neg—efficiency solvency—econ
advertisement
Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Natives Aff Natives Aff ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Natives 1 AC .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Natives 1 AC .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Natives 1 AC .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Natives 1 AC .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Natives 1 AC .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Natives 1 AC .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Natives 1 AC ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 10 Natives 1 AC ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Natives 1 AC ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Natives 1 AC ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Natives 1 AC ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Natives 1 AC ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 19 Natives 1 AC ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 22 Natives 1 AC ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 24 Solvency-Wind ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 27 Solvency-Renewables .............................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Inherency ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 29 Possible Plan Agent ................................................................................................................................................................................. 30 AT: States Counterplan ............................................................................................................................................................................ 31 AT: Lopez CP .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 AT: Courts CP ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Inherency-Regulatory Uncertainty Now .................................................................................................................................................. 34 AT: PIC out of Renewables ..................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Inherency-Colonization Now ................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Solvency-K Shit ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Solvency-K Shit ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Solvency-K Shit ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 41 We’ve killed lots of Indians. .................................................................................................................................................................... 42 Solvency-Renewables .............................................................................................................................................................................. 43 Politics-Clinton Likes the Plan ................................................................................................................................................................ 44 Solvency-Job Creation ............................................................................................................................................................................. 45 Solvency-Job Creation ............................................................................................................................................................................. 46 Solvency-Job Creation ............................................................................................................................................................................. 48 USFG Key ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Solvency-Tribal Soveriegnty ................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Solvency-Everything................................................................................................................................................................................ 51 Mines fuck up Indians. ............................................................................................................................................................................. 53 Energy is Important to Indians ................................................................................................................................................................. 54 AT: CERT CP .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 55 Solvency-Okanagan Ethics ...................................................................................................................................................................... 56 AT: Economic Development not compatible with tribal culture ............................................................................................................. 57 AT: Tech/Modern Shit not compatible with Indian culture. .................................................................................................................... 58 Solvency-New Epistemology ................................................................................................................................................................... 59 Solvency-K Shit/Epistemology ................................................................................................................................................................ 60 AT: Natives Have Fucked up the Environment ....................................................................................................................................... 62 Solvency-Reorienting Tech ..................................................................................................................................................................... 63 Inherency-U.S. not supporting indigenous rights now. ............................................................................................................................ 64 Culture Key to Natives............................................................................................................................................................................. 65 Protection of Indigenous CultureProtection of All Culture .................................................................................................................. 66 Culture death maybe genocide? ........................................................................................................................................................... 67 Loss of cultureGenocide?..................................................................................................................................................................... 68 AT: International Organizations Protect Indigenous People. ................................................................................................................... 69 AT: K of the term “indigenous.” .............................................................................................................................................................. 70 AT: Voting Rights CP .............................................................................................................................................................................. 71 AT: Rights CP .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 72 Environmental framing of Native American policies good. .................................................................................................................... 73 1 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange Environmental framing of Native American policies good. .................................................................................................................... 74 Rape of Indian Nat. ResourcesExtinction ............................................................................................................................................ 76 INDIANS WANT .................................................................................................................................................................................... 79 SOLVENCY—COMPANIES ............................................................................................................................................................... 80 INDIANS->WIDER WIND ..................................................................................................................................................................... 81 MECH—RPS ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 82 MECH—EPA LAWS .............................................................................................................................................................................. 83 MECH—FED GRANTS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 84 MECH—BUY INDIAN ........................................................................................................................................................................ 85 FED KEY—ECON .................................................................................................................................................................................. 86 MECH—LAND ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 87 NEG—STATES CP SOLVENCY ........................................................................................................................................................ 88 NEG—EFFICIENCY 1NC SOLVENCY—ECON ................................................................................................................................. 89 NEG—EFFICIENCY SOLVENCY—ECON ......................................................................................................................................... 90 NEG—EFFICIENCY SOLVENCY—ECON ......................................................................................................................................... 91 NEG—EFFICIENCY SOLVENCY—CULTURE .................................................................................................................................. 92 NORMAL MEANS LIST ........................................................................................................................................................................ 93 NEG—LAND CP SOLVES HEG (BAD) ............................................................................................................................................... 94 NEG—STATE FAILS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 95 FED SWEET............................................................................................................................................................................................ 96 NEG—FED FAILS .................................................................................................................................................................................. 97 A2 COOPTATION K .............................................................................................................................................................................. 98 AFF KEY/FRAMEWORK? .................................................................................................................................................................... 99 POVERTY=GENOCIDE ...................................................................................................................................................................... 100 HEG BAD .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 101 COAL! ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 102 NUCLEAR TESTING! .......................................................................................................................................................................... 103 URANIUM MINING! ........................................................................................................................................................................... 104 NUCLEAR TESTING!.......................................................................................................................................................................... 105 NUKE POWER=COLONIZATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 106 YUCCA MOUNTAIN=COLONIZATION ........................................................................................................................................... 107 ???? ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 108 SELF-DETERMINATION SOLVES PROLIF ..................................................................................................................................... 109 CASE O/W DA ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 110 Land is significant to tribes .................................................................................................................................................................... 111 Fed Key .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 111 State Action Solves ................................................................................................................................................................................ 112 Natives k2 public interest ....................................................................................................................................................................... 112 Inherency ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 113 No Self-determination now .................................................................................................................................................................... 113 A2 States ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 115 Neg—State Fails .................................................................................................................................................................................... 117 Self Determination Good ....................................................................................................................................................................... 117 A2 Give back the land: .......................................................................................................................................................................... 117 Soft Power i/l ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 119 Econ ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 120 A2 States/Lopez. .................................................................................................................................................................................... 121 Inherency ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 122 A2 Lopez CP .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 123 Tribal energy Good ................................................................................................................................................................................ 123 Imact ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 124 Environmental Racism Impact ............................................................................................................................................................... 125 Solvency args ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 128 A2 Lopez CP .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 131 Solvency args ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 131 Neg—Wind power bad .......................................................................................................................................................................... 133 Notes ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 135 2 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Natives 1 AC Contention One is Inherency. Native Americans want alternative energy now-they see it as a way to gain energy dependence. David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al September 2002 College of Business Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 02-21, “The Implications of the Regional Haze Rule on Renewable and Wind Energy Development on Native American Lands in the West” http://ses.nau.edu/pdf/Smith_AWEA.pdf pg 4 [ev] The tribes contacted in the ITEP assessment were selected to represent a diversity of tribal perspectives, based upon geographic distribution, population, land size, urban versus rural location, experience with renewable energy, and level of existing energy infrastructure. While these data are not definitive and may not be representative of all 237 tribes within the 13-state WRAP region, they do suggest some valuable insights. A few pertinent results from the tribal surveys are listed below: For three-quarters of the tribes polled, no central office or agency is in charge of tribal energy issues, such as a utility authority. Three-quarters of the tribes are interested in using renewable energy systems, especially if the cost of energy is competitive with current energy supplies. Over 80% of the tribes indicated an interest in selling electricity on the deregulated electric market. Through comments associated with the assessments, it was apparent that the particular opportunities available and the barriers facing each tribe’s development of renewable energy were as individual and unique as the tribes themselves. Many of the tribes were concerned about cultural issues (such as sacred sites), environmental issues (not damming a river), political issues (intra- and inter-tribal politics and external relations with states), and economics (the cost of energy). In general, tribes were quite interested in the potential opportunities for economic development offered by developing renewable energy resources, as well as the ability to gain energy independence. Furthermore, tribes in rural settings were more interested in developing renewable resources compared to tribes located in urban settings. When considering energy development, the relative cost of power and marketplace constraints are certainly relevant to tribes, but they may not be the determining or even the most important factors. For most tribes the development of renewable energy is inextricably intertwined with the challenges of economic development. Furthermore, renewable energy may offer many tribes the ability to electrify portions of their reservations that currently have no electrical service, or to increase the reliability of service. A federal tax credit is preventing successful investment in alternative energies on Native American reservations. Indian Country Today 7-11-08 (http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417016) [Bozman] SAN FRANCISCO - Just as a collective of tribes is pushing for federal legislation in favor of tribal-led wind energy projects, a Native company is posed to launch an unprecedented effort to help tribes to become principal owners of turbines. The Seattle-based company, Native Green Energy, will debut its first endeavor in April in Maine, where it has been working with the Passamaquoddy tribe to install two 100-kilowatt turbines that would power 50 homes on a private grid and allow the tribe to sell back additional energy to private utilities. The company has already won the backing of some state legislatures and plans next to launch a 2.2megawatt turbine for a Michigan gaming tribe. ''We're setting out to make a difference in Indian country,'' said company co-founder Litefoot, a Cherokee musician, actor and entrepreneur. ''We have responsibility from the Creator to take care of this earth and so we are harnessing these things the Creator has provided to sustain our communities.'' Jon Ahlbrand, company co-founder, said the potential for wind energy is blowing constantly across Indian country, but there remains a dire lack of suppliers that ''could bridge the gap'' between the private sector market and its renewable energy demands and tribal governments. ''You can count on your hand the number of existing turbines operating on reservations,'' he said. ''Some of the most advantageous markets for wind energy are on trust land or fee land owned by tribes.'' Energy experts say the Dakota winds in the northern Great Plains alone could meet the nation's entire electrical needs with wind power. But the lack of a federal tax credit has been thwarting a tribal-led green energy future. Currently, tribes are not entitled to the tax credits provided to non-Native developers for renewable energy production. And if an outside company wants to team up with a tribe, they are not provided a full tax credit. 3 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Natives 1 AC Contention 2 is Native Americans. Native Americans are living in extreme poverty-this has made reservations the dumping ground of choice for our toxic industrial byproducts. Nuclear waste systemically eradicates Native American populations so that we can sustain our consumption patterns. Daniel Brook, Finalist in the Livingston Competition for Young Journalists, Winner of Rolling Stones Competition for Young Journalists, Contributor to Harper’s and the Boston Glove, January, ‘98 (Environmental Genocide: Native Americans and Toxic Waste, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 57, No. 1) GENOCIDE AGAINST NATIVE AMERICANS continues in modern times with modern techniques. In the past, buffalo were slaughtered or corn crops were burned, thereby threatening local native populations; now the Earth itself is being strangled, thereby threatening all life. The government and large corporations have created toxic, lethal threats to human health. Yet, be- cause "Native Americans live at the lowest socioeconomic level in the U.S." (Glass, n.d., 3), they are most at risk for toxic exposure. All poor people and people of color are disadvantaged, although for Indians, these disadvantages are multiplied by dependence on food supplies closely tied to the land and in which [toxic] materials . .. have been shown to accumulate" (ibid.). This essay will discuss the genocide of Native Americans through environmental spoliation and native resistance to it. Although this type of genocide is not (usually) the result of a systematic plan with malicious intent to exterminate Native Americans, it is the consequence of activities that are often carried out on and near the reservations with reckless disregard for the lives of Native Americans.1 One very significant toxic threat to Native Americans comes from governmental and commercial hazardous waste sitings. Because of the severe poverty and extraordinary vulnerability of Native American tribes, their lands have been targeted by the U.S. government and the large corporations as permanent areas for much of the poisonous industrial by-products of the dominant society. "Hoping to take advantage of the devastating chronic unemployment, pervasive poverty and sovereign status of Indian Nations", according to Bradley Angel, writing for the international environmental organization Green- peace, "the waste disposal industry and the U.S. government have embarked on an all-out effort to site incinerators, landfills, nuclear waste storage facilities and similar polluting industries on Tribal land" (Angel 1991, 1). In fact, so enthusiastic is the United States government to dump its most dangerous waste from "the nation's 110 commercial nuclear power plants" (ibid., 16) on the nation's "565 federally recognized tribes" (Aug 1993, 9) that it "has solicited every Indian Tribe, offering millions of dollars if the tribe would host a nuclear waste facility" (Angel 1991, 15; emphasis added). Given the fact that Native Americans tend to be so materially poor, the money offered by the government or the corporations for this "toxic trade" is often more akin to bribery or blackmail than to payment for services rendered.2 In this way, the Mescalero Apache tribe in 1991, for example, became the first tribe (or state) to file an application for a U.S. Energy Department grant "to study the feasibility of building a temporary [sic] storage facility for 15,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel" (Ak- wesasne Notes 1992, 11). Other Indian tribes, including the Sac, Fox, Yakima, Choctaw, Lower Brule Sioux, Eastern Shawnee, Ponca, Caddo, and the Skull Valley Band of Goshute, have since applied for the $100,000 exploratory grants as well (Angel 1991, 16-17). Indeed, since so many reservations are without major sources of outside revenue, it is not surprising that some tribes have considered proposals to host toxic waste repositories on their reservations. Native Americans, like all other victimized ethnic groups, are not passive populations in the face of destruction from imperialism and paternalism. Rather, they are active agents in the making of their own history. Nearly a century and a half ago, the radical philosopher and political economist Karl Marx realized that people "make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past" (Marx 1978, 595). Therefore, tribal governments considering or planning waste facilities", asserts Margaret Crow of California Indian Legal Services, "do so for a number of reasons" (Crow 1994, 598). First, lacking exploitable subterranean natural resources, some tribal governments have sought to employ the land itself as a resource in an attempt to fetch a financial return. Second, since many reservations are rural and remote, other lucrative business opportunities are rarely, if ever, available to them. Third, some reservations are sparsely populated and therefore have surplus land for business activities. And fourth, by establishing waste facilities some tribes would be able to resolve their reservations' own waste disposal problems while simultaneously raising much-needed revenue. As a result, "[a] small number of tribes across the country are actively pursuing commercial hazardous and solid waste facilities"; however, "[t]he risk and benefit analysis performed by most tribes has led to decisions not to engage in commercial waste management" (ibid.). Indeed, Crow reports that by "the end of 1992, there were no commercial waste facilities operating on any Indian reservations" (ibid.), although the example of the Campo Band of Mission Indians provides an interesting and illuminating exception to the trend. The Campo Band undertook a "proactive approach to siting a commercial solid waste landfill and recycling facility near San Diego, California. The Band informed and educated the native community, developed an environmental regulatory infrastructure, solicited companies, required that the applicant company pay for the Band's financial advisors, lawyers, and solid waste industry consultants, and ultimately negotiated a favorable contract" (Haner 1994, 106). Even these extraordinary measures, however, are not enough to protect the tribal land and indigenous people from toxic exposure. Unfortunately, it is a sad but true fact that "virtually every landfill leaks, and every incinerator emits hundreds of toxic chemicals into the air, land and water" (Angel 1991, 3). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concedes that even if the . . . 4 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange protective systems work according to plan, the landfills will eventually leak poisons into the environment" (ibid.). Therefore, even if these toxic waste sites are safe for the present generation-a rather dubious proposition at best-they will pose an increasingly greater health and safety risk for all future generations. Native people (and others) will eventually pay the costs of these toxic pollutants with their lives, "costs to which [corporate] executives are conveniently immune" (Parker 1983, 59). In this way, private corporations are able to externalize their costs onto the commons, thereby subsidizing their earnings at the expense of health, safety, and the environment. Sadly, this may not be the worst environmental hazard on tribal lands. Kevin Grover and Jana Walker try "[t]o set the record straight" by claiming that "the bigger problem is not that the waste industry is beating a path to the tribal door [although it is of course doing so]. Rather, it is the unauthorized and illegal dumping occurring on reservations. For most Indian communities the problem of open dumping on tribal lands is of much greater concern than the remote prospect that a commercial waste disposal facility may be sited on a reservation" (Haner 1994, 107).3 There are two major categories of people who illegally dump waste on tribal land. They have been called "midnight dumpers" and "native entrepreneurs." Midnight dumpers are corporations and people who secretly dump their wastes on reservations without the permission of tribal governments. Native entrepreneurs are tribal members who contaminate tribal land, without tribal permission, for private profit or personal convenience. Both midnight dumpers and native entrepreneurs threaten Native American tribes in two significant ways: tribal health and safety, and tribal sovereignty. 5 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Natives 1 AC Poverty on Native American reservations is equivalent to an ongoing genocide. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 112-3 [ev] All of this is, unfortunately, on paper. The practical reality is that American Indians, far from being well off, are today the most impoverished sector of the U.S. population.8 We experience by far the lowest average annual and lifetime incomes of any group. The poorest locality in the United States for 23 of the past 25 years has been Shannon County, on the Pine Ridge Sioux Reservation in South Dakota, where a recent study found 88 percent of the available housing to be substandard, much of it to the point of virtual uninhabitability. The annual per capita income in Shannon County was barely over $2,000 in 1995, while unemployment hovered in the 90th percentile.9 Bad as conditions are on Pine Ridge, they are only marginally worse than those on the adjoining Rosebud Sioux Reservation and a host of others. In many ways, health data convey the costs and consequences of such deep and chronic poverty far better than their financial counterparts. These begin with the facts that, overall, American Indians suffer far and away the highest rates of malnutrition, death from exposure, and infant mortality (14.5 times the national average on some reservations).I° The Indian health level is the lowest and the disease rate the highest of all major population groups in the United States. The incidence of tuberculosis is over 400 percent the national average. Similar statistics show the incidence of strep infections is 1,000 percent, meningitis is 2,000 percent higher, and dysentery is 10,000 percent higher. Death rates from disease are shocking when Indian and non-Indian populations are compared. Influenza and pneumonia are 300 percent greater killers among Indians. Diseases such as hepatitis are at epidemic proportions, with an 800 percent higher chance of death. Diabetes is almost a plague [6.8 times the general population rate]." It should come as no surprise, given the ubiquitousness of such circumstances, that alcoholism and other addictions take an inordinate toll. Although fewer Indians drink than do nonindians, the rate of alcohol-related accidental deaths among native people is ten times that of the general population, while the rate of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) among the newborn is 33 times greater.' The suicide rate among Indians is ten times the national norm, while, among native youth, it is 10,000 percent higher than among our nonindian counterparts.I3 All told, the current life expectancy of a reservation-based American Indian male is less than fifty years in a society where the average man lives 71.8 years. Reservation- based Indian women live approximately three years longer than males, but general population women enjoy an average life expectancy seven years longer than nonindian men.14 Hence, every time an American Indian dies on a reservation—or, conversely, every time a child is born—it can be argued that about one-third of a lifetime is lost. This thirtieth percentile attrition of the native population has prevailed throughout the twentieth century; a situation clearly smacking of genocide.15 This last is, of course, a policy-driven phenomenon, not something inadvertent or merely "unfortunate." Here, the BIA's exercise of trust authority over native assets comes into play. While it has orchestrated the increasingly intensive "development" of reservation lands since 1945, a matter which might logically have been expected to alleviate at least the worst of the symptomologies sketched above, the Bureau's role in setting the rates at which land was/is leased and royalties for extracted minerals were/are paid by major corporations has precluded any such result.I6 Instances in which the BIA has opted to rent out the more productive areas on reservations to nonindian ranchers or agribusiness interests for as little as $1 per acre per year, and for as long as 99 years, are legion and notorious.'? As to mineral royalties, the Bureau has consistently structured contracts "in behalf of" Indians which require payment of as little as ten percent of market rates while releasing participating corporations from such normal overhead expenses as the maintenance of minimum standards for worker/community safety and environmental safeguards. In fact, most such arrangements have not even provided for a semblance of postoperational clean up of mining and processing sites.I8 6 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Natives 1 AC The perceived vulnerability of Native Americans causes reservations to be used for coal mining-this destroys Indian culture and reinforces poverty. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 113-4 [ev] The largest and most easily extracted deposit of bituminous coal in North America is located at Black Mesa, in northern Arizona, an area occupied almost exclusively by Navajos. Beginning in 1974, the federal government undertook a program of compulsory relocation to remove some 13,500 resident Navajos from area, dispersing them into primarily urban areas and completely obliterating their sociocultural existence (until then, they had comprised the largest remaining enclave of traditionally oriented Indians in the lower forty-eight states). The land upon which their subsistence economy was based is itself to be destroyed, a circumstance barring even the possibility of their reconstitution as a viable human group at some future date.22 The coal, once mined, is slurried to the Four Corners Power Plant and other generating facilities where it is burned to produce electricity. This "product" is then transported over massive power grids to meet such socially vital needs as keeping the air conditioners humming in the Phoenix Valley and the neon lights lit 24 hours a day at Las Vegas casinos. Meanwhile, 46 percent of the homes on the Navajo Reservation have no electricity at all (54 percent have no indoor plumbing, 82 percent no phone).23 No more fitting illustration of Galeano's equation seems conceivable . 7 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Natives 1 AC This sacrifice of Native American lands for nuclear testing make Native American populations disposable-this allow them to be systemically eradicated. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 136-7 [ev] Even worse problems are evident at Yucca Mountain, located on the southwestern boundary of the Nevada Test Site, where a $15 billion repository to accommodate:. 70,000 tons of mostly civilian high-level waste is being imposed on the long-suffering' Western Shoshones and Paiutes.197 Not only is "spontaneous detonation" just as much a threat as at the WIPP, but Yucca Mountain, located in a volcanically active region,- undercut by no less than 32 geological fault lines.'" Needless to say, no amount of engineering brilliance can ensure the repository's contents will remain undisturbed through a quarter-million years of earthquakes interspersed with volcanic eruptions. Once again, however, the project is being moved forward as rapidly as possible. As if this were not enough, it was announced in 1993 by the Southwestern Compact, a consortium of state governments, that it had "decided to keep the option" of siting a huge low-level waste dump in the Mojave Desert's Ward Valley, near the small town of Needles on the California/Arizona boundary.199 Envisioned as being large enough to accept the contents of all six existing—and failed—low-level facilities in the U.S. with room to spare for the next thirty years, the proposed site is less than eighteen miles from the Colorado River and directly above an aquifer.m It is also very close to the Fort Mojave, Chemehuavi Valley, and Colorado River Indian Tribes reservations, and upstream from those of the Cocopahs and Quechanis around Yuma, Arizona. Taken as a whole, the pattern of using "deserts as dumps" which has emerged in nuclear waste disposal practices over the past decade serves to confirm suspicions, already well founded, that creation of sacrificial geographies within the U.S. has been an integral aspect of Cold War policies and planning for nearly fifty years.201 In many ways, the siting of repositories in particular, since they are explicitly intended to remain in place "forever," may be seen as a sort of capstone gesture in this regard. The collateral genocide of those indigenous peoples whose lands lie within the boundaries of the sacrifice zones, nations whose ultimate negation has always been implicitly bound up in the very nature and depth of their colonization, is thus, finally and irrevocably, to be consummated. 8 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Natives 1 AC Allowing genocide to continue makes all their impacts and extinction inevitable. Kenneth J Campbell, Professor of Political Science & International Relations at the University of Delaware, '1 (Genocide and the Global Village, p. 15-6) Regardless of where or on how small a scale it begins, the crime of genocide is the complete ideological repudiation of, and a direct murderous assault upon. the prevailing liberal international order. Genocide is fundamentally incompatible with, and destructive of, an open, tolerant. democratic, free market international order. As genocide scholar Herbert Hirsch has explained. The unwillingness of the world community to take action to end genocide and political massacres is not only immoral but also impractical … [W]ithout some semblance of stability, commerce, travel, and the international and intranational interchange of goods and information are subjected to severe disruptions.3 Where genocide is permitted to proliferate, the liberal international order cannot long survive. No group will be safe: every group will wonder when they will be next. Left unchecked, genocide threat-ens to destroy whatever security, democracy, and prosperity exists in the present international system. As Roger Smith notes : Even the most powerful nations - those armed with nuclear weapons may end up in struggles that will lead (accidentally, intentionally. insanely) to the ultimate genocide in which they destroy not only each other. but mankind itself, sewing the fate of the earth forever with a final genocidal effort.4 In this sense, genocide is a grave threat to the very fabric of the international system and must be stopped, even at some risk to lives and treasure. Genocide kills more people than war, results in the collapse of all morality, and makes war inevitable. ProjectArcix, a global, cooperative effort to address disaster management and response, ‘6 (Genocide: Consequences, http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/01412/lite/syntheticdisasters/genocide/consequences.html) Genocide is one of the most atrocious crimes known to humanity. It is an indiscriminate killing of a group of people with total disregard for the individual. Its immediate effect is death and dehumanization. Its long term implications include global fragmentation and political disintegration through escalation and the collapse of international order. In the last century, the number of battle-related victims is much smaller than that of genocides, indicating that genocide has a higher mortality rate. The inherent quality of killing on the basis of identity makes it worse than warfare. Genocide is usually inflicted on noncombatants who cannot defend themselves: infants, children, expectant mothers, the elderly, and civilians in general. Furthermore, genocide represents an egregious violation of basic human rights – the right to live. Genocide also has global impacts – it disregards international law, creates political instability, destroys entire cultures, and obliterates of morals. Kenneth J. Campbell in Genocide and the Global Village indicates that unchecked genocide will eradicate global cooperation and make larger conflicts inevitable. If genocide goes unchecked, no group is safe as every group could be the next. Campbell further says that even the most powerful nations may be drawn in and ultimately may threaten civilization through accidental or intentional use of more powerful weapons 9 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Natives 1 AC Kato goes here. Plan: The United States federal government should do what the card says: Sovlency mech—fed grants. David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al September 2002 College of Business Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 02-21, “The Implications of the Regional Haze Rule on Renewable and Wind Energy Development on Native American Lands in the West” http://ses.nau.edu/pdf/Smith_AWEA.pdf pg 6 [ev] Federal Project Grants and Subsidies One federal mechanism to encourage private sector development and use of renewable energy is tax credits. Because this mechanism does not apply or is of little use to tribes, equivalent financial subsidies for comparable tribal projects should be available. For example, Tribal Energy Block Grants could provide effective incentives to progressive tribal renewable energy initiatives. Tribes could benefit from seeking equitable financial support for projects comparable to those eligible for tax credits. 10 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Natives 1 AC Contention Three is Solvency. Tax incentives would allow Native American tribes to develop renewables, making them energy selfsufficient, increasing tribal sovereignty. Jerry Reynolds, Staff Writer for Indian Country Today, 9-12-‘7 (Indian Country Today, Volume 27, Issue 14, p. Proquest) [Bozman] "Fortunately, tribal elders possess world views and life-ways [including technologies] closely tied to the unique environments where they have lived. "Many Native peoples continue to find their identities, cultures, in the broadest sense, and most important life lessons in the landscapes and seascapes that they call home: their indigenous knowledge emerges from their natural environments. Their main message is that nature and culture cannot be divorced - that biological diversity and cultural diversity are inextricably connected. "... As new ways to thrive in life-enhancing cultured are sought out, Native traditions and world views must be acknowledged." The brevity of Wildcat's allotted time in a tight schedule, on what was essentially an occasion for advocacy, prevented any chance to explore the nuts and bolts of this acknowledgment. But at an energy conference in Washington in mid-July, and in follow-up interviews afterward, a vanguard advocate of renewable fuels development for tribes made a case for the practical role of Native culture in rescuing the environment. Dean Suagee of the Washington law firm Hobbs, Straus, Dean and Walker, citing an array of research, said the energy industry's response to global wanning and other factors are adding to the incentives tribes can rely on as they consider renewable fuels development. But in the big picture, he added, investors still want to finance big projects for large-scale energy users, and most tribes are not large-scale energy users. So tribes have got to continue injecting themselves into the national conversation on energy as a way of having an impact of the kind Wildcat envisioned, but also to attract investors. Wildcat and Suagee seem to come together in their thinking here: the unique local environments of tribes, and the cultural imperatives they give rise to, as described by Wildcat, can in Suagee's view produce renewable fuels development that generates prosperity, and makes their local environments more self-sufficient in energy. Although the full incentives tribes need for local renewable fuels development are still in formation, Suagee said the new jobs that will come of the energy industry's transition will number about 3 million. They will be jobs based in the United States, and a portion of them can be jobs created by tribal governments. Renewable fuels should be thought of as a "wedge" made up of multiple approaches, Suagee said, a diversity of possibilities for a diversity of tribes - biomass (wood and undergrowth from thinned forests), biofuels (from agricultural byproducts), solar and photovoltaic heat, and above all, now wind energy. New law, including authority for tribes to transfer a share of their tax break (as governments) to investors in return for equity, is needed to improve the incentives for tribes and their investors to-lay transmission lines from tribal wind towers to the national energy transmission grid, Suagee said. Federal agencies are already empowered to purchase electricity generated by tribes, but it has to be transmissible at a profit, under long-term contracts, before investors will come forward. In the interim, tribes can improve their energy efficiency and launch a learning curve with only a single wind tower. Energy efficiency is another alternative for tribes. In particular, tribes can lead a trend toward "green building" through incentives for energy-efficient construction in the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Assistance Act. "We know how to build buildings so they use no energy," Suagee said, adding that it's relatively easy to build so that homes use close to zero total energy. Energy efficiency however, is the hardest component of reduced use to implement. State governments all but abandoned the cause in the 1990s, opting instead to push retail competition with its predictable surge in energy usage. Tribal governments on the other hand, acting on a different philosophy, have the authority to force adoption of energy-efficient building codes. And they can reduce their use of gasoline through new approaches to land-use planning. Little assistance is available for tribes that seek efficiencies in their fuel use, according to Suagee. "We need a step-by-step guide for tribal governments," he said. Taken altogether, Suagee believes the steps of energy efficiency and renewable fuels development can lead tribes to a leap forward in job creation - as well as an exemplary step back for us all from the brink of "global burning." 11 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Natives 1 AC Alternative energy offers a way out of the devils choice of mining or poverty-alternative energy development gives tribes a unique opportunity to generate income in a way that is compatible with selfdetermination, sovereignty, and traditional Native American values. Peter Asmus, Senior Associate at the AHC Group (consulting firm specializing in environmental strategy), Winter, ‘98 (Landscapes of Power, The Amicus Journal, Volume 19, Issue 4, p. Proquest) [Bozman] When Peterson Zah, president and chairman of the Navajo Nation throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, spoke these words several years ago, he was lamenting the effects of several coal and uranium strip mines and coal-fired power plants on Navajo (and Hopi) land. Those developments, including the infamous Black Mesa mine of the Peabody Western Coal Company-one of the largest coal strip mines in the United Stateswere approved in tribal council decisions that were and remain controversial among tribe members. Over the years, the mines have ripped up land that is deeply sacred to both tribes, brought health damage to mine workers and radioactive contamination to a local river, and, some tribal members suspect, been the cause of gross deformities in newborn sheep and even of mysterious deaths. Yet these mines are only some of the more egregious of the many destructive energy projects that corporate America has brought to Indian Country. Many tribes have faced the painful dilemma of choosing to accept or reject mining or drilling deals that would bring both environmental damage and desperately needed income. Unemployment hovers around 35 percent on the Navajo Reservation, but it is less severe than on many other reservations-on some, it can reach 90 percent-and energy development is a large part of the reason. Some 70 percent of the work forces of the mines and power plants are Navajo, and they provide about half of the tribe's revenues. In the past few years, a few Native Americans, as well as some nonNative environmentalists, have begun looking to renewable energy sources as a possible way out of this Hobson's choice. Reservations in the West were typically created on land that European Americans did not want, whether because the soil was too poor, the water too scarce, or the elements too harsh-such as fierce sun and relentless wind. Could solar and wind power help tribes change the rules of the energy game on their lands, allowing them to develop economically while honoring a spiritual tradition that holds the earth to be a living, sacred entity? A task force of Native Americans, environmentalists, renewable-energy companies, and federal government officials has been created to look into the possibilities and recommend steps toward realizing them. A small Department of Energy (DOE) program started disbursing grants to tribes for renewable energy and energy efficiency in 1994; according to a paper by DOE's Stephen Sargent and Ernest Chabot, the program funded thirty-three projects in its first two years. And, most importantly, many Native Americans are enthusiastic about the idea. "Now is the perfect opportunity to shift gears and take a new direction," argued Zah at a 1993 conference on the topic, sponsored by the nonprofit Center for Resource Management (CRM). "We have the space, the people, the land. What we are now doing [by depending on coal] is going to be our downfall." For some, small-scale renewables offer a way to redress the fact that many Native Americans, whose lands bring electric power to millions of other Americans, have no electricity in their own homes. Notes Navajo energy consultant Harris Arthur, "some 25,000 Navajo, and another 25,000 other Native Americans, do not currently have electricity." Remote Indian homes and villages can be miles and miles away from transmission lines. The distance is cultural, as well; some traditional Hopi, for instance, revere the spiritual power of the earth so greatly that they refuse to allow infrastructure such as power lines to scar their land. Photovoltaic (PV) panels offer a solution that satisfies both ancient cultural practices and future needs: small-scale solar energy systems that can be installed directly onto homes without the need for power lines or for imported, polluting fuels. The few traditional Hopi who currently enjoy solar electricity are enthusiastic about it, offering prayer feathers for the power of the sun that electrifies their homes as they do for the gifts of crops, the rivers, and the land. Harris Arthur has been preaching what he calls "the gospel of renewable energy" for more than a decade, and now finally sees some light at the end of the tunnel. This past September, he met with officials in DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency, and with key federal legislators, to push a program of rural PV systems for the Navajo. Arthur argues that the program would be a natural part of President Clinton's "Million Solar Roofs" initiative. If his efforts for federal funding fall through, however, he intends to revive a bill "which was filibustered to death" in the New Mexico legislature earlier this year-but has wide bipartisan support. For others, the harnessing of solar and wind power represents primarily a business opportunity for the reservations, one of the few such opportunities that are compatible with the tribes' heritage of self-determination, sovereignty, and environmental values. A few tribes are using renewables to bolster their existing businesses; the Ute Mountain Utes of Colorado, for instance, are using PV-powered pumps for watering livestock. And Paul Parker of CRM points out that the upheavals now taking place in the national energy system are creating another possibility-that Native American tribes could develop their energy resources and sell power to others. Recent actions by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will open up the transmission highways used to move bulk power throughout the country for use by anyone who wishes to buy or sell. Corresponding state regulations and legislation will allow customers to choose new power suppliers just as we now choose telecommunications companies. In these circumstances, Parker says, tribes could emerge as suppliers of clean, renewable energy to Indians and non-Indians alike. On the one hand, some Native American lands feature the best solar and wind energy sites in the country. As renewables technology advances, renewable energy is becoming ever more costeffective, and nowhere more so than at sites like these. On the other, tribal sovereignty laws create legal powers on reservations that other government entities lack. "At the institutional level, Native Americans have more control over permits and can use taxexempt financing if power projects are compatible with their culture and goals," says Parker. According to a CRM report published in early 1997, tribes have the legal authority to build power plants and transmission lines and to deliver electricity at the retail level. No 12 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange other government entity has as many options for energy management. Parker envisions Native American tribes becoming critical players in a national strategy to encourage widespread reliance on renewable energy. Starting in 1998, electricity customers in California will have the choice of buying their power from environmentally sound suppliers. (See "Living Green," page 45.) Other states should be extending the option to their citizens in the not-so-distant future. Says Parker, "If people are willing to pay more for green power, they might be even more interested in purchasing green power from Indian tribes. If tribes were focused on the issue of renewables, they could become charismatic leaders for the entire nation, bringing their moral and historical weight behind a national effort to choose clean power." The theory sounds good, but as even Parker admits, putting it into practice is another thing. If Native Americans are to reap the benefits of any kind of development on their lands, they will have to take the lead in bringing it about. On many reservations, however, the pattern has far more often been one of exploitation by outside forces. "In the past, tribes have been passive," says Parker. "They need to be aggressive in order to take advantage of the limited window of opportunity that exists with deregulation" of the electricity industry. Marty Wilde is still more direct about the potential difficulties. Wilde, an engineer by training, teaches math and science at the Blackfeet Community College near Browning, Montana. He points out that, for any people beset by extreme povertyand 45 percent of all Native Americans have living standards below the level the federal government defines as destitution-there are tremendous obstacles in the way of mustering the political will and financial clout for home-grown economic development. Nevertheless, with the aid of a DOE grant, the Blackfeet have erected what Wilde claims is the first wind turbine put up on tribal lands. The pilot project was partly a kind of public relations effort, aimed both at building alliances with outside powers, such as universities, regional utilities, and state and federal government, and at getting the Blackfeet themselves interested in the prospects for larger-scale wind power development. "It sits right dab in the middle of the best wind site in the lower forty-eight," says Wilde of the 100kilowatt turbine, which was completed in May 1996. While some locations have higher average wind speeds, no other location boasts so large a potential wind development area, notes Wilde. It is projected that 10,000 megawatts of wind power could be developed here, enough electricity to serve the needs of more than a handfull of states. But Wilde makes it clear that one of the driving motivations behind the installation of the turbine was for the Blackfeet to undertake a development project on their own, rather than have outsiders do it for them-and quite possibly take advantage of them or mismanage the project, as has often been the case. The installation is "a glowing example of how local people took the initiative," he says. "Historically, hustlers have promised the world to these tribes, only to let them down time and time again. This project could be a major moral boost that will allow the Blackfeet tribes to determine their own destiny." The Spirit Lake Sioux of North Dakota have now also installed a wind turbine, to power their casino. By 1996, DOE had given grants toward four other wind projects. And there have been other promising developments. The Jicarilla Apache tribe, for example, is looking to establish a tribal utility authority. Ideally, they hope to integrate the functions of generating, transmitting, and distributing power, in order to serve the needs of isolated customers scattered throughout the tribe's vast land holdings-almost 1 million acres near the New Mexico-Colorado border. A mix of small wind-turbine and photovoltaic plants, as well as state-of-the-art hydroelectric and clean-burning natural-gas plants, could reduce nuclear and coal consumption in the region. According to Wyatt Rogers, a consultant to the Denver, Coloradobased Council of Energy Resource Tribes, one of the bright spots for wind developers in Western reservations is that "the fastest-growing U.S. power markets are near by"-Seattle and the rest of the Pacific Northwest. The Council has worked primarily with traditional power sources such as coal, but Rogers, himself a Native American, is trying to prod it to explore renewables as well. They "fit in with our traditional philosophy," he says. "Sources of natural energy that can be regenerated are definitely preferred over sources that must be wasted." All told, the federal government recognizes the sovereignty of over 500 different American Indian tribes and Native Alaskan groups. Nearly all have long-established land holdings, independent tribal governments, and a growing demand for more energy to fuel emerging economies. Today, tribal memberships are growing at an average annual rate of more than 3 percent, which makes them the fastest-growing demographic group in the United States after immigrant populations. Will tribes be able to use the sun and wind to contribute to the worldwide effort to build societies more in harmony with nature? The task force on Native American renewables believes it will take more efforts by tribes to set up energy authorities like the one planned by the Jicarilla Apache, more work by renewable energy companies to form partnerships with tribes, and more funding and technical assistance from the federal government. But the rewards could be great. The damage fossil-fuel development has wreaked on tribal lands underscores the poverty of this country's energy and natural resource policies. Renewable energy represents a way for tribes to join the power of their traditional beliefs with the power of advanced technology. 