Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Flowers For Algeria
Dec 3, 2005

I humbly offer my services as forum inquisitor. There is absolutely no way I would abuse this power in any way.


CommieGIR posted:

But, the point stands: Why shouldn't they protest? Its not like companies and the government don't have an established legacy of loving the Tribes even more than they gently caress everyday US citizens.

This, seriously. I'm a loving statist, all in favor of the seizure of private property in the name of eminent domain and all that, but a) ecological and conservation considerations trump such projects, and b) loving with Natives is pretty loving gross given the history of the US.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

DeusExMachinima
Sep 2, 2012

:siren:This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!:siren:

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

CommieGIR posted:

Got it, an energy sector with a very excellent safety record is completely comparable to one that is notorious for loving everything up and then leaving the citizens to foot the bill. Are you serious?

Here, let me help you, this is a list of pipeline spills just this year alone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century#2016


If Nuclear was spilling this often, I'd be calling them out too. But they are not. And you are making false comparisons.

If nuclear was as common as coal, you'd be able to point to a larger list of failures and lay it out in an impressive looking post even though on the whole they're far safer. Freaking out over pipelines destroying the environment is the same as people blowing Three Mile Island out of proportion or condemning fracking when the alternative is burning more coal. There is no free lunch here, period. Until we find a renewable resource with a) the energy density of oil and that b) doesn't require a net negative investment of energy to extract, oil is here to stay. Hopefully technology evolves sufficiently before we run out of it. If you've got an alternative to it right now by all means step up and receive your Nobel prize.

silence_kit posted:

Certainly that's true for their leadership. The other members of the tribe may not have known that their leaders could have done something about the pipeline and instead twiddled their thumbs. The dismissal definitely changes the impact of this news story though.

Yeah, this. I'm not without sympathy for the rank and file but I really don't know what the gently caress their leadership was thinking.

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

DeusExMachinima posted:

If nuclear was as common as coal, you'd be able to point to a larger list of failures and lay it out in an impressive looking post even though on the whole they're far safer. Freaking out over pipelines destroying the environment is the same as people blowing Three Mile Island out of proportion or condemning fracking when the alternative is burning more coal. There is no free lunch here, period. Until we find a renewable resource with a) the energy density of oil and that b) doesn't require a net negative investment of energy to extract, oil is here to stay. Hopefully technology evolves sufficiently before we run out of it. If you've got an alternative to it right now by all means step up and receive your Nobel prize.

In no way did I imply desposing of petroleum right now, but let's not pretend that the oil industry is innocent in these issues at large.

Roland Jones
Aug 18, 2011

by Nyc_Tattoo
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/793836067539431424

DeusExMachinima
Sep 2, 2012

:siren:This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!:siren:

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

CommieGIR posted:

In no way did I imply desposing of petroleum right now, but let's not pretend that the oil industry is innocent in these issues at large.

I wasn't just addressing that, I was also telling you that the plural of anecdote is not data and that throwing up some cherry-picked examples of pipelines gone wrong doesn't usefully tell anyone whether they're more or less dangerous than alternatives or what percentage of pipelines fail catastrophically over their lifespan. In other words, exactly what anti-nuclear types do.

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

DeusExMachinima posted:

I wasn't just addressing that, I was also telling you that the plural of anecdote is not data and that throwing up some cherry-picked examples of pipelines gone wrong doesn't usefully tell anyone whether they're more or less dangerous than alternatives or what percentage of pipelines fail catastrophically over their lifespan. In other words, exactly what anti-nuclear types do.

That'd be fine if they were not playing up moving to pipelines as a safety measure to supplant rail transport.

Which they are. And yet are not replacing rail transit for oil. Because the pipeline is just an excuse to dump product on the market faster, not enhance safety.

And no, its not quite the same as what anti-nuclear types do. Mostly because they either play up poor examples (Three Mile Island) or play up substandard and flawed cases (Fukushima and Chernobyl), comparing those cases to a oil pipe that is being pitched by companies that have a legacy of abject failure after abject failure that they are basically allowed to shrug off, its not the same at all.

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

CommieGIR posted:

Even worse, looking at that map: Why is the pipeline crossing the river. Twice, when it looks like it could have easily been routed around those cities to get to that exact location without crossing the river?
This is almost certainly just a factor of what land was available to be purchased. The company would definitely prefer to avoid water crossings since that reduces the permits they need even if they don't give a poo poo about ecology. Something like 97% of the pipeline is built on privately held land, it's not like the company just owns all of North Dakota and draw pipelines wherever they like.

Booourns
Jan 20, 2004
Please send a report when you see me complain about other posters and threads outside of QCS

~thanks!

Gobbeldygook posted:

If their ancestral burial grounds and magic rocks are so important to them

Nice

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

twodot posted:

Something like 97% of the pipeline is built on privately held land, it's not like the company just owns all of North Dakota and draw pipelines wherever they like.

