|
DeathSandwich posted:If a truck topples or a train car derails, you lose the oil on that truck or traincar and have a relatively small spill to clean up. Or you know, the train blows up a small town.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
Booourns posted:Building a pipeline doesn't means less oil is transported through other means, they're not gonna spend money to build a pipeline only to move the same amount of oil as before. This whole "if you don't build it, they won't come" thinking is kind of absurd. So if this pipeline doesn't get built, they're just gonna leave the oil in Montana? People will just buy less oil because it has to come via truck and/or train? Like, there might be a very small impact in demand along the margins because of the slightly higher transportation costs, but that difference in price per barrel is so small it would be barely noticeable. Like, an OPEC minster can come down with a bad cold and it would have a bigger price effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
if we can't solve the entire problem in one simple stroke, might as well not do anything at all ever anywhere
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:if we can't solve the entire problem in one simple stroke, might as well not do anything at all ever anywhere So you're admitting that this protest was actually about an attempt to wean us off fossil fuels by artificially constraining supply, and that the whole tribal sovereignty thing was just a false front to give it a veneer of social justice? coyo7e posted:You have to be intentionally missing the point by now so I'm just gonna stop giving you the benefit of the doubt about not being a troll, and say buh-bye. I hate to break it to you, but your opinions are not so self-evidently correct that disagreeing with you can only be trolling or deliberate ignorance. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Jan 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:If a truck topples or a train car derails, you lose the oil on that truck or traincar and have a relatively small spill to clean up. http://www.sightline.org/2015/05/06/oil-train-explosions-a-timeline-in-pictures/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxkUhVswF5U
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So you're admitting that this protest was actually about an attempt to wean us off fossil fuels by artificially constraining supply, and that the whole tribal sovereignty thing was just a false front to give it a veneer of social justice? Do you have a point or are you just here to mischaracterize other posters' arguments to build strawmen?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So you're admitting that this protest was actually about an attempt to wean us off fossil fuels by artificially constraining supply, and that the whole tribal sovereignty thing was just a false front to give it a veneer of social justice? The existence of infrastructure is self-justifying. You have people emotionally and financially invested in keeping it in use so as to not waste the effort sunk into building it. If your position is that fossil fuels need to be left in the ground - which is the position of the Standing Rock Sioux and many of the noDAPL supporting tribes - then it follows that you should oppose any new oil-specific infrastructure. It's perfectly reasonable to oppose this particular piece of new fossil fuel infrastructure if you oppose new fossil fuel infrastructure in general. This is in addition to the fact that there's no good reason to trust anyone who claims it's safe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:The existence of infrastructure is self-justifying. You have people emotionally and financially invested in keeping it in use so as to not waste the effort sunk into building it. If it was, say, adding a bunch of bus lanes to a city to improve access for folks who don't/can't drive (and the requisite number of bus drivers etc), or building a new bridge to replace one that wore out, or replacing the water lines in a city where all of its water infrastructure was so irreperably compromised that they cannot drink their own water.. Then I'd say yeah, gently caress yeah, infrastructure is good. But the DAPL is not infrastructure in the way you are using that word. It is not necessary, ir does not increase quality of life for anyone which is passes, and it's entirely privately owned and run with very little safety oversight, and laughably weak punishments for failure to succeed at basic safety and stability of the pipeline and what it's intended to transport. This entire line of reasoning is false because it simply is either coming from a misunderstanding of what infrastructure is, or the person supposing it may not be ignorant and are willfully misreprenting the DAPL as infrastructure in order to back their point. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Jan 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:This whole "if you don't build it, they won't come" thinking is kind of absurd. So if this pipeline doesn't get built, they're just gonna leave the oil in Montana? As I understand it, that's more likely than it sounds: the market price of oil has plunged since the pipeline was planned, so unless and until it goes back, no one's who isn't locked into a contract (which I guess is no one, now that construction has passed the deadline) has a reason to buy oil from that field.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
