Blog Archive

Friday, September 23, 2016

First Nations across North America sign treaty alliance against the oilsands

Tsleil-Waututh leaders (left to right): Gabriel George, Charlene Aleck, and Rueben George sign the Treat Alliance Against the Tar Sands in Vancouver on Thursday, September 22, 2016. Photo by Elizabeth McSheffrey.
September 22, 2016

The thunderous pounding of indigenous drums echoed in the air on Thursday as more than 50 indigenous nations across North America rallied together to sign a historic, pan-continental treaty alliance against oilsands expansion in their traditional territory.
The collaboration, formalized at simultaneous ceremonies in Quebec and B.C., aims to block all proposed pipeline, tanker, and rail projects affecting First Nations land and water, including TransCanada's Energy East pipeline, Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain expansion, Enbridge's Line 3 pipeline, and Enbridge Northern Gateway.
At the signing on Musqueam land in Vancouver, the lineup of chiefs waiting to put their names down filled up an entire room. It was a powerful ceremony, and participants clad in the regalia of their nations travelled from across B.C. and northern Washington to be part of the growing movement.
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, who also signed the document, said indigenous people will no longer stand for dangerous projects on their territory that advance the threat of climate change.
"In this time of great challenge we know that other First Nations will sign on," he said, extending the invitation to Indigenous communities far and wide.
"Based on our sovereign, inherent right to self-determination, we have collectively decided that we will pick up our sacred responsibilities to the land, waters, and people. We will come together in unity and solidarity to protect our territory from the predations of big oil interests, industry, and everything that represents."
It's a movement that's already happening, he added, with no better example than in North Dakota, where the Standing Rock Sioux have forced the federal government to pause Dakota Access pipeline construction.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, Kinder Morgan, Trans Mountain expansion, Union of BC Indian Chiefs
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs signs the Treaty Alliance Against Tar Sands Expansion in Vancouver, BC, on Thursday, September 22, 2016. Photo by Elizabeth McSheffrey.

Meeting the call to climate change duty

The document, called the Treaty Alliance Against Tar Sands Expansion, commits its signatories to assist one another when called upon in the battle against oilsands expansion, and to work in partnership to move society towards more sustainable lifestyles. By aligning themselves with other Indigenous nations across Canada and the northern U.S., participants hope to ensure that dangerous projects are not able to "escape" by using alternative routes.
“We have the right and the responsibility to stop these major threats to our lands, our waters and our peoples,” said Kanesatake Grand Chief Serge Simon. “For example, from Quebec, we will work with our First Nation allies in B.C. to make sure that the Kinder Morgan pipeline does not pass, and we know they’ll help us do the same against Energy East.”
It comes not only from a legal and cultural responsibility to protect their land, water, air, and climate from harm, said Grand Chief Derek Nepinak of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, but a desire to safeguard a future for all peoples, indigenous and non-indigenous as well.
“We want to work with the Prime Minister and the government to develop a sustainable economy that does not marginalize our people,” he said. “This is a time of great spiritual awakening for our peoples as we reinvigorate our Nations and ensure a better tomorrow for all.”
While First Nations, environmentalists and other key stakeholders across North America argue that pipelines, tankers, and oil by rail increase the risk of catastrophic oil spills, threaten critical marine and terrestrial ecosystems, and put international climate targets out of reach, energy companies argue that they will revitalize struggling Canadian economies by bringing energy to overseas markets.
The energy companies also argue that their proposed projects promote responsible resources development. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers however, Canada's largest oil and gas lobby group, said the Treaty Alliance will not change the way its members do business with Indigenous communities.

Chief Terry Teegee, Carrier Sekani Nation, Prince George
Chief Terry Teegee of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council in Prince George, BC, calls all First Nations to stand together in the fight against oilsands expansion, Thursday, September 22, 2016, in Vancouver. Photo by Elizabeth McSheffrey.

