Exigence |
Andrew Cullen / Reuters
|
From the Spring of this year up until now, there has been widespread debate about one particular environmental and social justice issue, alongside movements like Black Lives Matter, and with the same exigence of the upcoming election. For some, the issue is not so recent; standing more so in line with generations of fighting infrastructure projects marked as symbols for misguided progress. But for most, the issue would only have been brought to attention with the power of social media and the ability to spread images of injustice to the rest of the world.
The issue I am referring to is the delayed construction of the North Dakota Access Pipeline, which has triggered celebrities like Shailene Woodley, immeasurable political activists, and even Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein to take a stance on the matter, from something as small as a hashtag to being arrested for spray painting a bulldozer at the construction site of the pipeline.
The issue I am referring to is the delayed construction of the North Dakota Access Pipeline, which has triggered celebrities like Shailene Woodley, immeasurable political activists, and even Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein to take a stance on the matter, from something as small as a hashtag to being arrested for spray painting a bulldozer at the construction site of the pipeline.
Outside Influence
Why is it that people of such great influence are now involved? What is so important that people are being arrested for defending? What is the Dakota Access Pipeline, and why are people so upset about it?
Pipelines are used to transport materials, usually oil but sometimes gas and water, in the most direct and thereby safest way possible. The Dakota Access Pipeline is a plan to form a pipeline across the Northern Midwest, the proposed route stretching 1,172 miles over four separate states, from NorthWest North Dakota, through South Dakota and into Iowa, and ending in South Central Illinois. Like most of the millions of miles of pipelines in the United States, the DAPL would be buried underground, and has the potential to carry and transport 470,000 barrels of oil a day (Walsh). This oil would benefit the United States in becoming one step closer to energy independence, free from reliance on foreign oil.
Because militarized police among the pipeline protests of the Standing Rock Sioux has been the leading story in the media, it has been hard to see the other side of the argument from a public perspective that is not directly associated with the company building the pipeline. Paul Towne is a former oil man and writer of the recent article “What are the arguments supporting the Dakota Access Pipeline” from the website Quora. A major priority of Towne’s article was to argue for energy independence via only transporting oil on domestic soil, but Towne also claims that pipelines take away the potential of oil transported in a much riskier, more exposed environment via rail, not to mention the “comforts” of not having to see oil being transported when not in plain view. Towne claims these multiple benefits of the pipeline will be the safest method in order to sustain the United States’ incessant need to consume oil (Towne).
Though the United States could very well see the benefits of safer and more oil transported on domestic soil, the construction of the pipeline alone would result in possible disturbance of burial grounds and ancient relics from Native American history.
There is also the added potential of what could happen after it is built.
Pipelines are used to transport materials, usually oil but sometimes gas and water, in the most direct and thereby safest way possible. The Dakota Access Pipeline is a plan to form a pipeline across the Northern Midwest, the proposed route stretching 1,172 miles over four separate states, from NorthWest North Dakota, through South Dakota and into Iowa, and ending in South Central Illinois. Like most of the millions of miles of pipelines in the United States, the DAPL would be buried underground, and has the potential to carry and transport 470,000 barrels of oil a day (Walsh). This oil would benefit the United States in becoming one step closer to energy independence, free from reliance on foreign oil.
Because militarized police among the pipeline protests of the Standing Rock Sioux has been the leading story in the media, it has been hard to see the other side of the argument from a public perspective that is not directly associated with the company building the pipeline. Paul Towne is a former oil man and writer of the recent article “What are the arguments supporting the Dakota Access Pipeline” from the website Quora. A major priority of Towne’s article was to argue for energy independence via only transporting oil on domestic soil, but Towne also claims that pipelines take away the potential of oil transported in a much riskier, more exposed environment via rail, not to mention the “comforts” of not having to see oil being transported when not in plain view. Towne claims these multiple benefits of the pipeline will be the safest method in order to sustain the United States’ incessant need to consume oil (Towne).
Though the United States could very well see the benefits of safer and more oil transported on domestic soil, the construction of the pipeline alone would result in possible disturbance of burial grounds and ancient relics from Native American history.
There is also the added potential of what could happen after it is built.
Alyssa Schukar New York Times
The Risks
What makes pipelines so risky is their intensifying reputation to spill.
Spills and leaks from the vast amount of pipelines in the United States have already polluted streams and rivers, drinking water, and farmland, not to mention residential areas (Sierra Club), which may be the most concerning factor for many land-owning Americans (McKibben).