That's not what I implied either.

Tias
May 25, 2008

Pictured: the patron saint of internet political arguments (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Funky See Funky Do posted:

OP, come on. Did you even watch this? An 11 year old girl was not gunned down by police snipers.

Yeah, my bad. I was asked to share it in a hurry, and didn't watch it, it's complete horseshit.

DeusExMachinima posted:

I wasn't just addressing that, I was also telling you that the plural of anecdote is not data and that throwing up some cherry-picked examples of pipelines gone wrong doesn't usefully tell anyone whether they're more or less dangerous than alternatives or what percentage of pipelines fail catastrophically over their lifespan. In other words, exactly what anti-nuclear types do.

Even if the oil companies were not insidious loving psychopaths( who only days ago proved their trustworthiness by trying to infiltrate a provocateur with an AR-15 into the protest camp), it still doesn't solve the question of how and why the corps and the USACoE can poo poo all over the treaty.

Gobbeldygook
May 13, 2009
Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Jack Gladney posted:

Then why haven't you yet done your moral duty and driven yourself to the nearest hospital, taken fast-acting neurotoxin, and pinned a note to your chest explaining that you would like to donate all of your organs, JS Mill? Alternately, why should the new freeway go through your house and not your neighbor's? Utilitarianism of this sort will always be a reducto-ad because it frequently relies on stupid unexamined premises.
Well, four years ago I did cold call my local hospital, tell them I wanted to donate a kidney to whoever could use it the most, and then did it, so I'm not completely opposed to your idea. The catch is it wouldn't actually be that good. Donating a kidney to someone only adds about 25 years of human life to the world, so it's only as good as a $1250 dollar donation to the Against Malaria Foundation. It's very possible I will be able to do more good with my life by living well than by going Seven Pounds on myself.

CommieGIR posted:

You realize they are protesting mostly because of the river it crosses right? And because most of these companies have a lovely record when it comes to pipeline integrity, and that river is the reservations primary water source?

I'd be protesting too.

Even worse, looking at that map: Why is the pipeline crossing the river. Twice, when it looks like it could have easily been routed around those cities to get to that exact location without crossing the river?
Most maps only show a few major rivers, the pipeline actually crosses a lot more rivers than that. The Sioux land stops at Cannonball River, as it has since the 1868 treaty of Fort Laramie.

I am well aware that they are mostly protesting that it crosses their river over land that isn't theirs. When Standing Rock Sioux and others talked with Army Corps of Engineers, they took action in response to their concerns about pipeline integrity and placement

quote:

Through these conversations, Henderson committed the Corps to imposing several additional conditions on DAPL, such as double-walled piping, in response to tribal concerns about environmental safety. Id., ¶ 27. One of these summits also included an onsite visit to the Lake Oahe crossing. See Harnois Decl., ¶ 28; see also Archambault Decl., ¶ 19. During that visit, Chairman Archambault “pointed out areas of concern and explained the tribe’s issues with the pipeline project.”
That was after a year of cajoling. As for "why does it go to <x location>" - the answer is almost always going to be that it was the path of least resistance. For example, squint at this picture.

That dashed line is a natural gas pipeline that already runs under the lake. The company figured that if someone already ran a pipeline somewhere, running an oil pipeline right next to would be pretty easy and a lot less likely to disturb tribal cultural sites. There's also already a natural gas pipeline running through Bismarck which is part of why that route was explored.

Gobbeldygook fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Nov 2, 2016

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Gobbeldygook posted:

You should do what is best for the most. Better to put 8k at slight risk than 100k.

Actually, what's best for the most is to put nobody at a slight risk when oil prices are already super low. If you accept a potential risk to human lives, 8000 of them at that, then there's no way that the value of 8000 statistical lives is exceeded by the boost in supply created by a minor oil pipeline.

Everyone please stop calling this guy a utilitarian, this isn't a coherent utilitarian position, he's just someone who's looking for reasons to not like the native american protesters for some reason

Gobbeldygook posted:

If their ancestral burial grounds and magic rocks are so important to them, they should have responded to the Army Corps many attempts to reach out to them and get their assistance in not accidentally defiling their cultural sites. Given that they did so minimally, they probably aren't that important to them.

Nobody ever had trouble navigating a bureaucracy, and Native Americans have no reason to distrust the US Government (particularly the Army). I guess that they must not care about their "magic rocks". jesus

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Nov 2, 2016

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

Nocts posted:

This is the exact document I posted about earlier in the thread. When you say the "dismissal is a pro click" you are taking it as being a 100% legitimate and honest document, and as Tias just posted there may be problems with that claim. Second, even if what's in the document is true, the DAPL people only gave the Standing Rock Sioux a few months to respond to a major project that could have huge impacts on their quality of life. Third,

Tias posted:

I see where you're coming from, but if they don't get approval from the tribe that actually lives on and uses the land, that's not a legitimate negotiation - and I maintain that the SR Lakota have full rights to the land - you know, like rich white people have over everywhere else and make loving stupid decisions about every day? It's theirs, they can take their ball home as much as they want to.
That's a DC district court judgement, so I think it is reasonable to assume that it is an accurate statement of the relevant law, and the relevant facts as they were presented to the court.