13 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Natives 1 AC Alternative energy would create a lot of jobs on reservations. Shannon Biggs, Director of the Local Green Economy program at Global Exchange, Autumn, ‘07 (Harnessing the Wind, Earth Island Journal, Volume 22, Issue 3, p. Proquest) [Bozman] During the late 1980s, while searching for a low-cost energy source to meet the reservation's needs, the Rosebud Sioux learned that the wind on their reservation could potentially meet one-twelfth of the entire US electricity demand. Despite a lack of experience in wind technology or energy policy, the tribe determined to harness what people were calling the tri-state area of the Dakotas and Nebraska: "the Saudi Arabia of wind." They constructed the first native^owned wind turbine on reservation land, distinguishing themselves as enterprising leaders on the edge of eco-energy technology. In the process, the Sioux have shown how communities can take advantage of unique local resources to bolster their economic self-sufficiency. By choosing a "green" solution that honors their belief in living in balance with nature, thè Rosebud Sioux have contributed to solving the US energy problem and the global warming challenge, and have inspired other Native American nations to explore how to meet their power needs in an environmentally wise fashion. A Viable Empowerment Strategy It is hard to overestimate the potential of wind. It does not pollute or require painful extraction methods such as mountaintop removal for coal or superheating the earth for oil, and it will never disappear. Although -it currently accounts for less than one percent of total US energy output, wind is a multi-billion dollar industry, and the fastest growing energy technology in the country. Today, wind power in the United States exceeds 11,600 megawatts, enough to light the city of Detroit. Experts at the American Wind Energy Associa- . tion's 2007 annual conference forecast that by 2030 an estimated half a trillion dollars in investment will bump wind's share of the US electricity generation to 20 percent. Despite the promise of wind, the US remains reliant on dirty electricity generation methods. The utility industry says this is due to the expense of converting the energy infrastructure to cleaner technologies. But the argument that fossil fuels are cheaper is called into question after taking into account all of the government subsidies for carbon-heavy energy. The 2005 energy bill gave the on, gas, and coal industries some $32 billion in subsidies over five years. Wind power companies received less than one percent of federal support for energy projects. There is truth to the claim that the infrastructure is not yet in place to bring full-scale wind energy nationwide. "The Dakotas, Texas, Wyoming, and other rural places have vast wind resources," says wind energy expert Dale Osborn. "But the problem is that they are in the middle of nowhere. Large developers need to focus on transmission, but building it in short order is not yet possible." Osborn is a wind pioneer and the owner of a small wind firm, DISGEN. He is often credited with growing the US wind industry from its infancy in the 1980s to its more robust and technically advanced state- today. He points out that transmission obstacles have been overcome in the past with federal assistance. "If you think about how agribusiness evolved," says Osborn, "there wasn't electricity [in rural areas] so co-ops were formed with the support of the federal government. It made no sense for commercial enterprise to install it. Crops were grown in -the country, but there was no way to get those goods to market, so the federal government developed the highway system." But there is no need for tribes or other rural communities to wait for big picture solutions that may not ever benefit them. As Osborn reckons, "We can't just do it with large-scale projects geared for big population centers. We need other, small-scale strategies [for the rest of the country]. And beyond energy policy, other than coal and gas, wind represents the largest economic opportunity for rural communities that I have ever seen." As the Rosebud experience illustrates, small-scale wind production is a viable communitycontrolled economic empowerment strategy that is ready right now. Tag It Green Patrick Spears is the president of the Intertribal Council On Utility Policy (ICOUP), a consortium of Plains tribes working to bring lucrative green power to reservations. As he says, "The wind is a blessing. Harnessing this gift, we can benefit our people, help reduce the impact of global warming, and provide economic restoration. I've never seen a situation oolite like it. It's win-win-win." Like all tribes, economic restoration has been a long time coming for the Sioux. In 1944, the Flood Control Act authorized six darns to be built along the once-mighty Missouri River, forcing many Plains Indians to move away from traditional lands along the fertile .river basin. While some tried to make a go of it in US cities, most were relocated to less hospitable lands and poorly planned communities on the reservations. Life on the Rosebud reservation is difficult. There is a casino, but the reservation's remote location does not attract a lot of traffic. Winters are long and with the windchill, temperatures can fall 30 degrees below zero. Unemployment, according to tribal officials, is between 80 and 90 percent, and a multitude of health and social problems persist, as they do on other reservations. Spears was only 13 years old when the land where his uncles taught him to hunt and fish was flooded. "It's a serious emotional issue for us," he says. "Clustered housing, no jobs, not much fresh food ... It wasn't our choice to move, but we're doing the best with what remains. We were giving up our land for the public good, for the rest of America." The move to the reservation was just the latest chapter in an ongoing, history of hardship, violated treaties, and broken promises. Despite the overwhelming obstacles the tribe faced in erecting the turbine - vast sums of technical data to master, a complete lack of financing, absolutely no expertise in wind technology - the biggest challenge was convincing the tribe to trust outsiders. "When you lose a war, like the Indian wars, and the people are put on reservations - they were like prison camps, initially - well, it has taken generations for people to trust," says Tony Rogers, director of the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Utilities Commission (RSTUC). "Some thought maybe by creating our own energy we would be making trouble with the local electric cooperative, that maybe they would disconnect [our] service." Similar to other tribes' experiences, the Sioux found that the economic opportunities that came their way were often exploitive, placing the environment and community health in jeopardy. In the 1990s the Sioux entered into a contract with the Hormel corporation and Bell Farms to place a large industrial hog farm on the reservation. That dea! proved far more poDuting and far less profitable than promised and it took years in court to shut it down. Experiences like that tempered the tribe^s enthusiasm for wind energy, and reaffirmed for them that ownership of the turbine, as well as the technical 14 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange knowledge to develop it, needed to be native. Rogers, who was ultimately tapped to oversee the project, laughs, recalling those early days: "If you had asked me in 1996 how to do this, I'd say, 'I'll get back to you.' We had to teach ourselves. The Elders told us to be patient, to bring back the knowledge and teach us. I had some good teachers. Dale Osborn - he just want- ed to help us. That is how we learned." Tribal attorney Bob Gough and Patrick Spears were instrumental in convincing the tribe to overcome their mistrust of outsiders, and worked closely with Rogers and Osborn to conduct preliminary assessments and to understand the highly technical side of the work. As Osborn says, "I wanted to help them do their first two or three projects. The transfer of technical knowledge, that was a totally foreign concept for the renewable energy sector." But it was something Osborn was compelled to do, in part, because of his belief in the potential of small-scale wind energy as an important resource for rural communities. He adds, "But Bob [Gough] and Pat [Spears] were superior in helping the tribes recognize the true potential of what they had, creating the general marketing awareness." The cost of erecting the turbine was more than $1 million, and the tribe was insistent that control remain in their hands. "We had to find our own funding," Rogers says. "We got a cooperative Department of Environment grant. A 50-50 grant, we had to match it. . . .We had a lot of people to convince." ICOUP was also involved in the hunt for financing of the turbine, and developed what would turn out to be a critical partnership with a one-year-old alternative energy broker, NativeEnergy. What NativeEnergy brought to the table was a bold marketing plan that would ensure tribal control over the commercial turbine by raising $250,000 of the capital through the sale of renewable energy credits, also known as "Green Tags." Green Tags enable those with no access to clean energy to offset the carbon emissions caused by their daily energy consumption. This is done by paying a little more - through a Green Tag purchase - for someone else to switch to clean energy where it is available. For every Green Tag purchased, a set amount of energy that wouid have come from a polluting source is instead generated from a renewable "green" source. The Green Tag can also be used to erect new wind turbines - like the ones NativeEnergy promotes - thus creating new sources of green energy for the future. Green Tags are generally sold to the public in small numbers, but in this case, NativeEnergy bought the remaining Green Tags up front, and then sold them to green-friendly companies, including Ben & Jerry's and the Dave Matthews Band. Green Tag financing also came from Turner Network Television, which was filming a movie on Lakota lands. Soldiering On After an eight-year process, a 190-foot, 750-Kilowatt commercial turbine was installed in March 2003. It is named "Little Soldier" in honor of Alex Lunderrnan, a tribal elder who passed away in 1999, but whose vision, Rogers says, inspired the process. "He believed that we could use modern technology and nature's resources in a way that was compatible with our values," Rogers told a reporter for Fortune Small Business who was covering the windmill inauguration. Over the next 25 years, this single windmill will eliminate 50,000 tons of carbon dioxide, comparable to the emissions from 8,300 cars during that same time. After costs are recouped - which is estimated to occur in 2010 - the turbine will become a source of profit for the tribe, and a source of new jobs in the fast-growing green energy sector. But the power of the Little Soldier promises to goes far beyond one windmiD. The Rosebud tribe is making plans for a large-scale wind farm that could earn up to $20 million a year for the nation and create hundreds of jobs. The Rosebud Sioux success has also inspired other tribes to embrace wind power. The Spirit Lake Sioux and Turtle Mountain Chippewa reservations in North Dakota - along with the Inupiat community in Kotzebue, Alaska - have recently erected their own wind turbines. As the centerpiece of its tribal empowerment strategy, ICOUP acCjUired a controlling interest in NativeEnergy in 2005, making it truly "Native." The Green Tags will help support new reservation energy development. 15 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Natives 1 AC The benefits of cooperation outweigh and solve the disadvantages—by combining non-Indian activism with Indian activism, we can prevent imperialist cooptation and achieve change. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 106 [ev] It is in this last connection that the greatest current potential may be found, not only for the Newes in their struggle to retain (or regain) their homeland, but for (re)assertion of indigenous land rights more generally, and for the struggles of nonindians who seek genuinely positive alternatives to the North American status quo. In the combination of forces presently coalescing in the Nevada desert lie the seeds of a new sort of communication, understanding, respect, and the growing promise of mutually beneficial joint action between native and nonnative peoples in this hemisphere.294 For the Shoshones, the attraction of a broad—and broadening—base of popular support for their rights offers far and away the best possibility of bringing to bear the kind and degree of pressure necessary to compel the federal government to restore all, or at least some sizable portion, of their territory. For the nonindian individuals and organizations involved, the incipient unity they have achieved with the Newes represents both a conceptual breakthrough and a seminal practical experience of the fact that active support of native land rights can tangibly further their own interests and agendas.295 For many American Indians, particularly those of traditionalist persuasion, the emerging collaboration of nonindian groups in the defense of Western Shoshone lands has come to symbolize the possibility that there are elements of the dominant population that have finally arrived at a position in which native rights are not automatically discounted as irrelevancies or presumed to be subordinate to their own.296 On such bases, bona fide alliances can be built. Herein lies what may be the most important lesson to be learned by those attempting to forge a truly American radical vision, and what may ultimately translate that vision into concrete reality: Native Americans cannot hope to achieve restoration of the lands and liberty which are legitimately theirs without the support and assistance of nonindians, while nonindian activists cannot hope to effect any transformation of the existing social order which is not fundamentally imperialistic, and thus doomed to replicate some of the most negative aspects of the present system, unless they accept the necessity of liberating indigenous land and lives as a matter of first priority.297 Both sides of the equation are at this point bound together in all but symbiotic fashion by virtue of a shared continental habitat, a common oppressor, and an increasingly interactive history. There is thus no viable option but to go forward together, figuratively joining hands to ensure our collective wellbeing, and that of our children, and our children's children. 16 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Natives 1 AC Federal action key to change. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 70-1 [ev] In this changing context, the federal government has once again begun to engage in "damage control," allowing a calculated range of concessions in order to bolster .4 what it seeks to project as its image abroad. Notably, in 1974, the U.S. Supreme 1 Court announced for the first time that American Indians have a right to pursue the actual recovery of stolen land through the federal judiciary.5° Although resort to the courts of the colonizer is hardly an ideal solution to the issues raised by indigenous nations, it does place another tool in the inventory of means by which we can now pursue our rights. It has, moreover, resulted in measurable gains for some of us over the past quarter-century. Probably the best example of this is the suit, first entered in 1972 under the auspices of a sponsoring organization, of the basically landless Passamaquoddy and Penobscot Nations in present-day Maine to some twelve million acres acknowledged as being theirs in a series of letters dating from the 1790s and signed by George Washington." Since it was demonstrated that no ratified treaty existed by which the Indians had ceded their land, U.S. District Judge Edward T. Gignoux ordered a settlement acceptable to the majority of the native people involved.52 This resulted in the recovery, in 1980, of some 300,000 acres of land, and payment of $27 million in compensatory. damages by the federal government.53 In a similarly argued case, the Narragansetts of Rhode Island—not previously recognized by the government as still existing—were in 1978 able to win not only recognition of themselves, but to recover 1,800 acres of the remaining 3,200 stripped from them in 1880 by unilateral action of the state." In another instance, the Mashantucket Pequot people of Connecticut filed suit in 1976 to recover 800 of the 2,000 acres comprising their original reservation, created by the Connecticut Colony in 1686 but reduced to 184 acres by the State of Connecticut after the American War of Independence.55 Pursuant to a settlement agreement arrived at with the state in 1982, Congress passed an act providing funds to acquire the desired acreage. It was promptly vetoed by Ronald Reagan on April 11, 1983.56 After the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs convened hearings on the matter, however, Reagan agreed to a slight revision of the statute, affixing his signature on October 18 the same year.57 17 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Natives 1 AC Only the fed can do it-the states don’t have authority over Native Americans. Tracey LeBeau, Vice President of Earth Energy & Environment, LLC, J.D. from the University of Iowa, Spring, ‘01 (Reclaiming Reservation Infrastructure: Regulatory and Economic Opportunities for Tribal Development, Stanford Law & Policy Review, Volume 237, Number 12) [Bozman] In 1985 the Ninth Circuit, in State of Washington Department of Ecology v. United. States Environmental Protection Agency, n42 held that states could not enforce their hazardous waste regulations against Indian tribes or individuals on Indian land. In crafting a standard for resolving statutory ambiguities, the court stated: When a statute is silent or unclear with respect to a particular issue, we must defer to the reasonable interpretation of the agency responsible for administering the statute. By leaving a gap in the statute, Congress implicitly has delegated policy-making authority to the agency...We may not substitute our judgment for that of the agency as long as the agency has adopted a reasonable construction of the statute. n43 The court further noted that "states are generally precluded from exercising jurisdiction over Indians in Indian Country unless s has clearly expressed an intention to permit it." n44 A similar issue was addressed by the Eighth Circuit in Blue Legs v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, n45 which held that federal jurisdiction existed to enforce provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) concerning the prohibition of open dumps against tribes, in part because the tribes have the responsibility and authority, stemming from their inherent sovereignty, to regulate, operate, and maintain solid waste disposal facilities on the reservations. Congress and tribes then worked together successfully to introduce and enact several amendments to federal environmental statutes authorizing the federal EPA to propose rules and regulations by which Indian tribes could establish environmental programs and related regulatory structures. The EPA was placed in a federal oversight role over all state implementation programs, and that authority was extended to tribal implementation programs that sought designation and approval. 18 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Natives 1 AC Contention Four is Episetmology. The exploitive mindest of the status quo that allows the explotation of tribal resources threatens tribal existence. The consumption obsessed mindset that permeates the status quo will lead to extinction. Allowing Native American attitudes into our policymaking solves. Donald Fixico, Professor of History at Arizona State University, ‘98 (The Invasion of Indian Country in the 20th Century, p. 208-215) [Bozman] From traditional times to contemporary times, Indian people have struggled to maintain a dual balance, both within themselves and with the universe. Such efforts are very personal since the strength of the Indian societies rested on kinship and social relations. However, the most important relationship is not that between humans, nor is it that between humans and animals or plants. Rather, the relationship of people with the universe is the most significant relationship, and Indians have learned that the way in which humans view themselves in this role is important for an understanding of the essence of life and "the natural order of things." 6 The enormity of the universe is acknowledged, and the smallness of humans in the universal order of life is accepted. Unlike Anglo-Americans who perceive themselves as the center of the universe, Indian people traditionally have viewed themselves as minuscule members of a vast universe. For example, the Western person typically refers to his or her "self" as the reference point and travels accordingly to turn right or left. The Wintu, by contrast, referred to left and right as the sides of their body but while traveling referred to the cardinal directions to avoid confusion and becoming lost. If traveling northward, a Wintu would say, the mountains are to the west; a nonIndian would say, the mountains are on the left. But in returning to go south, the Wintu would know the mountains were to the east, and the non-Indian would know they were on the right side.7 When the non-Indian faced another direction and perhaps did this again, he or she became confused, then lost. In kinship terms, the human relationship with the natural environment was more important than the human-to-human relationship. In time, Indian people understood that their lives depended on the environment, and knew that this source of energy—so intrinsic to life itself—deserved respect. Their collective attitude lacked an individual ego consciousness, allowing them to contemplate their societal relations and participation in the universe. Maintaining this relationship influenced cultural development and the values of life as defined according to each Indian tribal nation by its people. Over the generations, these values proved to be successful, and it is these traditional values that could offer a useful lesson as global natural resources and the environment are rapidly depleted by the progress of civilization. Unfortunately, Victorian evolutionists in physical anthropology in the nineteenth century underestimated the value of nativistic thought and referred to so-called primitive societies as savage and of lesser intelligence, only to elevate their own race above others.8 Sucha racist view has endangered natural resources in the twentieth century as the Western mentality has appointed itself the most advanced society of human existence, while dismissing the conservation philosophies of Native Americans. Racial prejudice and cultural ethnocentricism has obstructed the global cooperation needed to achieve the best answers for halting the ongoing drain on natural resources and preserving what remains. Although the United States holds perhaps the most advanced scientific facilities and the greatest wealth for funding environmental conservation, it must overcome its own prejudice against scholars of different racial and cultural backgrounds in order to stop the depletion of the environment. 9 The primary focus of the numerous tribal philosophies is on global concerns regarding the exhaustion of natural resources. From traditional Indian people, we can learn that kinship and social cooperation is important if the global community is to survive. Such relationships were deeply personal for the Indians, and they carefully treated other people and expected generous social treatment in return—so unlike the stoic, impersonal role that stereotypes have assigned them. (Naturally, Indian people would appear unfriendly to non-Indians since the latter decided early on that Native Americans were their enemies.) From the Indian point of view, AngloAmericans are less open to other people, and their friendly overtures are suspicious since their mental preoccupation is focused more on scientific rationalization and less on social relations. If global scientists and government leaders could combine the personal thinking of American Indians with the Western mind's causal thinking, answers to questions of "Who is responsible for decreasing natural resources?" and "What is the cause?" could produce a better approach to conserving global resources.10 Before the arrival of non-Indians in the Western Hemisphere, American Indians learned from their struggles how to live within the limits of the environment. The environment had a direct impact on their cultural development and directed life's economies, leading to a focus on agriculture and hunting and gathering or a combination of the two. Among the Hurons, as among many Indian people, fishermen offered tobacco and invocations to the waters before taking fish from the streams and rivers. Certain spirits of the waters had to be appeased, lest they jeopardize the fishing.11 Philosophically, this acknowledgment of animism stressed the positive nature of human involvement with the act of fishing so that positive results would occur.12 Montagnais hunters who depended upon the beaver practiced conservation hunting since limited moose and caribou lived in their country. By studying the habits of the beaver, the Montagnais estimated how many animals already were taken and were able to roughly calculate how many were left so that there would always be enough to hunt. This type of cognition became one of the natural laws that the tribe obeyed. 13 This practice of conservation ensured a steady supply of food to support the estimated 10,000 Montagnais who are thought to have lived in a dozen villages.14 Traditional Indians treated the natural environment on a social but elevated level (perhaps operating on a principle of retribution)15 as they developed philosophical explanations for the causalities of life. They observed the activities of nature and incorporated the patterns expressed in the four seasons, in animal activities, and in plant growth into their social norms, laws, 19 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange philosophy, and worldview. The commonality between traditional Indians and animals is the social outcome of their group emphasis on human-animal relations.16 In the human-animal relationship, all partners are equal and mutually respected, so that people develop a respect for all life, including the life of plants. All three—humans, animals, and plants—possessed life, and their spirits lived within their bodies. Many Indian tribes developed clans represented by animal and plant totems, and they practiced group protection and unity. They courted the positive side of life, abhorred evil, and at times had to combat negative agents from the dark side. Following traditional practices as their ancestors had enabled Native Americans to be protected from the evil that lay beyond their understanding of life. Success in maintaining their livelihood, even during hardship, brought a confidence that the ancestors were correct, that traditions should not be questioned but rather accepted; maintaining a healthy stasis between the people and the destructive forces of life depended on sustaining those traditions.17 In this sense, traditional Indians were more metaphysical than their non-Indian counterparts, who eventually drifted from their early European religious beliefs toward a focus on economic gain. The unseen powers of nature convinced traditional Indians that the laws of nature were greater than their tribal political laws, and thus, much of their own laws were based on those of nature. Consequently, traditional Indians observed and continue to observe the seen and unseen forces of life, seemingly without regard to past, present, or future. In the development of tribal religions, nature represented universal determinism, and this religious concept became an important part of many Indian religions and unified the tribal communities.18 The Indian relationship with animals dates back to the mythical times when both were new members of the freshly created world. Cree myths in Canada describe a time when men married certain animals, such as the beaver, and speak about man's relationship with the animal world. These stories, legends, and parables taken together created an oral history tradition. 19 Waswanipi hunters in the Canadian boreal forest hunted the moose more easily after accumulating a large amount of knowledge about the animal's habits, so that the moose "surrendered" its life to the Waswanipi. The hunter respectfully killed the moose swiftly, without torture, (and not excessively for sport) in order to release the animal's spirit to return to its life in the afterworld. To ensure a successful harvest for hunting, hunters estimated the animal populations and rotated their hunting areas.20 America's Native populations had learned to distribute their populations to areas of a size and type that could sustain their people. Since their lives depended upon the environment, climate and other aspects of nature influenced their cultural development.21 Furthermore, a second point of technological advancement was incorporated into this conservationist lifestyle, as recorded among the Iroquois people of the eastern Great Lakes.22 Ethically, one does not ask for more than the amount that can be used; if this simple rule is obeyed, less misfortune will occur. Among the Ojibwa, hunters always shared the game that they killed to ensure that they would not be bewitched by others, and they did not hoard any materials for fear that misfortune would plague them.23 When contact with Europeans and then the Anglo-Americans occurred, a different value system, primarily an English one, became a part of the American experience, based on concepts of individualism and property ownership.24 As other early non-English Europeans participated in capitalism, this resulting exploitation critically impacted world societies. This continues today and is especially evident in the last half of the twentieth century.25 Motivated by greed, America's capitalistic attitude has set a dangerous precedent for other world powers and Third World nations alike. Since 1950, the world has lost almost one-fifth of its topsoil from croplands, a fifth of tropical rain forests, and tens of thousands of plant and animal species.26 The environmental relations among traditional Indians and among non-Indians differ. Traditional Indians developed a respectful relationship with nature, and early Europeans emulated them in their early settlements in America— until they adopted an attitude of individual, capitalistic gain. Even American Indians were learning to relate their lives to the natural environment, Euroamericans began to change that environment. The traditional Indian's natural environment is substantially different from the American man-made environment, with its domesticated animals and plants that alter the landscape; this latter environment is designed to support an industrial, modernized society with a burgeoning population.27 This increasing population has placed enormous demands on the environment, depleting its forests and forcing farmers to use chemicals on the land to produce more and better crops. But the ultimate effects will be lingering and have many dire consequences. As other nations imitate America's aggressive consumption of natural resources and the world population increases, Thomas Malthus's theory about geometric population growth placing enormous demands on the planet's resources will soon be seriously tested. 28 Certainly, in the case of China, which must feed almost one-quarter of the world's population from an estimated seven percent of the planet's arable land, the precedent is already being established.29 It has been common knowledge for several years that deserts in some parts of the world are growing rapidly and that rain forests are being cut away due to the demand of world capitalism. The natural resources and animal life of the planet are being depleted at an alarming rate. The repercussions of human greed at the individual and corporate levels will be devastating for the entire planet.30 Throughout the history of human existence, technology has worked against world conservation. And currently, the greed in the United States has influenced the world's nations, for America's wealth is widely envied. With a population of less than six percent of the global total, America is both the largest producer and the largest consumer, using a full thirty percent of the world's energy.31 A sad precedent has been set, for other countries are exploiting their natural resources for wealth just as this nation has done without the control of strict conservation laws, all in an effort to emulate the United States. This will place additional pressure on natural resources around the world, especially for industrial nations who depend on Middle East countries surrounding the Persian Gulf, which has over\ one-half of the world's low-cost oil. Presently, multinational oil companies—Exxon, Gulf, Mobil, Texaco, Standard Oil of California, British Petroleum (which is fifty percent government owned with private management), Royal Dutch Shell, and Compagnie Française des Petroles (which is partly owned by private interests but mostly governmental controlled)—are steadily draining the world's oil supply, and they will do so as long as there is little interest in fuel alternatives, such as advanced technological uses of coal.32 In 1974, the largest spenders on oil imports were the United States at $24 billion, Japan at $18 billion, the United Kingdom at $8.5 billion; and Italy at $7.5 billion. The largest earners were Saudi Arabia at $20 billion, Iran at $17.4 billion, Venezuela at $10.6 billion, Libya at $6.8 billion, and the Union of Arab Emirates at $4.1 billion.33 The 20 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange tremendous current usage of oil and the combustion of coal produces carbon dioxide that traps solar energy in the earth's atmosphere, causing a rise in temperature. This is the "greenhouse effect," and it is predicted to change the climate worldwide. Between 1950 and 1973, a 4.5 percent increase in carbon emissions occurred, and another 4.5 percent increase from 1973 to 1983. From 1983 to 1988, carbon emissions increased to 3.7 percent, and a similar increase has continued through the 1990s. 34 The sun is a constant in our lives, and its abundant power, handled properly, could be used to sustain life. As estimated in 1974, solar radiation could provide more than 500 times the world's total energy consumption.35 Transforming the sun's rays into electricity with the use of solar photovoltaic cells promises to be widely used by the 2020s or 2030s. By 1990, India had 6,000 village systems in operation. The U.S. Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) estimated that photovoltiacs have the potential to supply over half of America's electricity by 2030.36 Another natural force that could be used is the wind, a resource that renews itself. In the 1980s, more than 20,000 windmills producing electricity were used in the world, with the potential to generate 1,600 megawatts. California and Denmark were the leading areas in this regard, and wind generators began to appear in India and Germany. One estimate reported that wind power could provide more than ten percent of the world's electricity by the year 2030.37 Another possibility is the stockpiling of energy via fossil fuels and nuclear fuels. Western Europe and Japan are dependent on other nations' natural resources, and stockpiling may be a means of support for such nations until new energy resources can be developed. It is suspected that Third World nations will become industrialized, and stockpiling could also serve their needs.38 Natural gas is yet another alternative that could be used to relieve the demands on crude oil since only a small portion of it is marketed in world trade, except where large markets exist. Presently, the United States has an estimated fifteen percent of the world's supply, yet it consumes more than fifty percent of the total available. The next largest consumers are the countries of the former Soviet Union at approximately twenty percent, which also have some of the largest supplies; the other large supply exists in Asia.39 It is unfortunate that the future of the planet is so intimately tied to political interests instead of a global concern for the environment. It is imperative that we take steps to stave off the decimation of natural resources throughout the world. International stability in politics is essential, especially given the sweeping political changes in 1989 and 1990 nd the move to democracy and economic improvement. Furthermore, sound national economies are important if nations are to avoid exploiting their environmental resources to dangerously low levels. Unchecked industrial growth has forced made recovery difficult for many nations. As nations strive to reach international parity in terms of shared wealth and political status, pollution, forest destruction, and nuclear waste are among the major irreversible problems that we confront. As examples, radioactive wastes stored in a salt dome at Lyons, Kansas, was found to have leaked. More chilling still is the knowledge that nuclear waste disposal practices in some countries have involved storing the waste in canisters and dropping them into the oceans. 40 It is unfortunate that human beings have developed technology that has the potential to destroy their race and the environment. Without using wisdom while inventing new technologies, the human race will become its own executioner. At present, the motivation of greed prevails over the concern for environmental conservation, placing the globe on a destructive path. Until this focus on capitalistic gain is replaced by a focus on human-environmental survival, all life around the world is in danger. Although conservation is practiced at some levels, long-range consequences must be considered. In the process, we must learn a great deal more about the delicate balance of nature, as American Indians knew long ago. We need not practice their traditions of environmental kinship and religious ceremonies, but we should understand their perspective on the role of humans within the environment and all of life. In changing the current exploitative attitude, a fresh perspective might result and lead us to fuller philosophies about life and the role of humans within the universe. 21 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Natives 1 AC Current rights based self-determination discourse fails. The plan’s affirmation of sustainable selfdetermination promotes a better frame of self-determination that allows Native Americans to truly be free. Jeff Corntassel, Faculty of Human and Social Development, Indigenous Governance Programs at the University of Victoria, ‘08 (Toward Sustainable Self-Determination, Alternatives 33) [Bozman] Previous research on the self-determination of peoples tends to focus on political/legal recognition of this right, while giving little consideration to the environment, community health/well-being, natural resources, sustainability, and the transmission of cultural practices to future generations as critical, interlocking features of an indigenous self-determination process.54 As indigenous legal scholar S. James Anaya asserts, “Any conception of self-determination that does not take into account the multiple patterns of human association and interdependency is at best incomplete or more likely distorted.” 55 Even when culture or land are mentioned as an essential part of indigenous self-determination, these linkages are often expressed within a narrow rights framework that diminishes the full scope of these ongoing relationships to the natural world and/or fails to describe sustainability as a critical benchmark for an indigenous self-determination process.56 While Anaya differentiates between remedial and substantive forms of self-determination, he does not account for sustainable self-determination as a critical benchmark in the ongoing self-determination process. When differentiating substantive forms of self-determination from remedial ones, Anaya concedes that remedial forms of selfdetermination, such as decolonization, tend to be limited by practices of state sovereignty, which “influence the degree to which remedies may be subject to international scrutiny.”57 Given the existing barriers to indigenous decolonization through the enforcement of the Salt Water Thesis and other global norms designed to protect existing state borders, indigenous peoples have also found substantive forms of selfdetermination, which are described as “a standard of governmental legitimacy within the modern human rights frame,” to be limited.58 It remains to be seen whether General Assembly resolution 60/147 (2006) in rights to remedies and reparations will be widely applied to indigenous peoples and their decolonization efforts. While there are existing political/legal foundations for substantive and remedial forms of self-determination, the attainment of these standards or global norms are meaningless in a discussion of ongoing selfdetermination without considering a third factor—the sustainability of self-determination in praxis. It follows that a process of indigenous self-determination is more than a political/legal struggle—at its core are spiritual and relational responsibilities that are continuously renewed. Unfortunately, as Alfred and Corntassel point out, “there are new faces of empire that are attempting to strip indigenous peoples of their very spirit as nations and of all that is held sacred, threatening their sources of connection to their distinct existences and the sources of their spiritual power: relationships to each other, communities, homelands, ceremonial life, languages, histories. . . . These connections are crucial to living a meaningful life for any human being.” 59 While previous studies have treated indigenous political autonomy, governance, the environment, and community health as separate concepts, in actuality they are intrinsically linked. For example, health has much deeper meaning than just the absence of disease or injury, as Arquette, et al., point out in their study of Mohawks of Akwesasne: Health, then, has many definitions for the Mohawk people of Akwesasne. Health is spiritual. Health is rooted is rooted in the heart of the culture. Health is based on peaceful, sustainable relationships with other peoples including family, community, Nation, the natural world, and spiritual beings.60 After considering Arquette and associates’ conceptualization of community health/well-being, it becomes apparent that indigenous struggles to “make meaningful choices in matters touching upon all spheres of life on a continuous basis” warrants further exploration in terms of “what is sustainability?” and “what is being transmitted to future generations?”61 Deskaheh’s articulation of self-determination gets at the heart of indigenous struggles today: “We are determined to live the free people that we were born.”62 Furthermore, the process of living as the “free people that we were born” entails having the freedom to practice indigenous livelihoods, maintain food security, and apply natural laws on indigenous homelands in a sustainable manner.63 Critical to this process is the long-term sustainability of indigenous livelihoods, which includes the transmission of these cultural practices to future generations. Tully elaborates: “The right of self-determination is, on any plausible account of its contested criteria, the right of a people to govern themselves by their own laws and exercise jurisdiction over their territories.”64 Embedded in this broader conceptualization of selfdetermination is a set of interlocking and reciprocal responsibilities to one’s community, family, clans/societies (an aspect of some but not all indigenous nations), homelands, and the natural world. While the Brundtland Commission defined sustainability in 1987 as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” this definition does not go far enough as a benchmark for indigenous political, cultural, economic, and environmental restorative justice (in theory and in practice). 65 For indigenous peoples, sustainability is intrinsically linked to the transmission of traditional knowledge and cultural practices to future generations.66 Without the ability of community members to continuously renew their relationships with the natural world (i.e., gathering medicines, hunting and fishing, basket-making, etc.), indigenous languages, traditional teachings, family structures, and livelihoods of that community are all jeopardized. Indigenous connections between well-being and food security/ livelihoods are critical to the realization and practice of a sustainable self-determination. When such relationships are severed, “the knowledge, worldviews, values and practices about these relationships and about other aspects of their food and agro-ecological systems, commonly erode over time as well.” 67 In other words, disruptions to indigenous livelihoods, governance, and natural-world relationships can jeopardize the overall health, well-being, identity, and continuity of indigenous communities. Just as contemporary research on self-determination tends to exclude sustainability and environmental factors from the process, research on integrated ecosystem assessment tends to exclude culture as a 22 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange key criterion for sustainability. However, according to one comprehensive ecosystem assessment framework, “cultural services” are important benefits that people obtain from ecosystems through “spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic experiences.”68 Examples of cultural services include cultural diversity, knowledge systems, educational values, social relations, sense of place, and cultural heritage values.69 Just as with the three other components that comprise a viable environmental ecosystem, such as “supporting services” (production of atmospheric oxygen, soil formation, etc.), “provisioning services” (food, fiber, natural medicines, fresh water, etc.), and “regulating services” (airquality maintenance, climate regulation, regulation of human disease, and so on), cultural services are an integral part of an indigenous ecosystem.70 Sustainable self-determination as a process is premised on the notion that evolving indigenous livelihoods, food security, community governance, relationships to homelands and the natural world, and ceremonial life can be practiced today locally and regionally, thus enabling the transmission of these traditions and practices to future generations. Operating at multiple levels, sustainable selfdetermination seeks to regenerate the implementation of indigenous natural laws on indigenous homelands and expand the scope of an indigenous self-determination process. First, it refutes global and state political/legal recognition and colonial strategies founded on economic dependency as the main avenues to meaningful self-determination. Second, this approach rejects the compartmentalization of standard political/legal definitions of selfdetermination by taking social, economic, cultural, and political factors of shared governance and relational accountability into consideration for a broader view of self-determination that can be sustained over future generations. Third, rather than engage solely in the global indigenous-rights discourse, sustainable self-determination operates at the community level as a process to perpetuate indigenous livelihoods locally via the regeneration of family, clan, and individual roles and responsibilities to their homelands. Finally, indigenous peoples begin to significantly influence the global political economy by rebuilding and restrengthening “their local and regional indigenous economies, which are by definition inherently sustainable.”71 By starting with the regeneration of individual and family responsibilities in the self-determination process, indigenous communities hold the potential to reestablish larger regional trading networks with each other in order to promote formidable alliances and sustainable futures. 23 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Natives 1 AC Taking Native American values into account in terms of policymaking is crucial to overcoming the bad squo mindset. Linda Robyn, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Northern Arizona University, ‘02 (Indigenous Knowledge and Technology Creating Environmental Justice in the Twenty-First Century, The American Indian Quarterly 26.2) [Bozman] Holistic environmental paradigms stand in sharp contrast to life in an industrial society. Natural Law is preempted in industrial society as human domination over nature becomes the central way of life. In contrast to the American Indian cyclical process of thinking, this linear concept of progress dominates industrial societies. Progress is defined in terms of economic growth and technological advancement and is key to the development of dominant civilized societies. From this perspective, the natural world is seen as something that is wild and in need of taming and cultivation. Those not part of this mentality are seen as primitive and in need of being civilized. Civilizing those who are not part of the dominant paradigm is the philosophical basis of colonialism, conquest, and the view that Western knowledge is the only legitimate way of "knowing." Even though American Indian perspectives have a greater impact today on environmental politics and policy than previously, American Indian philosophies, values, and knowledge are not included in those policy decisions that benefit large corporations and serve the interests of the state. There is a vast social distance between the parties involved in corporate land and mineral issues that causes a breakdown in communication as well as misinterpretations of each party's actions. Walter Bresett, activist and member of the Red Cliff band of Chippewa, argues that Indians and non-Indians alike are being victimized by large corporations that reduce economic options. 50 Activist and author Al Gedicks writes, "the sooner we stop labeling 'native issues' as something separate and distinct from our own survival, the sooner we will appreciate the critical interconnections of the world's ecosystems and social systems." 51 Environmental concerns can be absolutely crucial within the context of reservation politics; even before the most hostile of tribal councils, the kind of "Mother Earth" talk that would make Anglo corporate executives [End Page 215] or legislators roll their eyes can make all the difference. 52 In dealing with American Indian people when making important decisions, such as formulating environmental policy, corporate America and the federal government would be wise to realize that among American Indian tribes there is a growing respect and a demand for the inclusion of generations of cumulative Indigenous knowledge which is essential in balancing business practices with sustainability. Environmental harms follow the path of least resistance and are connected to many things such as the air we breathe, our food, water, lifestyles, and legal decisions. Developing economically sustainable alternatives will depend on many variables, such as research, effective organizing and lobbying, legal representation, effective use of the media, interactive utilization of Native rights and environmental movements by Indigenous groups and state/local governments, and an essential inclusion of Native beliefs and values concerning the environment. Including these values singularly or in combination, depending on the context, into the political deliberative and allocative process can help bring about environmentally sound, long-term, sustainable economic alternatives. With the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and values, the socially harmful interaction between economic and political institutions that we have seen in the past can be decreased while at the same time helping restore the balance which is so important to Native peoples. Clearly, incorporating these kinds of values and beliefs into policy decisions challenges and decolonizes the harmful, wasteful projects of profit-maximizing corporations and growth-at-all-costs government policies while strengthening Indian nations as a whole. As a global society, it is possible to examine our relationship with the earth and realize that our future lies in our ability to sustain ourselves and the developments we choose to impose on the environment. Native traditions have incorporated many ways to sustain the harvest of resources that will not destroy their future availability. For example, Menominee Tribal Enterprises, in Keshena, Wisconsin, received international recognition for achievements made toward sustainable forestry practices. Situated on 220,000 acres of forested lands, the Menominee system of intensive forest management "is now a recognized leader in shelterwood systems for uneven-aged management of white pine, and hemlock-yellow birch ecosystems." 