A lot of the problem from people who are arguing for DAPL (or at least against the protestors' objectives) is that they've got this classic black/white binary reasoning to everything. "If you build it, they won't come" is obviously stupid, but the idea that reducing the rate of harvest and distribution of fossil fuels can directly contribute to reduced emissions that will end up loving up everything beyond a point of repair.. You gotta take baby steps toward the goal sometimes. Perhaps we need to take a step back and ask the people who're against the pipeline protestors or who're "pro infrastructure", what their beliefs about climate change and, if they accept it as A Thing That Exists, do they believe that it is also A Thing Which Can Be Addressed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
The Government Is Enforcing an Unconstitutional No-Fly Zone to Suppress Drone Journalism at Standing Rock The comments are quite interesting. Horrific
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
Which constitutional amendment was the one about the right to operate aircraft as you please?Liquid Communism posted:Do you have a point or are you just here to mischaracterize other posters' arguments to build strawmen? (FYI, the term gets tossed around a lot, but that is what a bad faith argument actually is.) Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Jan 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:If your position is that fossil fuels need to be left in the ground - which is the position of the Standing Rock Sioux and many of the noDAPL supporting tribes - then it follows that you should oppose any new oil-specific infrastructure. Where has standing rock said they're against the infrastructure? All I've seen is Iron-eyes and Archambault say they're okay with the pipeline itself, just not the location
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
Silento Boborachi posted:Where has standing rock said they're against the infrastructure? All I've seen is Iron-eyes and Archambault say they're okay with the pipeline itself, just not the location This was my impression. I seem to recall Standing Rock telling the "gently caress all pipelines" demographic to pipe down and let the tribe take the lead and set the narrative, in fact. Edit: not that I would be surprised if some elders had a less positive opinion of pipelines in general / if that contributed to the internal discussion prior to the protest Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Jan 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
Silento Boborachi posted:Where has standing rock said they're against the infrastructure? All I've seen is Iron-eyes and Archambault say they're okay with the pipeline itself, just not the location Bismarck is 50 miles upstream of the proposed crossing. So if he thinks a pipeline crossing the river 70 miles upstream from their water supply as of next year is unacceptable, the pipeline going through Bismarck 70 miles north of their water supply right now would also be unacceptable. So the only pipeline they would definitely accept is one that does not cross the river at all. The NY Times has a decent infographic on the pipeline's route. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/23/us/dakota-access-pipeline-protest-map.html?_r=0 The only pipeline they would not protest would be a completely new one built going east from the Stanley Facility instead of west.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Yeah the thing is that this is not infrastructure which is for anything resembling a public good We both agree. I didn't mean to imply it served any public good. Dead Reckoning posted:no anti-pipeline poster has actually been willing to articulate a reasonable standard for safety they would accept the pipeline being built to, but it's nice to have Cease to Hope accidentally come out and confirm that they've been flat out lying the entire time they were arguing about the importance of safety. I haven't lied to you at all, give me a loving break. I disagree that the institutions that would create and enforce such a standard can be trusted over the potential lifetime of a pipeline. Even if you make a foolproof gold standard safety protocol today and enforce it by threatening to line up negligent petrochem executives up against a bullet-pocked wall, there's no reason to trust that a future administration won't decide the interests of oil companies trump those of the people who would potentially be affected by a leak, and no reason to trust that an oil company won't decide it's cheaper and easier to insulate against the risk of a leak with insurance/bankruptcy/hedging than actually taking measures to prevent that leak. It's less about specific safety and more about trust - over a long enough timeline, both operator and regulator negligence become inevitable. This is in addition to Leave It In The Ground. It's not disingenuous to have two reasons for a decision!