Fossil fuels, whether you like it or not:
If there is one story that any climate activist or anyone concerned about the climate should be aware of, it is that of the Dakota Access Pipeline. It’s featured in many headlines over the years, especially in America. The purpose of this article is to simply recount the history, its political significance, and possible lessons to the climate movement.
First off, what was it? The Dakota Access Pipeline was a $3.78 billion project initiated in 2014 by Energy Transfers Partners, a Texas-based energy company. The proposed 1,172-mile-long underground pipeline would transport crude oil from North Dakota to a distribution hub in Illinois.
From the outset the plans faced significant opposition – local native American tribes, concerned citizens, environmental activists and many more, coalesced as a united front. In early 2016 they organised protests at construction sites. Their concerns centred on the pipeline’s environmental impact, the inadequate consultative process, and the disproportionate negative impact it had on marginalised native American tribes. By no means were these concerns unfounded.
Rights violated
Many campaigners feared an oil leak from the pipeline – which would carry 470,000 barrels of oil a day under the river – could contaminate the Missouri River, a major source of drinking water for millions of people, including the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, whose sacred land was in the path of, or nearby to, the pipeline. During this time, the city of Flint in Michigan was aflame in political scandal which attracted national and international attention.
The city’s water supply was contaminated by lead, sparking a public health crisis. Those against the Dakota pipeline argued a similar risk was posed by the state’s inadequate environmental impact assessment which didn’t appropriately assess the impact on water quality and wildlife. Moreover, the impact on the land would cause soil erosion and damage soil quality. In 2016, more than 160 scientists and the Science & Environmental Health Network echoed these concerns.
Victoria Tauli-Carpuz, a United Nations expert on indigenous rights, noted the ‘the tribe was denied access to information and excluded from consultations at the planning stage of the project, and environmental assessments failed to disclose the presence and proximity of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation’.
Just at the very end of the Obama administration, there were some flickers of hope. The administration denied the final permit necessary for the pipeline’s construction to continue. Though this didn’t completely cancel the project, it was a positive step for some. Within weeks however, the Trump administration overturned the decision and granted the permits. Despite the impassioned protestations from environmentalists and local residents, the pipeline was going ahead.
Direct action
Two women, Jessica Reznicek and Ruby Montoya (in 2016 aged 27 and 35 respectively), had tirelessly campaigned to stop the pipeline. Rallies, boycotts, petitions, public hearings and encampments. Through such activities they had been arrested several times. Despite significant opposition, from grassroots activism to influential UN voices, the pipeline and what it represented – environmental injustice and the triumph of corporate interests – were allowed to go ahead.
Feeling dismayed, despondent and disempowered, they decided to take action – this time more directly. They decided to target the property and infrastructure that they viewed was creating this danger to people and to the planet. To them this action was tantamount to self-defence. In January 2017, the two women targeted a construction site. An excavator and several other machines were destroyed. So began a campaign of sabotage lasting around six months, which totalled an estimated $6m in damages – their very first action alone inflicted $2.5m. Despite successfully targeting several pipeline valves, delaying the project and inflicting millions of dollars of damage, the pipeline still went ahead and was transporting oil by May 2017. Two people were simply not enough.
Remarkably, the two were never caught and eventually handed themselves in, in order to further publicise the agenda against the pipeline. They faced over 100 years each in federal prison. They both entered plea agreements. Montoya was sentenced to 6 years in prison, and Reznicek to 8 years.
As a case study, the Dakota Access Pipeline is a stark reminder of the power the fossil fuel industry yields.