Oil and gas industry to carry on

"Our member companies work with First Nations and Metis communities all the time, regularly, and have a long history of doing that," said Brian McGuigan, CAPP's manager of aboriginal policy. "We'll continue to work with them. Members work with them everyday and have very positive relationships... It's not always easy conversations, but they continue the dialogue."
He would not comment on whether he felt the newly-signed document would hinder CAPP's goal of getting Canadian oil to tidewater.
The new treaty builds on a series of major First Nations victories against oilsands expansion projects, including a Federal Court of Appeal decision in June that overturned the Harper government's approval of the Enbridge Northern Gateway project, and rallies across the continent that contributed to U.S. President Barack Obama's decision to kill the Keystone XL pipeline.
American signatories to the treaty include the Standing Rock Sioux, who are fighting the Dakota Access Pipeline, the Lummi Nation in Washington, which is currently fighting the Trans Mountain expansion, and the White Earth Nation in Minnesota, which has launched a legal complaint against the Enbridge Line 3 program. Canadian signatories include BC's Katzie First Nation, Tsleil-Waututh Nation, Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, Wet'suwet'en First Nation, and Heiltsuk First Nation, among others.
pipelines, oilsands, tar sands, Treaty Alliance Against Tar Sands expansion, Union of BC Indian Chiefs
A sample of pipeline projects affecting indigenous communities across North America. Graphic courtesy of the Treaty Alliance Against Tar Sands Expansion. [Note that the Dakota Access Pipeline is not shown on this map.]

Here's what the treaty says:

"Therefore, our Nations hereby join together under the present treaty to officially prohibit and to agree to collectively challenge and resist the use of our respective territories and coasts in connection with the expansion of the production of the Alberta Tar Sands, including for the transport of such expanded production, whether by pipeline, rail, or tanker.
As sovereign indigenous Nations, we enter this treaty pursuant to our inherent legal authority and responsibility to protect our respective territories from threats to our lands, waters, air and climate, but we do so knowing full well that it is in the best interest of all peoples, both indigenous and non-indigenous, to put a stop to the threat of Tar Sands expansion.
We wish to work in collaboration with all peoples and all governments in building a more equitable and sustainable future, one that will produce healthier and more prosperous communities across Turtle Island and beyond, as well as preserve and protect our peoples’ way of life."

WATCH: The signing ceremony in Vancouver

Indigenous chiefs from across BC sign a pan-continental Treaty Alliance Against Tar Sands Expansion in Vancouver on Thursday, September 22, 2016. Video by Elizabeth McSheffrey.
This report was made possible thanks to reader subscriptions. Please subscribe today.

Monday, September 12, 2016

Hot Whopper: Crikey! Hottest August on record - vies with July for hottest month ever!

by Sou of Bundanga, Hot Whopper, September 12, 2016

According to GISS NASA, the average global surface temperature anomaly for August was 0.98 °C, which is 0.16 °C higher than the previous hottest August in 2014.

Because July is the hottest month of the year, I've seen this July reported as the hottest month ever in recorded history! I asked the question whether August beat July and was told it's too close to call.

The average for the 8 months to the end of August is 1.05 °C, which is 0.25 °C higher than any previous January-to-August period. The previous highest was last year, which with the latest data had an anomaly of 0.8 °C.

There are now 11 in a row of "hottest months" from October 2015 to August 2016 (that is, hottest October, hottest November, etc.). If we could look back over the entire Holocene, it's probably more than 7,000 years since there was a similar run of hottest months on record, that is, not since the Holocene climatic optimum. (It's probably hotter now than it was back then).

Here is a chart of the average of 12 months to August each year. The 12 months to August 2016 averaged 1.03 °C above the 1951-1980 mean and was 0.23 °C hotter than the 12 months to August 2015:
Figure 1. Global mean surface temperature anomaly for the 12 months to August each year. The base period is 1951-1980. Data source: GISS NASA

Below is a chart of the month of August only. Hover over the chart to see the anomaly in any August:

Figure 2. Global mean surface temperature anomaly for the the month of August only. The base period is 1951-1980. Data source: GISS NASA

Now no La Niña?

You can see the global mean temperature trend by month in the chart below, for the strongest El Niño years since 1950, which were followed by a La Nina. I've included the 2015/16 period for comparison. NOAA has called off the La Nina watch. The BoM ENSO update is due out later today.

Not counting 2015/16, of the 7 very strong, strong, and strong-to-moderate El Ninos since 1950, there were only 3 that were followed by a La Nina. The chart spans a 3-year period. That is, for the 2015-16 El Niño and subsequent, it goes from January 2015 to December 2017. (For a more detailed explanation see the HW articles: El Niño to La Niña years with more detail here.)