53 We cannot return to a pristine existence, but we can make the best possible use of what we now have. We have an opportunity as a society to integrate our ways of "doing" to match the patterns and requirements of nature and the natural environment. Cooperation with the environment is one way to integrate [End Page 216] Native traditional values and mainstream concepts of development and future survival. With the assistance of Native traditions and teachings, we as a society can begin to identify patterns of nature that do work and present us with alternatives to ecological and global crises. 24 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Natives 1 AC The worldview we subscribe to will cause inevitable destruction of the biosphere, resulting in extinction. North American Indigenous worldviews that promote sustainable development present a viable alternative. Ralph Metzner, President of the Green Earth Foundation, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the California Institute of Integral Studies, PhD in Psychology from Harvard, ‘93 (http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/407/658) [Bozman] It is widely agreed that the global ecological crisis which confronts the world today represents one of the most critical turning points that human civilization has ever faced. While earlier cultures have left in their wake a legacy of environmental destruction, including the classical civilizations of Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Mesoamerica and China, it has always been possible, in the past, to migrate elsewhere to escape the consequences of deforestation and desertification. In fact, to escape from ecological destruction and overcrowding was probably one of the chief unacknowledged motives behind the mass migrations from Europe to the Americas during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. That great icon of the 20th century, the view of the blue-green Earth from space, reminds us of two inescapable facts, challenging two of our most cherished illusions: one, that national boundaries do not exist on Earth, except in the maps and minds of humans; and two, that the Earth is finite, its carrying capacity is limited. Because of these two fundamental facts, the oneness and the finitude of the Earth, the present situation represents a profound historical discontinuity. First, the globeencircling power of the multinational, techno-industrial, profit-driven growth monster is now destroying the entire biosphere, including the life-support systems for humans. And secondly, the relentless operation of the exponential population growth curve, which is acting as a multiplier on all the other factors of pollution, toxic waste accumulation, loss of soil fertility, loss of biodiversity, impoverishment, famine, urban decay, and so on, is exceeding the carrying capacity of the biosphere, the inevitable result of which is massive ecological collapse. Many ecologists estimate that we have less than a decade to turn things around, before the entire global system goes into irreversible catastrophic collapse. There is reason to believe that the present situation may even represent, not just a historical crisis, but a discontinuity on the evolutionary time-scale of planet Earth. While species have gone extinct in previous periods of the Earth's evolutionary history, some scientists calculate that the present rate of extinction, which is estimated to reach 50% of all remaining species within the next 100 years, is unprecedented since the climatic catastrophe that brought about the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Not only humanity, but the Earth itself is at a turning point. I would like to address the question of how it is possible that our species, homo sapiens, the "knowing human", has contrived to get itself into this predicament of truly terrifying proportions. A growing chorus of voices has been pointing out that the roots of the ecological crisis must lie in the attitudes, values, perceptions and basic worldview that we humans of the global industrial society have come to hold. This worldview of the Industrial Age is a product of European and Euro-American culture that has spread throughout the globe with its capital accumulation approach to economic development. The apparent short-term successes of this capitalist model, and the complete collapse of the only alternative, communism, have blinded us to the insidious factors of social degeneration inherent in this model. They have also made us seemingly oblivious and helpless in the face of the catastrophic ecological destruction taking place in almost all the planet's major ecosystems. The capital accumulation model of economic growth is still being presented, as by an American president recently at the UNCED conference in Rio, as the desirable model to imitate and apply to Third World underdeveloped countries, who can't even feed their impoverished populations and keep their children from dying. Meanwhile the indigenous people of the Earth, sometimes referred to as the Fourth World, are standing by, not at all inclined to follow this model, watching in disbelief while the techno-industrial-consumerist-addictive growth complex self-destructs before our very eyes, - pleading with us not to destroy the last surviving remnants of rainforests, wetlands and wilderness. Several different metaphors or analogies have been proposed to explain the ecologically disastrous split, the pathological alienation, between human consciousness and the rest of the biosphere. One metaphor, put forward by the American theologian Thomas Berry is that the human species has become autistic in relationship to the natural world (Berry, 1988). Like autistic children, who do not seem to hear, or see, or feel their mother's presence, we have become blind to the psychic presence of the living planet and deaf to its voices and stories, that nourished our ancestors in pre-industrial societies. Another metaphor for our species pathology, put forward by the ecologist Paul Shepard, is that we are suffering from a case of arrested development, a fixation comparable to that of juvenile psychosis (Shepard, 1982). This metaphor fits with the kind of boisterous, arrogant pursuit of individual self-assertion that characterizes the consumerist, exploitative model of economic growth, where the short-term profits of entrepreneurs and corporate share-holders seems to be not only the dominant value, but the only value under consideration. A third analogy from psychopathology that offers considerable insight, in my view, is the model of addiction. We are a society whose scientists and experts have been describing for forty years, in horrifying and mindnumbing detail, the dimensions of global eco-catastrophe - "Silent Spring", "The Population Bomb", "The Limits to Growth", "The Death of Nature", "The End of Nature" - and we do not seem to be able to stop our suicidal and eco-cidal behavior. This fits the definition of addiction or compulsion: behavior that continues in spite of the individual knowing that it is destructive to family and social relationships. This metaphor of addiction or compulsion, on a vast scale, also parallels in many ways the teachings of the Asian spiritual traditions, especially Buddhism, which have suffering or dissatisfaction as an inevitable feature of all human consciousness and craving or desire at the root of suffering. Yet another analogy is the notion that we as a species are suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. We, as a species, have forgotten something our ancestors once knew and practiced - certain attitudes and kinds of 25 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange perception, an ability to empathize and identify with non-human life, respect for the mysterious, and humility in relationship to the infinite complexities of the natural world. I wish to develop this idea further in this talk, by examining some crucial turning points in the history of human consciousness, in which we chose a particular line of development and thereby forgot and neglected something with fateful consequences. I find this amnesia analogy to be very hopeful, since it is clearly much easier to remember something that we once knew, than it is to develop an entirely new adaptation. We can also see that the indigenous peoples of the Fourth World, whether in North and South America, Southeast Asia or Australia, have been trying for some time to help us remember certain vital attitudes and values that they have preserved and maintained in their own ways of life. Finally, there is a fifth diagnostic concept that has been advanced. This is the notion of "anthropocentrism" or "homocentrism", which has been described by a number of eco-philosophers and particularly the spiritual philosophy of the "deep ecology movement", formulated by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess. President Vaclav Havel referred to this idea in his 1985 interview with Karel Hvizdala, when he said (and I am translating from the German edition) "I sense that the proud anthropocentrism of modern man, who is convinced that he can know everything and subordinate everything, is somehow in the background of the present crisis." The Czech president's remark underscores the fact that by "anthropocentrism" is meant not only man's apparent inability to empathically identify with other species and lifeforms, i.e. to transcend his human self-identification, which is bad enough, and certainly seems to condone and encourage a reckless exploitative attitude. (Indeed most of us apparently find it hard enough to identify with other human groups - particular those who are "different" in some way, whether racially, ethnically, nationally or whatever - a lack that has lead and continues to lead to the wellknown story of war, aggression, colonialism and neglect in inter-human relationships). The deep ecology critique of the modernist anthropocentric worldview goes further than this lack of empathic identification with non-human life-forms. Rather, it is saying that humans tend to assume, with both religious and scientific rationalizations, that we as a species are superior to other species and lifeforms, and therefore have the right to dominate, control and use them for our own purposes as we see fit. Nature has instrumental or use value only, not intrinsic value, according to this human arrogance or superiority complex. It has also been referred to as human chauvinism, or speciesism - the assumption of superiority and implied right to exploit and abuse. I suggest that the precise comparisons to this attitude are sexism, racism, nationalism and classism: in each of these forms of collective psychopathology, one group of humans assumes superiority to another and therefore the right to control, dominate and use the other. This leads us to the perhaps surprising conclusion that humanism, that much prized core idea and value system of Western civilization, is a precise parallel to sexism, racism, nationalism and classism (Metzner, 1992). The religious rationalization for humanist arrogance has been the well-known set of instructions from God to Adam and Eve, in the biblical Book of Genesis: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over...all the wild beasts that move upon the earth." (Gen. 1:28). Even though ecologicallyminded theologians in recent times have justly argued that "dominion" does not mean "domination - exploitation" but rather "wise stewardship or management", like a gardener tending his garden, it cannot be denied that as a matter of historical fact, domination, control and exploitation have been Western humanity's guiding values in relationship to nature. Some historians (e.g. White, 1967) tell us that in Europe the controlling and conquering relationship to nature began in earnest during the Middle Ages, at the high point of Christianity's ascendancy, with a combination of factors: the invention of the iron plow, which allowed greater food production compared to wooden ones, but also increased soil depletion; the rapid deforestation of Europe's vast forests (which it is estimated originally covered more than two thirds of the European land-surface) to feed the growing number of iron foundries and metal shops, needed to make plows and tools, armors and weapons; and wood was also needed to build houses for the growing populations, as well as ships for the navies of the warring monarchies....The domination and exploitation of nature was not an explicit teaching of the Christian church, of course, but it was condoned and not prevented by a transcendental theology which saw the divine realm, the civitas dei, as high above and inaccessible to human beings, and saw the natural world of earth and water, animals and plants, flesh and blood, feelings and pleasures of the senses, as the corrupted world of the fall, of sin, and of the devil, one of whose names was "Lord of this World". Clearly, wise stewardship and management of resources for sustainable development, especially in an era of population explosion, is a better value system in relationship to nature, than the reckless and ego-centric conquest and exploitation attitude which has prevailed until recently, and which still guides the activities of the great multinational energy corporations. Like the pirate bands of former centuries, the multinationals, and the capital markets which finance them, operate largely free from the constraints of national laws and governments, plundering the material resources of the planet, - the forests, minerals, fossil fuels, animals - without even any regard for sustainable human use, much less ecosystem integrity or the intrinsic value of nonhuman forms of life. The deep ecology critique of the anthropocentric worldview asks us to at least question whether we in fact have the knowledge, or the wisdom, to be wise stewards; and whether we have the ethical right to simply assume that nature exists for us to use. They advocate instead a biocentric or ecocentric attitude, which acknowledges the complex web of human interdependence with all other life-forms, and calls for us to develop a "land ethic" and an "ecological conscience" - two terms coined by the American ecologist Aldo Leopold in the 1940's (Leopold, 1948). 26 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Solvency-Wind Tribes can develop wind energy. Bob Gough, Secretary of the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, JD from the University of Minnesota, Fall, ‘02 (Great Plains Natural Resources Journal, Volume 67, Number 7) [Bozman] The potential for the tribes in developing wind energy is tremendous. The key is for tribes to work together to look at what can be done with this resource, to share the risks and to build reservation capacity in entering this new industry, and to be sure to think about wind not as a resource but as a Relation-to be treated with respect. Tribal wind development can proceed in an environmentally just way, with [*70] "clean siting" to protect sacred sites and cultural resources; with "clean generation" to produce electricity without the environmental harm associated with other electricity generation; and with "clean marketing" of the environmental attributes of the clean generation in a way that supports "green energy" development but avoids contributing to local hot spots in other regions through the sale of pollution credits to present carbon dioxide emitters. Developing wind power on reservations increases tribal sovereignty. Bob Gough, Secretary of the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, JD from the University of Minnesota, Fall, ‘02 (Great Plains Natural Resources Journal, Volume 67, Number 7) [Bozman] Because of the negative impacts that dams had and still have on the Indian Reservations, wind energy should be looked at to promote the goals of environmental justice for the reservations by bringing control back to the tribes for the revitalization of their own sustainable homeland economic development and opportunities. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe is developing a single turbine project as an initial test, to learn all the hoops necessary to get reservation-based renewable energy on the grid. The Tribe will be utilizing some of the electricity locally and selling some of it to Ellsworth Air Force Base, along with "green tags" representing the environmental benefits associated with wind power. Wind energy may initially cost a little more, but compared to the cost of either new coal plants or the true cost of existing coal, wind is competitive today. Under [*71] current law, utilities can buy renewable generation but are only required to pay their "avoided costs" which is usually under the production costs of the power. Avoided cost is the lowest cost they would otherwise pay in the market for power. Avoided cost does not include past capital costs, but only the present energy price of the cheapest available source, which in practice becomes the incremental cost of fuel burned in an existing plant. Without incentives, selling wind power at a utility's avoided cost is a losing proposition. Wind power, however, can demand a premium for its environmental benefits (the absence of polluting emissions) to make up the difference. Wind, like unleaded gasoline, costs a little more for what is not in the product. The environmental benefits, in the form of "green tags" can be sold separately from the energy, both within and outside the service territories where the power actually goes. Green tags or carbon offsets purchased from groups like NativeEnergy n1 can bring support to tribal generation from distant locations remote from both the generation and consumption of the actual power. Green tags sold to public and private non-power generating entities can be donated to non-profit corporations such as Clean Air-Cool Planet, n2 which can retire the credits and provide tax deductions for the donations. Economic sovereignty is what is needed on the reservations and building sustainable homeland economies upon tribal wind projects is one way of strengthening this sovereignty. Thank you. 27 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Solvency-Renewables Tribes can become leaders in the renewable industry. Tracey LeBeau, Vice President of Earth Energy & Environment, LLC, J.D. from the University of Iowa, Spring, ‘01 (Reclaiming Reservation Infrastructure: Regulatory and Economic Opportunities for Tribal Development, Stanford Law & Policy Review, Volume 237, Number 12) [Bozman] Initiating change and providing a new standard of leadership in environmental practices may be a legacy that tribal enterprises can bestow upon the energy industry. Indian tribes have the ability to move swiftly to pursue development in a sustainable manner. This affinity for sustainable development is due partly to cultural sensibility and partly to a degree of financial conservatism that financial institutions have demanded of Indian tribes. The growing interest in sustainable development and the global embrace of the principles embedded in the Kyoto Protocol n6 (though not yet fully accepted in the United States) will help advance tribal regulatory and business agendas in tandem. Tribes can thus make significant contributions to the industry as leaders in sustainable development strategies and technologies. Indeed, tribes can turn the disadvantage of inadequate infrastructure (or worse, infrastructures requiring overhauls or reconfigurations) to their advantage by developing new and more efficient utility services and infrastructure. This represents an interconnected legacy that Indian tribes can leave to their communities and to the industry - sustainable development of energy resources, innovative marketing and packaging of services, and the promotion of a new sense of community. To forge this legacy, it is necessary to review the state of affairs of utility infrastructure and regulation in and out of Indian Country. A hopeful vision of tomorrow emerges from a brief examination of successful tribal energy development and growing tribal regulatory regimes. 28 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Inherency tribes not energy self sufficient and have shitty electricity. Tracey LeBeau, Vice President of Earth Energy & Environment, LLC, J.D. from the University of Iowa, Spring, ‘01 (Reclaiming Reservation Infrastructure: Regulatory and Economic Opportunities for Tribal Development, Stanford Law & Policy Review, Volume 237, Number 12) [Bozman] To begin to appreciate the regulatory issues surrounding utility facilities and services in Indian Country, one must first understand the current state of utility services and issues in Indian Country. Utility infrastructures on Indian reservations include utility systems owned by non-tribal corporations and tribal electric cooperatives, both of which routinely fail to serve the needs of burgeoning tribal communities. There are a few tribal utility authorities that own and operate utility [*240] facilities and provide utility services to tribal members. Indian tribes are more often served, however, by a variety of utilities: public investor-owned utilities and cooperatives provide electricity, natural gas and/or propane service on reservations. In some cases, several utility companies have franchises on a single reservation. In the process of exploring the establishment of tribally owned utility companies, many tribes have found that electric transmission and distribution lines are frequently underbuilt and poorly maintained, leading to high electricity line-losses and higher electricity rates in economically disadvantaged communities. Granted, it is more expensive to serve rural reservation customers than customers in densely populated areas, because longer distances of line must be run to remote customers and because there are fewer customers per mile of line to share costs. Nevertheless, rural reservation customers have paid higher rates to compensate cooperatives and utilities for expenditures on their behalf, and sound arguments can be made that they have on occasion paid disproportionately more than their non-tribal customer counterparts. 29 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Possible Plan Agent FERC has authority over the plan Tracey LeBeau, Vice President of Earth Energy & Environment, LLC, J.D. from the University of Iowa, Spring, ‘01 (Reclaiming Reservation Infrastructure: Regulatory and Economic Opportunities for Tribal Development, Stanford Law & Policy Review, Volume 237, Number 12) [Bozman] Despite two decades of federal retooling of energy regulation, the federal government has only recently begun to address new tribal regulatory issues and only in response to increasing tribal efforts to assume new business roles. The federal government has vested much of its regulatory authority in FERC, which has jurisdiction over any person engaged in wholesale or interstate transmission of electric power. Power-marketing companies, whether independent or affiliated with utilities, are routinely required to apply for and receive FERC approval. Is there federal regulatory authority over tribal energy enterprises? Is federal regulatory authority over tribal enterprises inconsistent with principles of federal Indian law? Consider recent FERC decisions. 30 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange AT: States Counterplan The states don’t have authority over Native Americans. Tracey LeBeau, Vice President of Earth Energy & Environment, LLC, J.D. from the University of Iowa, Spring, ‘01 (Reclaiming Reservation Infrastructure: Regulatory and Economic Opportunities for Tribal Development, Stanford Law & Policy Review, Volume 237, Number 12) [Bozman] In 1985 the Ninth Circuit, in State of Washington Department of Ecology v. United. States Environmental Protection Agency, n42 held that states could not enforce their hazardous waste regulations against Indian tribes or individuals on Indian land. In crafting a standard for resolving statutory ambiguities, the court stated: When a statute is silent or unclear with respect to a particular issue, we must defer to the reasonable interpretation of the agency responsible for administering the statute. By leaving a gap in the statute, Congress implicitly has delegated policy-making authority to the agency...We may not substitute our judgment for that of the agency as long as the agency has adopted a reasonable construction of the statute. n43 The court further noted that "states are generally precluded from exercising jurisdiction over Indians in Indian Country unless Congress has clearly expressed an intention to permit it." n44 A similar issue was addressed by the Eighth Circuit in Blue Legs v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, n45 which held that federal jurisdiction existed to enforce provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) concerning the prohibition of open dumps against tribes, in part because the tribes have the responsibility and authority, stemming from their inherent sovereignty, to regulate, operate, and maintain solid waste disposal facilities on the reservations. Congress and tribes then worked together successfully to introduce and enact several amendments to federal environmental statutes authorizing the federal EPA to propose rules and regulations by which Indian tribes could establish environmental programs and related regulatory structures. The EPA was placed in a federal oversight role over all state implementation programs, and that authority was extended to tribal implementation programs that sought designation and approval. 31 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange AT: Lopez CP ( ) Uncertainty A. Jurisdictional battles about jurisdiction of Native Americans causes uncertainty and burdensome regulatory regimes. Tracey LeBeau, Vice President of Earth Energy & Environment, LLC, J.D. from the University of Iowa, Spring, ‘01 (Reclaiming Reservation Infrastructure: Regulatory and Economic Opportunities for Tribal Development, Stanford Law & Policy Review, Volume 237, Number 12) [Bozman] Until these questions are settled, tribal rights-of-way will be renegotiated to include language favorable to tribal regulatory jurisdiction. However, perceived questions regarding tribal regulatory authority over these lands will make it difficult to advance and enforce tribal tax, zoning, and other civil codes. While it might not please everyone, it might ultimately be best for all parties if the federal government brought rationality and harmony to this area. In many aspects of Indian law, policy, culture, and philosophy, everything eventually comes full circle, as does this article. While the courts have created a window of opportunity for states and antitribal interests to attack tribal sovereignty, tribes and Congress must close that window and seal it tight, for the benefit of all. Jurisdictional battles, and their recent impractical outcomes, ultimately create a more burdensome regulatory [*251] regime for all governments - tribal, state, and federal. B. Turns the counterplan-uncertainty discourages the growth of renewables in Native American reservations. Tracey LeBeau, Vice President of Earth Energy & Environment, LLC, J.D. from the University of Iowa, Spring, ‘01 (Reclaiming Reservation Infrastructure: Regulatory and Economic Opportunities for Tribal Development, Stanford Law & Policy Review, Volume 237, Number 12) [Bozman] In the area of utility regulation, uncertainty discourages growth. Regulatory uncertainty discourages industry from making decisions to meet the energy demands of communities. Many regions of the United States are extremely underdeveloped in electricity generation and transmission, largely because of market and regulatory uncertainty. Recently, many large metropolitan areas have faced electricity brown-outs due to a lack of available electricity generation and transmission. Uncertainty also discourages other economic development, especially of those industries in which energy constitutes a significant operating cost. Regulatory uncertainty in environmental and utility regulation is especially challenging because of the nature of what is regulated. Ecosystems, waterways, airspace and transmission systems are all interconnected. If one jurisdiction has one set of rules, and the neighboring jurisdiction has an entirely different set of rules, how can we hope to regulate for the benefit of all? It may be a bitter pill for jurisdictions to swallow, but cooperation is a necessary component of an integrated system. Cooperative agreements, negotiated settlements, and concurrent jurisdiction may facilitate the coordination of regulatory concerns. But the facilitation of those agreements and the harmonization of tribal and federal law is a task for Indian tribes, federal agencies, and Congress. When these groups converged in the 1980s to address environmental regulatory primacy and delegation issues concerning reservation environmental protection, the result was a tremendously more coherent tribal-federal regulatory process. 32 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange AT: Courts CP The courts are systemically eroding tribal sovereignty-congressional action is a crucial check. Tracey LeBeau, Vice President of Earth Energy & Environment, LLC, J.D. from the University of Iowa, Spring, ‘01 (Reclaiming Reservation Infrastructure: Regulatory and Economic Opportunities for Tribal Development, Stanford Law & Policy Review, Volume 237, Number 12) [Bozman] As these cases demonstrate, courts are creating an impractical regulatory structure within Indian Country, making it difficult for tribes to carry out sensible, comprehensive economic development strategies. One Indian law commentator aptly described this judicial trend as one more step in the process of colonializing Indian tribes and Indian lands Because in these cases the congressional intent is unstated, however, the outcomes turn on judicial presumptions, rather than legislative resolutions, concerning the question of whether tribes are sovereigns or merely membership organizations. Thus, it is the court, not Congress, that has exercised front-line responsibility for the vast erosion of tribal sovereignty. n70 In particular, courts have been pained to recognize that Congress has plenary power with respect to Indian tribes. There is a real threat that courts will further erode the rights of Indian tribes to regulate essential service activities within reservation boundaries, especially since precedents are confusing and easily manipulated. Many courts, including the current Supreme Court, are prone to using convenient dicta to rationalize their own exercise of plenary power over Indian law. In summarizing the current trend in the Supreme Court, Frickey states "that the [Supreme] Court has exercised this extraordinary authority in an area in which Congress has long operated with plenary power supports the disturbing conclusion that the Court has assumed a legislative function." n71 33 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange Inherency-Regulatory Uncertainty Now Indian Country is a maze of regulatory uncertainty-Federal action is necessary to clear the way for renewables. Tracey LeBeau, Vice President of Earth Energy & Environment, LLC, J.D. from the University of Iowa, Spring, ‘01 (Reclaiming Reservation Infrastructure: Regulatory and Economic Opportunities for Tribal Development, Stanford Law & Policy Review, Volume 237, Number 12) [Bozman] In the area of utility regulation, uncertainty discourages growth. Regulatory uncertainty discourages industry from making decisions to meet the energy demands of communities. Many regions of the United States are extremely underdeveloped in electricity generation and transmission, largely because of market and regulatory uncertainty. Recently, many large metropolitan areas have faced electricity brown-outs due to a lack of available electricity generation and transmission. Uncertainty also discourages other economic development, especially of those industries in which energy constitutes a significant operating cost. Regulatory uncertainty in environmental and utility regulation is especially challenging because of the nature of what is regulated. Ecosystems, waterways, airspace and transmission systems are all interconnected. If one jurisdiction has one set of rules, and the neighboring jurisdiction has an entirely different set of rules, how can we hope to regulate for the benefit of all? It may be a bitter pill for jurisdictions to swallow, but cooperation is a necessary component of an integrated system. Cooperative agreements, negotiated settlements, and concurrent jurisdiction may facilitate the coordination of regulatory concerns. But the facilitation of those agreements and the harmonization of tribal and federal law is a task for Indian tribes, federal agencies, and Congress. When these groups converged in the 1980s to address environmental regulatory primacy and delegation issues concerning reservation environmental protection, the result was a tremendously more coherent tribal-federal regulatory process. 34 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange AT: PIC out of Renewables Environment important to Indians. Linda Robyn, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Northern Arizona University, ‘02 (Indigenous Knowledge and Technology Creating Environmental Justice in the Twenty-First Century, The American Indian Quarterly 26.2) [Bozman] As we begin to examine the relationship between American Indians and environmental justice, it is important to note that American courts have many times in the past criminalized, whether consciously or not, traditional knowledge. Indian people who have challenged multinational corporate giants and the government through political activism in an effort to halt environmentally destructive projects on their lands have been criminalized and arrested to silence their claims. Leaving traditional knowledge out of environmental policy is a grave injustice because it is socially injurious to Native peoples and, in effect, all people, not only in the United States but worldwide. When writing about Indigenous peoples, the exclusion of environmental issues also establishes an injustice because it does not recognize the origins of social institutions among all human beings. Therefore, everything in American Indian culture is associated with an environmental perspective, even issues that filter through the American court system. As will be examined, Native peoples today are using their sophisticated traditional knowledge, combined with militant strategies in some cases, to effect change. Providing equitable justice for Indigenous people establishes an important precedent that can put social institutions like criminal justice in a context where the connection between society and the environment is recognized. American Indian institutions originate within Native cultures in ways that associate policies with natural principles and natural laws defined by traditional cultural perspectives. The following represents a reflection of this understanding. 35 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Inherency-Colonization Now Indians colonized now. Linda Robyn, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Northern Arizona University, ‘02 (Indigenous Knowledge and Technology Creating Environmental Justice in the Twenty-First Century, The American Indian Quarterly 26.2) [Bozman] Colonialism continues today, but with different foreign powers than in the past, that is, banks, corporations, speculators, governments, and various development agencies. Today Indigenous peoples are on the frontline of contemporary colonial struggles. They are sitting on resources the rest of the world wants at the lowest possible cost. Their territories are still considered frontier lands, un-owned, underutilized, and, therefore, open to exploitation. Because Indigenous populations are small, politically weak, and usually physically isolated, their vast environmental knowledge base is, for the most part, denigrated by these new colonizers, making Indigenous populations easy targets as resource colonies. Central to the concept of resource colonization is, as John Bodley emphasizes in his work, Victims of Progress, "that the prior ownership rights and interests of the aboriginal inhabitants are totally ignored as irrelevant by both the state and the invading individuals. 36 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Solvency-K Shit Plan-allignment with native principles? This reorients our relationship to the environment? Linda Robyn, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Northern Arizona University, ‘02 (Indigenous Knowledge and Technology Creating Environmental Justice in the Twenty-First Century, The American Indian Quarterly 26.2) [Bozman] In applying Michalowski's analysis to the scenario occurring between the Chippewa and the corporate/state actors in Wisconsin, it is important to recognize that identity is always socially constructed and that relationships of power play an important role in this construction. From this perspective, being [End Page 208] Indian in America is not merely a static condition or state defined by some constellation of perceived physical differences but is a set of social and material relations between American Indians and white Americans that extend back to the time the first treaties were made. Indigenous peoples have existed within and adapted to a set of material and controlling social relations that provides others with greater access to wealth than themselves. Resistance as deviance and social control is located in recurrent historical struggles to control material existence. A critical view of these hierarchical social structures argues that these historical creations do not exist naturally; they are synthetic. The age-old structures between powerful institutions and the Chippewa are reproduced over and over again as part of the everyday struggles of people. A critical approach to the events occurring between the Chippewa and corporate/state institutions provides a framework for challenging these recurrent historical struggles, the hierarchical structure of government, and its application of law. 39 Indigenous peoples have existed within and adapted to a set of material and controlling social relations that provides others with greater access to wealth than themselves. Social control is always an exercise of power. Linear colonial logic argues that those who are "less civilized" (that is, Indigenous peoples who have different ways of utilizing knowledge) are unable to properly exploit the land and its resources, so therefore, those deemed to be "civilized" (the colonizers) would make decisions about the land and decide on the "who" and "why" when making the laws concerning that land and the environment. Ward Churchill is a well-known scholar, activist, and coordinator of American Indian studies with the Center for Studies of Ethnicity and Race in America at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Churchill and LaDuke have written extensively on issues of Native peoples worldwide. In discussing issues of social control and land they write, land has always been the issue of greatest importance to politics and economics in this country. Those who control the land are those who control the resources within and upon it. No matter what the resource issue at hand is, social control and all the other aggregate components of power are fundamentally interrelated. 40 The many stories of resistance are not solely about Indian resistance, but involve an environmental social movement that is able to counteract corporate power as well. The assertion of Native land rights takes place in the context of an environmental movement willing to accept other ways of "knowing" and "understanding," to appreciate the knowledge Native people have about the environment, and to accept Native leadership in environmental battles. As has been demonstrated in previous examples, Native peoples today are challenging [End Page 209] the most powerful institutions of a large nation-state by using their capabilities to blend assertion of treaty rights with innovative forms of environmental activism. The state and multinational corporations have consistently used their historically structured hierarchical positions of power to keep Indian people powerless and in a position of relative disadvantage in the past. Clearly, when the efforts of those privileged by power have been blocked by resistance based in treaty rights, unethical practices in dealing with the tribes have occurred which have caused them injury and harm. Those in powerful positions have countered Indian resistance by using the force of racism. Sociologist Robert Bullard argues that "[W]hether by conscious design or institutional neglect, communities of color in urban ghettos, in rural 'poverty pockets,' or on economically impoverished Native-American reservations face some of the worst environmental devastation in the nation." 41 The struggle engaged in by the Chippewa to protect their natural resources from the state of Wisconsin and huge multinational corporations is but one such example. Environmental racism experienced by the Chippewa is evident in the systematic efforts put forth to exclude them from participation in the decision-making process. In an effort to "neutralize" the opposition, corporations have narrowly defined issues that can be raised in environmental impact statements and have ignored the objections of those opposed to the destruction caused by mining. And, as we have seen, with the increasing power of mining opponents, other methods of "neutralizing" the opposition must be found by the state and corporations. As illustrated earlier in this article, the state government and corporations have resorted to using the climate of race hatred to weaken and divide potential coalitions active against their multinational corporate vision of industrial development. Examining these situations from a critical perspective helps facilitate an understanding of the way in which those in power are participants in creating an environmentally harmful atmosphere which maintains current hierarchical positions of power. The critical perspective presented here can be applied to deconstruct the unequal relationship between the state/corporate entities and those who are less powerful, to reconstruct a better form of balance. As mentioned earlier, balance is a very old and important concept to almost all Indian people and affects every facet of life. Today, it is widely recognized that our environment is drastically out of balance. We are in a state of environmental deterioration that requires alternative approaches to economic survival. Underneath the rhetoric of the environmental problem lies the inseparable issue of power and what Stephen Pfohl describes as powerful rituals of control, which affect human rights as a whole. 42 The point is not only to [End Page 210] understand the problem, but also to solve it. The common denominator is direct action aimed against the status quo. With the assertion of Native rights comes a firm rejection of business-as-usual. Structured arrangements of power within our society have given us images of those who deviate from the dominant order. In a world constructed as much by symbolic action as physical behavior, being a person who has disparate political beliefs or has skin of a different color may be reason enough to call in forces of 37 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange control. This "natural" or commonsensical character of a social order is really not natural at all but synthetic, artificial, and feigned. This historically established synthetic order is now being questioned and, in the case of many American Indian tribes as previous examples in this articlehave shown, truly challenged. This is a good start, but more is needed. No single movement or group of related movements can succeed in offsetting present situations only through a shared rejection of injustices. They must also fight for their perception of justice by putting forward a unified vision of the alternatives. As tribes continue to challenge state and corporate power, new definitions of who they are as Indian people and the role they play economically will emerge. Circular ways of viewing profitable business by utilizing environmentally sustainable methods will assist in redefining the ways Indian people, corporations, and the state do business and will redefine relationships between these groups. New and different ways to take what is needed from the environment without causing total environmental devastation must be examined in the future. Decreasing the environmental deterioration occurring today will require alternative approaches to economic security through sustainable land use practices. Sharing the knowledge that American Indian people have in this area will place the focus on cooperation rather than on hierarchical control. Rearranging this focus will have enormous impacts in the area of policy implementation. 38 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Solvency-K Shit Epistemology must come first-the plan reorients our relationship to nature? Linda Robyn, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Northern Arizona University, ‘02 (Indigenous Knowledge and Technology Creating Environmental Justice in the Twenty-First Century, The American Indian Quarterly 26.2) [Bozman] Policy is built on a variety of philosophical and epistemological arguments, ultimately grounded in subjective choice, and developed using the political skills of strategy and persuasion. Based on this, the central question becomes: What philosophical and epistemological frame of reference is best suited for developing and initiating policy leading to environmental justice and power relations that are based on reciprocity rather than hierarchical domination? The critical perspective used here stresses the significance of values in rethinking how environmental policy should be dealt with and is tested by placing [End Page 211] views about the environment into an American Indian, specifically Chippewa, way of life. In other words, there is a need to reconceptualize neocolonial values deemed to be authoritative. When making decisions, policy should be grounded in doctrines and principles that stress reciprocal power and a holistic way of viewing the environment. For most of this century, positivist philosophies dominated social science with the belief that questions and problems posed in the social world could be understood and solved using the same techniques as those applied to the physical world. Some have come to question the ability of positivist approaches to deal with complex social issues like those considered in U.S. policy. 43 The basic problem with the positivist approach is its inability to provide a way to transcend political interest in order to obtain policy knowledge. What is suggested here is how policy analysis might benefit from a methodology which acknowledges that scientific knowledge is dependent upon the normative assumptions and social meanings of the world it explores. John Dryzek is one of the leading political scientists in policy analysis in the United States. Dryzek suggests that policy analysis should address ethics and normative theory and the apparent normative basis of the status quo in the decisionmaking process; that is, the values and interests represented in the existing regime and policy process. 44 Along the same lines, political scientist Mary Hawkesworth argues that in order to effectively examine policy, the underlying values which drive decision making must be acknowledged. Most importantly, for Hawkesworth, sources of power must be critically examined. Indeed, the critical study of any subject should take into account the hierarchies of power that are inherent in our society. 45 The critical perspective proposed here challenges policy analysts to place themselves within an environmental justice framework which would attempt to uncover the underlying assumptions that may contribute to and produce unequal protection. A framework such as this addresses the ethical and political questions of "who gets what, why, and how much." 46 Addressing ethical and political questions such as these is important because one frame of reference by itself does not inform the whole of the problems associated with negative environmental impacts on people of color and low income groups. The critical perspective challenges the policy analyst to choose among social values, and, because values underlie decisions, the policy analyst should recognize that by choosing only one framework, their frame of reference is culturally bound and dependent. This point is made by critically examining the values and lifestyle of American Indians. [End Page 212] A Way of Life A critical perspective offers a new frame of reference for policy-making grounded in the doctrines and principles of many American Indian people regarding the environment. This perspective demands critical thinking about the policies of both private and public sectors developed by those privileged with power in response to environmental issues. The critical perspective questions the assumptions upon which current policies are based, examines traditional solutions, and advocates new ways of thinking about the environment. While not perfect by any means, this perspective allows for different realities and reciprocal relations of power based upon mutual respect and insists that these different realities should be reflected in decisions and policies made to include Indigenous peoples. Formulating environmental policies from a critical perspective includes taking into consideration questions about responsibilities toward the environment and how these responsibilities ought to be reflected in the policies adopted by the government, in the private sector, and in the habits of the population as a whole. As we begin to view our history and future as Native people from a critical perspective, we can reinterpret the values and validity of our own traditions, teachings, and culture within a contemporary context. With this in mind, there are many things that are possible to share with our global society. One of the most important of these from a Native as well as a non-Native perspective, is the reestablishment of a land ethic that is based upon the sound experience of our heritage. Some of these values may be transferable to the whole of society now that we are beginning a new century. Native philosophies of the land generally demonstrate an ethic that presents the earth as vital because we are all born of the earth and require its resources for our very survival. From this perspective it is also possible to see how the relationships that we form with nature are of essential importance. This is one of the elemental teachings that originate generally from within Native culture that expresses our relatedness to nature, creation, and each other. It is important to understand that we must begin, as a global society, to realize this wholeness or relatedness. To illustrate, for many Ojibwa/Chippewa people, the environment is not an issue. It is a way of life. As with other tribes, the Ojibwa consider themselves inseparable from the natural elements of their land, placing environmental sustainability at the forefront. Environmental sustainability is the ability of a community to utilize its natural, human, and technological resources to ensure that all members of present and future generations can attain a high degree of health and well-being, economic security, and a say in shaping their future [End Page 213] while maintaining the integrity of the ecological systems upon which all life and production depends. The most important aspects of sustainability include economic security, ecological integrity, democracy, and community. 47 As expressed by our ancestors, we are part of nature and must begin to express an idea of community rather than conquest. Native teachings can help us understand our relationship with 39 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange life and creation as well as expand our awareness of nature and natural cycles. We can begin to see that the earth is a resource for all our needs, in fact, our only resource. As human beings, it becomes increasingly valuable for us to recognize this relationship so that we may benefit by using the gifts of creation effectively and efficiently. By utilizing the environment and eliminating waste in appropriate ways, we begin to establish a way of seeing the future from the perspective of generations to come; not only with respect to oil and luxury items, but by placing value on clean air, water, and soil in ways that will sustain us and our societies into the future. Such an awareness of life can begin to have a profound effect on our whole global society. As a community sharing life with the earth, we can see our dependence with, not independence from, nature. Through the realization that holistic Indigenous knowledge concerning the environment is important and essential to our survival as a whole, the teachings that Native peoples of the Americas present to our global society can be utilized in many ways, if given the chance. 40 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Solvency-K Shit Need to take into account Indian perspectives. Linda Robyn, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Northern Arizona University, ‘02 (Indigenous Knowledge and Technology Creating Environmental Justice in the Twenty-First Century, The American Indian Quarterly 26.2) [Bozman] Holistic environmental paradigms stand in sharp contrast to life in an industrial society. Natural Law is preempted in industrial society as human domination over nature becomes the central way of life. In contrast to the American Indian cyclical process of thinking, this linear concept of progress dominates industrial societies. Progress is defined in terms of economic growth and technological advancement and is key to the development of dominant civilized societies. From this perspective, the natural world is seen as something that is wild and in need of taming and cultivation. Those not part of this mentality are seen as primitive and in need of being civilized. Civilizing those who are not part of the dominant paradigm is the philosophical basis of colonialism, conquest, and the view that Western knowledge is the only legitimate way of "knowing." Even though American Indian perspectives have a greater impact today on environmental politics and policy than previously, American Indian philosophies, values, and knowledge are not included in those policy decisions that benefit large corporations and serve the interests of the state. There is a vast social distance between the parties involved in corporate land and mineral issues that causes a breakdown in communication as well as misinterpretations of each party's actions. Walter Bresett, activist and member of the Red Cliff band of Chippewa, argues that Indians and non-Indians alike are being victimized by large corporations that reduce economic options. 50 Activist and author Al Gedicks writes, "the sooner we stop labeling 'native issues' as something separate and distinct from our own survival, the sooner we will appreciate the critical interconnections of the world's ecosystems and social systems." 