My Topic is the Dakota Pipe Line and how the media has presented the event through the Internet to get people to understand the event. the goal of this paper is to evaluate the authenticity and credibility of information reported about this event. We must demonstrate our understanding of the diverse and complex nature of information, bringing order to and maximizing the value of the information for the audience it reaches.
we have to discuss not only how the event was covered but what this coverage means on a global level.
Dakota Access Pipeline and authenticity of Information availed through media
Common claims by tribal nations and Standing Rock Sioux that the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAP) will lead to a negative effect on the environment as well as cultural sites was the reason behind postponing the process of its construction. World media continue to discuss the issue through the Internet as they put in place efforts for understanding the DAP event which has been politicized for a long period. The proposed construction of DAP has raised controversies between environmentalists and the US government, but from available media information, the DAP represents a viable idea for the US economy.
It has been a tradition by a group of activists where they have been lobbying governments as they seek to prevent energy firms from accessing new points that have been discovered with gas, oil, and coal. The activists have equally put in place strategies to ensure that they regulate how the government refines oil, generate electricity and extract coal (Kojola 76). The role of activists has to do with increasing the degree of efficiency standards and gain a mandate where electricity companies are required to use renewable sources of energy. The set of strategies, however, have had mixed successes as is evident with the case of DAP. DAP, though rumored to be among the most extensive forms of activism action ever noticed in the USA, the global media is yet to give the situation the much-needed attention (Li, Suzhen 98). Exploration companies have been at the center of weakening some of the regulations, and the effect has been the continuity in the DAP program in major parts that it was initially designed to take place.
From the media coverage, it has been pointed out clearly that activists are now employing a different strategy altogether. The disruption by activists has been extended to the way fossil companies currently transport their products. The fossil fuel industries are being prevented from having easy access to pipelines that they need in the process of them transporting their fuels (Kojola 34). Additionally, they are facing real bottlenecks accessing the road networks that could make it easy for them to move their goods around with a lot of ease. The logic behind the restriction of goods to move is that they are not going to be sold and hence there will be no negative effects on the environment that include aspects of global warming.
The politics that seems to be propagated by the DPA business can be termed as “pipeline politics” where government is not required to set in place any regulations that determine how business operations are to be carried out (Li, Suzhen 79). Instead, there has been a leverage on the already existing regulations. What is equally evident as portrayed by the media is that a strong linkage exists between environmentalists and actors where interest has been shifted towards local issues rather than putting in place strategies that can eliminate the possibility of causing climate change on the environment.
A common concern among the environmentalist is that through transporting of fossil fuels through the use of pipelines, it is likely that their water sources are to be contaminated. A different concern has to do with the effect on areas that have been set aside to serve as graveyards which are also treated as sacred places (Maier, Chris 105). The U.S government is mandated to take care of land and water use for the natives. Citizens have a right to request for specific issues to be addressed according to what they need.
What is happening in North Dakota is that environmentalists are well interested in aligning themselves with the needs of native Americans. A deal has been struck between tribal groups in America and Native Americans so that they can disrupt effective transportation of oil in Dakota. A good example can be taken for the Gateway Pacific Terminal in Washington which was to be constructed at Cherry Point (Gravelle, Timothy and Erick Lachapelle 67). The importance of the terminal was that it was to be the largest coal transporting terminal that was to be found on the West Coast. Its importance was to range from revenue generation to the creation of employment opportunities in the United States.
The terminal that was to be built at West Coast was to increase the efficiency with which coal that was mined in Wyoming and Montana at the Power River Basin was to be transported. The Lummi Nation with the backing of environmentalists believed that construction of the terminal was to increase adverse effects on the fishing activities in the region as well as affecting water sources that supply the area with water (Gravelle, Timothy and Erick Lachapelle 34). Leverage possessed by the Lummi Nation is that in 1855, it had signed a treaty with the federal government that gave them guarantee to fish in Salish Sea.
Evidence from the media clearly points out to the constraining relationship that is existing between activists, environmentalists, government and locals when issues about DAP are brought into perspective. The set of differences is brought about by the need to have economic development and efforts to also have social development in society. When the need to front social aspects is brought to light, society is made to sacrifice other important features that are essential to the success of a business entity. Governmental success is based on the need to have all pillars of the economy working. Economic success, therefore, remains very important as far as overall success in an organization is required.
The politics of pipelines continue to be evident in most parts of the world, and this explains why there is enormous controversy about the DAP. To be heard, environmentalists have opted to use Department of State rather than forming an alliance with Native Americans where they will work towards getting similar solutions to a problem that is currently affecting them (Li, Suzhen 76). The role of the pipeline is that it was required to transport the crude oil that had been extracted from Canadian tar sands where it was to be taken to the refineries in the United States.
The United States alone is connected with 1.2 million miles of natural gas, and the distance covered by the pipeline transporting petroleum products is at 150,000 miles (reference?). Environmentalist and activists in the United States are being limited by the ability of them getting approvals from the Congress about certain regulations, and it is an aspect that is well evident in other parts of the world. It is a factor that is well portrayed in other parts of the world, and hence countries need to work on their regulatory frameworks to address such fundamental aspects.
What is evident is that no facts are yet to be given on if building of a pipeline will have any negative effect on the environment. Various information systems clearly evidence the rift that still exists between the government, environmentalists and activists on the proposed construction of DAP. The main aim is that different society components are fighting for diverse needs that include need for economic survival while others are looking for social goods. It is evident that the U.S continue to enjoy an extensive connection of pipelines which is associated with enormous economic gains. Policy frameworks can be formed where social goods are to be preserved but the above need to be carried out giving attention to economic benefits associated with pipeline construction.
This question has been answered
Gravelle, Timothy B., and Erick Lachapelle. “Politics, Proximity And The Pipeline: Mapping Public Attitudes Toward Keystone XL”. Energy Policy, vol 83, 2015, pp. 99-108. Elsevier BV.