Native Americans Aff - Brovero

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Page 1 of 184
[Brovero/Lundeen/Moczulski] 12083796.doc
Native Americans Affirmative – GDI08

Native Americans Affirmative – GDI08................................................................................................................................................1
1AC – Contention 1 – Inherency...........................................................................................................................................................5
1AC – Contention 2 – Harms.................................................................................................................................................................5
1AC – Scenario ___ – Environment......................................................................................................................................................6
1AC – Scenario ___ – Health.................................................................................................................................................................7
1AC – Scenario ___ –Genocide.............................................................................................................................................................8
1AC – Plan.............................................................................................................................................................................................9
1AC – Contention 3 - Solvency (1/7)..................................................................................................................................................10
1AC – Contention 3 - Solvency (2/7)...................................................................................................................................................11
1AC – Contention 4 – Impact Calculus (1/3).......................................................................................................................................17
Inherency – Status Quo Policy Is a Disincentive.................................................................................................................................20
Inherency – No Federal Incentives Now..............................................................................................................................................21
Inherency – AT – Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act Solves...................................................................................................................22
Inherency – AT – Wind Energy Development Act Solves...................................................................................................................23
Harm – AT – Native Americans Want Mining/Toxic Industries..........................................................................................................24
Harm – AT – Native Americans Want Mining.....................................................................................................................................25
Harm – Status Quo Policy Hampers Wind Investment........................................................................................................................26
Harm – Status Quo Policy Hampers Renewables Investment.............................................................................................................28
Harm – Colonialism.............................................................................................................................................................................29
Harm – Colonialism.............................................................................................................................................................................30
Harm – Dislocation – Extinction..........................................................................................................................................................31
Harm – Environment Key to Native American Survival.....................................................................................................................32
Harm – Native American Cultures.......................................................................................................................................................33
Harm – Native American Cultures.......................................................................................................................................................34
Impact – Environmental Racism..........................................................................................................................................................35
Impact – Trust Doctrine Good – Environmental Protection................................................................................................................37
Harm – Policy Making Exclusion........................................................................................................................................................38
Harm – Impact Calculus – SQ Calculus = Exploitation......................................................................................................................39
Impact Calculus – Racism Impacts......................................................................................................................................................40
Impact Calculus – Racism Impacts......................................................................................................................................................41
Impact Calculus – Racism Outweighs Nuclear War............................................................................................................................42
Impact Calculus – Absolutism Good/Utilitarianism Bad.....................................................................................................................43
Impact Calculus – Absolutism Good/Utilitarianism Bad.....................................................................................................................44
Impact Calculus – AT: Absolutism Bad...............................................................................................................................................45
Harm – Status Quo Electricity Generation – Pollution........................................................................................................................46
Harm – Global Warming......................................................................................................................................................................47
Harm – Mining – Human Health.........................................................................................................................................................48
Harm – Mining – Environmental Racism............................................................................................................................................49
Harm – Mining – AT – Regulations Solve...........................................................................................................................................50
Harm – Toxic Waste - Genocide..........................................................................................................................................................51
Impact – Environmental Genocide.......................................................................................................................................................52
Harm – Pollution – Disease..................................................................................................................................................................53
Impact – Pollution – Poverty................................................................................................................................................................54
Impact – Biodiversity...........................................................................................................................................................................55
Harm – Oil Sands Mining....................................................................................................................................................................56
Harm – Coal Mining – Water...............................................................................................................................................................57
Harm – Coal Mining – Environmental Racism....................................................................................................................................58

Harm – Coal Mining – Poverty............................................................................................................................................................59
Harm – Coal Mining – Dislocation......................................................................................................................................................60
Harm – Coal Mining - Human Rights..................................................................................................................................................61
Harm – Coal Mining - Experimentation..............................................................................................................................................62
Harm – Coal Power – Environmental Racism.....................................................................................................................................63
Harm – Coal Power – Health...............................................................................................................................................................64
Harms – Uranium Mining - Pollution..................................................................................................................................................65
Harm – Uranium Mining Impact – Radiation Exposure......................................................................................................................66
Harm – Uranium Mining Impact – Radiation Health Impacts.............................................................................................................67
Harm – Uranium Mining Impact – Radiation Health Impacts.............................................................................................................68
Harm – Uranium Mining – Health.......................................................................................................................................................69
Harm – Uranium Mining – Health.......................................................................................................................................................70
Harm – Uranium Mining Impact – Cancer..........................................................................................................................................71
Impact – Lung Cancer..........................................................................................................................................................................72
Harm – Uranium Mining – Future Generations...................................................................................................................................73
Harm – Uranium Mining Impact – Environmental Racism.................................................................................................................74
Harm – Uranium Mining Impact – Environmental Racism.................................................................................................................75
Harm – Uranium Mining Impact – National........................................................................................................................................76
Harm – Radioactive Waste...................................................................................................................................................................77
Impact Calculus – Nuclear Violence (Kato) Argument.......................................................................................................................78
Impact Calculus – Nuclear Violence (Kuletz) Argument.....................................................................................................................83
Impact Calculus – Nuclear Violence (Kuletz) Argument ....................................................................................................................84
Harms – Radioactive Waste.................................................................................................................................................................88
Harm – Uranium Mining – AT – No Mining on Native American Land.............................................................................................89
Harms – AT – Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) Solves..............................................................................................90
Harms – AT – Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) Solves.......................................................................................................91
Solvency – Tax Credit Key to Wind Investment..................................................................................................................................92
Solvency – Tax Credit Key to Wind Investment..................................................................................................................................93
Solvency – Tax Credit Key to Energy Security...................................................................................................................................94
Solvency – Tax Credit Key to Renewable Investment.........................................................................................................................95
Solvency – Shared/Transferable Credit Key........................................................................................................................................96
Solvency – AT – Tradable Credits Require Tax Code Overhaul..........................................................................................................97
Solvency – AT – No Investment...........................................................................................................................................................98
Solvency – Tax Credit Reduces Tribal Dependency............................................................................................................................99
Solvency – Tax Credit Key to Sovereignty/Trust Doctrine...............................................................................................................100
Solvency – Tax Credit Key to Resource Management......................................................................................................................101
Solvency – Resource Management Key to Tribal Sovereignty.........................................................................................................102
Solvency – Inclusion..........................................................................................................................................................................103
Solvency – Empowerment.................................................................................................................................................................104
Solvency – Empowerment.................................................................................................................................................................105
Solvency – Environmental Justice.....................................................................................................................................................106
Solvency – Environmental Justice Stops Genocide...........................................................................................................................107
Renewables Good – Soft Energy Reduces Pollution.........................................................................................................................108
Renewables Good – Soft Energy Key to Native American Sustainable Development & Cultures...................................................109
Renewables Good – Sustainable Development Key to Solve Environmental Crises........................................................................110
Renewables Good – Soft Energy Stops Mega-Dams.........................................................................................................................111
Renewables Good – Soft Energy Key to Solve Climate Change.......................................................................................................112
Renewables Good – Soft Energy Key to Global Sustainable Development......................................................................................113
Renewables Good – Indigenous Modeling – Global Environment/Culture......................................................................................114

Renewables Good – Indigenous Modeling – Global Environment/Culture......................................................................................115
Renewables Good – Indigenous Modeling........................................................................................................................................116
Renewables Good – Indigenous Modeling........................................................................................................................................117
Renewables Good – Economy...........................................................................................................................................................118
Renewables Good – Native American Economies.............................................................................................................................119
Renewables Good – Native American Economies.............................................................................................................................120
Renewables Solvency – Renewable Capacity....................................................................................................................................121
Renewables Solvency – AT – No Market for Tribal Energy Production...........................................................................................122
Wind Good – Economic Independence..............................................................................................................................................123
Wind Good – Native American Economies.......................................................................................................................................124
Wind Good – Environment................................................................................................................................................................125
Wind Good – Water Consumption.....................................................................................................................................................126
Wind Good – Emissions.....................................................................................................................................................................127
Wind Good – Electricity Prices..........................................................................................................................................................128
Wind Good – AT – Turbine Manufacturing Emits CO2....................................................................................................................129
Wind Good – AT – Weather Mod.......................................................................................................................................................130
Wind Good – AT – Wind Kills Birds.................................................................................................................................................131
Wind Solvency – Incentives Bolster Wind........................................................................................................................................132
Wind Solvency – Wind Potential.......................................................................................................................................................133
Wind Solvency – Community Wind Projects....................................................................................................................................136
Wind Solvency – AT – Status Quo Solves.........................................................................................................................................137
Wind Solvency – AT – Wind Economically Risky............................................................................................................................138
Wind Solvency – AT – Native American Wind Not Feasible............................................................................................................139
Wind Solvency – AT – Not Enough Wind for Market.......................................................................................................................140
Wind Solvency – AT – Location Integration Issues...........................................................................................................................141
Wind Solvency – AT – Cost...............................................................................................................................................................142
Solar Solvency – Solar Potential........................................................................................................................................................143
Solar Solvency – Solar Lowers Emissions.........................................................................................................................................144
Solar Solvency – Native American Economies.................................................................................................................................145
Geothermal Solvency – Emissions.....................................................................................................................................................146
Geothermal Solvency – Native American Economies.......................................................................................................................147
Geothermal Solvency – AT – Waste...................................................................................................................................................148
Geothermal Solvency – AT – Geothermal Not Viable.......................................................................................................................149
Solvency – AT – Other Incentives Solve............................................................................................................................................150
Solvency – AT – Other Incentives Solve............................................................................................................................................151
Solvency – AT – Alternate Mechanism CPs......................................................................................................................................152
Solvency – Revising Tax Credit Requires Legislative Action...........................................................................................................153
Solvency – Federal Action Key..........................................................................................................................................................154
Solvency – Federal Action Key – Trust Doctrine..............................................................................................................................157
Solvency – Federal Action Key – Trust Doctrine..............................................................................................................................158
Solvency – Federal Incentives Key to Investment.............................................................................................................................159
AT – States CP/Federalism.................................................................................................................................................................160
AT – Spending – Revenue Neutral.....................................................................................................................................................161
AT – Economy DAs – AT- Wind Costly.............................................................................................................................................162
AT – Economy DAs – AT – Soft Energy Hurts Economy.................................................................................................................163
AT – Economy DAs – Wind Boosts Economy and Creates Jobs......................................................................................................164
AT – Electricity Prices.......................................................................................................................................................................165
AT – Oil Disads..................................................................................................................................................................................166
AT – Control K...................................................................................................................................................................................167
AT – Plan Imposes on Tribes - Tribes Want Wind Projects...............................................................................................................168
Solvency – AT – Tradable Credits Require Trust Doctrine Overhaul................................................................................................169
AT: Biopolitics/Development K.........................................................................................................................................................170

AT: “But Your Evidence Doesn’t Assume State Action”...................................................................................................................173
AT: Heidegger/Technology K’s..........................................................................................................................................................174
AT: Development/Cap/Biopolitics/Heidegger/Noble Savage............................................................................................................175
AT: Language K’s- Indian/Native American/Etc...............................................................................................................................176
AT: “Tribe” K.....................................................................................................................................................................................180
AT: “Tribe” K (1/2)............................................................................................................................................................................181
AT: “Tribe K” (2/2)............................................................................................................................................................................182
Topicality – AT – Incentive................................................................................................................................................................183
Topicality – AT – Substantial Increase – No Native American Energy Tax Credit Now...................................................................184
1AC – Contention 1 – Inherency

The lack of a production tax credit for Native American Tribes prevents the development of
alternative energy. In spite of trust obligations, current federal policy acts as a disincentive for Tribes.
InterTribal Council on Utility Policy, 6
(“An Intertribal COUP Background Policy Paper for a Comparable and Appropriate Tribal Energy Production Incentive”, 6-21-6,
http://www.intertribalcoup.org/policy/index.html, Accessed 7/11/08)
Current federal renewable energy incentives serve to underwrite the productive development of a variety of renewable
energy resources. These incentives, such as the Production Tax Credit (PTC), the Renewable Energy Production Incentive
(REPI), and the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs), have all been designed to meet the needs of a variety of entities
(for profit developers, municipal utilities, cooperatives, and other non-profit public power entities), but not expressly for
Tribes, ironically the only group that the federal government has an explicit trust responsibility to assist in economic
development. While Tribes have been recently included in the eligibility of several of these renewable energy incentive
programs (usually as an afterthought), none have been designed or adapted to meet their unique situation, as
governments with abundant trust assets, but with limited practical access to long-term financing, and with limited control over
their membership as a rate base for competitive commercial development on or off their reservations.
Tribally specific programs under the 1992 and 2005 energy policy acts have been routinely under-funded to adequately
assist Tribes in full scale economic development of multi-megawatt renewable energy projects. Where significant
funding has, in some cases been authorized, adequate corresponding appropriations have failed to follow. Under the
energy policy act of 1992, $10 million dollars had been authorized for each of the DOI and DOE tribal renewable
energy programs for tribal renewable projects, but the DOI has never requested any funding under this title, and the
requests of DOE are always significantly reduced through lower appropriations, and then further reduced, by the practice of
earmarks. Direct federal funding, to the extent authorized for large commercial tribal projects serving loads beyond the local
rural areas, is unlikely to be actually available due to the constraints and limitations on appropriated federal support.
The federal renewable energy incentives, as designed, are problematic for Tribes, in that they are both insufficient
and inappropriate as drivers of tribal development as presently configured. In some cases, the presently formulated
federal incentives have actually worked as dis-incentives in the unique context of tribal renewable energy
development.
1AC – Contention 2 – Harms

This economic inequity makes Native American lands vulnerable targets for polluting industries.
Brook, Cal Berkeley Sociology Professor, 98
(Dan, "The Environmental Genocide: Native Americans and Toxic Waste." American Journal of Economics and Sociology,
January 1998, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_n1_v57/ai_20538772/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1 accessed 7/3/08)
One very significant toxic threat to Native Americans comes from governmental and commercial hazardous waste
sittings. 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 Greenpeace, "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"
1AC – Scenario ___ – Environment

Toxins from mining operations contaminate local Native American water supplies
Selden, Indian Country Today writer, 04
(Stephanie, Indian Country Today, “Fort Belknap Tribes file new lawsuit over mining population”, 2-19-4,
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1077214201, accessed 7-3-08)
The Assiniboine and Gros Ventre Tribes of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation allege in a new round of litigation that
the Bureau of Land Management, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and the current owner of the
Zortman-Landusky mine complex are violating the federal Clean Water Act. The lawsuit, filed Jan. 29 in Helena's U.S.
District Court, contends that the agencies and Los Angeles resident Luke Ployhar, who holds 71 patented mining claims in the
area and owns more than 1,000 acres at the now-closed Zortman-Landusky mines, have failed to establish adequate clean-up
measures at the site and are discharging toxins without the proper permits. In 2002, the Assiniboine and Gros Ventre
Tribes and three conservation groups sued the state agency and a bankruptcy trustee over reclamation plans at the complex. The
plaintiffs in that case, which is still pending, argue that the restoration shortfalls violate the Montana Constitution's promise that
"all lands disturbed by the taking of natural resources shall be reclaimed," as well as the state's Metal Mine Reclamation Act.
Pollution from mine tailings and open-pit excavation in the Little Rocky Mountains continues to pollute streams and
groundwater, the tribes say, and the contamination is impacting the adjacent reservation and its residents. They also
argue that the quantity of water flowing from the mine areas has been diminished.
Additionally, coal mining decimates Native American lands, ensuring rapid and widespread ecosystem
contamination
Nies, Massachusetts College of Art writing instructor, 98
(Judith, “The Black Mesa Syndrome: Indian Lands, Black Gold, Summer 1998,
http://www.shundahai.org/bigmtbackground.html, accessed 7/2/08)
Today at Black Mesa, buckets the size of a four- story building peel the topsoil off in mile-long strips—a technique called
strip mining. Instead of burrowing into the earth to find the mineral seam, the land over the mineral deposit is removed.
Bulldozers shape the underlayers into enormous slag heaps, workers dynamite the exposed mineral bed, and steam shovels load
the coal into massive transport trucks. By the time the coal is extracted, the land has turned gray, all vegetation has
disappeared, the air is filled with coal dust, the groundwater is contaminated with toxic runoff (sulphates particularly),
and electric green ponds dot the landscape. Sheep that drink from such ponds at noon are dead by suppertime.
Preserving groundwater is key to sustaining life

Aldous, Wetland Ecologist, Ph. D., 2007
(Alison, et al. Jenny Brown, Abby Wyers, Allison Aldous, Leslie Bach
The Nature Conservancy. “Ground and Biodiversity Conservation” Decemeber.
http://www.waconservation.org/data/collins/GroundwaterMethodsGuideTNC_Jan08.pdf date accessed: July 3, 2008)
It is estimated that groundwater represents about 21 percent of the world’s fresh water and 97% of all the unfrozen
fresh water on the earth (Dunne and Leopold, 1918). Next to glaciers and ice caps, groundwater reservoirs are the largest
holding basins for freshwater in the world’s hydrologic cycle. This large supply of water is critical to sustaining both
ecological and human communities around the world.
Groundwater is critically important to the ecosystems and species across the Pacific Northwest. Rivers and streams
throughout the region depend on groundwater for baseflow or cool water inputs and many wetlands and most lakes are
directly connected groundwater (Brown et al., 2007; Sinclair and Pitz, 1999). The thousands of springs distributed
throughout the region all depend on groundwater for their water supply. In Oregon, over 130 species of conservation
concern have been identified as groundwater dependent, with groundwater providing either the hydrologic or water quality
(including thermal) conditions they require (Brown et al., 2007).
1AC – Scenario ___ – Health

Uranium mining ensures extremely high prevalence of lung cancer in Native American communities
Eichstaedt, award-winning Santa Fe New Mexican journalist, 1994
(Peter H., excerpt from If You Poison Us: Uranium and Native Americans, Red Crane Books.
http://www.sonic.net/~kerry/uranium.html date accessed: July 1, 2008).
In September, 1990, a meeting was held at the Cove Chapter house of the Navajo Indian Nation. In the 1940's and 1950's,
American Indians from the local community mined uranium ore from the hills around Cove for the atomic weapons
program of the United States. Now the area is the location of a cluster of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases
related to uranium.
For two days inside the Chapter house the Navajo's listened to testimony from former miners and relatives of miners who
had died. The United States Congress had just passed a law authorizing cash payments to some of the miners or their family
members who could prove the miners had received a certain level of exposure to radiation in the mines and who then
subsequently developed lung cancer or one of several other respiratory diseases.
The meeting was conducted almost entirely in the Navajo language. In addition to testimony from surviving miners,
there were also presentations by the Navajo Nation's Abandoned Minelands Reclamation Project and also the tribe's
Office of Navajo Uranium Workers. They were attempting to deal with the aftermath of uranium mining in the area,
including identifying hundreds of mining sites in the area, compiling a registry of all tribal mine and mill workers,
assisting with the complicated claims process for compensation, and improving health services for the many sick and
injured people.
At first, it was a mystery as to why there was so much lung disease in the community, but by now it is understood
that, as one of the widows stated, the miners, their husbands, died because the uranium ate up their lungs.
Lung cancer is uniquely deadly – 4 out of every 5 patients die will die within a year
Association of International Cancer Research, 2008
(“Lung Cancer FAQs” Association of International Cancer Research. http://www.aicr.org.uk/LungCancerFAQs.stm date accessed:
July 1, 2008)
Lung cancer is one of the most dangerous cancers. The available treatments can prolong the patient's life, but complete
cures are very rare. Four out of every five lung cancer patients die within one year of being diagnosed. Only one in
twenty is alive five years after diagnosis. Many of these are people diagnosed with early squamous cell carcinomas,
which can be treated successfully by surgical removal.
Toxic waste disproportionately impacts Native Americans, and it accumulates in ecosystems, ensuring major
health impacts for generations to come
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.
1AC – Scenario ___ –Genocide

The legacy of racism enables exploitation of Native Americans, legitimizing radioactive colonialism
Bullard, Clark Atlanta University Environmental Justice Resource Center Director, 2002
(Robert D., “Poverty, pollution, and environmental racism: strategies for building healthy and sustainable communities” National
Black Justice Environmental Network. July 2. http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/PovpolEj.html date accessed: July 2, 2008).
While Native peoples have been massacred and fought, cheated, and robbed of their historical lands, today their lands are
subject to some of most invasive industrial interventions imaginable. According to the Worldwatch Institute, 317
reservations in the United States are threatened by environmental hazards, ranging from toxic wastes to clear cuts.
Reservations have been targeted as sites for 16 proposed nuclear waste dumps. Over 100 proposals have been floated in
recent years to dump toxic waste in Indian communities. Seventy-seven sacred sites have been disturbed or desecrated
through resource extraction and development activities. The federal government is proposing to use Yucca Mountain,
sacred to the Shone, a dumpsite for the nation's high-level nuclear waste.
Radioactive colonialism operates in energy production (mining of uranium) and disposal of wastes on Indian lands. The
legacy of institutional racism has left many sovereign Indian nations without an economic infrastructure to address poverty,
unemployment, inadequate education and health care, and a host of other social problems.
This pervasive toxic threat amounts to a systemic genocide against Indian Country.
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, because "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 "[f]or 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.
1AC – Plan
Thus the plan:
The United States federal government should create a transferable production tax credit of 2 cents per kilowatt hour, adjusted
annually for inflation, for the production of electricity from wind-based sources, to be given to federally recognized tribes in the
United States. We'll clarify.
1AC – Contention 3 - Solvency (1/7)

The federal government has a Trust Doctrine obligation to assist in the development of clean energy on
Native American land —Tribes are currently excluded from wind energy incentives and have no access to
the federal grid, preventing investment in wind power development. The plan will solve.
Hall, President of the National Congress of American Indians, 04
(Tex, Interview w/ Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program [Wind Powering America], US Dept. of Energy- Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 3/1/2004, Accessed 7/11/08,
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/filter_detail.asp?itemid=678&print)
Q. Why is wind important to the Tribes of the Great Plains?

A. Wind is an incredible untapped energy resource that could go a long way toward making this country energy
independent. It has been said that an ocean of energy crosses the Great Plains every day. Tribes here have many
thousands of megawatts of potential wind power blowing across our reservation lands.
Tribes in the Great Plains could look to the wind as a constant source of renewable energy to help meet our own
local energy needs in a way that protects our air, water, and land. Tribes are interested in protecting their
sovereignty and providing for their reservation communities. Tribally owned wind projects can provide an
opportunity to generate power locally in a clean way that meets our needs in an affordable way, now and for the
future. Wind power can provide several sources of revenue to the tribe, through the sale of energy, the sale of green
tags, and the use of production incentives.
But to realize this potential, tribes need technical assistance from the federal government to assess our resources and
site projects. We need to level the economic playing field so that tribes can use the production incentives available to
off-reservation development. Tribes need access to the federal grid to bring our value-added electricity to market
throughout our region and beyond.
Wind is part of our culture. Most of the Great Plains Tribes have distinct names and stories about the winds that recognize
the different personalities and characteristics of the winds coming from the four directions.
Today, our persistent winds represent a fabulous opportunity for all people on the Great Plains to generate clean,
reliable electricity without digging up our lands or polluting our air or water.
Q. What can the U.S. government do to assist in the development of wind resources on Tribal lands?
A. A number of national energy policy issues could support native renewable energy development, particularly wind
energy development. Tribes need to have equal access to the federal renewable energy incentives. In the Great Plains,
we are running into a variety of overriding policy issues, as well as local nuts-and-bolts concerns in the practical application
of wind development on Tribal lands.
As a member of Intertribal Council on Utility Policy (COUP), we have proposed several specific policy directions and
actions by the executive and legislative branches that will do a great deal to assist Tribes in the development of wind
energy. I will address these issues in three areas, which are equally important:
First, it is essential to continue funding the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) grants program for renewable energy
projects because they provide funding for planning, feasibility, and development of real projects. The DOE and the
Wind Powering America program have initiated a meaningful outreach to Tribes through the Native American Wind
Interest Groups and technical assistance partnerships. This is a great model that demonstrates the trust responsibility of
the U.S. Government to the Tribal Nations.
Second, Congress must authorize the Tribal eligibility for the Production Tax Credit (PTC) that drives all wind
projects in this country. Tribes are now penalized in that they cannot attract the private investor to develop
partnerships for projects on Tribal lands.
Indians are the only people with a "trust relationship" with the federal government. Our treaties require the federal
government to assist us in developing our reservation economies. But all renewable energy incentives go to tax-
paying developers via the PTC or to states or subdivisions of state through the Renewable Energy Production Incentive
(REPI). Indians are the only group excluded from any of the federal renewable energy incentives, yet we are the only
ones with a legal obligation — our treaties — for federal assistance!
[CARD CONTINUES – NO OMISSIONS]

[CARD CONTINUED – NO OMISSIONS]
Currently, because Tribes are not taxed entities (a status we secured from the United States in return for our giving them
most of this continent), any developer that teams up with a Tribe in a joint venture for wind development is penalized
by only being able to use a portion of the available PTCs, which are apportioned under federal law by the percentage of
ownership in the production facility. So if a tribe has any ownership in a project on Tribal lands, our partner must
forego any incentives represented by our ownership. The PTC is the main driver for wind development in this
country, but this federal incentive policy steers investment capital away from Indian lands.
Intertribal COUP once proposed a Tribal energy production incentive to correct this federal oversight. Wryly called a
"TEPI", it gently reminded Congress that it had an obligation to provide an equal playing field for Indian energy
development. The Senate version of the federal energy bill contains language to allow Tribes and other non-taxed entities
(such as municipal utilities and rural cooperatives) to sell, assign, or trade any tax credits that might become available to
them, but those provisions were removed by the House in the conference committee. A current COUP proposal is a little
more restrictive in scope, allowing joint ventures between Tribes and non-Indian developers to allocate the Tribe's share of
the credits to their tax-paying partners. This proposal would be tax neutral, but it removes the penalty for investment in
Indian Country through Tribal joint ventures. Tribes could still be principal owners of the project, but our partners would
not be financially penalized.
Finally, in my opinion the next most important need is to allow Tribes access to the federal transmission grid and the
purchase of wind energy to meet existing power needs of cooperatives, municipal utilities, and other regional
utilities.

Wind energy development generates tribal revenue, saves the federal government money, and is
essential to alleviating drought conditions caused by status quo power generation.
Hall, National Congress of American Indians President, 04
(Tex, Interview w/ Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program [Wind Powering America], US Dept. of Energy- Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 3/1/2004, Accessed 7/11/08,
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/filter_detail.asp?itemid=678&print)
Q. What are the biggest payoffs for Indians if wind energy is developed on their lands?
A. In the West, we have seen more than four years of drought. Most of the utility-scale energy generated in the West is from
burning fossil fuels, a non-renewable energy source. Today, the world uses so much fossil fuel that we see the impacts on the
price we pay at the gas pump, on the quality of our air (even in rural America), and as the scientists tell us and as Indian people
have seen first hand, on our larger regional and global climate. Carbon dioxide is a prime greenhouse gas that is associated with
the long-term weather changes we are now experiencing. Our current energy policies contribute to the drought conditions that
reduce the snowpack in the Rockies where the Missouri River starts and throughout the northern plains.
Our cheap electricity may contribute significantly to the ruin of our ranching and farming economies through the
prolonged drought associated with climate change and increased weather extremes and variability. With less hydropower
due to the low water levels, the current federal policy is to buy and burn more fossil fuels, creating more greenhouse gases
and filling the sky with sulfur, nitrogen, and carbon gases. Our current coal, gas, and nuclear generators also consume a
tremendous amount of precious water through steam generators and power plant cooling systems. In the face of this, wind
power projects on the Great Plains can generate electricity on a large, utility scale without consuming water in the process.
People may even pay an extra premium for wind power if it can help to preserve our regional water supply. Tribal wind
projects could replace diminished hydropower in the federal grid system while building up sustainable Tribal homeland
economies.
The continuation of the drought conditions, climate change, and the necessary emissions reductions will only result in an
increase in the cost of power from fossil fuel sources such as coal. Wind energy can be produced at a fixed, non-escalating
cost for up to 30 years. No other source of power can claim that. The Tribes can save the federal government money,
generate Tribal revenue and jobs, and increase the flexibility and improve management of the Missouri River.

Extending Production Tax Credits to Native Americans solves for pollution by reducing reliance on
fossil fuel, and promotes tribal economic independence
Melmer, Senior Staff Reporter @ Indian Country Today, 07
(David, “Western Governors’ Hot Topic is Alternative Energy,” June 27
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096415264, Accessed 7/11/08)
Discussions over clean energy opened the 2007 Western Governors' Association's recent annual meeting in the Black Hills. Ten of
the 19 governors were in attendance and elected officials from Canada were also present. Clean energy was not the only topic for
the meeting June 10 -- 12, but it took up a good portion of event. Carbon capturing and sequestration, or CCS -- the process of
capturing CO2 emissions for storage underground -- was discussed at length. Western states have had to rely most recently on
fossil fuel as a power source because a seven-year drought has substantially reduced the flow of water to hydroelectric
dams on the Missouri River. The hydro power from those dams is allocated through the Western Area Power Administration. The
abundance of coal reserves in the Western region, especially in Wyoming and parts of Montana, could provide the needed energy
source to power a large part of the country, but with an adverse environmental impact. CCS would lesson that impact, scientists
told the governors. The governors sought ways to create viable alternative energy, such as wind power, which is nearly
continuously available in many Western states. Wind farms are cropping up in many areas, and although wind energy may not be
used as a main source of power, according to wind power advocates, it will lower the emission of CO2 by reducing the
dependence on coal and oil. Tests have shown that South Dakota has earned the label of the "Saudi Arabia of wind power."
Six of South Dakota's tribal reservations are located in the western part of the state, where tests have proven there is plenty
of wind. Tribes with the will to construct wind farms for economic development, however, do not have the financial
wherewithal to partner with developers to create the wind farms on tribal lands. And most of the land on which wind farms
would be constructed are privately owned or not near a power grid system on which to connect, which creates problems in siting
wind farms. The tribes are at a disadvantage because they are not allowed to use the Production Tax Credit as an incentive
for developers. PTC provides a 1.9 cent-per-kilowatt-hour (kWh) tax credit for electricity generated for the first 10 years of
a renewable energy facility's operation. The Intertribal Council on Utility Policy asked the governors to sign on to a letter that
would request congressional committees to pass House Bill 1956, which would change the IRS rules to allow tribes to be part of
the PTC for alternative energy. The PTCs are very important for the growth of wind energy. Much of the wind energy and
the potential economic growth for tribes lie with the approval of the PTCs. "As you are well aware, we have tremendous wind
resources across the state of South Dakota with over 269,120 MW of Class 4-6 wind on tribal lands alone," said Intertribal COUP
President Pat Spears in a letter to South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds, outgoing chairman of the WGA. The goal of the WGA is to
provide 30,000 MW of power for the Western states with alternative energy sources by the year 2015. Tribes will provide 80
MW of power for their tribal members on the reservations, and will also be able to access rural electric systems and
Western Area Power Administration markets with additional power production. They can't without the PTC incentive. At a
press conference, Rounds was asked what South Dakota was doing to encourage wind energy development among the tribes. He
said the state welcomes and encourages the development of resources on tribal lands. "It was encouraging, I thought," said Chip
Comins, filmmaker with American Spirit Productions and a board member of Native Wind. Spears said he has tried for more than
a year to get Rounds to agree to a meeting and work with the tribes and to comment on a letter sent to him about the tax credit.
"One staff member brought up a concern about another tribe investing in a wind project here. I said, 'That can't happen; they can't
use the tax credit, either.' "He said, 'We would rather see it local.' There is nothing more local than tribal lands," Spears said.
Developers from out of state can receive tax credits. There are no developers in South Dakota. Several years ago, the Senate
supported the tax credit measure for tribes, but it did not receive the support of the House. The WGA's support would help passage
of H.R. 1956 to allow tribes to partner with developers with tax incentives. More than 35 cities support tribal wind energy
development, including many who receive WAPA hydropower allocations that are now 85 percent dependent on carbon-emitting
fuels. Without the PTC, tribes will not have access to private capital for investment at the same level as other developers,
Intertribal COUP claims. The second and final day of the governor's conference was devoted to carbon emission, and to develop a
method of dealing with Congress on this environmental issue.

Economic inequities advantage industrial polluters now – the plan gives Native Americans critical
input in the policy making process, enabling a deconstruction of environmental racism
Robyn , Northern Arizona University criminal justice professor, 02
(Linda, “Indigenous Knowledge and Technology Creating Environmental Justice in the Twenty-First Century”, American Indian
Quarterly, Spring 2002, vol. 26; no. 2, Project Muse, Accessed July 3, 08)
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 decisionmaking 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.