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I haven't lied to you at all, give me a loving break. Your first six posts in this thread were all about how there is insufficient regulatory oversight of pipeline operations in the United States. This implies that there is some hypothetical regulatory regime that would satisfy you. But there isn't, is there? (I'm guessing this is why you never responded to my post about current EPA enforcement actions.) You admitted as much in your post. Someone could come forward and implement the most comprehensive regulatory regime in the history of the planet, and you would still say it wasn't enough, because laws can be repealed. But even if it were somehow incorporated into the Constitution or literally carved into stone tablets by the fiery hand of God Himself, you still wouldn't be OK with the pipeline being built, because you have an absolutist belief that we need to Leave It In The Ground. This is why your objections based on safety and regulation are dishonest: there is literally no regulatory regime under which you would say "I am OK with this pipeline being built", no standard of care that would satisfy you. You knew this from the start. You are presenting a notionally rational position ("pipelines are not safe enough/sufficiently refulated") instead of your actual, absolutist position, which is that no new oil infrastructure should ever be built. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Jan 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Yet here you are making an absolutist argument that all infrastructure is inherently good because negatives can't be proven to your satisfaction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:The Standing Rock Sioux have taken both positions. Right now the intake for their water supply is 20 miles south of where the pipeline crosses the river. Sometime next year a new system will come online which will move their intake 50 miles south of where it is now. Archambault said that would make no difference to them. When you head east from Stanley you start to run into nuke silos and the Souris River, which flows north into Canada. No idea if these were considerations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Yet here you are making an absolutist argument that all infrastructure is inherently good because negatives can't be proven to your satisfaction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
reagan posted:When you head east from Stanley you start to run into nuke silos and the Souris River, which flows north into Canada. No idea if these were considerations. Yeh, an eastern route would also have to go around two other reservations. It could follow Enbridge's crude oil line though, but considering what happened to the sandpiper pipeline project...east ain't going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Your first six posts in this thread were all about how there is insufficient regulatory oversight of pipeline operations in the United States. No, they are that there is no reason to trust the regulators to (be able to/have the political will to) enforce regulations effectively even when they are sufficient (which they frequently are not). Remember this? Cease to Hope posted:Protestors rightly realize that the authorities in charge of enforcing regulation and punishing violators are entirely captured by the companies facing those regulations. The people in charge of deeming one pipeline safer than another are not trustworthy. Still stand by it. Dead Reckoning posted:This is why your objections based on safety and regulation are dishonest: there is literally no regulatory regime under which you would say "I am OK with this pipeline being built", no standard of care that would satisfy you. There is the hypothetical situation where environmental agencies had actually spent a lifetime plus of effectively forcing petrochem companies to absorb the real costs of their negative externalities but that hasn't happened and I don't think there's another lifetime plus of oil drilling on the current scale left for them to do so, so it's moot. The opportunity to earn trust has passed. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
How do you feel about the native owned businesses supporting oil development? MHA Nation, Crow, and Navajo investing in their own energy development projects? Or the tribal regulators monitoring energy development in their own backyards? I guess I just need to know exactly where you're coming from with the whole regulators are untrustworthy thing. If the regulations are insufficient (and I agree, a lot are), that's on the lawmakers not the regulators. Though some regulators, at least in ND, have always gotten flak for being two-sided, the NDIC regulates oil drilling but is also supposed to promote it. But just because there is an apparent conflict of interest, doesn't mean they're "entirely captured". Like, for the Bakken oil development, you'd have to mistrust the EPA, Three Affiliated Tribe's Energy Division, NDIC, NDDoH, PSC, State Water Commission, etc. "Are you asserting that the EPA and state environmental aren't captured by industry actors, and won't be at any point in DAPL's lifetime?" Ya, I can assert that. I can also assert that there are probably individuals within the EPA and state environmental that are captured by industry actors, but that doesn't mean their entire associated organization is corrupt to the bone. Remember, these are big agencies, and environmental groups as well as industry groups are watching them like hawks for any signs of impropriety. If company A gets fined $100,000 for an incident and company B only gets fined $1000 for the same type of incident, you can bet company A is going to raise holy hell about