The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Its Political Issues Essays

The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Its Political Issues Essays The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Its Political Issues Essay The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Its Political Issues Essay Essay Topic: Deep For many oil companies, the Gulf represents some of their most profitable and promising properties. The White House is seemingly making an increased show of pressuring BP, but President Obama is facing political heat from within his own party for what some say has been a lackluster response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Since the spill began, there has been some intense political debate regarding BPs responsibility, the governments response, and the extent of the environmental damage. Matthew Dowd, political consultant and chief pollster to former President George W. Bush, said the incident is likely to pose a huge political problem, similar to what President Bush faced after Hurricane Katrina. Administration officials also said the government will make changes to the way it allows offshore drilling, including new measures for the permitting process, new safety requirements for offshore rigs, and what was described as strengthened inspections for drilling operations. Having taking at least partial ownership of the crisis, the Obama administration is redoubling efforts to crack down on BP, sending a letter to CEO Tony Hayward complaining that his promises to provide complete and timely information on the spill have fallen short in both their scope and effectiveness. BP has already agreed to set aside $20 billion over several years to pay for claims resulting from the oil spill. The company has paid the U. S. government $390 million for the cost of cleanup and received an additional bill for $128. million from the Obama administration. Obama and his senior White House staff, as well as Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, are working with BPs chief executive officer Tony Hayward on legislation that would raise the cap on liability for damage claims from those affected by the oil disaster from $75 million to $10 billion. However, WMRs federal and Gulf state sources are reporting the disaster has the real potential cost of at least $1 trillion. Critics of the deal being worked out between Obama and Hayward point out that $10 billion is a mere drop in the bucket for a trillion dollar disaster but also note that BP, if its assets were nationalized, could fetch almost a trillion dollars for compensation purposes. There is talk in some government circles, including FEMA, of the need to nationalize BP in order to compensate those who will ultimately be affected by the worst oil disaster in the history of the world. The Obama administration also conspired with BP to fudge the extent of the oil leak, according to our federal and state sources. After the oil rig exploded and sank, the government stated that 42,000 gallons per day was gushing from the seabed chasm. Five days later, the federal government upped the leakage to 210,000 gallons a day. Obama aides stressed that BP would bear the cost of the spill, including the cost of plugging the well, cleaning shorelines and paying for government air and water tests. Separately, fishermen and others anticipating environmental damage filed class-action suits against the company. On a day when the stock market rose broadly and sharply, BPs stock price fell more than 8 percent to $52. 56 a share. In the minds of politicians and strategists, the oil has practically become a giant ink blot, a Rorschach test in which each of the opposing sides sees proof of â€Å"the larger narrative. † Florida Sen. Bill Nelson called on Obama to step back from his expanded offshore drilling plans. In a letter to the president, Nelson said he would file legislation to ban the Interior Department from following through on Obamas proposal for new seismic and drilling activity. He said the gulf spill may be an environmental and economic disaster that wreaks havoc for commercial fishing and tourism along the Gulf of Mexico coast. Reference : nytimes. com/2010/06/30/us/politics/30polmemo. html? pagewanted=1 http://political. com/content/bp-oil-spill http://abcnews. go. com/GMA/Politics/bp-oil-spill-political-headache-obama-democrats-slam/story? id=10746519 http://washingtonexaminer. com/politics/white-house/political-problems-oil-spill-may-stick-obama http://edition. cnn. com/2010/US/09/14/bp . justice. legal. action/index. html washingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/29/AR2010042902290. html