Reinvigorating the Trust Doctrine is critical to allow Native nations to maintain their autonomy— the
very existence of Native American nations hinges on protection of their land base.
Wood, University of Oregon Assistant Law Professor, 1994
(Mary Christina, “Indian Land and the Promise of Native Sovereignty: The Trust Doctrine Revisited”, 1994 Utah L. Rev. 1471)
Since first entering into treaties with the United States, native nations have waged a 200-year struggle to maintain their
autonomy against an encroaching majority society. With all too few exceptions, native interests have been overwhelmingly
subjugated to the political will of the majority. Now, positioned at the threshold of the twenty-first century, tribes are still
adjusting to the relatively new era of Self-Determination--an era marked by federal policy supportive of native sovereignty.
Despite the comforting tenor of current federal policy, the future of tribal existence for many native nations is imperiled.
While the remaining three percent of the native land base is vital to preserving tribal autonomy, it stands to be lost in a
storm of development and pollution throughout the United States. Many native lands are severely contaminated as a result
of non-Indian activities occurring off reservations, and tribes are finding it increasingly difficult to continue their traditional
way of life because of unrestrained non-Indian activities that are depleting and degrading shared resources.
But the threat also arises from within Indian society itself. Indian lands are increasingly eyed by the majority society to
alleviate scarcity outside of Indian Country. Such lands may be developed only with the consent of the governing tribal
entity--consent that is more readily given in times of economic hardship, such as the present. As this Article points out, the
deep aversion of a significant portion of the native population to industrial development of their lands is largely overlooked
in the face of tribal council approvals legitimized by the policy of Self-Determination.
This Article has explored the federal government's role in the continuing assault on Indian lands and has examined modern
governmental duties and obligations owed to tribes within a sovereign trust paradigm. The federal government's trust duty
is rooted in the land cessions made by the native nations. As expressed in treaties and elsewhere, the land cessions were
conditioned upon an understanding that the federal government would safeguard the autonomy of the native nations by
protecting their smaller, retained territories from the intrusions of the majority society and its ambitious entrepreneurs.
This promise of a viable separatism forms the heart of the federal government's continuing trust responsibility toward the
native nations. The continuing entitlement of tribes to maintain a separate existence, however, has been obfuscated by a
modern trend
[*1568] to address native needs through the legal structure developed for a non-Indian society--a structure consisting
primarily of constitutional and statutory protections. Such legal protections, geared as they are toward non-Indian needs and
values, are often inadequate to protect the distinctive sovereign character of native nations. Now, with much of the native
land base and corollary resources on the verge of irrevocable deterioration, renewed attention to the trust doctrine is critical.
This Article charted a course for the trust doctrine within the context of the Mitchell decisions and post-Mitchell precedent.
It concluded that, while courts will likely remain reluctant to enforce trust obligations against Congress, trust claims against
the executive branch remain viable after Mitchell in both the federal landmanagement and incidental-action contexts. In the
incidental-action context, the trust doctrine allows tribes to challenge federal action which, though perhaps permissible
under federal environmental law, detrimentally affects their unique way of life. In the land-management context, the trust
doctrine provides important redress for tribes against governmental mismanagement of tribal lands and resources. Just as
important, the trust claim may provide critical protection to tribal members seeking to safeguard their lands and resources
against large-scale disposition to private interests through lease arrangements. In this latter context, the federal fiduciary
duty to protect a tribe's territory against market encroachments of the majority society may sometimes outweigh the
inevitable intrusion into tribal council prerogatives resulting from federal disapproval of a project. This argument
recognizes the complex underpinnings of tribal sovereignty on many reservations and seeks to define the federal
government's trust obligation not as a duty to automatically approve each transaction negotiated by a tribal government, but
rather as a duty to safeguard the land interests of the tribe as a whole for present and future generations.
[CARD CONTINUES – NO OMISSIONS]

[CARD CONTINUED – NO OMISSIONS]
To conclude, native nations in the Self-Determination era face threats to their autonomy perhaps more subversive and subtle
than those of any previous era. While the current Self-Determination era carries pleasant overtones of tribal autonomy, in
reality it may be promoting a rapid conversion of tribes from culturally autonomous, land-based societies, to substantially
assimilated, corporate-like entities reflecting normative characteristics of the highly industrialized majority society that
surrounds them. Undoubtedly the most dangerous aspect of the modern policy is its effective disguise of the continued
pressures exerted by the majority society to sever native people from their lands and extinguish their way of life. As this
Article has pointed out, Self-Determination will prove a hollow concept
[*1569] if industry and the government exploit it to serve the interests of the majority society at the expense of the native
nations. Indeed, it will become nothing more than continued colonialism under the banner of native sovereignty.
At a very basic level this Article has suggested a fundamental shift in the policy and law paradigm governing federal-tribal
relations. The federal duty of protection, which forms the basis of the sovereign trusteeship as secured by the vast land
cessions of two centuries ago, should again serve as the focal point of future dealings between tribes and the federal
government. This duty of protection does not justify or authorize plenary power over sovereign native nations, but rather
translates into self-restraint on the part of the majority society to refrain from taking actions injurious to native lands and
resources.
1AC – Contention 4 – Impact Calculus (1/3)
Status quo policy institutionalizes unequal treatment, allowing populations to be sacrificed, ensuring
negative disadvantage impacts are inevitable
The dominant environmental protection paradigm manages, regulates, and distributes risks. It also institutionalizes unequal
enforcement, trades human health for profit, places the burden of proof on the "victims" and not the polluting industry,
legitimates human exposure to harmful chemicals, pesticides, and hazardous substances, promotes "risky" technologies,
exploits the vulnerability of economically and politically disenfranchised communities, subsidizes ecological destruction,
creates an industry around risk assessment and risk management, delays cleanup actions, and fails to develop pollution
prevention as the overarching and dominant strategy.

The negative’s calculations reduce nuclear catastrophe to only the final instant of total extinction,
discounting the entire history of ongoing, systemic nuclear violence against indigenous nations.
Kato, University of Hawaii political science professor, 1993
(“Nuclear Globalism: Traversing Rocket, Satellites, and Nuclear War via the Strategic Gaze”, Alternatives, 18.3)

Beyond utilitarian concerns, principle requires an affirmative ballot – must recognize innate
indigenous self-determination rights to ensure survival
Suagee, lawyer specializing in Native American law and environmental law, 92
(Dean B., University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, “SELF-DETERMINATION FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AT THE
DAWN OF THE SOLAR AGE”, SPRING AND SUMMER, 1992, 25 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 671, Lexis)
All over the world, indigenous peoples n16 are fighting for their lives and for their ways of life. n17 Some indigenous peoples
have been engaged in these struggles for hundreds of years, while other peoples, because of the remoteness of the environments in
which they live, have been spared from such struggles until more recent times. But remoteness no longer ensures protection. The
industrialized countries of the world and transnational corporations now have the technological capability to extract oil from the
once untouchable Arctic and Amazon, to build massive hydropower dams, to rearrange river systems from the tundra to the tropics,
and to clearcut forests virtually anywhere in the world. The governments of the less developed countries also have access to this
brutal technological capability.
The economies, the cultures, and the religious world views of indigenous peoples are based upon the environments in [*679]
which they live. n18 The destruction of these environments renders the survival of these peoples as distinct societies difficult or
impossible. Despite the forces that threaten their survival, however, indigenous peoples in many parts of the world somehow have
managed to carry on. With a total estimated population of some 200 to 300 million, indigenous peoples constitute about four or
five percent of the world's population. n19
Even though indigenous peoples are minority cultures, n20 they rightly insist that we draw a distinction between them and ethnic
or national minorities. Generally, the distinction reflects the legacy of the age of colonialism. One definition of the term
"indigenous" was proposed by the Special Rapporteur on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations, who was
appointed under the auspices of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities:
Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial
societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those
territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and
transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, [*680] and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as
peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems. n21
Although no commonly accepted definition of indigenous peoples has yet been fashioned, n22 the Special Rapporteur's definition
includes some of the key concepts that fit most cases. Particularly, it includes the concepts that indigenous peoples identify
themselves as indigenous, that their ways of life are tied to their ancestral territories, that peoples who are relative newcomers
exercise some degree of political domination over them, and that they are determined to remain distinct peoples. Although some of
these factors also apply to many ethnic minorities, the cultural connection to ancestral lands generally serves to distinguish
indigenous peoples from ethnic minorities. n23 All over the world, indigenous peoples express their connection to their lands and
their respect for the environment in spiritual terms. n24 They provide living proof that it is possible [*681] for human societies to
provide for their needs over countless generations without destroying the ecosystems on which they depend, and that religious
teachings can serve at least as well as science in setting the rules for living in balance with the natural world.
Although some indigenous peoples do not face imminent threats to their survival as distinct peoples, many do, and the forces that
threaten them are largely beyond their control. To a large extent, the peoples of the industrialized (and industrializing) world have
the power to decide whether indigenous peoples will survive. Utilitarian reasons can be advanced for ensuring indigenous peoples'
survival. For instance, we can learn from their experience in balancing human needs with environmental preservation and from
their knowledge of herbal medicine. To do this, however, we need to take some time to appreciate the subtleties of teachings which
have been handed down over countless generations since mythic time. At another level, however, one can argue that we should not
be governed by utilitarian thinking alone. We should act instead on principle. Indigenous peoples are part of the human family and
we should treat them as such. We should recognize that they are entitled to human rights under international law as a matter of
principle.
Inherency – Status Quo Policy Is a Disincentive

The current Production Tax Credit penalizes those who try to invest in tribal alternative energy
InterTribal Council on Utility Policy, 06
(“An Intertribal COUP Background Policy Paper for a Comparable and Appropriate Tribal Energy Production Incentive”, 6-21-6,
The PTC, coupled with the ability to depreciate the capital investment in project assets, can provide for much lower
costs of power than any of the other federal incentives. The PTC is inapplicable, however, as an incentive to tribally-owned
projects because Tribes, as governments, have no federal tax liability against which to use the credits, and outside investors
seeking to joint venture with a Tribe are penalized with the loss of the PTC to the extent of tribal ownership in the
partnership.
Clearly, the PTC has been a very effective incentive in the commercial arena, as witnessed by the fact that
construction and investment halt each time the PTC expires, rippling economic dislocation throughout the industry. Since it
was designed to make renewable energy competitive with other subsidized power sources, when the PTC is in place, power
purchasers assume in their tariffs that the credits will be utilized by their wind suppliers. Thus, the PTC becomes a two-cent
per kWh penalty for Tribal projects that can not utilize the production tax credit.
Current tax credit policy substantially limits wind development – only one major wind project now
Shahinian, University of Michigan law student and Environment and Natural Resources science
masters student, 8
(Mark Shahinian, “SPECIAL FEATURE: THE TAX MAN COMETH NOT: HOW THE NON-TRANSFERABILITY OF TAX
CREDITS HARMS INDIAN TRIBES”, American Indian Law Review 2007 / 200832 Am. Indian L. Rev. 267)
The U.S., especially the Western U.S., needs this tribally produced power. The Western Governors' Association has
convened an energy task force to address Western states' concerns about shortfalls in energy production. The Governors'
Association has called for 30,000MW of clean power (including wind) development by 2015, and has pointed out the
need for federal, state, local and tribal authorities to coordinate in siting wind projects.
Yet tribes cannot fully participate in the renewable energy industry because of their tax status and their lack of
ability to use the tax credits the federal government allocates to renewable energy companies. Despite the current
wind boom, reservations have not become wind development sites. In fact, [*272] only one major wind development
exists on an Indian reservation in the U.S. - a 50MW project on. the land of the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians near
San Diego, Calif. n22
Inherency – No Federal Incentives Now

Wind energy brings tribal profit – there is no current federal support
Capriccioso, Indian Country Today writer, 08
(Rob, Indian Country Today, “Fighting the energy crisis”, 5-23-8, http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417367,
accessed 7-1-08)
Some tribes are already beginning to use their lands to harness wind energy and, in turn, are making some money by
selling their energy credits to power companies. For tribes that wish to trade carbon credits for the energy they harness,
no federally supported system is currently in place.
Tribes are not eligible for any federal incentives now

(Rob, Indian Country Today, “Tribes look for federal wind energy incentives”, 4-11-8,
Some tribal energy advocates believe supporting new legislation that promotes Clean Renewable Energy Bonds may
be the best hope for tribes that want to receive federal funding to begin wind energy development. Thune's current
legislation proposes $400 million in funding for the bonds, which energy experts say tribes should be eligible to apply for
via the IRS. ''Seed monies would be helpful,'' Renville said. ''But we haven't factored those into our current projects.'' As
the Senate and House consider extensions of the renewable energy tax credit, the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy,
which represents 10 tribes, is pushing for legislation that would support tribal wind projects. Officials with the group note
that none of the federal incentives currently in place involving wind energy were designed expressly for tribes, which
they say is ironic since tribes are the only group that the federal government has an explicit trust responsibility to
assist in economic development. [Note: “Thune” = Senator John Thune, Republican, South Dakota]
Congressional action key - federal incentives necessary

As growing numbers of tribes pursue wind energy projects, tribal energy advocates are cautiously hoping that new
developments in Congress could eventually lead to tax credits and incentives to aid tribal economies. ''We're not really
holding our breath for Congress to step in with funding,'' said Bruce Renville, a wind energy planner with the Sisseton-
Wahpeton Sioux Tribe. ''But certainly, grants or other incentives would be helpful.''
Inherency – AT – Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act Solves

Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act tax credits currently inapplicable to tribal wind projects
In recent weeks, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., co-sponsored the bipartisan Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008, which
would extend the renewable energy production tax credit for one year. The current production tax credit incentive of 2
cents per kilowatt-hour is scheduled to expire in December. Thune's proposed production tax credit would only benefit
entities that already have profits from wind energy production, but the legislation also includes bond funding that
tribes could apply for to help establish wind energy projects. Thune and other wind energy proponents in the Senate say
they want to extend the production tax credit so that wind energy developers have certainty when it comes to future
projects. Whether their mission includes certainty for tribal entities remains to be seen. Few, if any, tribes have been
able to take advantage of the production tax credits offered to date because many tribes that have been able to create
wind energy projects have relied on non-Native developers to help them get projects off the ground. Under current
law, tribes are not entitled to the tax credits provided to non-Native developers for renewable energy production
because tribes have a tax-exempt status. Tribal energy experts say it's important for tribes to be reaching out to
Congress regarding the tax-exempt issue, since it likely discourages non-Native developers from wanting to work
with tribes.
Inherency – AT – Wind Energy Development Act Solves

Tribes are not included in wind energy development legislation
Recent legislative developments have also made it challenging for tribes to obtain federal wind energy seed funding.
In 2007, Thune proposed the Wind Energy Development Act, which included $2.25 billion in funding for Clean
Renewable Energy Bonds that tribes could have used to fund pilot wind energy programs. Under Thune's plan, 20
percent of this bonding would have been specifically set aside for tribes; however, the set-aside did not make it into
the current version of the wind energy tax credit legislation, and it was not in the energy bill that passed last December.
Harm – AT – Native Americans Want Mining/Toxic Industries

Economic situation drives Native American tribes to cooperate with polluting industries.
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" (Akwesasne 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, "the 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.
Harm – AT – Native Americans Want Mining

Lack of participatory process splinters tribal communities – Navajo mining proves
Conant, Staff Writer for CorpWatch, 2007
(Jeff, “Speaking Dine to Dirty Power: Navajo Challenge New Coal-Fired Plant” Corp Watch. April 3,
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14435 date accessed: July 2, 2008)
In a makeshift hut on a hilltop in the high desert near Farmington, New Mexico, local schoolteacher David Nez projects a
PowerPoint presentation on a blanket nailed to the wall. Outside the door, a small wind and solar generator silently provides
the electricity for his computer-aided presentation. Less than a mile away, a different technology rules. Smoke plumes mark
the horizon from huge coal-fired power plants, as an enormous crane rips into the Navajo coal mine, the largest open pit
mine in the western U.S.
If plans go through for a massive new plant, co-owned by Houston-based Sithe Global Power and the Diné Power
Authority (DPA), another coal-fired facility will generate electricity on the lands of the Diné indigenous peoples (also
known as the Navajo by the colonizers). This tribal enterprise has split the Navajo Nation, with some praising the
opportunity for economic development and others decrying the inevitable effect on environment and values.
Elouise Brown, Hank Dixon, Nez and a few of their Navajo elders have gathered in the rustic hut to figure out how to
block the new construction. Brown found out about the project in December when she came on a man drilling a test
well on her family’s grazing land. She cornered the worker and forced him to leave. That same day she established a
blockade at the site now known as the Dooda Desert Rock vigil (Dooda means “no” in the Diné language). Even without
the new project a dense curtain of brown smog hangs over the desert between the site of the vigil and the distant
silhouette of Shiprock peak.
The plant would burn 5.5 million tons of Navajo coal per year and produce 1,500 megawatts of electricity for the fast-
growing cities of the Southwest. "You will hear that the Navajo Nation supports this power plant, but grassroots people do
not support this," said Nez, who lives 20 miles from the site of the proposed plant
Hank Dixon, a young Navajo whose family’s land is impacted by the project, called the decision-making process
“undemocratic.”
Harm – Status Quo Policy Hampers Wind Investment

Current federal wind energy programs hinder indigenous wind power development.
Capriccioso, Indian Country Today Staff Writer, 8 (Rob, “Tribes look for federal wind energy incentives”, Indian
Country Today, April 11, 2008, http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417026, date accessed 7/1/08)
''As a general matter, we know tribes are very supportive of wind energy,'' said Jon Lauck, a senior adviser to Thune. ''They
know this is an area that could jump-start their economies, and we'd like to help them.''
Recent legislative developments have also made it challenging for tribes to obtain federal wind energy seed funding. In
2007, Thune proposed the Wind Energy Development Act, which included $2.25 billion in funding for Clean Renewable
Energy Bonds that tribes could have used to fund pilot wind energy programs. Under Thune's plan, 20 percent of this
bonding would have been specifically set aside for tribes; however, the set-aside did not make it into the current version of
the wind energy tax credit legislation, and it was not in the energy bill that passed last December.
Some tribal energy advocates believe supporting new legislation that promotes Clean Renewable Energy Bonds may be the
best hope for tribes that want to receive federal funding to begin wind energy development. Thune's current legislation
proposes $400 million in funding for the bonds, which energy experts say tribes should be eligible to apply for via the IRS.
''Seed monies would be helpful,'' Renville said. ''But we haven't factored those into our current projects.''
As the Senate and House consider extensions of the renewable energy tax credit, the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy,
which represents 10 tribes, is pushing for legislation that would support tribal wind projects. Officials with the group note that
none of the federal incentives currently in place involving wind energy were designed expressly for tribes, which they
say is ironic since tribes are the only group that the federal government has an explicit trust responsibility to assist in
economic development.
''The federal renewable energy incentives, as designed, are problematic for tribes, in that they are both insufficient and
inappropriate as drivers of tribal development as presently configured,'' the group noted in a recent policy paper. ''The
presently formulated federal incentives have actually worked as disincentives in the unique context of tribal renewable
energy development.''
[Note: Thune = Senator John Thune, R-SD]
[Note: Renville = a wind energy planner with the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe]
Native Americans are not able to use tax credits for wind power, reducing investment returns
masters student, 8
However, the two requirements - access to capital markets and large tax liability - also work to wreck the hopes for tribal
ownership of wind projects. Tribes, as discussed infra, are non-taxable entities. As such, they cannot use tax credits, and are
at a competitive disadvantage compared to taxable owners of wind projects
The importance of tax credits goes beyond the merely theoretical. Tax credits for renewable energy are substantial - one
study found the PTC contributes 17% of a wind project's bottom line. n39 Tribes' lack of access to the PTC denies them a
huge piece of revenue that taxable entities have access to.
Financial data from wind farms is usually confidential, but results of an academic study by Andrew Mills that compared
hypothetical tribally owned projects to projects owned by corporations indicate that tribally owned projects give a far
worse return on investment than do corporate-owned projects. The tribally owned projects on tribal land also fare worse in
how much economic benefit they bring to the tribe as compared to an outside project built on tribal land. The reason for
the discrepancy is that tribally owned projects cannot take advantage of federal tax credits for wind energy production.
n40Mills' side-by-side comparisons of a tribally owned wind farm and commercially owned wind farm found the tribal
wind farm provides a 2% internal rate of return on investment while the same wind farm, commercially owned, provides a
12% return - the difference lies almost entirely in the tax credits. n41 This difference is so vast that to achieve the same rate
of return, a tribe must receive $ 71/MWh for power sales from this hypothetical wind farm as compared to $ 53/MWh for a
commercial entity. This 34% premium is too big for tribes to overcome in electricity markets that routinely see wholesale
electricity prices average $ 23/MWh - about the same as the $ 18 difference between the $ 71/MWh and $ 53/MWh price points.
n42
Harm – Status Quo Policy Hampers Renewables Investment

Lack of federal support stops hope of green tribal future
Rahimi, Indian Country Today writer, 08
(Shadi, Indian Country Today, “Native company launches wind energy project”, 4-11-8,
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.
[Note: “company” = Native Green Energy]
Lack of incentives thwarts Native American renewable energy development

Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, 6
(Background Policy Paper for a Comparable and Appropriate Tribal Energy Production Incentive, “Tribal Joint Venture Production
Tax Credit,” http://intertribalcoup.org/policy/index.html, 6-21-06, accessed: 7-2-8).
Current federal renewable energy incentives serve to underwrite the productive development of a variety of renewable
energy resources. Federal incentives, such as the Production Tax Credit (PTC), the Renewable Energy Production
Incentive (REPI), and the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs), have all been designed to meet the needs of a
variety of entities (for-profit developers, municipal utilities, cooperatives, and other non-profit public power entities). But
these incentives were not designed expressly for Tribes, ironically the only group that the federal government has an
explicit trust responsibility to assist in economic development. While Tribes have been recently included in the eligibility of
several of these renewable energy incentive programs (usually as an afterthought), none have been designed or adapted
to meet their unique situation, as governments with abundant trust assets, but with limited practical access to long-term
financing, and with limited control over their membership as a rate base for competitive commercial development on or
off their reservations.
The federal renewable energy incentives, as designed, are problematic for Tribes, in that they are both insufficient and
inappropriate as drivers of tribal development as presently configured. The presently formulated federal incentives have
actually worked as dis-incentives in the unique context of tribal renewable energy development.
[Note: PTC = Production Tax Credit]

Harm – Colonialism
Native Americans are still subjected to colonial control devaluing native knowledge and exploiting
their lands for fossil fuels.
Robyn, Northern Arizona University criminal justice professor, 02
Until recently, those seeking to exploit Indigenous lands did not consider drawing upon the vast wealth of
Indigenous knowledge. Specifically within the United States, loss of power and autonomy through the process of
colonialism relegated Indigenous peoples to a position on the lower end of the hierarchical scale in U.S. society. The
legacy of fifteenth-century European colonial domination placed Indigenous knowledge in the categories of primitive,
simple, “not knowledge,” or folklore. It comes as no surprise then that through the process of colonization Indigenous
knowledge and perspectives have been ignored and denigrated by the vast majority of social, physical, biological and
agricultural scientists, and governments using colonial powers to exploit Indigenous resources. Colonization is more than
just a convenient economic domination of one group by another. In its present-day form, colonization continues to
undermine the political, military, social, psycho-culture, value systems, and knowledge base of the colonized and imposes
on them the values and culture of the colonizer. For the sake of economic control—the main impetus behind any
colonization—the colonizer must constantly devise new means of oppressing the colonized. 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.” When two different groups of people come together in the process of colonization, lives are changed,
sometimes for the better but often for the worse. The Europeans’ search for gold, precious metals, and fossil fuels
demonstrates how such meetings adversely transformed regions and peoples through social conflict; these situations still
occur today. The history between the colonizers and the colonized has led to the perception of the latter as an exploitable
group or disposable resource.
Harm – Colonialism
Corporate mega-projects destroy native lands and treaty rights justifying repression through the
colonialist images of Native Americans as “savage” and “uncivilized”.
In the previous example of the Sokaogon’s resistance to Exxon, as they fought (and continue to fight) to hold on to their
way of life, many Chippewa in Wisconsin have fiercely resisted the destruction of the environment and the
destruction of their treaty rights by multinational corporations and the state. The Chippewa of Wisconsin, along with
several grassroots organizations, are no longer willing to submit to the corporations’ ongoing war of aggression against
Native peoples and the natural world.24 The Chippewa’s unwillingness to acquiesce to the most powerful institutions in the
world has been met with various institutional sanctions, including criminalizing those who dare to resist. In order to
maintain control over the land and resources of others, (in this case, the Chippewa of Wisconsin) corporate /state
actors must effectively neutralize the efforts of those who would oppose this control. As a tactic to mobilize public
opinion in favor of corporations, American Indians who have resisted the environmentally destructive corporate
mega-projects on tribal lands have been portrayed by the media as deviant and un-American because they are
supposedly impeding progress. We need only to look to past examples of American Indians as victims of ethnocide and
ethnoviolence.25 American Indians, as a whole, have been systematically portrayed as deviant since first contact with
Europeans, and later, European-Americans who have engaged in deculturating and redefining them as inferior beings.26
Historic rituals of embedding in the Anglo mind images of Native peoples as “savages,” “backward,” “uncivilized,”
and “unintelligent,” justified the continued repression of traditional ways and forced assimilation into the dominant
culture through violence when deemed necessary.27 Their construction as the “deviant other” along with political
and economic disempowerment provides the context for multinational corporations and the state of Wisconsin to
wage a war of aggression against the Chippewa for their natural resources. This can be seen in the intense racial
conflicts between the Chippewa and non-Indians experienced in Wisconsin for the past twenty 206 Robyn: Indigenous
Knowledge and Technology years.
Harm – Dislocation – Extinction

Predatory “power” politics threaten Native American cultures with extinction
The line that isn't on the map is formed by a barbed wire fence: the new boundary of the Hopi reservation follows no
known topographical feature. Shaped a bit like a thumb, it was drawn by John Boyden in 1974, the same year that the
Navajo Generating Station came on line and the same year that his little-noticed bill passed Congress. The Hopi Land
Settlement Act divided Chester Arthur's 1882 reservation between the Hopi and Navajo.
Boyden drew the line so that it gave approximately nine hundred thousand acres to the Hopi, who did not live over
the coal, and relocated, at taxpayer expense, the twelve thousand Navajos (and sixty Hopi) who did. The Hopi Land
Settlement Act also renamed the newly delineated land as the Hopi Navajo Joint Use Area, Hopi Partition Land, and Navajo
Partition Land. The final version was introduced by Utah Congressman Wayne Owens (who, when defeated in reelection,
became a partner in Boyden's law firm).
In Los Angeles, air conditioners hummed. Las Vegas embarked on an enormous building spree to make gambling a
family vacation. Phoenix and Tucson metastasized out into the desert—building golf courses and vast retirement
developments with swimming pools and fountains. Few realize that much of the energy that makes the desert "bloom"
comes from the Black Mesa strip mines on an Indian reservation. Even fewer know the true costs of such
development.
Divide and conquer has a long history in America as a technique of removing Indians from their lands, a situation that is
being replicated by transnational corporations throughout the world. As former United Nations Secretary General
Boutros Boutros Ghali observed about the struggles of indigenous peoples, "Cultures which do not have powerful
media are threatened with extinction. The instruments of mass communication remain in the service of a handful."
Over the past twenty-five years over twelve thousand Americans have been removed from their lands. Over a billion
dollars of taxpayers' money has been spent to accomplish this human rights abuse.
Harm – Environment Key to Native American Survival

Preservation of Native American lands and environment key to their very survival
When the Sokaogon Chippewa Indians began their long fight against Exxon’s plans to mine next to their reservation in
1976, it was as if the death knell for the tribe had sounded with no hope of staving off this multinational giant.
However, many environmentalists began to realize that “we all live downstream” and saw the importance of Indians’
assertion of treaty rights as an integral part of environmental protection strategy. In 1976 the Sokaogon became
engaged in a battle not only to preserve their wild rice subsistence culture and the treaty-protected waters flowing through
their reservation, but for their economic and cultural survival as well. The Sokaogon’s very cultural and economic
survival depended on their ability to protect and defend the environment. The two could not be separated.16
Harm – Native American Cultures

Environmental destruction has catastrophic impact on Native American cultures – and it has a ripple
effect beyond Native American nations
2. Historic Places and Cultural Preservation -- Protecting the environment is important to Indian tribes for a number of reasons, not
the least of which are tribal aspirations to be autonomous and to have tribal authority respected by federal and state government
agencies. A more fundamental reason is that tribal cultures and religions are closely tied to the natural world. n151 Thus,
preserving the environment is a prerequisite if tribal cultures and tribal ways of using the environment are to survive.
In the United States, the federal government has established a program of financial assistance to Indian tribes expressly for "the
preservation of their cultural heritage." n152 Because the draft declaration provides that states are to provide assistance to
indigenous peoples to pursue their own cultural development, n153 this program could serve as a model for other nations. The
grant program is authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 and is administered by the National Park
Service (NPS). n154
The NHPA is the basic charter for our national historic preservation program. Pursuant to the NHPA, the Secretary of the Interior,
through the NPS, has established the National Register of Historic Places n155 and administers a grant program to states which
provides recurrent funding to support State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs). n156 The NHPA also established an
independent agency, the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, n157 which is charged under section 106 of [*707] the NHPA
n158 with reviewing and commenting on proposed federal actions that might affect properties that are listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places. Properties that are important to tribes for religious or cultural reasons may be eligible for the
National Register. n159 The Advisory Council's implementing regulations assign the SHPOs a substantial measure of
responsibility for carrying out the section 106 process, n160 which is an environmental review and consultation requirement that
must be taken into consideration in the preparation of environmental impact statements pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). n161 Thus, as tribal governments become more involved in the NHPA, they are likely to enhance their
influence when they participate in the NEPA process as well.
Until recently, Indian tribes have virtually been excluded from our national historic preservation program. The NHPA as originally
enacted made no mention whatsoever of Indian tribes, despite their sovereign status and legitimate concern for the subject matter.
This oversight is not surprising, however, given that the NHPA was enacted in the waning years of the "termination" era in federal
Indian policy. But, in the 1980 amendments to the NHPA, Congress added Indian tribes to the list of entities that are to be included
in the federally proclaimed partnership for carrying out our national program n162 and authorized the Secretary of the Interior to
make grants to tribes. n163 It was not until fiscal year 1990, however, that Congress appropriated funds, and the Secretary, acting
through the NPS, finally started making these grants to tribes. n164
[*708] In 1992, Congress enacted amendments to the NHPA which provide a mandate for tribal governments to become full
partners in the national historic preservation program. n165 The 1992 amendments direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a
program to assist Indian tribes in preserving historic properties. n166 Each tribe now has the option to assume "all or any part of
the functions of a State Historic Preservation Officer . . . with respect to tribal lands." n167 Tribal historic preservation programs,
however, will not limit themselves to replicating the established state historic preservation programs. Rather, it is expected that
tribal programs, because they will be defined by local tribal priorities, will exhibit a great deal of variety. As the tribal programs
develop, they will revitalize the national and state programs with which they will interact.
a. Preserving Living Cultures -- Tribal traditions do have historic significance, and all of today's tribal cultures have deep historical
roots in North America. Tribal cultures are dynamic, however, and most have changed in many ways during the generations of
contact with non-Indians. Indian people of today are not concerned so much with preserving tribal histories for the general good of
the larger society. Rather, Indian people primarily are concerned with the vitality of tribal cultures in today's world. n168 Each
tribe has a wellspring of ancestral wisdom derived from the knowledge, experiences, and values of countless [*709] generations of
ancestors, but it is only by carrying on these traditions in the present that future generations will have the same opportunity.
Harm – Native American Cultures