51 Environmental concerns can be absolutely crucial within the context of reservation politics; even before the most hostile of tribal councils, the kind of "Mother Earth" talk that would make Anglo corporate executives [End Page 215] or legislators roll their eyes can make all the difference. 52 In dealing with American Indian people when making important decisions, such as formulating environmental policy, corporate America and the federal government would be wise to realize that among American Indian tribes there is a growing respect and a demand for the inclusion of generations of cumulative Indigenous knowledge which is essential in balancing business practices with sustainability. Environmental harms follow the path of least resistance and are connected to many things such as the air we breathe, our food, water, lifestyles, and legal decisions. Developing economically sustainable alternatives will depend on many variables, such as research, effective organizing and lobbying, legal representation, effective use of the media, interactive utilization of Native rights and environmental movements by Indigenous groups and state/local governments, and an essential inclusion of Native beliefs and values concerning the environment. Including these values singularly or in combination, depending on the context, into the political deliberative and allocative process can help bring about environmentally sound, long-term, sustainable economic alternatives. With the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and values, the socially harmful interaction between economic and political institutions that we have seen in the past can be decreased while at the same time helping restore the balance which is so important to Native peoples. Clearly, incorporating these kinds of values and beliefs into policy decisions challenges and decolonizes the harmful, wasteful projects of profit-maximizing corporations and growth-at-all-costs government policies while strengthening Indian nations as a whole. As a global society, it is possible to examine our relationship with the earth and realize that our future lies in our ability to sustain ourselves and the developments we choose to impose on the environment. Native traditions have incorporated many ways to sustain the harvest of resources that will not destroy their future availability. For example, Menominee Tribal Enterprises, in Keshena, Wisconsin, received international recognition for achievements made toward sustainable forestry practices. Situated on 220,000 acres of forested lands, the Menominee system of intensive forest management "is now a recognized leader in shelterwood systems for uneven-aged management of white pine, and hemlock-yellow birch ecosystems." 53 We cannot return to a pristine existence, but we can make the best possible use of what we now have. We have an opportunity as a society to integrate our ways of "doing" to match the patterns and requirements of nature and the natural environment. Cooperation with the environment is one way to integrate [End Page 216] Native traditional values and mainstream concepts of development and future survival. With the assistance of Native traditions and teachings, we as a society can begin to identify patterns of nature that do work and present us with alternatives to ecological and global crises. 41 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange We’ve killed lots of Indians. Rudolph C. Ryser [ et al.], Chair of the Board of the Center for World Indigenous Studies, ‘79 (ftp://ftp.halcyon.com/pub/FWDP/International/indigeco.txt) [Bozman] Political states like Brazil, South Africa, United States and Denmark have came into existence and continue to exist because of their exploitation of indigenous natural resources. The cost of such exploitation by all political states has been the lives of in excess of 27,000,000 indigenous peoples world-wide. Since 1850 even greater damage has been dane to millions of square miles of land and thousands of miles of rivers and streams. Even the atmosphere around us has been seriously harmed. But the trend toward increased exploitation continues, even though the consequences are increasingly clear. The state of Brazil recently announced that several major companies would be allowed to "defoliate" the jungles and forests of the Amazon Basin to extract the "rich timber resources", while bringing civilization to natives. In the Northwest part of the United States political officials have decided to divert water from the Columbia River through a thing called the Second Bacon Siphon so that what is now a productive dry-farm area will be made into an irrigated farm area, with little possibility of becoming a productive and economically feasible sugar beet production source. In South Africa the indigenous populations have been squeezed into territories much too small for their health, while vast areas are being developed for a small minority. In each of the instances I have briefly mentioned, tribal resources have been the target of exploitation. Indigenous groups are either ignored, pushed aside, or killed so that their resources will become available to political states in need of trade materials or goods for general consumption. 42 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Solvency-Renewables Lizana K. Pierce [et al.], U.S. Department of Energy, Golden Field Office, June, 2K (http://www.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/report_native_lands.cfm) [Bozman] A natural connection has existed for centuries between Native Americans and renewable energy. Sustainable Native American communities have utilized the naturally occurring energy in sunshine, flowing water, and the wind. Since renewable energy is generally clean energy, it complements Native Americans' respect for the environment and their concern for future generations (the "seventh-generation" viewpoint). Recently a number of tribes have actively pursued development of their renewable energy resources, with a view to energy self-sufficiency as well as economic development. Some of the recent efforts are described in this paper. Alt energy is sweet for Indians. Lizana K. Pierce [et al.], U.S. Department of Energy, Golden Field Office, June, 2K (http://www.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/report_native_lands.cfm) [Bozman] Native American tribes are now beginning to look much more closely at their renewable energy resources as new revenue generators. Investments in such areas as ecotourism, biomass power plants, and wind farms have the potential for producing economic development and jobs for tribal members. In addition, tribes are looking at the potential for renewable resources to improve their quality of life. This is especially true where there are homes with no current electricity supply. In addition, the environmental advantages of renewable energy are significant. The development of renewable resources holds great promise for Native Americans across the land. 43 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange Politics-Clinton Likes the Plan ( ) Clinton A. Clinton loves the plan. Jerry Reynolds, Staff Writer for Indian Country Today, 11-14-‘7 (Indian Country Today, Volume 27, Issue 3, p. Proquest) [Bozman] WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Clinton made her most concerted bid yet for the nationwide Native vote in next year's presidential primaries Nov. 6, announcing endorsements from some fourscore tribal leaders and individuals and detailing a platform of support for tribal sovereignty, government-to-government consultation, and the federal trust responsibility toward tribes. In addition, the Democratic presidential candidate and senator from New York pledged to appoint American Indians, with their on-the-ground grasp of Native issues, to key posts within government, including her own direct liaison to Native communities; nominate judges who respect tribal sovereignty and the governmentto-government relationship; elevate the director of the IHS to assistant secretary "so that he or she can advocate more effectively for Native American health care needs"; increase Indian Head Start and educational funding; promote alternative energy sources among tribal governments and "work to fund the weatherization of all low-income homes in Indian country"; and bring more resources and better data to law enforcement in Indian country. Days in advance of Veterans Day, Clinton said that under her administration, veteran benefits will extend to all veterans, including the 20,000 American Indians and Alaska Natives serving as of December 2005. Citing the "Heroes at Home" legislation she has sponsored in the Senate, authorizing work leave for family members of wounded veterans, she added, "When someone volunteers to serve America, we serve them." B. Clinton’s key to the agenda. Scott Reed, Chairman of Chesapeake Enterprises, Political Analyst, Winter, ‘4 (Master of the Senate, The International Economy, p. Google) Three years later, Hillary Clinton has emerged as a giant in the Senate. Many of the same Republicans who voted to convict Mr. Clinton—such established Clinton-haters as Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire—have actually coauthored legislation with Mrs. Clinton. More than a dozen Republican Senators have stood with her at press conferences because Hillary guarantees media attention. And the typical comments Republican Senators now make about Hillary Clinton sound like they were written for Hallmark cards. While she has charmed her Republican antagonists, she has seduced her Democratic colleagues. In her first months in the Senate, she gushed and awed at Democratic dinosaur Robert Byrd of West Virginia. She was appropriately deferential to liberal lion Ted Kennedy. And she politely demurred as her media-savvy New York colleague Chuck Schumer elbowed her out of the way before the television cameras. As important as interpersonal relations are in the clubby Senate, Hillary has become a powerhouse because she came to Washington with a plan to be successful and has executed it with a determination not seen since Lyndon Johnson. Instead of hiring only Clinton loyalists, she appointed a savvy, connected staff beginning with top aide Tamera Luzzatto to steer her through the arcane rules and habits of the Senate. They showed their worth when Clinton pulled an audacious move and surprised the newly appointed Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist with an amendment to extend unemployment benefits for millions of out-of-work Americans. After hours of parliamentary legerdemain, flustered Republicans cried uncle and reached an agreement with Clinton on the amendment. A rookie staff could not have pulled off that maneuver. Hillary quickly made her Northwest Washington home the top fundraising venue for Democratic incumbents and aspirants. Her generosity, whether she appears at fundraisers for others or spreads money around through her own political action committee, has made it very difficult for senior Senate Democrats to say “no” to her when she needs an item for New York or special language for a liberal special interest group included in legislation. During the final days of the past legislative session it was Hillary Clinton, not Ted Kennedy, whom an anxious Massachusetts business contacted about quietly removing harmful special-interest language in an appropriations bill, according to a well-placed source. In response, a senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee deleted the offending language, noting the help Ms. Clinton had provided to several vulnerable Democrats on the Committee. Hillary parlayed her fundraising prowess to win a special favor from Minority Leader Tom Daschle—not a seat on the Appropriations Committee which most senators would kill for, but a position in the leadership to carve out a Democratic message aimed at countering George W. Bush and protecting at-risk Democrats. Through her message operation she is able to communicate and coordinate with all wings and all regions of the Democratic Party. And to further her credentials as a big thinker for the Party, Clinton was the force behind the creation of the Center for American Progress—a well-financed, Democratic ideas machine led by former Bill Clinton chief of staff John Podesta. Many believe that every move by Hillary Clinton is a prelude to an inevitable run for the presidency, probably in 2008. That is likely to be so. But while the entire political world obsesses about her political ambitions, Hillary Clinton has quickly and methodically become a force to be reckoned with in the Senate. Like Lyndon Johnson before her, Hillary Clinton is mastering the Senate to fit her agenda. 44 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Solvency-Job Creation Tax incentives would allow Native American tribes to develop renewables, making them energy selfsufficient, increasing tribal sovereignty. Jerry Reynolds, Staff Writer for Indian Country Today, 9-12-‘7 (Indian Country Today, Volume 27, Issue 14, p. Proquest) [Bozman] "Fortunately, tribal elders possess world views and life-ways [including technologies] closely tied to the unique environments where they have lived. "Many Native peoples continue to find their identities, cultures, in the broadest sense, and most important life lessons in the landscapes and seascapes that they call home: their indigenous knowledge emerges from their natural environments. Their main message is that nature and culture cannot be divorced - that biological diversity and cultural diversity are inextricably connected. "... As new ways to thrive in life-enhancing cultured are sought out, Native traditions and world views must be acknowledged." The brevity of Wildcat's allotted time in a tight schedule, on what was essentially an occasion for advocacy, prevented any chance to explore the nuts and bolts of this acknowledgment. But at an energy conference in Washington in mid-July, and in follow-up interviews afterward, a vanguard advocate of renewable fuels development for tribes made a case for the practical role of Native culture in rescuing the environment. Dean Suagee of the Washington law firm Hobbs, Straus, Dean and Walker, citing an array of research, said the energy industry's response to global wanning and other factors are adding to the incentives tribes can rely on as they consider renewable fuels development. But in the big picture, he added, investors still want to finance big projects for large-scale energy users, and most tribes are not large-scale energy users. So tribes have got to continue injecting themselves into the national conversation on energy as a way of having an impact of the kind Wildcat envisioned, but also to attract investors. Wildcat and Suagee seem to come together in their thinking here: the unique local environments of tribes, and the cultural imperatives they give rise to, as described by Wildcat, can in Suagee's view produce renewable fuels development that generates prosperity, and makes their local environments more self-sufficient in energy. Although the full incentives tribes need for local renewable fuels development are still in formation, Suagee said the new jobs that will come of the energy industry's transition will number about 3 million. They will be jobs based in the United States, and a portion of them can be jobs created by tribal governments. Renewable fuels should be thought of as a "wedge" made up of multiple approaches, Suagee said, a diversity of possibilities for a diversity of tribes - biomass (wood and undergrowth from thinned forests), biofuels (from agricultural byproducts), solar and photovoltaic heat, and above all, now wind energy. New law, including authority for tribes to transfer a share of their tax break (as governments) to investors in return for equity, is needed to improve the incentives for tribes and their investors to-lay transmission lines from tribal wind towers to the national energy transmission grid, Suagee said. Federal agencies are already empowered to purchase electricity generated by tribes, but it has to be transmissible at a profit, under long-term contracts, before investors will come forward. In the interim, tribes can improve their energy efficiency and launch a learning curve with only a single wind tower. Energy efficiency is another alternative for tribes. In particular, tribes can lead a trend toward "green building" through incentives for energy-efficient construction in the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Assistance Act. "We know how to build buildings so they use no energy," Suagee said, adding that it's relatively easy to build so that homes use close to zero total energy. Energy efficiency however, is the hardest component of reduced use to implement. State governments all but abandoned the cause in the 1990s, opting instead to push retail competition with its predictable surge in energy usage. Tribal governments on the other hand, acting on a different philosophy, have the authority to force adoption of energy-efficient building codes. And they can reduce their use of gasoline through new approaches to land-use planning. Little assistance is available for tribes that seek efficiencies in their fuel use, according to Suagee. "We need a step-by-step guide for tribal governments," he said. Taken altogether, Suagee believes the steps of energy efficiency and renewable fuels development can lead tribes to a leap forward in job creation - as well as an exemplary step back for us all from the brink of "global burning." 45 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Solvency-Job Creation Alternative energy would create a lot of jobs on reservations. Shannon Biggs, Director of the Local Green Economy program at Global Exchange, Autumn, ‘07 (Harnessing the Wind, Earth Island Journal, Volume 22, Issue 3, p. Proquest) [Bozman] During the late 1980s, while searching for a low-cost energy source to meet the reservation's needs, the Rosebud Sioux learned that the wind on their reservation could potentially meet one-twelfth of the entire US electricity demand. Despite a lack of experience in wind technology or energy policy, the tribe determined to harness what people were calling the tri-state area of the Dakotas and Nebraska: "the Saudi Arabia of wind." They constructed the first native^owned wind turbine on reservation land, distinguishing themselves as enterprising leaders on the edge of eco-energy technology. In the process, the Sioux have shown how communities can take advantage of unique local resources to bolster their economic self-sufficiency. By choosing a "green" solution that honors their belief in living in balance with nature, thè Rosebud Sioux have contributed to solving the US energy problem and the global warming challenge, and have inspired other Native American nations to explore how to meet their power needs in an environmentally wise fashion. A Viable Empowerment Strategy It is hard to overestimate the potential of wind. It does not pollute or require painful extraction methods such as mountaintop removal for coal or superheating the earth for oil, and it will never disappear. Although -it currently accounts for less than one percent of total US energy output, wind is a multi-billion dollar industry, and the fastest growing energy technology in the country. Today, wind power in the United States exceeds 11,600 megawatts, enough to light the city of Detroit. Experts at the American Wind Energy Associa- . tion's 2007 annual conference forecast that by 2030 an estimated half a trillion dollars in investment will bump wind's share of the US electricity generation to 20 percent. Despite the promise of wind, the US remains reliant on dirty electricity generation methods. The utility industry says this is due to the expense of converting the energy infrastructure to cleaner technologies. But the argument that fossil fuels are cheaper is called into question after taking into account all of the government subsidies for carbon-heavy energy. The 2005 energy bill gave the on, gas, and coal industries some $32 billion in subsidies over five years. Wind power companies received less than one percent of federal support for energy projects. There is truth to the claim that the infrastructure is not yet in place to bring full-scale wind energy nationwide. "The Dakotas, Texas, Wyoming, and other rural places have vast wind resources," says wind energy expert Dale Osborn. "But the problem is that they are in the middle of nowhere. Large developers need to focus on transmission, but building it in short order is not yet possible." Osborn is a wind pioneer and the owner of a small wind firm, DISGEN. He is often credited with growing the US wind industry from its infancy in the 1980s to its more robust and technically advanced state- today. He points out that transmission obstacles have been overcome in the past with federal assistance. "If you think about how agribusiness evolved," says Osborn, "there wasn't electricity [in rural areas] so co-ops were formed with the support of the federal government. It made no sense for commercial enterprise to install it. Crops were grown in -the country, but there was no way to get those goods to market, so the federal government developed the highway system." But there is no need for tribes or other rural communities to wait for big picture solutions that may not ever benefit them. As Osborn reckons, "We can't just do it with large-scale projects geared for big population centers. We need other, small-scale strategies [for the rest of the country]. And beyond energy policy, other than coal and gas, wind represents the largest economic opportunity for rural communities that I have ever seen." As the Rosebud experience illustrates, small-scale wind production is a viable communitycontrolled economic empowerment strategy that is ready right now. Tag It Green Patrick Spears is the president of the Intertribal Council On Utility Policy (ICOUP), a consortium of Plains tribes working to bring lucrative green power to reservations. As he says, "The wind is a blessing. Harnessing this gift, we can benefit our people, help reduce the impact of global warming, and provide economic restoration. I've never seen a situation oolite like it. It's win-win-win." Like all tribes, economic restoration has been a long time coming for the Sioux. In 1944, the Flood Control Act authorized six darns to be built along the once-mighty Missouri River, forcing many Plains Indians to move away from traditional lands along the fertile .river basin. While some tried to make a go of it in US cities, most were relocated to less hospitable lands and poorly planned communities on the reservations. Life on the Rosebud reservation is difficult. There is a casino, but the reservation's remote location does not attract a lot of traffic. Winters are long and with the windchill, temperatures can fall 30 degrees below zero. Unemployment, according to tribal officials, is between 80 and 90 percent, and a multitude of health and social problems persist, as they do on other reservations. Spears was only 13 years old when the land where his uncles taught him to hunt and fish was flooded. "It's a serious emotional issue for us," he says. "Clustered housing, no jobs, not much fresh food ... It wasn't our choice to move, but we're doing the best with what remains. We were giving up our land for the public good, for the rest of America." The move to the reservation was just the latest chapter in an ongoing, history of hardship, violated treaties, and broken promises. Despite the overwhelming obstacles the tribe faced in erecting the turbine - vast sums of technical data to master, a complete lack of financing, absolutely no expertise in wind technology - the biggest challenge was convincing the tribe to trust outsiders. "When you lose a war, like the Indian wars, and the people are put on reservations - they were like prison camps, initially - well, it has taken generations for people to trust," says Tony Rogers, director of the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Utilities Commission (RSTUC). "Some thought maybe by creating our own energy we would be making trouble with the local electric cooperative, that maybe they would disconnect [our] service." Similar to other tribes' experiences, the Sioux found that the economic opportunities that came their way were often exploitive, placing the environment and community health in jeopardy. In the 1990s the Sioux entered into a contract with the Hormel corporation and Bell Farms to place a large industrial hog farm on the reservation. That dea! proved far more poDuting and far less profitable than promised and it took years in court to shut it down. Experiences like that 46 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange tempered the tribe^s enthusiasm for wind energy, and reaffirmed for them that ownership of the turbine, as well as the technical knowledge to develop it, needed to be native. Rogers, who was ultimately tapped to oversee the project, laughs, recalling those early days: "If you had asked me in 1996 how to do this, I'd say, 'I'll get back to you.' We had to teach ourselves. The Elders told us to be patient, to bring back the knowledge and teach us. I had some good teachers. Dale Osborn - he just want- ed to help us. That is how we learned." Tribal attorney Bob Gough and Patrick Spears were instrumental in convincing the tribe to overcome their mistrust of outsiders, and worked closely with Rogers and Osborn to conduct preliminary assessments and to understand the highly technical side of the work. As Osborn says, "I wanted to help them do their first two or three projects. The transfer of technical knowledge, that was a totally foreign concept for the renewable energy sector." But it was something Osborn was compelled to do, in part, because of his belief in the potential of small-scale wind energy as an important resource for rural communities. He adds, "But Bob [Gough] and Pat [Spears] were superior in helping the tribes recognize the true potential of what they had, creating the general marketing awareness." The cost of erecting the turbine was more than $1 million, and the tribe was insistent that control remain in their hands. "We had to find our own funding," Rogers says. "We got a cooperative Department of Environment grant. A 50-50 grant, we had to match it. . . .We had a lot of people to convince." ICOUP was also involved in the hunt for financing of the turbine, and developed what would turn out to be a critical partnership with a one-year-old alternative energy broker, NativeEnergy. What NativeEnergy brought to the table was a bold marketing plan that would ensure tribal control over the commercial turbine by raising $250,000 of the capital through the sale of renewable energy credits, also known as "Green Tags." Green Tags enable those with no access to clean energy to offset the carbon emissions caused by their daily energy consumption. This is done by paying a little more - through a Green Tag purchase - for someone else to switch to clean energy where it is available. For every Green Tag purchased, a set amount of energy that wouid have come from a polluting source is instead generated from a renewable "green" source. The Green Tag can also be used to erect new wind turbines - like the ones NativeEnergy promotes - thus creating new sources of green energy for the future. Green Tags are generally sold to the public in small numbers, but in this case, NativeEnergy bought the remaining Green Tags up front, and then sold them to green-friendly companies, including Ben & Jerry's and the Dave Matthews Band. Green Tag financing also came from Turner Network Television, which was filming a movie on Lakota lands. Soldiering On After an eight-year process, a 190-foot, 750-Kilowatt commercial turbine was installed in March 2003. It is named "Little Soldier" in honor of Alex Lunderrnan, a tribal elder who passed away in 1999, but whose vision, Rogers says, inspired the process. "He believed that we could use modern technology and nature's resources in a way that was compatible with our values," Rogers told a reporter for Fortune Small Business who was covering the windmill inauguration. Over the next 25 years, this single windmill will eliminate 50,000 tons of carbon dioxide, comparable to the emissions from 8,300 cars during that same time. After costs are recouped - which is estimated to occur in 2010 - the turbine will become a source of profit for the tribe, and a source of new jobs in the fast-growing green energy sector. But the power of the Little Soldier promises to goes far beyond one windmiD. The Rosebud tribe is making plans for a large-scale wind farm that could earn up to $20 million a year for the nation and create hundreds of jobs. The Rosebud Sioux success has also inspired other tribes to embrace wind power. The Spirit Lake Sioux and Turtle Mountain Chippewa reservations in North Dakota - along with the Inupiat community in Kotzebue, Alaska - have recently erected their own wind turbines. As the centerpiece of its tribal empowerment strategy, ICOUP acCjUired a controlling interest in NativeEnergy in 2005, making it truly "Native." The Green Tags will help support new reservation energy development. 47 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Solvency-Job Creation Kate Burke, Manager of the Energy Program of the National Confederation of State Legislatures and Linda Sikkema, Director of the the National Confederation of State Legislatures’ Institute for State-Tribal Relations, June, ‘07 (Native American Power, State Legislatures, Volume 33, Issue 6, p. Proquest) [Bozman] Native American tribes are tapping into alternative energy sources with great benefits to themselves and their neighbors. Developing renewable energy just may be a booming industry for many tribes in Indian Country. More and more tribes are looking at clean alternative energy sources to power their homes and bring in jobs, all while respecting Mother Earth's resources. They are tapping power from solar and geothermal sources, and from wind, biomass, hydrogen and ocean waves. "Renewable energy has the potential to be as big-or bigger-a revenue generator for tribes as casinos are for some of them today." says Lizana Pierce of the U.S. Department of Energy in Golden, C'olo. "Currently, tribal land encompasses aboul 5 percent of the land in the lower 48 states and contains about 10 percent of all energy resources-conventional and renewable." POTENTIAL ABOUNDS Wind and solar energy especially have great potential on tribal lands. The wind energy capacity on tribal lands is approximately 14 percent of the annual U.S. electric generation. The solar energy potential is 4.5 times the annual U.S. electric generation. The two dozen reservations in the northern Great Plains have a combined wind power potential that exceeds 300 gigawatts-half of the current electrical generation in the United States. New energy projects are popping up all around the country. The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs in Central Oregon are on their way to becoming a major energy supplier in the Pacific Northwest, The tribes' own interest in two large hydroelectric projects and a biomass project that operates on wood waste from the tribes' lumber mill. Another project in the works is a large biomass plant that will use forest waste to generate renewable electricity for more than 15,000 homes. With funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, Warm Springs also is working on a wind energy assessment, and is studying geothermal resources on the reservation. There are more examples around the country. A wind turbine powers Four Bears Casino near Ft. Berthoud. N.D. The Mohegan Nation in Uncasville, Conn., tapped the Connecticut Clean Hnergy Fund to finance two giant fuel cells that use hydrogen and operate like a battery. This cleaner power replaces diesel generators as the source of emergency power for the tribe's gambling facility. The tribe plans eventually to go off-grid by adding more fuel cells for their main power source as well. HELPING THEIR OWN One-third of the 2.4 million Native Americans living on or near tribal lands live in poverty. The unemployment rate is double the national average. There are an estimated 18,000 families in the Navajo Nation alone still living without electricity. "Our hope is that if the tribes choose to develop these renewable energy resources." says DOE's Pierce, "it could enable local economic development and contribute to additional jobs." For some tribes, taking on renewable energy projects means helping members pay for. and in some cases acquire, power. If iribes can generate their own power, they can lower utility bills and bring power to more people. Energy projects also provide new jobs, and potential profits translate into additional assets for tribes. In some cases not only do tribes benefit, but so do the areas near the reservation. A handful of tribes supply power to neighboring communities, which can be beneficial for the tribes as well as the surrounding area. 48 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange USFG Key All Native American policies require fed secretarial approval. Nancy Appleby [ et al.], Partner at Bracewell & Guiliani LLP, April, ‘06 (Oppurtunities in Indian Country, Oil & Gas Investor, Volume 26, Issue 4, p. Proquest) [Bozman] One of the most fundamental principles of federal Indian law is the federal government's trust responsibility to tribes. This fiduciary obligation is manifest in, among other things, the federal responsibility to manage trust assets on behalf of tribes. Currently, trust asset management involves some 45 million acres. The government's role is more than just an asset manager. Federal legislation requires that the secretary of the Interior approve encumbrances of trust and restricted land and says that certain types of contracts with tribes are not valid unless they are approved by the secretary. Typically, all energy and related development proposals, from new building construction to pipeline rights of way, require secretarial approval. Additionally, Indian lands cannot be accessed without permission. Finally, federal approval of agreements affecting Indian lands is a "major federal action" that triggers environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. 49 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Solvency-Tribal Soveriegnty Renewable energy on Native American reservations would make them energy self-suficient, extending their sovereignty. Marjane Ambler, Editor of Tribal College Journal, Winter, ‘05 (Building Green Campuses for the Seventh Generation, Tribal College, Volume 17, Issue 2) [Bozman] "We believe the wind is wakan, a holy or great power. Our grandmothers and grandfathers have always talked about it, and we recognize that," explains Patrick Spears, president of Intertribal COUP (Intertribal Council on Utility Policy). That organization is developing a plan for wind generation to revitalize tribal communities and economies across the Northern Great Plains, according to Winona LaDuke of Honor the Earth in their book on renewable energy. North Dakota has the highest wind energy potential in the country, according to the American Wind Energy Association. With help from federal and private funds, tribal colleges are demonstrating the value of decentralized power production (also known as distributed generation). Whether or not it is feasible to generate enough electricity from the wind and sun to serve a large region, they have found that it is feasible to serve local needs. When you look around the towns and cities where you live, chances are you don't see very many buildings, especially institutional buildings, that boast 40- 60% energy savings. Most of us have accepted the conventional wisdom in the United States that renewable energy is a nice idea but expensive and unrealistic, and that energy conservation saves pennies, not thousands of dollars. But gradually and quietly, the momentum is growing, both on reservations and elsewhere. Governors of 18 Western states have set a goal of 30,000 megawatts of clean energy by 2015, according to Dr. Stanley R. Bull of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The importance of reducing dependence upon utility companies extends beyond energy. Tribes extend their sovereignty when they become more energy self-sufficient. Even small systems are important. Honor the Earth partnered with Oglala Lakota College recently to install a 2-kilowatt solar/wind hybrid renewable energy system at a community center. Such a symbolic step is part of social change -it gives individual tribal members more control over their destiny. As these tribal colleges pass knowledge of renewable energy on to their students and their communities, they accomplish more than just reducing their energy bills. They leave a legacy of knowledge for the seventh generation. 50 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Solvency-Everything Renewables are sweet for Indiansself-determination, less coal and nuclear use and more jobs. Peter Asmus, Senior Associate at the AHC Group (consulting firm specializing in environmental strategy), Winter, ‘98 (Landscapes of Power, The Amicus Journal, Volum 19, Issue 4, p. Proquest) [Bozman] When Peterson Zah, president and chairman of the Navajo Nation throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, spoke these words several years ago, he was lamenting the effects of several coal and uranium strip mines and coal-fired power plants on Navajo (and Hopi) land. Those developments, including the infamous Black Mesa mine of the Peabody Western Coal Company-one of the largest coal strip mines in the United Stateswere approved in tribal council decisions that were and remain controversial among tribe members. Over the years, the mines have ripped up land that is deeply sacred to both tribes, brought health damage to mine workers and radioactive contamination to a local river, and, some tribal members suspect, been the cause of gross deformities in newborn sheep and even of mysterious deaths. Yet these mines are only some of the more egregious of the many destructive energy projects that corporate America has brought to Indian Country. Many tribes have faced the painful dilemma of choosing to accept or reject mining or drilling deals that would bring both environmental damage and desperately needed income. Unemployment hovers around 35 percent on the Navajo Reservation, but it is less severe than on many other reservations-on some, it can reach 90 percent-and energy development is a large part of the reason. Some 70 percent of the work forces of the mines and power plants are Navajo, and they provide about half of the tribe's revenues. In the past few years, a few Native Americans, as well as some nonNative environmentalists, have begun looking to renewable energy sources as a possible way out of this Hobson's choice. Reservations in the West were typically created on land that European Americans did not want, whether because the soil was too poor, the water too scarce, or the elements too harsh-such as fierce sun and relentless wind. Could solar and wind power help tribes change the rules of the energy game on their lands, allowing them to develop economically while honoring a spiritual tradition that holds the earth to be a living, sacred entity? A task force of Native Americans, environmentalists, renewable-energy companies, and federal government officials has been created to look into the possibilities and recommend steps toward realizing them. A small Department of Energy (DOE) program started disbursing grants to tribes for renewable energy and energy efficiency in 1994; according to a paper by DOE's Stephen Sargent and Ernest Chabot, the program funded thirty-three projects in its first two years. And, most importantly, many Native Americans are enthusiastic about the idea. "Now is the perfect opportunity to shift gears and take a new direction," argued Zah at a 1993 conference on the topic, sponsored by the nonprofit Center for Resource Management (CRM). "We have the space, the people, the land. What we are now doing [by depending on coal] is going to be our downfall." For some, small-scale renewables offer a way to redress the fact that many Native Americans, whose lands bring electric power to millions of other Americans, have no electricity in their own homes. Notes Navajo energy consultant Harris Arthur, "some 25,000 Navajo, and another 25,000 other Native Americans, do not currently have electricity." Remote Indian homes and villages can be miles and miles away from transmission lines. The distance is cultural, as well; some traditional Hopi, for instance, revere the spiritual power of the earth so greatly that they refuse to allow infrastructure such as power lines to scar their land. Photovoltaic (PV) panels offer a solution that satisfies both ancient cultural practices and future needs: small-scale solar energy systems that can be installed directly onto homes without the need for power lines or for imported, polluting fuels. The few traditional Hopi who currently enjoy solar electricity are enthusiastic about it, offering prayer feathers for the power of the sun that electrifies their homes as they do for the gifts of crops, the rivers, and the land. Harris Arthur has been preaching what he calls "the gospel of renewable energy" for more than a decade, and now finally sees some light at the end of the tunnel. This past September, he met with officials in DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency, and with key federal legislators, to push a program of rural PV systems for the Navajo. Arthur argues that the program would be a natural part of President Clinton's "Million Solar Roofs" initiative. If his efforts for federal funding fall through, however, he intends to revive a bill "which was filibustered to death" in the New Mexico legislature earlier this year-but has wide bipartisan support. For others, the harnessing of solar and wind power represents primarily a business opportunity for the reservations, one of the few such opportunities that are compatible with the tribes' heritage of self-determination, sovereignty, and environmental values. A few tribes are using renewables to bolster their existing businesses; the Ute Mountain Utes of Colorado, for instance, are using PV-powered pumps for watering livestock. And Paul Parker of CRM points out that the upheavals now taking place in the national energy system are creating another possibility-that Native American tribes could develop their energy resources and sell power to others. Recent actions by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will open up the transmission highways used to move bulk power throughout the country for use by anyone who wishes to buy or sell. Corresponding state regulations and legislation will allow customers to choose new power suppliers just as we now choose telecommunications companies. In these circumstances, Parker says, tribes could emerge as suppliers of clean, renewable energy to Indians and non-Indians alike. On the one hand, some Native American lands feature the best solar and wind energy sites in the country. As renewables technology advances, renewable energy is becoming ever more costeffective, and nowhere more so than at sites like these. On the other, tribal sovereignty laws create legal powers on reservations that other government entities lack. "At the institutional level, Native Americans have more control over permits and can use taxexempt financing if power projects are compatible with their culture and goals," says Parker. According to a CRM report published in early 1997, tribes have the legal authority to build power plants and transmission lines and to deliver electricity at the retail level. No other government entity has as many options for energy management. Parker envisions Native American tribes becoming critical players in a national strategy to encourage widespread reliance on renewable energy. Starting in 1998, electricity customers in California will have the choice of buying their power from environmentally sound suppliers. (See "Living Green," page 45.) Other 51 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange states should be extending the option to their citizens in the not-so-distant future. Says Parker, "If people are willing to pay more for green power, they might be even more interested in purchasing green power from Indian tribes. If tribes were focused on the issue of renewables, they could become charismatic leaders for the entire nation, bringing their moral and historical weight behind a national effort to choose clean power." The theory sounds good, but as even Parker admits, putting it into practice is another thing. If Native Americans are to reap the benefits of any kind of development on their lands, they will have to take the lead in bringing it about. On many reservations, however, the pattern has far more often been one of exploitation by outside forces. "In the past, tribes have been passive," says Parker. "They need to be aggressive in order to take advantage of the limited window of opportunity that exists with deregulation" of the electricity industry. Marty Wilde is still more direct about the potential difficulties. Wilde, an engineer by training, teaches math and science at the Blackfeet Community College near Browning, Montana. He points out that, for any people beset by extreme povertyand 45 percent of all Native Americans have living standards below the level the federal government defines as destitution-there are tremendous obstacles in the way of mustering the political will and financial clout for home-grown economic development. Nevertheless, with the aid of a DOE grant, the Blackfeet have erected what Wilde claims is the first wind turbine put up on tribal lands. The pilot project was partly a kind of public relations effort, aimed both at building alliances with outside powers, such as universities, regional utilities, and state and federal government, and at getting the Blackfeet themselves interested in the prospects for larger-scale wind power development. "It sits right dab in the middle of the best wind site in the lower forty-eight," says Wilde of the 100kilowatt turbine, which was completed in May 1996. While some locations have higher average wind speeds, no other location boasts so large a potential wind development area, notes Wilde. It is projected that 10,000 megawatts of wind power could be developed here, enough electricity to serve the needs of more than a handfull of states. But Wilde makes it clear that one of the driving motivations behind the installation of the turbine was for the Blackfeet to undertake a development project on their own, rather than have outsiders do it for them-and quite possibly take advantage of them or mismanage the project, as has often been the case. The installation is "a glowing example of how local people took the initiative," he says. "Historically, hustlers have promised the world to these tribes, only to let them down time and time again. This project could be a major moral boost that will allow the Blackfeet tribes to determine their own destiny." The Spirit Lake Sioux of North Dakota have now also installed a wind turbine, to power their casino. By 1996, DOE had given grants toward four other wind projects. And there have been other promising developments. The Jicarilla Apache tribe, for example, is looking to establish a tribal utility authority. Ideally, they hope to integrate the functions of generating, transmitting, and distributing power, in order to serve the needs of isolated customers scattered throughout the tribe's vast land holdings-almost 1 million acres near the New Mexico-Colorado border. A mix of small wind-turbine and photovoltaic plants, as well as state-of-the-art hydroelectric and clean-burning natural-gas plants, could reduce nuclear and coal consumption in the region. According to Wyatt Rogers, a consultant to the Denver, Coloradobased Council of Energy Resource Tribes, one of the bright spots for wind developers in Western reservations is that "the fastest-growing U.S. power markets are near by"-Seattle and the rest of the Pacific Northwest. The Council has worked primarily with traditional power sources such as coal, but Rogers, himself a Native American, is trying to prod it to explore renewables as well. They "fit in with our traditional philosophy," he says. "Sources of natural energy that can be regenerated are definitely preferred over sources that must be wasted." All told, the federal government recognizes the sovereignty of over 500 different American Indian tribes and Native Alaskan groups. Nearly all have long-established land holdings, independent tribal governments, and a growing demand for more energy to fuel emerging economies. Today, tribal memberships are growing at an average annual rate of more than 3 percent, which makes them the fastest-growing demographic group in the United States after immigrant populations. Will tribes be able to use the sun and wind to contribute to the worldwide effort to build societies more in harmony with nature? The task force on Native American renewables believes it will take more efforts by tribes to set up energy authorities like the one planned by the Jicarilla Apache, more work by renewable energy companies to form partnerships with tribes, and more funding and technical assistance from the federal government. But the rewards could be great. The damage fossil-fuel development has wreaked on tribal lands underscores the poverty of this country's energy and natural resource policies. Renewable energy represents a way for tribes to join the power of their traditional beliefs with the power of advanced technology. 52 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Mines fuck up Indians. Donald Fixico, Professor of History at Arizona State University, ‘98 (The Invasion of Indian Country in the 20th Century, p. 145) [Bozman] Mining operations are lending credence to the traditionalists' fears. As their machines scar mother earth and jeopardize the relationship between nature and mankind, the companies bring more non-Indians onto the reservation. Soon, the non-Indians may outnumber the Native people on their own lands. If current mining operations continue on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, for instance, twenty non-Indians will be brought in for every Cheyenne living there.14 Many Indians charge that tribal leaders are abusing not only their land but also their people and their culture by cooperating with energy companies. 53 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange Energy is Important to Indians Donald Fixico, Professor of History at Arizona State University, ‘98 (The Invasion of Indian Country in the 20th Century, p. 154) [Bozman] The energy crises and the industrial demand for natural resources on Indian lands imply serious repercussions for the tribes' future. The anticipated outcomes are both positive and negative and will have tremendous impact on Indian leaders, tribal members, and reservation lands. The mining operations, the gasification plants to convert coal into gas, and the facilities necessary to produce electricity are extensive and cover large areas of land; as a result, reservation supplies of nonreplaceable natural resources are being severely depleted. In addition, land formations that have religious significance to the people are permanently damaged. Even with reclamation attempts to restore the land to its original state, it will never be the same to the traditional Indian. 54 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange AT: CERT CP CERT is a joke-it’s mismanaged and Native Americans hate it. Donald Fixico, Professor of History at Arizona State University, ‘98 (The Invasion of Indian Country in the 20th Century, p. 169) [Bozman] The stability of CERT has been weakened by the suspicion that it is mismanaged and that it has given poor advice to tribes. Furthermore, four tribes have withdrawn from CERT. The Cheyenne River Sioux of South Dakota withdrew because they were convinced that CERT would force their tribe to mine its uranium. The Colville Confederated Tribes of Washington withdrew due to disagreement with CERT's aggressive public relations, and the Shoshone and Arapaho Tribes of the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming became skeptical that CERT had any special expertise to offer them. The Assiniboine-Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation considered withdrawing from CERT after an article appeared in a national Indian newspaper claiming that the organization was not totally accountable to the tribes. CERT only met with the tribal board of directors twice a year, and critics claimed that the directors were not sufficiently involved with CERT business to direct the organization.34 55 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Solvency-Okanagan Ethics Jeanette Armstrong, Native American, Director of the En’Owkin International School of Writing, ‘95 (http://www.sacredland.org/resources/bibliography/armstrong.html) [Bozman] The third difference between the Okanagan perception of the self and that of the dominant culture has to do with the "us" that is place: the capacity to know we are everything that surrounds us; to experience our humanness in relation to all else and in consequence to know how we affect the world around us. The Okanagan word for "our place on the land" and "our language" is the same, The Okanagan language is thought of as the "language of the land." This means that the land has taught us our language. The way we survived is to speak the language that the land offered us as its teachings. To know all the plants, animals seasons and construct language for them. We also refer to the land and our bodies with the same root syllable. This means that the flesh which is our body is pieces of the land come to us through the things which the land is. The soil, the water, the air, and all other life-forms contributed parts to be our flesh. We are our land/ place. Not to know and to celebrate this is to be without language and without land. It is to be displaced. The Okanagan teaches that anything displaced from all that it requires to survive in health will eventually perish. Unless place can be relearned, it compels all other life forms to displacement and then ruin. This is what is referred to as "wildness": a thing that cannot survive without special protective measures and that requires other life forms to change behavior in its vicinity. As Okanagans, our most essential responsibility is to learn to bond our whole individual selves and our communal selves to the land. Many of our ceremonies have been constructed for this. We join with the larger self, outward to the land, and rejoice in all that we are. We are this one part of Earth. Without this self we are not human: we yearn; we are incomplete; we are wild, needing to learn our place as land pieces. We cannot find joy because we need place in this sense to nurture and protect our family/community/self. The thing Okanagans feat worst of all is to be removed from the land that is their life and their spirit. Hands of the Spirit The fourth difference between the Okanagan conception of the self and that of the dominant culture has to do with the idea that, as Earth pieces, we are an old life-form. As an old life-form, we each travel a short journey through time, in which we briefly occupy a space as a part of an old human presence on the land. The Okanagan word for "Earth" uses the same root syllable as the word for our spirit-self. It is also the word for referring to all life forces as one spirit in the same way as the human spirit capacity. The Okanagan points out that all things are the same in this way. In that capacity everything we see is a spirit. Spirit is not something that is invisible, in the mind, or subjective. It exists. We are part of that existence in a microscopic way. The Okanagan teaches that we are tiny and unknowledgeable in our individual selves; it is the whole-Earth part of us that contains immense knowledge. Over the generations of human life, we have come to discern small parts of that knowledge, and humans house this internally. The way we act in our human capacity has significant effects on the Earth because it is said that we are the hands of the spirit, in that we can fashion Earth pieces with that knowledge and therefore transform the Earth. It is our most powerful potential, and so we are told that we are responsible for the Earth. We are keepers of the Earth because we are Earth. We are old Earth. 