Senator Mike Rounds and other Republicans celebrated Donald Trump’s swift approval of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Yesterday federal Judge James Boasberg ruled that Rounds and his party were celebrating what became an illegal act. According to the judge’s 91-page ruling, the January 24 presidential pipeline memorandum prompted the Army Corps of Engineers to issue the permit for Dakota Access without fully complying with the National Environmental Policy Act:
In particular, the Tribes believe that the Corps did not sufficiently consider the pipeline’s environmental effects before granting permits to Dakota Access to construct and operate DAPL under Lake Oahe, a federally regulated waterway. This volley meets with some degree of success. Although the Corps substantially complied with NEPA in many areas, the Court agrees that it did not adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline’s effects are likely to be highly controversial [Judge James Boasberg, memorandum opinion, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, #1:16-cv-01534-JEB, 2017.06.14, p. 2].
But Energy Transfer Partners is already pumping oil through Dakota Access (though it still hasn’t raised prices for North Dakota Sweet crude the way it is expected to). What’s Energy Transfer Partners supposed to do, dig its pipeline up? The judge isn’t considering that option, but he is taking briefs from the litigants as he considers vacating the permit and closing the pipeline temporarily while the Army Corps goes back and does the environmental review correctly.
Meanwhile, as Trump’s Interior Department throws references to climate change on the Bureau of Indian Affairs website down the memory hole, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has joined the Swinomish, Quinault, Tlingit, and Haida tribes in declaring that they will uphold the Paris Climate Change Agreement. Toward that end, the Standing Rock Sioux will use a $250K grant from the Wallace Global Fund “to support its transition from fossil fuel independence.”
I’ve never seen an “administration” as lawless as this. Just about everything they try to do has been determined to violate the law. Some of this is incompetence, but you replace Trump with Pence or Ryan (as in after impeachment) and you would probably have the same arrogant lawlessness exhibited by a successor Republican administration.
One thing Trump and his “administration” seem to be paying lots of folks to do is to scrub websites. The Department of Energy not only took most references to climate change down, they have scrubbed their website of mention of “consent-based siting” for radioactive waste facilities. Yup. As I predicted, nuclear waste policy under the Republicans is going to violate the 10th Amendment big league, but that doesn’t concern those 10th Amendment hypocrites in the Republican Party. All that talk about states rights is just cover when they want to screw poor and middle class folks. When it is required to satisfy their well-heeled nuclear industry donors, they can’t seem to recall what the 10th Amendment is about.
I propose a 15 year moratorium on white people in the SoDak legislature. Indians exhibit the most measured and mainstream responses and problem solving techniques to normal problems that arise in the state. A good shake up of the mamby-pamby legislators would at least get the car back on the road and make some progress instead of the “cut taxes until we can’t afford to pick up the litter and mow the grass in the medians”, “my fundamentalist Christianity knows what”s best for you. BOHICA.” and “I’m a damn Patriot and I don’t need the group or government’s help in anything” Caucasian bourgeois posers that can’t even make simple decisions without watching FoxNews and listening to Sean Hannity.
Trump and his posse are criminals!! I’ve said it before and will keep reminding people! They are destroying our planet and the future of our future generations are at stake because of these greedy bastards!!
They never intended to do an environmental study on the part of the pipeline that goes under the river. That is why they broke up the project into smaller pieces so they could pass and build the rest and then quickly approve the last part without a study. This shows that they knew it would not pass if done correctly.
A perfect analysis, Roger. Perfect ✯✯✯✯✯ That’s why they broke it up into smaller pieces. Billionaires aren’t any smarter or more clever than we are. It was just a case of, “We’d rather build it and apologize than ask permission first.”
I drove past an area where the pipeline crossed a blacktop M-10) NE of Cherokee, iowa today. The first field across the road going east had a humangous berm of black dirt the length of the field-as far as I could see and the pipeline ROW was not planted. That work was supposed to have been done last year. I don’t know how far the berm went as I was not interested in chasing it down. (I was taking my elderly neighbor grocery shopping. When I drive I take the scenic routes because his memory is so bad he doesn’t remember travelling any of these roads before)
The response to not using oil seems to be making more wind and solar energy. But that is not replacing oil in the transportation sector today. Why not? Because all of the vehicles that we use today run on gasoline.