Failure to protect indigenous self-determination in the area of “development” risks collapse of Native
American cultures
As the industrialized societies of the world become increasingly proficient at reaching further into the remote places of Mother
Earth to extract resources, indigenous peoples face ominous threats to their survival. Ancient ways of life that have sustained
countless generations lose their viability when the web of life is torn asunder by the technologies of industrialized peoples, whether
it is multinational corporations or impoverished refugees from the urban slums of Third World countries that wield these
technologies. Kinship networks and religious belief systems that have helped countless generations of individuals develop positive
self-images tend to break down when these ancient cultures are confronted by the power and arrogance of industrialized peoples.
These indigenous individuals who accept the challenges of carrying on the traditions must deal not only with environmentally
destructive technologies and externally imposed legal regimes, but also with self-destructive behavior on the part of other members
of their own societies.
There is nothing new, of course, about the decimation of indigenous peoples and the destruction of their ways of life. There is
something new, however, in the responses of many indigenous peoples and of those in the industrialized societies who are
concerned about their plight. In recent years, an international movement has emerged to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples
under international law -- to recognize that indigenous peoples are indeed members of the human family, and that, as such, they are
entitled to human rights and human dignity. n2 For example, the United Nations has established the Working Group on Indigenous
Populations, n3 [*674] which, with the active involvement of indigenous peoples' representatives and advocates, has been
fashioning a declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples for adoption by the United Nations General Assembly. n4 There are
many facets to the development of standards to protect the human rights of indigenous peoples, but, from the perspectives of
indigenous peoples, much of it comes down to different ways of saying the same basic principle -- indigenous peoples want the
right to make their own decisions about how much of the industrialized world they will allow into their societies and about what
kinds of "development" are allowed to take place in the lands and waters that comprise the traditional homelands upon which their
ancient ways of life depend.
The forces that threaten the survival of indigenous peoples, however, are not patiently awaiting the adoption of a declaration of the
rights of indigenous peoples. To believe that such forces will voluntarily comply with the United Nations declaration when it is
adopted would be a naive exercise in wishful thinking. It is true that the idea of self-determination for indigenous peoples, or at
least the idea of autonomy within legally recognized territories, has gained substantial currency over the last decade or so. Many
governmental officials and political figures around the world, however, continue to regard indigenous peoples as members of
"primitive" cultures that deserve at most some measure of paternalistic protection while they either become assimilated or
disappear forever. Paternalistic protection characterizes one end of the spectrum along which the beliefs of such politicians are
manifested; the genocidal use of military force marks the other end.
Impact – Environmental Racism

Environmental racism is institutionalized discrimination, destroying equality
The United States is the dominant economic and military force in the world today. The American economic engine has
generated massive wealth, high standard of living, and consumerism. This growth machine has also generated waste,
pollution, and ecological destruction. The U.S. has some of the best environmental laws in the world. However, in the
real world, all communities are not created equal. Environmental regulations have not achieved uniform benefits
across all segments of society. [2] Some communities are routinely poisoned while the government looks the other
way.
People of color around the world must contend with dirty air and drinking water, and the location of noxious
facilities such as municipal landfills, incinerators, hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities owned
by private industry, government, and even the military.[3] These environmental problems are exacerbated by
racism. Environmental racism refers to environmental policy, practice, or directive that differentially affects or
disadvantages (whether intended or unintended) individuals, groups, or communities based on race or color.
Environmental racism is reinforced by government, legal, economic, political, and military institutions.
Environmental racism combines with public policies and industry practices to provide benefits for the countries in the
North while shifting costs to countries in the South. [4]
Environmental racism is a form of institutionalized discrimination. Institutional discrimination is defined as
"actions or practices carried out by members of dominant (racial or ethnic) groups that have differential and
negative impact on members of subordinate (racial and ethnic) groups." [5] The United States is grounded in white
racism. The nation was founded on the principles of "free land" (stolen from Native Americans and Mexicans), "free
labor" (African slaves brought to this land in chains), and "free men" (only white men with property had the right to vote).
From the outset, racism shaped the economic, political and ecological landscape of this new nation.
Environmental racism buttressed the exploitation of land, people, and the natural environment. It operates as an
intra-nation power arrangement--especially where ethnic or racial groups form a political and or numerical
minority. For example, blacks in the U.S. form both a political and numerical racial minority. On the other hand, blacks in
South Africa, under apartheid, constituted a political minority and numerical majority. American and South African
apartheid had devastating environmental impacts on blacks.
Environmental racism affects all aspects of Native American tribal life

International Indian Treaty Council, 2008
(excerpt, Norrell, Brenda, “Environmental racism of Indigenous Peoples reported to United Nations” Censored News Blogspot.
January 28. < http://censored-news.blogspot.com/2008/01/environmental-racism-of-indigenous.html>. date accessed: July 1,
2008)
Environmental Racism in the United States affects all aspects of Indigenous life ways and their survival as Peoples. It
affects our health and well being and the health and well being of our future generations, Their major means of subsistence,
their Spiritual and cultural practice, and life itself, both of our people and all our relations are severely and negatively affected.
Environmental racism affects biodiversity, traditional medicines and traditional knowledge, cultural expression, all that is
required to continue being Indigenous, of being who we areYou cannot damage the land without damaging those who live upon it.
You cannot destroy the land without destroying those with a Spiritual and material relationship with it. Ongoing and planned
actions by the United States and its corporate and private entities are taking place on lands that Indigenous Peoples have
traditionally and currently use for hunting, gathering, religious, cultural, and other traditional uses.[1] The use of the land
for these purposes serves as a vehicle to share knowledge about traditional Indigenous practices between elders and youth. The
destruction of the lands and natural environment on and surrounding Indigenous Sacred Lands proves devastating to the
perpetuation of Indigenous culture.
[
Impact – Trust Doctrine Good – Environmental Protection

The Trust Doctrine is essential to preventing environmental threats to the Native American lands
The duty of protection so central to the sovereign trust paradigm two centuries ago is arguably just as important
today. In the earlier periods, federal protection was needed to secure retained native lands against intruding white settlers;
today, federal protection is increasingly needed to shield Indian Country from environmental threats both to the
tribal land base and to shared resources such as water and wildlife. Abating pollution which threatens reservation
lands, managing timber resources for perpetual yield, or sustaining wildlife at levels adequate to support continued
treaty harvest, are objectives inherent in the federal government's duty of protection.
Harm – Policy Making Exclusion

Corporate and colonialist practices exclude Native Americans’ input in decisions regarding their
environment
Colonial-style policies and practices concerning the environment and sustainability were formulated with false
assumptions that the people of the Americas were primitive uncivilized savages who impeded the growth of
technology and progress. If we put aside our fascination with technology and material wealth, we find that for many
people in today’s modern society, life is primitive and stunted in terms of family values, spiritual life, commitment to the
community, and opportunities for rewarding work and creative self expression. These are the very areas most richly
developed in the traditional communities of the Americas. In her research, LaDuke argues that social and economic systems
based on this type of life are usually decentralized, communal, and self-reliant. These societies live closely with and depend
on the life contained in that particular ecosystem. This way of living enabled Indigenous communities to live for thousands
of years in continuous sustainability. Through colonial-style practices, Native peoples worldwide have been denied
equal access to economic power today and in the past. Examples of exclusion of Native peoples throughout the world
in formulating important environmental policy abound. Indigenous peoples and the wealth of sustainable knowledge
they possess have been excluded from decision-making processes concerning the environmental impact of
colonialism, capitalism, and modernday corporate intrusion upon their lands.
Harm – Impact Calculus – SQ Calculus = Exploitation

Corporations externalize their costs on Native Americans, sacrificing health, safety, and the
environment for all future generations.
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. [E.P.A] concedes that "[e]ven 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.
Impact Calculus – Racism Impacts

RACISM CAUSES DEONTIC HARM-- WE MUST EXPRESS SOLIDARITY WITH ITS VICTIMS
REGARDLESS OF CONSEQUENCES.
Post '91 (Robert C., Professor of Law @ UC-Berkeley, William & Mary Law Review, Winter '91, p. L/N GAL)
A recurring theme in the contemporary literature is that racist expression ought to be regulated because it creates what has
been termed " deontic" harm. 18 The basic point is that there is an "elemental wrongness" 19 to racist expression,
regardless of the presence or absence of particular empirical consequences such as "grievous, severe psychological injury."
20 It is argued that toleration for racist expression is inconsistent with respect for "the principle of equality" 21 that is at the
heart of the fourteenth amendment. 22
The thrust of this argument is that a society committed to ideals of social and political equality cannot remain passive: it
must issue unequivocal expressions of solidarity with vulnerable minority groups and make positive statements affirming
its commitment to those ideals. Laws prohibiting racist speech must be regarded as important components of such
expressions and statements. 23
REJECTING RACISM IS A MORAL IMPERATIVE WHICH OUTWEIGHS ALL OTHER

IMPACTS-- CONFLICT AND DESTRUCTION ARE INEVITABLE WITHIN A SOCIETY WHICH
ALLOWS IT.
Memmi 2000 (Albert, Professor Emeritus of Sociology @ U of Paris, Naiteire, Racism, transl. Steve Martinot, p. 165, GAL)
Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others
is permissible. But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust
society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat
you with respect. "Recall," says the Bible, "that you were once a stranger in Egypt," which means both that you ought to
respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming once again someday. It is an ethical
and a practical appeal -- indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition
for all theoretical and practical morality. Because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice, a just
society must be a society accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and
destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday to live in peace. True, it is a wager, but the stakes are
irresistible.
Impact Calculus – Racism Impacts

REJECTION OF RACISM IS A PRECONDITION FOR HUMAN AND MORAL ORDER WHICH
OUTWEIGHS UTILITY-- INJUSTICE CAUSES VIOLENCE.
However, it remains true that one's moral conduct only emerges from a choice; one has to want it. It is a choice among
other choices, and always debatable in its foundations and its consequences. Let us say, broadly speaking, that the choice to
conduct oneself morally is the condition for the establishment of a human order, for which racism is the very negation.
This is almost a redundancy. One cannot found a moral order, let alone a legislative order, on racism, because racism
signifies the exclusion of the other and his or her subjection to violence and domination. From an ethical point of view, if
one can deploy a little religious language, racism is "the truly capital sin."fn22 It is not an accident that almost all of
humanity's spiritual traditions counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of
theoretical counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality
and disinterested commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests the real utility of such
sentiments. All things considered, we have an interest in banishing injustice, because injustice engenders violence and
death.
NO CONCESSIONS-- WE CANNOT ACCEPT ANY DEGREE OF RACISM, IT MAKES

INJUSTICE AND VIOLENCE INEVITABLE.
The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without remission, probably never achieved.
Yet for this very reason, it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be
indulgent toward racism; one must not even let the monster in the house, especially not in a mask. To give it merely a
foothold means to augment the bestial part in us and in other people, which is to diminish what is human. To accept the
racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the dark
history in which we still largely live. It is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim (and which [person]
man is not [themself] himself an outsider relative to someone else?). Racism illustrates in sum, the inevitable negativity of
the condition of the dominated; that is, it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition. The anti-racist struggle,
difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animality to
humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge.
Impact Calculus – Racism Outweighs Nuclear War

RACISM OUTWEIGHS NUCLEAR WAR.
Mohan in 93 (Brij, Professor at LSU, Eclipse of Freedom p. 3-4)
Metaphors of existence symbolize variegated aspects of the human reality. However, words can be apocalyptic. "There are
words," de Beauvoir writes, "as murderous as gas chambers" (1968: 30). Expressions can be unifying and explosive; they
portray explicit messages and implicit agendas in human affairs and social configurations. Manifestly the Cold War is over.
But the world is not without nuclear terror. Ethnic strife and political instabilities in the New World Order -- following the
dissolution of the Soviet Union -- have generated fears of nuclear terrorism and blackmail in view of the widening circle of
nuclear powers. Despite encouraging trends in nuclear disarmament, unsettling questions, power, and fear of terrorism
continue to characterize the crisis of the new age which is stumbling at the threshold of the twenty-first century.
The ordeal of existence transcends the thermonuclear fever because the latter does not directly impact the day-to-day
operations if the common people. The fear of crime, accidents, loss of job, and health care on one hand; and the sources of
racism, sexism, and ageism on the other hand have created a counterculture of denial and disbelief that has shattered the
façade of civility. Civilization loses its significance when its social institutions become counterproductive. It is this aspect
of the mega-crisis that we are concerned about.
Impact Calculus – Absolutism Good/Utilitarianism Bad

Impact Calculus – Absolutism Good/Utilitarianism Bad

Impact Calculus – AT: Absolutism Bad

Harm – Status Quo Electricity Generation – Pollution

Electric utilities rank first among industries emitting toxics
Singh, Research Director, Renewable Energy Policy Project, 00
(Virinder, “RESOLUTION ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AND LOW-INCOME AND MINORITY COMMUNITIES”
Renewable Energy Policy Project, Fall 2000, http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/pdf/resolution.pdf, Accessed 7/11/08)
Electric utilities are responsible for 26% of the nation’s nitrogen oxide emissions and 64% of sulfur dioxide emissions. The
electric utility sector ranks first among U.S. industries emitting toxics as listed in the federal Toxic Release
Inventory, releasing 1 billion pounds of toxics in 1998, more than the chemical, paper, plastics and refining
industries combined. Many of these emissions are known carcinogens, neurotoxins, and acid gases that contribute to
respiratory problems such as asthma and emphysema
Harm – Global Warming

Devastating impact of climate change on Native Americans is the canary in the coal mine – absent
action, impact will only spread
Meimer, Indian Country Today writer, 08
(David, Indian Country Today, “Funding and will needed for environmental repair”, 9-21-7,
It has been said often enough by experts and pundits that indigenous people are the first to be harmed by global
warming. Alaska, according to Mark Myers, director of the U.S. Geological Survey, is the canary in the coal mine. Native
Alaska villages were built on coastlines in order to have easy access to sea-faring animals used for sustenance, but
now with seas rising due to melting glaciers and ice masses, erosion is occurring and a decision may have to be made
about whether to move the villages. Tribal governments have other issues - people and immediate survival issues - and
few tribal governments have addressed climate change as it relates to their reservations. But the tribal colleges have.
Harm – Mining – Human Health

Mining of dangerous substances on Native American lands affect the indigenous way of life
Gray, Native Rights Activist, 2002
(Hunter, DSA Anti-Struggle, “The Native American Struggle”, spring issue,
http://www.dsausa.org/antiracism/editorials/editorials2.html date accessed: July 2, 2008).
Much less known nationally, always, has been the predominately Native situation on and immediately adjacent to the
reservations. Many, many hundreds of Indian uranium workers -- mostly Navajo, as well as some Laguna tribesman in
north central New Mexico -- have now died because of both the inherently and insidiously destructive nature of
uranium and the corporations’ lack of meaningful safety procedures. Given the remoteness of much of the Navajo
country especially -- it is bigger than the state of West Virginia with relatively few roads -- it is likely that the death count
is considerably higher than any formal records indicate.
Most of these deaths have been from lung and stomach cancer -- unknown among the Indians until uranium mining
began -- and now called “the sores that will not heal.” Some authorities predict that virtually all of the Native [and other
workers] involved in uranium mining, milling and refining will eventually die from those or closely related causes.
The very air over much reservation land has been poisoned by uranium and other energy industries. The random
dumping of uranium wastes has produced dangerously high radioactivity levels in Indian water supplies -- killing
people, livestock, and wildlife. The life-span of uranium’s “ghost dance spirit” ensures that this multi-faceted ghoulish
legacy will last for several thousand years. In related catastrophes, coal mining carves the earth and erodes most lungs;
hard-rock metal mining gnaws all lungs and vitals and its smelters and refineries destroy any vegetation.
Harm – Mining – Environmental Racism

Native American resources are exploited by mining corporations
Despite significant improvements in environmental protection over the past several decades, over 1.3 billion
individuals worldwide live in unsafe and unhealthy physical environments. Hazardous waste generation and
international movement of hazardous waste and toxic products pose some important health, environmental, legal,
political, and ethical dilemmas.
The systematic destruction of indigenous peoples' land and sacred sites, the poisoning of Native Americans on
reservations, Africans in the Niger Delta, African-Americans in Louisiana's "Cancer Alley," Mexicans in the border towns,
and Puerto Ricans on the Island of Vieques all have their roots in economic exploitation, racial oppression, devaluation
of human life and the natural environment, and corporate greed.
Unequal interests and unequal power arrangements have allowed poisons of the rich to be offered as short-term
remedies for poverty of the poor. The last decade has seen numerous developing nations challenge the "unwritten policy"
of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries shipping hazardous wastes into their
borders. Most people of color communities in the United States and poor nations around the world want jobs and economic
development-but not at the expense of public health and the environment.
Harm – Mining – AT – Regulations Solve
The government has done nothing to protect tribal water from the effects of mining
Selden, Indian Country Today writer, 04
(Stephanie, Indian Country Today, “Fort Belknap Tribes file new lawsuit over mining population”, 2-19-4,
"The water pollution is just not getting cleaned up and we have to bring this lawsuit to protect our people and water,"
Fort Belknap Indian Community Council Chairman Ben Speakthunder said in a prepared statement. "The area is still
so contaminated that even the water treatment plants are discharging polluted water." "Whatever the responsible
parties have been doing in the name of reclamation is just not working," added Charlie Tebbutt, an attorney with the
Western Environmental Law Center, a nonprofit, public interest group. "The pollution is ongoing and must be
addressed." In 2000, the Fort Belknap Tribes also sued the BLM, the BIA, and the Indian Health Service for
allegedly breaching their trust responsibilities by allowing the federal permitting and multiple expansions at
Zortman-Landusky and for "failing to properly protect tribal health and resources from the impacts of mining."
Laws concerning the environmental safety and preservation of historic sites don’t stop toxic waste on
Native American lands
Conant, Staff Writer for CorpWatch for, 2007
“They only recognize our sovereignty when they want to dump toxic waste on us,” says Lori Goodman, spokesperson
for Diné CARE, (Diné Citizens Against Ruining our Environment), She charges that Sithe is benefitting from “Dick
Cheney’s secret meetings with the energy companies” that resulted in the Energy Policy Act of August 2005. A
provision of this act known as the Tribal Energy Resource Agreements (TERA) made it unnecessary for Indian
nations to follow national laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic
Preservation Act.
Harm – Toxic Waste - Genocide

Toxic waste is a threat to Native American sovereignty and worsens the ongoing genocide.
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. 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 fight 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 Environmental 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.
Impact – Environmental Genocide

Environmental genocide on Native American lands perpetuates “human sacrifice zones” and threatens
all aspects of Native American life.
Hooks, Washington State University Department of Sociology Chair & Smith, Texas State University
Sociology Professor, 4
(Gregory and Chad L., “The Treadmill of Destruction: National Sacrifice Areas and Native Americans”, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 60, No. 4, p.562, August 2004)
Some Indian lands have suffered such severe and prolonged environmental degradation that it is beyond
current technology to make them safe for human use. Brook (1998) characterizes the military damage to Indian
lands as part of an “environmental genocide.” Once a locale has been seriously degraded, it often attracts additional
pollution (Marshall 1996). Reflecting their permanent degradation and their purported contribution to the
collective good, these areas are referred to as “national sacrifice areas” (Kuletz 1998) or “human sacrifice zones”
(Bullard 1993). The preceding discussion made conceptual distinctions based on the sources of
toxins and the processes through which people come to reside in proximity to them. We assert that
because reservations were forced upon Native Americans and because military activities pose the gravest
danger to them, the experiences of Native Americans are best understood in terms of the treadmill of destruction.
In the ensuing paragraphs we provide justification for this assertion and a historical context for the
quantitative analyses that follow. We anticipate finding that the military systematically used and damaged
Native American lands. Our research hypothesis is shared by the Department of Defense: In order to ensure that
it meets its national security mission, DoD operates and trains on vast amounts of land, including American Indian and
Alaska Native lands. Evidence of DoD’s past use of these lands remains: hazardous materials, unexploded ordnance
(UXO), abandoned equipment, unsafe buildings, and debris. This contamination degrades the natural environment
and threatens tribal economic, social and cultural welfare. (U.S.Department of Defense 2001).
Harm – Pollution – Disease

Environmental pollution triggers an increased prevalence of disease
An estimated 40 percent of world deaths can now be attributed to various environmental factors, especially organic
and chemical pollutants. Approximately 80,000 different chemicals are now in commercial use with nearly six
trillion pounds produced annually in the United States. [60] More than 80% of these chemicals have never been
screened to learn whether they cause cancer, much less tested to see if they harm the nervous system, the immune
system, the endocrine system or the reproductive system. [61] The current U.S. approach is also not based on real
life exposures since people and animals are not exposed to one chemical in isolation, but rather are exposed to an
array of toxic chemicals. [62] Of the top 20 chemicals reported to the U.S. Federal EPA under the Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) as those released in the largest quantities in 1997, nearly 75 percent are known or suspected
neurotoxins.
Of the 80,000 pesticides and other chemical in use today, 10 percent are recognized as carcinogens. [65] There are more
than 8 million Americans who have cancer. [66] Cancer-related deaths in the U.S. increased from 331,000 in 1970 to
521,000 in 1992, with an estimated 30,000 death attributed to chemical exposure. [67] The fraction of cancer deaths
caused by occupational exposures vary from four per cent to over 20 per cent due to the lack of data on the
carcinogenic potential of most industrial chemicals and the absence of effective public health surveillance systems
for occupational disease.
Pollutant emissions trigger disease, and scope is under-reported due to lack of adequate health care
and record-keeping
Conant, Staff Writer for CorpWatch, 2007
American Lung Association figures show that 16,000 people in the county, or close to 15 percent of the population, suffer
from lung disease, most likely from plant emissions. The 2,040 megawatt Four Corners plant emits 157 million pounds of
sulfur dioxide, 122 million pounds of nitrogen oxides, 8 million pounds of soot and 2,000 pounds of mercury a year. The
1,800 megawatt San Juan generating station releases over 100 million pounds of sulfur dioxide, more than 100 million pounds of
nitrogen oxides, roughly 6 million pounds of soot, and at least 1000 pounds of mercury. Add to this the 18,000 oil and gas wells
spread throughout the region and you have “massive cumulative impacts that will never be reversed,” says Eisenberg.
The Navajo Nation seems to have no accesible records of local health impacts.
“We don’t have numbers, because Indian Health Services is notoriously under-funded and isn’t keeping track [of the
health impacts]," says David Nez. "But when I was a kid no one here had asthma. Now lots of kids have it.”
CorpWatch calls to reach Indian Health Services for comments were not returned.
Dr. Marcus Higi of Cortez, Colorado, who worked as a physician on the reservation for four years, agrees with Nez. "I've
seen the worst asthma cases out here near the power plants," he said. "A kid would come in, barely breathing. They're
basically on the verge of death."
[Mike Eisenberg: San Juan Citizen Alliance Member

David Nez: New Mexico Schoolteacher]
Impact – Pollution – Poverty

Environmental pollution exacerbates poverty
Poverty and pollution are intricately linked. [45] Poor people are disproportionately exposed to hazards [46] in their
environment that in turn makes them sick due to the lack of clean and fresh water, and adequate food, shelter, fuel
and air. [47] Poverty impacts health [48] because it determines how much resources poor people have and defines
the amount of environmental risks [49] they will be exposed to in their immediate environment. It is the "poorest of
the poor", that one-fifth of the world's population living on less than $1 a day and unable to secure adequate food, water,
clothing, shelter, and health care, who is most vulnerable to environmental threats. Most of the governments in the poorest
part of the world spend around $10 per person per year on health care. [50]
Over 25 percent of all preventable illnesses are directly caused by environmental factors. [51] Almost one third of the
global burden of disease falls on the most vulnerable population-children under 5 years of age who constitute no more than
12% of the world's population. Three environmental problems (contaminated drinking water, untreated human
excrement, and air pollution) account for 7.7 million deaths annually or 15 percent of the global death toll of 52
million. One in five children in the poorest regions of the world will not live to see their fifth birthday, mainly because of
environment-related diseases, i.e., mostly due to malaria, acute respiratory infections or diarrhoea-all of which are largely
preventable. This amounts to 11 million childhood deaths a year worldwide.
Impact – Biodiversity
Loss of biodiversity risks ecological collapse and human extinction.
Diner, Ohio State University LL.M., 1994.
(Diner, David N. B.S. Recipient. Ohio State University. J.D. Recipient. College of Law. Ohio State University. LL.M. The Judge
Advocate General’s School. United States Army. Judge Advocate’s General’s Corps. United States Army. “The Army and the
Endangered Species Act: Who’s Endangering Whom?” Military Law Review. 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161. Winter, 1994. Lexis-Nexis.)
No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of
life and death -- extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this
domination with a singleminded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the
maximum benefit of the human race. n67 Inpast mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species
perished, and yet theworld moved forward,and new species replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now?
The prime reason is the world's survival. Like all animal life, humans live off of other species. At some point, the number of
species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails, and then humans also would become extinct. No one knows
how many [*171] species the world needs to support human life, and to find out -- by allowing certain species to
become extinct -- would not be sound policy. In addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to
mankind. n68 2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest,
n69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide
additional ecological services -- pollution control, n70 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. n71
3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the
world. n72 Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is
the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. n73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been
examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail
darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew n74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if
not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role,
because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the
loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. n75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of
each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. n76 4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise
of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. n77 As the current mass extinction has progressed, the
world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of
species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications.
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological
niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the
more successfully it can resist a stress. . . .[l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a
fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a
whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic
simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl
conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues.
Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause
total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic
removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
[NOTE: GENDER MODIFIED]

Harm – Oil Sands Mining

Oil sands mining destroys biodiversity
Woodward, Indian Country Today writer, 08
(Stephanie, Indian Country Today, “Signed, Sealed, Delivered Oil Sands Truth”, 4-21-8,
''If you've never seen an oil sands mining operation, it's hard to fathom,'' said elder Pat Marcel, Athabasca Chipewyan
First Nation, in Fort Chipewyan, Alberta. ''They strip all the trees and earth to get at the bitumen [a heavy oil that's
mixed with clay, sand and water]. It's a terrible thing, 100 percent devastation.'' The oil sands are not the wasteland
the name implies. Rather, they are a region of once-pristine boreal forest, lakes and abundant wildlife. The area
includes the aboriginal homelands of several Canadian First Nations, including Marcel's community. These days, the tract is
also home to immense tailing ponds of polluted water left over from extraction, which requires two tons of the bitumen-rich
earth, several barrels of water and 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas for every barrel of oil. The extraction process also releases
tremendous amounts of greenhouse gases - enough to ''challenge Canada's fulfillment of its Kyoto [treaty] commitment,''
according to a U.S. Department of Energy study. The devastation isn't just local. As the oil sands are processed, toxins
are pumped into the Athabasca River, whose giant delta is a World Heritage Site and home to North America's
largest wild bison population. Some fish and game in the area are no longer safe to eat, and people are being
diagnosed with rare cancers, said Marcel. ''If it's this bad after 40 years of oil sands production, what will it be like
in 100 years?'' he asked. Social problems have arisen along with the environmental damage. ''There's no push to train First
Nations people for meaningful work,'' Marcel said. ''Instead, they import thousands of workers from places like China and
the Philippines, house them, clothe them and teach them English. When you bring in all those people and so much money,
bad habits ensue that our people get swept up in. We're seeing more bad than good, and we'd like to reverse that.''
Harm – Coal Mining – Water

Coal mining increases water pollution and threatens livestock
Coal-Issues, 2008
(Source Watch. “Coal and Native American Tribal Lands” June 27,
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_Native_American_tribal_lands&printable=yes date accessed: July 2, 2008)
In addition to air pollution, waste from the coal mines supporting the Four Corners and San Juan plants has
contaminated the water with sulfates, leading to the death of livestock. According to one source, 70 million tons of
coal combustion waste (containing cadmium, selenium, arsenic, and lead) has been dumped in the Navajo coal mine,
and combined with the San Juan mine, reaches a total of 150 million tons.
Waste of coal-burning contaminates groundwater with lead

Conant, Staff Writer for CorpWatch 2007
This waste, heavily laden with cadmium, selenium, arsenic, and lead – byproducts of coal-burning – leaches into
groundwater turning it poisonous to people, livestock, and vegetation. A forthcoming EPA report released to the
national environmental group Earth Justice indicates that groundwater contaminated with coal ash leads to a cancer
risk as high as 1 in 100 – 10,000 times higher than previous EPA estimates.
Harm – Coal Mining – Environmental Racism

Coal mining on Native American lands is a blatant form of environmental racism
Coal-Issues, 2008
The placement of coal-fired plants in the impoverished communities living on native reservations, with little or no
access to healthcare, is seen by some environmental justice advocates as “blatant environmental racism and
injustice.”[28] The primary beneficiaries of coal mining and power generation are often not the native tribes who
live on the land being used. In the case of Black Mesa, 80 percent of Navajo people do not have running water and 50
percent of people on the Navajo and Hopi reservations do not have electricity despite the fact that transmission lines
cross the reservations to deliver electricity to the southwest and California, and the water aquifer has been
extensively tapped to supply to former coal slurry pipeline. Black Mesa Navajo Nicole Horseherder summed this up in a
2004 Los Angeles Times article, saying, “Somewhere far away from us, people have no understanding that their demand for
cheap electricity, air conditioning and lights 24 hours a day have contributed to the imbalance of this very delicate
place.”[29]In addition, the development of natural resources on tribal lands does not always lead to better living
conditions due to low royalties, unbalanced contracts with outside corporations and the federal government, and
tribal mismanagement.
Harm – Coal Mining – Poverty

Disproportionate amount of mining exacerbates tribal poverty
Coal-Issues, 2008
The Native American lands of the United States are home to large coal reserves, coal mining, and coal plants. As a
result, the indigenous people of these lands deal disproportionately with the environmental hazards of the coal
industry. For example, four of the ten largest strip mines in the U.S. are on tribal lands.[1] The common challenges
of land and resource development are exacerbated by the poor economic situation of many of the tribes, which raises
questions of environmental justice and indigenous sovereignty.
Coal mining worsens poverty and strains infrastructure

Coal-Issues, 2008
Mining and burning coal have a unique impact on Native American lands and people due to the specific socio-
economic and cultural situation. Significant poverty often influences the choice to develop coal resources, yet because
of the special relationship the tribes have to the land as sacred, there is also often deep resistance to development and
the resulting damage and pollution to the land and people. There are few social services on many reservations and
development often strains the infrastructure, while bringing in a population of workers culturally different from the
indigenous population.
Harm – Coal Mining – Dislocation

Coal mining triggers Native American displacement
Coal-Issues, 2008
In addition to the impact of coal on the natural environment of Black Mesa, twelve thousand Navajos have been
removed from their lands due to the mining, the largest removal of Native Americans since the 1880s.[13] John
McCain authored the relocation bill, called the 1974 Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act.[14]
Coal mining has devastated tribal lands without any form of reparation or payment.
Until 1969, the coal lay untouched and so close to the surface that the walls of the dry washes glistened with seams of shiny
black. With a long- term value estimated as high as $100 billion, it lies completely under Indian reservation lands, for Black
Mesa is also home to some sixteen thousand Navajos and eight thousand Hopis. In 1966, the Hopi and Navajo tribal
councils—not to be confused with the general tribal population— signed strip-mining leases with a consortium of
twenty utilities that had designed a new coal-fired energy grid for the urban Southwest. Under the umbrella name
WEST (Western Energy Supply and Transmission), the utilities promised more air conditioning for Los Angeles, more
neon lights for Las Vegas, more water for Phoenix, more power for Tucson—and for the Indians, great wealth.
Today, thirty years after the strip mining for coal began, the cities have the energy they were promised, but the Hopi
and Navajo nations are not rich—that part of the plan proved ephemeral. Instead, Black Mesa has suffered human
rights abuses and ecological devastation; the Hopi water supply is drying up; thousands of archeological sites have
been destroyed; and, unbeknownst to most Americans, twelve thousand Navajos have been removed from their
lands—the largest removal of Indians in the United States since the 1880s.
Harm – Coal Mining - Human Rights

Industrial coal mining on Native American lands violates human rights
Norrell, Indian Country Today Staff Writer, 2008
(Brenda, “US Apartheid of Indigenous Peoples Documented in US report” Censored Breaking News.. January 20.
http://censored-news.blogspot.com/2008/01/us-apartheid-of-indigenous-peoples.html date accessed: July 1, 2008).
"Probably the most blatant case in point is the United States federal Government's taking of the Black Hills (in the
present day state of South Dakota) from the Sioux Nation during the final quarter of the nineteenth century. The lands
which included the Black Hills had been reserved for the indigenous nation under provisions of the 1868 Fort Laramie
Treaty." Further, the Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, Mr. Abdelfattah Amor drew special attention to the
forced relocation of Navajos on Black Mesa and the United States refusal to take into consideration the spiritual practices
of Navajos. On the subject of Black Mesa, the Special Rapporteur also calls for the observance of international law on
freedom of religion and its manifestations. In the case of the Navajo elders, the reconciliation of their human rights
and other legitimate concerns were not taken into account. No consideration was given their spiritual practices and
beliefs by the United States government in ordering their relocation. As lands are seized or leased for energy
developments, human rights violations increase. On the Navajo Nation, coal mining and uranium mining have been
detrimental.
Economic interests, such as the coal mine, have often prevailed over Indigenous human rights. These are principally
private ventures that do not have a true public interest, and their activities rarely consider the fundamental rights or
freedom of others. International law had not been observed with regard to the Navajo Elders," Amor stated.
[Mr, Abdelfattah Amor: Special Rapporteur in Religious Intolerance ]