The tribe was seeking an emergency injunction to revoke the permits the ACE had granted, but failed because the legal theories they advanced were unlikely to succeed on the merits, and the tribe could not show any irreparable harm that would occur if the permits were not revoked. Although the tribe apparently also wishes to pursue claims under the National Environmental Policy Act and similar legislation, those claims were not part of this particular case.

The details are rather illuminating. Domestic oil pipelines, unlike natural-gas pipelines, require no general approval from the federal government. In fact, DAPL needs almost no federal permitting of any kind because 99% of its route traverses private land. (Pg 2) Apparently it is up to the states to regulate their construction. Interstate pipelines seem like an area where the Feds would easily be able to insert themselves due to the commerce clause, but apparently Congress has not passed legislation to that end. The ACE's involvement comes only with respect to the points where the pipeline crosses rivers and waterways of the United States. The construction on private land would fall under the regulation of the state's historical preservation office or similar body. On page 13, the court notes that Dakota Access had undertaken a diligent effort to avoid known historic sites and done additional archeological surveys along the proposed pipeline route (again, on private land) on their own dime in coordination with the states' historical preservation offices, and re-route around any new sites discovered. They also followed preexisting infrastructure whenever possible, which meant that any extant historic sites had already been disturbed.

On page 29, the court notes that other tribal governments had agreed to conduct cultural surveys on private land in conjunction with the company, and based on these surveys, the company had agreed to either re-route the pipeline, or bury it over 100 ft underground in order to avoid disturbing sensitive sites. The Standing Rock, on the other hand, declined to participate in the surveys unless the Army Corps of Engineers to redefined the area of potential effect they have jurisdiction over to include the entire pipeline, something that it appears they legally cannot do, as the construction on private land falls outside their jurisdiction. This is a bit more than "not filing paperwork on time."

Basically, the tribe sued the ACE to revoke the permits for the waterway crossing points of the pipeline, based on the possibility that other, already in progress pipeline construction on private land may harm some as-yet unidentified historic sites. There really isn't anything the ACE has authority to do here. Whether the construction on private land violated some state law is a different question, but I haven't seen any articulated legal claim that it did yet.

The argument that the Standing Rock have some nebulous and undefined "right to the land" isn't really workable argument.

RandomPauI posted:

If I understand this right the tribe says the land belongs to them by treaty but the Army Corp of Engineers says we don't recognize the treaties?
It seems there are a series of overlapping legal claims. The dismissal Nocts and DEM posted was specific to the claim that the Army Corps of Engineers failed to abide by their requirement to consult with native tribes prior any undertaking in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act. (Note that the Act does not require them to change the planned undertaking based on the concerns that the tribes raise.) Several people have claimed that the tribe either believes they own or have an interest in the private land that the pipeline is built on, due to "treaties," but I have been unable to find a citation of the specific treaties in question.

Tias posted:

it still doesn't solve the question of how and why the corps and the USACoE can poo poo all over the treaty.
Sorry, which treaty is this, specifically?

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Nov 2, 2016

silence_kit
Jul 14, 2011

by the sex ghost

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Actually, what's best for the most is to put nobody at a slight risk when oil prices are already super low. If you accept a potential risk to human lives, 8000 of them at that, then there's no way that the value of 8000 statistical lives is exceeded by the boost in supply created by a minor oil pipeline.

I'm not going to make a claim about the precise effect and whether we really need the pipeline or not, but I can point out that this reasoning is pretty dumb. It takes a long time to build a pipeline, as evidenced by the Army Corps of Engineers spending an entire year trying to contact the Standing Rock Sioux leadership in vain to get their opinion on how to route the pipeline, and so you've got to be a little more forward thinking and not just make decisions based on the current oil price when planning these kinds of projects. Also, describing an oil pipeline as being a ticking nuclear time bomb which could blow up and kill the entire reservation is being more than a little hyperbolic.

The price of oil is kind of important economically. I'm sure that thousands of posts were written in D&D back when the oil prices were high, whining about how high the oil price was and how it and the associated increase in price of about everything was an unfair burden on the poor in the US.

silence_kit fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Nov 2, 2016

Gobbeldygook
May 13, 2009
Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Actually, what's best for the most is to put nobody at a slight risk when oil prices are already super low. If you accept a potential risk to human lives, 8000 of them at that, then there's no way that the value of 8000 statistical lives is exceeded by the boost in supply created by a minor oil pipeline.

