[cloakandswagger]

The debate over the pipelines seems to be largely symbolic. The oil is going to get pulled out of the oilsands and transported either way, it only seems logical (and probably more ecological) to use a giant pipe instead of trucks/trains.

[beat]

The debate is social. This is going through tribal lands because the tribes are poor and legally limited. They can't defend themselves. If you tried to run a pipeline under the water supply for 10,000 rich white people, it'd die before the first inch of pipe was laid. The very land it's going under is just a tiny fragment of low-value land left to the tribes, after multiple gunpoint-driven treaties left a tiny "reservation".

Power. It's about power. And power is tied to race. It's morally disgusting, and a lot of this talk is just misdirection, avoiding the real, valid source of anger and rebellion.

[JumpCrisscross]

> This is going through tribal lands because the tribes are poor and legally limited

The pipeline runs close to, not "through tribal lands" [1]. The environmental concern is fair. If my neighbor builds a 300 dB speaker on their property, I have a reasonable claim to damages.

The "sacred lands" and threat to "way of life" claims, however, seem disingenuous. It amounts to laying claims based on hypotheticals on someone else's property.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline#Tribal_...

[beat]

"Disingenuous" is unfair. But symbolic, certainly. What this is really about, what I'm getting at, is that this is being done because no one actually gives a shit about the tribes, except the tribes. The state is more or less free to steal from the tribes, or endanger them. If anything of value is found in whatever land they have left, it's taken from them.

So this is symbolism. Standing in front of a bulldozer and saying "NO" is all they have left.

[cloakandswagger]

"Disingenuous" seems fair to me. The land is suddenly sacred and inviolable when someone asks to build a pipeline near it (not on it), but the massive casinos these tribes erect on their "sacred" land isn't an issue.

I would be more amenable to the tribes if they were honest and upfront about what they're doing: a form of collective bargaining to maximize compensation from the government.

[beat]

Now that is disingenuous. There's no casino there. Not all land is sacred, but some is. Casinos aren't built on land that might face internal opposition within a tribe.

[zo1]

This has absolutely nothing to do with race. We would probably see LESS outrage if this was happening in a rural white community. But somehow because this is in "Indian lands" that are sacred we all claim "race" and "evil white people" again. Please stop infantilising these native American individuals, they are people.

[beat]

Please stop stealing from them.

[VickBear]

It isn't going through tribal lands.

[beat]

Perhaps not. But it's going through their water.

[ZoeZoeBee]

You mean to tell me there aren't pipelines running under water supplies? I'd suggest you look at a map.

http://www.pipeline101.org/where-are-pipelines-located

[spraak]

Water pollution from leaks, as pointed out elsewhere in the comments here, is more than symbolism

[criddell]

Sure, but if you look at it purely from the numbers, the situation in ND isn't terribly alarming.

Look at this map:

https://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publica...

Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana must have no drinking water by now, right?

The protest has garnered the support that it has mostly because it's a Native American community (and I for one do support them - they've been screwed over too many times in the past).

[r00fus]

The debate is because the pipeline got rerouted - was going to threaten a mostly-white area, now will threaten a native american reserveation.

The "symbolism" is - if you're poor or under-represented you will be poisoned. Why did we even create reservations if we can poison them at will for the profits of the greedy?

[wheelerwj]

two wrongs make a right?

[robertfw]

What would be more ecological is to leave the stuff in the ground in the first place. This is not a symbolic fight.

[ars]

You are arguing the wrong side. What would be more ecological is using less oil.

You can't block supply while demand is there, because the demand will be filled by someone, only this time by someone with less oversight [from you].

You want to make a difference add more "good" supply, or reduce demand.

Bad supply will automatically go down if you do this, with no extra effort.

[wutbrodo]

Supply and demand don't only flow in one direction. Oil demand is absolutely responsive to price (and thus supply), in the form of energy users turning to alternative sources of energy, focusing more on energy efficient machinery, using less energy (driving less when the cost of driving rises).

[ars]

You are assuming no one else would sell them oil. This is incorrect.

The is currently enough oil supply for everyone. Reducing/removing an oil source just means the oil comes from somewhere else, but it does NOT reduce oil consumption.

[wutbrodo]

No, I'm not. But I am assuming that access to the source we're talking about would have an appreciable effect on global supply. This isn't the first time this has happened: the plummet in oil prices in the last few years is in large part attributed to an increase in supply of US oil production. I don't remember the details off the top of my head but I recall reading that the drop in prices has also been accompanied by a halting of the momentum of consumer interest in things like fuel efficiency.

[Scirra_Tom]

Extract less oil = prices go up = more incentive to look for other alternatives.

So if you want to make a difference, yes, limiting the supply is one way to do it by not extracting it in the first place.

[ars]

> more incentive to look for other alternatives.

Which are still oil, just from elsewhere. The Saudis are quite happy to sell you as much oil as you want.

> limiting the supply is one way to do it by not extracting it in the first place.

I covered that - all that would happen is people would get the oil from elsewhere.

You can only induce people to pump less oil by increasing supply of other forms of energy, or by reducing demand.

If you are going to pump oil at least do it where people actually care about the environment - don't make things so hard you just push production to places with less oversight.

[cloakandswagger]

This only works if you're confident you can force every nation on earth to stop or slow down extraction from their oil reserves. Let me assure you, the resultant wars would be far more damaging to the environment than otherwise.

[jeffdavis]

But that's not a proposal on the table, so it is a symbolic fight.

[maverick_iceman]

Ya, it would be more ecological if we leave modern civilization and go back to our hunter gatherer days.

[jcoffland]

Or if we just slow down a bit.