Tuesday, September 27, 2016
The big fight over the Dakota Access Pipeline, explained
Although this article is a week old I found it very interesting and necessary to mention due to the lack of continuous mainstream news coverage on the Dakota Access Pipeline. It was late August/early September when I first heard about the pipeline and I was only reminded of it recently because I heard that things weren't going well for the environmentalists and the tribal groups who have been protesting the installation of the pipeline. This article touches on the efforts of the tribal groups and the environmentalist groups specifically concerned with the DAPL and moves on to the broader concern of pipelines in general and their access to large amounts of fossil fuels. Environmentalists don't want the fossil fuels tapped because they will obviously keep adding to the effects of global warming. How would you settle the diputes over projects like the DAPL? What do you think about the amount of fossil fuels that are consumed in America?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel as if this article left out some important information. First off, it seemed ridiculous to me that the activists were simply "using" Native American to get their point across, as stated "Native American nations are an especially attractive ally, because they often have treaty rights over land and water use that the U.S. government is obliged to take account of,"-- similar to a prop in a play. In reality, the Native Americans in North Dakota are being severely affected by this pipeline. While protesting, they are sometimes beaten or pepper sprayed. But most importantly, this pipeline does not need to flow through their land. There were plenty of ways to respect Native land, but these methods were not taken due to a lack of respect.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shannah, if the pipeline must be built, it should avoid native land. If it cannot, however, I think it should be built on a part of the land without a significant population. However, it would be better if the U.S. started investing in alternative energy and phasing out fossil fuels. I'm not sure what the best way to go about doing this would be, but it definitely needs to happen if we are serious about addressing global warming.
ReplyDelete"The United States already has the largest pipeline network in the world: 1.2 million miles for natural gas, and 150,000 miles for petroleum products." This is absolutly absurd. This is why we have climate change. Why do we continue to add to this number; why do we continue to drill for fossil fuels? And why on earth do we insist on doing so through land that does not belong to us? There is truly nothing good about this situation. We are killing our planet, treaties are being ignored, Native Americans are being disrespected and used, as Shannah mentioned, as easy allies, when they literally don't benefit from this at all...so much needs to change here. We need to respect Native Americans, and we seriously need to start finding better ways to get energy. The fossil fuels are out of control.
ReplyDeleteUnlike those above me, I didn't read the Native American parts as "using" them. Rather, I read it as more of a co-dependent team. The environmentalists needed a powerful political ally who would reject the pipeline. Train lines would probably love this pipeline, as it would (in all likelihood) make lots of money for them. In fact, most businesses would profit in the short term from this pipeline. The only businesses which would immediately suffer are those which depend upon environmental safety, enter Native Americans. Their dependence on wildlife health and independent/self-sovereign, yet sortof owned by the US status makes them the perfect allies of environmentalists. They're Americans but with the ability to say "Hey, no, our land, just, no."
ReplyDeleteFrankly, the pipeline doesn't need to be built. We get enough fossil fuels as is, and we certainly should be switching to a less limited source for our major energy needs. It's not a question of where it's a question of "how do we delay this until we can just stop it altogether?" and I thought this article had a very cool political view of all this (plus it's kinda cathartic to read about the crackpot liberals filibustering for a change).
There are two issues with the building of these pipelines. One, energy companies have greater access to raw fossil fuels that would in turn contribute to global warming. Two, the building of these pipelines harms Native American economies and cultural sites. Essentially, we are dealing with a global issue and several local issues. In terms of the global issue, I think that the money that would be spent on the pipeline should be invested into alternative, more sustainable sources of energy. I agree with Giacomo; damage done to the ozone is nearly irreversible, so it's important to inhibit as much ongoing pollution to our stratosphere as we can. However, the harm done to the Native American tribes is actually even more disturbing to me. Haven't we done already done enough to these indigenous people? *see Andrew Jackson presidency*. Culturally and economically, these tribes rely on their natural assets. We shouldn't be taking these away.
ReplyDeleteThis is also where the issue of political values comes in: most people while reading this article would agree that these pipelines shouldn't be built, because it harms the earth and native american tribes. But what if the article were titled, "Keystone XL Pipeline Construction to Lower Gas Prices by $1.5" Would our opinions change?
The overwhelmingly shared sentiment expressed in each of the comments above is that we shouldn't be building these pipelines for economic reasons and because the land belongs to the native people who are reside on that land. The companies building these pipelines shouldn't be allowed to do so because it hurts the environment, the animals, and the people. In short, the only real benefits are lower gas prices and richer, bigger companies. By building these pipelines, these companies are hurting the world just to make more money. The earth does not belong to them no matter how many times they buy it or build on it. The earth doesn't belong to any one but it certainly doesn't belong to a company that wants to exploit its resources for a profit. The companies should leave the land and the native people alone. America and other large companies consume too many fossil fuels. People are denying that global warming is happening and all that does is contribute to the mess that we're in. As a society, we need to step up and work together to combat fossil fuel usage and companies that are exploiting the earth.
