On Rivers of Oil from Minnesota Public Radio News, we’ll look at the pipelines buried beneath our feet, how they’ve come to the forefront of an epic tug of war between reliance and risk, and how we all have a role to play in this story.
5: The decision
The Line 3 project has gotten approval from Minnesota regulators. But the fight over this oil pipeline is far from over.
4: The rallying cry
In the early 2000s, the Keystone XL oil pipeline became one of the most powerful symbols in the fight against climate change. And since then, it's not just local landowners fighting pipelines in their backyards anymore. It's environmental groups, Native Americans tribes, farmers and ranchers, and a crucial addition to the alliance -- climate change activists. But how did it begin?
3: The spark that ignited fires
Pipelines have become a potent issue for Native American and indigenous people, who are fighting them across North America. Part of the fight is over culture and identity. But it also involves a messy history of land and treaties, and a long, complicated relationship with the U.S. government.
2: The largest inland spill
This story isn't just about the risks of transporting huge amounts of oil through pipelines. It's also about the reward that oil provides.
Pipelines are everywhere: 2.5 million miles of them form a web under our feet, our rivers and our roads. They're at the forefront of an epic tug of war between our reliance on oil and the risk that oil poses to the future of our world.
Coming soon: Rivers of Oil, an MPR News podcast
All over the country, people are moving to camps in the woods, climbing trees, chaining themselves to bulldozers, all in the name of stopping an oil pipeline. What's going on? Why is there suddenly a dramatic conflict around pipelines? And is it really even about pipelines at all?
Critical & Emotionally Charged Topic
Quantifies the issues, and reports from various angles. Incorporates the past and present while poising us to anticipate and be engaged with our mutual future!
Unanswered questions posed in last episode
There was mention by the Public Utilities Commission on how there authority was limited to an interpretive capacity. I would have liked some discussion of what laws exactly have created the circumstances wherein Enbridge was able to argue that they will use the line and they will leak unless they can build a new line which will leak decades down-the-line. I understand what they did was legal, but I’m curious how it got this way. Was it a matter of minimal oversight & regulation decades ago when lines were not controversial and before MN itself no longer needed the increasing supply ie whether MN simply served as a transit corridor as opposed to an ultimate destination? I think another episode would be warranted to explore the ongoing developments & their historical reasons /legal precedent that will be at play, since MPR continues to reference this podcast even today in light of Governor Walz continuing former Governor Dayton’s lawsuit amongst the others also ongoing.
I am always fascinated with the level of research that goes in to your radio broadcasts. I appreciate the hard work you guys all put in to the stories. I feel like I get A nuanced balance narrative and I can make the decisions myself. I appreciate your Podcasts on history and the environment most of all. Thank you for what you do.