SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
With Dakota Access Back in Court, Activists Ask (Again): Where's Clinton?
Meanwhile, Greenpeace exposes Donald Trump's financial ties to pipeline company Energy Transfer Partners
Oct 05, 2016
As Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protesters head back to court on Wednesday, U.S. presidential candidates' positions on the project (or lack thereof) are being thrust into the spotlight.
The three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is being asked to keep in place a temporary halt to construction while the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe appeals a lower-court ruling from September. The hearing was scheduled to begin at 9:30am Eastern, and Native News Online reports that it "may ultimately decide if the pipeline project moves forward."
"The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will not back down from this fight," said Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Chairman Dave Archambault II, who will speak in D.C. following the hearing. "We are guided by prayer, and we will continue to fight for our people. We will not rest until our lands, people, waters and sacred sites are permanently protected from this destructive pipeline."
Meanwhile, Indigenous and environmental activists are looking to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton for a sign of where she stands on the controversial project. Clinton has yet to state publicly whether or not she supports the four-state, $3.8 billion pipeline--despite longstanding calls for her to do so.
"We definitely need Secretary Clinton to make a statement on it," Bold Alliance president Jane Kleeb told The Hill on Wednesday. "We don't know where she stands, and we don't know where she stands on the general build-out of pipelines."
Though The Hill noted that Clinton's reticence may have to do with the labor movement's divided stance on this and other fossil fuel projects, May Boeve of 350 Action pointed out that she could reach other critical demographics by coming out strongly against DAPL.
"If Hillary Clinton takes a stand against it, she could demonstrate her climate leadership and fire up the young voters she's trying to reach," Boeve said.
Indeed, as 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben said last week on Democracy Now!: "She has so far refused to say anything about it. Let's hope that that changes, because this is not only a practical challenge, at this point it's a clear moral test."
While Clinton has been silent on the matter, Republican nominee Donald Trump's business dealings with DAPL speak for themselves.
According to a Greenpeace analysis published Tuesday, "Trump has deep financial and personnel ties to the pipeline."
Citing the real estate mogul's limited financial disclosures thus far, Trump has "between $500,000 and $1 million in investments in the primary builder of the pipeline, Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners," Greenpeace reported. "He also disclosed $50,000 to $100,000 in investments in Phillips 66, which would own one-quarter of the Dakota Access Pipeline once completed."
"What does it mean that Trump could personally profit off a project that tramples Indigenous rights and pushes us closer to climate disaster?" wrote Jesse Coleman, a researcher with the Greenpeace Investigations team. "For one thing--if Trump's past investments are any guide--this project could well crash and burn, which would be a relief to the Standing Rock Sioux, the climate, and everyone in the path of this dangerous fossil fuel project."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
As Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protesters head back to court on Wednesday, U.S. presidential candidates' positions on the project (or lack thereof) are being thrust into the spotlight.
The three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is being asked to keep in place a temporary halt to construction while the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe appeals a lower-court ruling from September. The hearing was scheduled to begin at 9:30am Eastern, and Native News Online reports that it "may ultimately decide if the pipeline project moves forward."
"The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will not back down from this fight," said Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Chairman Dave Archambault II, who will speak in D.C. following the hearing. "We are guided by prayer, and we will continue to fight for our people. We will not rest until our lands, people, waters and sacred sites are permanently protected from this destructive pipeline."
Meanwhile, Indigenous and environmental activists are looking to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton for a sign of where she stands on the controversial project. Clinton has yet to state publicly whether or not she supports the four-state, $3.8 billion pipeline--despite longstanding calls for her to do so.
"We definitely need Secretary Clinton to make a statement on it," Bold Alliance president Jane Kleeb told The Hill on Wednesday. "We don't know where she stands, and we don't know where she stands on the general build-out of pipelines."
Though The Hill noted that Clinton's reticence may have to do with the labor movement's divided stance on this and other fossil fuel projects, May Boeve of 350 Action pointed out that she could reach other critical demographics by coming out strongly against DAPL.
"If Hillary Clinton takes a stand against it, she could demonstrate her climate leadership and fire up the young voters she's trying to reach," Boeve said.
Indeed, as 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben said last week on Democracy Now!: "She has so far refused to say anything about it. Let's hope that that changes, because this is not only a practical challenge, at this point it's a clear moral test."
While Clinton has been silent on the matter, Republican nominee Donald Trump's business dealings with DAPL speak for themselves.
According to a Greenpeace analysis published Tuesday, "Trump has deep financial and personnel ties to the pipeline."
Citing the real estate mogul's limited financial disclosures thus far, Trump has "between $500,000 and $1 million in investments in the primary builder of the pipeline, Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners," Greenpeace reported. "He also disclosed $50,000 to $100,000 in investments in Phillips 66, which would own one-quarter of the Dakota Access Pipeline once completed."
"What does it mean that Trump could personally profit off a project that tramples Indigenous rights and pushes us closer to climate disaster?" wrote Jesse Coleman, a researcher with the Greenpeace Investigations team. "For one thing--if Trump's past investments are any guide--this project could well crash and burn, which would be a relief to the Standing Rock Sioux, the climate, and everyone in the path of this dangerous fossil fuel project."
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
As Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protesters head back to court on Wednesday, U.S. presidential candidates' positions on the project (or lack thereof) are being thrust into the spotlight.
The three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is being asked to keep in place a temporary halt to construction while the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe appeals a lower-court ruling from September. The hearing was scheduled to begin at 9:30am Eastern, and Native News Online reports that it "may ultimately decide if the pipeline project moves forward."
"The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will not back down from this fight," said Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Chairman Dave Archambault II, who will speak in D.C. following the hearing. "We are guided by prayer, and we will continue to fight for our people. We will not rest until our lands, people, waters and sacred sites are permanently protected from this destructive pipeline."
Meanwhile, Indigenous and environmental activists are looking to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton for a sign of where she stands on the controversial project. Clinton has yet to state publicly whether or not she supports the four-state, $3.8 billion pipeline--despite longstanding calls for her to do so.
"We definitely need Secretary Clinton to make a statement on it," Bold Alliance president Jane Kleeb told The Hill on Wednesday. "We don't know where she stands, and we don't know where she stands on the general build-out of pipelines."
Though The Hill noted that Clinton's reticence may have to do with the labor movement's divided stance on this and other fossil fuel projects, May Boeve of 350 Action pointed out that she could reach other critical demographics by coming out strongly against DAPL.
"If Hillary Clinton takes a stand against it, she could demonstrate her climate leadership and fire up the young voters she's trying to reach," Boeve said.
Indeed, as 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben said last week on Democracy Now!: "She has so far refused to say anything about it. Let's hope that that changes, because this is not only a practical challenge, at this point it's a clear moral test."
While Clinton has been silent on the matter, Republican nominee Donald Trump's business dealings with DAPL speak for themselves.
According to a Greenpeace analysis published Tuesday, "Trump has deep financial and personnel ties to the pipeline."
Citing the real estate mogul's limited financial disclosures thus far, Trump has "between $500,000 and $1 million in investments in the primary builder of the pipeline, Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners," Greenpeace reported. "He also disclosed $50,000 to $100,000 in investments in Phillips 66, which would own one-quarter of the Dakota Access Pipeline once completed."
"What does it mean that Trump could personally profit off a project that tramples Indigenous rights and pushes us closer to climate disaster?" wrote Jesse Coleman, a researcher with the Greenpeace Investigations team. "For one thing--if Trump's past investments are any guide--this project could well crash and burn, which would be a relief to the Standing Rock Sioux, the climate, and everyone in the path of this dangerous fossil fuel project."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.