Figure 3. Global mean surface temperature for strong or moderate/strong El Nino years that were followed by a La Nina. Data source: GISS NASA

Where was it hot?

Last month it was simply hot almost everywhere. There were cold patches over northern Russia and a few other places. Look at the map though. The orange and red are dazzling, and not in a good way.

Figure 4. Map showing mean surface temperature, anomalies for August, from the 1951-1980 mean. Source: GISS NASA
Below is July for comparison:

Figure 5. Map showing mean surface temperature, anomalies for July, from the 1951-1980 mean. Source: GISS NASA

Year-to-date average surface temperature

The chart below tracks the year to date. Each point on the plot is the average of the year to that month. For 2016, the last point is the average of all months to date including August. This year is tracking well above 2015, partly because of the El Niño. To drop below the average for 2015, the average anomaly for the next four months would need to be less than 0.49 °C:

Figure 6. Global mean surface temperature, progressive year to date to August 2016. Data source. GISS NASA

The next four months would have to be the temperatures of 16 years ago...

Given the speculation that this will be another "hottest year," below is a chart showing the average temperature for the 4 months from September to December from 2000 onwards. To be cooler than last year, the average of the next 4 months would need to be less than 0.49 °C. Only one year had the September-to-December average below 0.49 °C, and that was 16 years ago in 2000.

Figure 7. Global mean surface temperature anomaly for the four months from September to December.The base period is 1951-1980. Data source: GISS NASA

Related HotWhopper articles

Sunday, September 11, 2016

tamino: Deniers: Is This Really the Hill You Want to Die On? “No global warming for 15 years” ?

by tamino, "Open Mind" blog, September 10, 2016

Of all the lies we constantly hear from deniers, one of the most common (and with them, most popular) is some variation of “no global warming for 15 years.” It started many years ago with “no global warming since 1998,” has since been revised to “no global warming since 1997” and “no global warming since 2001” and “no global warming since 2002,” has run through “no global warming for 18 years” and “no global warming for 20 years,” but now seems to have settled on “no global warming for 15 years.”
The reason it keeps changing is that whenever they decide on what to bellow about, it quickly becomes obvious it’s not true. None of their claims is true. That’s no problem for them. Doubt is their product.
They used to base such claims on Earth’s surface temperature data. But a glance at how temperature at Earth’s surface has changed will quickly dispel that notion.
It’s ridiculously obvious that in addition to the trend in temperature — the changes that persist — there are also fluctuations, changes that don’t persist. The red line in the above graph is an estimate of the trend; if we subtract it from the data we have an estimate of the fluctuations, which I’ll show here by adding a blue line to represent the year-to-year fluctuations.
To make it look like there’s no warming, they have to isolate a brief span of time, one so short that the trend doesn’t have enough time to make itself obvious, so the fluctuations are all you really see. And they have to pick a time span when the fluctuations tend downward, to cancel out the appearance of the upward trend. You might try the span from 2001 through 2014, for instance:
A close-up shows that this time span is one during which the fluctuations tended to go opposite to the trend, essentially hiding the trend:
It’s what fluctuations do. They go sometimes up, sometimes down, and when they go up then go down it can look like a downward trend, cancelling out the upward trend. But fluctuations don’t persist. That’s why those who show you a tiny time span, don’t want you to see what led up to it — or what came after.
The same claim could have been made for the period from 1980 through 1994:
A close-up shows the same:
Alas for the poor climate deniers, the last two years both set new hottest-year records and 2016 is on its way to doing it again. The result is that the record of surface temperature makes it embarrassing to tell people there’s been “no warming since…”
Another embarrassment for them is that during the very time they like to crow about “no warming,” we’ve seen such a massive decrease in Arctic sea ice:
Then there’s the amount of heat in the ocean, rather than at the surface where we live:
There’s also the level of the sea itself, which has risen because global warming has melted so much land ice and because the sea expands as it warms:
There’s also the incredible rate of the loss of Greenland ice:
And the shrinking of the world’s glaciers. And the migration of species to higher latitudes and higher elevations. And the earlier arrival of spring. And earlier snowmelt. And more wildfire burn. And earlier breakup of the ice on frozen lakes. There are so many signs, only those in denial can deny it — and those signs have been clear during the “last 15 years” just as they were before.
But there’s still a little bit of data one can twist to look like maybe, if you hide most of it and squint while looking at it in just the right way, you can make yourself believe there’s been “no global warming for 15 years.” It’s the satellite data for the temperature in the lower troposphere from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
That’s why, when politicians whine about “no global warming” they only show you that data. Not surface temperature. Not ocean heat content or sea level. Not Greenland melting or glacier disappearance or any of the other things that show how hot it’s getting. They only show you what they can manipulate to make their case … and generally don’t even show you all of it, they have to leave out what might provide context.
But they have a problem. A big one. It’s getting more and more obvious that their “no warming for XX years” narrative is bullshit. They picked that dialogue, and it’s going to end up killing them. The day will come, soon, when not even Donald Trump will be able to weasel his way out of the reality of man-made climate change.
Deniers: you picked this hill. For you … it’s not a good choice.