Everyone please stop calling this guy a utilitarian, this isn't a coherent utilitarian position, he's just someone who's looking for reasons to not like the native american protesters for some reason
Because it's not a risk of 8,000 people dying. Even a catastrophic pipeline failure directly under the lake is not going to kill all 8,000 people on the reservation. It's a slight risk of 8,000 people being seriously inconvenienced. The worst case scenario is they can't fish or drink the water for a while and the Red Cross rushes in with pallets of food and bottled water.

Dead Reckoning posted:

The argument that the Standing Rock have some nebulous and undefined "right to the land" isn't really workable argument.

It seems there are a series of overlapping legal claims. The dismissal Nocts and DEM posted was specific to the claim that the Army Corps of Engineers failed to abide by their requirement to consult with native tribes prior any undertaking in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act. (Note that the Act does not require them to change the planned undertaking based on the concerns that the tribes raise.) Several people have claimed that the tribe either believes they own or have an interest in the private land that the pipeline is built on, due to "treaties," but I have been unable to find a citation of the specific treaties in question.
Sorry, which treaty is this, specifically?
The Treaties of Fort Laramie of 1851 and 1865 give them the right to hunt, fish, and travel over nearby land that isn't necessarily "theirs". I believe the argument is that the risk of the pipeline leaking imperils their right to fishing. There are also some federal laws specifically protecting Native American bodies/relics, so I think the company is legally required to not destroy their artifacts even if found on private land.
edit: I'm also sure they some water rights. There have been a number of Supreme Court cases on this matter.

Gobbeldygook fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Nov 2, 2016

mitztronic
Jun 17, 2005

mixcloud.com/mitztronic

Gobbeldygook posted:

Would you be okay with it if it ran through Bismarck over the same river and was still capable of contaminating the water supply downstream if it leaked?

It shouldn't be put anywhere. We shouldn't be building oil pipelines in 2016, period. This is a moral issues as far as I'm concerned, I'm against any oil pipelines. I don't care if people in Illinois or wherever want gas that is 5% cheaper.

Gobbeldygook
May 13, 2009
Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

mitztronic posted:

It shouldn't be put anywhere. We shouldn't be building oil pipelines in 2016, period. This is a moral issues as far as I'm concerned, I'm against any oil pipelines. I don't care if people in Illinois or wherever want gas that is 5% cheaper.

THIS FAR AND NO FARTHER!

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

CommieGIR posted:

That's not what I implied either.
I don't understand how you could believe "it looks like it could have easily been routed around those cities to get to that exact location without crossing the river", unless you think they had arbitrary access to land around those cities.

Dead Reckoning posted:

That's a DC district court judgement, so I think it is reasonable to assume that it is an accurate statement of the relevant law, and the relevant facts as they were presented to the court.
I think it's worth noting that the judgement itself mentioned that they got relatively few documents from Stone Rock and a lot of the judgement is relying on affidavits from the Corps. (Not that I think anyone is lying, just that the relevant facts as they were presented to the court probably doesn't include all the relevant facts)

mitztronic
Jun 17, 2005

mixcloud.com/mitztronic

Gobbeldygook posted:


THIS FAR AND NO FARTHER!

I guess you are morally right, because things are hosed up and our climate is being destroyed its OK to gently caress it up even more and destroy it even more for a slight increase to profits. Thanks for showing me the light!

Hell lets just bring back the industrial revolution, at the peak they were burning how much coal, everywhere? That makes it OK right, since everyone was doing it

mitztronic fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Nov 2, 2016

Telsa Cola
Aug 19, 2011

No... this is all wrong... this whole operation has just gone completely sidewaysface
NAGPRA only works on state and federally owned land, as well as anyone who gets fed money for the project. Winters rights might or might not be applicable, the mostly focus on water use rights.

Tias
May 25, 2008

Pictured: the patron saint of internet political arguments (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Dead Reckoning posted:

Sorry, which treaty is this, specifically?

That would be article 2 of the Treaty of Fort Laramie of April 29, 1868, it describes the boundaries of the Great Sioux Reservation, as commencing on the 46th parallel of north latitude to the east bank of Missouri River, south along the east bank to the Nebraska line, then west to the 104th parallel of west longitude. (15 stat. 635).

However, I have also been told that the federal government have unilaterally revoked the treaty several times, carving off culturally or logistically vital pieces of the domain( such as the Missouri river and the sacred Black Hills), so I guess you could argue that they just have the short end of the straw because uncle Sam said so.

Gobbeldygook
May 13, 2009
Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Tias posted:

That would be article 2 of the Treaty of Fort Laramie of April 29, 1868, it describes the boundaries of the Great Sioux Reservation, as commencing on the 46th parallel of north latitude to the east bank of Missouri River, south along the east bank to the Nebraska line, then west to the 104th parallel of west longitude. (15 stat. 635).

