the jobs and industry that are potentially at stake, the call to monitor who is participating in those hearings is a sound and rational one.

Indeed.