[Tloewald]

As far as I understand it, the pipeline being fought over symbolically rather than for reasons that make analytic sense. If there's an environmental argument, it's that the pipeline will make using shale sands oil from Canada cheaper which is a Bad Thing because we use more stuff when it's cheaper.

The correct approach would be to make fees and penalties for environmental impact higher (carbon tax, EPA able to levy big fines for oil spills, etc.) and then let the market figure it out rather than fight like crazy over specific cases.

Now, as to the subject of the pipeline running through native american territory because white people were (justifiably) worried about their drinking water if it ran through their watershed -- that's a whole different issue.

[dragonwriter]

> As far as I understand it, the pipeline being fought over symbolically rather than for reasons that make analytic sense. If there's an environmental argument, it's that the pipeline will make using shale sands oil from Canada cheaper which is a Bad Thing because we use more stuff when it's cheaper.

Your last argument suggests you are conflating aspects of the Dakota Access Pipeline (which is for domestic shale oil from a particular field) with the Keystone XL pipeline (which is for Canadian oil sands oil).

The environmental argument about Dakota access is that the pipeline, which was rerouted from its original route because of an unacceptable threat to a mostly White community that it would have crossed just upstream of the water supply of, and it's been rerouted to run just upstream of the water supply of the Standing Rock reservation.

Which is why the protesters style themselves "Water Protectors".

> Now, as to the subject of the pipeline running through native american territory because white people were (justifiably) worried about their drinking water if it ran through their watershed -- that's a whole different issue.

No, it's actually the whole issue with Dakota Access. Keystone XL is a whole different pipeline.

[Tloewald]

You're right, I was conflating the two. So yes it's mainly about whose water is at risk.

[jadell]

Existing pipelines within a few hundred miles of this site have recently leaked into water supplies. This is not symbolic; it's about where the tribe gets their water from.

[FireBeyond]

This is very valid. But I think there's _also_ an important symbolic goal here.

"This pipeline was moved because local communities feared the risk to the water supply. So the company felt it was appropriate to move it into the tribal community area."

"Water risk to white people? No no no. Water risk to Native communities? Well, we can live with that."

[criddell]

> "Water risk to white people? No no no. Water risk to Native communities? Well, we can live with that."

I don't think the Army Corps is that corrupt. I'm guessing it went more like "Water risk to 50,000 people or water risk to 5,000 people?"

This history of the US government relations with native people makes any object assessment suspect though.

[dragonwriter]

> I don't think the Army Corps is that corrupt.

I'm not sure the Army Corps was involved until after the reroute, and, in any case, it had publicly announced that it would not approve the easement on the current route because of the issues raised relating to Standing Rock and was conducting environmental impact reviews of alternative routes prior to the Trump executive order directing approval of the current route, so, yes, I'll agree that the Army Corps of Engineers itself is not indicated to be the source of the problem.

[charia]

It also has to do with the fact that local communities had a significant population in comparison to the native american m tribes who lived in the area.

[Declanomous]

It's a good we got out in front of that issue ahead of time by killing Native Americans and then moving them away from their ancestral homeland.

[lostlogin]

credit where credit is due - I blame the British empire. NZ, Australia and other former colonies have done it as well, getting slightly less vicious and slight more manipulative with time. Dodgy treaties with locals etc.

[benjaminjackman]

> As far as I understand it, the pipeline being fought over symbolically rather than for reasons that make analytic sense. If there's an environmental argument, it's that the pipeline will make using shale sands oil from Canada cheaper which is a Bad Thing because we use more stuff when it's cheaper. > The correct approach would be to make fees and penalties for environmental impact higher (carbon tax, EPA able to levy big fines for oil spills, etc.) and then let the market figure it out rather than fight like crazy over specific cases.

I think you are totally correct, except that the `correct approach` only works if you have a functioning and independent (of the regulated) regulatory system able to assess the impact, and levy taxes, fees, and fines to price in all the externalities.

Defunding / freezing these agencies certainly doesn't help their ability to function, and funding the campaigns of (or challengers in the primaries of if need be) the regulators as well as having sympathetic people placed at the top of the regulatory enforcement agencies destroys independence.

[breatheoften]

There are regulations proposed in Congress to make it illegal for regulators to consider results from all studies of ecological effects after "one off" events such as the Gulf Oil spill. I presume it also applies to smaller events like a pipeline leak.

The stated motivation for this banning of research is because these studies are not "repeatable". This seems like a pretty blatant attack on the potential for the entities which benefited from the activity that led to the accident to be held accountable.

With a rule like this on the horizon, there's no way I'd be willing to allow any oil company to pursue any construction with any risk of an ecological effect anywhere near my back yard.

[wheelerwj]

why don't you go ask the people of Flint how symbolic their water supply is?

Maybe they can provide some concrete analysis of tainted water supplies.

[jtuente]

Considering they had a completely adequate water supply until their local government decided to switch to using the Flint River directly [1], I don't think this is a remotely accurate comparison.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis#Switching_t...

[wheelerwj]

really? you don't see a correlation between tainted river water in Flint and future tained water in ND?

nothing? ok.

[jtuente]

Considering that all 3 fracking locations that are even remotely close to Flint are all downstream, yeah, I see 0 correlation.

[masonic]

  as to the subject of the pipeline running through native american territory...  that's a whole different issue.

Especially since the pipeline will not enter Native American territory at any point.

[aaronbrethorst]

There are people who live in the pipeline's projected path and their water will be poisoned if/when the pipeline leaks. That's not symbolism, that's life and death.