So opponents should be promoting the infrastructure for either electric vehicles, hydrogen vehicles, 100% biofuel vehicles (including green gasoline) instead. And that means leading by example. But without the infrastructure and without people trading in current vehicles for something else, more wind and solar is not going to keep people from wanting to drive everywhere whenever they want.
With regard to consent-based policy for nuclear waste…if you want consent-based policies to be a success, there actually has to be a waste solution….even a temporary one until we can make improvements. But if there is never any acceptance of any policy, regardless of how much safety has been demonstrated or how much public education and outreach is performed or how many adjustments are made to public input, then consent-based policy will unfortunately go away.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/climate/nuclear-power-retirements-us-climate-goals.html?_r=0
The lead counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund recognizes that removing nuclear power plants will have a serious impact on the climate, because we end up burning more natural gas instead. So if you are going to need nuclear power to fight climate change or provide the energy necessary to deliver alternatives to oil shipped by pipelines (which I think we do), nuclear waste solutions must progress.
http://www.chronicletimes.com/story/2420353.html
Inspector reports about DAPL progress in Obrien Co, iowa. Interesting for technos maybe.
Dr. McT:
If Republicans get their way, there will be no consent-based siting policies. In fact, they are moving a bill forward that seeks to override state water rights laws in order to assure that states can’t withhold water to nuclear waste dumps or interim storage facilities. This is, of course, directly aimed at western water law. It would amount to a federal nullification of centuries of western water rights laws, which, by the way, are used in South Dakota. Thus, under the Republican proposals, not only would there be no consent-based siting, but they could nullify South Dakota water law. If this proposal passes, it would be a stunning attempt by the Republican-nuclear industry deep state to strip states of their right to appropriate water, and would set a dangerous precedent for federal takeover of all of South Dakota’s water.
By the way, I think the shale studies conducted with Department of Energy funding several years ago were in furtherance of a potential interim storage facility, which the Republican proposal would put on a fast track. I assume Daugaard will do his best to attract that sort of development under the guise that it would be an “interim” site. We all know, of course, it would not be a temporary facility at all.
Mr. Pay,
How about we first stop wasting water on lush green lawns and swimming pools instead of arguing about water rights? The mistake has been that people from out east move west, and expect to live like they are back east.
I would prefer to follow consent-based best practices to actually solve problems. But hoping nuclear waste will disappear will simply not work, and the status quo is not working either.
Because we do not recycle any of our waste, we are on track for needing more than one Yucca Mountain like facility. So if one ever finds a location that would provide its consent, the available material better have been well-researched to show they can work with it to design a safe facility.
Shale in fact may be a suitable material, but it doesn’t sound like you want to promote the science to find that out.
I would tend to agree that there will be a push for Yucca Mountain by the current Congress, but the shutdown nuclear power plant sites need relief sooner than any permanent facility could be built. Sounds like there is more interest for that currently in New Mexico or Texas than up here.
As long as the waste is sitting where it is it carries a lot of weight against building more nuclear plants to create more waste. I say its fine right where it is costing the taxpayer a fortune. The only better site for it would be like France has done. Put it in giant concrete sarcophagus’s on pillars above ground in all the major cities so the people get to think about it every time they drive by it.
The response to not using oil seems to be making more wind and solar energy. But that is not replacing oil in the transportation sector today. Why not? Because all of the vehicles that we use today run on gasoline.
Sorry,Doc but I am calling goofy on this statement. Why are all vehicles running on gas? I can think of about 50 years of wingnut foot dragging on alternative sources of energy. I can think of about 50 years of wingnuts fighting cleaner fuel and better gas mileage standards. 50 years of wingnut obstructionism to protect their billionaire welfare recipients in Big Awl.
Leave behind wingnut Neanderthal thinking and maybe, just maybe there is hope for a cleaner future with cleaner energy. More oil pipelines to pollute our environment isn’t going to get us there.
Mike,
So, are you going to pay for all of the alternatively-powered cars? Have you figured out how much power will really be required? Or the additional transmission infrastructure required for that extra energy? That must be really easy to do….not!