56 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange AT: Economic Development not compatible with tribal culture Marjane Ambler, Former Editor of the Tribal College Journal, Spring, ‘91 (Indian energies devoted to self-sufficiency, National Forum Volume 71, Issue 2, p. Ebsco) [Bozman] Across the nation, tribes gradually now are finding ways to make economic progress fit into their own value systems. Economists have begun to recognize the feasibility of such combinations of cultural and economic self-determination. Tribes reject the proposition, common among some non-Indians, that having jobs necessitates rejecting their culture. "You do not have to be poor to be Indian," the Americans for Indian Opportunity (a national Indian organization) says, only half jokingly. Asked by a non-Indian whether he had become less Indian when he became a lawyer, Philip Sam Deloria asked rhetorically in return, "Does a car mechanic become a Volkswagen when he learns his profession?" 57 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange AT: Tech/Modern Shit not compatible with Indian culture. Marjane Ambler, Former Editor of the Tribal College Journal, Spring, ‘91 (Indian energies devoted to self-sufficiency, National Forum Volume 71, Issue 2, p. Ebsco) [Bozman] Many outsiders do not understand that Indian culture has never been static, that Indian people have adapted to survive. In the 1700s, they recognized the benefits of European-introduced trade goods, such as horses and glass beads, and adopted them into their tribal economic systems. Today, they continue to seek methods to combine the best of their own ways with those of the dominant society in order to survive in a cash economy. Tribes use income from commercial ventures to sponsor language camps where young tribal members can learn their native tongues. Some use their income to support tribal colleges, which reinforce cultural practices while instilling skills important to Western education. Too often non-Indians automatically reject the idea of oil wells, factories, or bingo parlors on Indian reservations. They assume that when such development occurs, the traditions vanish. Such mythology encourages a fatalism, as if American Indians will necessarily be destroyed, either by poverty or by Western industrialization overriding anachronistic cultures. 58 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Solvency-New Epistemology Kerri Halliday, Writer for Gatherings (Magazine about Ecopsychology), August, ‘03 (http://www.ecopsychology.org/journal/gatherings8/html/mirror/defining_halliday.html) [Bozman] There has been an increasing awareness by many authors that environmental problems manifesting themselves today result from the relationship humans have with their environment. Consequently, there has been growing attention given to gaining insights into the relationship humans have with nature. This has resulted in many suggestions being put forward as remedies for “healing” what has been identified as the human/nature split. Many of the suggestions revolve around the need for there to be a shift from our current mechanistic, Newtonian worldview to a new worldview. Wilber (1990), for example, proposes a truly unified worldview one that “would unite science, philosophy-psychology and religion-mysticism”, while Capra (1992) would characterise the new paradigm as needing to be “holistic, ecological, or systemic“. This “transcendental paradigm”, advanced by Wilber (1990) and supported by Matus and Steindl-Rast (1992), or “overall knowledge quest” would include not only the “hardware” of physical sciences but also the “soft ware” of philosophy and psychology and the “transcendental ware” of mystical-spiritual religion” (Wilber, 1990). Spretnak (1993) also believes the ecological problems we face today are due to our epistemology and drive for modernity. For solutions to the problems she believes it is necessary to examine and adopt aspects of the wisdom traditions into our new epistemology. The wisdom traditions she explores are: the wisdom of the Buddha’s teachings about Dhamma, the wisdom of Native American spirituality, the wisdom of Goddess spirituality and the wisdom of the Abrahamic traditions. Kerri Halliday, Writer for Gatherings (Magazine about Ecopsychology), August, ‘03 (http://www.ecopsychology.org/journal/gatherings8/html/mirror/defining_halliday.html) [Bozman] Spretnak (1993) believes as we seek to renew a sense of deep connectedness with the rest of the natural world, the native people’s intimate relationship with the cosmological processes show us what is possible. Metzner (1993) would support this view believing the comparison of our own culture to Native cultures is very important in alleviating the conceptions of the spirit/nature spilt so prevalent in the western worldview. To address our perceived split from nature we need to recognise and respect worldviews and spiritual practices different from our own, with Metzner (1995) believing that this is “perhaps the best antidote to the West’s fixation on the life-destroying dissociation between spirit and nature”. Metzner (1993) believes for native peoples “spirituality is not separate or above nature - the spiritual is the natural”. Kerri Halliday, Writer for Gatherings (Magazine about Ecopsychology), August, ‘03 (http://www.ecopsychology.org/journal/gatherings8/html/mirror/defining_halliday.html) [Bozman] The overwhelming consensus by authors of the spiritual traditions of native peoples is that they give us a sense of our subtle interelatedness with the rest of the natural world. This is highlighted by Spretnak (1993) in the following passage “the cosmic union of humans and the rest of the Earth community”, including the stars and the moon, is central to the Native American worldview. Native people perceive “the environment” as a sensate, conscious entity suffused with spiritual powers. Hence their interactions are a respectful and spiritual exchange. “Everything we do is a prayer. Our religion is a way of life. In, fact, there is no word in Indian languages for “religion”, the closest concept usually being “the way you live”. At the heart of western society’s problems is that the “sense of the sacred - our human perception of the larger reality, ultimate mystery, or creativity in the universe- has become so diminished that we lack the richly nuanced spiritual vocabulary of the language and visual arts that is the birthright of everyone born into a traditional native culture” (Spretnak, 1993). Clearly modern society is out of touch with the insights of the great wisdom traditions, those rich cultural repositories of thousands of years of human development of relationship with the sacred. 59 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange Solvency-K Shit/Epistemology The worldview we subscribe to will cause inevitable destruction of the biosphere, resulting in extinction. North American Indigenous worldviews that promote sustainable development present a viable alternative. Ralph Metzner, President of the Green Earth Foundation, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the California Institute of Integral Studies, PhD in Psychology from Harvard, ‘93 (http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/407/658) [Bozman] It is widely agreed that the global ecological crisis which confronts the world today represents one of the most critical turning points that human civilization has ever faced. While earlier cultures have left in their wake a legacy of environmental destruction, including the classical civilizations of Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Mesoamerica and China, it has always been possible, in the past, to migrate elsewhere to escape the consequences of deforestation and desertification. In fact, to escape from ecological destruction and overcrowding was probably one of the chief unacknowledged motives behind the mass migrations from Europe to the Americas during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. That great icon of the 20th century, the view of the blue-green Earth from space, reminds us of two inescapable facts, challenging two of our most cherished illusions: one, that national boundaries do not exist on Earth, except in the maps and minds of humans; and two, that the Earth is finite, its carrying capacity is limited. Because of these two fundamental facts, the oneness and the finitude of the Earth, the present situation represents a profound historical discontinuity. First, the globeencircling power of the multinational, techno-industrial, profit-driven growth monster is now destroying the entire biosphere, including the life-support systems for humans. And secondly, the relentless operation of the exponential population growth curve, which is acting as a multiplier on all the other factors of pollution, toxic waste accumulation, loss of soil fertility, loss of biodiversity, impoverishment, famine, urban decay, and so on, is exceeding the carrying capacity of the biosphere, the inevitable result of which is massive ecological collapse. Many ecologists estimate that we have less than a decade to turn things around, before the entire global system goes into irreversible catastrophic collapse. There is reason to believe that the present situation may even represent, not just a historical crisis, but a discontinuity on the evolutionary time-scale of planet Earth. While species have gone extinct in previous periods of the Earth's evolutionary history, some scientists calculate that the present rate of extinction, which is estimated to reach 50% of all remaining species within the next 100 years, is unprecedented since the climatic catastrophe that brought about the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Not only humanity, but the Earth itself is at a turning point. I would like to address the question of how it is possible that our species, homo sapiens, the "knowing human", has contrived to get itself into this predicament of truly terrifying proportions. A growing chorus of voices has been pointing out that the roots of the ecological crisis must lie in the attitudes, values, perceptions and basic worldview that we humans of the global industrial society have come to hold. This worldview of the Industrial Age is a product of European and Euro-American culture that has spread throughout the globe with its capital accumulation approach to economic development. The apparent short-term successes of this capitalist model, and the complete collapse of the only alternative, communism, have blinded us to the insidious factors of social degeneration inherent in this model. They have also made us seemingly oblivious and helpless in the face of the catastrophic ecological destruction taking place in almost all the planet's major ecosystems. The capital accumulation model of economic growth is still being presented, as by an American president recently at the UNCED conference in Rio, as the desirable model to imitate and apply to Third World underdeveloped countries, who can't even feed their impoverished populations and keep their children from dying. Meanwhile the indigenous people of the Earth, sometimes referred to as the Fourth World, are standing by, not at all inclined to follow this model, watching in disbelief while the techno-industrial-consumerist-addictive growth complex self-destructs before our very eyes, - pleading with us not to destroy the last surviving remnants of rainforests, wetlands and wilderness. Several different metaphors or analogies have been proposed to explain the ecologically disastrous split, the pathological alienation, between human consciousness and the rest of the biosphere. One metaphor, put forward by the American theologian Thomas Berry is that the human species has become autistic in relationship to the natural world (Berry, 1988). Like autistic children, who do not seem to hear, or see, or feel their mother's presence, we have become blind to the psychic presence of the living planet and deaf to its voices and stories, that nourished our ancestors in pre-industrial societies. Another metaphor for our species pathology, put forward by the ecologist Paul Shepard, is that we are suffering from a case of arrested development, a fixation comparable to that of juvenile psychosis (Shepard, 1982). This metaphor fits with the kind of boisterous, arrogant pursuit of individual self-assertion that characterizes the consumerist, exploitative model of economic growth, where the short-term profits of entrepreneurs and corporate share-holders seems to be not only the dominant value, but the only value under consideration. A third analogy from psychopathology that offers considerable insight, in my view, is the model of addiction. We are a society whose scientists and experts have been describing for forty years, in horrifying and mindnumbing detail, the dimensions of global eco-catastrophe - "Silent Spring", "The Population Bomb", "The Limits to Growth", "The Death of Nature", "The End of Nature" - and we do not seem to be able to stop our suicidal and eco-cidal behavior. This fits the definition of addiction or compulsion: behavior that continues in spite of the individual knowing that it is destructive to family and social relationships. This metaphor of addiction or compulsion, on a vast scale, also parallels in many ways the teachings of the Asian spiritual traditions, especially Buddhism, which have suffering or dissatisfaction as an inevitable feature of all human consciousness and craving or desire at the root of suffering. Yet another analogy is the notion that we as a species are suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. We, as a species, have forgotten something our ancestors once knew and practiced - certain attitudes and kinds of 60 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange perception, an ability to empathize and identify with non-human life, respect for the mysterious, and humility in relationship to the infinite complexities of the natural world. I wish to develop this idea further in this talk, by examining some crucial turning points in the history of human consciousness, in which we chose a particular line of development and thereby forgot and neglected something with fateful consequences. I find this amnesia analogy to be very hopeful, since it is clearly much easier to remember something that we once knew, than it is to develop an entirely new adaptation. We can also see that the indigenous peoples of the Fourth World, whether in North and South America, Southeast Asia or Australia, have been trying for some time to help us remember certain vital attitudes and values that they have preserved and maintained in their own ways of life. Finally, there is a fifth diagnostic concept that has been advanced. This is the notion of "anthropocentrism" or "homocentrism", which has been described by a number of eco-philosophers and particularly the spiritual philosophy of the "deep ecology movement", formulated by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess. President Vaclav Havel referred to this idea in his 1985 interview with Karel Hvizdala, when he said (and I am translating from the German edition) "I sense that the proud anthropocentrism of modern man, who is convinced that he can know everything and subordinate everything, is somehow in the background of the present crisis." The Czech president's remark underscores the fact that by "anthropocentrism" is meant not only man's apparent inability to empathically identify with other species and lifeforms, i.e. to transcend his human self-identification, which is bad enough, and certainly seems to condone and encourage a reckless exploitative attitude. (Indeed most of us apparently find it hard enough to identify with other human groups - particular those who are "different" in some way, whether racially, ethnically, nationally or whatever - a lack that has lead and continues to lead to the wellknown story of war, aggression, colonialism and neglect in inter-human relationships). The deep ecology critique of the modernist anthropocentric worldview goes further than this lack of empathic identification with non-human life-forms. Rather, it is saying that humans tend to assume, with both religious and scientific rationalizations, that we as a species are superior to other species and lifeforms, and therefore have the right to dominate, control and use them for our own purposes as we see fit. Nature has instrumental or use value only, not intrinsic value, according to this human arrogance or superiority complex. It has also been referred to as human chauvinism, or speciesism - the assumption of superiority and implied right to exploit and abuse. I suggest that the precise comparisons to this attitude are sexism, racism, nationalism and classism: in each of these forms of collective psychopathology, one group of humans assumes superiority to another and therefore the right to control, dominate and use the other. This leads us to the perhaps surprising conclusion that humanism, that much prized core idea and value system of Western civilization, is a precise parallel to sexism, racism, nationalism and classism (Metzner, 1992). The religious rationalization for humanist arrogance has been the well-known set of instructions from God to Adam and Eve, in the biblical Book of Genesis: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over...all the wild beasts that move upon the earth." (Gen. 1:28). Even though ecologicallyminded theologians in recent times have justly argued that "dominion" does not mean "domination - exploitation" but rather "wise stewardship or management", like a gardener tending his garden, it cannot be denied that as a matter of historical fact, domination, control and exploitation have been Western humanity's guiding values in relationship to nature. Some historians (e.g. White, 1967) tell us that in Europe the controlling and conquering relationship to nature began in earnest during the Middle Ages, at the high point of Christianity's ascendancy, with a combination of factors: the invention of the iron plow, which allowed greater food production compared to wooden ones, but also increased soil depletion; the rapid deforestation of Europe's vast forests (which it is estimated originally covered more than two thirds of the European land-surface) to feed the growing number of iron foundries and metal shops, needed to make plows and tools, armors and weapons; and wood was also needed to build houses for the growing populations, as well as ships for the navies of the warring monarchies....The domination and exploitation of nature was not an explicit teaching of the Christian church, of course, but it was condoned and not prevented by a transcendental theology which saw the divine realm, the civitas dei, as high above and inaccessible to human beings, and saw the natural world of earth and water, animals and plants, flesh and blood, feelings and pleasures of the senses, as the corrupted world of the fall, of sin, and of the devil, one of whose names was "Lord of this World". Clearly, wise stewardship and management of resources for sustainable development, especially in an era of population explosion, is a better value system in relationship to nature, than the reckless and ego-centric conquest and exploitation attitude which has prevailed until recently, and which still guides the activities of the great multinational energy corporations. Like the pirate bands of former centuries, the multinationals, and the capital markets which finance them, operate largely free from the constraints of national laws and governments, plundering the material resources of the planet, - the forests, minerals, fossil fuels, animals - without even any regard for sustainable human use, much less ecosystem integrity or the intrinsic value of nonhuman forms of life. The deep ecology critique of the anthropocentric worldview asks us to at least question whether we in fact have the knowledge, or the wisdom, to be wise stewards; and whether we have the ethical right to simply assume that nature exists for us to use. They advocate instead a biocentric or ecocentric attitude, which acknowledges the complex web of human interdependence with all other life-forms, and calls for us to develop a "land ethic" and an "ecological conscience" - two terms coined by the American ecologist Aldo Leopold in the 1940's (Leopold, 1948). 61 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange AT: Natives Have Fucked up the Environment Wrong! Ralph Metzner, President of the Green Earth Foundation, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the California Institute of Integral Studies, PhD in Psychology from Harvard, ‘93 (http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/407/658) [Bozman] To return to primal societies, we would expect that societies with such an animistic, shamanistic, panentheistic worldview would have a very different, more respectful and less destructive relationship with their natural environment. And indeed, although pre-conquest Native Americans intervened in sometimes drastic ways with their environment, there is no evidence that in the tens of thousands of years of habitation of the American continent, they ever achieved anything even close to the kinds of massive destruction that has occurred in the past 500 years. Ecologists in all parts of the world who have been searching for ways to formulate ecologically sustainable ways of development, have increasingly come to the realization that the indigenous peoples of the Third and Fourth World, with their so-called "primitive" animistic and shamanistic beliefs, have in fact been practicing the kinds of sustainable lifestyles that we are now trying to develop (Mander, 1991). Indeed, how could it be otherwise? An ecological adaptation has to be sustainable for it to have survived. The primal cultures surviving today far exceed our Western civilization in longevity. 62 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Solvency-Reorienting Tech The plan reorients our role to technology? Ralph Metzner, President of the Green Earth Foundation, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the California Institute of Integral Studies, PhD in Psychology from Harvard, ‘93 (http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/407/658) [Bozman] In pointing to the role of mechanistic science and industrial technology in aggravating our alienation from the Earth, I do not suggest an impossible neo-Luddite return to a pre-industrial era. I do suggest that it is possible to recall certain values that we have lost, and that it is desirable to examine the value systems with which we develop and apply technology. Economist-philosophers such as E.F. Schumacher, Ivan Illich and others have suggested "small-scale" and "appropriate technologies". Instead of being used to feed runaway cycles of exploitation and addictive consumerism ("producing more and more goods for more and more people"), technology needs to be re-directed toward the preservation and restoration of damaged eco-systems, which can sustainably support all forms of life, including but not limited to the human. Models and designs for this kind of ecologically sensitive technology exist - we only have to muster the political will to choose them. Similarly, in pointing to the role of transcendental monotheism and the Christian anti-pagan bias in the severing of our spiritual connection to the natural world, I do not imply that we must all become pagans and deny 2000 years of Christianity, plus Judaism and Islam. These traditions have become an indelible part of our psychic constitution. I do believe it is possible for Christians, Jews and Muslims to re-connect with the nature religion of their ancestors, and that when they do so, a tremendous spiritual revitalization can take place, in which the natural world and the divine world are recognized as one and the same. I see this as a kind of remembering, like Odin the shaman-god drinking from the well of remembrance, situated at the root of the great world tree - from which he gained ancestral and evolutionary knowledge of the origins of things, and the value of such remembering for the present and the future. 63 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange Inherency-U.S. not supporting indigenous rights now. Josi A. Byrd, Professor of American Indian Studies at the University of Illinois and Katharina C. Heyer, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, ‘08 (Introduction: International Discourses of Indigenous Rights and Responsibilities, Alternatives 33) [Bozman] On September 13, 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, with 143 votes in favor and 11 abstentions. The only four nations to oppose the final vote were the United States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, and their opposition came as no surprise despite their protestations that they were the world’s strongest advocates for indigenous rights internationally. That these four countries, whose origins are rooted in British colonialism and imperialism, continue to oppose indigenous peoples’ recognition and rights within international forums demonstrates the degree to which issues of indigenous governance, sovereignty, and self-determination remain troubled and troubling sites of disruption to the nation-state. 64 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Culture Key to Natives Must endorse Indigenous cultural rights-they’re key to survival of indigenous peoples. Cindy Holder, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Victoria, ‘08 (Culture as an Activity and Human Right, Alternatives 33) [Bozman] Following the ICCPR, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) now takes it as part of its settled interpretive framework for indigenous human rights “that continued utilization of traditional collective systems for the control and use of territory are in many instances essential to the individual and collective well-being, and indeed the survival of, indigenous peoples” and that such control and use includes not just its capacity to sustain life but also its function as “the geographic space necessary for the cultural and social reproduction of the group.”34 Consequently, the IACHR includes policies such as “the introduction of infrastructure (roads, dams, etc.) that destroys and threatens the physical and cultural integrity of the indigenous areas” as rights-violating in virtue of its assault on indigenous peoples’ capacity to sustain the communal life necessary to cultural activity.35 This recognition of the fundamental importance of land to cultural integrity is most clearly stated by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (the interAmerican court) in its Awas Tingni decision: “The close ties of indigenous peoples with the land must be recognized and understood as the fundamental basis of their cultures, their spiritual life, their integrity and their economic survival. For indigenous communities, relations to the land are not merely a matter of possession and production but a material and spiritual element that they must fully enjoy.” 65 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange Protection of Indigenous CultureProtection of All Culture Protecting indigenous cultureprotecting culture everywhere. Cindy Holder, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Victoria, ‘08 (Culture as an Activity and Human Right, Alternatives 33) [Bozman] The specific circumstances that have dictated the need for documents spelling out indigenous peoples’ cultural rights, and in particular the centrality of indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination to adequately addressing their claims, explains why an activity conception of cultural rights has emerged from thinking about indigenous peoples’ rights. However, the value of an activity conception is not limited to indigenous peoples. In this, the movement to clarify and spell out the implications of human rights for the rights of indigenous peoples marks an important step forward for the protection of cultural rights more generally.The understanding of cultural rights that has emerged from international documents treating indigenous peoples’ rights presents the interest cultural rights protect as an interest in being able to do something, to engage in a kind of activity, rather than an interest in being able to access, consume, or enjoy a kind of thing. In this understanding, cultural rights are essential to human dignity not because they secure individuals in their ability to obtain goods or achieve a specific state of affairs, but because culture is what people do when they are living their lives within a people. This way of describing what persons have at stake in cultural rights is reminiscent of Dan Sperber’s description of culture as participation in a shared process or activity. 42 Some may also see a resonance with Pierre Bourdieu’s description of culture as a practice. 43 In my own view, describing culture as a process or activity is preferable in this context to describing it as a practice, because the language of activity more clearly communicates the idea that what a cultural right protects is the ability of persons and peoples to produce cultures, and to produce them in a way that allows them to describe those cultures as their own.44 This consideration is not decisive, however. What matters is not so much the terminology that we use to describe the conception of culture that is at work in the documents treating indigenous peoples’ rights, but that the conception of culture that emerges from those documents encourages a better understanding of what cultural rights protect. 66 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange Culture death maybe genocide? Cindy Holder, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Victoria, ‘08 (Culture as an Activity and Human Right, Alternatives 33) [Bozman] The problem is that the relationship between the groupness of cultural rights and the interests at stake appears contingent and instrumental when culture is conceived of as a good: Cultural rights imply group rights because groups are best place to secure the cultures that individuals need.51 Consequently, it becomes difficult to articulate what precisely is wrong with eradicating cultures apart from the violence that is usually deployed against individuals in the course of doing so. However, as an activity rather than a good, culture is obviously something in which we have an interest in groups, and not only individually. That is, it becomes obvious that culture is an important interest for us qua members of the group separately from our interest in culture as a particular individual. Moreover, many of the cultural activities in which we engage are communal efforts to shape the physical and social world that defines us and connects us to one another. And so, it is difficult to see how governments and institutions could respect our interests in culture without respecting our capacities to access and make decisions about these parts of the world. In the same way that the ability to determine whether, with whom, and on what terms we build families is of key importance to human dignity, so too is the ability to determine whether, with whom, and on what terms we build a way of life. In this, the shift to an activity conception emphasizes the connection between peoples’ rights and individuals’ rights, and the unity of cultural and other human rights. This is not to suggest that there may not be conflicts or inconsistencies of interest across and within individuals and groups. But it does suggest that such conflicts or inconsistencies are not any more likely to arise in virtue of some right holders being peoples or some rights being cultural. More to the point, the emphasis on connection between peoples’ rights and individuals’ rights, and between cultural rights and other human rights, forces us to acknowledge that assaults on a way of life are not just assaults on ideas, they are assaults on persons, and in particular they are assaults on persons’ ability to live. 67 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Loss of cultureGenocide? Claudia Card, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin, ‘03 (Genocide and Social Death, Hypatia 18.1, p. Project Muse) [Bozman] Abstract: Social death, central to the evil of genocide (whether the genocide is homicidal or primarily cultural), distinguishes genocide from other mass murders. Loss of social vitality is loss of identity and thereby of meaning for one's existence. Seeing social death at the center of genocide takes our focus off body counts and loss of individual talents, directing us instead to mourn losses of relationships that create community and give meaning to the development of talents. This essay develops the hypothesis that social death is utterly central to the evil of genocide, not just when a genocide is primarily cultural but even when it is homicidal on a massive scale. It is social death that enables us to distinguish the peculiar evil of genocide from the evils of other mass murders. Even genocidal murders can be viewed as extreme means to the primary end of social death. Social vitality exists through relationships, contemporary and intergenerational, that create an identity that gives meaning to a life. Major loss of social vitality is a loss of identity and consequently a serious loss of meaning for one's existence. Putting social death at the center takes the focus off individual choice, individual goals, individual careers, and body counts, and puts it on relationships that create community and set the context that gives meaning to choices and goals. If my hypothesis is correct, the term "cultural genocide" is probably both redundant and misleading— redundant, if the social death present in all genocide implies cultural death as well, and misleading, if "cultural genocide" suggests that some genocides do not include cultural death. 68 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange AT: International Organizations Protect Indigenous People. Domestic racism outweighs. Erik Larson, Department of Sociology at Macalester College, ‘08 (Emerging Indigenous Governance, Alternatives 33) [Bozman] As a consequence of the success of the global indigenous peoples’ movement, international bodies have established a baseline of global norms concerning indigenous rights. Although few formal mechanisms exist for exercising these rights, emergent norms shape governance. Internationally, the premises underlying indigenous rights have become resources that enable expanded agency for indigenous peoples and that provide for legitimacy of international action.1 While the transnational indigenous peoples’ movement and the secretariats of international organizations regulate access to these global resources, these actors have little authority in domestic contexts governed by nation-states. Accordingly, the influence of global norms depends on their diffusion to and implementation in domestic environments.2 The outcomes of normative diffusion, therefore, depend on the manners in which the global principles intersect with and are incorporated into domestic governance processes, particularly definition and policymaking. 69 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange AT: K of the term “indigenous.” The plan uses a subjectivist definition of indigenous that allows indigenous peoples to identify themselves. Erik Larson, Department of Sociology at Macalester College, ‘08 (Emerging Indigenous Governance, Alternatives 33) [Bozman] The process of identifying indigenous peoples provides a clear example of self-determination in practice. Debate concerning defining “indigenous” has centered on an objectivist-subjectivist divide. An objectivist definition—based on a set of criteria to determine who is indigenous—results in over- or underidentification due to the diversity of indigenous peoples’ experiences and the potential for state interference with claims of indigenous status.17 Subjectivist definitions allow indigenous peoples to identify themselves; however, the Working Group on Indigenous Populations’ experience of individual self-identification illustrates the difficulties, as demonstrated by the controversy over Afrikaner/Boer participation in the working group in the middle of the 1990s. In response to these situations, the chairperson-rapporteur prepared a document on the concept “indigenous,” concluding that a precise objectivist definition was impossible and that a subjectivist definition better fit with self-determination.18 In practice, the working group went beyond a simple subjectivist approach, identifying as indigenous “those who feel themselves to be indigenous and are accepted as such by members of the group” and relying “upon organizations of indigenous peoples themselves to draw attention to any improper assertions of the right to participate as ‘Indigenous’ peoples.”19 This practice represents a collective subjectivist definition of “indigenous”— that is, indigenous peoples acting as a whole identify others who are indigenous. Indigenous peoples thereby possess a collective authority that extends beyond an individual people and also possess self-determination as a collective actor in global governance. 20 For instance, beyond serving to identify who is indigenous, the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus has effective power to nominate members of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. 70 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange AT: Voting Rights CP Sheryl R. Lightfoot, Department of Political Science of the University of Minnesota, ‘08 (Indigenous Rights in International Politics, Alternatives 33, p. Project Muse) [Bozman] At first glance, the domestic political-participation explanation also appears plausible since indigenous people tend to be quite active in domestic (liberal democratic) politics in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, often running candidates in elections, forming indigenous political parties, and contributing financially to national candidates who support indigenous issues. The problem with this explanation is that it does not account for the marked distinction in indigenous-rights advances between these three countries and the United States or Latin America. Indigenous groups in the United States are equally participatory in domestic politics,16 yet indigenous rights in the United States have not witnessed the same advances as seen in the other three countries. In fact, indigenous rights in the United States, having enjoyed some advancement during the 1970s, 1980s, and into the 1990s, have witnessed a sharp negative turn in recent years, with increasing state encroachment on indigenous sovereignty and negative court rulings regarding indigenous right. 71 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange AT: Rights CP Framing Indigenous policies in terms of rights separates questions of homelands and natural resources, meaning the counterplan cant solve the case. Jeff Corntassel, Faculty of Human and Social Development, Indigenous Governance Programs at the University of Victoria, ‘08 (Toward Sustainable Self-Determination, Alternatives 33) [Bozman] As the above example demonstrates, the rights discourse can take indigenous peoples only so far. Over the past thirty years, indigenous self-determination claims have been framed by states and global organizations in four distinct ways that jeopardize the futures of indigenous communities. First, the rights-based discourse has resulted in the compartmentalization of indigenous powers of selfdetermination by separating questions of homelands and natural resources from those of political/legal recognition of a limited indigenous autonomy within the existing framework of the host state(s). 5 This was evident from the above-referenced Nisga’a Final Agreement, which provided a political/legal basis for limited autonomy but neglected to address interrelated issues of regenerating sustainable livelihoods, food security, and renewal of community relationships with the natural world. Second, in several cases, the rights discourse has led states to deny the identities or very existence of indigenous peoples residing within their borders (or to reframe them as minority populations or other designations that carry less weight or accountability under international law). 6 For example, Botswana refuses to acknowledge peoples residing within its borders as indigenous (that is, San, Nama/Khoe), instead referring to them in its constitution as a “race,” “community,” or “tribe.” Botswana staunchly opposed ratification of the nonbinding United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (hereafter referred to as the declaration), claiming that the declaration “raised issues with serious economic, political, and constitutional ramifications, which in Botswana’s view, could only contribute to ethnic conflicts within nations of which African had had more than a fair share.”7 Third, the framing of rights as political/legal entitlements has deemphasized the cultural responsibilities and relationships that indigenous peoples have with their families and the natural world (homelands, plant life, animal life, etc.) that are critical for their well-being and the well-being of future generations. In contrast with a dominant Western perspective on self-determination and sustainability, indigenous peoples tend to “concern themselves with and have based their whole world-view on) the idea of learning how to give back to Creation, rather than taking away.”8 Finally, the rights discourse has limited the applicability of decolonization and restoration frameworks for indigenous peoples by establishing ad hoc restrictions. This was clear with the ratification of UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (1960), which set limits on decolonization through the implementation of a so-called Salt Water Thesis, stipulating that only territories separated by water or that were geographically separate from the colonizing power could invoke self-determination.9 There have been some promising initiatives undertaken recently for setting new global standards for restorative justice, such as UN General Assembly resolution 60/147 (2006) to implement “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.” 10 However, the applicability of resolution 60/147 becomes limited when attempting to restore territories and natural resources to indigenous peoples as a result of ongoing colonial encroachment by their host states. 72 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange Environmental framing of Native American policies good. Jeff Corntassel, Faculty of Human and Social Development, Indigenous Governance Programs at the University of Victoria, ‘08 (Toward Sustainable Self-Determination, Alternatives 33) [Bozman] In order to move beyond the limitations of the existing rights discourse, I propose that indigenous powers and views of selfdetermination be rethought and repositioned in order to meet contemporary challenges to indigenous nationhood. Strategies that invoke existing human rights norms and that solely seek political and legal recognition of indigenous self-determination will not lead to a self-determination process that is sustainable for the survival of future generations of indigenous peoples. Additionally, indigenous mobilization strategies of surveillance and shame have not been effective for generating substantive changes in existing humanrights norms and customary international law.11 In order for indigenous self-determination to be meaningful, it should be economically, environmentally, and culturally viable and inextricably linked to indigenous relationships to the natural world. These relationships are discussed specifically in Special Rapporteur Erica-Irene Daes’s comprehensive United Nations report entitled Indigenous Peoples’ Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources. In this report, Daes asserts that “the right of permanent selfdetermination over natural resources was recognized because it was understood early on that without it, the right of selfdetermination would be meaningless.”12 In other words, self-determination has to be sustainable in practice or it merely becomes another venerated paper right. Unfortunately, what is considered sustainable practice by states comes at a high price for indigenous communities, often leading to the further degradation of their homelands and natural resources.13 It is time for indigenous peoples to reassert sustainability on their own terms. Therefore, I propose the concept of sustainable self-determination as a benchmark for the restoration of indigenous livelihoods and territories and for future indigenous political mobilization. 73 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange Environmental framing of Native American policies good. The aff is an affirmation of sustainable self-determination-this conception of self determination promotes natives? And shit without having bad parts of rights discourse? Jeff Corntassel, Faculty of Human and Social Development, Indigenous Governance Programs at the University of Victoria, ‘08 (Toward Sustainable Self-Determination, Alternatives 33) [Bozman] Previous research on the self-determination of peoples tends to focus on political/legal recognition of this right, while giving little consideration to the environment, community health/well-being, natural resources, sustainability, and the transmission of cultural practices to future generations as critical, interlocking features of an indigenous self-determination process.54 As indigenous legal scholar S. James Anaya asserts, “Any conception of self-determination that does not take into account the multiple patterns of human association and interdependency is at best incomplete or more likely distorted.” 55 Even when culture or land are mentioned as an essential part of indigenous self-determination, these linkages are often expressed within a narrow rights framework that diminishes the full scope of these ongoing relationships to the natural world and/or fails to describe sustainability as a critical benchmark for an indigenous self-determination process.56 While Anaya differentiates between remedial and substantive forms of self-determination, he does not account for sustainable self-determination as a critical benchmark in the ongoing self-determination process. When differentiating substantive forms of self-determination from remedial ones, Anaya concedes that remedial forms of selfdetermination, such as decolonization, tend to be limited by practices of state sovereignty, which “influence the degree to which remedies may be subject to international scrutiny.”57 Given the existing barriers to indigenous decolonization through the enforcement of the Salt Water Thesis and other global norms designed to protect existing state borders, indigenous peoples have also found substantive forms of selfdetermination, which are described as “a standard of governmental legitimacy within the modern human rights frame,” to be limited.58 It remains to be seen whether General Assembly resolution 60/147 (2006) in rights to remedies and reparations will be widely applied to indigenous peoples and their decolonization efforts. While there are existing political/legal foundations for substantive and remedial forms of self-determination, the attainment of these standards or global norms are meaningless in a discussion of ongoing selfdetermination without considering a third factor—the sustainability of self-determination in praxis. It follows that a process of indigenous self-determination is more than a political/legal struggle—at its core are spiritual and relational responsibilities that are continuously renewed. Unfortunately, as Alfred and Corntassel point out, “there are new faces of empire that are attempting to strip indigenous peoples of their very spirit as nations and of all that is held sacred, threatening their sources of connection to their distinct existences and the sources of their spiritual power: relationships to each other, communities, homelands, ceremonial life, languages, histories. . . . These connections are crucial to living a meaningful life for any human being.” 59 While previous studies have treated indigenous political autonomy, governance, the environment, and community health as separate concepts, in actuality they are intrinsically linked. For example, health has much deeper meaning than just the absence of disease or injury, as Arquette, et al., point out in their study of Mohawks of Akwesasne: Health, then, has many definitions for the Mohawk people of Akwesasne. Health is spiritual. Health is rooted is rooted in the heart of the culture. Health is based on peaceful, sustainable relationships with other peoples including family, community, Nation, the natural world, and spiritual beings.60 After considering Arquette and associates’ conceptualization of community health/well-being, it becomes apparent that indigenous struggles to “make meaningful choices in matters touching upon all spheres of life on a continuous basis” warrants further exploration in terms of “what is sustainability?” and “what is being transmitted to future generations?”61 Deskaheh’s articulation of self-determination gets at the heart of indigenous struggles today: “We are determined to live the free people that we were born.”62 Furthermore, the process of living as the “free people that we were born” entails having the freedom to practice indigenous livelihoods, maintain food security, and apply natural laws on indigenous homelands in a sustainable manner.63 Critical to this process is the long-term sustainability of indigenous livelihoods, which includes the transmission of these cultural practices to future generations. Tully elaborates: “The right of self-determination is, on any plausible account of its contested criteria, the right of a people to govern themselves by their own laws and exercise jurisdiction over their territories.”64 Embedded in this broader conceptualization of selfdetermination is a set of interlocking and reciprocal responsibilities to one’s community, family, clans/societies (an aspect of some but not all indigenous nations), homelands, and the natural world. While the Brundtland Commission defined sustainability in 1987 as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” this definition does not go far enough as a benchmark for indigenous political, cultural, economic, and environmental restorative justice (in theory and in practice).65 For indigenous peoples, sustainability is intrinsically linked to the transmission of traditional knowledge and cultural practices to future generations.66 Without the ability of community members to continuously renew their relationships with the natural world (i.e., gathering medicines, hunting and fishing, basket-making, etc.), indigenous languages, traditional teachings, family structures, and livelihoods of that community are all jeopardized. Indigenous connections between well-being and food security/ livelihoods are critical to the realization and practice of a sustainable self-determination. When such relationships are severed, “the knowledge, worldviews, values and practices about these relationships and about other aspects of their food and agro-ecological systems, commonly erode over time as well.” 67 In other words, disruptions to indigenous livelihoods, governance, and natural-world relationships can jeopardize the overall health, well-being, identity, and continuity of indigenous communities. Just as contemporary research on self-determination tends to exclude sustainability and environmental factors from the process, research on integrated ecosystem assessment tends to exclude culture as a key criterion for sustainability. However, according to one comprehensive ecosystem assessment framework, “cultural services” are 74 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange important benefits that people obtain from ecosystems through “spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic experiences.”68 Examples of cultural services include cultural diversity, knowledge systems, educational values, social relations, sense of place, and cultural heritage values.69 Just as with the three other components that comprise a viable environmental ecosystem, such as “supporting services” (production of atmospheric oxygen, soil formation, etc.), “provisioning services” (food, fiber, natural medicines, fresh water, etc.), and “regulating services” (airquality maintenance, climate regulation, regulation of human disease, and so on), cultural services are an integral part of an indigenous ecosystem.70 Sustainable self-determination as a process is premised on the notion that evolving indigenous livelihoods, food security, community governance, relationships to homelands and the natural world, and ceremonial life can be practiced today locally and regionally, thus enabling the transmission of these traditions and practices to future generations. Operating at multiple levels, sustainable selfdetermination seeks to regenerate the implementation of indigenous natural laws on indigenous homelands and expand the scope of an indigenous self-determination process. First, it refutes global and state political/legal recognition and colonial strategies founded on economic dependency as the main avenues to meaningful self-determination. Second, this approach rejects the compartmentalization of standard political/legal definitions of selfdetermination by taking social, economic, cultural, and political factors of shared governance and relational accountability into consideration for a broader view of self-determination that can be sustained over future generations. Third, rather than engage solely in the global indigenous-rights discourse, sustainable self-determination operates at the community level as a process to perpetuate indigenous livelihoods locally via the regeneration of family, clan, and individual roles and responsibilities to their homelands. Finally, indigenous peoples begin to significantly influence the global political economy by rebuilding and restrengthening “their local and regional indigenous economies, which are by definition inherently sustainable.”71 By starting with the regeneration of individual and family responsibilities in the self-determination process, indigenous communities hold the potential to reestablish larger regional trading networks with each other in order to promote formidable alliances and sustainable futures. 75 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange Rape of Indian Nat. ResourcesExtinction The exploitation of tribal resources threatens tribal existence, setting a precedent for worldwide extinction. Donald Fixico, Professor of History at Arizona State University, ‘98 (The Invasion of Indian Country in the 20th Century, p. 208-215) [Bozman] From traditional times to contemporary times, Indian people have struggled to maintain a dual balance, both within themselves and with the universe. Such efforts are very personal since the strength of the Indian societies rested on kinship and social relations. However, the most important relationship is not that between humans, nor is it that between humans and animals or plants. Rather, the relationship of people with the universe is the most significant relationship, and Indians have learned that the way in which humans view themselves in this role is important for an understanding of the essence of life and "the natural order of things." 