Derrick Braaten is a lawyer in Bismark, North Dakota, specializing in representing farmers, ranchers and landowners in issues involving environmental, agricultural, real estate and energy law (Braaten). His article “This Land is not for Sale” from a law review outlines why “Big Oil” has no way of compensating landowners for possible detrimental effects on their land. His article defends the land itself, claiming that the potential effects of environmental damage would result in a loss of livelihood for a rancher or farmer, on or off an indian reservation. Obviously non natives and natives alike were upset about this potentially detrimental environmental issue.
This may be why the original route was changed from the area Bismark - which Braaten was defending - to an area farther down the Mississippi, and right on top of the Standing Rock Reservation, home to the Sioux Tribe (Energy Transfer Partners). Most, especially the Standing Rock Sioux, think this change places extremely low value on the lives, not to mention the land, of indigenous peoples. One of the main assessments comes from Bill McKibben, a writer for the New York Times and author of “Why Dakota is the New Keystone.” He compares the act of changing the route from the second biggest city in North Dakota as something not only similar to Keystone but the entire history of the dislocation and containment of Native Americans in the United States. He claims,“The solution, in keeping with American history, was obvious: make the crossing instead just above the Standing Rock reservation, where the poverty rate is nearly three times the national average.” McKibben is suggesting that there is a deeper underlying problem here, not just that there is a group of people being discriminated against but that this group has seen the same exact discrimination for centuries, against the same unified power. I would agree with him in that the change in route is implicitly affecting a group already vulnerable from years of increasingly shrinking land due to government jurisdiction.
Many comparisons have been made between DAPL and the Keystone XL Pipeline, a project proposed in 2008 that was denied approval by President Obama in 2015 (TransCanada). The Keystone XL plan, only 7 miles longer than the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline (Energy Transfer Partners), would be an extra link along the greater Keystone Pipeline from Canada to Texas, and would connect a path through midwestern states like Montana and Nebraska. Due to a combination of heavy activism and potential environmental hazards, the Keystone XL permit was denied, though the government is still facing legal action from the project’s supervisor, TransCanada.
Though the Dakota Pipeline is almost equivalent to Keystone XL in terms of potential environmental hazard, the construction is only temporarily paused (McKibben). To the pipeline protesters, this not only gives the impression that construction is bound to continue but it also devalues the importance of Native American lives compared to non-natives.
Similar attitudes were felt before Keystone XL was called off. Rob Hotakainen, a journalist from McClatchy Washington Bureau, spoke to Sioux Tribal Elder Faith Spotted Eagle about the lack of input Natives have in the use and potential destruction of their own land. “There is no way for Native people to say no – there never has been…Our history has caused us not to be optimistic. . . . When you have capitalism, you have to have an underclass – and we’re the underclass.” (Hotakainen)
Spills and leaks from the vast amount of pipelines in the United States have already polluted streams and rivers, drinking water, and farmland, not to mention residential areas (Sierra Club), which may be the most concerning factor for many land-owning Americans (McKibben).
Derrick Braaten is a lawyer in Bismark, North Dakota, specializing in representing farmers, ranchers and landowners in issues involving environmental, agricultural, real estate and energy law (Braaten). His article “This Land is not for Sale” from a law review outlines why “Big Oil” has no way of compensating landowners for possible detrimental effects on their land. His article defends the land itself, claiming that the potential effects of environmental damage would result in a loss of livelihood for a rancher or farmer, on or off an indian reservation. Obviously non natives and natives alike were upset about this potentially detrimental environmental issue.
This may be why the original route was changed from the area Bismark - which Braaten was defending - to an area farther down the Mississippi, and right on top of the Standing Rock Reservation, home to the Sioux Tribe (Energy Transfer Partners). Most, especially the Standing Rock Sioux, think this change places extremely low value on the lives, not to mention the land, of indigenous peoples. One of the main assessments comes from Bill McKibben, a writer for the New York Times and author of “Why Dakota is the New Keystone.” He compares the act of changing the route from the second biggest city in North Dakota as something not only similar to Keystone but the entire history of the dislocation and containment of Native Americans in the United States. He claims,“The solution, in keeping with American history, was obvious: make the crossing instead just above the Standing Rock reservation, where the poverty rate is nearly three times the national average.” McKibben is suggesting that there is a deeper underlying problem here, not just that there is a group of people being discriminated against but that this group has seen the same exact discrimination for centuries, against the same unified power. I would agree with him in that the change in route is implicitly affecting a group already vulnerable from years of increasingly shrinking land due to government jurisdiction.
Many comparisons have been made between DAPL and the Keystone XL Pipeline, a project proposed in 2008 that was denied approval by President Obama in 2015 (TransCanada). The Keystone XL plan, only 7 miles longer than the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline (Energy Transfer Partners), would be an extra link along the greater Keystone Pipeline from Canada to Texas, and would connect a path through midwestern states like Montana and Nebraska. Due to a combination of heavy activism and potential environmental hazards, the Keystone XL permit was denied, though the government is still facing legal action from the project’s supervisor, TransCanada.
