torched bakken pipeline equipment


“Texas-based Dakota Access says “it’s a shameful act by a group of people trying to disrupt our energy security and independence.” heh

7 responses to “torched bakken pipeline equipment

  1. heh. an understatement in terms of reconfiguring structural violence, the means and its owners

    the press statement is a shameful attempt to disrupt truth by means of normalizing unsustainable and cancer causing fossil fuel production which is worse than any war crime

    hint: make this legal by changing the law to specifically allow acts of violence to stop polluters

    • ah come on j.m. what’s really to do? if you have a feasible plan to share feel free to lay it out for us.

  2. depends upon what one means by ‘feasible’. your way of life is not feasible for more than a few more years.changing power structures, population, energy demands, permissible extraction, are all macro elements of change and what some would consider extreme others consider mild.

    start by outlawing almost all degradation thus jumpstarting the languishing renewables sector, decriminalize such acts as pictured from ‘terrorist’ so that anyone who torches something does not wind up in the Supermax. Next, enact qui tam legislation to report acts of environmental destruction as the bulldozer represents.

    Last, we should all have the courage to act upon our beliefs in every sense of this phrase

  3. Life is absurd

    I have written or co-authored about 7 enacted laws and various administrative rulemaking changes.

    Structural violence and who gets license is politically contested ground so no easy solution here for those who would abide by the law.

    Basically you have caught onto the ultimate conclusion of the Citizens United case.The accelerationists, by the way the finest post ever on SynthZero concerns them, will agree with your earlier rhetorical point that things must get worse before they can change and get better.

    I say seize back the law where possible. I have had some limited success with this in the animal area. I am also saying there should be a broad and open discussion about reapportioning and redefining violence in all its forms. EVeryone on the left preaches nonviolence and yet humans are a violent species.

    • life is certainly absurd, things will certainly keep getting worse as we have set into motion many wide-reaching and feed-back-looping effects into place with our technologies and activities, “where possible” is the key and all I can say is I don’t see how yer suggestion gets turned into action hereabouts and so far you haven’t offered any particulars just a lot of the same old same old rhetoric, I appreciate yer passion and interest but without any sense of things as they are on the ground it’s all sound and fury, unlike the academic/accelerationists with their penchants for abstractions and speculation we are focused on the concrete, the at hand, etc.

  4. Different players should use different methods.

    Changing the law to a) require mandatory non tariff feed ins and mandatory solar cogeneration in all new construction or renovation; b) PRC type population control; c) restrictions on healthcare in the US and abroad; and d) removing all tax subsidies for oil, shale and coal oil and forbidding export will do more within the structure to save energy and reduce demand and reduce global warming than all the rhetoric you or I may articulate. It is also a bit anti humanist.

    When I was younger I was into direct action and now leave this to the young. I can and have managed protest and provided legal support to activists confronting the Green scare net. This is crucial: these activists are defining activism upon their own terms. They are figuring out how to turn goals into action.

    I would also like to advocate for responsible marksmanship lessons for all civic minded Americans although no one is permitted to explicitly call for violent acts, Even a modest proposal of mine to change the law to enact a “shoot on sight” policy for poachers in the Congo (it already exists as law in at least 3 other jurisdictions and contrary to my adversary and co-discussant, has made a difference) freaked out a noted scholar in another discussion forum who argued against violence. I do call for a reconsideration of violence under the law, both structural and immediate and for a level of preparedness to act.

    I have no passion here to appreciate. Despair at extinction events provides a sense of fatalism.

    What are you willing to do to replace rhetoric with action?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s