Kaffis Mark V wrote:
Here's the thing about pipelines: If we don't build and maintain them (which sometimes means replacing aging ones when standards improve), we end up transporting oil by rail or highway.
And the trains and trucks have to cross all the same rivers and watersheds, and are a lot more prone to failure (read: crashes). Trucks are abysmal in comparison, and trains trade a marginal reduction in overall quantity spilled (more, smaller spills than pipelines) for a dramatic increase in danger to humans by virtue of requiring humans nearby at all times (engineers) and the railway system, by design, passing through populated areas.
This. The concerns over water and the environment are a smokescreen for the real issue - the Indians are mad that the pipeline doesn't actually cross their reservation. They want the fees associated with that, and were denied. That's why we keep hearing "water", not "land". Because the tribe objecting doesn't have the pipeline on its land. In reality, railway cars are much more likely to spill. I'm a huge fan of trains, but it is what it is.
As for the wall, a wall channelizes alien and narcotic traffic and makes it easier to catch. By itself it isn't a solution.
But the real objection to the wall is an objection to "poor 'brown' people from other countries might have to follow the law."