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

121–130 of 195 posts

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

#121

Post by zo1 »

jonknee wrote: post #89
geofft wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An easy way to demonstrate the truth of the "paid protesters" claim is to show any way one can sign up to be a paid protestor. I have been doing some unpaid protesting and wouldn't mind a check, to be honest. Until then: FAKE NEWS!

You're 100% correct, but even if there are "paid protestors" I really don't get why that's a bad thing. Everyone working for the pipeline is getting paid!

Would you say the same if said "paid" action was driving/directing public policy? There is a reason there are strict laws regulating money in regulations and public service. This is of course not quite the same but it essentially boils down to "money buys votes". The assumption being that who sends more money wins. That is why I would argue it bothers people.

Edit: grammar.

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

#122

Post by beat »

VickBear wrote: post #96
beat wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "reser…

It isn't going through tribal lands.

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

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

#123

Post by dragonwriter »

criddell wrote: post #111
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."

> "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.

> 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.

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

#124

Post by lostlogin »

Declanomous wrote: post #109
charia wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#125

Post by dang »

We changed the url from https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38901498, which points to this.

The submitted title ("US Army approves Dakota Access Pipeline without required environmental review") rewrote the original when it wasn't misleading or linkbait. This breaks the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), so please don't do that.

Doing it to emphasize a contentious detail in the story is editorializing, which is particularly bad. On HN, unlike some other social news sites, submitters have no special rights over the story and don't get to frame it for everyone else. If you'd like to say what you think is important about a story you've submitted, please do so by commenting in the thread. Then you're on a level field with everyone else.

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

#126

Post by cloakandswagger »

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.

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.

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

#127

Post by breatheoften »

jessaustin wrote: post #106
breatheoften wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Unfortunately yes we do have to worry about propaganda.

An example: In Colorado where I live a large number of people contacted their republican senator Cory Gardner to express their disapproval of Betsy Davos for Secretary of Education.

Gardner publicly ignored these voices with the claim that they were "paid protesters". Widespread claims that protesters can be ignored because of a claimed "paid protester" taint should be challenged when false because these claims spread and make it easier to normalize this kind of democracy eroding response from representatives.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58937d6ee4b07595d05a5087

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

#128

Post by protomyth »

untog wrote: post #80
protomyth wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What huge story? KFYR has had it on daily for months. Just look at the organizers here and what groups pay them. I don't get why you think this would be huge?

> Just look at the organizers here and what groups pay them That is the information I am asking for. A Google search for "soros site:www.kfyrtv.com" returns nothing. The reason I ask is that "George Soros is funding protests" has become something of a meme in right-wing circles to dismiss anything from the Women's March, the airport protests to Standing Rock as being little more than some kind of left-wing conspiracy…

http://kfyr.iheart.com is the radio - they don't have transcripts as far as I can see - I will look when I have time and after I decide if I really want to spend more time on it. At this point we have a flood coming, and the likelihood that no one will want to do business on any of the reservations.

Frankly, when you know people and have relatives on both sides and get told a lot but keep getting called and voted as a liar really doesn't make me want to bother anymore. People forget the problems we are having with rail transport and one of the other tribes being dragged out of poverty because of the oil. I still love my relatives doing the protesting, but they would have been better served if the tribe had bother to do its paperwork years ago.

I don't know about those other things.

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

#129

Post by criddell »

spraak wrote: post #36
cloakandswagger wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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).

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

#130

Post by andy_ppp »

lostlogin wrote: post #117
andy_ppp wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it would be preferable if AMP cache urls were banned from hacker news and only original sources were linked...

I haven't struck this with google before. Gruber had a critical post about it yesterday so I assume it's new. Does the BBC get to object? How do page views get tracked?

They opt in by creating AMP pages!
Post reply on HN