Tamino's blog is made possible by readers like you; join others by donating at Peaseblossom’s Closet.

Ocean warming intensifies power of typhoons

The violence of typhoons that devastate Asian coastal regions is being magnified by rising sea surface temperatures caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

by Tim Radford, Climate News Network, September 11, 2016

LONDON – The typhoons that have slammed into the coasts of east and southeast Asia have become more violent, increasing in intensity by between 12% and 15% over the last four decades, according to a new study.
And the proportion of storms that meet the classification of category 4, with winds at 200 kilometres per hour, and category 5, with gusts of more than 250 kph, has at least doubled and may have tripled.
The good news for mariners is that those tropical cyclones that stay over the open ocean have not gotten significantly worse. The windstorms that pound the land, though, are potentially more destructive.
The cause of the intensity is an overall warming of ocean surface waters in the northwest Pacific Ocean.
And the researchers say: “The projected ocean surface warming pattern under increasing greenhouse gas forcing suggests that typhoons striking eastern mainland China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan will intensify further.

Damage by typhoons

“Given disproportionate damages by intense typhoons, this represents a heightened threat to people and properties in the region.”
It confirms that the number of severe hurricanes has increased by 25% to 30% for each degree of global warming so far. And, once again, greenhouse gas emissions are to blame.
“Most of the heat from human-induced warming since the 1970s – a staggering 93% – has been absorbed by the ocean, which acts as a buffer against climate change, but this comes at a price,” says Dan Laffoley, marine vice-chair of the World Commission on Protected Areas at IUCN, and one of the study’s authors.
“We were astounded by the scale and extent of ocean warming effects on entire ecosystems made clear by this report.”

“Ocean warming is one of this generation’s
greatest hidden challenges – and one for which
we are completely unprepared”

The IUCN study was compiled by 80 scientists from 12 nations, and it highlights the scientific evidence of impacts on marine life – from microbes to the great sea mammals – that are likely to increase significantly even if humans drastically reduce fossil fuel combustion and cut the carbon dioxide emissions that drive global warming.
The scientists say ocean warming is already affecting ecosystems from the poles to the Equator, driving plankton, jellyfish, seabirds, and turtles up to 10 degrees of latitude nearer to the poles.
In East Africa, ocean warming has reduced fish numbers by destroying parts of the reefs the fish depend upon. If humans go on releasing carbon dioxide emissions at the current rate, by 2050, marine fisheries harvests in southeast Asia are expected to be up to 30% lower than the average for the years 1970-2000.
Both studies are confirmatory rather than ground-breaking. Researchers have repeatedly warned that Pacific tropical cyclones and Atlantic hurricanes are likely to become more destructive.

 Landfalling storms

Atmospheric scientists Now Wei Mei and Professor Shang-Ping Xie, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California, report that they looked again at the data, to confirm first that landfalling storms – about half of all typhoons hit the coasts – have intensified, and secondly that rising sea surface temperatures are the cause.
The IUCN research, too, is a re-examination: other studies have confirmed the link between ocean warming and climate change, and between ocean warming and ecosystem destruction. But, on a planet that is 70% ocean, nobody can be sure of the consequences.
“Ocean warming is one of this generation’s greatest hidden challenges – and one for which we are completely unprepared,” says Inger Andersen, director general of the IUCN.
“The only way to preserve the rich diversity of marine life, and to safeguard the protection and resources the ocean provides us with, is to cut greenhouse emissions rapidly and substantially.” 