it. Like, look at what happened when the republicans tried to take down the ethics commission. What do you think would happen if, say, Trump replaces all of EPA with his surrogates? I will say it's going to be interesting to see what fallout happens with the EPA rank and file when Pruitt takes it over if he tries anything shady. But don't think just because he's in charge of EPA that the employees are all just going to roll over and play dead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:There is the hypothetical situation where environmental agencies had actually spent a lifetime plus of effectively forcing petrochem companies to absorb the real costs of their negative externalities but that hasn't happened and I don't think there's another lifetime plus of oil drilling on the current scale left for them to do so, so it's moot. The opportunity to earn trust has passed. Edit: And if the answer is "it's literally impossible to regain my trust" why bother with hypotheticals?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:No, they are that there is no reason to trust the regulators to (be able to/have the political will to) enforce regulations effectively even when they are sufficient (which they frequently are not). Cease to Hope posted:Remember this? Cease to Hope posted:There is the hypothetical situation where environmental agencies had actually spent a lifetime plus of effectively forcing petrochem companies to absorb the real costs of their negative externalities but that hasn't happened and I don't think there's another lifetime plus of oil drilling on the current scale left for them to do so, so it's moot. The opportunity to earn trust has passed. Cease to Hope posted:Even if you make a foolproof gold standard safety protocol today and enforce it by threatening to line up negligent petrochem executives up against a bullet-pocked wall, there's no reason to trust that a future administration won't decide the interests of oil companies trump those of the people who would potentially be affected by a leak, and no reason to trust that an oil company won't decide it's cheaper and easier to insulate against the risk of a leak with insurance/bankruptcy/hedging than actually taking measures to prevent that leak. But the whole thing is a red herring anyway: you already admitted that your position is that the pipeline should not be built because you think the oil should stay in the ground. All your baseless bleating about regulatory capture and insufficient oversight is bullshit, because even if your hypothetical best of all possible regulatory worlds came to pass, you would still oppose construction of the pipeline. Do you deny this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
local man comes to conclusion based on two reasons, thread experts baffled
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
Vice has a new article up, What Comes After Standing Rock. Interesting in Vice's typical slice-of-life, view-from-the-ground kind of way.quote:This undercurrent of insecure moralizing pervaded the camp — everyone wanted to know if you were there to devote yourself to the Sioux or if you had only come to post about it on Facebook. On the icy road outside Oceti Sakowin, my producer Evan and I met a young woman with gray eyes and a hacking cough (Full disclosure: I went to Standing Rock to record two segments for VICE News Tonight on HBO). She said she had come from Ohio with an acquaintance who was not, she assured me, “an actual friend.” The acquaintance had gone missing, most likely back home, leaving the young woman stranded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
"He explained to us that the transfer of power had happened because of an outbreak of sexual assaults around camp. When I asked him how often these attacks happened, he said, “Every night,” but then told me that when they had finally caught the alleged serial rapist on camp, they gave him a bus ticket and asked him to go home. " So, they don't trust the state cops which I can understand, but instead of handing the suspect to even the tribal police they just kick him out?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Silento Boborachi posted:"He explained to us that the transfer of power had happened because of an outbreak of sexual assaults around camp. When I asked him how often these attacks happened, he said, “Every night,” but then told me that when they had finally caught the alleged serial rapist on camp, they gave him a bus ticket and asked him to go home. " And you said yourself you understand why they don't trust the state cops
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:You do understand the difference between police jurisdiction and tribal jurisdiction, right? That being, the tribal security force has no real authority in terms of legally detaining people, etc..? If you are trying to draw a distinction that there exists no tribal police forces that is incorrect. They do have police forces with the full range of police powers including arresting people who are breaking the law. Where that person will be tried is a different question, but they most certainly can arrest. Source
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:If you are trying to draw a distinction that there exists no tribal police forces that is incorrect. They do have police forces with the full range of police powers including arresting people who are breaking the law. Where that person will be tried is a different question, but they most certainly can arrest. Source
