The Dakota Access pipeline is a 1,172 mile oil pipeline that stretches through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and southern Illinois. The pipeline would allow oil companies to transport crude oil from North Dakota to oil refineries along the Eastern Seaboard. The pipeline’s construction was permitted by the participating state governments under eminent domain. Opponents of the pipeline (including several Native American tribes, including the Meskwaki and Sioux tribal nations) argue that the pipeline has the potential to pollute their water supply and destroy Native American burial sites. Proponents argue that the pipeline is necessary for the U.S. to achieve energy independence.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
@B3DW4L33mos3MO
Yes. People's health risks comes first in line as water contamination could possibly occur. And People's health always comes first since a country is nothing without its people.
@9ZJ9B667mos7MO
No, just regulate and oversee the pipeline more often to ensure it doesn't break again and doesn't cause anymore issues for the environment, while still transporting oil.
@9SHP26S 9mos9MO
I would say either move it away or refine it because it will hurt nature either way if it is not secure enough.
@9GHD83JLibertarian 2yrs2Y
The Dakota Pipeline should be used until we switch to a significantly clean source of energy that gives a sustainable output like Nuclear Energy.
@9FG8LVJ2yrs2Y
No, but place more precautions and safety to prevent an accident or oil spill
@9F7Z7JD 2yrs2Y
They absolutely should stop the construction of this pipeline. If they still end up going along with the idea, that company deserves to pay for every last fine in the event of an accident.
@9DPC4S62yrs2Y
I think we need a slow transition into clean energy, but this doesn't mean we should drop all oil and fossil fuel energy at once. But as long as it is needed keep the pipe up.
@9DKYNHZ2yrs2Y
yes but there has to be a way to move it to a location where no one is disturbed
@9DCL3382yrs2Y
we should not stop the pipeline as long as we pay the natives who own the land respectively, we should also invest into the native lands if the land isnt owned privately, invest in schools, quality of life ect.
@8YC4SV73yrs3Y
No, but the government should reroute the pipeline in an area that is not of sacred heritage and is not likely to alter residents' way of living drastically.
@8XQ2Z55Constitution3yrs3Y
sounds like low testosterone to me
@8XP79V83yrs3Y
Yes and stop making pipelines in general.
@8XCS5KP4yrs4Y
i don't even know wtf that is
Yes, the government should respect indigenous sovereignty and do everything possible to curb climate change
@8R8XZMX4yrs4Y
No, but reroute the pipeline away from Native American land and fine the company for any accident that they caused.
@8Q84J874yrs4Y
no, but heavily regulate oil output while the US transitions into using more renewable energy
@8P2X3BH5yrs5Y
I lack the education to understand the concept so I'm unsure
@8JXLSCS5yrs5Y
No new pipelines should be built until current lines are upgraded and the Dakota pipeline should be rerouted.
@9CRB8TNIndependent2yrs2Y
For an energy source to be effective it shouldn't be making it more dangerous for those in the area. Alternatives should be found to transport oil to where heath and safety is not compromised for a group of people that have faced so many injustices already.
Yes because we need to pursue renewable energy sources and stop screwing over Native Americans.
Join in on more popular conversations.