However, I have also been told that the federal government have unilaterally revoked the treaty several times, carving off culturally or logistically vital pieces of the domain( such as the Missouri river and the sacred Black Hills), so I guess you could argue that they just have the short end of the straw because uncle Sam said so.
Even if we gave them back all the land they had at the signing of the treaty of 1868, they would still have no claim on the pipeline's land because it's to the north.

The tribe went to the supreme court and successfully argued that the land had been stolen from them and they deserved compensation. They were awarded over $100 million, but refused to take it because it would mean giving up their claim on the Black Hills. Thanks to compounding interest there is literally over a billion dollars sitting in a government bank account that could be theirs if they just said "SHOW US THE MONEY WHITE MAN".

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

Tias posted:

That would be article 2 of the Treaty of Fort Laramie of April 29, 1868, it describes the boundaries of the Great Sioux Reservation, as commencing on the 46th parallel of north latitude to the east bank of Missouri River, south along the east bank to the Nebraska line, then west to the 104th parallel of west longitude. (15 stat. 635).

However, I have also been told that the federal government have unilaterally revoked the treaty several times, carving off culturally or logistically vital pieces of the domain( such as the Missouri river and the sacred Black Hills), so I guess you could argue that they just have the short end of the straw because uncle Sam said so.

Okay, but the crossing point on the Missouri river is about 26 minutes north of the 46th parallel, so I'm not seeing the relevance to a direct ownership claim.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Nov 2, 2016

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Gobbeldygook posted:

Because it's not a risk of 8,000 people dying. Even a catastrophic pipeline failure directly under the lake is not going to kill all 8,000 people on the reservation. It's a slight risk of 8,000 people being seriously inconvenienced. The worst case scenario is they can't fish or drink the water for a while and the Red Cross rushes in with pallets of food and bottled water.
Which is really really really bad. It's not as simple as the Red Cross rushing in with pallets of food and water; we can see in Flint MI that it's actually incredibly hard to coordinate the distribution of safe water, even when the affected area is nearby and well-connected to other major population centers. Distributing food and dfrinking water, and actually fixing the environmental damage, in a rural part of the American west, with tribal government sovereignty issues? This would be a nightmare. Especially because, if this pipeline is built and then the worst fears of its detractors come true, a huge swath of the residents will completely distrust the state and federal governments.

Native Americans will most likely never receive back the land that was taken from them by genocidal force, despite the near-complete destruction of entire civilizations creating a legacy that continues to ruin lives today. Reservations are awful, terrible places to live by any statistical measure. The Sioux have been offered a billion dollars to legitimate the seizure of their land, and they have declined it. For some reason it really matters to them that the government that committed genocide against them does not have its land theft legitimated. But that will never happen. They will never have that land. It's a political impossibility. In lieu of that, can we at least cut a tribe some slack on not attending the right bureaucratic meetings in the past and listen to them when they say they don't want to deal with this risk?

silence_kit posted:

The price of oil is kind of important economically. I'm sure that thousands of posts were written in D&D back when the oil prices were high, whining about how high the oil price was and how it and the associated increase in price of about everything was an unfair burden on the poor in the US.

The price of oil is very economically important. Its downswing, after years of predictions that oil prices would be permanently over $100/barrel, indicates that attempts to predict swings in the price of oil are doomed; it's too affected by geopolitical instabilities and unknowable environmental factors (like how much oil is under any given part of the Earth). Predictions about the value of the pipeline are thus incredibly difficult; predictions about its costs, in the form of contribution to climate change and in the form of creating a small but significant risk to a poor community, can be made more confidently.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Nov 2, 2016

KiteAuraan
Aug 5, 2014

JER GEDDA FERDA RADDA ARA!


Telsa Cola posted:

NAGPRA only works on state and federally owned land, as well as anyone who gets fed money for the project. Winters rights might or might not be applicable, the mostly focus on water use rights.

Also, if some of the cultural sites are just lithic scatters or something NAGPRA doesn't apply at all, as they're not graves or cultural patrimony. It sounds like some of the cultural sites are just scatters, along with some cairns and burial sites which would fall under NAGPRA, but only if they're on federal land. There could also be state laws that apply, Arizona has laws that protect any grave on any land for example, but I don't believe North Dakota has similar laws.

silence_kit
Jul 14, 2011

by the sex ghost

mitztronic posted:

I guess you are morally right, because things are hosed up and our climate is being destroyed its OK to gently caress it up even more and destroy it even more for a slight increase to profits. Thanks for showing me the light!

Hell lets just bring back the industrial revolution, at the peak they were burning how much coal, everywhere? That makes it OK right, since everyone was doing it

I'm not going to make a claim about the precise effect and whether we really need the pipeline or not, but you realize that the price of oil is kind of important economically, right? If the oil price were to greatly increase, you would probably be okay, since you are a Silicon Valley engineer, IIRC, but a lot of poor people in the US would not be in great shape and would have tremendous trouble absorbing the increase in cost of just about everything.

