Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 195 posts

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#101

Post by zenta »

protomyth wrote: post #14

At this point, the main concern is getting that camp cleaned up before the flood comes. It should be noted that the tribe has passed a resolution for protestors to go home[1] with no provisions for relocation. This isn't the only area of North Dakota that is going to flood this year and money spent on this foolishness is going to be missed. Devils Lake is going to rise about 4' under current estimates. The reporting…

Those FAQs/Facts are amusing.

> Myth: Law enforcement officers deployed concussion grenades resulting in the grievous injury to a protester’s arm.

> Fact: Law enforcement has at no time used concussion grenades during protest activities. Non-lethal munitions used include: impact sponge rounds, drag stabilizer bean bag rounds, riot control CS (tear gas) canister and water, Taser, and stinger balls, which are small rubber balls and CS gas emitted from the device. It makes a loud noise and emits small rubber balls which are meant to cause people to be startled and therefore disperse. It contains no shrapnel.

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#102

Post by logfromblammo »

untog wrote: post #57
protomyth wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know people on both sides. I have relatives on both sides. I was pretty neutral until the latest round of reporting and looking at what's going to happen this spring with the flooding. The long term business impact on all reservations is problematic. Interestingly enough, I trust my relatives and friends words more than yours. Soros is the biggest, and yes, the money spent here is a major drag on the state.

To be clear: do you have evidence that George Soros is funding protests? If you do, you should tell someone in the media about it, as it would be a huge story.

Forget about the media. I would love to get into the paid protest game. Not for me, personally, but I know a few people with reasonably flexible work/school schedules and some sign-painting skills, who could really use another source of income.

So how exactly does one get paid for attending a protest? What's the going rate? Is there a bonus for being shown on television or getting arrested? Will any chant phrases be provided beforehand, or are they ad hoc? Will they get a 1099, or is it cash under the table?

If the hypothesis is that some protesters are paid, wouldn't it be prudent to at least test that hypothesis by trying to get paid for doing one yourself?

[Edit:] I have seen multiple instances, from multiple sources, where people are claiming that protesters are literally being paid with actual dollars--not in warm fuzzies or in social justice scrip, but actual spendable cash. They will respond to a crowd photo by saying, "That must have cost [Soros|The Koch Bros.|Murdoch|Redstone|The Illuminati] a few million." I am aware that organizing events costs money, but they seem to think that every individual in the photograph actually got a check for showing up.

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#103

Post by Scirra_Tom »

ars wrote: post #28
robertfw wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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.

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#104

Post by ars »

jcoffland wrote: post #71
ars wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If neither, then leave the oil in the ground. Nothing is ever perfectly safe. Nothing you do ever has no impact. Everything in life is about tradeoffs, and the right thing to do is pick the best one. NOT wait for the perfect one!

Waiting generally has a very low environmental impact. Higher energy costs and a slower economy are not necessarily bad. Unbridled growth is not the only option.

> Higher energy costs and a slower economy are not necessarily bad.

Said no poor person ever. You can't just bury your head in the sand and pretend your policies/idea don't impact anyone.

If you understand that and choose to do so anyway because you feel it's better, fine, at least you understand that you are making a tradeoff. But just pretending there is no harm is disingenuous.

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#105

Post by breatheoften »

Tloewald wrote: post #11
eh78ssxv2f wrote: post #3

I always wonder what's the best way to assess environmental impact of the oil pipeline. Sure, it's going to leak at some point, and create a mess that may never get cleaned up. However, is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks?

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 b…

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.

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#106

Post by jessaustin »

breatheoften wrote: post #69
forgetsusername wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I personally know people who went to the Standing Rock camp that were not paid protesters. I didn't see OP claim that there weren't "real" protesters, only that some were paid.

Given that (paid) journalists covering the event have been charged as protesters, implying that at least law enforcement lumps the journalists in with the protesters -- there is no doubt a way to support the claim that "at least one 'protester' is paid". The suggestion that a significant number of the 10s of thousands are being paid is just propaganda though and deserves to be challenged.

Sure, but don't we hear the same "propaganda" every time any group gathers anywhere? If it's not Soros, it's the Kochs; if it's not unions, it's the Russians: whatever boogieman gets you going. In future, can't we just take it as read that some percentage of any group is paid to be there and some higher percentage is accused by someone else of being paid to be there? Is it something we have to worry about?

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#107

Post by ars »

Scirra_Tom wrote: post #103
ars wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> 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.

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#108

Post by dragonwriter »

Tloewald wrote: post #11
eh78ssxv2f wrote: post #3

I always wonder what's the best way to assess environmental impact of the oil pipeline. Sure, it's going to leak at some point, and create a mess that may never get cleaned up. However, is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks?

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 b…

> 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.

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#109

Post by Declanomous »

charia wrote: post #76
FireBeyond wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

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.

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.

Re: Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion

#110

Post by mcintyre1994 »

jessaustin wrote: post #79

Goofy politicized edited headline and link redirection through G to BBC? Try again, 'socialentp. [EDIT:] Here is the original headline: "Dakota Access Pipeline to win US Army permit for completion"

Not defending the headline, but the link is just an AMP page - on mobile it doesn't redirect to a bbc domain.
Post reply on HN