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
Was it not moved to the reservation? Nevermind then if oceti is still on the northside of the river. There's what, two camps then on the south side then this one on the north side still? I also remembered tribal police can't prosecute non-natives or somesuch on tribal land even if it did happen there. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:So you claim that the camp is legally under tribal and not federal or stare jurisdiction? That's really getting into a ball of poo poo most do not wanna get near. I'm claiming that tribal police departments can effect arrests. Where the person would be prosecuted is a different issue entirely. US Citizens can't be tried in a tribal court but they can most certainly be arrested by tribal police officers. They also cross deputize which allows them to effect arrests outside of the reservation as well. You claimed they couldn't detain people, but that is simply false.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
So they have jurisdiction when not on their own territory?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:So they have jurisdiction when not on their own territory? Cross deputization allows for it in certain cases. Say tribal police witness someone murdering another, just because they cross reservation lines would not prevent them from being detained. As far as the Oceti Camp it is outside of the reservation and them making arrests could be more difficult there since it is outside of the reservation. But of course, I didn't claim they could arrest anyone anywhere, I took issue with this quote of yours: quote:You do understand the difference between police jurisdiction and tribal jurisdiction, right? That being, the tribal security force has no real authority in terms of legally detaining people, etc..? Which seems to suggest that tribal police forces never have legal detaining power, to the point that you call them a "security" force as compared to "police" force, it's all nicely juxtaposed and everything! This aspect is what I have stated from the start is simply false.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Which seems to suggest that tribal police forces never have legal detaining power, to the point that you call them a "security" force as compared to "police" force, it's all nicely juxtaposed and everything! This aspect is what I have stated from the start is simply false. I think he's saying that the camp security forces aren't the actual tribal police.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Apparently there's been some action including the authorities firing rubber bullets and teargas and whatnot at protestors over/during/after MLK weekend. A lot of the coverage of the places which used to be up to the minute are spotty and I'm trying to avoid just posting facebook links where I can't easily figure out the real date/time that they were taken (in case they are dupes being shoveled around as new stuff, which does happen in our world of social-media-suggested information), so I don't want to link them. It seems as though there's some kind of multiple surface-to-air missile firing vehicle which is near the anti-DAPL lines though, or something that sure as poo poo looks like a cold war mobile missile launching vehicle. Also, confirmed by the military. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...protestors.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Welp if I'm gonna trust any facebook feed to show what's been going on recently, then mabe this one is a viable point of beginning for other views https://www.facebook.com/MortonCountySD/videos/391813057837705/ This is kinda fun, see if you can find any one of their videos with more than 10% likes/view https://www.facebook.com/pg/MortonCountySD/videos/?ref=page_internal coyo7e fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Jan 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
I'm in DC for the inauguration, but there's a lot of water protectors here at St. Stephens; we've been watching live streams and posts by friends; looks pretty ugly from here
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
Uglycat posted:I'm in DC for the inauguration, but there's a lot of water protectors here at St. Stephens; we've been watching live streams and posts by friends; looks pretty ugly from here quote:I will always support Indigenous Rights. I will always support the fight for Mother Earth. I will always support civil and human rights. I will always support peace. Peace will always come first. Also another journo got injured by rubber-coated bullets, and there are repeated reports of peple being shot in the back with no warning after being told to disperse (and complying), as well as of people being hit by vehicles. Apparently the surface-to-air missile launching vehicle was recalled though. Also there's this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/rcmp-pipeline-damage-1.3938192, and then this gem from the sheriffs  link to source if you don't believe they unironically tossed this out to the public https://www.facebook.com/MortonCountySD/photos/a.162536147432065.1073741828.140989796253367/392184231133921/?type=3&theater coyo7e fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 23:24
|
|