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

silence_kit posted:

I'm not going to make a claim about the precise effect and whether we really need the pipeline or not

If you find yourself starting off your post by noting that it's going to be useless, you can just stop posting.

This is a dumb discussion because it's not the government's job, or the tribe's job, or any uninvolved party's job, to determine if this pipeline will produce a high or low-priced product. It's solely the job of Dakota Access, LLC. By building the pipeline, they're betting that the price of oil will be high enough to make the whole thing profitable. They're estimating that the oil will be worth something, and the tribe is complaining that it won't be worth the risk of damage to tribal lands.

What a reasonable government would do here is listen to the Sioux and work to put a price estimate on the damage that the pipeline would do to them (mainly from the potential risk of spillage, I imagine). And then charge Dakota Access, LLC exactly that much money if it chooses to go through with the pipeline, and redistribute the proceeds to the people/firms affected. If the pipeline goes through, then it must be more socially beneficial than its costs. If it doesn't, it wasn't worth the costs anyway. In other words, force Dakota Access, LLC to pay the costs that the tribe pays and see if it's still worthwhile

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Nov 2, 2016

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

Civilized Fishbot posted:

In lieu of that, can we at least cut a tribe some slack on not attending the right bureaucratic meetings in the past and listen to them when they say they don't want to deal with this risk?
That's the thing, though. This isn't a case where they were confused about what papers they needed to file, they appear to be in denial about what the law is. See: their refusal to cooperate with Dakota Access until the Corps of Engineers extended their jurisdiction on to private land. On purely historic & cultural preservation grounds, it's hard to make a claim that Dakota Access hasn't been making a good faith effort to avoid significant sites even on private land, if the court filings are at all accurate. There is certainly more to drill into (heh) on the environmental impact claims, but I haven't seen any sort of legal filing on that issue presented yet. The idea that the tribe should have a veto over construction on private land outside the borders of any current or previously recognized tribal territory based on free-floating ideas of historical connection and white guilt isn't really workable within a system of laws.

coyo7e
Aug 23, 2007

by zen death robot

DeusExMachinima posted:

If nuclear was as common as coal, you'd be able to point to a larger list of failures and lay it out in an impressive looking post even though on the whole they're far safer. Freaking out over pipelines destroying the environment is the same as people blowing Three Mile Island out of proportion or condemning fracking when the alternative is burning more coal. There is no free lunch here, period. Until we find a renewable resource with a) the energy density of oil and that b) doesn't require a net negative investment of energy to extract, oil is here to stay. Hopefully technology evolves sufficiently before we run out of it. If you've got an alternative to it right now by all means step up and receive your Nobel prize.
Naw dude, you have a fundamental lack of understanding about energy management. If we don't build the DAPL that does not mean that we have to find some alternative fossil fuel to cover the equivalent amount of energy. Either you're being actively disingenuous by claiming that the DAPL is going to improve the cost of energy for Americans, which it's not, or you simply don't have a clue about sustainability in terms of energy.

It's not about installing more solar panels and wind turbines to offshoot the use of fossil fuels, as much as it's about making sure that current systems and technologies are being used to their full potential. The vast majority of refrigerators, water heaters, HVAC units, chillers, blowers, and other pieces of climate control infrastructure in most commercial and industrial buildings are badly, badly maintained - often times people will simply yank out timer controls etc, because they got frustrated with a semi-related problem and they decided that the best troubleshooting method was the dyke out the timer, which leaves one system running full-bore 24/7, which leads to other systems going full-bore to coun ter that heater or HVAC or exhaust fan that's running, etc etc on down the line. That's not even getting into improving the equipment with existing technologies.

Commercial and Industrial buildings consume 60% of the energy in the USA and in most developed nations, and they actually have huge incentives to imrpove... But naw bro, let's just build another pipeline to burn more fuel so we can run that AC unit all night while nobody's in the building.

Check out The Ecology of Commerce, or google up one of Bill McDonough's Cradle to Cradle videos (or read the book), or The Philosophy of Sutainabile design, or hell just go watch Chasing the Sun which focuses more on residential projects and energy policy, but also pulls back the curtain on what kind of pushback we face.

coyo7e fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Nov 2, 2016

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

The idea that the tribe should have a veto over construction on private land outside the borders of any current or previously recognized tribal territory based on free-floating ideas of historical connection and white guilt isn't really workable within a system of laws.

True. Meaning that, if you wanted to get the construction prevented, you wouldn't be able to petition in court. You would have to obtain the attention of elected officials who actually do have the power to veto/alter/slow the construction of the pipeline. You would have to lead a campaign to attract public attention while simultaneously putting pressure on those elected officials. Which is literally exactly what the tribal protectors are doing.