Harm – Coal Mining - Experimentation

Dangerous coal mining practices on Indian Land are used as an experimental tool for other nations.
ONE COLD MARCH DAY in 1990, I visited the office of Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. A dusting of snow still lay on the
ground. In the distance, a weak sun illuminated the drag lines and I glimpsed cone- shaped piles of coal waiting to be fed
into the conveyer belt. Lowell Hinkins, the operations manager, assured me that there was no connection between the
Indian wells going dry and the operations of the slurry. The pipeline wells went a thousand feet deeper than the shallow
wells of the Hopi and Navajo, he told me. He also confirmed that, yes, "Black Mesa is the only operating coal slurry line
in the United States. The others are being built in China and Russia." I had just had seen a company video that
claimed coal was bringing economic prosperity and the "finer things of life" to the Hopi and Navajo. But it is hard
to define prosperity.
The effects of coal slurry pipelines on water tables are known, and in all-white communities where such pipelines
have been proposed, citizens have had enough political voice to defeat them. The larger truth about the Black Mesa
pipeline must include the fact that it was built in part as an experiment—to test and improve technology primarily
intended for other countries, like China and Russia. The Bechtel corporation had designed the pipeline in conjunction
with a new design for an electrical generating station—the Mohave Generating Station of Laughlin, Nevada—which was
also a test of technology for dewatering coal slurry. The owners of the new plant were Los Angeles Water and Power,
Southern California Edison, Nevada Power (Las Vegas), and the Salt River Project (Phoenix)—all members of the energy
consortium, WEST. In terms of population served by the utilities, their combined political power represented seven state
governors, fourteen senators, and at least forty-eight Congressmen.
Harm – Coal Power – Environmental Racism

Coal operation siting is indicative of environmental racism against Native American tribes
Environment News Service 7
(“50 Dirtiest U.S. Power Plants Named”, Environment News Service, July 26, 2007, http://www.ens-
newswire.com/ens/jul2007/2007-07-26-05.asp -accessed 7/2/08)
Already coping with the highest emissions of nitrogen oxides, Navajo communities in the Four Corners area have been
at a standoff with Sithe Global Power and the Dine Power Authority over the construction of Desert Rock, a 1,500
megawatt coal fired power plant that would cost 2.2 billion dollars to build and sit on 580 acres about 30 miles southwest
of Farmington.
At a time when tribes, cities, states and nations are working to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the Desert Rock plant
would increase them.
"It is blatant environmental racism and injustice when you place a third power plant in an impoverished
community with little or no access to healthcare," said Lori Goodman of Dine CARE. "For our elders and future
generations, we vow to fight this intrusion upon our people's health and way of life."
Harm – Coal Power – Health

Coal power stations on Native American land significantly increase the rate of lung cancer
Coal-Issues, 2008
The Four Corners plant, one of the largest coal-fired generating stations in the United States, is located on Navajo
land in Fruitland, New Mexico. The plant’s five units generate 2,040 megawatts of electricity and are operated by Arizona
Public Service Co., which serves about 300,000 homes in New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Texas.[3] The American
Lung Association estimates that 16,000 people in the region (15 percent of the population) suffers from lung disease
probably caused by plant emissions. Each year the plant emits 157 million pounds of sulfur dioxide, 122 million pounds
of nitrogen oxides, 8 million pounds of soot and 2,000 pounds of mercury. The San Juan generating station is nearby, in
Farmington, New Mexico. The 1800 megawatt plant emits approximately 100 million pounds of sulfur dioxide, 100 million
pounds of nitrogen oxides, 6 million pounds of soot, and at least 1000 pounds of mercury per year. [4]The proposed Desert
Rock coal plant is within a 20 mile radius of the Four Corners and San Juan plants.
Harms – Uranium Mining - Pollution

Massive radioactive spills from uranium mines leak onto land
Norrell, Indian Country Today writer, 04
(Brenda, Indian Country Today, “Scientists Back Navajos’ Uranium Mining Fight”,
On July 16, 1979, the uranium tailings dam failure at the United Nuclear Corporation uranium mill released 94
million gallons of acidic wastewater and 1,100 tons of radioactive tailing into the North Fork of the Puerco River. It
has since flowed downstream through Navajo communities, including Nahata Dziil (New Lands), where Navajos were
relocated from Black Mesa to make way for Peabody Coal's mining operations. Wallace said what is going on with HRI's
approval should be questioned. Earlier, world-respected water hydrologist Shlomo Neuman said in 1998 that the data in the
final environmental impact statement is flawed. After that, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission released a statement, which
claimed Neuman had changed his mind. However, Neuman again spoke up and wrote a statement saying that he has not
changed his mind and confirmed the data is flawed. Wallace said of the attempt to distort Neuman's words, "There are very
suspicious things going on here." Mitchell Capitan said when ENDAUM formed 10 years ago, Navajos had no idea they
would be fighting HRI for a decade. "We don't want that uranium mining polluting our clean water, our clean air."
[Note: “Capitan” = Mitchell Capitan, Navajo cofounder of the grassroots group Eastern Navajo Against Uranium Mining
(ENDAUM)]
Harm – Uranium Mining Impact – Radiation Exposure

Radiation levels on Native American lands exceed acceptable limits
Klauk, Digital Library for Earth System Ecosystem Community Service Project Staff Writer, 2008
(Erin, DLESE, “Human Health Impacts on Navajo Nation from Uranium Mining”, June 24,
http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/nativelands/navajo/humanhealth.html, date accessed: June 30, 2008)
Radioactive pollution is a serious threat to the welfare of the Navajo people. Some Navajo miners were exposed to
high levels of radioactivity in mines and mills. One 1959 report found radiation levels ninety times acceptable limits
(LUHNA, 2002 (more info) ). Of the 150 Navajo uranium miners who worked at the uranium mine in Shiprock, New
Mexico until 1970, 133 died of lung cancer or various forms of fibrosis by 1980 ([Ali, 2003]
Not only were the Native Americans not informed of dangers in radioactive mining but to this day,
unsealed radioactive waste exists on their reservations
Klauk, Digital Library for Earth System Ecosystem Community Service Project Staff Writer, 2008
(Erin, DLESE, “Human Health Impacts on Navajo Nation from Uranium Mining”, June 24,
http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/nativelands/navajo/humanhealth.html, date accessed: June 30, 2008)
Because times were hard for the Navajo, most families were thankful when mining started on the reservation because they
were given employment. Unfortunately, the people who operated the mines did not tell the Navajo of the danger that
was associated with uranium mining. The miners and their families were forced to figure out the dangers on their
own, from experiencing the illnesses themselves ([Brugge, 2000] ).
When mining ceased in the late 1970's, mining companies walked away from the mines without sealing the tunnel
openings, filling the gaping pits, sometimes hundreds of feet deep, or removing the piles of radioactive uranium ore
and mine waste. Over 1,000 of these unsealed tunnels, unsealed pits and radioactive waste piles still remain on the
Navajo reservation today, with Navajo families living within a hundred feet of the mine sites. The Navajo graze their
livestock here, and have used radioactive mine tailings to build their homes. Navajo children play in the mines, and
uranium mine tailings have turned up in school playgrounds.
Harm – Uranium Mining Impact – Radiation Health Impacts

Increased exposure to uranium waste in water on Native American lands leads to severe health issues
McSwain, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Deputy Director, 2007
(Robert G., U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, “The Health and Environmental Impact of Uranium Mining on the
Navajo Nation”, October 23, http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/2007/10/t20071023c.html, date accessed: June 30, 2008)
The increased exposure to radionuclides in drinking water results in increased risks of bone cancer and changes in
kidney function by direct toxicity to kidney cells. In December 2000, the U.S. EPA issued new rules regulating uranium
in community water systems to reduce toxic kidney effects and the risk of cancer. By December 31, 2007, all regulated
water systems must complete initial monitoring.
Since the passage of P. L. 86-121 in 1959, IHS has been constructing community water systems in Indian country which
meet all EPA standards for safe drinking water and, in the case of the Navajo Area, turning these systems over to the Navajo
Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA) to operate and maintain. Compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act on Navajo
reservation land has been the responsibility of the Navajo Nation since 2001. Only 3 percent of Navajo Nation
community water systems in 2005 had reportable health-based violations (any violations exceeding maximum
contaminant levels, not just radio-nuclides) in comparison to numbers for the states of Arizona (11%), New Mexico
(13%), Utah (6%) and Colorado (9%).
Currently, a Navajo Nation Institutional Review Board approved study is underway with funds awarded by HHS to the
University of New Mexico, Health Sciences Center. The Navajo Uranium Assessment and Kidney Health Project is
supported by a $2.3 million five-year grant. Indian Health Service staff are collaborating with this effort, as medical record
reviews, health exams and laboratory analysis will be essential to the success of this project.
The study is designed to (1) assess water quality and use in 100 water sources in Northwestern New Mexico communities
with Navajo residents; (2) reduce uranium exposure from unregulated water sources used as drinking water; and (3)
calculate relative risks for chronic kidney disease from ingestion of uranium and other kidney toxicants from unregulated
water sources, evaluating urinary biomarkers over time in relationship to disease progression.
Historical data indicate that up to 25 percent of unregulated water sources in the western Navajo exceeded drinking
water standard for kidney toxicants (including uranium). Preliminary analysis of eastern Navajo Nation data shows
that this same percentage is being found for New Mexico unregulated water sources on or near Navajo lands. In the
New Mexico study area, many families still haul water from multiple sites, including unregulated water sources, in
spite of warnings by health providers and environmental health staff.
Harm – Uranium Mining Impact – Radiation Health Impacts

Not only do Native American miners have more nonmalignant respiratory disease from underground
uranium mining but are also less likely to receive compensation for mining related diseases
Dr. Mapel, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center Epidemiology and Cancer Control
Division, et al. 1997
(Douglas W Mapel, MD, MPH, David B. Coultas, MD, David S. James, MD, William C. Hunt, MA, Christine A. Stidley, PhD,
and Frank D. Gilliland, MD, PhD; “Ethnic differences in the prevalence of nonmalignant respiratory disease among uranium
miners” American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 87, 1997, No. 5 (May), p.833-838, date accessed: June 30, 2008).
Uranium mining is more strongly associated with obstructive lung disease and radiographic pneumoconiosis in
Native Americans than in Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites. Obstructive lung disease in Hispanic and non-Hispanic
White miners is mostly related to cigarette smoking. Current compensation criteria excluded 24% of Native Americans
who, by ethnic-specific standards, had restrictive lung disease and 4.8% who had obstructive lung disease. Native
Americans have the highest prevalence of radiographic pneumoconiosis, but are less likely to meet spirometry
criteria for compensation.
Harm – Uranium Mining – Health

Uranium-contaminated water causes an abundance of tribal renal failure
Norrell, Indian Country Today writer, 04
(Brenda, Indian Country Today, “Scientists Back Navajos’ Uranium Mining Fight”, 3-12-4,
Abitz said if the mining is not halted, a sad chapter would play out again for Navajos, with the mining company
leaving and possibly declaring bankruptcy as others have done to prevent paying for damages. "They won't be able to
restore the groundwater. They'll take a shot at it, they'll say they've pumped so much water through it; and then they'll say
see you later." Abitz used black dye, a sponge and clean water to demonstrate how poisons remain in the water,
regardless of clean water being poured or flushed through nine times. "You would not see the chemicals in there, but
they would be poisoning you. The toxic chemicals will not go away. Abitz said the number of Navajos already
suffering from diabetes, which also affects kidney functions, compounds the risk of renal failure. "Uranium is toxic to
the kidneys, it slows down kidney function." Din? translators Capitan, Esther Yazzie and Lillie Lane translated complex
science into the Din? language during the gathering, which included a lunch of posole, mutton stew, spring greens, fry
bread and brownies. What was not on the menu was anyone who could make excuses for the government sending
Navajo miners to their death as they mined uranium without protective clothing during the Cold War or for the deadly
radioactive spill in nearby Church Rock. [Note: “Abitz” = Richard Abitz, geo-chemist and environmental scientist]
Uranium mining dangers continue to disrupt tribal health and culture

Woodward, Indian Country Today writer, 07
(Stephanie, Indian Country Today, “May I Suggest…”, 3-28-7, http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414717,
accessed 7-3-08)
From 1945 through 1988, Navajo lands provided some 13 million tons of uranium ore to support these developments,
according to the book. Tribal members who dug up the yellow rock for as little as 81 cents per hour were provided
neither safety instruction nor gear such as respirators, earplugs, goggles and protective clothing. The mines had no
ventilating fans or other safeguards. The perils of working with uranium had been documented in Europe since the late
19th century. During the 20th century - particularly following World War II - numerous scientific and medical studies by the
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, the U.S. Public Health Service and others repeatedly reconfirmed the hazards.
However, the federal government ignored this information when it came to uranium mining, despite having
promised to protect Navajo health and safety in the Treaty of 1868. Safety issues were ceded to the states and the
mining corporations, which typically supplied accommodations and showers for white supervisors - who, in any case, spent
less time in the mines than the laborers - while Navajos were left to fend for themselves. The text reports that tribal
members built homes for their families out of available materials, including radioactive uranium tailings. They
drank water that flowed out of the mines. Navajo wives washed uranium dust out of the men's' clothes by hand while
their children played in dust clouds created by blasting. Lorraine Jack, Navajo, a miner's wife quoted in the book, said,
''They watched us expose ourselves [to uranium] ... it was like herding sheep into a field of stickers.'' Miner Floyd
Frank, Navajo, asked, ''Are we disposable to the government?'' The savage, dismissive way in which Navajo people
were treated didn't stop there, the book shows. On the reservation, some 1,000 abandoned, unsealed mines continue to
contaminate land, air and water, despite federal regulations for shutting them down properly. Children play in old
mineshafts, and sheepherders use them as livestock shelters. Those who eat meat from exposed animals become
contaminated in turn. A health crisis has ensued, with miners and their families contracting cancers and other
diseases, and experiencing genetic consequences. The widowing of large numbers of Navajo women and the disruption
of the community's primary value of hozho nashaadoo, or walking in harmony, has meant cultural dislocation as well.
Harm – Uranium Mining – Health

Native American miners endangered in uranium mines
Holmes, Today Correspondent, 08
(Estar, Indian Country Today, “Cantwell blasts old mining law”, 4-7-8,
The oral histories reveal an appalling lack of safety information for workers and their families. Employees ate lunch
on uranium ore piles or in shacks where ore was stored. They tracked uranium into their homes, collapsed on the couch
after a double shift and slept in their radioactive clothes while children played in the dust. ''Women were a significant
part of the work force, as compared to other mines,'' Abrahamson said. ''Many of those who contracted cancer were the
mothers, the aunties and the sisters. They also cleaned the clothes for their sons, brothers and husbands who worked in
the mines.''
[Note: “Abrahamson” = Deb Abrahamson, SHAWL Society founder, Spokane tribal member]
Radioactive dangers face tribal uranium miners

Holmes, Today Correspondent, 08
(Estar, Indian Country Today, “Cantwell blasts old mining law”, 4-7-8,
Dawn Mining operated another uranium mine on the reservation for nearly 30 years. Most people worked at one or
the other, or have relatives who did. The high-paying jobs seemed like a blessing in the face of rampant poverty. ''I
started working there because it was good money and I wanted to make money for my family, but here I was
contaminating them all these years,'' said Harold Campbell, a former mine worker. Unsuspecting workers regularly
brought radioactive dust home on their clothes. Dawn Mining stopped mining in 1984, but environmental and health
consequences remain. Efforts to link illness on the reservation with uranium poisoning have stalled several times.
Harm – Uranium Mining Impact – Cancer

Not only has uranium mining left countless Native Americans with incurable diseases such as cancer
but has also stripped tribes of culture
Norrell, Indigenous Rights Freelance Writer, 2007
(Brenda, Americas Program: Center for International Program, “Indigenous People Call for Global Ban on Uranium Mining”,
February 6, http://americas.irc-online.org/amcit/3963, date accessed: July 1, 2008).
Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr. remarked, "As a result, radiation exposure has cost the Navajo Nation the
accumulated wisdom, knowledge, stories, songs, and ceremonies--to say nothing of the lives--of hundreds of our
people. Now, aged Navajo uranium miners and their families continue to fight the Cold War in their doctors' offices as
they try to understand how the invisible killer of radiation exposure left them with many forms of cancer and other
illnesses decades after leaving the uranium mines."
Uranium mining ensures extremely high prevalence of lung cancer in Native American communities
Eichstaedt, award-winning Santa Fe New Mexican journalist, 1994
(Peter H., excerpt from If You Poison Us: Uranium and Native Americans, Red Crane Books.
http://www.sonic.net/~kerry/uranium.html date accessed: July 1, 2008).
In September, 1990, a meeting was held at the Cove Chapter house of the Navajo Indian Nation. In the 1940's and 1950's,
American Indians from the local community mined uranium ore from the hills around Cove for the atomic weapons
program of the United States. Now the area is the location of a cluster of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases
related to uranium.
For two days inside the Chapter house the Navajo's listened to testimony from former miners and relatives of miners who
had died. The United States Congress had just passed a law authorizing cash payments to some of the miners or their family
members who could prove the miners had received a certain level of exposure to radiation in the mines and who then
subsequently developed lung cancer or one of several other respiratory diseases.
The meeting was conducted almost entirely in the Navajo language. In addition to testimony from surviving miners, there
were also presentations by the Navajo Nation's Abandoned Minelands Reclamation Project and also the tribe's Office of
Navajo Uranium Workers. They were attempting to deal with the aftermath of uranium mining in the area, including
identifying hundreds of mining sites in the area, compiling a registry of all tribal mine and mill workers, assisting with the
complicated claims process for compensation, and improving health services for the many sick and injured people.
At first, it was a mystery as to why there was so much lung disease in the community, but by now it is understood
that, as one of the widows stated, the miners, their husbands, died because the uranium ate up their lungs.
Impact – Lung Cancer

Lung cancer is dangerous because it spreads to other body organs at early stages
LungCancerSymptoms.org, 2008
(“Lung Cancer Symptoms You Should Be Aware of” LungCancerSymptoms.org. http://www.lungcancersymptoms.org/ date
accessed: July 1, 2008)
Why is it important to know about lung cancer symptoms? Lung cancer is one of the most dangerous types of cancer because it
tends to spread to body organs at an early stage. For this reason, being aware of common lung cancer symptoms is essential -
early detection significantly improves chances of survival
Harm – Uranium Mining – Future Generations

Uranium mining has devastated Native Americans, resulting in widespread contamination
Garrigues, Indian Country Today writer, 08
(Lisa, Indian Country Today, 4-21-8, http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417110, accessed 7-3-08)
At least five companies have recently applied for uranium mining permits in New Mexico, where the uranium reserves
are estimated at 500 million pounds or more. Most of these reserves are on Navajo land. The nuclear power fueled by
uranium has been promoted by conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation as a clean and ''logical'' source
of alternative energy, and industry officials say the new mining activities could provide much needed income and jobs.
But the Navajo and other tribes in the region are still struggling from the effects of the first uranium boom, from the
1950s to the 70s, when exposure brought cancer, birth defects and premature death to people who worked in the
mines as well as those who lived near them. Despite assurances by uranium mining companies that new mining
techniques are safer than the ones used before, many tribal leaders are not convinced. ''I've yet to see any kind of new
technology that's safe that's going to protect the welfare of human beings and the environment.'' said Navajo tribal council
member Amos Johnson. ''The legacy of uranium mining has left a devastating impact on our people. We have
hundreds of abandoned mines where they've explored for uranium, and now some of those have been left open and
have contaminated groundwater.''
Uranium mining on Native American lands has a lasting impact on future generations
Garrigues, Indian Country Today writer, 08
(Lisa, Indian Country Today, “Southwest tribes fight to halt new uranium mining”, 4-21-8,
At a congressional field hearing in Flagstaff March 28, Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr. said Navajos ''do not
want to sit by, ignorant of the effects of uranium mining, only to watch another generation of mothers and fathers
die.'' ''We are doing everything we can to speak out and do something about it,'' he continued. ''We do not want a new
generation of babies born with birth defects. We will not allow our people to live with cancers and other disorders as
faceless companies make profits only to declare bankruptcy and then walk away from the damage they have caused,
regardless of the bond they have in place.''
Now is the time to end uranium mining on Native American land – can’t allow continuing
disproportionate impact to be imposed on another generation
Gedicks, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Sociology Professor, 2008
(Al, "Nuclear Proponents Ignore Uranium Mine Waste, Devastation", NukeWatch. Spring. Internet:
http://www.nukewatch.com/Quarterly/2008spring/page7.pdf date accessed: July 3, 2008)
Proponents of nuclear power as a solution to global climate change not only ignore the fossil fuel emissions of every stage of the
nuclear fuel cycle, they also fail to recognize the substantial emissions of radioactive elements from this same cycle and its
disproportionate impact upon Native American lands and people. Over half of the nation’s uranium deposits lie under Navajo and
Pueblo Indian lands. At least one in five tribal members recruited to mine the ore were exposed to radioactive radon gas and have
died and are continuing to die of lung cancer. The Navajo Nation banned uranium mining and processing on its land in 2005.
Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr. said “It would be unforgivable to allow this cycle to continue for another generation.”
Harm – Uranium Mining Impact – Environmental Racism

Environmental racism through uranium mining is an assault on Native American rights and resources
International Indian Treaty Council, 2008
(excerpt, Norrell, Brenda, “Environmental racism of Indigenous Peoples reported to United Nations” Censored News Blogspot.
January 28. < http://censored-news.blogspot.com/2008/01/environmental-racism-of-indigenous.html>. date accessed: July 1,
2008)
Recognizing this new form of racial discrimination against Indigenous Peoples in the United States, environmental racism
is the implementation of environmental, natural resource, and development schemes that nullify or impair the enjoyment of
the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Indigenous Peoples. This new form of environmental discrimination is
an assault on Indigenous Peoples’ human rights and public health including their right to their unique special social,
cultural, spiritual and historical life ways and worldviews. Environmental racism results in the devastation,
contamination dispossession, loss or denial of access to Indigenous peoples’ biodiversity, their waters, and traditional
lands and territories. Environmental racism is now the primary cause of human health effects of Indigenous Peoples
and the forced separation and removal of Indigenous Peoples from their lands and territories, their major means of
subsistence, their language culture and spirituality all of which are derived from their cultural, physical and
spiritual relationship to their land.
The intentional locating of hazardous waste sites, landfills, incinerators, and polluting industries like coal fired power
plants, nuclear power plants and all types of mining on Indigenous lands and communities inhabited by Indigenous Peoples
have created devastating impacts to all aspects of the environment, culture, spirituality and human health. These
violations have been caused by governments and the private corporate sector policy, laws, practice, action or inaction
which intentionally or unintentionally disproportionately targets and harms the environment, health, biodiversity,
workers employed in these industries, quality of life and security of communities.
These issues have led to and continue to lead to the ruination of Indigenous Peoples’ lands, waters, and environments by
the implementation of unsustainable processes such as mining, biopiracy, deforestation, the dumping of contaminated
toxic waste, oil and gas drilling and other land use practices that do not respect Indigenous ceremonies, spiritual beliefs,
traditional medicines and life ways, the biodiversity of Indigenous lands, Indigenous economies, and means of
subsistence and the right to health.
Closely linked to Indigenous rights to self-determination, culture and health, is the right to access food and water. The
effects of the continuing exploitation of Indigenous Lands by mining or the pollution of these lands and waters from
toxic waste and other industrial hazards has led to environmental damage to the land and water that the Indigenous
Peoples depend upon for their subsistence and that they consider to be sacred. The following are only three examples of
how, for Indigenous Peoples, all things are related. Other examples abound throughout this Shadow Report.
Harm – Uranium Mining Impact – Environmental Racism

Nuclear waste and uranium mining on Native American reservations are blatant environmental
racism
Kamps, Nuclear Information and Resource Service Nuclear Waste Specialist, 2001
(Kevin, “Environmental Racism, Tribal Sovereignty and Nuclear Waste” Nuclear Information and Resource Service, February 15,
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/pfsejfactsheet.htm date accessed: July 1, 2008)
The tiny Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians Reservation in Utah is targeted for a very big nuclear waste dump.
Private Fuel Storage (PFS), a limited liability corporation representing eight powerful nuclear utilities, wants to
"temporarily" store 40,000 tons of commercial high-level radioactive waste (nearly the total amount that presently
exists in the U.S.) next to the two-dozen tribal members who live on the small reservation. The PFS proposal is the
latest in a long tradition of targeting Native American communities for such dumps. But there is another tradition on the
targeted reservations as well–fighting back against blatant environmental racism, and winning. Skull Valley Goshute
tribal member Margene Bullcreek leads Ohngo Gaudadeh Devia (or OGD, Goshute for "Mountain Community"), a
grassroots group of tribal members opposed to the dump. In addition to many other activities, OGD has filed an
environmental justice contention before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) Atomic Safety Licensing Board
(ASLB).
Harm – Uranium Mining Impact – National

Excessive uranium mining on Native American lands not only affects tribal life but impacts 45 other
states
Smith, Women of Color Against Violence Founder, no date
(Andrea, ALCU, “American Indian Boarding Healing Project,” http://www.aclu.org/hrc/NativeRights_AndreaSmith.pdf, accessed
6-29-8)
A huge blow to their struggle was the recent congressional act to locate a permanent high-level nuclear waste
repository on Yucca mountain, which is sacred to the Western Shoshone. This land is also part of the same territory
covered by the Treaty of Ruby Valley. Yucca Mountain is located on an active volcanic zone. Kiloton bombs are also
exploded nearby, thus increasing the risks of radioactive leakage.
In addition, many nuclear facilities had closed down because there was no permanent site for nuclear wastes. However,
Bush has used the war on terror as a pretext to increase energy resource extraction in the U.S. by arguing that the
U.S. needs to harness its domestic energy reserves to support the war on “terror.”. Thus, by opening Yucca
Mountain, the Bush administration has opened the way for nuclear facilities to re-open. It is important to remember
that the vast majority of energy resources are on indigenous lands, and almost all uranium mining takes place on or near
Native lands. So whenever we hear the rhetoric of developing U.S. domestic energy resources, we are hearing a
veiled attack against Native sovereignty. But ultimately, this recent decision will not just impact indigenous peoples,
but all of us. The proposed repository on Yucca mountain would receive nuclear wastes throughout the nation. Only
five states would not be impacted by the transportation of high-level radioactive wastes. With up to 4,000 shipments
of radioactive waste crossing the nation annually, trucking industry statistics reveal that up to 50 accidents per year
could occur during the 30 year period that nuclear waste would stream to Yucca Mountain.
Harm – Radioactive Waste

The United States government is weakening radioactive waste disposal requirements to enable its
burial on Native American lands
Nukewatch staff, 2008
(“Yucca Mountain: A Scientifically Unsound Nuclear Waste Plan”, NukeWatch. Spring. Internet:
http://www.nukewatch.com/Quarterly/2008spring/page7.pdf date accessed: June 30, 2008)
Yucca Mountain, Nevada, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas— the fastest growing city in the U.S. — is the only place
currently being considered by the federal government for burial of radioactive waste fuel from power reactors. The
water table is only 700 feet under the proposed repository. The site’s geology can’t meet the original requirements
established for deep disposal of high-level rad waste. Instead,mandatory specifications have been weakened or
repealed.
Radioactive uranium mill waste is routinely dumped on Native American land

Gedicks, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Sociology Professor, 2008
(Al, "Nuclear Proponents Ignore Uranium Mine Waste, Devastation", NukeWatch. Spring. Internet:
http://www.nukewatch.com/Quarterly/2008spring/page7.pdf date accessed: July 3, 2008)
Proponents of nuclear power argue that it does not produce carbon dioxide and thus does not contribute to global climate
change. This argument, endlessly repeated by proponents of nuclear power, ignores the inconvenient fact that without the
mining, milling and enrichment of uranium, there is no nuclear power. Each stage of the nuclear fuel cycle is extremely
energy-intensive and results in the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. The most
energy-intensive stage of the nuclear fuel cycle is the mining and milling of uranium fuel. As the most accessible and
higher grade uranium ores are mined, a greater amount of energy is required to extract uranium from less accessible and lower
grade uranium concentrations. After the ore is excavated by bulldozers and shovels, it must be transported by truck to the
milling plant, consuming large amounts of diesel fuel. The uranium-bearing rock is then crushed and ground to a powder
in electrically powered mills. The powder is then treated with harsh chemicals, usually sulfuric acid to convert the
uranium to a compound called yellow cake. Fuel is needed during this process to create steam and heated gases, and all the
chemicals used in the mills must be manufactured at other chemical plants. If the mill wastes, or tailings, which contain 85
percent of the original radioactivity in the ore, were to be disposed of properly, by deep burial in the ground, there
would be additional quantities of fossil fuel required. Instead, these wastes are routinely dumped in large tailings piles
on Native American lands, emitting radioactive elements into the air, water and soils, threatening human health and
the environment in perpetuity. Communities near these tailings piles report a high rate of miscarriages, cleft palates and
other birth defects, bone, reproductive, and gastric cancers as related health effects of uranium mining and exposure to
contaminated air and water. “This single remediation process, which should be scrupulously observed,” says nuclear critic
Dr. Helen Caldicott, “by itself makes the energetic price of nuclear electricity unreasonable”
Impact Calculus – Nuclear Violence (Kato) Argument

The United States is the leading aggressor in an ongoing nuclear war targeting indigenous people
around the world. Apocalyptic imagery that represents nuclear war as an unthinkable catastrophe
masks the real catastrophe of everyday nuclear violence against indigenous nations.
Kato, Department of Political Science @ U Hawaii, 93
(“Nuclear Globalism:Traversing Rocket, Satellites, and Nuclear War via the Strategic Gaze”, Alternatives, 18.3)
(Card continues…)


Depictions of Nuclear catastrophe only recognize interstate nuclear war- this ignores decades of
nuclear violence against indigenous nations.

The only way to resist this extermination is by forging a link between antinuclear and environmental
movements, which is blocked by their discourse which hides the violence against indigenous nations.

The negative’s representations reduce nuclear catastrophe to only the final instant of total extinction,
discounting the entire history of ongoing, systemic nuclear violence against indigenous nations.

Impact Calculus – Nuclear Violence (Kuletz) Argument

Violence against Native Americans occurs at every stage of the nuclear cycle—this is an instance of
environmental racism which turns indigenous nations into an expendable landscape.
Kuletz, Prof. of American Studies @ U of Canterbury, 98

(Valerie, The Tainted Desert: Environmental Ruin in the American West, pg. 12-13)
(Card continues…)


The U.S. government targets Native American nations with nuclear violence, treating them into
nuclear sacrifice zones.
(Valerie, The Tainted Desert: Environmental Ruin in the American West, pg. 95-96)
(Card Continues…)


The impact of nuclearism is not just physical violence-- it also includes the cultural extermination of
Native Americans.