ReplyDeleteThe Gaia hypothesis is the idea that the earth is a "self-regulating organism". Because we have hurt the earth so much, it is hard to fix it. But if we work together to stop using fossil fuels and make more environmentally friendly and sustainable choices, then we can allow the earth to possibly reverse the negative effects that we have caused.
I agree with Giacomo's point about a co-dependent team. Designating a group as a political ally with the same political goals as you does not mean you are using them. Both the environmentalists and the Native Americans have a common goal to stop the building of the pipeline- neither is using the other. The Native Americans have the right to the land, but both groups have legitimate claims against it and can work together to avoid it. Furthermore, I do not believe the pipeline should be built. We cannot cede our environmental condition to big business any longer. We cannot impede on people's land, dirty their water, and hurt the environment just to build another pipeline. Alternative energy sources must be explored, and there must be a reformation of energy sources nationwide. Fossil fuels must be waned off of, and we must attempt to restore the environment. The pipeline is conducive to fossil fuels, and it is therefore we should not consider it a viable option.
ReplyDeleteI think this pipeline is essentially unnecessary. It's long overdue for the US to start taking alternative energy seriously and stop harming the environment. This pipeline will destroy land and contribute to global warming and other environmental negatives. I am not in support of this pipeline, rather for the use and investment in alternative, clean energy.
ReplyDeleteWhat interests me about this occurrence is the methods activists and other passionate people are taking to pursue their interests outside of our political bureaucracy, not within it. The article states that environmentalists have "struck up an alliance with Native American nations" in order to halt activities leading to global warming and other environmental perils by disrupting the transportation of fossil fuel. Lobbying and petitioning the government the government or energy companies has proven to often be ineffective in the past given that these companies benefit from the continued use of fossil fuels. Now, however, these extralegal methods seem to be much more effective at achieving their goals, or at least prompting more recognition. This trend of working independent from traditionally monopoly-like systems is a growing and often successful trend, with companies like Uber and Air BnB using similar mindsets to empower users (in these cases economically) by giving them a medium in which they can work around restrictive systems for a given industry. This environmentalist confrontation is taking that philosophy to a more political level.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of fossil fuels consumed is too high, and the US government should invest more money into clean, renewable energy. Building the pipeline causes several problems. It damages cultural and economic sites of Native Americans, and it also contributes to climate change. While the pipeline could bring jobs and money to people at first, it wouldn't provide for people in the long run when fossil fuels run out or the environment gets too damaged to use more.
ReplyDeleteI'll play devil's advocate for a second:
ReplyDeleteOur need for fossil fuels won't be going away anytime soon; currently, the clean energy methods have a comparatively weak infrastructure to the traditional fossil fuels. Another element of this argument to consider is that a pipeline such as this could actually benefit America in multiple ways, the most direct effect would be creating more jobs.
On the other hand, there are obvious concerns for the environment, with the pipeline being able to increase pollution and worsen climate change. Also, the construction of this pipeline would continue America's unfortunate legacy of screwing over Native Americans.
While I'd need to research more before I come to a definite conclusion, as of now I am against the building of this pipeline. America must preserve its land and protect the wellbeing of its people. If the pipeline interferes with those two functions of our government, the project should not be ok'ed under these current terms.
The amount of fossil fuels consumed by the US alone is unreasonably high. We burn tons of coal, oil, and natural gas, which releases not only tons of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas that essentially traps heat inside our planet and causes global warming), but also materials such as sulfates, which, in large quantities, can harm the environment by raining back down in the form of acid rain. The pipeline, as the article states, would make it much easier for companies to access fossil fuels, which would in turn worsen our current environmental state.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to harming the environment, the pipeline would also damage cultural (and economic) sites for the Native Americans, something our nation is notorious for doing.
While I do agree with the point Ian made that the building of the pipeline would create jobs and provide a cheap source of fuel (environmentally conscious ways of creating fuel can be very, very expensive), I believe that constructing the pipeline would be a step in the opposite direction for the US. We need to not only preserve the rights of the Native Americans (we are infamously known for ignoring this) but also start spending the extra money to invest in clean ways of using energy.
I'd have to disagree with Mark. Instead of using this "necessary evil", we should instead focus our efforts on decreasing our need for said evil. America as a whole uses entirely too many resources for its population, a luxary we consider as "average". Though, yes, this will help us by supplying resources, in the long run it only fuels our thirst for more unnecessary resource use. So no, I don't believe the pipeline should be built. Instead, we need to focus on decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels and trying to find alternatives.
ReplyDeleteI don't see the net advantage to the construction of this pipeline. We destroy our environment and allow big business, mainly big oil and fossil fuel companies, to continue their pronounced impact on our political setting. Every day, sources of renewable energy improve more and more, and the gap between these cheap, convenient but destructive fuels and the sustainable resources of the future closes. As a nation, we should be making every effort possible to stop any further infrastructure supporting a dying resource and build for the future, investing into wind, solar, and supporting the remaining nuclear power sources we have left. By letting this pipeline be built, all we do is waste more money to shoot ourselves in the foot down the road.
ReplyDelete