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

Civilized Fishbot posted:

What a reasonable government would do here is listen to the Sioux and work to put a price estimate on the damage that the pipeline would do to them (mainly from the potential risk of spillage, I imagine). And then charge Dakota Access, LLC exactly that much money if it chooses to go through with the pipeline, and redistribute the proceeds to the people/firms affected. If the pipeline goes through, then it must be more socially beneficial than its costs. If it doesn't, it wasn't worth the costs anyway. In other words, force Dakota Access, LLC to pay the costs that the tribe pays and see if it's still worthwhile
I'm fairly certain the company would be liable for any actual damages caused by their pipeline. The idea that they should have to pay now to offset hypothetical future damages as valued by the people hypothetically affected is nuts. The concept that a project must prove its "social benefit" as a dollar figure is unworkable, because it requires arbitrarily defining what constitutes "social benefit" and arbitrarily assigning a dollar figure to it. Can you provide any example of a system of building permits that works this way?

Civilized Fishbot posted:

True. Meaning that, if you wanted to get the construction prevented, you wouldn't be able to petition in court. You would have to obtain the attention of elected officials who actually do have the power to veto/alter/slow the construction of the pipeline. You would have to lead a campaign to attract public attention while simultaneously putting pressure on those elected officials. Which is literally exactly what the tribal protectors are doing.
If you want to say that the government should approve or disapprove building permits, or issue injunctions against construction it has no power to regulate, solely based on how popular or unpopular the construction is, rather than whether or not it complies with existing regulation... that isn't really workable. Unless you're a huge fan of NIMBYism and cronyism.

coyo7e
Aug 23, 2007

by zen death robot

Dead Reckoning posted:

Can you provide any example of a system of building permits that works this way?
This is exactly how they determine whether you get a business or residential meter in your home when the utility provider comes and installs it. It's not literally, entirely based on zoning or permits but it is based on the intended purpose of the property, which nominally equates to its zoning. Shockingly, this means that business customers of a utlity providert pay more for their power than most residential customers.

As for what happens when you privatize utilities and energy providers and depend on them to be honest and intend the best for all involved, well, refer to California's 6 days of brownouts and blackouts, and watch The Smartest Guys In the Room.

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm fairly certain the company would be liable for any actual damages caused by their pipeline. The idea that they should have to pay now to offset hypothetical future damages as valued by the people hypothetically affected is nuts.
Maybe don't be so certain. A lot of what the protesters are worried about is that the company won't be forced to fully confront its own liabilities at that time. They have good reason to think this, after BP avoided significant liability for the spill in the Gulf and how Native American communities are neglected across America especially when competing with rich private interests.

quote:

The concept that a project must prove its "social benefit" as a dollar figure is unworkable, because it requires arbitrarily defining what constitutes "social benefit" and arbitrarily assigning a dollar figure to it. Can you provide any example of a system of building permits that works this way?
Reread my posts. That's what I'm saying! You and I agree on this. Only Dakota Access, LLC should have to determine how much it values the pipeline. So if you want to see if the costs outweigh the benefits, force it to pay the costs.

I repeat: ideally, the government shouldn't tell Dakota Access, LLC whether or not to build the pipeline. It should charge Dakota Access, LLC a tax in accordance with the costs of the pipeline, and then let Dakota Access, LLC decide whether or not to build it. All the social benefits belong to Dakota Access, so if you attach all the social costs to Dakota Access as well, their self interest will drive them to make a decision that benefits the whole public.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Nov 2, 2016

Gobbeldygook
May 13, 2009
Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

coyo7e posted:

This is exactly how they determine whether you get a business or residential meter in your home when the utility provider comes and installs it. It's not literally, entirely based on zoning or permits but it is based on the intended purpose of the property, which nominally equates to its zoning. Shockingly, this means that business customers of a utlity providert pay more for their power than most residential customers.
I thought business consumers paid more simply because they can pay more? I know some (most? all?) areas charge on a sliding scale where as you use more electricity you pay more per watt.
edit:

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Reread my posts. That's what I'm saying! You and I agree on this. Only Dakota Access, LLC should have to determine how much it values the pipeline. So if you want to see if the costs outweigh the benefits, force it to pay the costs.

I repeat: ideally, the government shouldn't tell Dakota Access, LLC whether or not to build the pipeline. It should charge Dakota Access, LLC a tax in accordance with the costs of the pipeline, and then let Dakota Access, LLC decide whether or not to build it. All the social benefits belong to Dakota Access, so if you attach all the social costs to Dakota Access as well, their self interest will drive them to make a decision that benefits the whole public.
Your proposal would not satisfy the protesters at all. They would still be protesting the building of the pipeline and in need of some water cannon therapy even if Dakota Access had to pay a lot more money to build it.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Liquid Communism
Mar 9, 2004


Out here, everything hurts.




mitztronic posted:

It shouldn't be put anywhere. We shouldn't be building oil pipelines in 2016, period. This is a moral issues as far as I'm concerned, I'm against any oil pipelines. I don't care if people in Illinois or wherever want gas that is 5% cheaper.