(Valerie, The Tainted Desert: Environmental Ruin in the American West, pg. 51)
Harms – Radioactive Waste

Nuclear waste destroys sacred tribal areas
(Rob, Indian Country Today, “Not in my backyard anymore”, 6-13-8,
Robert Hager, a lawyer who represents several Western tribes and bands, said the area proposed for the nuclear waste
site on Yucca Mountain is located on traditional ancestral lands of the Western Shoshone Nation. The tribe is
currently a party to a proceeding in the United Nations before the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
regarding its claim. In March 2006, the committee found that the development of the repository would be a violation of the
human rights of the tribe. Yucca Mountain is considered by many Shoshone tribal members to be sacred. Prophecies
have foretold that the crust of the mountain will one day be broken by man, and the mountain will open up, spewing poison
into the air. ''The tribe feels this development is racially motivated, and that they're being targeted because there are
only about 10,000 tribal members with little political power,'' Hager said. Although Shoshone tribal members are
sympathetic to the concerns of the Prairie Island tribe, they say that a further injustice involving nuclear waste shouldn't be
committed on another tribe to right the wrong. ''We understand that people are desperate to get rid of this poison that is near
their homes,'' Hager said. ''But it's that same desire to not want that poison in their backyards that my clients have.'' Johnson
is admittedly not well-versed on the tribal concerns in Nevada. He said it's his understanding that the Yucca Mountain area
is located in a U.S. test site region where many nuclear bombs have been tested and detonated over the years. ''It's an
uninhabitable site that no one can even live on now,'' Johnson said, ''so what a perfect place to store this.'' Hager and many
of the Indians he represents have heard the argument time and again. ''My clients feel that they have done more than their
fair share of bearing the burden of the nuclear holocaust in this country. If somebody is going to have to deal with this
nuclear problem, it shouldn't be them again. The time has come to stop using tribal lands and the state of Nevada as the
toilet of the universe.''
Harm – Uranium Mining – AT – No Mining on Native

American Land
Majority of uranium in the United States is on Native American land
Native American Energy Group, Energy Management Company, 2005.
(An Energy Resource Department Development and Management Company, “Mining” http://nativeamericanenergy.com/ [under
"project""mining"], accessed:7/2/8 )
Harms – AT – Renewable Energy Production Incentive

(REPI) Solves
The Renewable Energy Production Incentive doesn’t solve—it’s only suitable for small projects.
InterTribal Council on Utility Policy, June 21, 06
(“An Intertribal COUP Background Policy Paper for a Comparable and Appropriate Tribal Energy Production Incentive”,
The Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI): The more limited REPI program, originally designed for "states and
subdivisions of states" has recently been made available to Tribes, but it is not designed to support large-scale project
financing because of its uncertain dependence on annual appropriations, eligibility, selection and multi-tiered award
structure. It could have limited application to small projects dedicated to particular loads, but is not designed for
commercial scale projects.
Harms – AT – Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs)

Solves
Clean Renewable Energy Bonds fail-- No Native American Support and ill-suited to large scale
projects.
The Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs): The newly established Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) program
is still in the application and award process. While CREBs explicitly allow for tribal participation, of the estimated 700
applications submitted requesting over $1.3 billion dollars, few, if any, Tribes have apparently applied. With nearly $38
million dollars in CREBs applications filed in the state of Montana alone, for example, there were no tribal applications for
CREBs funding. While this situation is disappointing, it is understandable. The CREBs program was expressly designed for
municipalities and rural cooperatives with far more practice and experience with bonding protocols and requirements, with
interest in small utility scale projects to meet customer needs, and with a customer base that could underwrite the shorter-
termed, scheduled repayments for the no-interest loans required by the bonds. For these and a variety of other reasons,
CREBs, unfortunately, appears rather ineffective in underwriting reservation based projects, and is especially ill-suited for
larger, commercial scale, multi-megawatt projects that might otherwise be built to tap the tremendous renewable energy
potentials on tribal lands.
Clean Renewable Energy Bonds Fail—they don’t account for the unique circumstances of tribal
renewable development.
Past proposals for a tradable or assignable PTC for use by municipal utility authorities and rural electric cooperatives
seeking to serve their customers' demand for renewable energy, have only incidentally included Tribes. Such proposals in
previous energy bills have passed the U.S. Senate, but were excluded by the House over objections to granting non-profit
organizations use of the tax credit and concerns about the sale of tax credits into the general economy. The CREBs was
inserted in the EPAct of 2005 by the Senate at the eleventh hour to address the House concerns, and to provide a needed
alternative incentive to those entities unable to utilize the PTC. However, CREBs does not appear to be workable for tribal
interests, which must be distinguished from that of municipal power authorities, rural cooperatives and other "non-profit"
entities. Tribes do not control a customer rate base, as most Tribes are served by rural cooperatives. More importantly,
Tribes are sovereign governments with a unique "trust relationship" with the federal government recognized under the U.S.
Constitution, numerous Supreme Court decisions and copious legislative enactments. The federal government has a special
responsibility to support tribal economic development, and thus a special obligation to enact workable, comparable and
appropriate incentives, uniquely tailored to tribal circumstances, which promote and not penalize tribal development
projects.
Solvency – Tax Credit Key to Wind Investment

Production Tax Credits for must be made transferable to increase investment in wind energy projects
on Native American land.
Sandlin, U.S. Congresswoman, 8
(Rep. Stephanie Herseth [D- S.D.], “What should Congress do to encourage alternative fuels and technologies? Wind Needs
Greater Roll in Nation’s Energy Policy”, Roll Call, April 21, 2008)
Looking ahead, we need to involve every community willing and able to contribute to our new energy economy,
including Native American tribes. As tax-exempt organizations, tribes cannot take the tax credit or use the full value of
the tax credit when joint venturing with a taxable entity. This aspect of the law provides a disincentive for non-tribal
companies to invest in renewable energy projects on tribal lands because they can only take a portion of the production
tax credit related to their stake in the project. Even as tribes are seeking capital to fund renewable energy projects on
tribal lands, non-tribal companies are facing this financial disincentive for investment. That is why Congress should act on
Rep. Raœl Grijalva's (D-Ariz.) legislation, H.R. 1954, and Sen. Tim Johnson's (D-S.D.) companion bill, S. 2520. By allowing
tribes to transfer the credit for electricity produced from renewable resources, this legislation would remove the
disincentive that exists under current law for such ventures. By facilitating and encouraging such investment, we would
not only support tribal communities in many rural areas, but also harness an abundant renewable resource to reduce
our overall carbon emissions.
A shift in priorities is needed to demonstrate a real commitment to wind energy within our national energy portfolio. In
addition to reducing carbon emissions, developing our wind resources will provide a tremendous economic driver for
our nation's rural areas and overall economy. Given the irrefutable benefits a robust wind industry would provide our
country in meeting its goal of energy security, I am hopeful that we will be successful in enacting these important
policies yet this year.
Production tax credit increases jobs, production and the economy

Intertribal Council on Utility Policy Background Policy Paper for a Comparable and Appropriate Tribal Energy
Production Incentive, 2006
(Intertribal COUP, “Tribal Joint Venture Production Tax Credit,” http://intertribalcoup.org/policy/index.html, 6-21-06, accessed: 7-
2-8).
The Production Tax Credit (PTC) has been instrumental in encouraging investment in wind energy projects,
increasing the economies of scale in the production of wind turbines, and thereby lowering the costs of production.
Unfortunately, the stop-and-start nature of the PTC undercuts the incentive benefits of the PTC and undermines stable
growth of the emerging wind energy industry. A long-term extension of the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) is vital to
expand the experience with integrating large amounts of intermittent resources into the power system, continue
technology advances, and drive costs down through mass deployment.
Tax credits key to wind farm development

masters student, 8
In order to successfully develop a wind farm, a wind project's owners must have access to federal tax credits. Tax
credits for wind production are so valuable that wind farm owners who cannot make use of the tax credits are at a
severe financial disadvantage as compared to those who can take advantage of tax credits.
Solvency – Tax Credit Key to Wind Investment

Production Tax Credits on wind energy makes it competitive with fossil fuels.
Bremner, Great Falls Tribune Staffwriter, 24 February, 08
(Faith, “Showdown ahead over wind energy tax break”, Great Falls Tribune, http://www.wind-
watch.org/news/2008/02/25/showdown-ahead-over-wind-energy-tax-break/, Accessed 7/11/08)
The production tax credit, which has been around since 1992, has helped convince several companies to build
commercial wind farms in Montana.
The Treasure State ranks fifth in the nation for potential wind capacity but 16th in wind generating capacity,
according to the American Wind Energy Association. Montana has five commercial wind farms that produce enough
electricity to power 49,509 homes.
“(The production tax credit) certainly is an important element,” said Rick Matteson, spokesman for MD Resources,
which recently completed a 19.5 megawatt wind farm near Baker. “Without that tax credit, wind power is not on a level
playing field with coal or other sources of generation.”
“It adds a significant amount of value to the renewable asset, which in our case is primarily wind,” said Carter Brown,
vice president of renewable finance for Invenergy, which owns a 135-megawatt wind farm at Judith Gap. “I’m not sure (the
tax credit) makes or breaks a project, but it certainly is an important component to the project economics.”
Solvency – Tax Credit Key to Energy Security

A shared production tax credit crucial to bolstering renewable development and energy security
To encourage the production of electricity from renewable sources by Tribes, Congress could provide for more flexible
rules so that the full production tax credit can be used by taxable, non-tribal partners in tribal joint ventures to promote
sustainable economic development, tribal self-sufficiency, tribal sovereignty and national energy security, and encourage
stable, long-term private investment in Indian Country that is sustainable, respectful of Tribal sovereignty and self-
determination, is integrative of tribal ownership interests in the project, and is in accordance with the Federal Trust
Responsibility to Tribes and Western Governors' recommendations for encouraging renewable energy development in the
West.
With the Tribal energy production incentive proposed language provided above, Tribes would be able to assign the
production tax credit (PTC) within tribal joint ventures so that Tribes can retain significant project ownership while
allocating their share of the PTC to their taxable partners, so that the federal incentive does not to penalize private
development partners for engaging tribal participation, while bringing private capital to Indian renewable energy projects
and cleaner, cheaper renewable energy to America.
Solvency – Tax Credit Key to Renewable Investment

Production Tax Credit helps with development of alternate energy sectors.
Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, Background Policy Paper for a Comparable and Appropriate
Tribal Energy Production Incentive, 2007.
("Tribal Joint Venture Production Tax Credit", Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, 4-17-07,
http://www.intertribalcoup.org/policy/index.html#_ftnref, accessed 7-1-8)
The federal [PTC] Production Tax Credit is widely recognized as the principal driver of private capital to renewable
projects around the nation. It is based upon the proportion of one’s ownership interest in the kilowatt-hours generated by
a project. It is designed to reduce the cost of power by rewarding actual energy production, and not simply
investment in hardware that may or may not, in fact, produce power. As a “tax credit”, the PTC is a “bankable”
part of a business plan, because once obtained, it is guaranteed for a 10 year period, reducing the cost of power. The
PTC has been far more effective in stimulating the large-scale build out of renewable energy projects, particularly
under current federal spending constraints, than the other federal incentives which depend upon annually
appropriated federal dollars, eligibility, selection, and tiered payments. The PTC, coupled with the ability to depreciate
the capital investment in project assets, can provide for much lower costs of power than any of the other federal
incentives.
Expanding the production tax credit solves – the plan incentivizes joint-ventures that benefit both
partners
Ritchie, energy, transportation & communication writer, 5
(Ed. "Native American Empowerment: A New Frontier For Distributed Energy, Distributed Energy, July/August 2005,
http://www.foresterpress.com/de_0507_native.html date accessed 7/2/08)
A modification to production tax credits could help. Currently, they aren’t available because as sovereign
governments in and of themselves, tribes don’t pay federal taxes. But they could attract outside partnerships with
distributed energy resources if tax credit rules were changed to allow non-tribal partners to write off the tribe’s
portion of the credits. Under the current structure, partners are restricted to tax credits based upon their percentage
of equity. So a 50% equity would equal a 50% tax credit. Another possibility is a congressional move toward federal
renewable portfolio standards that would offer double credit for new renewable development on tribal lands.
The Production Tax Credit is empirically the most effective incentive in the commercial market and
would stimulate renewable energy projects.
The Production Tax Credit (PTC): The federal Production Tax Credit is widely recognized as the principal driver of private
capital to renewable projects around the nation. It is based upon the proportion of one's ownership interest in the kilowatt-
hours generated by a project. It is designed to reduce the cost of power by rewarding actual energy production, and not
simply investment in hardware that may or may not, in fact, produce power. As a "tax credit", the PTC is a "bankable" part
of a business plan, because once obtained, it is guaranteed for a 10 year period, reducing the cost of power. The PTC has
been far more effective in stimulating the large-scale build out of renewable energy projects, particularly under current
federal spending constraints, than the other federal incentives which depend upon annually appropriated federal dollars,
eligibility, selection, and tiered payments.
Solvency – Shared/Transferable Credit Key

Transferable tax credit crucial – Tribes are non-taxable, so unless shared, tax credit has no function
2-8).
Numerous studies have shown that the most successful path to tribal economic development is to have the Tribes be full and active
partners in such development on their reservations. An energy incentive such as a Tribal Joint Venture PTC, that would be
available only to federally recognized Tribes in partnership with private, taxable entities, such as in a tribal energy resource
development organization, would keep the workable tax credits accountably shared within the scope of the partnership and not
open to the general economy, would effectively lower the cost of clean energy production, and would attract much needed private
capital to tribal development projects both in a manner supportive of tribal sovereignty, of the goals of the energy policy act of
2005, and of the obligations of the federal trust responsibility, and most importantly, in amounts unavailable through congressional
appropriations.
Tribally owned projects, however, can not utilize the tax credits, nor can Tribes allow their tribal joint venture partners to use any
federal credits that would be apportioned for the tribal share of production the unless new legislation is passed and the PTC is
appropriately expanded. A workable, streamlined and circumscribed Tribal Joint Venture PTC incentive would allow Tribes,
through joint ventures with private capital partners, to effectively participate in producing lower-cost renewable energy by
assigning their share of the PTC to their taxable partners. This remedy also avoids the awkward need for Tribal Governments to
engage in the more fictional aspects of the “flip-structure” model, which are currently under examination by the IRS.
A tradable Production tax credit is key to encourage Tribally-owned renewable power development
In the context of reaching the Western Governors' goal of 30,000 MWs of clean and diversified energy throughout the West
by 2015, it is recognized that Indian Tribes control a vast renewable power potential, including the wind resource found
across the western reservations, but that a comparative and appropriately tailored incentive is needed to encourage tribal
development compatible with tribal aspirations, federal responsibilities and the financial realities of the existing energy
system.
A Tribal Joint Venture Production Tax Credit incentive for "partnership sharing" of the PTC is needed to spur Tribally
owned renewable energy development, attract needed capital investment to reservations in an equitable and respectful
manner, reduce the cost of clean power, and keep more of the benefits in the local community.
Solvency – AT – Tradable Credits Require Tax Code

Overhaul
Tradable tax credits are a narrow fix – don’t require overhaul of federal tax code
masters student, 8
To help resolve the problems outlined above, Congress should institute tax- credit tradability for tribes, including a
tradable PTC. Congress should change the current non-assignable status of tax credits and allow tribes to trade
their tax credits to business partners with tax liabilities in return for cash, equity or other consideration equal to the
value of the credits minus any (presumably minor) transaction costs. This is a narrow, targeted fix to a problem,
which does not require large-scale revisions of the tax code or of the federal-tribal [*283] relationship. With this sort
of provision in place, tribes could become involved in businesses that make heavy use of tax credits.
Tradable tax credits would be an ideal solution for all parties - tribes, government and private business. Tribes
would gain economic development opportunities; government would be able to further promote the business
ventures it is trying to encourage through the tax code and would reduce tribal dependency on federal dollars;
private business would be able to partner (and profit) with tribes in developing an important natural resource. Each party
would bring something to the table. The tribes would contribute the resources - land, wind and labor. The outside investor
would contribute the capital. The federal government would contribute the tax credits. The tribes and the outside investor
would be partners, both sharing in the venture's profits. The tribe would take much of the cash flow, while the outside
equity investor would take all of the tax credits and, depending on the arrangement, some of the cash flow from the
project.
The idea of a tradable tax credit is not a new one, nor is it without precedent. A group advocating renewable energy development
on Indian lands originally proposed the idea for tribes n72 and the Western Governors' Association has supported it. n73 In Oregon,
the state's Business Energy Tax Credits allow renewable energy project owners to trade ("pass through" is the Oregon term) state
renewable energy tax credits to taxable entities. Project owners can be non-profit organizations, tribes or public entities that partner
with Oregon businesses or residents with an Oregon tax liability. n74
Solvency – AT – No Investment
Tribes and private investors want to use renewable energy
Burke and Sikkema, National Conference of State Legislatures energy program manager, Institute for
State-Tribal Relations director, 07
(Kate, Linda, “Native American Power”, State Legislatures, Volume: 33, June 2007, page 32, EBSCO Academic Search Complete)
Using natural resources on tribal lands for power--and to fight global warming--fits a core value shared among tribes: an
innate respect for Mother Earth. Tony Rogers, a member of the Rosebud Tribe who serves on the Tribal Utility
Commission, says the key is to make these energy sources available to tribal members while maintaining the desire to
"protect Mother Earth from the abuse the human race has done."
Tribal governments, private investors, local governments and utility companies see the benefit of exploring
alternative, clean sources of power. Washington Representative John McCoy says this is an important trend and one he
hopes has sustainability.
Solvency – Tax Credit Reduces Tribal Dependency

Tradable tax credits allow tribes to become self sufficient and eliminate dependency on the federal
government
masters student, 8
tradable PTC. Congress should change the current non-assignable status of tax credits and allow tribes to trade their
tax credits to business partners with tax liabilities in return for cash, equity or other consideration equal to the value of
the credits minus any (presumably minor) transaction costs. This is a narrow, targeted fix to a problem, which does not
require large-scale revisions of the tax code or of the federal-tribal [*283] relationship. With this sort of provision in place,
tribes could become involved in businesses that make heavy use of tax credits.
Tradable tax credits would be an ideal solution for all parties - tribes, government and private business. Tribes would
gain economic development opportunities; government would be able to further promote the business ventures it is
trying to encourage through the tax code and would reduce tribal dependency on federal dollars; private business would
be able to partner (and profit) with tribes in developing an important natural resource. Each party would bring something to the
table. The tribes would contribute the resources - land, wind and labor. The outside investor would contribute the capital. The
federal government would contribute the tax credits. The tribes and the outside investor would be partners, both sharing in the
venture's profits. The tribe would take much of the cash flow, while the outside equity investor would take all of the tax
credits and, depending on the arrangement, some of the cash flow from the project.
The idea of a tradable tax credit is not a new one, nor is it without precedent. A group advocating renewable energy
development on Indian lands originally proposed the idea for tribes n72 and the Western Governors' Association has supported it.
n73
In Oregon, the state's Business Energy Tax Credits allow renewable energy project owners to trade ("pass through" is the
Oregon term) state renewable energy tax credits to taxable entities. Project owners can be non-profit organizations, tribes or
public entities that partner with Oregon businesses or residents with an Oregon tax liability. n74
Tax credits reduce tribal dependency on federal government

masters student, 8
Increasing tribal revenues from wind energy production - or any other economic activity that prospers off-
reservation in a tax-credit environment and could benefit tribes if tax credits are made tradable - is a good way to
meet federal goals of reducing tribal dependence. [*287]
The reduction of tribal dependence has been a congressional goal since the nineteenth century. Even during the
passage of the Allotment Acts in the late nineteenth century, the twisted logic of the time said that forcing tribal
members into farming would push the Indians toward "real and permanent progress." n83
This goal of reduced tribal dependence was first codified in the economic development context nearly 100 years ago - in the
Buy Indian Act of 1908. n84 The Act directs the Department of Interior to give preference to Indians as far as is practicable
in hiring and procurement. n85 The Buy Indian Act has been expanded over the years. In 1974, it was made to apply to all
federal contracts. n86
Congress has been willing to extend the same type of support evinced by the Buy Indian Act to tribal energy programs. For
example, in 2001, the full House of Representatives passed the Hayworth amendment to the proposed energy bill adding
"energy products and energy by-products" to the categories of materials covered under the Buy Indian Act. n87 That bill,
House Bill 4, died in conference committee in 2002. However, the ideas from the Hayworth amendment are incorporated
into the Energy Policy Act of 2005 - the Act provides for federal purchases of power generated by Indian tribes. n88
Solvency – Tax Credit Key to Sovereignty/Trust Doctrine

Tribe tax credits allow for economic development and increased sovereignty while allowing the
government to meet alternate energy goals
masters student, 8
To address the handicap tribes face with regards to the impossibility of utilizing tax credits, this paper proposes
making federal tax credits tradable - tribes could trade the tax credits they would receive as part of their investment
in projects to business partners with tax liability in return for cash or other consideration.
The argument for a tradable tax credit is, at root, an argument for equity. Legal scholarship has a history of
arguments for a federal tax treatment of tribes that allows tribal economies to develop. The moral basis of
arguments for an equitable - even favorable - tax treatment of tribes tends to rest on the federal trust responsibility
toward tribes established early in U.S. history and articulated by Chief Justice Marshall in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.
Writing of the Tribal Tax Status Act of 1982, legal scholar Robert Williams said "To satisfy the 'moral obligations of the
highest responsibility and trust' incumbent upon the United States in its dealings with Indian nations, federal Indian
Country development policy must address itself to the structural barriers currently preventing tribal economic and
social self-sufficiency." Lack of tribal access to tax credits is one of today's structural barriers. Addressing those
barriers will help alleviate the federal concern for tribal economic development expressed by the Federal Reserve
Bank of Minneapolis. "On Pine Ridge, Lower Brule and Rosebud reservations," a bank publication found, "roughly
half of Indian families are poor."
By aligning the tax incentives tribal businesses face with those faced by the rest of the business community, the
federal government will meet its goals of energy development, reduced tribal dependency and increased tribal
sovereignty. That alignment of incentives can be made a reality by making wind energy tax credits tradable. More
broadly, allowing tribes to utilize all tax credits now available only to tax-paying entities will better align the
interests of tribal business and U.S. policy, and also will better provide for tribal economic development.
A shared partnership production tax credit is the best way to solve. It would allow full benefits without
drawbacks
What is needed to encourage Tribal development is an incentive that allows for a substantial degree of tribal project
ownership, coupled with the suitability, certainty and availability of private investment capital that could be obtained
through a tradable or assignable PTC circumscribed within a tribal joint venture, partnering a tribe (or tribes) with a taxable
partner for reservation based projects. A PTC sharing partnership would simply allow Tribes to assign their presently
unusable tax credits with their taxable, equity partners within federally recorded tribal joint ventures. This limited
application of the full PTC to known and identifiable taxable entities within a tribal project partnership would bring both
credit accountability and much needed private capital to tribal economic development in a manner that supports tribal
sovereignty and meets the federal trust responsibility within the federally designed system of economic energy incentives. A
tradable PTC within a tribal joint venture, such as a tribal energy resource development organization, would provide a tribal
energy production incentive in a revenue-neutral manner, wherein the same PTC would otherwise be used by the taxable
partner on other off-reservation projects that would exclude any tribal ownership interest.
Solvency – Tax Credit Key to Resource Management

Resource exploitation drives tribal poverty – product tax credit is key to restoring tribal stake in
resources
The PTC can work on an Indian reservation project, but the Tribe must then forego any ownership interest in the project
through at least the first ten years (the term of the tax credit). The extreme poverty on many Indian reservations in the West
today is a direct result of the business as usual exploitation of tribal resources without significant ownership or control of
that development. In the 2005 energy policy act, Congress expressly provided for tribal participation with private capital
through tribal energy resource development organizations, with the stated purpose of having these tribal organization or
joint ventures include tribal/private partnerships. Gaming has proven successful (to both reservations and the surrounding
states) in those locations where significant off-reservation populations can support facilities, especially where Tribes have secured
and maintained ownership and control. Tribes today want an ownership interest in any large-scale energy production to be
built on their reservations. The PTC works to penalize such tribal interest, and thwart such development.
Solvency – Resource Management Key to Tribal Sovereignty

Giving tribes ability to control their own resources key to tribal sovereignty
masters student, 8
Tribal sovereignty may be the number one concern of tribes. Indeed, one prominent legal scholar identifies the right
of self-government as the tribes' most valuable reserved right. n90 Historically, tribes have had good reason to fear a loss
of sovereignty, n91 and modern jurisprudence has done little to assure them of their long-term status. n92
In narrow terms, allowing tribes to develop and own their own wind generation will give them more control over
theirresources, thus increasing tribal sovereignty. In broader terms, increased economic self-determination - and
specifically the ability of a local population to use and manage resources - is at the heart of many of the concerns
about sovereignty around the world, from the debate over free trade n93 to the rapidly developing jurisprudence
concerning the efforts of California and northeastern states to impose restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. n94
Policymakers have thrown strong weight behind the idea that increased development of tribal energy and natural
resources leads to increased tribal sovereignty. The Reagan Administration, for example, believed that strengthening
tribal governments could be accomplished by resource development. The 1983 policy statement quoted above noted, "[t]his
[*289] Administration pledges to assist tribes in strengthening their governments by removing the federal impediments to
tribal self-government and tribal resource development."
The Reagan administration's philosophy was still prominent in 2005, when Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Section 503(a)(1) of the 2005 Act reads, "To assist Indian tribes in the development of energy resources and further the goal
of Indian self-determination, the Secretary shall establish and implement an Indian energy resource development program "
n95
Federal tax credit key to bolstering tribal sovereignty and sustainable development
2-8).
To encourage the production of electricity from renewable sources by Tribes, Congress should provide for more
flexible rules so that the full production tax credit can be used by taxable, non-tribal partners in tribal joint ventures to
promote sustainable economic development, tribal self-sufficiency, tribal sovereignty and national energy security,
and encourage stable, long-term private investment in Indian Country that is sustainable, respectful of Tribal
sovereignty and self-determination, is integrative of tribal ownership interests in the project, and is in accordance
with the Federal Trust Responsibility to Tribes. Such Congressional action would be in accord with the Western
Governors’ and the 25 x25 Campaign recommendations for encouraging renewable energy development in the West
With the Tribal energy production incentive language proposed, Tribes would be able to assign their production tax
credits (PTC) within tribal joint ventures so that Tribes can retain significant project ownership while allocating
their share of the PTC to their taxable partners. Federal clean energy incentives should not to penalize private
development partners for engaging tribal participation on Indian reservation, while bringing private capital
to Indian renewable energy projects and cleaner, cheaper renewable energy to America.

Solvency – Inclusion
Approaching exploitation from a critical perspective can challenge the domination of corporations,
and bring others into the cause
In exploring the concept of critical thinking, criminologist Richard Quinney writes that “[W]ithout critical thought we are
bound to the only form of social life we know-that which currently exists. We are unable to choose a american indian better
life; our only activity is in further support of the system in which we are current a part and which continues to exploit us.”
14 Nowhere is this more true than with multinational corporations who engaged in colonial-style projects on many
reservations with disastrous results for the people and the environment. As the effects of these disasters emerged, Indian
people on other reservations targeted for corporate exploitation began to take notice. Armed with knowledge about the
environmental stability of their homelands, many tribes decided that the inevitable destruction caused by corporate exploitation
was not worth the price of letting their resources be taken from the earth. By utilizing their knowledge about environmental
devastation and not accepting the colonial-style offers of multinational corporations at face value, the tide on reservations
is beginning to turn. Today, Native peoples are calling for inclusion in these decisions by challenging powerful corporations
and governmental institutions through a critical perspective on power and control. As Indigenous peoples continue to
challenge the power structure of multinational corporations and the state, and assert their sovereignty rights as
FirstNations to control the natural resources within their territories according to treaties, the question of power and
control over resources is beginning to change. This change can be seen in the relatively recent phenomenon of cooperation
between some tribal groups and environmentalists. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, mainstream environmental groups
and Indian tribes were usually at odds with each other over issues of concern such as natural resources and fishing and hunting
rights.15
Developing alternate energies on Native American lands allows decolonization of Native Americans
and allows Native Americans to challenge unfair policies.
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.
Solvency – Empowerment
Renewable energy development redefines relationship between Native Americans and corporations
and governments, checking environmental destruction and enhancing sustainability
Quarterly, Spring 2002, vol. 26; no. 2, Accessed July 3, 08)
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.
Expanding renewables is a way to include Native American perspectives, fostering sustainable development
In the times past, Native nations in the Americas achieved an ecological balance with their environment. The great success that
Native people experienced using natural patterns and strategies for survival is available to us now. It may be time to us to begin to
examine the alternatives used throughout history to achieve the survival of Native societies. For example, Gedicks suggests
investing in locally-owned small firms and in labor-intensive technologies such as tribal fish hatcheries, renewable energy,
recycling, forest products, and organic farmind, which would create far more jobs than mining, while at the same time contributing
to an environmentally stable economy. Gedicks also suggests encouraging utilities to buy locally-produced renewable energy
rather than encouraging electric utilities to build coal-fired power plants. He cites Northern States Power, a company building a
wind farm in Buddalo Ridge, Minnesota, as an example of available, cost effective technology. From an American Indian context it
is important, once again, to recognize the influence of past history, cultural perspectives, and environmental relationships. The
logic that led us into the problems our society faces today is not adequate to develop informed solutions to these contemporary
concerns.
Environmental cooperation is the best way to incorporate Native American perspectives

We cannot return to a pristine existence, but we can make the best possible use of what we have now. We have an opportunity as a
society to integrate our ways of “doing” to match the patterns and requirements of nature and natural environment. Cooperation
with the environment is one way to integrate 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.
Solvency – Empowerment
Critical environmental perspectives integrating Native American culture will reformulate power
relationships, sustain the environment, and ensure survival
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 on 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 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 on 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 express our relatedness to nature, creation, and each
other. It is important to understand that must begin, as a global society, to realize this wholeness or relatedness.
Soft energy expansion promotes Native American and indigenous empowerment

There is, of course, a political dimension to the transfer of soft-path technologies to indigenous communities. Providing
communities in indigenous areas with electricity by connecting them to power grids reinforces state authority over indigenous
peoples, as does the practice of building transmission lines and oil pipelines through indigenous territories. Providing electricity to
indigenous communities through stand-alone systems has the potential to empower indigenous peoples in a political sense and,
because such stand-alone systems can readily incorporate telecommunications, this approach also has the potential to link
indigenous communities into the growing global network of indigenous peoples. Thus, realizing the soft energy vision could
support self-determination for indigenous peoples not only by relieving the pressure on their homelands from exploitative
"development," but also by empowering indigenous communities both to make their own decisions about the kinds of development
that they want for themselves and to draw on the experiences of other indigenous peoples in making those decisions.
Solvency – Environmental Justice

Incorporating traditional Native American knowledge in energy and environmental policy is key to
ensuring environmental justice, both here and abroad
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.
Solvency – Environmental Justice Stops Genocide

Environmental justice for Native Americans is the only check on genocide.
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 pollution - coupled 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 relocate 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.
Renewables Good – Soft Energy Reduces Pollution

Soft energy from the plan reduces pollutants, lessening environmental pollution harms, including acid
rain
1. The Vision of Soft Energy Paths -- The oil embargo by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1973 and
1974 was the watershed event that spurred widespread interest in solar energy and energy efficiency. n254 One of the early
formulations of an energy development scenario based on energy efficiency and a variety of solar energy technologies was
advanced by Amory Lovins in his 1977 book Soft Energy Paths. According to Lovins's formulation, "soft" energy technologies
(including energy efficiency and small-scale renewable energy systems) are soft in the sense that they are flexible, resilient,
sustainable, and environmentally benign. Lovins contrasts these technologies to conventional or "hard" energy technologies, which
are both hard on the environment and hard (impossible) to sustain over the long term. n255
Since the OPEC embargo, proponents of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies have achieved a great deal of
technological progress, and energy consumers have put much of this progress to use. For instance, in the United States alone
between 1973 and 1985, energy efficiency improved twenty-three percent. n256 Lovins and others continue to articulate their
visions of the "soft energy" scenario. n257 Soft energy technologies provide [*728] a way to avoid the kinds of environmental
damage caused by conventional energy development, such as air and water pollution and acid rain. n258 Accordingly, a number of
environmental groups have taken leading roles in promoting and publicizing the soft energy approach. n259
Renewables Good – Soft Energy Key to Native American

Sustainable Development & Cultures
Failure to implement soft energy perpetuates environmental destruction on Native American land and
devastates Native American cultures
2. Conventional Energy and Indigenous Peoples -- For the dominant societies of the United States and other industrialized and less
developed countries, the failure of political leaders to see the sunlight and to embrace the vision of soft energy paths has resulted in
missed opportunities. The results for indigenous peoples have been tragic. Mining for nonrenewable energy resources such as coal
and uranium has wreaked environmental damage in the homelands of indigenous peoples in the southwest and northern plains in
the United States, as well as in northwestern Canada, Australia, and South America. n270 The adverse [*731] environmental
impacts of mining, especially surface mining, affect indigenous peoples in a variety of ways, many of which should be obvious
given the cultural and spiritual ties that indigenous peoples have with the land. Impacts of nonrenewable energy development are
not limited to mining. Oil extraction in the Amazon, which is accompanied by roads, oil spills, and disease-bearing outsiders, has
caused the destruction of some indigenous peoples and threatens to destroy others. n271 Oil and gas exploration and extraction in
northern Canada and Alaska have caused damage to wildlife habitats and have opened up areas of the north to "sport hunters" who
have recklessly depleted wildlife populations. n272 A number of Alaska native villages suffered devastating impacts from the
Exxon Valdez oil spill. n273 Moreover, some indigenous peoples believe that the extraction of petroleum causes harm to the Earth
itself and interferes with their duty to protect the Earth. n274
[*732] In the United States, nonrenewable energy resource extraction in Indian country has yielded significant benefits for some
tribes, such as substantial revenues for those tribes whose lands hold oil and gas. n275 But these resources have proven to be
mixed blessings. Since the early twentieth century, the terms of extraction often have been exploitative, and the monetary rewards
are accompanied by cultural disruption. n276 For example, the presence of coal on tribal lands has resulted in deep divisions
within some tribes. n277 In the past two decades, however, many tribes engaged in extraction of their resources have succeeded in
improving the terms of their deals and in building their regulatory capabilities, n278 partly by working together through the
Council of Energy Resource Tribes. n279 Despite some success, tribes have given very little attention to the soft energy approach.
Renewables Good – Sustainable Development Key to Solve