Why the Sioux Oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline

Why the Sioux Oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline As the Flint, Michigan, water crisis made national headlines in 2016, members of the Standing Rock Sioux  successfully  protested to protect their water and land from the Dakota Access Pipeline. After months on end of demonstrating,  the water protectors rejoiced when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decided on Dec. 4, 2016, to  prohibit the pipeline from crossing  Lake Oahe, effectively bringing the project to a halt. But the pipelines future is unclear after Obama leaves office, and the Trump administration enters the White House. Building of the pipeline could very well resume when the new administration takes over.   If finished, the $3.8 billion project would span 1,200 miles across four states to link the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to an Illinois river port. This would allow 470,000 barrels of crude oil daily to be transported along the route. But the Standing Rock wanted construction on the pipeline stopped because they said it could devastate their natural resources. Initially, the pipeline would have crossed the Missouri River near the state capital, but the route was changed so that it would pass under the Missouri River at Lake Oahe, a half-mile upstream from the Standing Rock reservation. The pipeline was redirected from Bismarck because of fears that an oil spill would endanger the city’s drinking water. Moving the pipeline from the state capital to an Indian reservation is environmental racism in a nutshell, as this form of discrimination is characterized by the disproportionate placement of environmental hazards in communities of color. If the pipeline was too risky to be placed near the state capital, why wasn’t it deemed a risk near Standing Rock land? With this in mind, the tribe’s effort to stop  construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline isn’t simply an environmental issue but a protest against racial injustice as well. Clashes between the pipeline’s protesters and its developers have also sparked racial  tensions, but the Standing Rock have won support from a broad cross-section of the public, including public figures and celebrities.   Why the Sioux Are Against the Pipeline On Sept. 2, 2015, the Sioux drafted a resolution explaining their opposition to the pipeline. It read in part: â€Å"The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe relies on the waters of the life-giving Missouri River for our continued existence, and the Dakota Access Pipeline poses a serious risk to Mni Sose and to the very survival of our Tribe; and ...the horizontal direction drilling in the construction of the pipeline would destroy valuable cultural resources of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.† The resolution also argued that the Dakota Access Pipeline violates Article 2 of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty which granted the tribe the â€Å"undisturbed use and occupation† of its homeland. The Sioux filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in July 2016 to stop construction of the pipeline, which began the following month. In addition to concerns about the effects a spill would have on the Sioux’s natural resources, the tribe pointed out that the pipeline would course through sacred ground protected by federal law. U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg had a different take. He ruled on Sept. 9, 2016, that the Army Corps had â€Å"likely complied† with its duty to consult the Sioux and that the tribe â€Å"has not shown it will suffer injury that would be prevented by any injunction the court could issue.† Although the judge denied the tribe’s request for an injunction to stop the pipeline, the departments of the Army, Justice and Interior announced after the ruling that they would suspend building of the pipeline on land of cultural importance to the tribe pending further evaluation. Still, the Standing Rock Sioux said they would appeal the judge’s decision because they believe they were not sufficiently consulted when the pipeline was rerouted.    My nations history is at risk because the pipeline builders and the Army Corps failed to consult the tribe when planning the pipeline, and routed it through areas of cultural and historical significance, which will be destroyed,† stated Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault II in a court filing. Judge Boasberg’s ruling led the tribe to ask for an emergency injunction to stop building of the pipeline. This led the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit  to state in a Sept. 16 ruling that it needed more time to consider the tribes request, which meant that all construction 20 miles in either direction of Lake Oahe had to stop. The federal government had already called for construction along that part of the route to be halted, but Dallas-based pipeline developer Energy Transfer Partners didn’t immediately respond to the Obama administration. In September 2016, the company said the pipeline was 60 percent complete and maintained it would not harm the  local water supply. But if that were absolutely certain, then why wasn’t the Bismarck location an appropriate site for the pipeline? As recently as October 2015, a North Dakota oil well blew out and leaked more than 67,000 gallons of crude, putting a tributary of the Missouri River at risk. Even if oil spills are rare and new technology works to prevent them, they cannot be completely ruled out. By rerouting the Dakota Access Pipeline, the federal government appears to have put the Standing Rock Sioux directly in harm’s way in the unlikely event of an oil spill. Controversy Over Protests The Dakota Access Pipeline hasn’t attracted media attention simply because of the natural resources at stake but also because of clashes between protesters and the oil company in charge of building it. In Spring 2016, only a small group of demonstrators  had set up camp on the reservation to protest the pipeline. But in the summer months, Sacred Stone Camp ballooned to thousands of activists, with some calling it â€Å"the largest gathering of Native Americans in a century,† the Associated Press reported. In early September, tensions heightened as protesters and journalists were arrested, and activists accused the security firm tasked with protecting the pipeline of pepper-spraying them and letting dogs viciously attack them. This called to mind similar images of attacks on civil rights protesters during the 1960s.    In light of the violent clashes between protesters and security guards, the Standing Rock Sioux were granted a permit to allow the water protectors to legally rally on the federal lands that surround the pipeline. The permit means the tribe is responsible for the cost of any damages, keeping demonstrators safe, liability insurance and more. Despite this shift, clashes between activists and officers continued in November 2016, with police reportedly firing tear gas and water canons at protesters. One activist came dangerously close to losing her arm as a result of an explosion that occurred during the confrontation. Protesters say she was injured by a grenade thrown by police, while police say she was hurt by a small propane tank that protesters rigged to explode, according to CBS News. Prominent Standing Rock Supporters A number of celebrities have publicly expressed their support for the Standing Rock Sioux’s protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Jane Fonda and Shailene Woodley helped serve Thanksgiving 2016 dinner to the demonstrators.  Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein visited the site and faced arrest for allegedly spray-painting construction equipment during a protest. A former 2016  presidential candidate also stands in solidarity with the Standing Rock, leading a rally against the pipeline. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) said on Twitter, â€Å"Stop the Dakota Access pipeline. Respect Native American rights. And let us move forward to transform our energy system.† Veteran rocker Neil Young even released a new song called â€Å"Indian Givers† in honor of the Standing Rock protest. The song’s title is a play on the racial insult. The lyrics state: There’s a battle raging on the sacred landOur brothers and sisters have to take a standAgainst us now for what we all been doingOn the sacred land there’s a battle brewingI wish somebody would share the newsNow it’s been about 500 yearsWe keep taking what we gave awayJust like what we call Indian giversIt makes you sick and gives you shivers Young also released a video for the song that features footage of the pipeline protests. The musician has recorded songs about similar environmental controversies, such as his 2014 protest song â€Å"Who’s Gonna Stand Up?† in protest of the Keystone XL pipeline. Leonardo DiCaprio announced that he shared the Sioux’s concerns as well. â€Å"Standing w/ the Great Sioux Nation to protect their water lands,† he said on Twitter, linking to a Change.org petition against the pipeline. â€Å"Justice League† actors Jason Momoa, Ezra Miller and Ray Fisher  took to social media to announce their objections to the pipeline. Momoa shared a photo of himself on Instagram with a sign that said, â€Å"Oil pipelines are a bad idea,† along with hashtags related to the Dakota Access Pipeline protest. Wrapping Up While the Dakota Access Pipeline protest has largely been framed as an environmental issue, it is also a racial justice issue. Even the judge who denied the Standing Rock Sioux’s temporary injunction to stop the pipeline, acknowledged that â€Å"the United States’ relationship with the Indian tribes has been contentious and tragic.† Since the Americas were colonized, Native Americans and other marginalized groups have fought for equal access to natural resources. Factory farms, power plants, freeways and other sources of pollution are all too often erected in communities of color. The richer and whiter a community is, the more likely its residents have clean air and water. So, the Standing Rock’s struggle to protect their land and water from the Dakota Access Pipeline is just as much an anti-discrimination issue as it is an environmental one.