Friday, September 9, 2016

Joint Statement from the Department of Justice, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Interior Regarding Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers


Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs

Friday, September 9, 2016

Joint Statement from the Department of Justice, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Interior Regarding Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The Department of Justice, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Interior issued the following statement regarding Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
“We appreciate the District Court’s opinion on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.  However, important issues raised by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other tribal nations and their members regarding the Dakota Access pipeline specifically, and pipeline-related decision-making generally, remain.  Therefore, the Department of the Army, the Department of Justice, and the Department of the Interior will take the following steps.
The Army will not authorize constructing the Dakota Access pipeline on Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe until it can determine whether it will need to reconsider any of its previous decisions regarding the Lake Oahe site under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or other federal laws.  Therefore, construction of the pipeline on Army Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe will not go forward at this time.  The Army will move expeditiously to make this determination, as everyone involved — including the pipeline company and its workers — deserves a clear and timely resolution.  In the interim, we request that the pipeline company voluntarily pause all construction activity within 20 miles east or west of Lake Oahe.
“Furthermore, this case has highlighted the need for a serious discussion on whether there should be nationwide reform with respect to considering tribes’ views on these types of infrastructure projects.  Therefore, this fall, we will invite tribes to formal, government-to-government consultations on two questions:  (1) within the existing statutory framework, what should the federal government do to better ensure meaningful tribal input into infrastructure-related reviews and decisions and the protection of tribal lands, resources, and treaty rights; and (2) should new legislation be proposed to Congress to alter that statutory framework and promote those goals.
“Finally, we fully support the rights of all Americans to assemble and speak freely.  We urge everyone involved in protest or pipeline activities to adhere to the principles of nonviolence.  Of course, anyone who commits violent or destructive acts may face criminal sanctions from federal, tribal, state, or local authorities.  The Departments of Justice and the Interior will continue to deploy resources to North Dakota to help state, local, and tribal authorities, and the communities they serve, better communicate, defuse tensions, support peaceful protest, and maintain public safety. 
“In recent days, we have seen thousands of demonstrators come together peacefully, with support from scores of sovereign tribal governments, to exercise their First Amendment rights and to voice heartfelt concerns about the environment and historic, sacred sites.  It is now incumbent on all of us to develop a path forward that serves the broadest public interest.”

Who's Banking on the Dakota Access Pipeline?

The Standing Rock Sioux are inspiring the world with their resistance against the pipeline. But it’s not just Big Oil and Gas that they’re opposing.

Camp at Standing Rock
by Jo Miles and Hugh MacMillan, Food & Water Watch, September 6, 2016

When the Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit for the 1,100-mile Dakota Access Pipeline in July, executives at the corporations behind the plan probably thought their path forward was clear. They’d moved easily through the permit process, seemingly dodging the concerns of people affected by the pipeline, and were ready to go ahead with construction.
But the communities in the pipeline’s path, especially local tribes, had other ideas.Thousands of people, mostly Native Americans, have converged at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota in an effort to stop the pipeline from being built. The Standing Rock Sioux call the pipeline a black snake, and they know that if it were to rupture and spill — a serious risk, given the well-documented history of pipeline leaks in the U.S. — it could poison their drinking water and pollute their sacred land.
As we will detail, the Standing Rock Sioux are not just up against the oil and gas industry and the federal government, as daunting a challenge that alone would be. They are up against the many of the most powerful financial and corporate interests on Wall Street, the profit-driven institutions that are bankrolling this pipeline plan and so many others like it throughout the country.
The pipeline company disrupted the peaceful demonstration this weekend when its security firm unleashed violence on the activists, attacking them with dogs and pepper spray. The tribes are standing strong in their unity, and won’t give up despite these frightening and horrifying developments.

