The Keystone Pipeline Movement

Since 1532, Native Americans have been subjected to American influence. From engaging in treaties to developing a dependency on the reservations, they have a long history of fighting for political, environmental, and human rights. For instance, the Sac and Fox tribe currently battle the Keystone XL project, a major threat to their right to live peacefully and securely. The lead in this project, TransCanada, a Canadian oil company, plans to insert a 1,661 mile crude oil pipeline that runs from Alberta, Canada to Texas, crossing numerous Indian reservations and threatening their natural resources. While Americans benefit from the additional access to oil, it raises issues of water contamination and disturbance to sacred sites and wildlife habitats. Along with these negative impacts, the tribe also lacks inclusion and representation in this proposal. Therefore, the proposed Keystone XL project is not justified because of its intrusion on the human and land rights of the Sac and Fox tribe, which are

“For years, the Keystone pipeline has occupied what I frankly consider an over-inflated role in our political discourse,” said Obama (Article 2, Pg. 2). The Keystone and the Dakota pipeline one of two rejected by government administration. Protest still till this day are being held by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, other Native American tribes, and other supporters, to put a stop to the building of the pipeline which carries crude oil through: North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois.

This is a briefing on the current situation involving the Dakota Access Pipeline controversy. The pipeline, spanning over 1,100 miles through North Dakota, Iowa, and parts of Illinois, is currently in the final phases of construction. The Dakota Access Pipeline, or DAPL, is estimated to cost $3.8 billion and will result in a functioning pipeline capable of carrying 450,000 barrels of crude oil per day. While there are strong arguments for the economic benefit to the region, there exists an opposition based on the value of the land being used. In addition, there is similar concern among groups whose nearby land could be affected by the construction of the pipeline. Among the most vocal of oppositions lies the Standing Rock Sioux reservation

The Keystone XL proposal is fascinating in both its complexity and controversy. As the pipeline would go through Canada and the United States, approval from the government of each country is required for the project to proceed. Political, economic, and environmental issues in both countries have put pressure on the governments with advocates and opponents for the proposal vying to have their voices heard. Even the Canadian federal political parties do not all agree on whether or not the pipeline should be built. The Conservatives, for instance support the proposal, citing its potential economic benefits while the Greens are against the project, arguing that the environmental impact is far greater than the economic gains it might produce. First Nations groups also have an important stake in the outcome of the project. The approaches taken towards aboriginal issues by the two parties have differed greatly from one another, further dividing the Greens and the Conservatives. Indeed, both parties seem so firmly entrenched in their own stances that it seems highly unlikely that they will ever reach an agreement on the project. Unless the Green Party and the Conservative Party can come to a consensus on the Keystone XL proposal’s effects on the economy, environment, and First Nations, they will be unable to reconcile their positions.

Although some might agree with the construction of the $3.8bn oil pipeline that would cross four states, others are opposed to that construction strongly, and things got violent recently. Protests are made to get a point across but that does not mean things won't get violent. For instance, there is a big protest that is taking place in North Dakota, that involves the construction of the $3.8bn oil pipeline being constructed on sacred land. Protesters are opposed to this construction since this pipeline would transport oil crossing the Missouri River less than a mile away from the Standing Rock Reservation. Not long after construction crews began doing their work, the protest started to get violent. In the article, “North Dakota Pipeline Protest

Importing these natural resource is huge financial loss for the United States economy. We must continue to invest in our own infrastructure, and this includes using our own oil and gas with modern pipelines. By doing so we reduce the leverage of foreign governments. Oil and gas are goods that have great power to influence global politics as well as benefit the country and its people. Both sides have well-supported arguments for their positions. While opponents have every right to be concerned for the safety of their land and drinking water, proponents seem to be equally committed to the overall safety of the pipeline project. Coming together to find common ground is what is truly important. The Dakota Access Pipeline has already been subject to scrutiny, with the ongoing protests, as well as the biased media coverage, that it will have no choice but to make sure the pipeline does exactly what it is deigned to do, the safest way possible. Works Cited BIBLIOGRAPHY ARCHAMBAULT, DAVID. "Taking a Stand at Standing Rock." 24 August 2016. NY Times. News Article. 20 March 2017. AuthorLastName, FirstName. Title of the Book Being

With recent event the Obama’s Administration has halted the further construction of the North Dakota Access pipeline. This event have sparked the nation into an uprise in protests and public speaking against North Dakota Access. Now thrusted out onto a global stage, the struggle on both sides intensifies either is not going to stand down. The people of Standing Rock Indian Reservation are protesting against North Dakota Access to continue construction of the “North Dakota Access Pipeline”. Additionally the Army Corps of Engineers has denied the permit that allows construction underneath the Mississippi and Missouri River. These events have now escalated to national attention. It is not in the public safety or well being to have further construction or completion of the North Dakota Access Pipeline should it have negative environmental impacts and be harmful to the American people. ("Federal Government Halts Construction Of Part Of North Dakota Pipeline.")