6 The enormity of the universe is acknowledged, and the smallness of humans in the universal order of life is accepted. Unlike Anglo-Americans who perceive themselves as the center of the universe, Indian people traditionally have viewed themselves as minuscule members of a vast universe. For example, the Western person typically refers to his or her "self" as the reference point and travels accordingly to turn right or left. The Wintu, by contrast, referred to left and right as the sides of their body but while traveling referred to the cardinal directions to avoid confusion and becoming lost. If traveling northward, a Wintu would say, the mountains are to the west; a nonIndian would say, the mountains are on the left. But in returning to go south, the Wintu would know the mountains were to the east, and the non-Indian would know they were on the right side.7 When the non-Indian faced another direction and perhaps did this again, he or she became confused, then lost. In kinship terms, the human relationship with the natural environment was more important than the human-to-human relationship. In time, Indian people understood that their lives depended on the environment, and knew that this source of energy—so intrinsic to life itself—deserved respect. Their collective attitude lacked an individual ego consciousness, allowing them to contemplate their societal relations and participation in the universe. Maintaining this relationship influenced cultural development and the values of life as defined according to each Indian tribal nation by its people. Over the generations, these values proved to be successful, and it is these traditional values that could offer a useful lesson as global natural resources and the environment are rapidly depleted by the progress of civilization. Unfortunately, Victorian evolutionists in physical anthropology in the nineteenth century underestimated the value of nativistic thought and referred to so-called primitive societies as savage and of lesser intelligence, only to elevate their own race above others.8 Sucha racist view has endangered natural resources in the twentieth century as the Western mentality has appointed itself the most advanced society of human existence, while dismissing the conservation philosophies of Native Americans. Racial prejudice and cultural ethnocentricism has obstructed the global cooperation needed to achieve the best answers for halting the ongoing drain on natural resources and preserving what remains. Although the United States holds perhaps the most advanced scientific facilities and the greatest wealth for funding environmental conservation, it must overcome its own prejudice against scholars of different racial and cultural backgrounds in order to stop the depletion of the environment. 9 The primary focus of the numerous tribal philosophies is on global concerns regarding the exhaustion of natural resources. From traditional Indian people, we can learn that kinship and social cooperation is important if the global community is to survive. Such relationships were deeply personal for the Indians, and they carefully treated other people and expected generous social treatment in return—so unlike the stoic, impersonal role that stereotypes have assigned them. (Naturally, Indian people would appear unfriendly to non-Indians since the latter decided early on that Native Americans were their enemies.) From the Indian point of view, AngloAmericans are less open to other people, and their friendly overtures are suspicious since their mental preoccupation is focused more on scientific rationalization and less on social relations. If global scientists and government leaders could combine the personal thinking of American Indians with the Western mind's causal thinking, answers to questions of "Who is responsible for decreasing natural resources?" and "What is the cause?" could produce a better approach to conserving global resources.10 Before the arrival of non-Indians in the Western Hemisphere, American Indians learned from their struggles how to live within the limits of the environment. The environment had a direct impact on their cultural development and directed life's economies, leading to a focus on agriculture and hunting and gathering or a combination of the two. Among the Hurons, as among many Indian people, fishermen offered tobacco and invocations to the waters before taking fish from the streams and rivers. Certain spirits of the waters had to be appeased, lest they jeopardize the fishing.11 Philosophically, this acknowledgment of animism stressed the positive nature of human involvement with the act of fishing so that positive results would occur.12 Montagnais hunters who depended upon the beaver practiced conservation hunting since limited moose and caribou lived in their country. By studying the habits of the beaver, the Montagnais estimated how many animals already were taken and were able to roughly calculate how many were left so that there would always be enough to hunt. This type of cognition became one of the natural laws that the tribe obeyed. 13 This practice of conservation ensured a steady supply of food to support the estimated 10,000 Montagnais who are thought to have lived in a dozen villages.14 Traditional Indians treated the natural environment on a social but elevated level (perhaps operating on a principle of retribution)15 as they developed philosophical explanations for the causalities of life. They observed the activities of nature and incorporated the patterns expressed in the four seasons, in animal activities, and in plant growth into their social norms, laws, philosophy, and worldview. The commonality between traditional Indians and animals is the social outcome of their group emphasis on human-animal relations.16 In the human-animal relationship, all partners are equal and mutually respected, so that people develop a respect for all life, including the life of plants. All three—humans, animals, and plants—possessed life, and their spirits lived within 76 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange their bodies. Many Indian tribes developed clans represented by animal and plant totems, and they practiced group protection and unity. They courted the positive side of life, abhorred evil, and at times had to combat negative agents from the dark side. Following traditional practices as their ancestors had enabled Native Americans to be protected from the evil that lay beyond their understanding of life. Success in maintaining their livelihood, even during hardship, brought a confidence that the ancestors were correct, that traditions should not be questioned but rather accepted; maintaining a healthy stasis between the people and the destructive forces of life depended on sustaining those traditions.17 In this sense, traditional Indians were more metaphysical than their non-Indian counterparts, who eventually drifted from their early European religious beliefs toward a focus on economic gain. The unseen powers of nature convinced traditional Indians that the laws of nature were greater than their tribal political laws, and thus, much of their own laws were based on those of nature. Consequently, traditional Indians observed and continue to observe the seen and unseen forces of life, seemingly without regard to past, present, or future. In the development of tribal religions, nature represented universal determinism, and this religious concept became an important part of many Indian religions and unified the tribal communities.18 The Indian relationship with animals dates back to the mythical times when both were new members of the freshly created world. Cree myths in Canada describe a time when men married certain animals, such as the beaver, and speak about man's relationship with the animal world. These stories, legends, and parables taken together created an oral history tradition. 19 Waswanipi hunters in the Canadian boreal forest hunted the moose more easily after accumulating a large amount of knowledge about the animal's habits, so that the moose "surrendered" its life to the Waswanipi. The hunter respectfully killed the moose swiftly, without torture, (and not excessively for sport) in order to release the animal's spirit to return to its life in the afterworld. To ensure a successful harvest for hunting, hunters estimated the animal populations and rotated their hunting areas.20 America's Native populations had learned to distribute their populations to areas of a size and type that could sustain their people. Since their lives depended upon the environment, climate and other aspects of nature influenced their cultural development.21 Furthermore, a second point of technological advancement was incorporated into this conservationist lifestyle, as recorded among the Iroquois people of the eastern Great Lakes.22 Ethically, one does not ask for more than the amount that can be used; if this simple rule is obeyed, less misfortune will occur. Among the Ojibwa, hunters always shared the game that they killed to ensure that they would not be bewitched by others, and they did not hoard any materials for fear that misfortune would plague them.23 When contact with Europeans and then the Anglo-Americans occurred, a different value system, primarily an English one, became a part of the American experience, based on concepts of individualism and property ownership.24 As other early non-English Europeans participated in capitalism, this resulting exploitation critically impacted world societies. This continues today and is especially evident in the last half of the twentieth century.25 Motivated by greed, America's capitalistic attitude has set a dangerous precedent for other world powers and Third World nations alike. Since 1950, the world has lost almost one-fifth of its topsoil from croplands, a fifth of tropical rain forests, and tens of thousands of plant and animal species.26 The environmental relations among traditional Indians and among non-Indians differ. Traditional Indians developed a respectful relationship with nature, and early Europeans emulated them in their early settlements in America— until they adopted an attitude of individual, capitalistic gain. Even American Indians were learning to relate their lives to the natural environment, Euroamericans began to change that environment. The traditional Indian's natural environment is substantially different from the American man-made environment, with its domesticated animals and plants that alter the landscape; this latter environment is designed to support an industrial, modernized society with a burgeoning population.27 This increasing population has placed enormous demands on the environment, depleting its forests and forcing farmers to use chemicals on the land to produce more and better crops. But the ultimate effects will be lingering and have many dire consequences. As other nations imitate America's aggressive consumption of natural resources and the world population increases, Thomas Malthus's theory about geometric population growth placing enormous demands on the planet's resources will soon be seriously tested. 28 Certainly, in the case of China, which must feed almost one-quarter of the world's population from an estimated seven percent of the planet's arable land, the precedent is already being established.29 It has been common knowledge for several years that deserts in some parts of the world are growing rapidly and that rain forests are being cut away due to the demand of world capitalism. The natural resources and animal life of the planet are being depleted at an alarming rate. The repercussions of human greed at the individual and corporate levels will be devastating for the entire planet.30 Throughout the history of human existence, technology has worked against world conservation. And currently, the greed in the United States has influenced the world's nations, for America's wealth is widely envied. With a population of less than six percent of the global total, America is both the largest producer and the largest consumer, using a full thirty percent of the world's energy.31 A sad precedent has been set, for other countries are exploiting their natural resources for wealth just as this nation has done without the control of strict conservation laws, all in an effort to emulate the United States. This will place additional pressure on natural resources around the world, especially for industrial nations who depend on Middle East countries surrounding the Persian Gulf, which has over\ one-half of the world's low-cost oil. Presently, multinational oil companies—Exxon, Gulf, Mobil, Texaco, Standard Oil of California, British Petroleum (which is fifty percent government owned with private management), Royal Dutch Shell, and Compagnie Française des Petroles (which is partly owned by private interests but mostly governmental controlled)—are steadily draining the world's oil supply, and they will do so as long as there is little interest in fuel alternatives, such as advanced technological uses of coal.32 In 1974, the largest spenders on oil imports were the United States at $24 billion, Japan at $18 billion, the United Kingdom at $8.5 billion; and Italy at $7.5 billion. The largest earners were Saudi Arabia at $20 billion, Iran at $17.4 billion, Venezuela at $10.6 billion, Libya at $6.8 billion, and the Union of Arab Emirates at $4.1 billion.33 The tremendous current usage of oil and the combustion of coal produces carbon dioxide that traps solar energy in the earth's atmosphere, causing a rise in temperature. This is the "greenhouse effect," and it is predicted to change the climate worldwide. Between 1950 and 1973, a 4.5 percent increase in carbon emissions occurred, and another 4.5 percent increase from 1973 to 1983. From 1983 to 1988, 77 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange carbon emissions increased to 3.7 percent, and a similar increase has continued through the 1990s. 34 The sun is a constant in our lives, and its abundant power, handled properly, could be used to sustain life. As estimated in 1974, solar radiation could provide more than 500 times the world's total energy consumption.35 Transforming the sun's rays into electricity with the use of solar photovoltaic cells promises to be widely used by the 2020s or 2030s. By 1990, India had 6,000 village systems in operation. The U.S. Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) estimated that photovoltiacs have the potential to supply over half of America's electricity by 2030.36 Another natural force that could be used is the wind, a resource that renews itself. In the 1980s, more than 20,000 windmills producing electricity were used in the world, with the potential to generate 1,600 megawatts. California and Denmark were the leading areas in this regard, and wind generators began to appear in India and Germany. One estimate reported that wind power could provide more than ten percent of the world's electricity by the year 2030.37 Another possibility is the stockpiling of energy via fossil fuels and nuclear fuels. Western Europe and Japan are dependent on other nations' natural resources, and stockpiling may be a means of support for such nations until new energy resources can be developed. It is suspected that Third World nations will become industrialized, and stockpiling could also serve their needs.38 Natural gas is yet another alternative that could be used to relieve the demands on crude oil since only a small portion of it is marketed in world trade, except where large markets exist. Presently, the United States has an estimated fifteen percent of the world's supply, yet it consumes more than fifty percent of the total available. The next largest consumers are the countries of the former Soviet Union at approximately twenty percent, which also have some of the largest supplies; the other large supply exists in Asia.39 It is unfortunate that the future of the planet is so intimately tied to political interests instead of a global concern for the environment. It is imperative that we take steps to stave off the decimation of natural resources throughout the world. International stability in politics is essential, especially given the sweeping political changes in 1989 and 1990 nd the move to democracy and economic improvement. Furthermore, sound national economies are important if nations are to avoid exploiting their environmental resources to dangerously low levels. Unchecked industrial growth has forced made recovery difficult for many nations. As nations strive to reach international parity in terms of shared wealth and political status, pollution, forest destruction, and nuclear waste are among the major irreversible problems that we confront. As examples, radioactive wastes stored in a salt dome at Lyons, Kansas, was found to have leaked. More chilling still is the knowledge that nuclear waste disposal practices in some countries have involved storing the waste in canisters and dropping them into the oceans. 40 It is unfortunate that human beings have developed technology that has the potential to destroy their race and the environment. Without using wisdom while inventing new technologies, the human race will become its own executioner. At present, the motivation of greed prevails over the concern for environmental conservation, placing the globe on a destructive path. Until this focus on capitalistic gain is replaced by a focus on human-environmental survival, all life around the world is in danger. Although conservation is practiced at some levels, long-range consequences must be considered. In the process, we must learn a great deal more about the delicate balance of nature, as American Indians knew long ago. We need not practice their traditions of environmental kinship and religious ceremonies, but we should understand their perspective on the role of humans within the environment and all of life. In changing the current exploitative attitude, a fresh perspective might result and lead us to fuller philosophies about life and the role of humans within the universe. 78 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange INDIANS WANT Indians want AE to use and sell. David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al September 2002 College of Business Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 02-21, “The Implications of the Regional Haze Rule on Renewable and Wind Energy Development on Native American Lands in the West” http://ses.nau.edu/pdf/Smith_AWEA.pdf pg 4 [ev] The tribes contacted in the ITEP assessment were selected to represent a diversity of tribal perspectives, based upon geographic distribution, population, land size, urban versus rural location, experience with renewable energy, and level of existing energy infrastructure. While these data are not definitive and may not be representative of all 237 tribes within the 13-state WRAP region, they do suggest some valuable insights. A few pertinent results from the tribal surveys are listed below: For three-quarters of the tribes polled, no central office or agency is in charge of tribal energy issues, such as a utility authority. Three-quarters of the tribes are interested in using renewable energy systems, especially if the cost of energy is competitive with current energy supplies. Over 80% of the tribes indicated an interest in selling electricity on the deregulated electric market. Through comments associated with the assessments, it was apparent that the particular opportunities available and the barriers facing each tribe’s development of renewable energy were as individual and unique as the tribes themselves. Many of the tribes were concerned about cultural issues (such as sacred sites), environmental issues (not damming a river), political issues (intra- and inter-tribal politics and external relations with states), and economics (the cost of energy). In general, tribes were quite interested in the potential opportunities for economic development offered by developing renewable energy resources, as well as the ability to gain energy independence. Furthermore, tribes in rural settings were more interested in developing renewable resources compared to tribes located in urban settings. When considering energy development, the relative cost of power and marketplace constraints are certainly relevant to tribes, but they may not be the determining or even the most important factors. For most tribes the development of renewable energy is inextricably intertwined with the challenges of economic development. Furthermore, renewable energy may offer many tribes the ability to electrify portions of their reservations that currently have no electrical service, or to increase the reliability of service. 79 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange SOLVENCY—COMPANIES Tribes want to partner with companies. David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al September 2002 College of Business Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 02-21, “The Implications of the Regional Haze Rule on Renewable and Wind Energy Development on Native American Lands in the West” http://ses.nau.edu/pdf/Smith_AWEA.pdf pg 4 [ev] Though many tribes are interested in developing renewable energy resources, there are many external and internal factors that a tribe has to consider when contemplating development. (4) Some of these factors, such as distance to market or access to capital can be significant barriers to development, while others such as the availability of natural resources and tribal sovereignty can be assets. Cultural compatibility of the renewable resource development can also be important. While the relative importance of the various factors depends upon each individual tribe, it is true that many tribes interested in developing renewable energy may welcome partners that can help overcome some of the barriers they face. For example, a company with technical expertise in wind energy development could successfully partner with a tribe if the tribe were to benefit economically, with jobs provided for tribal members and joint ownership of the project by the tribe and the partner company. 80 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange INDIANS->WIDER WIND Indian wind energy easy to develop. David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al September 2002 College of Business Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 02-21, “The Implications of the Regional Haze Rule on Renewable and Wind Energy Development on Native American Lands in the West” http://ses.nau.edu/pdf/Smith_AWEA.pdf pg 5 [ev] It has been established that many tribes in the West are interested in developing their renewable and wind energy resources. The question that naturally arises next concerns the availability of wind resources on Native American lands. Wind energy resource maps from the national wind resource assessment of the United States, created in 1986 for the U.S. Department of Energy by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, are documented in the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States. (5) Wind maps based on this data and overlaid with tribal boundaries and transmission lines were created by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to assist tribes in evaluating their potential for wind energy development. Wind resource maps similar to the one shown in Figure 2 are presented for each of the 13 states in the WRAP region in Reference (6) (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming), along with resource maps for solar, biomass and geothermal energy. There are 237 tribes in the WRAP region. Based upon NREL wind energy resource maps, there are about 60 reservations in the WRAP region that have a class-5 wind resource (excellent) or better. Many of these reservations with the wind resource have sufficient land to develop the wind resource, and some are in proximity to existing transmission lines. 81 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange MECH—RPS Comprehensive federal RPS for tribes key. David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al September 2002 College of Business Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 02-21, “The Implications of the Regional Haze Rule on Renewable and Wind Energy Development on Native American Lands in the West” http://ses.nau.edu/pdf/Smith_AWEA.pdf pg 6 [ev] Regardless of a tribe’s size, location, or other demographic variables, a formal energy policy statement that incorporates specific provisions for renewable electric energy is an important beginning to a larger set of strategies. A program to stimulate renewable energy generation will be most effective as part of a more comprehensive energy policy developed by and adapted to each tribe. For example, the energy policy can articulate a renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS) to be applied to tribal electric consumers, including the tribal government, as well as federal government entities located on the tribal lands. This could be implemented alone or in collaboration with other tribes or states. 82 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange MECH—EPA LAWS Federal funding key—laws. David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al September 2002 College of Business Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 02-21, “The Implications of the Regional Haze Rule on Renewable and Wind Energy Development on Native American Lands in the West” http://ses.nau.edu/pdf/Smith_AWEA.pdf pg 6 [ev] Federal Financing of Authorized Renewable Energy Assistance Several federal statutes authorize funding for energy conservation and renewable energy incentives on tribal lands. Most notable is the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and its amendments. Tribal leaders and collaborators could formally request adequate appropriations from the U.S. Congress and appropriate agencies to implement the energy conservation and renewable energy development provisions of these laws. This should include funding of training programs for tribal energy professionals related to renewable energy and energy efficiency. 83 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange MECH—FED GRANTS Sovlency mech—fed grants. David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al September 2002 College of Business Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 02-21, “The Implications of the Regional Haze Rule on Renewable and Wind Energy Development on Native American Lands in the West” http://ses.nau.edu/pdf/Smith_AWEA.pdf pg 6 [ev] Federal Project Grants and Subsidies One federal mechanism to encourage private sector development and use of renewable energy is tax credits. Because this mechanism does not apply or is of little use to tribes, equivalent financial subsidies for comparable tribal projects should be available. For example, Tribal Energy Block Grants could provide effective incentives to progressive tribal renewable energy initiatives. Tribes could benefit from seeking equitable financial support for projects comparable to those eligible for tax credits. 84 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange MECH—BUY INDIAN Solvency mech—“buy Indian” David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al September 2002 College of Business Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 02-21, “The Implications of the Regional Haze Rule on Renewable and Wind Energy Development on Native American Lands in the West” http://ses.nau.edu/pdf/Smith_AWEA.pdf pg 7 [ev] Expand Federal Government’s Buy Indian Policy The “Buy Indian” policy is advantageous to suppliers of selected products and services that are purchased by specific federal agencies. This policy could be expanded to include the purchase of electricity generated from renewable sources on tribal lands, and the participating agencies could be expanded to include all relevant federal energy procurement. 85 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange FED KEY—ECON Federal incentives solve Indian econ. David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al September 2002 College of Business Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 02-21, “The Implications of the Regional Haze Rule on Renewable and Wind Energy Development on Native American Lands in the West” http://ses.nau.edu/pdf/Smith_AWEA.pdf pg 7 [ev] Expand the Federal Government’s Program for Procurement of Green Energy Tribes and their collaborators may consider requesting that the Federal government encourage Power Marketing Agencies to obtain electricity generated from renewable resources on tribal lands, combined with the Federal government programs in Executive Order 13123 for the Federal Government’s procurement of green energy. A portion of the electricity generated from these renewable resources could be made available for tribal use, similar to hydropower electricity made available from the Western Area Power Administration. 86 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange MECH—LAND Land solvency mech. David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al September 2002 College of Business Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 02-21, “The Implications of the Regional Haze Rule on Renewable and Wind Energy Development on Native American Lands in the West” http://ses.nau.edu/pdf/Smith_AWEA.pdf pg 7 [ev] Solicit Authorization for Tribal Authority over Non-Indian Lands Within Reservation Boundaries For many tribes an effective energy policy, including full development of renewable energy resources, will depend on tribal authority over all lands within reservation boundaries, which can include non-Indian lands. Tribes along with federal agencies and states, as appropriate, may enter into agreements that establish such tribal authority for the purpose of development and implementation of renewable energy policies and practices. 87 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange NEG—STATES CP SOLVENCY Indian-State cooperation key to effective energy program. David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al September 2002 College of Business Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 02-21, “The Implications of the Regional Haze Rule on Renewable and Wind Energy Development on Native American Lands in the West” http://ses.nau.edu/pdf/Smith_AWEA.pdf pg 7 [ev] Explore State-Tribal Agreements for Renewable Energy Projects on Tribal Lands Some tribes may want to explore with states the possibility of a state-tribal agreement for renewable energy projects on tribal lands as part of a state’s strategy to meets its own goals for renewable energy (especially those goals related to state compliance with the RHR). Such agreements could provide an incentive for locating projects on tribal lands or could remove a disincentive that would arise if location of the project on tribal land meant that the state would not receive credit for the project as part of its progress toward meeting its RHR renewable energy goals. 88 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange NEG—EFFICIENCY 1NC SOLVENCY—ECON Energy efficiency key to economic growth—import replacement and product spillover. David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al February 2004 College of Business Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 04-04, “Recommendations for Reducing Energy Consumption and Improving Air Quality through Energy Efficiency in Indian Country” http://www.franke.nau.edu/Faculty/Intellectual/workingpapers/pdf/Smith_Recommendations.pdf pg 6-7 [ev] Jacobs (2000, pg. 19) has noted that “Development ... operates as a web of interdependent co- developments.” EE programs can enhance such co-developments, which incorporate multiple members of the community and bring vital improvements to its economic structure. According to a study done on the Navajo Reservation (Yazzie 1989), approximately 87 cents of each dollar earned was spent off the reservation in border towns, where goods and services were purchased. As the economic development process continues and a more diverse selection of goods and services is offered on the reservation, people will spend more money on the reservation rather than in border towns. The term for this is import replacement, and it is a vital part of the economic development process. Although major efforts have been made to increase retail opportunities on reservations in the last decade, additional expansion can be stimulated by providing affordable renewable energy and by encouraging the creative and entrepreneurial spirit of community members. By introducing energy efficiency programs to the reservation, the tribe will be refueling itself. In order to replace imports with domestically produced goods and services, the whole reservation economy must participate in development, which spreads work opportunities throughout the community. The goal is to seek diversification rather than mere expansion of existing goods and services. When energy efficiency is realized, the cost of doing business is lowered, and the economic landscape will become correspondingly more fertile, producing business opportunities such as sales of more efficient appliances, light fixtures, bulbs, and accessories. Combining the energy efficiency programs with a program for increased electrification creates a potential for both retail and manufacturing expansion. There will be a new found need for items like refrigerators, fans, extension cords, and computers, which could be sold on the reservation. Leakage of money off the reservation will decrease, and the tribe will profit from increases in both reservation business activity and employment opportunities. As the technicians working for the energy businesses begin to develop their skills installing and implementing the new, efficient systems, spontaneous entrepreneurial ideas could arise. Perhaps small components of the systems could be produced locally. Alternatively, new and better designs for components may result from the creativity of the tribe’s entrepreneurs. Native American tribes could move ahead of the rest of the world by inventing specialized tools desired by the rest of the planet. This is Jacobs’s (2000) “web of co-developments.” There is no way of foretelling the future, but the strong entrepreneurial nature of the indigenous cultures almost assures development of new opportunities, products, and services. 89 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange NEG—EFFICIENCY SOLVENCY—ECON Energy efficiency solves. David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al February 2004 College of Business Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 04-03, “Identification and Implementation of Potential Energy Efficiency Programs in Indian Country” http://www.franke.nau.edu/Faculty/Intellectual/workingpapers/pdf/Smith_Implementation.pdf pg 2 [ev] Tribal members spend anywhere between 1 percent and 20 percent of their incomes on basic energy services (Energy Information Administration 2000). Depending on the type and sector (e.g., commercial, residential, etc.) of an energy efficiency (EE) project, successful implementation of the project can have a significant impact due to the potentially large percentage of income expended on energy. However, for these benefits to be realized, the EE project must be successfully implemented. Because EE measures vary from simple behavioral changes to complex technological applications, a proper understanding of how to implement an energy efficiency program and how to select appropriate EE measures is crucial to achieving successful implementation. Toward this end, it is important to understand the demographics and different market segments in order to focus efforts in areas that will create the greatest yield in energy cost savings and other benefits. Furthermore, if a tribe has not previously undertaken any energy efficiency projects, it is likely that there are ample opportunities to achieve substantial savings by implementing a variety of EE measures, including “low tech” projects. The purpose of this paper is to describe how to establish a successful energy efficiency program as well as suggest potential EE measures. Efficiency key to Indian econ growth. David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al February 2004 College of Business Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 04-02, “Economic Analysis of Energy Efficiency Measures: Tribal Case Studies with The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, The Pascua Yaqui Tribe, and The Yurok Tribe” http://www.franke.nau.edu/Faculty/Intellectual/workingpapers/pdf/Smith_EnergyEfficiency.pdf pg 2 [ev] Energy efficiency is maximizing the effective utilization of energy while minimizing the costs of that energy. Implementation of energy efficiency (EE) programs by a tribe can have many positive impacts. These include the reduction of energy costs and the associated freeing of significant financial resources for other important uses, improving electrical service, increased energy independence, improved air quality, reduction in environmental impacts, and others. Foremost amongst these benefits may be the potential for reduced energy costs. By employing EE measures, it is easily possible to save 10 percent on energy costs and the potential exists to save in excess of 50 percent. Thus, if a tribe spends $100,000 annually on energy, it can expect a minimum energy cost savings of $10,000 annually, and perhaps significantly more. In 1997, U.S. Indian households spent $757 million on energy supplies. Thus if only 10 percent of that cost were eliminated via EE, then $76 million would be available for other purposes on Indian lands instead of energy. The magnitude of these savings will increase significantly if other energy end-uses such as commercial and government entities are included. Furthermore, EE can go hand-in-hand with new electrification, providing a cost-effective means to decrease operating costs while improving the performance of newly electrified homes and other buildings. 90 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange NEG—EFFICIENCY SOLVENCY—ECON Energy efficiency boosts reservation and American econs. David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al February 2004 College of Business Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 04-04, “Recommendations for Reducing Energy Consumption and Improving Air Quality through Energy Efficiency in Indian Country” http://www.franke.nau.edu/Faculty/Intellectual/workingpapers/pdf/Smith_Recommendations.pdf pg 5 [ev] The primary benefit of improvements in energy efficiency is, of course, the cost savings. Often a moderate expenditure today will result in substantial future savings. Indeed, after an energy management program is initiated, energy cost savings up to 15 percent can be easily realized with little capital investment. Eventually, savings on the order of 30 percent are routinely obtained, and sometimes savings of as high as 50 to 70 percent can be achieved (Capehart et al. 1997). These savings free financial resources for better use elsewhere, often regardless of the sector that implements the efficiency improvement. A few examples may help to illustrate this general concept: A family may choose to insulate their home to permanently reduce the heating or cooling cost; money is spent the first year, but money is saved every year afterward. The money saved can be applied to whatever that family perceives as its next greatest need. A business may, for example, install new light fixtures that provide the same illumination benefits at a lower cost. There is an initial outlay of cash, but then these reduced costs last for the lifetime of the new fixtures, raising the incomes of the business and perhaps its employees. A governmental entity may have similar opportunities to implement efficiency measures. Such measures will free budgetary resources, allowing that entity to better accomplish its mission. In addition to decreasing the energy-related costs in a household, business, or government office, efficiency improvements may also further the economic development of a region, or may change its pattern of economic activity by freeing resources for other, more productive tasks. Jobs are created for local workers to repair or weatherize buildings, and if some of the materials used are locally produced or processed, work is generated in those sectors as well. Money saved through efficiency improvements will eventually be spent on other goods and services, some of which are available on the reservation. A family with lower utility bills may now spend more on locally produced services such as dining, entertainment, daycare, or preventive medical care. As activity in these sectors increases, employment and incomes will increase as well. As this additional income is spent, it circulates throughout the economy, further increasing employment and incomes through a phenomenon known as the multiplier effect. Not all money saved through EE returns to the local economy, but will continue to flow off the reservation through the purchase of non-local goods and services, such as when purchasing new appliances. 91 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange NEG—EFFICIENCY SOLVENCY—CULTURE Energy efficiency key to cultural preservation. David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al February 2004 College of Business Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 04-04, “Recommendations for Reducing Energy Consumption and Improving Air Quality through Energy Efficiency in Indian Country” http://www.franke.nau.edu/Faculty/Intellectual/workingpapers/pdf/Smith_Recommendations.pdf pg 6 [ev] Many tribes face two major needs: employment and economic development. Perhaps tribal economic development could avoid the conventional model where pure profits are the main consideration. Although profits must still be a consideration, culture and traditions could also play an operative role in blending successful commerce with traditional lifeways. Economic security can help lead to cultural self-preservation. Energy efficiency is an ideal way to help achieve such security because it does not depend solely on scarce resources in danger of being depleted. Instead it can help protect them for future generations. Becoming more energy efficient can lead not only to direct opportunities for people in education and employment through its economic benefits, but also to a myriad of secondary reservation-based opportunities. This can all be done in a way that does not detract from the culture, but rather helps to preserve it. Economic development occurs when diverse activities and businesses are given the opportunity to prosper and flourish within a stable political background. Such development is a process that weaves through the social system; it can assist sustaining tribal character. Energy efficiency key to culture and growth. David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al February 2004 College of Business Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 04-04, “Recommendations for Reducing Energy Consumption and Improving Air Quality through Energy Efficiency in Indian Country” http://www.franke.nau.edu/Faculty/Intellectual/workingpapers/pdf/Smith_Recommendations.pdf pg 7 [ev] Some of the benefits of implementing efficient energy programs on reservations will be social. The lack of jobs and insufficient income, two of the most pressing issues on reservations (Smith, 2000, pg. 95), tend to create a downward spiral in quality of life because people see no opportunity for improvement. The result is often substance abuse, domestic unrest, and attrition of people to places where jobs can be found. Those who seek highly specialized jobs tend to leave the reservation in search of such work; a brain drain takes away the most talented members of the population. However, appropriate economic development will likely ameliorate such social ills. The brain drain effect will decrease because there will be more opportunities for people to use their talents on the reservation. The experience of earning a steady income will give hope for improvement, as well as providing successful role models for others. This increase in activity will also likely reduce substance abuse. Individuals will begin to see opportunities to enrich their lives rather than feeling hopeless. 92 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange NORMAL MEANS LIST Normal means is solar, biomass, geothermal. Anne Sprunt Crawley US Department of Energy et al May 2000 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, ASES Solar 2000 Conference, “Renewable Energy for Federal Facilities Serving Native Americans” http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/28017.pdf pg 3 [ev] The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is targeting Federal facilities serving Native American populations for cost- effective renewable energy projects. These projects not only save energy and money, they also provide economic opportunities for the Native Americans who assist in producing, installing, operating, or maintaining the renewable energy systems obtained for the facilities. The systems include solar heating, solar electric (photovoltaic or PV), wind, biomass, and geothermal energy systems. In fiscal years 1998 and 1999, FEMP co-funded seven such projects, working with the Indian Health Service in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the U.S. Department of the Interior, and their project partners. The new renewable energy systems are helping to save money that would otherwise be spent on conventional energy and reduce the greenhouse gases associated with burning fossil fuels. 93 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange NEG—LAND CP SOLVES HEG (BAD) Decolonization kills heg. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 19 [ev] Viewed from any angle, the situation is obvious. Shorn of its illegally occupied territories, the U.S. would lack the critical mass and internal jurisdictional cohesion necessary to impose itself as it does at present. This is all the more true in that even the fragments of land still delineated as Indian reservations are known to contain up to two-thirds of the uranium, a quarter of the readily accessible low sulfur coal, a fifth of the oil and natural gas, and all of the zeolites available to feed America's domestic economy.144 Withdrawal of these assets from federal control would fatally impair the ability of the U.S. to sustain anything resembling state-corporate business as usual. By every reasonable standard of measure, the decolonization of Native North America must thus be among the very highest priorities pursued by anyone, anywhere, who is seriously committed to achieving a positive transformation of the global status quo.145 94 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange NEG—STATE FAILS Change from within the statist structure is impossible—states have too much at stake. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 20-1 [ev] The stakes embodied in this denial are staggering. There are twenty different indigenous peoples along the peninsula British colonizers called Malaya (now Malaysia), 380 in "postcolonial" India, 670 in the former Dutch/Portuguese colony of Indonesia.157 In South America, the numbers range from 35 in Ecuador to 210 in Brazi1.158 There are scores, including such large nationalities as the Yi, Manchus, and Miao, encapsulated within the Peoples Republic of China.'" In Vietnam, two dozen-odd "montagnard tribes" of the Annamese Cordillera have been unwillingly subsumed under authority of what the Vietnamese constitution unilaterally proclaims "a multinational state."166 The same situation prevails for the Hmongs of Laos.161 Not only the Chechens of the south but at least threedozen smaller northern peoples remain trapped within the Russian rump state resulting from the breakup of the Soviet Union.162 In Iraq and Turkey, there are the Kurds;163 in Libya and Morocco, the Bedouins of the desert regions.164 Throughout subsaharan Africa, hundreds more, many of them partitioned by borders defended at gunpoint by statist regimes, share the circumstance of the rest.165 Similar situations prevail in every quarter of the earth 166 Observed from this standpoint, it's easy enough to see why no state, regardless of how bitterly opposed it might otherwise be to the United States, has been—or could be—willing to attack the U.S. where it is most vulnerable. The vulnerability being decidedly mutual, any precedent thus established would directly contradict the attacking state's sense of self-preservation at the most fundamental level. Hence, the current process of militarily enforced politicoeconomic "globalization"167—world imperialism, by any other namet68—must be viewed as a collaborative endeavor, involving even those states which stand to suffer most as a result (and which have therefore been most vociferously critical of it). It follows that genuine and effective opposition can only accrue from locations outside "official" venues, at the grassroots, among those who understand their interests as being antithetical not only to globalization, per se, but to the entire statist structure upon which it depends. 95 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange FED SWEET Federal action key to change. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 70-1 [ev] In this changing context, the federal government has once again begun to engage in "damage control," allowing a calculated range of concessions in order to bolster .4 what it seeks to project as its image abroad. Notably, in 1974, the U.S. Supreme 1 Court announced for the first time that American Indians have a right to pursue the actual recovery of stolen land through the federal judiciary.5° Although resort to the courts of the colonizer is hardly an ideal solution to the issues raised by indigenous nations, it does place another tool in the inventory of means by which we can now pursue our rights. It has, moreover, resulted in measurable gains for some of us over the past quarter-century. Probably the best example of this is the suit, first entered in 1972 under the auspices of a sponsoring organization, of the basically landless Passamaquoddy and Penobscot Nations in present-day Maine to some twelve million acres acknowledged as being theirs in a series of letters dating from the 1790s and signed by George Washington." Since it was demonstrated that no ratified treaty existed by which the Indians had ceded their land, U.S. District Judge Edward T. Gignoux ordered a settlement acceptable to the majority of the native people involved.52 This resulted in the recovery, in 1980, of some 300,000 acres of land, and payment of $27 million in compensatory. damages by the federal government.53 In a similarly argued case, the Narragansetts of Rhode Island—not previously recognized by the government as still existing—were in 1978 able to win not only recognition of themselves, but to recover 1,800 acres of the remaining 3,200 stripped from them in 1880 by unilateral action of the state." In another instance, the Mashantucket Pequot people of Connecticut filed suit in 1976 to recover 800 of the 2,000 acres comprising their original reservation, created by the Connecticut Colony in 1686 but reduced to 184 acres by the State of Connecticut after the American War of Independence.55 Pursuant to a settlement agreement arrived at with the state in 1982, Congress passed an act providing funds to acquire the desired acreage. It was promptly vetoed by Ronald Reagan on April 11, 1983.56 After the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs convened hearings on the matter, however, Reagan agreed to a slight revision of the statute, affixing his signature on October 18 the same year.57 96 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange NEG—FED FAILS Federal action can’t solve—court decisions prove that racism is too engrained. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 71 [ev] Other nations, however, have not fared as well, even in an atmosphere where the U.S. has sometimes proven more than usually willing to compromise as a means to contain questions of native land rights. The Wampanoags of the Mashpee area of Cape Cod, for example, filed suit in 1974 in an attempt to recover about 17,000— later reduced to 11,000—of the 23,000 acres historically acknowledged as theirs. (The Commonwealth of Massachusetts unilaterally declared their reservation a "township" in 1870.) At trial, the all-white jury, each of whom had property interests in the Mashpee area, were asked to determine whether the Wampanoag plaintiffs were "a tribe within the meaning of the law." After deliberating for 21 hours, the jury returned with the absurd finding that they were nor such an entity in 1790, 1869, and 1870 (the years which were key to the Indians' case), but that they were in 1832 and 1834 (years in which it was important they had been "a tribe" for purposes of alienating land to the government). Their claim was then denied by District Judge Walter J. Skinner.58 An appeal to the U.S. First Circuit Court failed, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the case.59 Given such mixed results, it is plain that that justice in native land claims cases cannot ultimately be expected to accrue through the federal court system. Whatever remedial potential resides in judicial and diplomatic venues must therefore be pursued through bodies such as the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations, which is even now engaged in finalizing a "Universal Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,"6° and the International Court of Justice (ICJ, or "World Court"), which must interpret and render opinions based in such law.61 From there, it can be expected that international scrutiny and pressure, as well as changed sentiments among a growing segment of the U.S. body politic, may serve to force the United States to edge closer to a fair and equitable handling of indigenous rights.62 In the meantime, nearly every litigation of land claims within the federal system adds to the weight of evidence supporting the international case presented by native people: when we win, it proves we were entitled to the land all along; when we lase, it Proves that the "due process rights" the U.S. insists protect our interests are, at most, inconsistently available to us. Either way, these legalistic endeavors force cracks in the ideological matrix of the American empire. In combination with extralegal efforts such as refusal to leave their homes by native traditionals and physical occupations of contested areas by groups such as AIM, as well as the increasing international work by indigenous delegations, they comprise the core of the ongoing land struggles which represent the future of Native North America.63 97 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange A2 COOPTATION K The benefits of cooperation outweigh and solve their kritik—by combining non-Indian activism with Indian activism, we can prevent imperialist cooptation and achieve change. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 106 [ev] It is in this last connection that the greatest current potential may be found, not only for the Newes in their struggle to retain (or regain) their homeland, but for (re)assertion of indigenous land rights more generally, and for the struggles of nonindians who seek genuinely positive alternatives to the North American status quo. In the combination of forces presently coalescing in the Nevada desert lie the seeds of a new sort of communication, understanding, respect, and the growing promise of mutually beneficial joint action between native and nonnative peoples in this hemisphere.294 For the Shoshones, the attraction of a broad—and broadening—base of popular support for their rights offers far and away the best possibility of bringing to bear the kind and degree of pressure necessary to compel the federal government to restore all, or at least some sizable portion, of their territory. For the nonindian individuals and organizations involved, the incipient unity they have achieved with the Newes represents both a conceptual breakthrough and a seminal practical experience of the fact that active support of native land rights can tangibly further their own interests and agendas.295 For many American Indians, particularly those of traditionalist persuasion, the emerging collaboration of nonindian groups in the defense of Western Shoshone lands has come to symbolize the possibility that there are elements of the dominant population that have finally arrived at a position in which native rights are not automatically discounted as irrelevancies or presumed to be subordinate to their own.296 On such bases, bona fide alliances can be built. Herein lies what may be the most important lesson to be learned by those attempting to forge a truly American radical vision, and what may ultimately translate that vision into concrete reality: Native Americans cannot hope to achieve restoration of the lands and liberty which are legitimately theirs without the support and assistance of nonindians, while nonindian activists cannot hope to effect any transformation of the existing social order which is not fundamentally imperialistic, and thus doomed to replicate some of the most negative aspects of the present system, unless they accept the necessity of liberating indigenous land and lives as a matter of first priority.297 Both sides of the equation are at this point bound together in all but symbiotic fashion by virtue of a shared continental habitat, a common oppressor, and an increasingly interactive history. There is thus no viable option but to go forward together, figuratively joining hands to ensure our collective wellbeing, and that of our children, and our children's children. 