Tribes gamble on coal, despite climate risks 14

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Jonas Posted 5:55 am
   16 Aug 2008

   Very significant and interestingThe problem is that environmentalists are trapped, in this case.
   If they tell the Native Americans that they "don't understand" the consequences of choosing CTL, then they can be blamed for being paternalists who want to halt economic and social emancipation amongst the Native Americans, and that, consequently, they should shut up and mind their own business. But they can't remain silent either.
   There are some other movements aimed at creating such unholy coalitions between "indigenous" peoples and capitalists. For example, I wouldn't be surprised to see indigenous people in Indonesia or Congo "making the choice" of allowing palm oil companies to take their land, because it will bring roads and jobs.
   In this case too, the environmentalists will be trapped.
   Interesting. Greens need to walk a tight rope here. They will have to try to find a way to tell the world that the real paternalists are the capitalists who made deals with the indigenous people. A difficult case to make.

   Permalink

2. 

   David Roberts Posted 6:05 am
   16 Aug 2008

   Not just Native AmericansIt's every poor minority in the country. As Van Jones keeps saying, every constituency that isn't organized into the green movement will be organized against it.
   They key here, as elsewhere, is showing this tribe what's in it for them if they go green. What's the better alternative?
   I keep saying this, but viable alternatives are the linchpin everything turns on. "No, no, no" is never going to work.
   
   grist.org

   Permalink

3. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 8:09 am
   16 Aug 2008

   The Menominee tribein Wisconsin controls a large forest, and they realize that they could be much richer if they clearcut the forest and sold it, but they consciously forest it sustainably, making a decent living.  It's a travesty that any people should have to choose between poverty and ecological destruction.

   Permalink

4. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 8:32 am
   16 Aug 2008

   Guess whatAccording to congress.
   Coal mined from Indian Reservations is considered "Renewable", and given some beefy tax credits.
   
   http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?I ...
   
   
   
   -David Ahlport

   Permalink

5. 

   amazingdrx Posted 3:53 pm
   17 Aug 2008

   Custer's scoutshttp://hem.passagen.se/native/Twoleggings.htm
   Crow coal to liquid fuel projects?  
   A tribe here got in trouble investing in a telecom outfit and a gaming boat operation down south.  They had to mortgage tribal land to keep the bills paid.
   There was a big controversey over who was responsible for the bad investments.  And who might have benefitted personally by oking these deals.
   Maybe the Crow ought to be careful with this investment.  Ask who in their tribe made these deals and how they might personally benefit from them.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

   Permalink

6. 

   Wolverine Posted 4:39 pm
   17 Aug 2008

   Paternalism Etc.There's no such thing as Native Americans on this issue.  There are Native Americans who uphold traditional lifestyles and ideals, and those who yearn to be rich like the whites.  Environmentalists need to ally with the former to strengthen them as much as possible.  The latter will always be a lost cause.

   Permalink

7. 

   spaceshaper Posted 10:49 pm
   17 Aug 2008

   So there's Good Injuns and Bad Injuns.Just like in the movies. Sounds like more of the same old racist crap to me, Wolverine.
   
   The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

   Permalink

8. 

   GRLCowan Posted 2:13 am
   18 Aug 2008

   Not a Wolverine fan, but ...saying there are good Injuns and bad Injuns is not racist. Saying there are only the former, or only the latter, would be. (Duh.)
   --- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
   
   

   Permalink

9. 

   spaceshaper Posted 9:26 am
   18 Aug 2008

   Re: DuhSweeping ethnic generalizations always piss me off, however many subcategories are included. OK, so depending on your definition this may be not so much racist as it is just self-centered, self-deluding and shallow. "Native Americans" are "good" when their behavior corresponds with the world view of a particular (white) observer and "bad" when it does not.
   