Protests can start out peaceful but quickly turn violent. Though protests can be amazing and cause social change and change within the government they can also turn violent and leave behind a huge mess. An example of this is the Dakota Access Pipeline protest. It started out as a peaceful protest against the pipeline being built close to Native American land and along the way turned into a violent protest. Everything was going fine and as planned then things started going south. The sheriff’s office said, “According to numerous witnesses within five minutes the crowd of protesters, estimated to be a few hundred people became violent. They stampeded into the construction area with horses, dogs and vehicles” (Peralta). In this case, the protest

The proposed extension of the Keystone Pipeline XL has become a rallying cry for both its proponents and those who oppose it. The debate, which has raged for six years, has become fierce and even bitter. I have followed the controversy closely.

Throughout history, many well-known Americans have led peaceful resistance and civil disobedience efforts in order to defend their liberty, freedom, and basic civil rights. Peaceful resistance to laws does cause turmoil at the given moment but can end up being mutually beneficial for the conflicting parties. Certain instances of civil disobedience have played major roles in shaping the fabric of the nation we know today, such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s fight for civil rights in Alabama, Susan B. Anthony being arrested to draw attention to the Women’s Suffrage Movement, and the Sons of Liberty protesting British control during the Boston Tea Party. Without civil disobedience, the balance of power would lean too heavily in the favor of the

Henry David Thoreau’s argument in civil disobedience makes the government more accountable, laws are made to justify the truth, but Thoreau believed that violence is not an answer to solve problems. Often Americans use the government as a solution to many of the problems the United States has but really the Americans are the problem using the government to take control over violence and use the government as violence based solutions. “Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue; for money comes between a man and his objects, and obtains them for him; it was certainly no great virtue to obtain it.” (Thoreau). By simply disobeying the government's unjust attitude and policies this creates a movement as well as non violence, therefore it will eventually have a trickling effect and turn a single drop

With an increasing global population and ever industrializing society 's, environmental concern is rarely given priority over economic incentive. But what people fail to realize is that our environmental failures, and relative apathy about it set up a plethora of problems for future generations to deal with. One of the most important decisions president Obama will face in the next year will be whether or not to approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, a massively sized, and massively controversial oil pipeline that would stretch all the way from Alberta Canada, to American oil refineries along the Gulf Of Mexico. Despite the economic incentive present, the building of the Keystone XL pipeline should not happen because of the

Civil Disobedience is defined as the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest. To several governments and even some citizens, civil disobedience can be seen as a bad way of handling situations. To others, it is just a way of expressing how they feel about decisions the government make and it makes them feel as though they have a voice in how the decisions are mad. In the essay, “Civil Disobedience,” by Henry David Thoreau, there are several connections made to how the people should react to the government “controlling” them and what should be done about it. “Civil Disobedience” also makes connections to the article, Faced With a Fracking Giant, This Small Town Legalized Civil Disobedience. In both of these forms of writing, they discuss the main idea of civil disobedience and the impacts it may have on the government and the people as a whole.

As resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline in Standing Rock, N.D., concludes its seventh month, two narratives have emerged:

Native Americans are being disrespected, harmed, and their homeland is being taken from them. Am I talking about events taken place centuries ago? No, because these unfortunate circumstances yet again are occurring right here, now, in the present. This horrid affair has a name: The Dakota Access Pipeline. This Pipeline is an oil transporting pipeline, which is funded by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, who have devised a plan for the pipeline to run through the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois. However, unfortunately, this pipeline will run straight through the reservation of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe, expressing their distress for the pipeline have said, that the pipeline will be “Destroying our burial sites, prayer sites, and culturally significant artifacts,” Arguments for the pipeline however have tried to counter this claim, trying to emphasize that “The pipeline wouldn 't just be an economic boon, it would also significantly decrease U.S. reliance on foreign oil”, and that the pipeline is estimated to produce “374.3 million gallons of gasoline per day.”, which could help the sinking oil economy. (Yan, 2016) However, despite the economical growth it could achieve, the Dakota Access Pipeline could have damaging environmental effects on the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the areas surrounding.