98 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange AFF KEY/FRAMEWORK? A new political framework is key to emancipation—trying to function within the preexisting political system dooms the indigenous movement to failure. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 106-7 [ev] The question which inevitably arises with regard to indigenous land claims, especially in the U.S., is whether they are “realistic.” The answer, of course, is “no they aren’t.” Further, no form of decolonization has ever been realistic when viewed within the construct of a colonialist paradigm. It wasn't realistic at the time to expect George Washington's rag-tag militia to defeat the British military during the American independence struggle. Just ask the British. It wasn't realistic, as the French could tell you, that the Vietnamese should be able to defeat U.S.-backed France in 1954,298 or that the Algerians would shortly be able to follow in their footsteps.299 Surely, it wasn't reasonable to predict that Fidel Castros's pitiful handful of guerrillas would overcome Batista's regime in Cuba, another U.S. client, after only a few years in the mountains.3°0 And the Sandinistas, to be sure, had no prayer of attaining victory over Somoza twenty years later."' Henry Kissinger, among others, knew that for a fact. The point is that in each case, in order to begin their struggles at all, anticolonial fighters around the world have had to abandon orthodox realism in favor of what they knew (and their opponents knew) to be right. To paraphrase Daniel Cohn-Bendit, they accepted as their agenda—the goals, objectives, and demands which guided them—a redefinition of reality in terms deemed quite impossible within the conventional wisdom of their oppressors. And, in each case, they succeeded in their immediate quest for liberation.302 The fact that all but one (Cuba) of the examples used subsequently turned out to hold colonizing pretensions of its own does not alter the truth of this—or alter the appropriateness of their efforts to decolonize themselves— in the least. It simply means that decolonization has yet to run its course, that much remains to be done.303 99 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange POVERTY=GENOCIDE Poverty on Native American reservations is tantamount to genocide. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 112-3 [ev] All of this is, unfortunately, on paper. The practical reality is that American Indians, far from being well off, are today the most impoverished sector of the U.S. population.8 We experience by far the lowest average annual and lifetime incomes of any group. The poorest locality in the United States for 23 of the past 25 years has been Shannon County, on the Pine Ridge Sioux Reservation in South Dakota, where a recent study found 88 percent of the available housing to be substandard, much of it to the point of virtual uninhabitability. The annual per capita income in Shannon County was barely over $2,000 in 1995, while unemployment hovered in the 90th percentile.9 Bad as conditions are on Pine Ridge, they are only marginally worse than those on the adjoining Rosebud Sioux Reservation and a host of others. In many ways, health data convey the costs and consequences of such deep and chronic poverty far better than their financial counterparts. These begin with the facts that, overall, American Indians suffer far and away the highest rates of malnutrition, death from exposure, and infant mortality (14.5 times the national average on some reservations).I° The Indian health level is the lowest and the disease rate the highest of all major population groups in the United States. The incidence of tuberculosis is over 400 percent the national average. Similar statistics show the incidence of strep infections is 1,000 percent, meningitis is 2,000 percent higher, and dysentery is 10,000 percent higher. Death rates from disease are shocking when Indian and non-Indian populations are compared. Influenza and pneumonia are 300 percent greater killers among Indians. Diseases such as hepatitis are at epidemic proportions, with an 800 percent higher chance of death. Diabetes is almost a plague [6.8 times the general population rate]." It should come as no surprise, given the ubiquitousness of such circumstances, that alcoholism and other addictions take an inordinate toll. Although fewer Indians drink than do nonindians, the rate of alcohol-related accidental deaths among native people is ten times that of the general population, while the rate of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) among the newborn is 33 times greater.' The suicide rate among Indians is ten times the national norm, while, among native youth, it is 10,000 percent higher than among our nonindian counterparts.I3 All told, the current life expectancy of a reservation-based American Indian male is less than fifty years in a society where the average man lives 71.8 years. Reservation- based Indian women live approximately three years longer than males, but general population women enjoy an average life expectancy seven years longer than nonindian men.14 Hence, every time an American Indian dies on a reservation—or, conversely, every time a child is born—it can be argued that about one-third of a lifetime is lost. This thirtieth percentile attrition of the native population has prevailed throughout the twentieth century; a situation clearly smacking of genocide.15 This last is, of course, a policy-driven phenomenon, not something inadvertent or merely "unfortunate." Here, the BIA's exercise of trust authority over native assets comes into play. While it has orchestrated the increasingly intensive "development" of reservation lands since 1945, a matter which might logically have been expected to alleviate at least the worst of the symptomologies sketched above, the Bureau's role in setting the rates at which land was/is leased and royalties for extracted minerals were/are paid by major corporations has precluded any such result.I6 Instances in which the BIA has opted to rent out the more productive areas on reservations to nonindian ranchers or agribusiness interests for as little as $1 per acre per year, and for as long as 99 years, are legion and notorious.'? As to mineral royalties, the Bureau has consistently structured contracts "in behalf of" Indians which require payment of as little as ten percent of market rates while releasing participating corporations from such normal overhead expenses as the maintenance of minimum standards for worker/community safety and environmental safeguards. In fact, most such arrangements have not even provided for a semblance of postoperational clean up of mining and processing sites.I8 100 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange HEG BAD American hegemony sacrifices Native Americans to fuel our imperial war regime. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 113 [ev] Such "savings" accrue to U.S. corporations in the form of superprofits indistinguishable from those gleaned through their enterprises in the Third World, a matter which has unquestionably facilitated the emergence of the United States as the world's dominant economic power in the post-World War II context.19 Minerals such as uranium, molybdenum, and zeolite, moreover, are not only commercially valuable but strategically crucial, an important factor in understanding America's present global military ascendancy.2° All of this has been obtained, as a matter of policy, at the direct expense of Native North America as well as other underdeveloped regions of the world. As Eduardo Galeano once explained to mainstream Americans, with respect to the impact of their lifestyle(s) on Latin America: "Your wealth is our poverty."21 The correlation is no less true on American Indian reservations. It holds up even in such superficially more redeemable connections as U.S. efforts to curtail acid rain and other collateral effects of electrical power generation through reliance upon low sulfur bituminous rather than high sulfur anthracite coal. 101 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange COAL! Status quo coal mining destroys Indian culture and perpetuates dehumanizing poverty. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 113-4 [ev] The largest and most easily extracted deposit of bituminous coal in North America is located at Black Mesa, in northern Arizona, an area occupied almost exclusively by Navajos. Beginning in 1974, the federal government undertook a program of compulsory relocation to remove some 13,500 resident Navajos from area, dispersing them into primarily urban areas and completely obliterating their sociocultural existence (until then, they had comprised the largest remaining enclave of traditionally oriented Indians in the lower forty-eight states). The land upon which their subsistence economy was based is itself to be destroyed, a circumstance barring even the possibility of their reconstitution as a viable human group at some future date.22 The coal, once mined, is slurried to the Four Corners Power Plant and other generating facilities where it is burned to produce electricity. This "product" is then transported over massive power grids to meet such socially vital needs as keeping the air conditioners humming in the Phoenix Valley and the neon lights lit 24 hours a day at Las Vegas casinos. Meanwhile, 46 percent of the homes on the Navajo Reservation have no electricity at all (54 percent have no indoor plumbing, 82 percent no phone).23 No more fitting illustration of Galeano's equation seems conceivable. 102 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange NUCLEAR TESTING! The nuclear testing of internal colonialism represents a veiled genocide against Native America and perpetuates the Native as an expendable body. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 115-6 [ev] While it is true that the "internal" variety of colonialism visited upon native peoples by modern settler states differs in many respects from the "classic" models of external colonization developed by European empires over the past several centuries, it is Colonialism nonetheless.32 Moreover, it is no less genocidal in its implications and effects than were the forms of overseas colonialism analyzed by Jean-Paul Sartre in his famous 1968 essay on the topic.33 Indeed, given how seamlessly it has been imposed, how imperfectly its existence and functioning are reflected in even the most ostensibly liberatory political discourses, and how committed to attaining its formal legitimation the great majority of states have lately proven themselves, internal colonialism may well prove to be more so.34 Predictably, there are a number of ways in which the Sartrian equation of colonialism to genocide can be brought to bear when examining the situation of contemporary Native North America. Several of these were suggested above. Probably the clearest representation will be found, however, in the sorry history of how the United States has wielded its self-assigned trust authority over Indian lands and lives in pursuit of global nuclear supremacy over the past half-century. RADIOACTIVE COLONIZATION The origins of U.S. nuclear policy obviously lie in its quest to develop an atomic bomb during World War II. The "Manhattan Project" was conducted mainly at the Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratory, a huge fortified compound created in 1942 on the Pajarito Plateau, northwest of Santa Fe, New Mexico, on land supposedly reserved for the exclusive use and occupancy of the San Ildefonso Pueblo.35 Uranium, the key material used in the lab's experiments and eventual fabrication of prototype nuclear weapons, was mined and milled exclusively in the Monument Valley area of-- the nearby Navajo Reservation.36 Hanford, a uranium enrichment/plutonium manufacturing facility, was added in 1944, near the town of Richland, on Yakima land in eastern Washington.37 When the first bomb was detonated on July 16, 1945, it was on the Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range, now the White Sands Test Range, adjoining the Mescalero Apache Reservation.38 While the official rationale for these site selections has always been that their remoteness from major urban centers was/is essential to protecting the secrecy of the research and production to which they were devoted, this in itself does not account for why they were not situated in such sparsely populated areas as western Kansas.39 A better explanation would seem to reside in the fact that planners were concerned from the outset that the nuclear program embodied substantial risks to anyone living in 1- proximity to it.40 Such people as resided in the central plains region by the 1940s were mostly members of the settler society; those at San Ildefonso, Mescalero, and Yakima were almost entirely native. For U.S. policymakers, there appears to have been no real question as to which group was the more readily expendable. 103 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange URANIUM MINING! Uranium mining and nuclear power are violent processes carried out in secret against Native America. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 120 [ev] This sudden and massive corporate tie-in to the expansion of U.S. uranium production did not, however, signal a shifting of the burden of supplying it from the shoulders of Native North America. Rather, such weight was increased dramatically. Although only about sixty percent of uranium deposits in the United States were/are situated on American Indian reservations—most of it in the so-called "Grants Uranium Belt" of northern New Mexico and Arizona—well over ninety percent of all the uranium ever mined in the U.S. had been taken from such sources by the time the AEC's "domestic" ore-buying program was phased out in 1982.65 Hence, while the USSR and its satellites relied on slave labor provided by hundreds of thousands of political prisoners in meeting their production quotas, the U.S. utilized its internal, indigenous colonies for the same purpose.66 Not only did the workforce harnessed to the tasks of uranium mining and milling remain disproportionately native, but the vast majority of extraction and processing facilities were situated in Indian Country as well, conveniently out of sight and mind of the general-, public, their collateral health impacts concentrated among indigenous populations. Much the same can be said with respect to weapons research, testing, and the disposal of radioactive waste by-products. We will examine each of these components of the nuclear process in turn. Uranium mining is an attack on Native populations. Peter S. Wenz Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Illinois at Springfield, University Scholar of the University of Illinois, Oxford University Press 2001, Environmental Ethics Today pg. 202 [ev] Indigenous people experience extraordinary pollution as well. When most of us think about nuclear power dangers, we imagine power plant explosions, as at Chernobyl. But mining uranium brings radioactive materials to the earth's surface, pulverizes it into powder, and leaves 85 percent of its radioactivity on the ground near the mine. Only the richest 1 percent of the material (which contains 15 percent of the radioactivity) is hauled away to be processed as nuclear fuel. Mostly Native Americans worked in and continue to live near this hazardous by-product of the nuclear power industry. Dick Russell reported in The Amiens Journal in 1989: "2 million tons of radioactive uranium tailings have been dumped on Native American lands; reproductive organ cancer among Navajo teenagers is seventeen times the national average."51 This is the pattern worldwide. Uranium mining takes place mostly on lands that indigenous people occupy. This is true in Russia, Australia, Canada, China, and India.52 Why? Is it just some cosmic coincidence that native peoples live on top of uranium deposits? Not likely. No one looks for uranium deposits under Manhattan, Moscow, or Beverly Hills. Instead, exploration concentrates on areas that could be exploited if uranium is found. This is land occupied by poor, subordinated people.53 104 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange NUCLEAR TESTING! Nuclear testing constructs the Native as an “expendable” test subject to be used and discarded at the whim of America. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 130-1 [ev] Nuclear weapons, once designed, must be tested. During the period immediately following World War II, the U.S. asserted its "trust" authority over the Marshall Islands, gained by its defeat of Japan, for purposes of conducting more than a hundred such tests on the natives' mid-Pacific atolls by 1958.144 Meanwhile, the search for a more "suitable" continental locality; code-named "Nutmeg," began as early as 1948. Two years later, the AEC/Pentagon combo finally settled on the Las Vegas/Tonopah Bombing and Gunnery Range in Nevada (now called the Nellis Range), an area which it --- had already decided "really wasn't much good for anything but gunnery practice—you could bomb it into oblivion and never notice the difference:145 Of course, nobody bothered to ask the Western Shoshone people, within whose unceded territory the facility was established, whether they felt this was an acceptable use of their land, or whether they were even willing to have it designated as part of the U.S. "public domain" for any purpose.146 Instead, in 1952, having designated 435,000 acres in the Yucca Flats area of Nellis as a "Nevada Test Site"—another 318,000 acres were added in 1961, bringing the total to 753,000—the AEC and its military partners undertook the first of what by now add up to nearly a thousand atmospheric and under ground test detonations.147 In the process, they converted the peaceful and pastoral Shoshones, who had never engaged in an armed conflict with the U.S., into what, by. any estimation, is far and away "the most bombed nation on earth."148 The deadly atomic sunburst over Hiroshima, in 1945, produced 13 kilotons of murderous heat and radioactive fallout. At least 27 of the 96 above ground bombs detonated between 1951 and 1958 at the Nevada Test Site produced a total of over 620 kilotons of radioactive debris that fell on downwinders. The radioactive isotopes mixed with the scooped-up rocks and earth of the southwestern desert lands and "lay down a swath of radioactive fallout" over Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. In light of the fact that scientific research has now confirmed that any radiation exposure is dangerous, the "virtual inhabitants" (more than 100,000 people) residing in the small towns east and south of the test site were placed in ... jeopardy by the AEC atomic test program (emphasis added).149 Those most affected by the estimated twelve billion curies of radioactivity released into the atmosphere over the past 45 years have undoubtedly been the native communities scattered along the periphery of Nellis.15° These include not only three Shoshone reservations— Duckwater, Yomba, and Timbisha—but the Las Vegas Paiute Colony and the Pahrump Paiute, Goshute, and Moapa reservations as well. Their circumstances have been greatly compounded by the approximately 900 underground test detonations which have, in a region where surface water sources are all but nonexistent, resulted in contamination of groundwater with plutonium, tritium, and other radioactive substances at levels up to 3,000 times the maximum "safe" lirnits.151 105 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange NUKE POWER=COLONIZATION Nuclear repositories exploit the political vulnerability of Native Americans to poison entire populations—scientific studies show that this would be a plutonium fueled genocide. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 133-5 [ev] Waste "Disposal" Plutonium, an inevitable byproduct of most reactors and the essential ingredient in nearly all nuclear weapons, has been aptly described as being "the most toxic substance in the universe."166 Only ten micrograms, a microscopic quantity, is an amount "almost certain to induce cancer, and several grams . . . dispersed in a ventilation system, are enough to cause the death of thousands."167 Indeed, it has been estimated that a single pound of plutonium, if evenly distributed throughout the earth's atmosphere, would be sufficient to kill every human being on the planet.168 Viewed from this perspective, the quantity of this material created by the United States during the course of its arms race with the Soviet Union—as of 1989, the U.S. alone had amassed some 21,000 nuclear weapons—is virtually incomprehensible.169 By 1995, military weapons-grade plutonium, in the form of active and dismantled bombs, amounted to 270 metric tons. The commercial stockpile of plutonium in nuclear-reactor wastes and isolates from spent fuel amounts to 930 metric tons and will double to 2,130 tons by 2005, . . . "Every four or five years we're [now] making about as much plutonium in the civil sector as we did during the whole Cold War." And this is only plutonium. Fission reactors create eighty radionuclides that are releasing "ionizing radiation," which causes harm to human beings in the form of genetic mutations, cancer, and birth de-fects.170 Leaving aside the proliferation of commercial reactors and other such facilities, as well as the mining and milling zones, there are 132 sites in thirty states where one or another facet of nuclear weapons production has left radioactive contamination of 'tarring orders of magnitude, all of them unacceptable. 171 The DoE currently esti-mates that it will cost about $500 billion to return these to habitable condition, an absurdly low figure in view of the department's admission that neither concepts nor technologies presently exist with which to even begin the clean-up of "large contaminated river systems like the Columbia, Clinch, and Savannah [as well as] most groundwater [and] nuclear test areas on the Nevada Test Site."72 It is also conceded that there is no known method of actually "disposing" of—i.e., decontaminating—plutonium and other radioactive wastes after they've been cleaned from the broader environment.173 Instead, such materials, once collected, can only be sealed under the dubious premise that they can be somehow safely stored for the next 250,000 years.174 The sheer volume is staggering: "Hanford [alone] stores 8,200,000 cubic feet of high-level waste and 500,000 cubic feet of transuranic waste. Hanford buried 18,000,000 cubic feet of 'low-level' waste and 3,900,000 cubic feet of transuranic waste."175 And, daunting as they are, these numbers— associated exclusively with weapons, weapons production, and commercial reactors—don't begin to include the millions of tons of accumulated mill tailings and similar byproducts of "front end" nuclear processing.176 Such facilities as now exist to accommodate warhead and reactor wastes are all temporary installations designed to last a century or less, even under ideal conditions which seem never to prevail.177 The steadily escalating rate of waste proliferation has--;- led to the burning of plutonium and other substances—a practice which certainly reduces the bulk of the offending materials, but also risks sending clouds of radioactivity into the atmosphere178—and an increasingly urgent quest for safer interim facilities, called "monitored retrievable storage" (MRS) sites, and permanent "repositories" into which their contents could eventually be rnoved.179 Here, as always, emphasis hasbeen on off-loading the problem onto captive indigenous nations.'The reason, predictably enough, is that despite a chorus of official assurances neither an MRS nor a repository would present a health hazard, the precise opposite is true. John Gofman has calculated that if only 0.01 percent of the plutonium now storage were to escape into the environment—a record of efficiency never remotely approximated by the nuclear establishment—some 25 million people could be expected to die of resulting cancers over the following half-century.181 Those most proximate to any dump site can of course expect to suffer the worst impact. Consequently, only one county in the United States has proven amenable to accepting an MRS. within its boundaries, and its willingness to do so was quickly overridden by the state.182 Federal authorities have therefore concentrated all but exclusively on siting the 1. dumps in Indian Country. As longtime indigenous rights activist Grace Thorpe haws observed: The U.S. government targeted Native Americans for several reasons: their lands are some of the most isolated in North America, they are some of the most impoverished and, consequently, most politically vulnerable and, perhaps most important, tribal sovereignty can be used to bypass state environmentallaws ... How ironic that, after centuries of attempting to destroy it, the U.S. government is suddenly interested in promoting Native American sovereignty—just to dump its lethal garbage.183 106 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange YUCCA MOUNTAIN=COLONIZATION Yucca Mountain signifies a permanent colonization of Native America—by marking Native lands for eternal sacrifice the neg makes emancipation impossible. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 136-7 [ev] Even worse problems are evident at Yucca Mountain, located on the southwestern boundary of the Nevada Test Site, where a $15 billion repository to accommodate:. 70,000 tons of mostly civilian high-level waste is being imposed on the long-suffering' Western Shoshones and Paiutes.197 Not only is "spontaneous detonation" just as much a threat as at the WIPP, but Yucca Mountain, located in a volcanically active region,- undercut by no less than 32 geological fault lines.'" Needless to say, no amount of engineering brilliance can ensure the repository's contents will remain undisturbed through a quarter-million years of earthquakes interspersed with volcanic eruptions. Once again, however, the project is being moved forward as rapidly as possible. As if this were not enough, it was announced in 1993 by the Southwestern Compact, a consortium of state governments, that it had "decided to keep the option" of siting a huge low-level waste dump in the Mojave Desert's Ward Valley, near the small town of Needles on the California/Arizona boundary.199 Envisioned as being large enough to accept the contents of all six existing—and failed—low-level facilities in the U.S. with room to spare for the next thirty years, the proposed site is less than eighteen miles from the Colorado River and directly above an aquifer.m It is also very close to the Fort Mojave, Chemehuavi Valley, and Colorado River Indian Tribes reservations, and upstream from those of the Cocopahs and Quechanis around Yuma, Arizona. Taken as a whole, the pattern of using "deserts as dumps" which has emerged in nuclear waste disposal practices over the past decade serves to confirm suspicions, already well founded, that creation of sacrificial geographies within the U.S. has been an integral aspect of Cold War policies and planning for nearly fifty years.201 In many ways, the siting of repositories in particular, since they are explicitly intended to remain in place "forever," may be seen as a sort of capstone gesture in this regard. The collateral genocide of those indigenous peoples whose lands lie within the boundaries of the sacrifice zones, nations whose ultimate negation has always been implicitly bound up in the very nature and depth of their colonization, is thus, finally and irrevocably, to be consummated.202 107 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange ???? Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 137-8 [ev] As Felix S. Cohen once observed, American Indians serve as the proverbial "miner's canary" of U.S. social, political, and economic policies. Whatever is done to Indians, he said, invariably serves as a prototype for things intended by America's elites for application to others, often to society as a whole. The effects of policy implementation upon Indians can thus be viewed as an "early warning" device for the costs and consequences of policy formation upon the broader society. In paying attention to what is happening to Indians, Cohen concluded, nonindians equip themselves to act in their own self-interest; in the alternative, they will inevitably find themselves sharing the Indians' fate.203 Cohen's premise plainly holds in the present connection, and not simply in the more obvious ways. If the citizens of Troy, New York, which became an unanticipated "hot spot" for fallout from atmospheric testing during the early 1950s, can now advance the same claims concerning health impacts as can the residents of Nevada (see Figure 5.4),204 so too can everyone within a fifty mile radius of any of the more than one hundred nuclear reactors in the United States, all of them made possible by the uranium mined and milled on native land.205 As well, there are scores of nuclear weapons manufacturing centers, storage facilities, and the more than four tons of plutonium and comparable materials missing from U.S. inventories by 1977.206 108 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange SELF-DETERMINATION SOLVES PROLIF Western superiority over Native Americans is the root cause of nuclear proliferation—only by changing our relationship to the Native can we halt the damning spread of nuclear warheads. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 138-40 [ev] If the disposal of mountainous accumulations of transuranic and other wastes has become a problem admitting to no easy solution, its existence essentially accrues from the fact that even the most progressive and enlightened sectors of the settler society have busied themselves for forty years with the protesting of nuclear proliferation at its tail end rather than at its point(s) of origin. For all the mass actions they have organized at reactors and missile bases over the years, not one has ever been conducted at a mining/milling site like Church Rock, Shiprock, or Laguna.207 Had things been otherwise,._- it might have been possible to choke off the flow of fissionable materials at their source rather than attempting to combat them in their most proliferate and dispersed state(s). The opposition, however, has for the most part proven itself as willing to relegate native people to stations of marginality, even irrelevancy, as has the order it ostensibly opposes. And here, to borrow from Malcolm X, it can be said that the chickens have truly come home to roost.2°8 This takes the form of the increasingly ubiquitous cancers that have made their appearance across the spectrum of American society since World War II, and the spiraling rates of congenital birth defects and suppressed immune systems evident among those whose lives began during the 1940s or later.2°9 Plastering "no smoking" signs on every flat surface in North America will have absolutely no effect in preventing or curing these and myriad other radiation-induced maladies.21° Wherein lies the cure? In a technical sense, it must be admitted that no one knows. We are very far down the road. The wages of radioactive colonialism are by and large being visited upon the colonizing society itself, and will likely continue to be in what is, in human terms, a permanent fashion. Such effects as have already obtained may well prove irreversible.211 Whether or not this is true, one thing is clear: any effort to counter the effects of nuclear contamination must begin by halting its continuing proliferation. Unavoidably, then, success devolves first and foremost upon devising means of stopping still more uranium from coming out of the ground. Until that is accomplished, struggles to shut down individual reactors, to clean up specific mill-sites and production facilities, to reduce the number of nuclear warheads in military inventories or even to figure out how to dispose of the existing accumulation of wastes will prove futile.212 The principle of course is as time-honored as it is true: to correct a problem it is necessary to confront its source rather than its symptoms. In and of itself, however, uranium mining is not the source of the affliction at hand. Underlying the mining process is the nature of the relationship imposed by the United States upon indigenous peoples within its borders, that of internal colonization, without which such things could never have happened in the first place. And underlying that is a mentality shared by the North American settler population as a veritable whole: a core belief that it is somehow inherently, singularly, even mystically, entitled to dominate all it encounters, possessing or at least benefiting from that which belongs to others, regardless of the costs and consequences visited upon those thereby subjugated and dispossessed.' 3 It can thus be said with certainty that if the dominant society is to have the least Prospect of addressing the steadily mounting crisis of nuclear pollution it has no real option but to end the radioactive colonization of Native North America. This can happen only if U.S. elites are forced to abandon their ongoing pretense of holding legitimate and perpetual "trust authority" over native peoples, thus facilitating the genuine exercise of indigenous self-determination and our more general decolonizat1°n.214 In turn, this can happen only to the extent that there is a wholesale alteration in the "genocidal mentality" which marks the settler population.215 The key in this regard is a breaking down of the codes of denial, both individual and institutional, by which the settler society has always shielded itself from the implications of its own values and resulting actions.216 The process is in part simply a matter of insisting that things be called by their right names rather than the noble- sounding euphemisms behind which reality has been so carefully hidden: terms like "discovery" and "settlement" do not reflect the actualities of invasion and conquest they are used to disguise; colonialism is not a matter of "trust," it is colonialism, a crime under international law; genocide isn't an "inadvertent" outcome of "progress," it is genocide, an always avoidable crime against humanity; ecocide is not "development," it is ecocide, the most blatant and irremediable form of environmental destruction; mere possession constitutes "nine-tenths of the law" only among thugs devoted to enjoying the fruits of an organized system of theft.217 109 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange CASE O/W DA Preventing the ecological destruction of the status quo outweighs risk of a DA—extinction is inevitable unless we change our path. Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 140 [ev] In the alternative, if the current psychopolitical/socioeconornic status quo prevails, things are bound to run their deadly course. Felix Cohen's figurative miners will inevitably share the fate of their canary, the genocide they so smugly allow as an "acceptable cost of doing business" blending perfectly into their own autogenocide until the grim prospect of species extinction has at last been realized. There is, to be sure, a certain unmistakable justice attending the symmetry of this scenario ("What goes around, comes around," as Charlie Manson liked to say).221 But, surely, we—all of us, settlers as well as natives—owe more to our future generations than to bequeath them a planet so thoroughly irradiated as to deny the possibility of life itself. 110 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Land is significant to tribes Native American religious beliefs value their land highly Sandra Zellmer 2002, Professor, Tulane University Law School, University of Colorado Law Review, “SUSTAINING GEOGRAPHIES OF HOPE: CULTURAL RESOURCES ON PUBLIC LANDS,” p. lexis Although generalizations can only be made with caution, given the wide diversity of tribes and tribal interests, it is safe to say that land has tremendous significance to many Indian tribes. n68 Members of landbased tribes describe the land as the "mother" or "The Heart of Everything That Is." n69 A close relationship with the land "permeates American Indian life," n70 sustaining the health and well-being of individual members and, in turn, the integrity and sovereignty of the tribe itself. Steven Emery, former general counsel of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, describes the tribal traditions associated with the Black Hills as "the root of the solution to all of our societal ills." n71 [*432] American Indian religious beliefs, unlike western religious traditions, are often site-specific in nature and intimately associated wi3th the land and its natural features. Viewed as a "sacred, living being," n72 the land "embodies a divinity that it shares with everything that is part of nature, including human beings, animals, plants, rocks ... everything." n73 In a famous speech attributed to Chief Seal'th (anglicized as "Seattle"), a stark distinction is drawn between the Eurocentric view of the land and his own: Fed Key Fed key to take responsibility and give Natives priority Sandra Zellmer 2002, Professor, Tulane University Law School, University of Colorado Law Review, “SUSTAINING GEOGRAPHIES OF HOPE: CULTURAL RESOURCES ON PUBLIC LANDS,” p. lexis [*433] Both the tribes' cultural and spiritual relationships to specific sites and natural resources and their relationship with the federal government are unique. In dealing with Indian Nations, the United States "has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust." n75 The trust relationship places parameters on the discretion of federal agencies, and in some cases requires prioritization of Indian interests, particularly those that relate to treaty resources. n76 This unparalleled political and legal relationship is founded on the tribes' natural rights as "distinct, independent political communities" and "undisputed possessors of the soil, from time immemorial," n77 and the United States' "conquest" and appropriation of tribal lands during westward expansion. n78 Fed must take action to redress wrongdoings and take responsibility Sandra Zellmer 2002, Professor, Tulane University Law School, University of Colorado Law Review, “SUSTAINING GEOGRAPHIES OF HOPE: CULTURAL RESOURCES ON PUBLIC LANDS,” p. lexis The pressure for land provided the subtext, if not the explicit objective, of federal Indian relations throughout the nineteenth century. n84 The treaty era effectuated the official government objective of isolating tribes by rupturing their ties to [*435] the land and removing them to remote reservations. n85 By the close of the century, assimilation had become the cornerstone of federal Indian policy, effectuated largely through the General Allotment Act of 1887, n86 designed to "break up the tribal system" by selling 111 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange off communally held reservation lands. n87 The laws of the allotment era attempted to impose western real property values on Indian people by allocating the land to individual tribal members and allowing its sale. n88 Allotment policies were infused with a paternalistic commitment to "civilize" Indian people and inspire "a sense of responsibility" through ownership of individual parcels of land, dissolving tribal cohesion in the process. n89 Federal trust responsibility is key to end the cultural genocide happening now Sandra Zellmer 2002, Professor, Tulane University Law School, University of Colorado Law Review, “SUSTAINING GEOGRAPHIES OF HOPE: CULTURAL RESOURCES ON PUBLIC LANDS,” p. lexis Assimilation and allotment policies can be described as "cultural genocide." n97 No other group in the United States has [*437] survived such an extended course of officially sanctioned brutality, and no other group has been recognized as a separate sovereign, entitled to govern its own people and control its own destiny. Tribal sovereignty and the protection of cultural integrity and land-based resources are critical aspects of the federal trust responsibility, given the extensive backdrop of government involvement in Indian culture, religion, and property rights. State Action Solves Using the federal government to make policy is the best way to return self determination to tribes Sandra Zellmer 2002, Professor, Tulane University Law School, University of Colorado Law Review, “SUSTAINING GEOGRAPHIES OF HOPE: CULTURAL RESOURCES ON PUBLIC LANDS,” p. lexis Many treaties explicitly recognize tribal governments as sovereign nations entitled to certain political rights, including the right to self-government. n98 Treaties also reflect the special place that the land holds for the tribes, with provisions for exclusive possession of tribal lands and non-exclusive use of offreservation lands for hunting, fishing, and other subsistence practices. n99 To effectuate treaties, and to alleviate barriers to political, economic, and cultural autonomy posed by religious suppression, removal, and allotment, an array of twentieth century federal statutes promotes tribal self-determination with respect to land management, education, and other areas of governance. n100 Congress has explicitly recognized that religious [*438] practices are an integral part of tribal culture and identity and has agreed to protect tribal interests in their own distinctive culture and religion as a matter of national policy n101 and international law. n102 Along with tribal treaties, these statutes provide an expression of the government's trust relationship with tribes, as well as a recognition of international human rights norms. Natives k2 public interest We have a collective interest in maintaining the Native American culture Sandra Zellmer 2002, Professor, Tulane University Law School, University of Colorado Law Review, “SUSTAINING GEOGRAPHIES OF HOPE: CULTURAL RESOURCES ON PUBLIC LANDS,” p. lexis The historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved as a living part of our community life and development.... The preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest so that its vital legacy of cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy benefits will be maintained and enriched for future generations of Americans. n103 112 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange The nation's public lands and natural resources hold tremendous significance to many Americans and to American culture and heritage. Our collective history, literature, and art have promoted a connectivity to the land that is unique among developed nations. This sentiment, as expressed in the law during the course of the country's development and westward expansion, also served as an instrument of imperialism and, ultimately, colonization of the indigenous populations. American [*518] Indians' claims to the protection and use of public lands and resources are politically and culturally distinct, and their interests are entitled to special consideration by federal land managers. The use of a particular site on public lands may be critical to a tribe's identity and its very survival as a community and a sovereign political unit, having consequences that simply are not shared with other interested individuals and groups. No other group has experienced overt and extended suppression of their religious and traditional cultural practices by the United States government. No other group has been forcibly removed from their native lands and yet retained rights to off-reservation resources, many of which are situated on what are now public lands. No other group has sustained a sovereign existence within the United States, with a right to establish and maintain its own government and to control its own destiny as a community. Inherency Current division of power over native lands is problematic James A. Casey, Cornell Law Review, 1-1994, “NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis The status of Indian Nations in the United States today has been called quasi-sovereignty. n6 Although the federal government recognizes the various tribes as sovereign peoples with some rights of selfdetermination, n7 it subordinates their authority to govern themselves [*405] and their land to that of Congress. Thus, in many locations within the borders of the United States there exist three sovereigns - the Indian Nations, the individual states, and the federal government - all with uncertain powers with respect to each other. This situation causes severe conflicts of interest in which the federal and state governments, the more powerful sovereigns, normally prevail and effectively erode the sovereign base of the Indian Tribes. The current fed-state-tribal relationship is hurting Native American sovereignty James A. Casey, Cornell Law Review, 1-1994, “NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis This Note argues that the constant erosion of the remnants of tribal sovereignty is the result of the lack of definition and consent in the current tribal-federal-state relationship. Furthermore, it proposes a system to re-establish the sovereign base of the Indian Nations. The foundation of this system would consist of free association agreements, which would create a new and clearly defined relationship between the tribal, federal and state governments. These agreements would provide a basis for consensual dealings between three equal and coexisting sovereigns. Such agreements would return at least some of the sovereign rights that the current system has stolen from the Indian Nations. No Self-determination now Natives are subject to federal law and cannot control their own destiny James A. Casey, Cornell Law Review, 1-1994, 113 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange “NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis Consent would be the touchstone of the agreements. Any limitation of a nation's sovereign authority must take its legitimacy from consensual arrangements between countries. Thus, consent is a necessary aspect of any relationship between governments. Congress, however, currently does not need the consent of the tribes before legislating with respect to them. n8 Since the tribes may neither accept nor reject the actions of Congress, they do not control their own destiny and thus, are not sovereign in any meaningful sense of the word. The current relationship is one of control, not consent. 114 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange A2 States Having a clearly defined fed-state-tribal rights is key to native American sovereignty. Increased State power would prevent solvency. James A. Casey, Cornell Law Review, 1-1994, “NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis Definition is the other necessary aspect of intergovernmental relations. If two governments reach an agreement, it is important that they rigorously define the scope of the agreement. If the parties do not establish their respective rights and obligations it is impossible to develop methods for dealing with conflicts. In the current tribal-federal relationship, the rights and obligations of the tribes change whenever the federal government alters its policy or the state governments push for more control over the tribes. The tribal right of self-govern [*406] ment remains undefined and, consequently, there is neither security for the tribes, nor any limitation on the changes that can be imposed by the state and federal governments. Thus, without both consent and definition, tribal sovereignty is an uncertain and malleable concept. Having multiple competing actors with authority over the same land prevents solvency. CP gives states control of one part of the process, kill sovereignty James A. Casey, Cornell Law Review, 1-1994, “NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis The fluctuations evident throughout the history of federal Indian policy-making are the results of an illdefined tribal-federal relationship. Because of the absolute nature of sovereignty, the existence of multiple sovereign authorities within the same territory creates, in the absence of dispute resolution mechanisms capable of preserving the authority of all concerned parties, an unstable relationship. n74 This instability results in the erosion of the weaker nation's sovereign authority. Unless the tribes and the federal government develop a mutually defined relationship that ensures the security of interests vital to both sides, these conflicts will continue to erode the sovereign base of the Indian tribes. 115 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill A mixture of state and federal government authority hurts the tribes James A. Casey, Cornell Law Review, 1-1994, Natives Aff Serrano/Strange “NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis The outcomes of Lone Wolf, Oliphant, and Colville, reveal that the current state of the law does not protect tribal sovereignty. In deciding these cases, the Court balanced the interests of the tribes, the state and the federal government. This calculus invariably results in the tribal interests losing out to the interests of the state and federal gov [*425] ernments. This conclusion is supported by the fact that Indian sovereignty currently holds a weak position in the courts of the conquerors. n151 Writing for the majority in County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, Justice Scalia noted that the "platonic notions of Indian sovereignty' that guided Chief Justice Marshall have, over time, lost their independent sway. n152 Thus, even the limited notions of sovereignty expounded in the Marshall cases are no longer viable in the context of tribal-federal and tribal-state relationships. n153 Defined sovereignty laws key to prevent fed government takeover James A. Casey, Cornell Law Review, 1-1994, “NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis Both approaches assume two central requirements that the current legal regime lacks: consent and definition. The trust doctrine is useless without some defined method of application because its scope can be redefined at will by the more powerful sovereign and without the consent of the weaker sovereign. The dual sovereignty approach requires no consent whatsoever and also allows the more powerful party to define the scope of the sovereign authority possessed by all concerned entities. These two arguments might, taken together, offer a workable system for tribal-federal relations. Indeed, when combined they create a solution that is similar to the free association argument discussed in Part IV of this Note. Although on their face they appear to be reasonable accommodations of the complexities of Indian relations, they are not accurate representations of the current legal and political regime. In the first instance, any nation that delegates a portion of its sovereign powers to another nation must do so consensually. Otherwise, the term trust is simply a polite word for conquest and subjugation. n160 As the Supreme Court noted in The Schooner Exchange, all exceptions to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source. n161 Clearly, the Indian nations did not consensually delegate the major portion of their sovereign authority. Rather, it was taken. n162 [*428] Definition is probably more important to the tribes in the long run. Both of the arguments described above implicitly assume some level of agreement between the entities involved. Such an agreement would set out the powers of the competing sovereigns and establish a defined relationship between them. The complexity of tribal-state and tribal-federal relations under the current system renders impracticable any effort to set forth a general set of rules which precisely define the scope of tribal self-government. n163 Thus, the relationship between the tribes and the federal government is not as well defined as the above approaches assume. n164 Nor is there any certain division of tribal, state and federal jurisdiction. n165 As a result of the conflicts discussed in this Note, the United States government will continue to erode Indian tribal sovereignty unless a mutually defined structure is established. 