   The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

   Permalink

10. 

    vakibs Posted 12:22 am
    19 Aug 2008

    common senseImagine that you are lost in the Amazonian rain forest, and that you are starving. You come across a rare bird long thought of as extinct. You are dying of hunger and the bird is over there.. right in front of you..
    What will you do ? Kill the bird and eat it, of course.
    The pangs of hunger force people to do several unnatural things.
    Now the point in question is different only in scale. If you build this coal plant, no species will go extinct, but CO2 levels increase. If you don't build it, you will not die of hunger but will remain poor. The native Americans chose to build the plant and become rich.
    They have been robbed of their land, and all the resources for several centuries now, and when they see the affluence of other Americans which is denied to them, they will obviously go with the temptation.
    It is extremely stupid that we are even debating questions like this. Why should anyone be put in such a situation ? If we make the society rich altogether and distribute the richesse at a roughly even scale, then nobody will be forced into these silly dilemmas.
    Organizing poor people into the green movement requires that they be made rich first. In our world, this means that they be given sufficient energy to their needs. This is most true to the people of India and China, which are increasingly burning coal due to lack of alternative energies.
    Only a world with abundant energy will contemplate the risks to the environment and make the right choices. When you starve people of energy, some of them will be tempted to make the wrong choice.
    (What am I driving at ? I am proposing increased use of nuclear energy, the dual bullet which make s energy abundant and reduces the use of coal).
    
    
    
    Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.

    Permalink

11. 

    amazingdrx Posted 12:34 am
    19 Aug 2008

    So if we wire up the starving to nukesThey will all embrace environmentalism?  Good one.  Let's see, are we rich enough to connect billions to a centralized nuclear grid?
    How long would it take?  What would they eat in the mean time?  How would this redistribution of wealth be forced on wealthy nations? Where would the waste go?  Who would guard the nuclear materials from terrorists?
    A questionable plan.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

    Permalink

12. 

    vakibs Posted 1:15 am
    19 Aug 2008

    why environmentalism ?In my opinion, environmentalism is the only way forward. Environment will replace capital / energy as the most important variable in economics.
    When we have limited resources and unlimited wants, we require the science of economics. The most important limiting factor in the future will be the damages to the environment (measured as mining, waste, soil depletion, water table, atmospheric purity... so on). The whole global market will function based on this, instead of revolving around money or oil.
    When something becomes abundant, it loses its value. So the best way to make the environment the leading cause of the world is to make all the other variables abundant, and thereby lose their value.
    Nuclear energy is a way of doing exactly that. But I am under no illusions, we cannot shift into a nuclear economy until 30 years. The same is true for any other economy you propose.
    By the way, nuclear waste doesn't concern my plan, because I support breeder reactors which burn nuclear waste. About terrorism, it will go extinct in a rich educated world.
    Keeping the world poor and starved for resources/energy perpetrates the same status-quo and relegates the cause of environment to the back burner (not amongst the type of people who read grist, but amongst the other majority of the population).
    
    
    
    Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.

    Permalink

13. 

    Wolverine Posted 2:47 am
    19 Aug 2008

    Not True, VakibsThere are tribes that refuse to sell their souls by destroying the Earth, and the traditional people never go along with crap like this.  Native Americans are the poorest among groups of Americans, but they're not starving.  I really admire those who've resisted the temptation to sell out, and we should be loudly applauding those people and trumpeting that resistance, not making excuses for those whose main desire is to get rich or who are willing to sell their souls to do so.

    Permalink

14. 

    amazingdrx Posted 3:13 am
    19 Aug 2008

    Honest admission"...we cannot shift into a nuclear economy until 30 years."
    Thanks for that.  It would take at least 10 years to develop and test a safe, cost efective breeder reactor, even if it were possible.
    That's before even getting started on using nuclear power to adress GHG climate change.  By relying on this risky strategy, real practical technologies will be ignored and delayed until it is too late.
    Running power lines over mountains and deserts and jungles to connect everyone up to a central grid?  Nearly impossible, certainly not cost competitive with distributed renewable generation and storage, efficiency, and conservation to cure energy woes.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

    Permalink