We especially shouldn't be using Eminent Domain (as happened in at least the Iowa leg of this pipeline) for the benefit of private enterprise.

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

coyo7e posted:

This is exactly how they determine whether you get a business or residential meter in your home when the utility provider comes and installs it. It's not literally, entirely based on zoning or permits but it is based on the intended purpose of the property, which nominally equates to its zoning. Shockingly, this means that business customers of a utlity providert pay more for their power than most residential customers.
"Should this customer pay for utilities based on the current rates for commercial or residential customers?" is not even remotely the same thing as "how much social benefit does this private construction project provide, numerically speaking?"

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Maybe don't be so certain. A lot of what the protesters are worried about is that the company won't be forced to fully confront its own liabilities at that time. They have good reason to think this, after BP avoided significant liability for the spill in the Gulf and how Native American communities are neglected across America especially when competing with rich private interests.

Reread my posts. That's what I'm saying! You and I agree on this. Only Dakota Access, LLC should have to determine how much it values the pipeline. So if you want to see if the costs outweigh the benefits, force it to pay the costs.

I repeat: ideally, the government shouldn't tell Dakota Access, LLC whether or not to build the pipeline. It should charge Dakota Access, LLC a tax in accordance with the costs of the pipeline, and then let Dakota Access, LLC decide whether or not to build it. All the social benefits belong to Dakota Access, so if you attach all the social costs to Dakota Access as well, their self interest will drive them to make a decision that benefits the whole public.
I'm not sure what you consider significant liability, but BP ended up settling to the tune of $20 billion, including a $5.5 billion in Clean Water Act penalties, the largest such penalty in U.S. history.

Dakota Access has already valued the pipeline and found it to be a positive, potential future liabilities and all. Otherwise they wouldn't be building it. You want to add an arbitrary additional tax to their activities based on an undefined concept of hypothetical future social harms. That's stupid.

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

coyo7e posted:

Shockingly, this means that business customers of a utlity providert pay more for their power than most residential customers.

Gobbeldygook posted:

I thought business consumers paid more simply because they can pay more? I know some (most? all?) areas charge on a sliding scale where as you use more electricity you pay more per watt.
edit:
Actually residential consumers pay more for electricity than business consumers, because business consumers get better rates for electricity than residences.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a

quote:

Your proposal would not satisfy the protesters at all. They would still be protesting the building of the pipeline and in need of some water cannon therapy even if Dakota Access had to pay a lot more money to build it.

Please think about why you posted this

Dead Reckoning posted:

"Should this customer pay for utilities based on the current rates for commercial or residential customers?" is not even remotely the same thing as "how much social benefit does this private construction project provide, numerically speaking?"
You're right about this, the electricity point is dumb.

quote:

I'm not sure what you consider significant liability, but BP ended up settling to the tune of $20 billion, including a $5.5 billion in Clean Water Act penalties, the largest such penalty in U.S. history.

Dakota Access has already valued the pipeline and found it to be a positive, potential future liabilities and all. Otherwise they wouldn't be building it. You want to add an arbitrary additional tax to their activities based on an undefined concept of hypothetical future social harms. That's stupid.

It took a long time for BP to pay out, a much longer time to distribute those funds to the affected populations and industries. Some people still had their lives ruined by the spill. BP had a team of incredible lawyers and the people affected by the spill had only unreliable and corrupt elected officials. And a lot of them where white - imagine trying to coordinate a fair settlement between a Native American tribe that's undergoing an emergency situation and a huge oil firm. It'd be almost impossible, and the tribe is understandably concerned about it! Also, the construction of the pipeline is going to at least temporarily disrupt the ability of these people to visit their sacred sites. These aren't potential costs to be handled in the case of a future emergency, they're 100% unavoidable costs that need to be addressed now (unless you think that the costs are equal to 0). Not all the liabilities are risks; the ones that aren't risks, at least, should be addressed prior to construction.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Nov 2, 2016

Gobbeldygook
May 13, 2009
Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Actually residential consumers pay more for electricity than business consumers, because business consumers get better rates for electricity than residences.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/mon...fm?t=epmt_5_6_a


Please think about why you posted this
a. Huh, learned something new. I know in China it's the other way around.

b. What's the alternative? If you don't think it's appropriate to use force to remove them, then you're implicitly arguing we should allow protesters to filibuster construction projects they don't like by squatting on private land. That's absurd. At some point they will need to be cleared out. Driving them out with tear gas and water cannons would be less harmful to their future prospects than arresting them.

NewForumSoftware
Oct 8, 2016

by Lowtax

Gobbeldygook posted:

b. What's the alternative?
stop building oil pipelines

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

NewForumSoftware
Oct 8, 2016

by Lowtax

Gobbeldygook posted:

b. What's the alternative?
stop building oil pipelines

  • Locked thread