Though the Dakota Pipeline is almost equivalent to Keystone XL in terms of potential environmental hazard, the construction is only temporarily paused (McKibben). To the pipeline protesters, this not only gives the impression that construction is bound to continue but it also devalues the importance of Native American lives compared to non-natives.
Similar attitudes were felt before Keystone XL was called off. Rob Hotakainen, a journalist from McClatchy Washington Bureau, spoke to Sioux Tribal Elder Faith Spotted Eagle about the lack of input Natives have in the use and potential destruction of their own land. “There is no way for Native people to say no – there never has been…Our history has caused us not to be optimistic. . . . When you have capitalism, you have to have an underclass – and we’re the underclass.” (Hotakainen)
Environmental Justice Issues of Dakota Access
Spotted Eagle and McKibben would both agree that the underclass is prone to receive the harshest effects the Dakota Access Pipeline, as well as the effects from an endless amount of infrastructure and “progressive” projects in the United States. To McKibben, Keystone XL and DAPL are both just two more projects to add to the “list” of crimes committed against Native Americans, and the only difference now is the changes in activism.
While the government is reluctant to pull the plug completely on the Dakota Access Pipeline Project completely, they are now looking for a way to reroute the Pipeline again to appease the protesting in North Dakota. But from what I’ve gathered from McKibben, Braaten, and Hotakainen, the Dakota Access Pipeline is definitely a problem. Combined with the risk of polluting drinking water in the Missouri River and potentially implementing environmental harm to the land of the Standing Rock Sioux (McKibben), the public attitude towards the Dakota Access Pipeline can be completely validated in the tireless efforts of Native and non-Native protesters. It is, undeniably, something to be upset about, and explains the fight to keep it from being built, to protect the land and water of a people that have already been so affected by progress.
The outrage of pipeline construction is a much deeper problem than possible disruption of drinking water in one area alone. To speak in terms of history, protesters are fighting for something much larger than themselves: the long term health of the environment as well as justice for indigenous peoples. Although rerouting the pipeline again may be a solution, it seems temporary at best. To truly solve this problem that has sparked the activism and interest of millions of Americans, there must be a more permanent solution. There have been 10 different pipeline accidents in North Dakota since 2000 (Gebrekidan). It is from this that one could conclude that pipelines can do long term harm to the environment, and as long as the Dakota Access Pipeline stands to be built, no matter where, it has the potential to have lasting effects on land and water.
The social justice issues of Keystone XL and the Dakota Access Pipeline are only two infrastructure projects that have affected Native Americans where there are thousands, but it is these that have stood out in media because of the fierce protests and involvement on a national scale. These events will continue to diminish the trust between indigenous peoples and the United States government, unless more long term, alternative solutions can be found, combined with valuing the input of a nation of people that feels the environmental impact of the earth most intensely.
While the government is reluctant to pull the plug completely on the Dakota Access Pipeline Project completely, they are now looking for a way to reroute the Pipeline again to appease the protesting in North Dakota. But from what I’ve gathered from McKibben, Braaten, and Hotakainen, the Dakota Access Pipeline is definitely a problem. Combined with the risk of polluting drinking water in the Missouri River and potentially implementing environmental harm to the land of the Standing Rock Sioux (McKibben), the public attitude towards the Dakota Access Pipeline can be completely validated in the tireless efforts of Native and non-Native protesters. It is, undeniably, something to be upset about, and explains the fight to keep it from being built, to protect the land and water of a people that have already been so affected by progress.
The outrage of pipeline construction is a much deeper problem than possible disruption of drinking water in one area alone. To speak in terms of history, protesters are fighting for something much larger than themselves: the long term health of the environment as well as justice for indigenous peoples. Although rerouting the pipeline again may be a solution, it seems temporary at best. To truly solve this problem that has sparked the activism and interest of millions of Americans, there must be a more permanent solution. There have been 10 different pipeline accidents in North Dakota since 2000 (Gebrekidan). It is from this that one could conclude that pipelines can do long term harm to the environment, and as long as the Dakota Access Pipeline stands to be built, no matter where, it has the potential to have lasting effects on land and water.
The social justice issues of Keystone XL and the Dakota Access Pipeline are only two infrastructure projects that have affected Native Americans where there are thousands, but it is these that have stood out in media because of the fierce protests and involvement on a national scale. These events will continue to diminish the trust between indigenous peoples and the United States government, unless more long term, alternative solutions can be found, combined with valuing the input of a nation of people that feels the environmental impact of the earth most intensely.