Donald Trump on the Environment: A Clear Conflict of Interest
Earlier this week, the Army Corps of Engineers announced that it would deny a building permit for a highly contested section of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which will pump over a half a million barrels of crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois daily. The decision marks a key victory for protesters of the pipeline, many of which have been stationed at the protest site since July of this year.
The protesters, including environmentalists, celebrities, and the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, take issue with both the possible environmental threats the pipeline poses, as well as its imminent destruction of sacred Indian burial grounds. The formerly proposed route of the pipeline, pictured below, crosses under the Missouri river just a mile north of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. The river serves as the main source of water for approximately 8,000 residents of the reservation. On the environmental side, they claim that any leak in the pipe would cause immediate damage not only to the diverse environment of the river, but also to their source of water. On the cultural side, they assert that 38 miles of the pipeline crosses through a region belonging to the Native Americans, part of which is a traditional burial site.
Yet, while the Standing Rock protests may have slowed the construction and diverted the path of the pipeline, they certainly did not halt its progress. To get from North Dakota to Illinois, the pipeline will have to pass under a water source at one point or another. The fate of the Dakota Access Pipeline, and others like it, will very likely depend on the environmental and energy policies established by Donald Trump and his new administration. For opponents of the pipeline, an examination of Trump’s stances on energy and on the environment, his business ties to energy companies, and his choices for cabinet level positions all give at best a bleak outlook for the next four years.
Throughout his campaign, Trump’s rhetoric was one of eliminating environmental regulations, while simultaneously increasing business and energy production. His “America First” energy program has the intent of “Unleash[ing] America’s… untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves,” and of “Encourag[ing] the use of… American energy resources.” On the environment, Trump has claimed that the Environmental Protection Agency is a “disgrace,” and that they “can’t destroy business.” Nobody can be sure whether or not the Trump administration will follow through with this business first model, but his past comments on climate change tell us that he is unlikely to change his stance anytime soon.
Another foreboding sign for environmentalists is Trump’s ties to the energy businesses behind the DAPL. While Trump has claimed that he will avoid conflict of interests between his business ventures and his presidency, his investments in big energy is, to say the least, concerning.
First off, as of last May, Trump had $100,000 invested in Phillips 66, an energy company which owns about one-fourth of the pipeline. On a much larger scale though, Trump has had a mutual relationship with Energy Transfer Partners, one of the two companies behind the construction of the DAPL. At one point, Trump had between a half a million to a million invested in the company. And while he claims to have sold the majority of this stock off last June, this has not been confirmed. On the other side, Energy Transfer Partners donated $100,000 to Trump super-pacs throughout his campaign, with CEO Kelcy Warren donating $3,000 directly to the Trump campaign.
Despite his numerous business ties to energy companies behind the DAPL, Trumps aides have claimed that his support for the pipeline “has nothing to do with his personal investments,” and rather “everything to do with promoting policies that benefit all Americans.” However, the age old idiom “actions speak louder than words” provides strong evidence to the contrary. Not only do Trump’s business ties make him exponentially more likely to make decisions which benefit himself and his wealth over the American people than any other president, but his transition team and cabinet appointments also point to Trump’s interest in the DAPL’s completion.
Just this week, Trump picked Scott Pruitt, the Attorney General of Oklahoma and a climate change denier, to lead the EPA. Pruitt not only wants to fight environmental regulations on oil and gas put in place by the Obama administration, but also has direct ties to companies involved in the DAPL. In 2013, when Pruitt was running for reelection for the Attorney General’s office, his campaign was led by Harold Hamm, the CEO of the Oklahoma-based oil company, who also happened to be the energy advisor to Trump’s presidential campaign. Continental Resources has a huge stake in the completion of the DAPL, as it hopes to transport oil obtained from fracking in the North Dakota Bakken Shale basin through the pipeline. As shown in the graphic below, Continental Resources would greatly benefit from the completion of the DAPL, as it would expand their markets and allow them to transport more oil in a shorter period of time. Thus, the trio of Trump, Hamm, and Pruitt appear to have a great interest in the DAPL, but not for reasons beneficial to the American people.
The DAPL project should alarm Americans for a multitude of reasons. Its environmental impact––which will likely be ignored by climate change deniers throughout the Trump administration––greatly threatens water resources throughout the American midwest. Its destruction of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe burial sites––which will be placed behind the personal business ventures of Trump––follow a long standing pattern of American disrespect towards Native Americans. Finally, and most importantly, Trump and his administration’s business ties to the DAPL, which are as numerous as they are extreme, demonstrate a conflict of interest that ought to be considered unacceptable for the president of our country.