The reality is that people have gasoline-powered vehicles. Try turning off the oil tomorrow and see what happens. We are not even making enough alternative vehicles today to complete such a transition. Then ask them to pay for a brand new vehicle without being able to get trade-in for their current vehicle. I doubt the banks will forgive the loans they have on those cars. Then just try asking them for their vote.
I’m not saying that isn’t a good goal to replace oil in our transportation sector. But a transition will not be possible unless you can provide the requisite clean energy. In the meantime we can work on safe delivery of said fuel and more efficient use of that fuel while building up the other infrastructure.
Clyde,
Finland and Sweden are working on the disposal of their nuclear waste. Essentially they dig out bedrock, bury the canister just below the surface, and backfill the tunnel and the canister pit with clay. The bedrock does not sit over any water source. So don’t tell me it cannot be done.
Those monies could be spent on other things, like health care or education. But no, let’s keep the issue alive so we can complain about it.
We are on track for replacing our nuclear energy with natural gas. Overall, natural gas emits 15 times the carbon that nuclear does per kilowatt-hour over its lifecycle….and that estimate does not include methane leaks.
And guess what, because we do not store energy at commercial levels today, we burn natural gas to make up the difference with wind/solar. So you can’t really be worried about radioactivity in water sources when it is OK to burn more natural gas and disperse its radioactivity freely into the environment.
Cities are now saying they produce 100% of their energy by renewables, but the fact is that they take the energy they need from the grid when the renewables are not available, and dump the excess onto the grid when they exceed the demand. So they are not living with the renewable energy they generate or solving their intermittency issues…they are just pushing those issues on others to deal with. They aren’t burning the natural gas, so they are not the bad guys, but they are using the electricity from natural gas.
Doc- this could have been done over the last 50 years. Get special interests out of the way of progress.
You,Sir, are falling back into the same fantasy. If we had done this all those years ago we wouldn’t have you saying turn stuff off tomorrow. That is basically the same argument used every time alternative energy sources are looked at.
We are not taking a serious enough look at alternatives because of Big Awl and political contributions. Drumpf and deplorables have brought coal back into the equasion, but Bloomberg sez solar will replace coal in a few years-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-15/solar-power-will-kill-coal-sooner-than-you-think
But simple minds(Drumpf) allow themselves to be distracted by shiny objects.(voter adulation and nostalgia)
My response to using less oil is to ride my bike to the grocery store. And I’ve been watering my tomatoes but not my front yard.
Mike,
Today making more wind and solar energy by themselves fights coal, not oil. We’re not using electricity for our transportation needs today due to those other infrastructure issues that require a solution. And which apparently have not been solved to facilitate travel to the protests…other than on horseback. But dare I say it, horses will emit methane! And if protesters/protectors cannot get there on electricity, how will the rest of us go travel each day with electricity?
Your argument strikes me as one I see in introductory physics about once or twice a semester. The student cannot solve a particular problem on the exam, but they know how to solve this other problem. So they feel better by providing a solution to the other problem (coal) instead of the one I am grading (oil).
Doc-my argument is we have had 50 years to wean us away from fossil fuels, but then Big Awl throws a fit and alternative energies get short thrift-again.
It appears to me that you are making the same statements I have been hearing all those years. I thought I solved the problem. We need serious commitment to alternative energies, not more oil.
You don’t have to wait, you can buy an electric vehicle and a home solar/wind system and a battery unit, and then drive with whatever energy that produces.
But that is expensive. “Big Awl” is making money because nobody wants to spend more money on the alternatives, and gas is accessible whenever you want it.
Once renewable energy can fulfill the demand whenever the driver wants it, wherever they want it, while being cheap, then renewables can make a dent in displacing oil.
I am waiting for all of our official school and government vehicles to switch to electricity, so that the difference may be allocated to teacher salaries. When will that happen?
It’s a move in the right direction. Every little bit helps when trying to attract newcomers.
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/05/17/buying-an-electric-car-in-colorado-just-got-5000-cheaper/
88,000 solar jobs may be lost, according to SEIA. Most of them in South Carolina, California, and Texas.
Suniva says they cannot compete with cheap foreign PVs without a tariff. SEIA says the move would actually harm US solar.
http://www.seia.org/news/solar-industry-expects-loss-88000-jobs-us-next-year-if-government-rules-company-s-favor-trade
http://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/Suniva-Trade-Case-Factsheet_SEIA_6-8-2017-final.pdf
SEIA says above that the cost of US solar may double as a result of this case.
