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

141–150 of 195 posts

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

#141

Post by zo1 »

beat wrote: post #68
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.

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…

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.

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

#142

Post by JumpCrisscross »

beat wrote: post #68
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.

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…

> 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_...

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

#143

Post by geofft »

zo1 wrote: post #115
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!

I don't think it's the same as getting paid to do it like a job. It's more along the lines of your group or committee or activism organization gets sponsorship from someone. The assumption being that now you(the group) are getting money, you're 'funded' therefore you need to 'do something' that your group advocates or represents. If you are a pro environmental rights organization you would have to send someone to pro…

That's not what's being claimed:

> paid protestors who are going to get in trouble for working in North Dakota and not filing their taxes

The only way you'd be liable to state taxes in ND is if you are literally paid to do it like a job.

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

#144

Post by mindslight »

logfromblammo wrote: post #102
untog wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're caricaturing the actual dynamic of astroturfing. The individual protesters only ever get paid in mere goodfeels. If you want actual cash, you'd have to either work your way up the organizing chain or independently consult and convert dollars into "outreach" more efficiently than your colleagues.

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

#145

Post by wheelerwj »

jtuente wrote: post #133
wheelerwj wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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...

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

nothing? ok.

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

#146

Post by geofft »

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!

It discredits the protests: it implies that opposition isn't coming from a large number of intrinsically motivated people, but from a small number of people with money.

It's the same philosophy behind paid votes being a bad thing. Even in our capitalist society, we believe that one-person-one-vote leads to a better society than one-dollar-one-vote. You can imagine systems that aren't one-person-one-vote (and they exist; see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_... in which one real estate chairperson has equivalent voting power to fifteen thousand private citizens), but for whatever reason, America's ideal is one-person-one-vote.

In particular, when the opposition holds adherence to one-person-one-political-voice as one of its own principles, the opposition can't say "So what" without appearing hypocritical. They have to actually address that criticism directly.

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

#147

Post by jonknee »

zo1 wrote: post #121
jonknee wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Paid action drives public policy every day, it's the normal way things work. Do you think the people who are fighting for the pipeline are doing it for fun? Like these guys:

https://daplpipelinefacts.com/

Business interests have a huge leg up here because there is money to be made, anti-business interests like not building a pipeline are the ones that have to rely on volunteers. I sure hope there are some paid organizers helping out because they're up against a machine.

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

#148

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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?

> is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks?

In essence, pipelines spill more across fewer locations while trains spill less across more locations:

Our calculation implies 0.09 incidents and 26 barrels released per 1 billion barrel-miles of crude oil transported by pipeline during a 2004-12 period. Comparing that with figures for rail, we quantify the risk of a train incident to be 6-times higher than that of a pipeline, while pipelines spill 3-times more per 1 billion barrel-miles of crude oil transported, over the 2004-12 period.

[1] http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication...

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

#149

Post by zo1 »

geofft wrote: post #143
zo1 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's the same as getting paid to do it like a job. It's more along the lines of your group or committee or activism organization gets sponsorship from someone. The assumption being that now you(the group) are getting money, you're 'funded' therefore you need to 'do something' that your group advocates or represents. If you are a pro environmental rights organization you would have to send someone to pro…

That's not what's being claimed: > paid protestors who are going to get in trouble for working in North Dakota and not filing their taxes The only way you'd be liable to state taxes in ND is if you are literally paid to do it like a job.

Isn't it more likely that that individual was just being a bit facetious rather than seriously claiming these people are getting a "paycheck" for protesting? That is how I took it, and was more trying to expound on how "paid protesting" could at the very least work hypothetically.

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

#150

Post by beat »

zo1 wrote: post #141
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…

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.

Please stop stealing from them.
Post reply on HN