Read on Twitter
Hi, actually a bunch of scientists signed a letter confirming that it was done without proper environmental analysis.
I was one of four main authors.
Don’t frame it in a way that makes it sound like the *only* objection is from SRST—they have science on their side! https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1283455938947624962
I was one of four main authors.
Don’t frame it in a way that makes it sound like the *only* objection is from SRST—they have science on their side! https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1283455938947624962
SRST has PLENTY of standing to object to DAPL.
The problem starts, @ajplus, when you frame it as a marginalized group having what could be seen as a self-interested objection.
This is a subtle “both sides” argument: of course the oil companies are obviously self-interested.
The problem starts, @ajplus, when you frame it as a marginalized group having what could be seen as a self-interested objection.
This is a subtle “both sides” argument: of course the oil companies are obviously self-interested.
But look, @ajplus, if you set this up as “both sides” then you know who is gonna get public sympathy: the oil company (bc “neutrality” supports power. Always.)
Tell the whole story. Say it’s scientists + SRST + federal treaties + environmental groups vs a company that wants $$$
Tell the whole story. Say it’s scientists + SRST + federal treaties + environmental groups vs a company that wants $$$
Cover it properly.
The environmental assessment was never done. Construction went on over the objections of the US army corps of engineers. Over the top of federal treaties. Via the murder and brutalization of SRST, other Indigenous people and our allies.
Tell the whole story.
The environmental assessment was never done. Construction went on over the objections of the US army corps of engineers. Over the top of federal treaties. Via the murder and brutalization of SRST, other Indigenous people and our allies.
Tell the whole story.
I was there, @ajplus.
So were many others.
We saw what they did. What they hired others to do.
Over 200 ecologists and other scientists signed our letter.
So why act like SRST doesn’t have evidence, science, law, and moral right ALL on their side?
https://twitter.com/scbnorthamerica/status/781621809942712321?s=21 https://twitter.com/scbnorthamerica/status/781621809942712321
So were many others.
We saw what they did. What they hired others to do.
Over 200 ecologists and other scientists signed our letter.
So why act like SRST doesn’t have evidence, science, law, and moral right ALL on their side?
https://twitter.com/scbnorthamerica/status/781621809942712321?s=21 https://twitter.com/scbnorthamerica/status/781621809942712321
And as for “they say it threatens a vital water source”
Did you know, @ajplus, that the pipeline’s original route took it through Bismarck, ND—89.5% white people?
The mayor requested a reroute and with no environmental study nor organized protest Enbridge.....rerouted it.
Did you know, @ajplus, that the pipeline’s original route took it through Bismarck, ND—89.5% white people?
The mayor requested a reroute and with no environmental study nor organized protest Enbridge.....rerouted it.
The DAPL crosses the Níshoje (thats “Missouri River” to you, @ajplus) less than a mile upstream from a main water intake for a whole SRST town.
If it’s so safe why isn’t it going through Bismarck?
And if it’s not, why are you subtly undermining the legitimacy of SRST objection?
If it’s so safe why isn’t it going through Bismarck?
And if it’s not, why are you subtly undermining the legitimacy of SRST objection?