Corporate Interests Bankrolling the Pipeline

Powerful oil and gas companies are taking appalling steps to override the Sioux’s objections, using their immense financial resources to push for building this pipeline, which will further line their pockets. But behind the companies building the pipeline is a set of even more powerful Wall Street corporations that might give you flashbacks to the 2007 financial crisis.
Here are the financial institutions banking on the Dakota Access pipeline:
Financial Companies Behind the Bakken Dakota Access Pipeline
Seventeen financial institutions have loaned Dakota Access LLC $2.5 billion to construct the pipeline. Banks have also committed substantial resources to the Energy Transfer Family of companies so it can build out more oil and gas infrastructure:
All told, that’s $10.25 billion in loans and credit facilities from 38 banks directly supporting the companies building the pipeline.
These banks expect to be paid back over the coming decades. By locking in widespread drilling and fracking in the false name of U.S. energy independence and security, the banks are increasing our disastrous dependence on fossil fuels.

How Standing Rock Sioux are Fighting Back

The focal point of the resistance is at a camp outside the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota. Thousands of people, most of them Native Americans, have gathered in nonviolent demonstration to stop the pipeline’s construction and protect their land and water. In August, youth from the tribe finished a 2,000-mile relay run to Washington, D.C., to bring their message to the White House in their own show of opposition. The tribe is doing everything in their power to stop this pipeline.
Even before Dakota Access’s security turned violent, the activists faced harsh responses as Governor Dalrymple has declared a state of emergency, removing water and sanitation resources from the reservation, and the police have set up roadblocks around the reservation. Dozens of protesters have already been arrested, and police have spread false rumors of violence from the peaceful protectors.
But it’s the company, not the activists, that’s guilty of violence. This weekend, security sprayed activists with mace and released guard dogs into the crowd – even a pregnant woman was bitten by a dog. Democracy Now! captured disturbing footage of the attack.
In the aftermath of such violence, we can’t lose sight of how remarkable this gathering is: in a historic show of unity, over 188 Canadian First Nations and American Indian tribes have come together to support the Standing Rock Sioux’s effort to stop the pipeline.
Philip J. Deloria, a professor of American Culture and History at the University of Michigan, sees the fight as historic:
“The whole thing is kind of amazing, really. It’s a conjuncture of local organizing, social media activism, tribal-generated intertribal solidarity, semi-traditional ‘march on Washington’ strategies, and alliances with environmental and other political action groups... I think a lot of Indian people are seeing it as a moment of new possibility."
Energy Transfer Partners is pushing ahead with their construction — and in North Dakota’s dirty-energy-oriented economy, these corporations have the backing of the political establishment. In contrast, the activists stand against them with only their bodies, protecting their sacred land and water by physically standing in the way of the construction.
We all owe these activists our support. Communities all along the pipeline route have been carrying out their own protests, and Food & Water Watch has been working with the Bakken Pipeline Resistance Coalition to block the proposal since it was first announced in 2014. Now, as the pipeline is being built, we’re asking everyone to call on President Obama to intervene.
Iowans protest the Dakota Access Pipeline in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux

The Problems with Pipelines

Oil pipelines are inherently dangerous, and threaten our communities and environment with spills and explosions. They boost corporate profits and increase our dependence on fossil fuels, while bringing only risks and harms to those who live along the pipelines’ paths.
The Dakota Access pipeline would pump about a half-million barrels of oil each day along 1,100 miles through the Dakotas and Iowa to Southern Illinois. There, the oil would be sent to the East Coast refineries and other markets by train, or down another 750 miles to the Gulf Coast through a second pipeline that Energy Transfer Partners is converting to carry oil. Combined, the two pipelines — together called the Bakken Crude Pipeline and acknowledged here in a presentation ETP made to its stockholders in August — follow a similar path to the Keystone XL pipeline that President Obama rejected:
Overall, the Bakken Crude Pipeline will cost about $4.8 billion, and Energy Transfer Partners is touting it as a key element of its future plans to “capitalize on U.S. energy exports.” In building this infrastructure, Energy Transfer and its financial backers are banking on increased fracking in the United States in the coming decades. Over that time, communities will be left to deal with the spills, explosions, water pollution, air pollution, and climate impacts that ensue.
Protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline
Pipelines are not the answer to our energy needs. We need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and we need an urgent shift to 100% renewable energy. 
The Dakota Access Bakken Pipeline is a direct threat to our air, water, and clean energy future. This is why we need President Obama to support the Standing Rock Sioux and other activists, and use his authority to revoke the federal permits and deny the Bakken pipeline. Urge President Obama to deny the Bakken pipeline.