Environmental Crises
Development must be sustainable in order to avert environmental crises
At a more fundamental level, one might expect the multilateral development banks to continue financing environmentally [*720]
destructive projects simply because much of the economic activities pursued by industrialized countries and LDCs alike are
environmentally destructive. As the twentieth century draws to a close, the continued habitability of the Earth is threatened by a
variety of global environmental problems, such as deforestation in the tropics and in temperate North America, global warming
from combustion of fossil fuels, depletion of stratospheric ozone, pollution of ground water, and loss of topsoil from high input
agriculture. n223 These environmental problems result from economic activities that generally are included on the positive side of
the national economic accounts of the countries where they are carried out. n224
The widespread tendency of economists to downplay the severity of global environmental problems results in part from the
intellectual framework of the discipline of economics, which is quite different from that of ecology. The Worldwatch Institute
explains this difference as follows:
From an economist's perspective, ecological concerns are but a minor subdiscipline of economics -- to be "internalized" in
economic models and dealt with at the margins of economic planning. But to an ecologist, the economy is a narrow subset of the
global ecosystem. Humanity's expanding economic activities cannot be separated from the natural systems and resources from
which they ultimately derive, and any activity that undermines the global ecosystem cannot continue indefinitely. Modern
societies, even with their technological sophistication, ignore dependence on nature at their own peril. n225
After two centuries of industrialization in some countries, and some four decades of "economic development" in the Third World,
ecosystems all over the Earth are on the verge of collapse. This Article does not attempt to catalogue the scope of global
environmental threats, which include problems such as the hole in the ozone layer, increasing atmospheric concentrations of
[*721] carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and the cataclysmic loss of biodiversity. As theologian John Cobb and World
Bank economist Herman Daly have noted, these are the "wild facts" of the current state of the world, n226 and we no longer can
ignore them. Professor Milbrath has said, "Nature has a power of its own that speaks loudly to humans when they abuse it; nature
will be our most powerful teacher. . . . Either we learn fast and well, or nature will find some other way to deal with our exuberant
growth." n227
In sum, political leaders no longer can rely solely on economists for advice on economic policy. Rather, political leaders must learn
to acknowledge that our societies depend upon ecosystems and that, over the long term, we cannot achieve development except in
ways that are also ecologically sustainable. Those leaders who cannot learn this basic principle must be replaced.
Renewables Good – Soft Energy Stops Mega-Dams

US promotion of soft energy crucial to demobilizing support for mega-dams
Tribes in the United States, at least today, have the right to decide for themselves whether resources will be extracted from their
lands. n280 In much of the world, however, indigenous peoples either lack legal recognition of their territories or national
governments claim absolute ownership of subsurface [*733] resources. In these places, governments and transnational
corporations scarcely bother to consult with indigenous peoples or, if they do, consultation tends to be based on the premise that
the resources will be extracted. n281 Some tribes in the United States face essentially the same situation with respect to resources
that are not within official tribal jurisdiction. n282
Extraction of nonrenewable resources is not the only kind of energy development that inflicts suffering and destruction on
indigenous peoples. Large-scale hydroelectric dams have inflicted great damage too. Although dams usually are considered
renewable sources of energy because they derive power from the hydrologic cycle, when their scale is such that they cause
extensive environmental destruction, they should not be treated as part of the soft energy approach. Indeed, for indigenous peoples,
dam projects may be the most devastating kind of energy development. Examples abound. The dams and reservoirs on the upper
Missouri River in the United States flooded fertile river bottom lands on five Indian reservations, destroying subsistence
agricultural economies and cutting the hearts out of tribal communities. n283 The dams in the Columbia River basin in the Pacific
northwest may cause the extinction of several species of salmon, fish that are central to the economies and religions of tribes in
that region. n284 Examples are not limited to the United States. [*734] Hydroelectric megaprojects currently threaten indigenous
peoples in many parts of the world. n285 In some cases, indigenous peoples and their supporters have mounted international
campaigns to stop such projects. For example, Kayapo Indian leaders and their allies succeeded in persuading the World Bank to
withdraw its support for a series of dams on the Xingu River in the Brazilian Amazon. n286
3. A True Story: James Bay II and the Crees of Quebec -- Another current example, the James Bay hydroelectric project in
Northern Quebec, demonstrates that aggressively promoting soft energy paths in the United States can be a key component of a
realistic strategy to stop such megaprojects. n287 In the 1970s, the province of Quebec and its government-owned electric power
authority, Hydro-Quebec, constructed Phase I of the James Bay project. Construction proceeded over the opposition of the Crees
of Quebec, who continue to carry on their ancient subsistence economy based on hunting, fishing, and trapping. n288 Although the
Crees were not able to stop Phase I, their resistance did result in the execution of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement
in 1975, n289 which the Crees understood to give them a substantial role in determining the course of further development in their
traditional homeland. n290 Phase I, also known as the La Grande Project, is [*735] a complex of dams, reservoirs, and diversion
structures through which several major rivers are diverted into the La Grande River, which flows into James Bay. n291 By
drastically changing the wildlife habitat and destroying much of the riparian habitat, Phase I has devastated the Cree communities
of that region. n292 Communities that have lost most of their hunting territories now depend on food from the south, and with the
loss of the resource base that supports their way of life, the people of these communities are unable to carry on their culture and
religion and to transmit them to their children. n293
Renewables Good – Soft Energy Key to Solve Climate

Change
Building momentum for soft energy crucial to solving global climate change
With respect to energy, however, we do know what the key elements of sustainable development must be. We know that the
burning of fossil fuels by humans is the leading source of the buildup of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, and that carbon
dioxide is the most significant "greenhouse" gas in terms of its cumulative contribution to global warming. n250 Although the
industrialized countries are responsible for most of the carbon dioxide that has been added to the atmosphere since the industrial
revolution, the LDCs' share is increasing and can be expected to grow dramatically if their energy policies rely primarily on fossil
fuels. n251 Thus, if we are to have any hope of stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and avoiding the
likelihood of global climate change associated with the greenhouse effect, both the industrialized countries and the LDCs need to
shift away from fossil fuels. n252 This means that development must be energy efficient and that the favored options for producing
energy must be solar and other renewable energy technologies. n253
Renewables Good – Soft Energy Key to Global Sustainable

Development
Global sustainable development requires transition to soft energy
In the late 1980s, as people became aware of the problem of global warming, the soft energy approach began to creep back into the
public dialogue. Global warming, after all, is largely caused by the emission of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels,
and the soft energy approach seeks to displace the use of fossil fuels. n264 Although the Bush Administration asserted that
measures to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases would adversely affect the United States economy, n265 a substantial body of
analytical work shows that such assertions are unfounded. n266 [*730] Indeed, the economic benefits of soft energy paths compare
favorably to those of hard energy paths. n267 A body of literature based on Third World experiences suggests that soft energy
paths also can lead to substantial economic benefits for the LDCs, particularly in rural areas where soft energy paths may be the
only viable option. n268 The literature also suggests that we must reconsider conventional ways of thinking about energy because
the institutional frameworks that have been developed for conventional energy technologies are often inappropriate for soft energy
technologies. n269 The time has come for political leaders to realize that soft energy paths are not only the key to dealing with
global warming, but are also part of the only viable long-term strategy for economic recovery in the United States and other
industrialized countries and for economic development in the Third World.
Localized soft energy development key to sustainable development

Five hundred years after the dawn of the age of colonialism, Mother Earth is in danger, and so are many of the indigenous peoples
that somehow have managed to survive as distinct [*748] societies. Indigenous peoples seek recognition of their human rights
under international law, and they regard environmental protection as a necessary part of their human rights. In the industrialized
countries and the LDCs, many people in the environmental movement have embraced the concept of sustainable development as a
necessary part of any long-term strategy to resolve global environmental problems. In any realistic strategy to achieve sustainable
development, energy efficiency and community-scale renewable energy systems must be prominently featured.
Renewables Good – Indigenous Modeling – Global

Environment/Culture
Unique and distinct status of Native American tribes provides a model for other indigenous peoples –
AND, soft energy path is key to solving global environmental crisis
This Article challenges readers to help make the principle of self-determination for indigenous peoples a reality. Part I presents an
overview of the emerging international law of the rights of indigenous peoples and discusses the threat of cultural genocide. Part II
presents a comparative law example of the status of indigenous peoples under the domestic law of the United States, where
American Indian tribes n5 retain a [*675] substantial measure of their original sovereignty. Although the status of Indian tribes in
the United States is less than ideal, a large number do continue to exist as politically distinct communities, and each tribe is intent
on being treated as a permanent feature of our federal system. This continued and distinct existence teaches many lessons that are
applicable in the international arena. In particular, Part II notes the recent trend in United States environmental law of authorizing
Indian tribal governments to be treated as states and offers some comments on one federal grant program which is designed for the
express purpose of helping Indian tribes to preserve their cultural heritage.
The experience in the United States also provides numerous examples of tribes that have suffered severe cultural and social
disruption because of the decimation of wildlife populations and other profound changes in the natural environment caused by the
dominant society. Part III suggests that the international recognition of rights will be a hollow success for indigenous peoples
unless the industrialized societies also achieve a transition from environmentally destructive to environmentally sustainable
development. In particular, Part III focuses on energy consumption both in the industrialized societies and in the less developed
countries. This Article focuses on energy for one significant reason. In many parts of today's world, the kinds of environmental
damage that threaten the survival of indigenous peoples are driven by the ways in which the economic engines of the industrialized
and industrializing countries consume energy. Over the past two decades, we have learned new ways to provide the kinds of
services and benefits [*676] that in the past we provided by consuming nonrenewable energy resources. These new ways render
the environmental destruction and pollution of the old ways both unnecessary and unjustifiable. Part III presents an overview of
the alternative energy development scenario, sometimes called the "soft energy path," which is based on energy efficiency and
environmentally sustainable solar and other renewable energy technologies. Taking soft energy paths will not in itself solve the
global environmental crisis, but it is an essential part of the solution.
Part IV presents some observations on critical needs that must be addressed if the vision of a soft-energy future is to become a
reality; to meet these needs will require action at all levels of government, as well as action by international and nongovernmental
organizations. As will be explained in the Article, American Indian governments in the United States are uniquely situated to help
bring about the transition to a soft-energy future. Part IV suggests a few of the ways in which Indian tribes could use their
governmental powers to help realize such a future.
The global environmental crisis is real -- unless we make some fundamental changes in the ways that our global economy extracts
resources from the earth and gives off pollution and wastes, the natural systems that support human societies will collapse. n6
Even if we do succeed in expeditiously making the fundamental changes that are necessary, there still is no guarantee that we can
avoid the widespread collapse of ecosystems. n7 In his bestselling book on the global environmental crisis, Senator Albert Gore
includes some indigenous peoples [*677] among examples of "resistance fighters" who are on "the front lines of the war against
nature now raging throughout the world," n8 Senator Gore argues that the global environmental crisis is "rooted in the
dysfunctional pattern of our civilization's relationship to the natural world," n9 in which people have lost their sense of connection
to the natural world. He believes that healing the damage we have done to the earth and changing our dysfunctional civilization
into one that is based on stewardship rather than exploitation must be, in essence, spiritual endeavors. n10 Indigenous peoples,
where their cultures remain substantially intact, have not lost their spiritual connections to the natural world. Rather, they maintain
connections to the natural world. Rather, they maintain connections to the earth which are fundamentally sacred in nature, and they
know a great deal about stewardship that could be of benefit to the rest of humankind. n11
CARD CONTINUES – NO OMISSIONS]

Renewables Good – Indigenous Modeling – Global

Environment/Culture
[CARD CONTINUED, NO OMISSIONS]
Over the next several decades, sustainable energy technologies will figure prominently in a worldwide social movement -- the
"sustainability revolution" -- that will change human life on earth as profoundly as did the agricultural revolution of eight thousand
years ago or the industrial revolution of two hundred years ago. n12 The natural world will be changed profoundly in any event,
through global warming, the loss of biodiversity, the thinning of the ozone layer, and other global trends that are already underway.
If humankind is to accomplish the sustainability revolution, we need to be able to envision a future world in which we would like
to live and which we would wish for future generations. n13 Our collective vision of a sustainable future also must include room
for the remaining indigenous peoples of the world to carry on their ancient cultures and to decide for themselves how much of the
"modern" world to allow into their cultures.
In addition to challenging readers to help make the principle of self-determination a reality for indigenous peoples, this [*678]
Article challenges indigenous leaders, especially those in the United States, to help formulate our collective vision of a sustainable
future and to provide leadership in making that vision a reality. n14 The United Nations has designated 1993 the International Year
for the World's Indigenous Peoples, n15 and this event will provide tribal leaders with opportunities to have their voices heard.
Tribal leaders in the United States should take full advantage of these opportunities and step to the forefront of the movement to
hasten the dawning of the solar age.
Renewables Good – Indigenous Modeling

Expansion of soft energy options on Native American lands provides a model for indigenous peoples
worldwide – whether or not people have basic electricity depends on progress here
These attributes of soft energy paths apply equally to industrialized countries and to the LDCs. The economies of most
industrialized countries are more energy efficient than that of the United States; some analysts have concluded that energy
efficiency is a major factor in the global competitiveness of the Japanese. n315 A substantial body of literature indicates that there
is a vast potential for energy efficiency improvements in the LDCs n316 and for the use of soft energy supply options, especially
decentralized, renewable energy systems, in rural areas. n317 A study published by the United Nations has concluded that, for
rural areas in the LDCs, the use of decentralized, renewable, stand-alone energy systems is the most realistic strategy to achieve
rural electrification. n318 This study also found that the practical effect of choosing a strategy for rural electrification based on
extending transmission lines from centralized power plants will be that most rural communities in the LDCs that do not have
electricity will never be connected to a power grid. n319 One should bear in mind, of course, that the traditional homelands of
most of the world's indigenous peoples are located in rural areas of the LDCs.
Through a decade in which the Executive Branch of the United States government has been controlled by administrations that have
demonstrated indifference and hostility toward soft-path options, the United States economy nevertheless has made substantial
progress along several of the soft paths. n320 Progress also has been achieved in the LDCs, some of which have adopted
innovative programs to spur decentralized, renewable, energy [*740] development. n321 Analysts have recommended a variety of
ways to speed up this progress. n322 This part of the Article focuses on ways in which tribal governments could use their
governmental powers to help people in Indian country choose soft energy paths and, drawing on experiences of the LDCs,
suggests some ways in which tribal governments in this country could help to make soft energy paths viable choices for indigenous
peoples and other rural communities in the LDCs.
A. Critical Needs
In the United States and other industrialized countries, purchases of end-use energy benefits are made in markets that are heavily
distorted by subsidies and regulation. n323 Governmental institutions for regulating electricity evolved in tandem with the
technologies of centralized power generation and transmission at a time when electric power was treated as a "natural monopoly."
As a result, many of these institutions have been slow to respond to the range of possibilities offered by new technologies. n324
Unfortunately, the LDCs have borrowed many aspects of the industrialized world's institutional framework. If widespread adoption
of soft path options is to be a realistic possibility in the near term, concerted measures must be taken to overcome market
distortions and to allow purchasers of end-use energy benefits to make informed decisions while choosing among a wide range of
options.
Based on experiences in many LDCs, the United Nations Department of Technical Co-operation for Development has identified
four conditions that must be met if widespread adoption of soft path options is to be possible in the rural areas of the LDCs: (1)
existence of political will; (2) existence and knowledge [*741] of resources; (3) creation of local technical capacities; and (4)
creation of an appropriate funding system. n325 As presented in this United Nations study, these prerequisites apply to the use of
decentralized renewable energy systems to achieve rural electrification, but meeting these conditions would also expedite the
widespread adoption of nonelectric, renewable energy systems and energy efficiency measures. Attention to these conditions
would expedite the widespread adoption of soft energy paths in Indian country in the United States as well. n326
1. Political Will -- Political will is needed at all levels of government. Because energy marketplaces are heavily influenced by
governmental policies, policies that promote conventional energy development will tend to retard soft energy development. n327
In the international context, considerations of global equity influence political will in a perverse way, as many national leaders in
the LDCs tend to utilize the energy technologies -- particularly large-scale, centralized power plants -- that they perceive as being
favored in the industrialized countries. If national leaders in industrialized countries were to make soft energy options the priority
at home, perhaps national leaders in LDCs would give more prominence to soft-path options in their own energy strategies.
Although such national leadership is important, local political leadership is also critical. In fact, the movement for sustainable
energy development in both the industrialized world and the Third World is taking place primarily at the grass-roots level, and
tribal leaders in the United States could play leading roles in this movement.
Renewables Good – Indigenous Modeling

Expansion of soft energy options provides a model for other indigenous peoples
Federal policies toward Indian tribes during the "self-determination" era have not been limited to acts of Congress that are
specifically directed towards Indians. Rather, a new federalism has emerged in which many federal agencies administer programs
in ways that recognize the separate sovereign status of tribal governments. n140 In one area in particular -- environmental
protection -- recent changes in federal law provide a model for indigenous autonomy that is promising for indigenous peoples
throughout the world.
1. Environmental Protection in Indian Country -- Federal environmental law in the United States has evolved as a partnership
between the federal government and the states. Federal statutes provide an overall framework, but state governments assume much
of the responsibility for establishing regulatory programs, setting standards, issuing permits, and taking enforcement action. In the
last decade, several major federal environmental laws have been amended to authorize the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to treat Indian tribes as states for certain purposes. These laws include the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), n141 the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as Superfund), n142 the Clean
Water Act (CWA), n143 and the Clean Air Act (CAA). n144 The implementation of these amendments will require long-term
commitments on the part of both the EPA and those tribes that choose to be treated as states. n145
[*705] The policy to treat Indian tribes as states under these laws is premised on the principle of inherent tribal sovereignty. As the
EPA has explained in regulations implementing the amendments to the Clean Water Act, the federal statute does not constitute a
delegation of authority from Congress to the tribes. n146 Rather, tribes must have their own authority to carry out environmental
regulatory programs. In light of the fact that many Indian reservations include substantial areas of non-trust lands, the EPA
specifically addressed the issue of whether tribes have the authority to regulate water quality on non-trust lands within reservation
boundaries as an aspect of inherent sovereignty. The EPA concluded that tribes generally do have such authority. n147
Tribal governments' efforts to regulate non-Indians within reservation boundaries often encounter resistance. n148 Nevertheless,
federal courts have upheld such efforts in cases in which important tribal interests are at stake. n149 In the environmental
protection context, the federal statutes and implementing regulations have set the stage for tribal authority to continue to withstand
challenge. n150
It is too soon to tell how well this approach will work. There may need to be a different model for tribes that either do not [*706]
choose to be treated as states or choose to assume less than the full range of responsibilities that states typically perform. Assuming
that treatment as states will work for a substantial number of tribes, successful environmental regulatory programs being carried
out by tribal governments could prove to be invaluable examples for indigenous peoples in other countries, especially those who
also must contend with the presence of nonindigenous people within their territories.
Renewables Good – Economy

Tax credits align Native American tribes and business interests, ensuring a major economic boost
masters student, 8
Making tax credits tradable by tribes - and thereby aligning the financial incentives of tribes with the rest of the U.S. business
community - promotes the federal goal of guiding economic activity, whether in the wind power industry or in other industries
with substantial tax credits.
Congress is bent on fostering renewable energy production in the United States. Congress is also bent on fostering tribal energy
development. If Congress made the PTC tradable, tribes would face the same tax incentives as the rest of the business community,
renewable energy development on tribal lands would increase, and Congress would take a step forward in achieving its goals of
tribal and renewable energy development.
Tax credits are economic incentives the government provides to promote certain activities. n76 With these incentives, the
government is trying to encourage economic activity (such as charitable giving or pollution-free energy production) that the
government considers socially beneficial. n77 The government has an interest in promoting those activities targeted for promotion
to the fullest extent possible, including in Indian Country.
Renewables Good – Native American Economies

Renewable energy projects would create tribal jobs
Reynolds, Indian Country Today writer, 08
(Jerry, Indian Country Today, “Renewable fuels, energy efficiency offer culturally appropriate job prospects”, 6-7-8,
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.
Renewable energy can provide jobs and economic stability in Indian Country.
(Dean B., “Renewable Energy in Indian Country: Options for Tribal Governments”, Renewable Energy in Indian Country, Issue
Brief 10, May 19, 1998, Lexis)
If they considered the matter, tribal authorities would no doubt see that renewable energy systems offer wide benefits
compared with conventional energy. These include lower operating costs, less vulnerability to fuel price increases, softer
environmental impacts, and greater local self-reliance. On the many reservations where the unemployment rate dwarfs
the national average and families live in poverty, policies that limit the cost of home heating should find broad support.
Since renewable energy development tends to be more labor-intensive than the extraction of nonrenewable energy
resources, supporting it should help bring jobs to communities -- recycling money spent on energy and related services
into the local economy rather than sending it off the reservation.5 Tribal governments could develop tax policies to
ensure that some of these funds provide revenue streams for governmental services (although, as noted later, taxation in
Indian Country is a complex subject).
Renewable energy can be a big revenue source for tribes

"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, Colo. "Currently, tribal land encompasses about
5 percent of the land in the lower 48 states and contains about 10 percent of all energy resources-conventional and
renewable."
Renewables Good – Native American Economies

Renewable energy will provide vital assets for poor tribes
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
tribes 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.
‘Green tags’ bring tribes profit and funding for alternative energy initiatives
Tribes can also benefit by selling the environmental benefits of clean energy through energy certificates called "green
tags." Anyone who wants to offset the polluting effects of personal energy use can purchase clean energy--that is
powered by wind, solar or other renewable resources--by buying these green tags, instead of or to complement traditional
power.
Native Energy, for example, bought green tag credits from the Rosebud Sioux wind turbine project in South Dakota.
Native Energy purchased the green tags for the life of the project--rather than on a year-by-year basis--allowing the tribe
to acquire upfront capital to fund the wind turbine project. Native Energy is reselling the tags, which represent clean,
carbon-free electricity, to people and businesses who want to support renewable energy. Since March 2003, the sale of
green tags and excess power to a regional electric company has brought $500,000 in profit.
The Native Energy and Rosebud Sioux deal will produce enough energy to power approximately 220 South Dakota
homes a year, and will offset an estimated 2,100 tons of carbon dioxide pollution annually over the turbine's expected
lifespan.
Renewables Solvency – Renewable Capacity

Native American land has abundant resources that can be used for alternative energy.
Suagee, Director of the First Nations Environmental Law Program, 1998.
(Dean B., Vermont Law School, Renewable Energy in Indian Country: Options for Tribal Governments, Renewable Energy Policy
Project Issue Brief No. 10, June, http://www.crest.org/repp_pubs/pdf/issuebr10.pdf)
Many reservations enjoy abundant renewable energy resources: solar, wind, water, biomass, and geothermal.4 Tribes
in the northern plains have tremendous wind power resources; southwestern
reservations have the most direct solar radiation; some western reservations have geothermal
resources; and tribes in many regions have biomass resources. Renewable energy advocates in
Indian Country tend to be tribal employees and community activists rather than elected officials,
however. Transforming their enthusiasm into governmental policies presents some of the same
challenges in Indian Country that it does throughout the nation. Although quite a few demonstration
projects have been developed, no tribal government has yet made renewable energy development a
matter of high priority, at least according to coverage in the national media or the Indian press.
Reservations have many uses for renewable power technology.

A number of renewable energy technologies, particularly photovoltaics (PVs) and small-scale wind
power, are well suited to provide electric power for scattered homes and communities. Some
reservations have widely dispersed homes and small communities unconnected to the electric
power grid, and most reservations include many potential nonresidential uses for these
technologies.
Renewables Solvency – AT – No Market for Tribal Energy

Production
Massive market exists for tribal energy development
(Ed, "Native American Empowerment: A New Frontier For Distributed Energy, Distributed Energy, July/August 2005,
Fueled by a rapidly growing population neglected by traditional utilities, more than 550 tribes are aggressively
seeking economic empowerment and, in many instances, their demand for energy outpaces their resources. It’s a
unique market that runs from impoverished tribal communities without electricity to power hungry multi-million-
dollar gaming casinos.
Wind Good – Economic Independence

Wind energy incentives are popular and would create a sustainable reservation economy and make
them completely energy independent.
Even with numerous amounts of tribal land areas excluded from development, the Department of Energy's
National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that the total tribal wind generation potential is about 535 billion
kWh/yr, or 14% of the total U.S. electric generation in 2004, which is estimated to be 3,853 billion kWh/yr. As the
chairman of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nations, Tex G. Hall has noted that his Ft. Berthold reservation in North
Dakota has over 17,000 times more power in the wind that blows across his reservation than is used there every day.
Tribes are interested in meeting their own energy needs, as well as supplying clean power to the nation's commercial
markets, from tribally owned projects. Renewable energy can be exported beyond the reservation boundaries, while
bring benefits to the local communities.
The export of rural tribal wind power can provide the basis for a sustainable reservation economy that brings
revenues and employment to impoverished rural tribal communities without diminishing the quality of the air, water
or land resources of the reservation in the ways that other extractive and consumptive energy development has done in
the past. And unlike other forms of energy development, a wind project can bring in a 25 year revenue stream from the
sale of energy, green tags, and from other incentives, with out leaving behind degraded air, polluted water, flooded
lands or gaping holes in the ground. Moreover, with a wind project, after 25 years the Tribe will still have 100% of the
energy resource it started with!
In the simplest terms, the economics of building any wind project comes down to the relative cost of
producing the power being lower than the price that would be paid for that power. Faced with the relatively low cost
of power in the West, due to the highly subsidized costs of federal hydropower and to the externalized pollution costs
of coal, and the artificially low (avoided cost) prices utilities offer to pay independent power producers for energy, the
cost of clean, non-water-consuming wind power must be incentivized to be competitive, and Tribes need to be able to
access to such incentives.
Wind Good – Native American Economies

Wind economically revitalizes Native American communities.
U.S. Department of Energy, 08
(“20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Electric Supply”,
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/42864.pdf, Accessed 7/11/08)
Community stakeholders have started to evaluate wind development as a way to diversify and revitalize rural economies.
Schools, universities, farmers, Native American tribes, small businesses, rural electric cooperatives, municipal utilities, and
religious centers have installed their own wind projects. Although community wind projects can be of any size, they are
usually commercial in scale with capacities greater than 500 kW, and they are connected on either side of the meter.
Community wind includes both on-site wind turbines used to offset customer’s loads and wholesale wind generation sold to
a third party.
Community wind is likely to advance wind power market growth because it has the
following advantages:
Strengthens communities: Locally owned and controlled wind development substantially broadens local tax bases and
generates new income for farmers, landowners, and communities.
Galvanizes support: Local ownership and increased local impacts broaden support for wind energy, engage rural and
economic development interests, and build a larger constituency with a direct stake in the industry’s success. Local
investments and local impacts produce local advocates.
On balance, turbines stimulate tribal employment

(Shadi, Indian Country Today, “Native company launches wind energy project”, 4-11-8,
The cost to manufacture wind turbines has declined over the last five years, but the demand for wind energy has been
growing so rapidly that many developers are now able to charge even more for equipment, Ahlbrand said. Each of the
Passamaquoddy Tribe's wind turbines, for example, is an estimated $370,000, he said. ''In our case, you can put a crane on
the back of a flatbed and hire 10 tribal members with their own contracts to get the turbine up and out of ground in two
weeks,'' he said. ''We're creating jobs, because with wind energy, you need to leave behind the jobs in the hands of the
tribal members.'' [Note: “Ahlbrand” = co-founder Native Green Energy]
Wind can be a source of sustainable tribal income

Meimer, Indian Country Today writer, 08
(David, Indian Country Today, “Wind brings income to Rosebud Tribe”, 5-20-3,
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe became the first American Indian tribe to create a long term sustainable income with something
the government nor anyone can take away from them - wind. It's no secret that tribes across the country lost land and natural
resources just because they were on the reservations and received little or no financial return for the loss. Wind cannot be
diverted from the Rosebud Reservation or any other reservation and by erecting wind turbines, the wind will blow no matter
what the attempt to steal from the tribe
Wind Good – Environment

Wind has many environmental benefits – solves greenhouse gases, energy security, and doesn’t pollute
air or water.
Wind energy is one of the cleanest and most environmentally neutral energy sources in the world today Compared to
conventional fossil fuel energy sources, wind energy generation does not degrade the quality of our air and water and can
make important contributions to reducing climate change effects and meeting national energy security goals. In addition, it
avoids environmental effects from the mining, drilling, and hazardous waste storage associated with using fossil fuels.
Wind energy offers many ecosystem benefits, especially compared with other forms of electricity production. Wind energy
production can also, however, negatively affect wildlife habitat and individual species, and measures to mitigate
prospective impacts may be required. As with all responsible industrial development, wind power facilities need to adhere
to high standards for environmental protection.
Wind Good – Water Consumption

Tribal wind projects could build sustainable economies while reversing current systems that diminish
water supplies
Hall, National Congress of American Indians President of the, 04
(Tex, US Department of Energy, “Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program - Wind Powering America
Native American Interview” 3-1-2004,
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/filter_detail.asp?itemid=678&print, 7-2-08)
Our cheap electricity may contribute significantly to the ruin of our ranching and farming economies through the prolonged
drought associated with climate change and increased weather extremes and variability. With less hydropower due to the low
water levels, the current federal policy is to buy and burn more fossil fuels, creating more greenhouse gases and filling the sky
with sulfur, nitrogen, and carbon gases. Our current coal, gas, and nuclear generators also consume a tremendous amount of
precious water through steam generators and power plant cooling systems. In the face of this, wind power projects on the
Great Plains can generate electricity on a large, utility scale without consuming water in the process. People may even
pay an extra premium for wind power if it can help to preserve our regional water supply. Tribal wind projects could replace
diminished hydropower in the federal grid system while building up sustainable Tribal homeland economies.
The continuation of the drought conditions, climate change, and the necessary emissions reductions will only result in
an increase in the cost of power from fossil fuel sources such as coal. Wind energy can be produced at a fixed, non-
escalating cost for up to 30 years. No other source of power can claim that. The Tribes can save the federal government
money, generate Tribal revenue and jobs, and increase the flexibility and improve management of the Missouri River.
The use of wind conserves water wasted by other forms of power generation.
In contrast, wind energy does not require the level of water resources consumed by many other kinds of power generation. As a
result, it may offer communities in water-stressed areas the option of economically meeting growing energy needs without
increasing demands on valuable water resources. Wind energy can also provide targeted energy production to serve critical
local water system needs such as irrigation and municipal systems.
Unlike most types of power, wind uses no water in energy production

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 07
(“Wind Energy Development in Region 8”,
http://www.epa.gov/region8/WindEnergyDevelopmentInReg8Draft19Dec07.pdf, 12/19/07, Accessed 7/11/08)
Wind generation projects use virtually no water in the production of energy; a notable benefit in the arid and semi-arid
West. Nonrenewable energy technologies such as coal and nuclear power use water as a coolant in the condensing phase of
the thermodynamic cycle. For example, conventional electricity from coal requires approximately 25 gallons of water per
kilowatt hour generated, and nuclear power 7 requires nearly 3 times that amount, primarily for use as cooling water. While
nuclear reactors produce highly toxic, radioactive solid waste that persists in the environment for thousands of years and
must be managed and regulated, wind turbines produce no such waste. Utilities that significantly reduce pollutant emissions
by displacing fossil fuel-based energy production with wind energy could potentially face reduced regulatory pressures and
associated compliance costs. The increased use of wind energy in lieu of fossil fuels will reduce emissions of PM, CO,
NOX, SO2, and toxic air pollutants (e.g., mercury), as well as greenhouse gases (e.g., CO2). Additionally, by reducing
NOX and hydrocarbon emissions, increased use of wind energy can reduce the production of ground level ozone (O3).
Power companies may also decrease the costs of controlling greenhouse gases (e.g., methane and CO2) to achieve
voluntary emissions reductions and/or meet any future air quality regulations.
Wind Good – Emissions

Wind power is the most feasible way to reduce emissions
Roberts, Journalist/Economics and Technology Expert/Writer, 2004
(Paul, The End of Oil: On the edge of perilous world, p. 198-199).
And because wind turbines are emission-free, they are exceedingly attractive utilities hoping to cut sulfur emissions
or get credit for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide. In fact, says Flavin, in the current power markets—where
demand for electricity is growing, but where high gas prices, environmental concerns, and fuel price volatility are
making new gas- or coal-fired power plants unattractive, wind begins to look downright sensible. “If you’re a utility
needing to expand your supply and can’t build coal anywhere, and nuclear isn’t an option and gas carries a price
risk, you don’t have many options,” says Flavin.
Wind is efficient and substantially reduces emissions

Worldwatch Institute of American Progress, 2006
(American Energy: The Renewable Path to Energy Security, p. 27).
On balance, the environmental, economic, and social benefits of wind power outweigh the costs. During 2005, wind
turbines operating in the United States offset the emission of 3.5 million tons of carbon dioxide, while reducing
natural gas demand for power generation by 4–5 percent. Wind farms can be permitted and built far faster than
conventional power plants. And by some estimates, every 100 MW of wind capacity creates 200 construction jobs, 2–5
permanent jobs, and up to $1 million in local property tax revenue.
Wind Good – Electricity Prices