South Dakota ranks 50th in installed solar power. There is enough solar energy to power 30 homes, according to the SEIA. 18 of the 240 kW installed is residential.
http://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/south-dakota
The Price of Oil: Blocking Alternatives – Oil Change…
priceofoil.org/thepriceofoil/clean-energy/
The industry consistently uses its political and financial muscle to try and block the … In Europe, Shell successfully lobbied against targets for renewable energy.
The oil and gas industry’s assault on renewable energy …
http://www.edf.org/blog/2013/04/26/oil-and-gas-industry%E2%...
Apr 26, 2013 … The oil and gas industry’s assault on renewable energy … With this new campaign, though, they are not influencing legislation to fill young …
Big Oil’s Big Lies About Alternative Energy – Rolling Stone
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/big-oils-big-lies-about-a...
Jun 25, 2013 … Today, its alternative energy investments are limited to biofuels and a lone … Using very generous estimates, BP holds the oil industry record for … In 2010, the company launched an ad campaign called “Let’s Go,” … Trump vs.
Attacks on Renewable Energy Policies | Energy & Policy Institute
http://www.energyandpolicy.org/renewable-energy-state-policy-attack...
These companies, along with the Koch Brothers’ political network and front groups, … coal, oil, and gas as possible — and, in their effort to roll back clean energy … to run a campaign against net metering that was in favor of the utility’s position.
Alternative Energy And Big Oil: Poor Returns Versus `Lies’ -…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorensteffy/2013/06/28/alternative-ener...
Jun 28, 2013 … Alternative Energy And Big Oil: Poor Returns Versus `Lies’ … the company’s ” Beyond Petroleum” campaign was always more marketing hype …
Looks like someone doesn’t want alternative energies.
The Oil Industry Versus the Electric Car: A Fight for Equal…
http://www.fleetcarma.com/oil-industry-vs-electric-car/
Oct 20, 2016 … In it, the Koch brothers surprisingly came out in favor of electric cars and … Further into the advertorial, the Koch brothers cited the Solyndra solar panel … The oil industry claims that it doesn’t get subsidies—it gets tax credits. … conventional vehicles will have a competitive edge over greener alternatives.
The Battle for Solar Power & the Alternative Energy Renaissance…
exopolitics.blogs.com/peaceinspace/2016/05/the-battle-for-so…
May 29, 2016 … The alternative energy industry, especially the solar industry has grown … due to high taxes, but if industrial policies can help create competitive domestic …. in vehicles, so there really is no need for us to rely so heavily on oil anymore. … For example in the USA, the Koch-brothers-funded front groups like …
In Sunshine State, Big Energy Blocks Solar Power
fcir.org/2015/04/03/in-sunshine-state-big-energy-blocks-sola…
Apr 3, 2015 … Florida, the Sunshine State, should become a model for solar power. … invested heavily in state political campaigns to fend off competition from rooftop solar power. …. a bill last year that would have given a tax break to businesses and … Americans for Prosperity, funded in part by the Koch brothers, sent an …
Koch Brothers Ready Multi-Million Dollar Attack On Electric Cars…
insideevs.com/koch-brothers-ready-multi-million-dollar-attac…
Feb 19, 2016 … Charles and David Koch are making plans to fund a group that will … The Koch brothers are trying to buy support and if their “Research” group can show that solar/wind disproportionately affects the poor who can’t afford solar panels and ….. all gasoline cars are
If it makes you feel any better, the oil/coal/gas lobbies don’t really like nuclear either!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/06/15/natural-gas-industry-blasts-nuclear-power-with-fake-news/
Here’s just one example of that.
http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2017/06/rick-perry-is-working-to-end-funding.html
Perry wants to un-subsidize alternative energy among other things.
I went to my old home town, Cherokee today. Just South of Larrabee, iowa on US hiway 59 the pipeline boys were digging in the ditch right next to the new driveway they built to run pipe under the hiway. They are going down aways and directing hiway traffic both ways. Wonder what is going on? They are hauling the dirt away from the site. Maybe it is another leak,