116 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Neg—State Fails Current state systems will inevitably fail James A. Casey, Cornell Law Review, 1-1994, “NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis Under the current system of Indian law, Indian sovereignty is an illusory concept. n166 The key to improving the current state of relations between the tribal, state and federal governments does not lie in the case law or legislation within the current legal structure. By clinging to the myth of sovereignty under the trust doctrine, the tribes will allow the erosion of tribal sovereignty to continue until there is nothing left. n167 To reestablish the sovereign base of the Indian Nations, an entirely new structure must be built for the management of affairs between the Government of the United States and the Indian tribes. n168 [*429] Self Determination Good The federal government must recognize Indians’ right to self determination James A. Casey, Cornell Law Review, 1-1994, “NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis The need for a mutually defined structure in the relationship between the Indian Nations and the federal government is simply another way to describe the need for the federal government to recognize the Indians' right of self-determination. n169 This right is well recognized in international law n170 and is a necessary aspect of the tribal-federal relation if the tribes are to maintain their cultural and physical existence. The Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations n171 states that all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter. n172 The International Court of Justice has also recognized the validity of the right to self-determination. n173 Ian Brownlie states that the present position [in international law] is that self-determination is a legal principle, and that United Nations organs do not permit Article 2, paragraph 7, n174 to impede discussion and decision when the principle is in is [*430] sue. n175 Finally, the U.S. government itself has specifically recognized tribal self-determination of Indian peoples. n176 Self-determination in colonial times meant that the tribes should be left alone to develop as they would. In the modern context, however, the right allows for an entire range of possibilities from secession to principles of nondiscrimination. n177 Between these two poles are the concepts of trust, free association, and increased governmental representation for the self-determination unit. Secession and full statehood are often viewed as the best examples of self-determination. A2 Give back the land: Sucession would be undesirable for natives; they could not be successful as their own entity James A. Casey, Cornell Law Review, 1-1994, 117 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange “NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis Statehood through secession might be the most decisive solution to the consent and definition problems of tribal-federal relations. Obviously, the tribes would no longer have a consent problem, from their perspective, if they seceded and formed their own international states. The definition problem would be solved because the tribes would be subject to international law, which is based on the concept of protecting state autonomy and sovereignty. In the case of the Indians, however, these options are neither the most practical nor the most desirable. Given the physical location of the tribes and the economic and military disparity between the two entities, secession is not a practical option nor even a distinct possibility. Although many tribes could handle statehood from an economic standpoint it is highly doubtful that they could operate effectively in the international arena. The problem is one of recognition by the nations of the world. [*431] Article I of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States sets out the following qualifications for statehood: (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) government, and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states. n178 This fourth qualification poses the problem. Brownlie equates it with the concept of independence, and asserts that the question is that of foreign control overbearing the decision-making of the entity concerned on a wide range of matters of high policy and doing so systematically and on a permanent basis. n179 The current trust relationship between the Indian tribes and the United States government brings the question of independence into serious doubt in the eyes of other nations. Thus, it is probable that other countries would not recognize the independent Indian nations, even if they were willing and able to declare themselves as states. n180 The predominant view in current international law is that the non-recognition of a state by another state has no effect upon the legal status of the former. n181 It would be naive, however, to deny that, in practice, recognition can have important legal and political effects. n182 If other nations did not recognize the Indian nations' claims of independent statehood, which would be likely given their relationship with the United States, then they would be unable to join the other nations of the world in the international arena. Furthermore, even if the tribes did have certain rights as states, if they were not recognized as such there would be no way of enforcing those rights. Thus, claims of statehood offer little hope for Indians tribes at the current time. The international stance on the subject of secession makes it an even less attractive solution. Under current international law, seces [*432] sion is not a favored method of self-determination. n183 The Declaration on Friendly Relations, while advancing the right of self-determination, provides: Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity or [sic] sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and selfdetermination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour. n184 This provision is a strong indicator that the member countries of the United Nations do not consider secession a viable option for self-determination of peoples. n185 Thus, regardless of the capability of individual tribes to declare themselves as states, the member nations of the United Nations would probably not allow them to secede. 118 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Improving the current federal-state-tribal relationship solves alone—giving back the land is not the right approach James A. Casey, Cornell Law Review, 1-1994, “NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis Finally, while the relationship between the Indian tribes and the federal and state governments has not always been optimal, it is a foundation upon which a new structure can be built. Given the geographic, economic, and political relationships, as well as the fact that Indian peoples, many of whom have developed definite and beneficial ties to the United States, are scattered throughout the nation, living both on and off reservations, it would be unproductive and inefficient to sever these relationships. n186 Also, demanding full statehood would likely cause a very negative reaction in the world community. n187 Indigenous peoples must look for solutions that will attract maximum international support; full statehood for Indian tribes may be too radical a [*433] notion to garner such support. n188 Thus, a non-secessionist solution to the problem of Indian sovereignty erosion is the most reasonable. The question still remains, however, as to where within the range of possibilities this non-secessionist solution falls. Working within the current system of federal Indian law fails to solve underlying problems James A. Casey, Cornell Law Review, 1-1994, “NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis There have been many proposals to solve the sovereignty problems outlined above. Some examples include a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the sovereign status of Indian tribes, n189 legislative enactments to undo the injustices of the past and provide for increased representation in the government, n190 and increased dependence on and control of the government trust relationship. n191 All of these approaches suffer, however, from the same basic flaw: they ground themselves in the current system of federal Indian law. n192 As [*434] the above discussion indicates, the current system does not adequately protect the rights of Indian tribes because it is not based upon their consent and it provides no defined method for dealing with the conflicts that threaten tribal sovereignty. Without addressing these two fundamental problems, approaches that merely doctor the injustices wrought by the system relieve the symptoms but fail to treat the disease. Before discussing an approach that would address these problems, however, a very basic question must be answered. What incentive does the United States have to enter into a new arrangement with the Indian tribes? n193 The tempting answer is that, beyond the moral rightness of treating indigenous peoples with dignity, fairness and respect, there are none. Yet, the United States has at least two possible incentives, the first being international in nature and the second domestic. Soft Power i/l Plan solves soft power—human rights image based on treatment of indigenous peoples 119 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange James A. Casey, Cornell Law Review, 1-1994, “NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis In the international arena, the rights of indigenous peoples appear to be receiving greater attention than ever before. The development of international human rights law has created a climate favorable to action in the area of indigenous rights. n194 It increasingly is difficult for governments concerned about their human rights image to ignore blatantly the problems of their indigenous peoples... The 1980s marked the beginning of an unprecedented period of international activity on the question of indigenous rights. n195 Among these rights is the right of self-determination. n196 As this right gains greater stature in the international forum, it will be more difficult for the United States to ignore its own violations of the principle of self- [*435] determination. The United States has a definite stake in maintaining its image as a supporter of international law. n197 Arguably, the United States is already in violation of international law under the U.N. Charter. Article 73 provides in part: Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end: a. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses; b. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement ... n198 The United States maintains a trust relationship with the tribes, yet it has not fulfilled the requirements set out above. Whether the concern is international image, violation of international law, or both, the United States clearly has an incentive under international law to enter into an agreement that satisfies the selfdetermination rights of the Indian tribes, thereby bringing the United States into compliance with the modern trend of protecting indigenous rights. n199 Econ Plan helps both the US and Native Americans’ economies and creates a more harmonious relationship James A. Casey, Cornell Law Review, 1-1994, “NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis The United States government also has an incentive on the domestic front for the development of such an agreement. The current tribal-federal relationship is a source of great tension between the tribes and the 120 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange people of the United States. In addition, the paternalistic approach that the government takes toward the tribes requires large amounts of federal money to implement. A mutually developed relationship between the tribes and the United States government [*436] would address both of these concerns to a significant degree. By creating enforceable expectations for the federal government, the individual states, and the tribes, a mutually developed relationship reduces conflict because all parties have some understanding of their standing on particular issues. Also, a mutually developed relationship allows for greater economic development of the tribes, with the ultimate goal being economic self-sufficiency. n200 The United States government could only benefit from such a state of affairs. Because the needs of both sides could be adequately addressed, a more harmonious and efficient relationship could be developed to the mutual benefit of the tribes and the United States. Thus, the United States has both international and domestic incentives to develop a mutually defined and established relationship between the individual Indian tribes and itself. A2 States/Lopez. CP kills defined rules between states and tribes by devolving authority to states James A. Casey, Cornell Law Review, 1-1994, “NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis Tribal-State-Federal Relationships. Because the Indian nations are located throughout the various states of the union, it will be necessary to establish the scope of authority at the tribal, federal, and state levels. For example, the agreement could provide for compacts with the state in which a tribe resides. These compacts should be separate agreements, negotiated with the individual states, that govern relationships that are best left between the state and the tribe. n227 For example, a [*444] tribe might make a compact with the state to establish mutual local law enforcement. n228 The agreement would need to establish a [*445] method for making these compacts and determining their allowable scope. The agreement could also provide for collateral agreements with the federal government, as previously discussed. A clause allowing for tribalstate compacts might state as follows: The State in which the tribe resides shall have no governmental authority over the tribe and its laws shall have no effect within the boundaries of tribal land absent a specific provision in this agreement. n229 The Tribe and the State in which it resides may make separate compacts with respect to matters of mutual concern provided that it does not conflict with the language or purposes of this Free Association Agreement or other tribal-federal collateral agreements. n230 The procedures for making a Tribal-State Compact will follow the agreement-making procedures set down in this Agreement. Furthermore, such Compact will be self-executing as between the tribe and the state subject to any express provision to the contrary. These compacts would have the important effect of allowing the tribes and the states to develop mutually beneficial working relationships. These relationships would enable the individual tribes to assume greater control over their destiny. Mutually beneficial relationships would also help to lessen the tension between the tribes and the states, creating a more cooperative co-existence. When conflicts did occur, the tribe and the state would be in a better position to create a solution acceptable to all parties. 121 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange These are only some of the areas that would have to be covered in individual free association agreements. By fully elaborating the rights, duties and obligations of the tribal, state and federal entities, free association agreements would protect tribal authority from arbitrary modification by the United States government. As a result, the tribes would exercise greater control over their own destiny. In addition, the Indian peoples brought under this legal regime would have a greater affinity for the new system because it would be the result of their own efforts, rather than the fiat of a greater power. Thus, the system would be both consensual and well-defined. It would re-establish the sovereign base of the tribes, which, in turn, would provide the platform for a stronger, more fruitful relationship, less prone to resentment and ideological conflict, between the Indian tribes and the people and government of the United States of America. [*446] Inherency Lack of Sovereignty created the current relationship between the US and Indian nations James A. Casey, Cornell Law Review, 1-1994, “NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis This Note challenges the traditional manner of viewing Indian sovereignty. Indeed, it recognizes that as long as a more powerful sovereign is able to redefine the concept at will, Indian sovereignty is an illusion. The conflicts inherent in the current relationship between the United States and the Indian nations are the result of the placement of one nation under the authority of another without defining the resulting relationship and without the consent of the dependent nation. The sovereignty of the weaker nation exists merely at the sufferance of the stronger nation. Because of the nature of that relationship, the current system cannot provide the structure for the re-establishment of Indian sovereignty. While the solution to this problem does not lie within the immediate legal regime, it also does not lie completely outside of current legal boundaries. The needs of the Indian nations will not be met by attempting to establish separate and independent nations. The answer lies in a system that will allow the United States government and the Indian tribes to interact in a manner that is neither totally separate nor totally united. A new structure must be built and mutually enacted to rebuild the sovereignty base of the tribes and grant them greater autonomy. It must also create a bond between the tribes and the United States that will enable them to work for their mutual benefit. This structure can be achieved through free association agreements. 122 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange A2 Lopez CP CP fails—even if there is state jurisdiction, congress will take over John R. Bielski, Temple University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education,Temple Law Review, Winter, 2000, COMMENT: JUDICIAL DENIAL OF SOVEREIGNTY FOR ALASKAN NATIVES: AN END TO THE SELF-DETERMINATION ERA, lexis [*1322] Furthermore, the Court's claim that the federal supervision requirement ensures that the federal government, rather than the states, will "exercise primary jurisdiction of the lands" has no support in the early cases defining "dependent Indian communities." The Court has long recognized that Congress, through its plenary power, can designate federal jurisdiction over Native American lands that are also under state jurisdiction. n437 The Kagama Court recognized that Congress has this authority because Native Americans are dependent on the protection of the federal government. n438 This role as guardian over Native peoples provided the basis for such authority. n439 Similarly, Sandoval recognized this congressional authority and declared that it provides the basis for exercising federal power "over all dependent Indian communities ... whether within or without the limits of a State." n440 McGowan quoted this language approvingly. n441 In addition, McGowan acknowledged that its finding of Indian country does not mean that the "Federal Government ... asserts exclusive jurisdiction within the colony." n442 Although more recent cases have concluded that a finding of Indian country does mean that the federal government, rather than the state, has exclusive jurisdiction in that area, n443 they have relied on 18 U.S.C. 1151, rather than the existence of state jurisdiction, to determine whether the federal or state government has jurisdiction. n444 The Court's new federal superintendence requirement suggests that the existence of state jurisdiction over the land will be considered in determining Indian country. n445 Given the fact that all Native American lands reside within the borders of one of the fifty states, considering whether an area is under state jurisdiction will thwart future attempts to establish Indian country through congressional action. Tribal energy Good Tribal energy is an important part of the federal energy sector Andrea S. Miles, Third-year student, University of Oklahoma College of Law, 2006, American Indian Law Review, lexis 123 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Production from Tribal energy land equals ten percent of the total federal onshore production of energy minerals. n11 In 2001, production from tribal land was 13.1 million barrels of oil, 285 billion cubic feet of gas, and 29.4 million tons of coal. n12 The Department of Energy estimated that tribal lands hold 890 million barrels of oil and natural gas liquids and 5.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. n13 Former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, then- Chairman of the [*463] Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, noted the importance of the tribal energy mineral estate during a hearing in 2003. n14 He stated Indian-owned energy resources are still largely undeveloped: 1.81 million acres are being explored or in production, but about 15 million more acres of energy resources are undeveloped... There are 90 tribes that own significant energy resources - both renewable and non-renewable - and they want to develop them. n15 Imact The government takes advantage of Natives’ poverty by blackmailing them into accepting their lethal waste—this is genocide Daniel Brook 98, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 105-113 (article consists of 9 pages), “Environmental Genocide: Native Americans and Toxic Waste”, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3487423.pdf GENOCIDE AGAINST NATIVE AMERICANS continues in modern times with modern techniques. In the past, buffalo were slaughtered or corn crops were burned, thereby threatening local native populations; now the Earth itself is being strangled, thereby threatening all life. The government and large corporations have created toxic, lethal threats to human health. Yet, be- cause "Native Americans live at the lowest socioeconomic level in the U.S." (Glass, n.d., 3), they are most at risk for toxic exposure. All poor people and people of color are disadvantaged, although for Indians, these disadvantages are multiplied by dependence on food supplies closely tied to the land and in which [toxic] materials . .. have been shown to accumulate" (ibid.). This essay will discuss the genocide of Native Americans through environmental spoliation and native resistance to it. Although this type of genocide is not (usually) the result of a systematic plan with malicious intent to exterminate Native Americans, it is the consequence of activities that are often carried out on and near the reservations with reckless disregard for the lives of Native Americans.1 One very significant toxic threat to Native Americans comes from governmental and commercial hazardous waste sitings. Because of the severe poverty and extraordinary vulnerability of Native American tribes, their lands have been targeted by the U.S. government and the large corporations as permanent areas for much of the poisonous industrial by-products of the dominant society. "Hoping to take advantage of the devastating chronic unemployment, pervasive poverty and sovereign status of Indian Nations", according to Bradley Angel, writing for the international environmental organization Green- peace, "the waste disposal industry and the U.S. government have embarked on an all-out effort to site incinerators, landfills, nuclear waste storage facilities and similar polluting industries on Tribal land" (Angel 1991, 1). In fact, so enthusiastic is the United States government to dump its most dangerous waste from "the nation's 110 commercial nuclear power plants" (ibid., 16) on the nation's "565 federally recognized tribes" (Aug 1993, 9) that it "has solicited every Indian Tribe, offering millions of dollars if the tribe would host a nuclear waste facility" (Angel 1991, 15; emphasis added). Given the fact that Native Americans tend to be so materially poor, the money offered by the government or the corporations for this "toxic trade" is often more akin to bribery or blackmail than to payment for services rendered.2 In this way, the Mescalero Apache tribe in 1991, for example, became the first tribe (or state) to file an application for a U.S. Energy Department grant "to study the feasibility of building a temporary [sic] storage facility for 15,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel" (Ak- wesasne Notes 1992, 11). Other Indian tribes, including the Sac, Fox, Yakima, Choctaw, Lower Brule Sioux, Eastern Shawnee, Ponca, Caddo, and the Skull Valley Band of Goshute, 124 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange have since applied for the $100,000 exploratory grants as well (Angel 1991, 16-17). Indeed, since so many reservations are without major sources of outside revenue, it is not surprising that some tribes have considered proposals to host toxic waste repositories on their reservations. Native Americans, like all other victimized ethnic groups, are not passive populations in the face of destruction from imperialism and paternalism. Rather, they are active agents in the making of their own history. Nearly a century and a half ago, the radical philosopher and political economist Karl Marx realized that people "make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past" (Marx 1978, 595). Therefore, tribal governments considering or planning waste facilities", asserts Margaret Crow of California Indian Legal Services, "do so for a number of reasons" (Crow 1994, 598). First, lacking exploitable subterranean natural resources, some tribal governments have sought to employ the land itself as a resource in an attempt to fetch a financial return. Second, since many reservations are rural and remote, other lucrative business opportunities are rarely, if ever, available to them. Third, some reservations are sparsely populated and therefore have surplus land for business activities. And fourth, by establishing waste facilities some tribes would be able to resolve their reservations' own waste disposal problems while simultaneously raising much-needed revenue. As a result, "[a] small number of tribes across the country are actively pursuing commercial hazardous and solid waste facilities"; however, "[t]he risk and benefit analysis performed by most tribes has led to decisions not to engage in commercial waste management" (ibid.). Indeed, Crow reports that by "the end of 1992, there were no commercial waste facilities operating on any Indian reservations" (ibid.), although the example of the Campo Band of Mission Indians provides an interesting and illuminating exception to the trend. The Campo Band undertook a "proactive approach to siting a commercial solid waste landfill and recycling facility near San Diego, California. The Band informed and educated the native community, developed an environmental regulatory infrastructure, solicited companies, required that the applicant company pay for the Band's financial advisors, lawyers, and solid waste industry consultants, and ultimately negotiated a favorable contract" (Haner 1994, 106). Even these extraordinary measures, however, are not enough to protect the tribal land and indigenous people from toxic exposure. Unfortunately, it is a sad but true fact that "virtually every landfill leaks, and every incinerator emits hundreds of toxic chemicals into the air, land and water" (Angel 1991, 3). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concedes that even if the . . . protective systems work according to plan, the landfills will eventually leak poisons into the environment" (ibid.). Therefore, even if these toxic waste sites are safe for the present generation-a rather dubious proposition at best-they will pose an increasingly greater health and safety risk for all future generations. Native people (and others) will eventually pay the costs of these toxic pollutants with their lives, "costs to which [corporate] executives are conveniently immune" (Parker 1983, 59). In this way, private corporations are able to externalize their costs onto the commons, thereby subsidizing their earnings at the expense of health, safety, and the environment. Sadly, this may not be the worst environmental hazard on tribal lands. Kevin Grover and Jana Walker try "[t]o set the record straight" by claiming that "the bigger problem is not that the waste industry is beating a path to the tribal door [although it is of course doing so]. Rather, it is the unauthorized and illegal dumping occurring on reservations. For most Indian communities the problem of open dumping on tribal lands is of much greater concern than the remote prospect that a commercial waste disposal facility may be sited on a reservation" (Haner 1994, 107).3 There are two major categories of people who illegally dump waste on tribal land. They have been called "midnight dumpers" and "native entrepreneurs." Midnight dumpers are corporations and people who secretly dump their wastes on reservations without the permission of tribal governments. Native entrepreneurs are tribal members who contaminate tribal land, without tribal permission, for private profit or personal convenience. Both midnight dumpers and native entrepreneurs threaten Native American tribes in two significant ways: tribal health and safety, and tribal sovereignty. Environmental Racism Impact Natives are uniquely subject to the lethal nuclear waste—this is environmental racism 125 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange Daniel Brook 98, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 105-113 (article consists of 9 pages), “Environmental Genocide: Native Americans and Toxic Waste”, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3487423.pdf First, toxic waste poses a severe health and safety risk. Some chemical agents cause leukemia and other cancers; others may lead to organ ailments, asthma, and other dysfunctions; and yet others may lead to birth defects such as anencephaly. Toxic waste accomplishes these tragic consequences through direct exposure, through the contamination of the air, land, and water, and through the bioaccumulation of toxins in both plants and animals. And because of what Ben Chavis in 1987 termed "environmental racism," people of color (and poor people) are disproportionately affected by toxic waste. Native Americans are especially hard hit because of their ethnicity, their class, and their unique political status in the United States. A second problem that Native Americans must confront when toxic waste is dumped on their lands is the issue of tribal sovereignty, and more specifically the loss of this sovereignty. "Native American governments retain all power not taken away by treaty, federal statute, or the courts. Tribal sovereignty key to stop illegal dumping Daniel Brook 98, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 105-113 (article consists of 9 pages), “Environmental Genocide: Native Americans and Toxic Waste”, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3487423.pdf As an extension of this principle, native governments retain authority over members unless divested by the federal government" (Haner 1994, 109- 110). Jennifer Haner, a New York attorney, asserts that illegal dumping threatens tribal sovereignty because it creates the conditions that make federal government intervention on the reservations more likely (ibid., 121). The federal government can use the issue of illegally dumped toxic waste as a pretext to revert to past patterns of paternalism and control over Native American affairs on the reservations; Native Americans are viewed as irresponsible, the U.S. government as their savior. Less abstract examples of threats to sovereignty include the experience of the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe. The Waste Tech Corporation "wanted to restrict the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe from having full access to their own tribal land ... [and also wanted] the unilateral right to determine where access roads would be built, and the unilateral right to decide to take any additional land they desired" (Angel 1991, 3). Another concrete example is Waste Management, Inc.'s attempt to curtail the powers of the Campo Environ- mental Protection Agency and to dilute other tribal regulations. Amcor officials at the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, as a further example, sought exemption from any environmental laws mandated for tribal lands after the contract was signed. All of these acts are threats to the sovereignty of Native American tribes and contribute to the genocidal project. Tribal lands are detrimentally affected through other external and unwanted environmental influences, as well. Indeed, "[o]ff-site pollution is [also] a major problem for Native Americans" (Lewis 1994, 189). There are many examples, and each one is a very significant tragedy: When tankers like the Exxon Valdez spill their cargoes of crude oil, they pollute thousands of miles of coastline . . . Pollutants from mining and processing plants migrate into reservation air and water. Cyanide heap-leach mining in Montana is polluting water on the Fort Belknap reservation. Radioactive pollution and toxic waste from the Hanford nuclear weapons plant threaten all tribes who depend on the Columbia River. . . The Mdewakanton Sioux of Prairie Island, Minnesota, fear the health impacts of a nuclear power plant built on the edge of their small reservation, while the Western Shoshones protest the use of their land as a nuclear test site. Industrial waste dumps surround the St. Regis Indian Reservation, fouling the St. Lawrence River. Poorly treated urban waste and agricultural effluent threatens nearby reservation environments (ibid.). Deadly environmental threats also emanate from uranium and coal mining, U.S. military target practice and war games, spent ammunition shells, discarded batteries, and asbestos. Sadly, this is only a partial list. In fact, a survey of only 25 Indian reservations revealed "that 1200 hazardous waste generators or other hazardous waste activity sites were located on or near 109 ? . .[those] reservations selected for the survey" (Williams 1992, 282). The issue is serious, the scope is wide, and the results are disastrous. Native Americans have always altered their environment, as well as having it altered by others. The environment, like culture, is inherently dynamic and dialectical. Native Americans "used song and ritual speech to modify their world, while physically transforming that landscape with fire and water, brawn and brain. They did not passively adapt, but responded in diverse ways to adjust environments to meet their cultural as well as material desires" (Lewis 1994, 188). However, the introduction of toxic waste and other environmental hazards, such as military-related degradation, have catastrophically affected the present and future health and culture of Native Americans. Yet, Native Americans and other people of color, along with poor people, women, and environmentalists, have been organizing against toxic waste and fighting back against the government and the corporations. In- deed, "the intersection of race discrimination and exposure to toxic hazards", according to Andrew Szasz, Professor of Sociology at the 126 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange University of California, Santa Cruz, "is one of the core themes of the [anti-]toxics movement" (Szasz 1994, 151).4 In spite of the often desperate poverty of Indian tribes, "a wave of resistance has erupted among Indian people in dozens of Indian Nations in response to the onslaught of the waste industry" (Angel 1991, 5). Sporadic resistance has also developed into organized and sustained opposition. Facing the threat of a toxic waste facility on their land in Dilkon, Arizona, in 1989, the Navajo formed a group called Citizens Against Ruining our Environment, also known as CARE. CARE fought the proposed siting by educating and organizing their community, and their success inspired other similarly situated Native Americans. (CARE later merged with other Navajo groups fighting for the community and the environment, to create a new organization, called Dine CARE). The following year, in June 1990, CARE hosted a conference in Dilkon called "Protecting Mother Earth: The Toxic Threat to Indian Land", which brought together "over 200 Indian delegates from 25 tribes throughout North America" (ibid.). The following year's conference in South Dakota included over 500 Indigenous delegates from 57 tribes" (ibid., 6). It was at this second annual conference that the delegates created the Indigenous Environmental Net- work. The IEN states that it is "an alliance of grass roots peoples whose mission is to strengthen, maintain, protect and respect the traditional teachings, lifestyles and spiritual interdependence to the sacredness of Mother Earth and the natural laws" (Aug 1993, 7). This is wholly in concert with "the most enduring characteristic of American Indians throughout the history of the continent: the ability to incorporate technological, natural, and social changes while maintaining cultural continuity" (Crow 1994, 593). Therein lies the natural affinity between Indian opposition to toxic waste and the broader environmental justice movement. "Environmental justice," according to the journal of the Citizens' Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste, Everyone's Backyard, "is a people-oriented way of addressing 'environmentalism' that adds a vital social, economic and political element . . .When we fight for environmental justice, we fight for our homes and families and struggle to end economic, social and political domination by the strong and greedy" (Szasz 1994, 152-153). Fighting for environmental justice is a form of self-defense for Native Americans. As the Report of Women of All Red Nations declared, "To contaminate Indian water is an act of war more subtle than military aggression, yet no less deadly . .. Water is life" (February 1980, in Collins Bay Action Group 1985, 4). Toxic pollutioncoupled with the facts of environmental racism, pervasive poverty, and the unique status of Native Americans in the United States"really is a matter of GENOCIDE. The Indigenous people were colonized and forced onto reservations . .. [Native Americans are] poisoned on the job. Or poisoned in the home ... Or forced to re- locate so that the land rip-offs can proceed without hitch. Water is life but the corporations are killing it. It's a genocide of all the environment and all species of creatures" (Bend 1985, 25; emphasis in original). In effect, toxic pollution is a genocide through geocide, that is, a killing of the people through a killing of the Earth. Environmental threats are, unfortunately, not new. In the mid-1800s, Chief Seattle of the Suquamish tribe reportedly stated that "[t]he Earth does not belong to [human beings]; [humans] belong to the Earth. This we know. All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the Earth befalls the [children] of the Earth. [Human beings] did not weave the web of life; [they are] merely a strand in it. Whatever [they do] to the web, [they do to themselves]" (Chief Seattle 1987, 7). In this vein, genocide is ultimately also suicide. Five hundred years after the commencement of colonialism and genocide, "the exploitation and assault on Indigenous people and their land continues. Instead of conquistadors armed with weapons of destruction and war, the new assault is disguised as 'economic development' promoted by entrepreneurs pushing poisonous technologies. The modern-day invaders from the waste disposal industry promise huge amounts of money, make vague promises about jobs, and make exaggerated and often false claims about the alleged safety of their dangerous proposals" (Angel 1991, 1). Yet, also 500 years later, Native Americans are still resisting the onslaught and are still (re)creating themselves and their cultures. And increasingly, Native Americans are better organized and more united than ever in their struggle against environmental racism and for environmental justice. 127 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Solvency args Indian Lands are the perfect place for development of alternative energy—untapped resources have great potential for wind projects Kevin Shaw and Richard Deutsche, Mr. Shaw is a partner at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston and Los Angeles, Mr. Deutsch is an associate at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston, 2005, http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/article.asp?id=2452&nid=6] The federal government recognizes the sovereignty of over 500 different tribes, most of which have “established land holdings, independent tribal governments, and a growing demand for more energy to fuel 6 emerging and rapidly expanding economies.” With tribal memberships rising at an annual rate of 3%, American Indian tribes and Native Alaskan groups are the fastest growing demographic group in the country 7 (outside of immigrant populations). The term “Indian lands” is used to denote federally recognized Indian reservations. “Indian Country”, on the other hand, encompasses all land within the boundaries of any Indian 8 reservation of any federally recognized tribe plus all “dependent Indian communities.” Reservations are found 9 in 33 states and cover approximately 3 percent of the land area in the contiguous 48 states. The size of Indian reservations in the U.S. ranges from a few acres to 24 that are larger than Rhode Island. They are located 10 anywhere from remote rural areas to just outside metropolitan areas. The economies of many of these reservations are fueled by revenue from their local energy resources, and may increasingly include wind power. Approximately 2 million acres of Indian land have some kind of energy exploration, but another 15 million acres of potential energy resources remain untapped. Indian lands hold ten percent of the nation’s onshore gas 11 reserves and a third of the coal in the West. With regard to wind power, Indian lands hold great potential for 12 13 wind projects. Tribes in the southwest and on the northern plains have tremendous wind power resources. Opportunities are so abundant on reservations in New Mexico and North Dakota that, at one time or another, 14 they have been referred to as “the Saudi Arabia of renewables” and “the Saudi Arabia of wind energy,” 15 respectively. The top ten states for wind energy potential also happen to be states containing large blocks of 16 Indian lands. They include North Dakota, Kansas, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Minnesota and Iowa. 128 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Indian Tribes are motivated by profit to expand energy production and deserve the right to do so from the Federal Government Kevin Shaw and Richard Deutsche, Mr. Shaw is a partner at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston and Los Angeles, Mr. Deutsch is an associate at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston, 2005, http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/article.asp?id=2452&nid=6] Indian tribes today, however, have gained a whole new perspective on energy development. Their motivation: 18 Profits. Major policy shifts by the federal government changed tribes’ opinions about, and opportunities for, energy production. The deregulation of the natural gas supply and the more recent turmoil in the reconfiguring of the electricity sector were among the initial factors that have opened the door for tribes to re-think their 19 position on developing energy resources. But, as explained below, the keys to the growth and investment in renewable energy on Indian lands have been the federal government’s passage of enactments supporting renewable energy development on reservations and its hands-off approach to energy programs on reservations which allows the shift of important regulatory powers to tribal governments. Perhaps the best example of the potential benefits of this shift in attitude is the impressive story of the Southern Utes in southwestern Colorado. The tribe sits on very large natural gas reserves and sought to obtain more direct control of its resources from the larger outside companies who previously developed tribal lands for energy 20 extraction. Eventually, after years of political struggles within the tribe and also with oil and gas producers, the Southern Utes gained the financing to control its own energy operation and eventually formed a conglomerate with $1.45 billion in assets. results with wind power. 21 The Southern Ute success story could be the model for similar Tax Credits are an effective incentive to develop wind power Kevin Shaw and Richard Deutsche, Mr. Shaw is a partner at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston and Los Angeles, Mr. Deutsch is an associate at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston, 2005, http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/article.asp?id=2452&nid=6] Investors today continue to cite the production tax credit as the driving force behind their decision to invest in 61 wind power. A number of new projects have been announced in the last few years. For instance, in September 2005, two of the largest wind energy developers, FPL Energy and PPM Energy, placed large orders for turbines 62 to be installed in various projects under development. 129 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Neg: Non inherent: the federal government has given Indians control over their land and selfdetermination now through alternative energy Aff: states fail—only the federal government can give natives self determination to promote use of renewable energy Kevin Shaw and Richard Deutsche, Mr. Shaw is a partner at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston and Los Angeles, Mr. Deutsch is an associate at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston, 2005, http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/article.asp?id=2452&nid=6] Among the various elements that make wind power projects attractive to outside investors, perhaps the most appealing is the fact that, for the most part, tribes constitute sovereign governments within the federal 95 system. As explained by one author, “while Congress is said to have ‘plenary power’ over Indian affairs, tribal governments hold inherent sovereignty and also exercise power pursuant to delegations of authority from Congress. Within reservation boundaries, states generally have only limited powers over Indian lands and 96 Indian persons.” In other words, tribal councils make the rules, which benefits all parties when it comes to developing wind projects and avoiding the complexity and delay often attendant to the bureaucracy of federal guidelines and procedure. This power has come about due to the federal government’s relatively recent policy towards Indian tribes of tribal self-determination, allowing tribal governments to take control of programs previously run solely by the federal government. 97 To be sure, laws governing non-Indians doing business in Indian country are confusing, complex and difficult to understand and apply. But the increasing trend – reinforced in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 -- is toward tribes taking more and more control over their own affairs. “Building on this, many tribes are becoming increasingly proficient in administering a range of governmental services and in using their inherent sovereignty to fashion programs that serve tribal needs when federal programs fall short. Thus, in this era of tribal self-determination, tribes can use their governmental powers in many ways to promote the use of renewable energy in Indian Country. 130 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange A2 Lopez CP Courts are currently giving tribes independence through the federal government’s plenary power—CP ruins all of this by delegating power to the states Kevin Shaw and Richard Deutsche, Mr. Shaw is a partner at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston and Los Angeles, Mr. Deutsch is an associate at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston, 2005, http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/article.asp?id=2452&nid=6] A telling example of the growing independence of tribes with respect to energy development on Indian lands is the federal courts’ reluctance to restrict tribal authority in regulatory matters for utility-related concerns on Indian land. Modern case law suggests that where a project involved is a utility built on tribal lands for tribal members and run by a tribal organization, the scale will likely tip in favor of preserving tribal sovereignty and 99 not subjecting such project to federal regulations. In some instances, tribes have even gained complete regulatory control over important environmental matters for power plants on their lands, such as air emissions. 100 Tribes have not shied away from seeking total regulatory control for utilities on their 101 reservations. Recently, federal courts have upheld assertions of tribal authority over regulatory matters on Indian lands concerning the Clean Water Act. In 1998, the Ninth Circuit ruled that an Indian tribe with tribe status under the Clean Water Act has 102 regulatory authority over all lands and parties located within an Indian reservation. Likewise, the Tenth Circuit upheld tribal authority to set water quality standards as “in accord with power inherent in Indian tribal 103 sovereignty.” Armed with the power created by this independence, “only the availability of the resource and the creativity of the individuals involved limit the options available to tribal governments. Solvency args Eliminating the government’s ability to intervene instead of the complicated state process is key to allow natives to expand their wind program Kevin Shaw and Richard Deutsche, Mr. Shaw is a partner at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston and Los Angeles, Mr. Deutsch is an associate at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston, 2005, http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/article.asp?id=2452&nid=6] The government’s hands off policy and the federal system’s unsettled handling of Indian country affairs has sent a message to outside investors that, in some cases, they can minimize the nuisance of government intervention by investing in projects on Indian lands. This is especially true when it comes to the always crucial element of project approval. Thanks to the growing independence of tribal councils, investors and developers can sometimes get projects approved without being subjected to local and state laws and procedures. The typical approval process for power plants on non-Indian soil is a tedious exercise of numerous and exhaustive 110 reviews and approvals by regional, state, local or county agencies and boards. Also, state officials may be more likely to shoot down proposed projects in the face of opposition by environmentally concerned voters. Federal and state environmental protection laws and agencies will also have a substantial role in the approval process. 111 By comparison, the approval process on Indian lands is a breeze. On Indian lands, the role normally played by various local and state officials and agencies is often filled by a tribal council. “Once a tribe approves a plant, the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs conducts an environmental review and decides whether to approve the lease to an energy company. Bureau officials say they seldom veto a project approved by a sovereign tribe.” 131 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Regan, Emma & Jill Natives Aff Serrano/Strange Tax incentives solve Kevin Shaw and Richard Deutsche, Mr. Shaw is a partner at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston and Los Angeles, Mr. Deutsch is an associate at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston, 2005, http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/article.asp?id=2452&nid=6] Two magic words sum up one of the more attractive features for outside investors doing business on Indian lands: tax incentive. “By building plants on reservations and hiring Native Americans, companies get tax 122 breaks.” Also, due to the relative safety of renewable energy, wind power companies do not have to be concerned about potential exposure to large fines, damages and penalties following oil spills or releases of hazardous substances or materials, and spending millions to clean them up. Investing in wind turbines means avoiding public relations disasters and hefty fines for air or water pollution due to the inherent risks of fossil fuel power plant operation 132 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Neg—Wind power bad Wind power is insignificant, merely a tool for politicians to act like they are doing something, and overly expensive Kevin Shaw and Richard Deutsche, Mr. Shaw is a partner at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston and Los Angeles, Mr. Deutsch is an associate at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston, 2005, http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/article.asp?id=2452&nid=6] Many critics of wind power dismiss it as insignificant. “[D]espite its wide current public appeal and its admitted virtues, wind power is an inevitably insignificant and environmentally flawed source of energy and a 126 financial and political diversion from an intelligent solution to energy issues.” One eye-catching statistic is commonly cited: Despite the explosion of wind power facilities, wind power contributes less than 1% of U.S. 127 power requirements. Naysayers also discount it as a cynical tool employed by politicians to demonstrate their 128 green side. “Renewable energy…is a showy way for politicians to prove that they are doing something.” Or as one opponent sneered: “Tinkering at the edges of the problem by supporting a technology like wind, which is unpredictable, intermittent and dependent on machines whose output is derisory, is a dangerous distraction and a piece of ‘green’ window dressing designed to allow the government to avoid the problem.” 129 Critics also point to the relative high cost of wind turbines as opposed to fossil-fired plants. Wind energy is capital-intensive, a fact that opponents often feast on. against wind power: 130 For instance, one critic poses the following argument A 1.5mw GE turbine costs approximately $1.5 million to purchase and install. Of that sum at least 1$ [sic] constitutes the turbine cost. At this cost the 160,000 turbines needed for 10% of U.S. power would cost about $240 billion. At the current costs, coal fired ($500,000 per mw) plants aggregating that amount would be sufficient to generate almost six times as much power, albeit with energy source costs. 13 Other expenses include transmission lines, which can run $100,000 per mile. There are also annual leasing fees to farmers, which range from $2000 - $3000 per year for every turbine on their land. 133 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Wind power is too unreliable Kevin Shaw and Richard Deutsche, Mr. Shaw is a partner at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston and Los Angeles, Mr. Deutsch is an associate at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston, 2005, http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/article.asp?id=2452&nid=6] Opponents of wind power also say that the reliability of wind turbines is questionable since the 133 unpredictability of wind makes it impossible to make realistic power production estimates. For instance, the New Mexico Wind Energy Center, which is located 150 miles east of Albuquerque and sells power to the 134 state’s largest utility, has a maximum output of 206 megawatts. Most of the year, however, the wind is not blowing enough for the wind farm to produce the potential maximum of 206 megawatts. When the wind blows th 135 slower, the plant will produce as little as 25 megawatts, which constitutes 1/8 of its capacity. As a general rule, wind facilities can expect to produce power at an average rate of approximately 30% of their rated capacity. A turbine cannot produce power when the wind does not blow consistently at an adequate speed. 136 Conversely, a turbine will also have to shut down when winds gust at too high a speed. Further, as wind turbines have become more sophisticated, efficient and high tech, they have become more vulnerable to the problems that accompany such new and developing technologies. For instance, the newness of some designs 137 currently being installed makes it difficult to establish reliable expectations for their economic lifespan. Currently there is an unclear and discriminatory regulatory framework which discourages growth of wind power—reforms are key Kevin Shaw and Richard Deutsche, Mr. Shaw is a partner at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston and Los Angeles, Mr. Deutsch is an associate at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston, 2005, http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/article.asp?id=2452&nid=6] Another significant drawback to wind power projects is the limits resulting from inadequate transmission capacity and an unclear or discriminatory regulatory framework. As explained by one author: The nation’s power markets are governed by a patchwork of rules and conditions for access to, and use of, the transmission network. Some charge heavy, unfair penalties against new market entrants or technologies with different 138 operating characteristics. The result: artificially high costs and inefficient markets. To curb this practice and make the networks more accessible to new market entrants such as wind power 139 generators, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is promoting various reforms. In short, the rules for interconnecting wind energy generators to the transmission grid are being reshaped to adhere to the unique operating characteristics of wind energy generators. Wind energy interconnections are exempted from certain requirements of interconnection rules. 140 Nevertheless, developers insist that the problem persists and is a major 14 hindrance to the growth of wind power. 134 Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange Notes “Indian Energy Consumption and Renewable Energy Development Potential on Indian lands” Coal vs. renewables-answers give them their land back 3 kinds of businesses on tribes 1. businesses owned by non-native Americans. 2. businesses owned by native Americans. 3. tribally owned businesses. -Good evidence on importance of tribal business to the sovereignty of native Americans -Search term=”tribal business” -people could exploit tribes -good cards that say funding natives promotes self-determination. -Utne reader 2002-current incentives under native American energy act are tied to other obligations -fulfillment of the obligation of the federal government’ -congress has plenary power over native Americans-they have exclusive powers -“trust doctrine”-fed gov must protect sovereignty of tribes -tribal business exempt from equal employment act (title 7) 135