Wind has capacity to provide for all U.S. electricity needs, and is the cheapest form of alternative
energy.
WorldWatch Institute and the Center for American Progress, September 06,
(American Energy: The Renewable Path to Energy Security,
images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/americanenergynow/AmericanEnergy.pdf, Accessed 7/11/08)
The wind that sweeps across America is one of the country’s most abundant energy resources. About one-fourth of the
total land area of the United States has winds powerful enough to generate electricity as cheaply as natural gas or coal
at today’s prices. According to government-sponsored studies, the wind resources of Kansas, North Dakota, and Texas
alone are in principle sufficient to provide all the electricity the nation currently uses. Although wind power presently
provides less than 1 percent of U.S. electricity, it is poised to expand dramatically. Wind energy technology has
advanced steadily over the past two decades. Average turbine size has increased from less than 100 kW in the early
1980s to more than 1,200 kW today, with machines up to 5,000 kW under development. The largest machines have
blade spans over 300 feet, compared with roughly 200 feet for a typical jumbo jet. Additional advances, from lighter
and more flexible blades to sophisticated computer controls, variable speed operation, and direct-drive generators,
have driven costs down to the point where windfarms on good sites can generate electricity for 3–5 cents per kilowatt-
hour. These advances, together with sharp increases in natural gas prices, have made wind power the least expensive
source of new electricity in many regions.
Wind Good – AT – Turbine Manufacturing Emits CO2

Turbine manufacturing generates minimal amount of greenhouse gases
In addition, manufacturing wind turbines and building wind plants generate only
minimal amounts of CO2 emissions. One university study that examined the issue
(White and Kulsinski, 1998) found that when these emissions are analyzed on a life-
cycle basis, wind energy’s CO2 emissions are extremely low—about 1% of those
from coal, or 2% of those from natural gas per unit of electricity generated. In other
words, using wind instead of coal reduces CO2 emissions by 99%; using wind
instead of gas reduces CO2 emissions by 98%.
Wind Good – AT – Weather Mod
Wind energy does not disrupt weather patterns

Simon, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Nevada, 2007
(Christopher A., Alternative energy: political, economic, and social feasibility, page 49).
There has been some discussion of the possibility of climatological impacts of wind generation systems.
Nonmainstream scientists and other concerned individuals speculate that large-scale systems—such as those found in
northern California—may change the regional weather. At this point, mainstream scientists find little credence in the
argument that weather patterns will be altered by wind farms. Climatologists point out that the impact of the use of
fossil fuels and the gravitational influences of the moon on the Earth are more readily detectable than any possible
impact of “wind farms,” although it is conceivable that large-scale wind generation facilities could minutely slow the
wind in the region.
Wind Good – AT – Wind Kills Birds

Wind power is not the prime killer of birds; new technology has reduced bird strikes
As with all energy technologies, there are environmental costs associated with wind power, which have generated
opposition from local residents concerned about the rapid proliferation of new projects in many parts of the country. The
greatest controversy has arisen from the fact that wind turbines in some locations have killed significant numbers of
birds and bats. Yet housecats, vehicles, cell phone towers, buildings, and habitat loss pose far greater hazards to
birds, and progress has been made in reducing bird strikes through technological changes, such as slower rotating
speeds, and careful project siting.
Wind Turbines kill a very small amount of birds compared to other sources
Wildlife—and birds in particular–are threatened by numerous human activities, including effects from climate change.
Relative to other human causes of avian mortality, wind energy’s impacts are quite small. Figure 5-2 puts the wind
industry’s impacts into context and illustrates that many human (and some feline) activities pose risks to birds. As Figure 5-
2 shows, anthropogenic causes of bird fatalities range from 100 million to 1 billion annually. Currently, it is estimated that
for every 10,000 birds killed by all human activity, less than one death is caused by wind turbines. In fact, a recent National
Research Council (NRC 2007) study concluded that current wind energy generation is responsible for 0.003% of human-
caused avian mortality. Even with 20% wind, turbines are not expected to be responsible for a significant percentage of
avian mortality so long as proper precautions are taken in siting and design.
Further comparative analyses are needed to better understand the trade-offs with other energy sources. Avian
mortality is also caused, for example, by oil spills, oil platforms built on bird migration routes along the Gulf Coast, acid
rain, and mountaintop mining. Wind energy will likely continue to be responsible for a
comparatively small fraction of total avian mortality risks, although individual sites can present more localized risks. Some
data relative to specific sites are offered in the list that follows:
• The first large-scale commercial wind resource area developed in the world was Altamont Pass in California’s Bay
Area in the 1980s. The Altamont Pass development has seen high levels of bird kills, specifically raptors. Although
this facility has been problematic, it remains an anomaly relative to other wind energy projects. In January 2007, a
number of the parties involved agreed to take steps to reduce raptor fatalities and upgrade the project area with
newer technology.
• An NWCC fact sheet (2004) reviewed the mortality figures from 12 comparable postconstruction monitoring
studies and found that the fatality rate averaged 2.3 bird deaths per turbine per year and 3.1 birds per megawatt per
year of capacity in the United States (outside California). Fatality rates have ranged from a low of 0.63 per turbine
and 1 per megawatt at an agricultural site in Oregon to 10 per turbine and 15 per megawatt at a fragmented
mountain forest site in Tennessee (NWCC 2004). This information, which is shown in Table 5-2, will be updated
in 2008 to incorporate newly available data.
• Before 2003, bat kills at wind farms studied were also generally low. The frequency of bat deaths in 2003 at a
newly constructed wind farm in West Virginia, though, led researchers to estimate that 1,700 to 2,900 bats had
been killed, and that additional bats probably died a few weeks before and after the six-week research period
(Arnett et al. 2005). According to a USGS biologist, bat mortality has also been higher than expected at a number
of sites in the United States and Canada (Cryan 2006).
Wind Solvency – Incentives Bolster Wind

Extending tax credits bolsters Native American wind development – could replace over 20% of current
electric power capacity
masters student, 8
In certain industries, federal tax credits play such an important financial role that entities unable to use those tax
credits are at a significant financial disadvantage to entities able to utilize the tax credits. Federal tax credits play a
key role in the coal bed methane extraction industry, n3 the low-income housing development industry n4 , and the wind
power industry, n5 among others. In some of these fields, tribes cannot make use of the tax credits, and so face a
severe financial handicap as compared to entities that can utilize the tax credits. Perversely, this handicap is present
in precisely the industries the federal government has decided to nurture and encourage - for instance, the wind
energy industry.
To bring focus to the discussion of tax credits and tribes, this article examines how the inability of tribes to access federal
tax credits handicaps tribes' ability to own and develop wind farms. Indian tribes could be a major force in the
growing U.S. wind industry. Wind power from tribal lands could provide 22% of installed U.S. electric power
generation capacity. n6 Renewable energy development is an issue with broad support in the United States and has
the potential to bring significant economic benefits to the tribes.
Wind Solvency – Wind Potential

Native American reservations location and size have potential to effectively produce a large wind
industry
masters student, 8
Wind enjoys three main advantages: price, environmental benefits and economic benefits. When coupled with
federal tax credits, new wind turbine designs are now cost-competitive with new coal plants and natural gas
generation. With concerns of global warming rising, wind is an energy source that results in few greenhouse gasses. Wind
power also enjoys political support for the positive impact it can have on domestic manufacturing industries.
Renewable energy development brings high levels of economic benefits to the local community, when compared to
fossil-powered electricity. Renewable energy is particularly popular in rural areas with few [271] other economic
prospects. In 2006, a successful challenger for a U.S. Senate seat in Montana made wind power a prominent part of
his campaign.
There is potential for tribes to play a major role in the U.S. wind industry. As noted above, wind power on tribal
lands could provide a substantial portion of U.S. electricity needs. The Great Plains have wind in abundance, and
many tribal reservations are located in the Great Plains. Wind developers are interested in working with tribes
because tribes are single landowners over vast, windy tracts of land - the area within the Rosebud Reservation
boundaries alone is larger than the land area of the entire state of Rhode Island. Additionally, some power purchasers,
realizing the economic plight of the reservations, are willing to give the tribes better-than-market prices for tribally
generated electricity. n18
Native American reservations are an ideal location where wind power can produce unprecedented
amounts of electricity.
Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., and Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., have both introduced bills that would allow tribes to be
principal owners of renewable energy projects and would provide their non-Indian partners with full tax credits.
The wind energy setbacks in Congress have been especially disappointing to some tribes, since their lands often have
some of the highest wind resource potential in the nation.
Research from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that many of the windiest areas in the U.S. are
located close to and on reservations. The laboratory has estimated that the total tribal wind generation potential is
about 535 billion kwh per year, or 14 percent of the total U.S. electric generation in 2004.
South Dakota alone is capable of producing 566 gigawatts of electrical power from wind, which is the equivalent of 52
percent of the nation's electricity demand. Wind energy potential is also great in tribe-rich states including
Montana, Minnesota and Wyoming.
''We have always known that we have some of the best wind energy resources in the country,'' said Renville, and recent
wind measurement assessments have confirmed that assumption. His tribe is currently preparing to find a partner to help
them harness wind energy and ultimately sell it to electric companies.
Renville expects that the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe will soon be in the position to install up to 50 wind turbines in an
effort to diversify its economy. Thus far, the tribe has funded all of its wind energy efforts on its own.
[Note: Renville = a wind energy planner with the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe]

Tribal wind production alone could supply 20% of US electricity by 2030
(Rob, Indian Country Today, “Fighting the energy crisis”, 5-23-8, http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417367,
accessed 7-1-08)
For once, American Indians want to hear more hot air from politicians. Or, rather, any air at all - when it comes to
political support for wind and other alternative forms of energy. Tribal leaders in South Dakota - which will hold
both its Democratic and Republican presidential primaries June 3 - are paying especially close attention. Research from
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that South Dakota alone is capable of producing 566 gigawatts
of electrical power from wind: the equivalent of 52 percent of the nation's electricity demand. Officials with NREL
also say that many of the windiest areas in the U.S. are located close to and on reservations. The laboratory has
estimated that the total tribal wind generation potential is about 535 billion kilowatt-hours per year, or 14 percent of the
total U.S. electric generation in 2004. At the same time, a new Energy Department report released in May indicates that
wind energy could generate 20 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030 - about the same share now produced by
nuclear reactors. Wind energy currently accounts for only about 1 percent of the nation's electricity, although the industry
has been growing steadily.
Native American reservations key to sustainable wind energy production

(Shadi, Indian Country Today, “Tribes push for change in federal policy for wind development projects”, 3-24-8,
''We're looking at reservations that have limited resources and boundaries; some tribes have been involved in coal
mining in the Southwest, but their water and coal resources have gone to meet other people's needs and are not
sustainable.'' Intertribal COUP, which owns a major stake in NativeEnergy, represents 10 tribes in Montana, North
Dakota and South Dakota - where the power blowing mostly unharnessed through reservations like Fort Berthold in
North Dakota is more than 17,000 times greater than what is being utilized by the tribe's 65 kilowatt wind turbine,
according to Tex Hall, former chairman of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation. Wind energy is able to be produced
at a fixed, non-escalating cost for up to 30 years, experts say. The wind potential of the Dakotas has earned the region
the moniker: ''The Saudi Arabia of wind.'' Tribes in the region have been eager to follow in the footsteps of the Rosebud
Sioux, who unveiled the first wind power turbine on Indian land five years ago. Studies show the average wind speed on
the Rosebud reservation is 18 miles per hour (enough to supply 2.4 million kilowatt-hours of electricity in a year).
The $1.2 million Rosebud pilot project has been held up as a model for other tribes. But the cost of wind turbines has only
been rising in the past several years, Boucher said. [Note: “Boucher” = Rick Boucher, chairman of the House Energy and
Air Quality Subcommittee in Virginia]

Wind energy is almost infinite in the Great Plain Indian Reservations.
Hall, National Congress of American Indians President, 2004,
(Tex, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “An Interview with Tex Hall about wind energy, 3-1-8, US Department of
Energy,” http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/filter_detail.asp?itemid=678, accessed:7-1-8 )
Wind is an incredible untapped energy resource that could go a long way toward making this country energy
independent. It has been said that an ocean of energy crosses the Great Plains every day. Tribes here have many
thousands of megawatts of potential wind power blowing across our reservation lands.
local energy needs in a way that protects our air, water, and land. Tribes are interested in protecting their sovereignty
and providing for their reservation communities. Tribally owned wind projects can provide an opportunity to generate
power locally in a clean way that meets our needs in an affordable way, now and for the future. Wind power can
provide several sources of revenue to the tribe, through the sale of energy, the sale of green tags, and the use of
production incentives.
Estimated wind power generated in the Great Plains alone could power half of the US's electrical generation
capacity.
Wind & Hydropower Technologies Program, U.S. Department of Energy, 2008
(Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “Rosebud 750-kW Wind Turbine Installed”, January 8,
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/na_rosebud.asp, accessed: 7-1-8)
The Rosebud turbine installation is the first phase of a long-term plan for multi-megawatt wind development on
Indian reservations across the Great Plains, the world's richest wind regime in the world. This 750-kW NEG MICON
turbine can produce enough electricity to serve about 300 to 350 houses and is expected to produce more than two million
kilowatt-hours per year. One kilowatt-hour is the amount of power needed to light ten 100-watt light bulbs for one hour.
The two dozen reservations in the northern Great Plains have a combined wind power potential that exceeds 300
gigawatts (the capacity to generate 300,000,000,000 watts at full wind), or about 1/2 of the entire installed electrical
generation capacity in the United States. The wind power in this region has more than 100 times the installed
power potential of the mainstem dams on the Missouri River.
Tribes have high potential for wind energy generation

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.
Wind Solvency – Community Wind Projects

“Community wind” works to interest investors and create demand - states prove
Bolinger, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory energy analyst, ‘04
(Mark, Berkeley Lab and the Clean Energy States Alliance, “ A Survey of State Support for
Community Wind Power Development,” March 2004, http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/cases/community_wind.pdf, accessed July 2,
2008).
Though historically confined to Europe, “community wind” projects – i.e., locally owned, utility-scale wind projects
interconnected on either side of the meter – are a topic of increasing interest in the United States, not just among farmers
and other potential local investors, but also among state policymakers interested in renewable energy. Several states
are currently supporting community wind in a variety of ways, leading to the development of different types of
projects.
For example, Minnesota supports community wind by creating demand for renewable among the state’s utilities, and
by encouraging supply through cash production incentives for small wind projects selling power to third parties. As a
result, community wind in Minnesota is dominated by projects that sell power to utilities through long-term contracts. Just
across the border in Iowa, meanwhile, no size limit on net metering has led to behind-the-meter utility-scale wind projects
(most often sited at public schools) as the dominant form of community wind development. In Massachusetts, a new
collaborative effort focusing on towns and cities will likely lead to municipal-owned projects (on either side of the
meter). Experience in these and other states demonstrates that, with an array of incentives and creative financing
schemes targeted at small projects in place, there are opportunities to make community wind work.
Where individual local investors are involved (primarily in Minnesota, to date), the potential availability of federal tax-
based incentives has motivated the use of innovative ownership structures to maximize both state and federal
incentives. One such structure seeks to distribute ownership across enough local investors such that they can collectively
utilize the full value of federal tax credits. Another brings in a tax-motivated equity partner to utilize the federal credits in
the project’s early years, and then “flip” project ownership to local investors thereafter. With a number of these replicable
ownership models now being successfully demonstrated and documented, and with the policy support of an increasing
number of states, community wind in the United States may be approaching a “tipping point.”
Wind Solvency – AT – Status Quo Solves

No large scale wind projects now – not achieving enormous potential
Wind & Hydropower Technologies Program, U.S. Department of Energy, 2008
(Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “Rosebud 750-kW Wind Turbine Installed”, January 8,
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/na_rosebud.asp, accessed: 7-1-8)
More than 700 Native American tribes and Native Alaskan villages and corporations are located on 96 million acres in
the United States. Many of these tribes and villages have excellent wind resources that could be commercially
developed to produce electricity for local needs or to export. Currently, there are no large-scale wind developments
on Native American lands, despite the wide availability of excellent wind resources on those lands. A milestone was
achieved, however, in early 2003 when the first Native American 750-kilowatt (kW) wind turbine was installed on the
Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation. Efforts are underway to educate Native American tribes that have wind resources on
how to develop them. WPA helped establish a Native American Wind Interest Group (NAWIG), which serves as a
means of facilitating a Native American anemometer loan program and awards to tribes for wind exploration. WPA
also provides a means for Native Americans to attend wind energy training programs. A tribal wind resources
program is helping Native American groups better understand the potential for wind energy use on tribal lands.
Wind Solvency – AT – Wind Economically Risky

Wind power is a wise economic and low risk option
Singh, BBC Research and Consulting, 01
(Virinder,” THE WORK THAT GOES INTO RENEWABLE ENERGY” Renewable Energy Policy Project, No. 13, November
2001, http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/binaries/LABOR_FINAL_REV.pdf, accessed 7-6-8)
Third, energy technology and market trends have made renewables such as wind an economic choice for utilities and
others concerned about volatile electricity costs. At 4.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, wind power is now competitive with
new natural gas and coal plants in areas such as the Northwest, where Bonneville Power Administration and PacifiCorp
Power Marketing are installing over 1,000 MW of new wind farms. Beyond a narrow cost comparison, fuel-free
renewables offer significant risk reduction value, especially when compared to natural gas power plants subject to
wild price fluctuations, and even to hydropower that is dependent on unpredictable rain and snow patterns
Wind Solvency – AT – Native American Wind Not Feasible

Setting up framework for effective commercial sale of energy and green tags is feasible - The Rosebud
turbine project proves
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe's single 750-MW wind turbine project demonstrates that an Indian tribe can develop the capacity
to plan, build, own, and operate a utility-scale wind project. It demonstrates the potential of becoming a self-sustaining
source of electricity to meet Tribal loads at their casino and hotel.
They have also broken the trail for commercial sale of Tribal green power to our federal treaty partners, the U.S.
Government, by interconnecting through their local distribution system into the federal transmission grid (operated
by WAPA) to supply renewable energy to the Ellsworth Air Force Base. The federal government is the largest consumer of
energy in the world, making it a tremendous market. The federal grid system that was built to transmit renewable
hydropower from the dams like the one that has flooded our reservation at Ft. Berthold links all the reservations across the
Plains. Indian tribes could become a major supplier of green power to federal facilities and other markets around the
country.
Rosebud has also demonstrated some novel methods for financing a tribally owned wind project through negotiating
the first federal rural utilities service (RUS) loan for a Tribal renewable project and by participating in the upfront sale to
NativeEnergy of the green tags to be generated over the life of the project separately from the sale of the energy.
These are financing models for development that allow Tribes to own our projects and not merely lease our
resources.
Wind Powering America effectively builds Tribal capacity – there is a model in place
The Wind Powering America has done an excellent job of bringing program information to Native Americans
throughout the country, to Indian Tribes and to Native Alaskans and Hawaiians. With limited funding compared to those
available for state programs, the WPA Native American Initiative has helped build Tribal capacity through the
anemometer loan program and through the WEATS program, to which our Tribe has sent several representatives
for training in wind energy applications.
Wind Solvency – AT – Not Enough Wind for Market

Localized wind farms have excess capacity – Ft. Berthold proves
We have an unbelievable wind resource at Ft. Berthold. According to the wind potential resource maps produced by
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado, we have many thousands of times more power in the wind
than the amount of energy we use on the reservation. Although we would never develop all of this resource, just a small
fraction could become a foundation for sustainable economic development on the reservation, powering Tribal
projects such as our planned gas refinery and for sale and export over the regional transmission grid.
Our Tribe has received an initial grant from DOE to develop a single turbine to provide power for our casino and
hotel at Newtown, ND. We completed all the studies and broke ground late last year. We are currently completing final
negotiations with regard to interconnection to meet Tribal load and perhaps sell off occasional surplus power for those
times when the wind produces more energy that we can use directly.
We are also engaged in a second round of feasibility studies that examine the wind development potential at other sites on
the reservation.
Our Tribe is a member of Intertribal COUP, and one of our Tribal members, Terry Fredericks, serves as its vice president.
We are participating in the COUP environmental justice community revitalization demonstration project, which lays the
road map for collaborative Tribal wind energy development. Ft. Berthold will site an initial 10-MW project as part of an 80-
MW distributed generation intertribal project. A collaborative 80-MW project could attain an economy of scale that would
make a local 10-MW project affordable. A 10-MW project at Ft. Berthold would, along with our WAPA hydropower
allocation, help to meet most of our Tribal energy requirements. We could use this power directly at our planned
refinery, providing even more local jobs and economic opportunities, and it would otherwise be absorbed in the local
distribution system. This project would connect us to the grid for potential export and expansion. Wind, combined with
some of our future gas production, could allow Ft. Berthold to provide power directly to the grid.
Wind Solvency – AT – Location Integration Issues

Numerous wind generating areas are conveniently located
Wind resources in the United States are far more plentiful than in Europe. The U.S. wind resource is well distributed
across the country, with the most abundant winds in the Great Plains, a region that has been described as a potential
“Persian Gulf” of wind power. And the Department of Energy estimates that the offshore wind resource within 5–50
nautical miles of the U.S. coastline could support about 900,000 MW of wind generating capacity—an amount
approaching total current U.S. electric capacity. Although much of this resource will likely remain undeveloped because of
environmental concerns and competing uses, the nation’s offshore wind energy potential is enormous, and much of it
lies near major urban load centers.
Wind Solvency – AT – Cost
Wind power is the least expensive source of new electricity

Additional advances, from lighter and more flexible blades to sophisticated computer controls, variable speed
operation, and direct-drive generators, have driven costs down to the point where wind farms on good sites can
generate electricity for 3–5 cents per kilowatt-hour. These advances, together with sharp increases in natural gas
prices, have made wind power the least expensive source of new electricity in many regions.
Wind energy is an abundant alternate energy and is cost competitive

The wind that sweeps across America is one of the country’s most abundant energy resources. About one-fourth of
the total land area of the United States has winds powerful enough to generate electricity as cheaply as natural gas or
coal at today’s prices. According to government-sponsored studies, the wind resources of Kansas, North Dakota, and
Texas alone are in principle sufficient to provide all the electricity the nation currently uses.
Wind power is a feasible option to provide alternate energy and is economically viable
Roberts, Journalist/Economics and Technology Expert/Writer, 2004
(Paul, The End of Oil: On the edge of perilous world, p. 198-199).
Wind technology also offers far more flexibility than conventional power sources. Wind is the essence of modular
energy production: a wind turbine will function just as well by itself as in a cluster or farm, and that factor gives
utilities an amazing degree of flexibility. Whereas a gas-fired power plant must have a generating capacity of at least
a hundred mega-watts to be economical—and coal-fired plants a thousand megawatts—wind farms can be built on
nearly any scale—from a single-turbine wind farm in Kiel, Germany, to the world’s largest wind farm—the huge
State-line project. Again, this modular capacity is ideal for a decentralized energy economy: one can easily picture
wind towers in a backyard, on the rooftop of a skyscraper; some people have suggested building them on old oil rigs,
to exploit forceful offshore winds.
Similarly, when a coal- or gas- fired or a nuclear power plant requires a massive up-front commitment of anywhere
from four hundred million to two billion dollars (and, in the case of coal and nuclear, can take seven to ten years to
license and build), wind power can be brought on quickly and incrementally, as a market conditions warrant. “You
can get turbines delivered in less than a year,” says Chris Flavin, an expert on alternative energy sources at the
World Watch Institute, a Washington-based environmental think tank. “It’s more like ordering a refrigerator than a
power plant.” A wind farm planned initially for 300 megawatts could be scaled back to 150 or scaled up to 450
megawatts, depending on regional demand, and with fewer financial penalties for the utility.
Solar Solvency – Solar Potential

Solar energy has been empirically proven to work in Native American lands -- it can produce adequate
electricity.
Senator Bingaman, Democrat-New Mexico, 2004,
(Jeff, “Encouraging Renewable Energy Investment”, May 4, http://energy.senate.gov/news/dem_release.cfm?id=221179,
accessed: 7-1-8)
A good example of this sort of firm in New Mexico is a Native American-owned firm called Sacred Power Corporation.
This firm is targeting products based on distributed generation. One example is a so-called “grid-tie” system. This is
an integrated system consisting of photovoltaic solar panels, an inverter to convert the power to AC electricity, and a tie to
the local utility grid. A home equipped with a grid-tie system can produce its own solar power by day, even selling
some of the excess to the grid, and then rely on the local power grid at night. Another product designed by this
company is a combination of a solar panel system with a small propane generator. This combination power unit can
produce 2.5 kilowatts per hour, enough to power a remote home or piece of equipment. It is an attractive product for remote
areas off the electrical grid, such as on the Navajo Reservation in New Mexico. Sacred Power also manufactures solar-
powered shelters for housing and protecting remote telecommunications equipment, as well as solar carports that
both protect automobiles from the sun and generate electricity that can be sent into the grid. The founder of Sacred
Power, Dave Melton, was named Entrepreneur of the Year by the University of New Mexico Business School last year.
Solar Solvency – Solar Lowers Emissions

Photovoltaics have lowest emissions and are cost effective
Currently, 100,000 MW of diesel generators dominate the distributed generation market.8 However, stringent
environmental regulations for distributed generation will emerge in California, and may also emerge in Texas, Wisconsin
and other states. Such regulations portend a new fleet of distributed energy technologies that are relatively clean and quiet.
Among these technologies are fuel cells, microturbines and PV. Fossil fuels such as natural gas will power the first two
technologies for now. PV requires no fuel other than the sun and exhibits the lowest emissions among all
commercially available technologies. PV deserves special attention due to its rapidly declining costs and improving
efficiencies. PV scores highest in public preferences for electricity sources, scoring higher than natural gas,
hydropower and even wind power.9 The most established of the cleanest distributed energy technologies, PV has system
costs that hover between $5 and $10 per installed Watt. Booming markets in Germany and Japan have induced PV
manufacturers to build more and bigger plants. For example, First Solar has built the largest PV plant in the United States at
100 MW of annual production capacity. Fortune 100 firms such as Shell and British Petroleum have invested in new PV
divisions, as environmental concerns, favorable economics of remote power, power reliability needs and volatile electricity
prices have fueled sales of PV technology. What these trends mean for labor are more jobs. The following section
examines current labor requirements for wind, biomass co-firing and PV, three renewable energy technologies fueled by
concerns about the electricity sector.
[Note: PV=photovoltaic]
Solar Solvency – Native American Economies

Solar energy solves Native American poverty
(Ed, "Native American Empowerment: A New Frontier For Distributed Energy, Distributed Energy, July/August 2005,
With an estimated 18,000 homes on the Navajo reservation lacking electrical grid connections, the NTUA had a
problem. At a construction cost of $27,000 to $30,000 per mile to extend the grid, the economics were prohibitive,
according to Larry Ahastein, NTUA renewable energy specialist. But those conditions provided an ideal opportunity
for SunWize Technologies, a solar technology company specializing in integrated solar power systems. In May 2004,
SunWize delivered 63, 880-W PV/wind generators that combine Shell Solar modules with Southwest wind turbines. The
units deliver 2 kWh of AC per day, in worst-month conditions. SunWize did the assembly in Fort Defiance and NTUA
electricians attended an extensive training program with participants from Rolls Battery Co., Southwest Windpower, and
Sandia National Laboratories. Ahastein noted that the NTUA stressed local workforce development in the project as
part of its efforts to alleviate the high unemployment rate in Navajo country.
[NTUA = Navajo Tribal Utility Authority]

Geothermal Solvency – Emissions

Geothermal energy produces a smaller greenhouse impact than fossil fuel plants
Serchuk, Renewable Energy Policy Project-Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable
Technology Research Director, 00
(Adam, “THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPERATIVE FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY: AN UPDATE” Renewable Energy Policy
Project, April 2000, http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/pdf/envImp.pdf accessed: 7-4-8)
Depending on the technology used, geothermal power may also have a greenhouse impact, although a more modest
one than fossil fuel plants. Geothermal power exploits reservoirs of hot, underground fluid. Composed primarily of steam
(90–99%), these fluids can also contain varying fractions of carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ammonia. One
type of geothermal technology, binary systems, never exposes geothermal fluids to the air, and therefore has no
direct emissions; binary plants account for about 260 MW of total U.S. geothermal capacity of 2,900 MW.66 A second
geothermal technology, flashed steam systems, does vent the working fluids, but the actual greenhouse impact of flashed
steam plants varies. California (which accounts for about 85% of U.S. capacity) requires plants to control hydrogen sulfide.
Several facilities, including the largest in the country, the 1300-MW Geysers complex, do so by removing the H2S,
incinerating it, and reinjecting the combustion products into the reservoir. Serendipitously, this process also removes
methane (as well as other gases and contaminants such as mercury, arsenic, and selenium). However, all flashed steam
plants release the native CO2
In some future circumstances, geothermal power production may offer net climate advantages. New technology
allows the extraction of minerals including zinc, manganese, and silica from the geothermal brine, offsetting greenhouse
emissions that would otherwise be produced by mining and processing. For example, the mining-related energy use avoided
by a geothermal zinc extraction plant now under construction in California may cancel out half the flashed steam plant’s
reservoir-derived greenhouse gas emissions.68 Mineral coproduction is being examined at several other geothermal sites, as
well.
Geothermal Solvency – Native American Economies

Geothermal energy creates jobs and revenues
In 1996, the U.S. geothermal energy industry provided about 12,300 direct domestic jobs, and an additional 27,700
indirect domestic jobs. The electric generation part of the industry employed about 10,000 people to install and
operate geothermal power plants in the United States and abroad, including power plant construction and related
activities such as exploration and drilling; indirect employment was approximately 20,000. Taxes received from
geothermal operations are a significant source of revenue. For example, in 1993, Nevada’s geothermal power plants
paid $800,000 in county taxes and $1.7 million in property taxes. In addition, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management
collects nearly $20 million each year in rent and royalties from geothermal plants producing power on federal lands in
Nevada–half of these revenues are returned to the state.
Geothermal Solvency – AT – Waste

Geothermal processes can be implemented with recycled water
Serchuk, Renewable Energy Policy Project-Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable
Technology Research Director, 00
(Adam, “THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPERATIVE FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY: AN UPDATE” Renewable Energy Policy
Project, April 2000, http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/pdf/envImp.pdf accessed: 7-4-8)
Plant operators at the Geysers geothermal facility have successfully injected reclaimed sewer water into the
geothermal field. In addition to disposing of an environmental liability, this process raises pressure in the affected
portion of the field, and, in this case, increased electricity production by 10%. While other fields may respond similarly
to the same process, reinjection of reclaimed water remains so far an experimental technique.
Geothermal Solvency – AT – Geothermal Not Viable

Geothermal plants supply the most non-hydroelectric power and provide consistent power
While it has not grown as rapidly in recent times as wind power, geothermal power plants still supply the most
nonhydroelectric, renewable power in the United States today. In fact, geothermal power supplies 8% of California’s
electricity needs. Unlike wind and solar power, which produce power variably when the wind blows or the sun shines, a
geothermal power plant can produce power as consistently as “baseload” fossil-fuel plants. With volatile natural gas
prices dampening enthusiasm in natural gas power plants, increasing numbers of electricity suppliers are seeking to
build more geothermal power plants in the West.
Solvency – AT – Other Incentives Solve

The Production Tax Credit is the best incentive option – optimizes competitiveness
2-8).
The federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) is widely recognized as the principal driver of private capital to renewable
projects around the nation. It is based upon the proportion of one’s ownership interest in the kilowatt-hours generated by a
project. It is designed to reduce the cost of power by rewarding actual energy production, and not simply investment in
hardware that may or may not, in fact, produce power. As a “tax credit”, the PTC is a “bankable” part of a business
plan, because once obtained, it is guaranteed for a 10 year period, reducing the cost of power. The PTC has been far
more effective in stimulating the large-scale build out of renewable energy projects, particularly under current
federal spending constraints, than the other federal incentives which depend upon annually appropriated federal
dollars, eligibility, selection, and tiered payments.
The PTC, coupled with the ability to depreciate the capital investment in project assets, can provide for much lower costs
of power than any of the other federal incentives. The PTC is inapplicable, however, as an incentive to tribally-
owned projects because Tribes, as governments, have no federal tax liability against which to use the credits, and
outside investors seeking to joint venture with a Tribe are penalized with the loss of the PTC to the extent of tribal
ownership in the partnership.
Clearly, the PTC has been a very effective incentive in the commercial arena, as witnessed by the fact that construction
and investment halt each time the PTC expires, rippling economic dislocation throughout the industry. Since it was
designed to make renewable energy competitive with other subsidized power sources, when the PTC is in place,
power purchasers assume in their tariffs that the credits will be utilized by their wind suppliers. Thus, the PTC
becomes a two-cent per kWh penalty for Tribal projects that can not utilize the production tax credit.

