The debate over the pipelines seems to be largely symbolic. The oil is going to get pulled out of the oilsands and transported either way, it only seems logical (and probably more ecological) to use a giant pipe instead of trucks/trains.
Power. It's about power. And power is tied to race. It's morally disgusting, and a lot of this talk is just misdirection, avoiding the real, valid source of anger and rebellion.
The pipeline runs close to, not "through tribal lands" [1]. The environmental concern is fair. If my neighbor builds a 300 dB speaker on their property, I have a reasonable claim to damages.
The "sacred lands" and threat to "way of life" claims, however, seem disingenuous. It amounts to laying claims based on hypotheticals on someone else's property.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline#Tribal_...
So this is symbolism. Standing in front of a bulldozer and saying "NO" is all they have left.
I would be more amenable to the tribes if they were honest and upfront about what they're doing: a form of collective bargaining to maximize compensation from the government.
Look at this map:
https://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publica...
Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana must have no drinking water by now, right?
The protest has garnered the support that it has mostly because it's a Native American community (and I for one do support them - they've been screwed over too many times in the past).
The "symbolism" is - if you're poor or under-represented you will be poisoned. Why did we even create reservations if we can poison them at will for the profits of the greedy?
You can't block supply while demand is there, because the demand will be filled by someone, only this time by someone with less oversight [from you].
You want to make a difference add more "good" supply, or reduce demand.
Bad supply will automatically go down if you do this, with no extra effort.
The is currently enough oil supply for everyone. Reducing/removing an oil source just means the oil comes from somewhere else, but it does NOT reduce oil consumption.
So if you want to make a difference, yes, limiting the supply is one way to do it by not extracting it in the first place.
Which are still oil, just from elsewhere. The Saudis are quite happy to sell you as much oil as you want.
> limiting the supply is one way to do it by not extracting it in the first place.
I covered that - all that would happen is people would get the oil from elsewhere.
You can only induce people to pump less oil by increasing supply of other forms of energy, or by reducing demand.
If you are going to pump oil at least do it where people actually care about the environment - don't make things so hard you just push production to places with less oversight.