Solvency – AT – Other Incentives Solve

Other government incentives are ill-suited for larger projects and have limited application for small
projects
2-8).
The Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI): The more limited REPI program, originally designed for “states
and subdivisions of states” has recently been made available to Tribes, but it is not designed to support large-scale
project financing because of its uncertain dependence on annual appropriations, eligibility, selection and multi-
tiered award structure. It could have limited application to small projects dedicated to particular loads, but is not
designed for commercial scale projects.
The Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs): The newly established Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs)
program went through its first application and award process in 2006. While CREBs explicitly allow for tribal
participation, of the estimated 700 applications submitted requesting over $1.3 billion dollars, few, if any, Tribes
have apparently applied. With nearly $38 million dollars in CREBs applications filed in the state of Montana alone, for
example, there were no tribal applications for CREBs funding. While this situation is disappointing, it is also
understandable. The CREBs program was expressly designed for municipalities and rural cooperatives with far
more practice and experience with bonding protocols and requirements, with interest in small scale projects to meet
customer needs, and with customer bases that could underwrite the shorter-termed, scheduled repayments for the
no-interest loans required by the bonds. For these and a variety of other reasons, CREBs, unfortunately, appears
rather ineffective in underwriting utility scale reservation based projects, and is especially ill-suited for larger,
commercial scale, multi-megawatt projects that might otherwise be built to tap the tremendous renewable energy
potentials on tribal lands.
Solvency – AT – Alternate Mechanism CPs

Tax credits only way to solve wind, alternative methods fail
masters student, 8
Many other methods have been proposed for financing wind farms. However, these methods all fail to satisfy both
the financing requirements for a wind project and the cultural and business requirements of the tribes. It is the lack
of assignability of the production tax credits discussed supra that precludes development of tribally owned wind
farms. Other forms of financing cannot compete with a wind farm that benefits from the PTC.
Solvency – Revising Tax Credit Requires Legislative Action
Modified Production Tax Credits are key to joint ventures

Tribally owned projects, however, can not utilize the tax credits, nor can Tribes allow their tribal joint venture partners to
use any federal credits that would be apportioned for the tribal share of production the unless new legislation is passed and
the PTC is appropriately expanded. A workable, streamlined and circumscribed Tribal Joint Venture PTC incentive would
allow Tribes, through joint ventures with private capital partners, to effectively participate in producing lower-cost
renewable energy by assigning their share of the PTC to their taxable partners. This remedy also avoids the awkward need
for Tribal Governments to engage in the more fictional aspects of the "flip-structure" model, which are currently under
examination by the IRS.
Solvency – Federal Action Key

Federal action key – production tax credit is critical to wind cost competitiveness and market
development
The Production Tax Credit (PTC) has been instrumental in encouraging investment in wind energy projects,
increasing the economies of scale in the production of wind turbines, and thereby lowering the costs of production.
Unfortunately, the stop-and-start nature of the PTC undercuts the incentive benefits of the PTC and undermines
stable growth of the emerging wind energy industry. A long-term extension of the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC)
is vital to expand the experience with integrating large amounts of intermittent resources into the power system,
continue technology advances, and drive costs down through mass deployment.
Native Americans need access to federal incentives in order to ensure sustainable renewables
local energy needs in a way that protects our air, water, and land. Tribes are interested in protecting their
sovereignty and providing for their reservation communities. Tribally owned wind projects can provide an
opportunity to generate power locally in a clean way that meets our needs in an affordable way, now and for the
future. Wind power can provide several sources of revenue to the tribe, through the sale of energy, the sale of green
tags, and the use of production incentives.
But to realize this potential, tribes need technical assistance from the federal government to assess our resources and
site projects. We need to level the economic playing field so that tribes can use the production incentives available to
off-reservation development. Tribes need access to the federal grid to bring our value-added electricity to market
throughout our region and beyond.

Tax credit is federal – federal action necessary for the plan to function and solve
Second, Congress must authorize the Tribal eligibility for the Production Tax Credit (PTC) that drives all wind
projects in this country. Tribes are now penalized in that they cannot attract the private investor to develop
partnerships for projects on Tribal lands.
Indians are the only people with a "trust relationship" with the federal government. Our treaties require the federal
government to assist us in developing our reservation economies. But all renewable energy incentives go to tax-paying
developers via the PTC or to states or subdivisions of state through the Renewable Energy Production Incentive
(REPI). Indians are the only group excluded from any of the federal renewable energy incentives, yet we are the only
ones with a legal obligation — our treaties — for federal assistance!
Currently, because Tribes are not taxed entities (a status we secured from the United States in return for our giving them
most of this continent), any developer that teams up with a Tribe in a joint venture for wind development is penalized
by only being able to use a portion of the available PTCs, which are apportioned under federal law by the percentage of
ownership in the production facility. So if a tribe has any ownership in a project on Tribal lands, our partner must
forego any incentives represented by our ownership. The PTC is the main driver for wind development in this
country, but this federal incentive policy steers investment capital away from Indian lands.
Federal action necessary to ensure grid integration

Tribes could use more technical assistance in working through the interconnection issues to be able to connect
utility-scale wind energy to the federal grids. We need to find a way to integrate the tremendous wind resources
throughout the West into the federal hydropower grid system, which was originally built to deliver renewable energy
throughout the region. With the drought conditions likely to continue, lower water levels for the foreseeable future, and
increasing hydropower costs, now is the time to bring significant Tribal wind power into the mix for long-term savings
over the annual retail purchases of supplemental power at retail rates. At Ft. Berthold, for example, we have sacrificed
much of our reservation homeland for Lake Sakakawea behind the Garrison Dam, which is capable of producing over 500
megawatts of hydropower. If we could integrate about 100 megawatts of wind power with this hydropower, we could
build a significant Tribal economy based on clean energy generation.

Federal action necessary in order to function in federal buildings on Native American lands
Because of the unique circumstances of Indian Country, the federal government can play an
important role in making renewable energy happen on tribal lands. Specific recommendations
include:
* Evaluate federal Indian policy comprehensively: The federal agencies responsible for providing
energy conservation and renewable energy assistance to state and local governments (DOE, HUD,
and other agencies such as the Rural Utilities Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture) should
review their programs from the last two decades and determine the extent to which tribal
governments and reservation communities have been included. Simultaneously, appropriate
members of Congress might request an investigation by the General Accounting Office. The review
should consider various mandates and initiatives for conserving energy and using renewables in
federal facilities, since many tribal government programs operate in buildings owned or originally
constructed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or Indian Health Service.
* Fund provisions now in place: The federal government should demonstrate its support for tribal
development of renewable energy resources through increased funding for the tribal provisions of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992. This should include two measures currently receiving no funds at all: the
program to be administered by the Department of the Interior to provide assistance to tribes,
including help in developing codes and regulatory programs, and the Indian Energy Resource
Commission.1 The mandate of the Commission should be modified, however, to include renewable
energy resources and energy conservation expressly.
Solvency – Federal Action Key – Trust Doctrine

Federal incentives fulfills federal trust responsibility to Tribal Nations
First, it is essential to continue funding the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) grants program for renewable energy
projects because they provide funding for planning, feasibility, and development of real projects. The DOE and the
Wind Powering America program have initiated a meaningful outreach to Tribes through the Native American Wind
Interest Groups and technical assistance partnerships. This is a great model that demonstrates the trust responsibility of
the U.S. Government to the Tribal Nations.
Native American governments have a trust relationship with the United States federal government,
therefore the federal government is key to solving because it is necessary to promote tribal projects.
Past proposals for a tradable or assignable PTC for use by municipal utility authorities and rural electric cooperatives
seeking to serve their customers’ demand for renewable energy, have only incidentally included Tribes. Such
proposals in previous energy bills have passed the U.S. Senate, but were excluded by the House over objections to granting
non-profit organizations use of the tax credit and concerns about the sale of tax credits into the general economy. The
CREBs was inserted in the EPAct of 2005 by the Senate at the eleventh hour to address the House concerns, and to provide
a needed alternative incentive to those entities unable to utilize the PTC. However, CREBs does not appear to be
workable for tribal interests, which must be distinguished from that of municipal power authorities, rural cooperatives
and other “non-profit” entities. Tribes do not control a customer rate base, as most Tribes are served by rural cooperatives.
More importantly, Tribes are sovereign governments with a unique “trust relationship” with the federal government
recognized under the U.S. Constitution, numerous Supreme Court decisions and copious legislative enactments. The
federal government has a special responsibility to support tribal economic development, and thus a special
obligation to enact workable, comparable and appropriate incentives, uniquely tailored to tribal circumstances,
which promote and not penalize tribal development projects.
[CREBs] = Clean Renewable Energy Bonds

Solvency – Federal Action Key – Trust Doctrine

Federal action necessary to alter eligibility for tax credit, and meet trust responsibility
An energy incentive such as a Tribal Joint Venture PTC, that would be available only to federally recognized Tribes in
partnership with private, taxable entities, such as in a tribal energy resource development organization, would keep the
workable tax credits accountably shared within the scope of the partnership and not open to the general economy,
would effectively lower the cost of clean energy production, and would attract much needed private capital to tribal
development projects both in a manner supportive of tribal sovereignty, of the goals of the energy policy act of 2005,
and of the obligations of the federal trust responsibility, and most importantly, in amounts unavailable through
congressional appropriations. Production tax credits have been set by Congress under a bill that was passed for wind generation
as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The Production Tax Credit (PTC) was expanded to other renewable energy
sources under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The PTC was originally set at 1.5 cents per kWh adjusted for inflation. The
PTC expired on December 31, 2001; was then extended for 2 more years; expired and extended again in 2005; and is now
scheduled to expire on December 31, 2007, unless Congress acts to extend it again.
Solvency – Federal Incentives Key to Investment

Status quo lack of sustained federal commitment to wind incentives kills the stability necessary for
increased investment.
As new wind farms come on line, a growing number of electric utility managers are learning how to integrate an
intermittent resource into their power grids. These grids are designed to routinely manage variability in
demand and supply. The amount of wind power capacity that can be accommodated depends on the size of
the regional grid and the flexibility of other types of generation attached to it. In both
Europe and North America, electric utilities have demonstrated the ability to manage wind generation that
exceeds 20 percent of total capacity. Higher shares of wind power will be possible with modest operational adjustments and
better wind forecasting. The key to achieving this potential is a strong and consistent policy framework, at both the state
and federal levels. The on-again off-again tax credit for wind power and similarly intermittent state policies have under-
mined the stability that companies require to invest in new installations, technologies, and factories in a sustained manner.
If solid and consistent policies are implemented, wind power’s contribution to the U.S. electricity supply could grow
rapidly. In June 2006, the Department of Energy committed to developing an action plan with the goal of providing up to
20 percent of U.S. electricity with wind power.
AT – States CP/Federalism
States lack jurisdiction over Native American nations
Indian tribes have governmental powers as an aspect of their original or inherent sovereignty, but these powers can be divested by
Congress through its "plenary power." n112 Within their reservations, tribes generally retain all powers other than those they gave
up in treaties, had taken away by an express act of Congress, or had taken away by implicit divestiture as a result of their
dependent status. n113 Accordingly, the tribes have authority over a wide range of subject matter, although the federal government
has concurrent authority over much of this range. State governments generally lack jurisdiction over tribes and Indians within
reservations, unless expressly granted jurisdiction by the federal government, n114 but states generally do have jurisdiction over
non-Indians within reservations, except when preempted by federal law n115 or when the exercise of state authority would infringe
upon tribal self-government. n116
AT – Spending – Revenue Neutral

Production tax credit is revenue neutral
2-8).
Shared PTC : What is needed to encourage Tribal development is an incentive that allows for a substantial degree of
tribal project ownership, coupled with the suitability, certainty and availability of private investment capital that
could be obtained through a tradable or assignable PTC circumscribed within a tribal joint venture, partnering a
tribe (or tribes) with a taxable partner for reservation based projects. A PTC sharing partnership would simply
allow Tribes to assign their presently unusable tax credits with their taxable, equity partners within federally
recorded tribal joint ventures. This limited application of the full PTC to known and identifiable taxable entities
within a tribal project partnership would bring both credit accountability and much needed private capital to tribal
economic development in a manner that supports tribal sovereignty and meets the federal trust responsibility within
the federally designed system of economic energy incentives. A tradable PTC within a tribal joint venture, such as a
tribal energy resource development organization, would provide a tribal energy production incentive in a revenue-
neutral manner, wherein the same PTC would otherwise be used by the taxable partner on other off-reservation
projects that would exclude any tribal ownership interest.

AT – Economy DAs – AT- Wind Costly

Wind is the most effective renewable
Because the U.S. electricity sector overwhelmingly relies upon electricity generated by large, central-station power plants
connected to customers by long transmission and distribution wires, it is not surprising that the bulk of national renewable
energy generation also comes from central-station plants such as wind, geothermal and biomass. This trend is not
likely to change significantly in the near future. Wind energy, and particularly large turbines concentrated in wind
“farms”, will capture the vast majority of the 2,000 megawatts (MW) of renewables to be built in Texas by 2009. With wind
turbines growing in size and productivity (many new turbines in the market are now 1 MW and larger, compared to 600-kW
to 750-kW just a couple of years ago), wind power on average is the cheapest source of new renewable energy in the
United States today.
AT – Economy DAs – AT – Soft Energy Hurts Economy

On balance, promotion of Native American soft energy options better for the economy
For many reasons, choosing soft energy paths over hard energy paths will serve the interests of most people in the United States
economy and worldwide. Hard-path technologies are very capital intensive, while soft-path technologies are much more labor
intensive. n310 Thus, soft paths lead to more employment. Soft paths also tend to cost less, as do energy efficiency measures,
especially when cost accounting is done on a life-cycle basis where the typically high initial costs are offset by savings from low
operating costs later. n311 Accordingly, over the past two decades, soft paths have added much more to new "supplies" of end-use
energy in the United States economy than have hard paths, despite massive subsidies for hard paths. n312 Because soft-path
technologies use locally available resources and employ people to do work in local economies, investments in soft paths pump
money into local economies while hard-path spending drains money away to other regions and other countries. n313 Money that
stays home can be reinvested in other sectors of the economy. Moreover, because soft-path supplies tend to be less capital intensive
than hard path [*739] supply options, choosing soft paths means that a larger portion of the total capital available for investment
can be invested in other sectors. n314
AT – Economy DAs – Wind Boosts Economy and Creates

Jobs
Development of Wind Energy would provide jobs and inject money into the economy
A 2004 Renewable Energy Policy Project study determined that increasing U.S. wind capacity to 50,000 M about five times
today’s level—would create 150,000 manufacturing jobs, while pumping $20 billion
in investment into the national economy. Renewable heating and biofuels also offer significant employment opportunities.
The U.S. ethanol industry created nearly 154,000 jobs throughout the nation’s economy in
2005 alone, boosting household income by $5.7 billion.
AT – Electricity Prices
No Link- Renewable resources in Indian nations would cost less than 2 cents above average.
Singh, Research Director, Renewable Energy Policy Project, 00
(Virinder, “RESOLUTION ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AND LOW-INCOME AND MINORITY COMMUNITIES”
Renewable Energy Policy Project, Fall 2000, http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/pdf/resolution.pdf, Accessed 7/11/08)
Wind, solar, biomass and geothermal technologies have all exceeded published expectations of cost reductions from 1975
to the present. Wind is the fastest growing energy source in the world, driven by efforts in Germany, Denmark and
Spain.
A study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration found that Indian nations containing 50% of the U.S. Indian
population have renewable resources (such as wind, solar and biomass) that could be developed for less than 2 cents
above average wholesale electricity prices in their respective regions. Indian nations can even become exporters of
green power, earn revenue, and create new jobs. These Indian nations are located throughout the U.S.
AT – Oil Disads
Wind power primarily trades off with coal and gas, not oil
The fuel displaced by wind-generated electricity depends on the local grid and the type of generation supply. In most
places, natural gas is the primary fuel displaced. Wind energy can displace coal on electric grids with large amounts of coal-
fired generation. In the future, wind energy is likely to offset more coal by reducing the need to build new coal plants.
Regardless of the actual fuel supplanted, more electricity generated from wind turbines means that other nonrenewable,
fossil-based fuels are not being consumed. In New York, for example, a study prepared for the independent system operator
(ISO) found that if wind energy provided 10% of the state’s peak electricity demand, 65% of the energy displaced would be
from natural gas, followed by coal at 15%, oil at 10%, and electricity imported from out of state at 10% (Piwko et al. 2005).
AT – Control K
The Trust doctrine is distinct from plenary power—it’s not based in control, but an affirmative
obligation to protect Native American sovereignty.
The Kagama and Worcester cases, then, suggest very distinct paradigms resting at opposite ends of the spectrum of federal-
Indian relations. At one end is the sovereign trust model which presumes [*1504] native sovereignty and very limited
federal power, and obligates the federal government to protect the separatism of the native nations. At the other end
of the spectrum is the Kagama "guardian-ward" model which draws on tribal dependency and the federal duty of protection
to support nearly unchecked federal power over tribes, including power over their internal governments. The Kagama
model is directed less at assuring viable separatism and more toward promoting assimilation.
Different though they are, the two models are often treated synonymously in the courts and in commentary.
Understandably, this has led to confusion in the courts and tremendous uncertainty regarding the potential role of the trust
doctrine in Indian law today. In evaluating contemporary use of the trust doctrine, it is important to note that, while many
modern cases refer to the "guardian-ward" relationship in describing federal-Indian relations, the Kagama case did not
wholly displace Worcester's sovereign trust model. Rather, the Worcester and Kagama cases have left coexisting, if
confused, legacies.
Worcester remains precedent today n145 and the treaties which embody a sovereign trust model endure as well. Those
treaties still control federal-Indian relations and are secured by legal consider ation consisting of vast amounts of ceded
native land. n146 Further, the promise of native separatism which underlies the land cessions remains a central feature of
contemporary Indian policy.
Despite Kagama's language, which associated plenary power with a trust-like responsibility inhering in a "guardian-ward
rela tionship," it is critical to delink the trust doctrine and the plenary power doctrine. n147 Notions of federal
responsibility existed long be- [*1505] fore Kagama, and a sovereign trust paradigm such as the one suggested in
Worcester would support federal responsibility apart from unfettered federal dominion. And certainly the association
between the trust doctrine and plenary power should have no place in the context of challenges to agency action because it
is well settled that agencies do not have plenary power over tribes. Courts have allowed only Congress that authority. n148
The trust doctrine is essential to protect tribal natural resources— it should be delinked from its past
associations with plenary power.
The trust responsibility remains a focal point for tribes in their efforts to gain federal protection of native lands and
resources. For example, over the past few years the Columbia River Basin tribes that have treaty rights to harvest salmon
have urged federal agencies to fulfill their trust responsibility by restoring salmon populations, controlling water pollution,
and conserving water in streams. n153 The trust responsibility is gaining renewed attention in the Clinton administration as
well. In an historic meeting on April 29, 1994, with over 300 tribal leaders, the President made a pledge to fulfill his trust
responsibility. n154 Several agencies within the executive branch are now developing trust policies to guide their actions
affecting tribes. n155
But despite the growing need for enforcing the federal responsibility owed to native nations, and a corresponding
tribal reliance upon the trust doctrine to support demands for protection of natural resources, the trust doctrine
remains encumbered by its past association with plenary power in the Kagama case. n156 Because it is of- [*1507]
ten still characterized as emanating from a "guardian-ward" relationship, the trust responsibility is blemished by
policies from past eras which supported federal dominion over tribes and assimilation of native people. Accordingly,
it is sometimes rejected as a tool to protect native rights. n157
AT – Plan Imposes on Tribes - Tribes Want Wind Projects

Tribes interested in wind energy investments
Reynolds, Indian Country Today writer, 08
(Jerry, Indian Country Today, “Socially responsible investing gets a Native interface”, 1-14-8,
Jonny BearCub Stiffarm of NativeEnergy in Denver said she is new to SRI, but attended because Native Energy provides
Social Investment Forum with ''carbon offsets'' for its conferences. She learned that socially responsible investing is
interesting, exciting and useful for tribes: ''It's another way to leverage our political capital to improve our people.''
Invited to participate in wind energy discussions, Gough took the opportunity to attend his first full SRI in the Rockies
conference. ''It appeared that there was a real interest on the part of the people there in Native American projects.
And they were involving Native Americans in committees and in future meetings. We were delighted by that outcome.''
Native Americans have turned to Production Tax Credits for development -- there is demand.
Mills, University of California - Berkeley Energy and Resources Group Master of Science degree,
2006.
(Andrew D., "Wind Energy in Indian Country: Turning to Wind for the Seventh Generation",
http://rael.berkeley.edu/files/2006/Mills-Masters-2006.pdf, accessed 7-1-8)
In this respect, wind energy is similar to other forms of energy development. Tribes have turned to energy
development in the past to increase the economic base and enhance tribal self determination. Many tribes have put
significant effort into creating a comparative advantage for development of their resources through participation in
organizations like the Council of Energy Resource Tribes (CERT) and lobbying for incentives from the federal
government such as the application of the Production Tax Credit – nominally a renewable energy incentive, to
“Indian Coal” in the EPAct 2005 (Section 1301.d).
Native Americans have the motive to preserve the environment -- they want alternative energy.
Suagee, Director of the First Nations Environmental Law Program, 1999. (Dean B., Spring, Vermont Law
School, SYMPOSIUM: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: MOBILIZING FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: The Indian Country
Environmental Justice Clinic: From Vision to Reality, Vermont Law Review, Lexis)
Something remarkable is happening in the environmental law system in the United States -- something that has
virtually escaped notice by the mainstream environmental community and by the legal educational establishment. Indian
tribal governments are building their own environmental protection programs, and they are doing so with a sense
that this mission is a sacred trust. Tribes are building their programs within the general framework of the federal
environmental statutes, but also within the framework of cultural traditions that have ancient roots in this land.
These cultural traditions generally hold that human beings have important responsibilities, including responsibilities
to the communities of nonhuman living things with whom we share this Earth.
Solvency – AT – Tradable Credits Require Trust Doctrine

Overhaul
Tradable tax credits are a narrow fix – don’t require overhaul of federal-tribal relationship
masters student, 8
tradable PTC. Congress should change the current non-assignable status of tax credits and allow tribes to trade their
tax credits to business partners with tax liabilities in return for cash, equity or other consideration equal to the value of
the credits minus any (presumably minor) transaction costs. This is a narrow, targeted fix to a problem, which does not
require large-scale revisions of the tax code or of the federal-tribal [*283] relationship. With this sort of provision in place,
tribes could become involved in businesses that make heavy use of tax credits.
Tradable tax credits would be an ideal solution for all parties - tribes, government and private business. Tribes would
gain economic development opportunities; government would be able to further promote the business ventures it is
trying to encourage through the tax code and would reduce tribal dependency on federal dollars; private business would
be able to partner (and profit) with tribes in developing an important natural resource. Each party would bring something to the
table. The tribes would contribute the resources - land, wind and labor. The outside investor would contribute the capital. The
federal government would contribute the tax credits. The tribes and the outside investor would be partners, both sharing in the
venture's profits. The tribe would take much of the cash flow, while the outside equity investor would take all of the tax
credits and, depending on the arrangement, some of the cash flow from the project.
The idea of a tradable tax credit is not a new one, nor is it without precedent. A group advocating renewable energy development
on Indian lands originally proposed the idea for tribes n72 and the Western Governors' Association has supported it. n73 In Oregon,
the state's Business Energy Tax Credits allow renewable energy project owners to trade ("pass through" is the Oregon term) state
renewable energy tax credits to taxable entities. Project owners can be non-profit organizations, tribes or public entities that partner
with Oregon businesses or residents with an Oregon tax liability. n74
AT: Biopolitics/Development K
Linking renewable energy advocacy with environmental justice concerns is a means of resignifying
development to counter the biopolitical history of resource extraction on indigenous lands.
Powell, M.A. in Anthropology @ UNC-Chapel Hill 2006
(Dana E., “Technologies of Existence: The indigenous environmental justice movement”, Development (2006) 49(3), pp. 125–132,
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/development/journal/v49/n3/pdf/1100287a.pdf)
In her work with the indigenous movement in Ecuador, CatherineWalsh speaks of the
movement’s building of local alternatives as ‘the resignifying in meaning and practice
of ‘development’ (Walsh, 2002: 7). Development, with its long history of top-down,
state-driven, regulatory, and often export- and expert-oriented goals, is being
increasingly challenged by indigenous social movements in the Americas seeking to
decentralize and gain local control over various aspects of governance, economic
growth, cultural projects, and natural resources. Not completely unlike the Ecuadorian
Pachakutik movement Walsh describes, the movement for ‘environmental justice’ in
indigenous communities in the US is experimenting with alternative strategies to
restructure the production of power to advance democracy and sovereignty for indigenous
communities.This essay addresses the possible resignification of development being
produced by the practices and discourses of a particular indigenous movement in the
US, which addresses controversies over natural resource management on reservation
lands. In particular, I consider the emergence of renewable energy projects within
the movement as new modes of economic, ecological, and cultural development,
countering the history of biopolitical regimes of natural resource extraction, which
have marked indigenous experience in North America since Contact. I argue that these
emerging technologies not only resist but also propose alternatives to the dominant
models of energy production in the US.
Renewable energy is a “technology of resistance” that counters the history of biopolitical intrusions on
indigenous lands by presenting environmental justice as an alternative model of development.
The Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975 enabled American Indian tribes for the first time to self-
determine their own resource policies and regulatory agencies, overseeing tribal programs, services, and development
projects. In 1988, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act opened the way for the development of casinos on reservations as a
new mode of tribal economic development, and today 34% of all federally recognized tribes run full-scale (class III) casino
gambling, although only a minute fraction of these represents the soaring economic success of places like the Foxwoods
Casino and Resort on the Mashantucket Pequot reservation. These and other approaches to economic development--
especially natural resource extraction and casino gaming -- have become issues of intense debate among scholars and
activists (LaDuke, 1999; Gedicks, 2001; Blaser et al., 2004; Cattelino, 2004; Hosmer and O’Neill,2004), as well as among
tribal governments, federal agencies, and within the general population. In the cacophony of competing moral claims and
recommended approaches elicited by these various controversies, the voices with alternative proposals are sometimes lost.
Against these two dominant approaches, there is another trend in tribal economic development beginning to emerge,
connected to the indigenous environmental justice movement (IEJM) in North America and critical of neo-liberal
development models. Drawing upon an historical conflict over resource extraction on reservation lands (see Figure 1), this
movement is turning towards what David Korten has called an ‘emergent alternative wisdom’of development practice
(Korten, 2005). This trend, embedded in a broader network of environmental justice projects in Native America, is a move
towards renewable energy technologies on reservations: wind power and solar power in particular. While these projects
engage wider energy markets, global discourses on climate change and the ‘end of oil’, and funds from federal agencies,
they also embody an alternative knowledge grounded in an historical, indigenous social movement in which economic
justice for indigenous peoples is intimately intermeshed with questions of ecological wellness and cultural preservation. As
such, wind and solar technologies are being presented and implemented as alternative approaches to dominant practices of
economic development and carry with them a history of centuries of struggle, as well as the hope for a better future.
These emerging practices of a social movement-driven development agenda draw our attention to the cultural politics,
meanings, histories, and conceptual contributions posited by unconventional development projects. As part of an emerging
movement in support of localized wind and solar energy production on tribal lands, these projects are responses to the
biopolitical operations of 20th century development projects. They respond to a long history of removal, regulation,
knowledge production, and life-propagating techniques administered on reservation-based peoples. The movement itself
addresses controversies in a way that interweaves the economic, the ecological, the cultural, and the embodied aspects of
being and being well in the world; as a member of the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) said to me:
The movement is really about health and people dying …people can’t have an enjoyable life anymore. The work of
the movement is never about the power plant itself, but about how all the EJ (environmental justice) issues come
together and link up to affect people’s lives…its about having a good life (B Shimek, 2004, personal communication).
Such an analysis resonates with Arturo Escobar’s emphasis on a framework of a ‘political ecology of difference’ and the
need to consider ‘cultural distribution’ conflicts in studies or other engagements with natural resource issues (Escobar
(2006) Introduction). Concerns of ‘cultural distribution’ have become crucial work for the IEJM as it seeks to resignify
development as ‘environmental justice’ in the context of a particular history of illness and disease, environmental
contamination, poverty, and place-based worldviews. I argue that the way in which the IEJM has coalesced around these
alternative development projects suggests that these projects are ‘technologies of resistance’ (Hess, 1995) to dominant
forms of economic development, but also -- and perhaps more significantly -- imaginative technologies of existence,
mediating a particular discourse of natural resource controversies, including values of a ‘good life’. As such, renewable
energy technologies are resignifying the politics of ‘sustainability’ through the movement’s concept of ‘environmental
justice’, which cuts across reductive interpretations of economy, ecology, and culture.
The modern state has exterminated Native Americans and exploited their land base –
Wind power is a counter-project to these exertions of biopower.
Development as a biopolitical operation
In analysing development as a biopolitical operation, I follow other feminist scholars and development critics who have
considered the biopolitical effects of particular development discourses on women’s bodies and movements (Harcourt,
2005) and labour and corporations (Charkiewicz, 2005). As they argue, the post- World War II model of development as a
project driven by Western states to modernize other ‘emerging’states and bring them into a geopolitical sphere of economic
control is, at its base, an exertion of biopower on particular (gendered, raced, labouring) bodies. Michel Foucault described
biopower as the power of the state ‘to make live and let die’, in contrast to the disciplinary power of monarchical states,
which exerted a sovereign’s power ‘to make die and let live’ (Foucault, 2003). In other words, the king controlled his
subjects by the threat (and occasional enactment) of killing some and letting others live, in order to maintain control,
whereas the modern state makes less of a spectacle out of individual killings and exerts its force over populations instead,
managing the species through techniques of regulating birth, mortality, biological disabilities, and the effects of the
environment. The significant shift to a regime of biopower is the new target of control: the population. When viewed as a
biopolitical operation, development programs of the post-war model (which has lingered and reproduced itself in various
forms on into the 21st century) are revealed as schemes to control populations -- in particular, ‘Third World’ populations
defined by the West as political problems and scientific problems, as well as economic opportunities.
A similar history runs through Native America, as this ‘Fourth World’ population was a target of regulation, management,
and biological speculation from the moment of Contact, over 500 years ago. Indigenous populations worldwide have
experienced the effects of biopower, especially in terms of the management and extraction of natural resources (including
bodies and, more recently, genetic information), but in the Americas the situation is geo-historically particular, given the
sweeping catastrophe of disease, decimating what some have estimated to be 95 per cent of the pre-Contact population.
Another particularity of the North American situation is that, over the long history of occupation since 1492, tribal
populations have been alternately exterminated, removed, recombined, relocated, and politically reorganized by state
institutions, often under the guise of care and patrimony. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, tribes as populations were
regulated and made to live through land enclosures, creating spatial patterns of security, on frontier lands considered
undesirable to European colonists. This desirability was, however, based on the visible alone; the resources that laid
beneath the surface of the often barren, dry reservations would emerge in the 20th century as some of the most coveted
commodities on earth.
In sum, thinking of the history of development as a biopolitical operation to manage the life of populations of indigenous
peoples in the Americas allows us to see the regulatory operations of the state, sometimes glossed as integrationist policies,
as has been the trend in Latin America with the history of indigenismo (Sawyer, 2004), and sometimes framed as patrimony
and treaty responsibility, as in the United States, with the ‘Indian New Deal’ in the 1930s (Collier, 1938). Moreover, it
provides a way of understanding the history of state-driven development models as regimes of controlling, regulating, and
organizing particular bodies and environments -- the antithesis of the liberal, humanitarian projects these regimes have
often claimed to be. Finally, as I move to discuss the IEJM and the emergence of wind and solar power projects on
reservations, these technologies of resistance and existence can be thought of as counter-projects to the biopower of 20th
century models of development, which have exacted significant ecological and cultural costs from tribes, in service of a
reductive, disembedded view of economic growth.
AT: “But Your Evidence Doesn’t Assume State Action”
Yes, it does.
Emergence of wind and solar power projects in the IEJM
In 2003, the first utility scale, indigenous-owned and operated wind turbine in the US was installed on the Rosebud Sicangu
Lakota reservation in South Dakota. The project took eight years of organizing, fundraising, and coordinating among the
tribal government, the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy (ICOUP), the Department of Energy, local activists and
indigenous non-governmental organization Honour the Earth (HTE). Rising to 190f t tall, the 750kW, Danish-manufactured
wind turbine was installed with ceremony and great expectation as the first of many to come. As the closest structures to the
turbine site, the Rosebud casino and its adjacent hotel will consume the wind’s power until new lines are constructed to
carry it deeper into the reservation to individual homes. The turbine at Rosebud was installed as the first among several
emerging wind energy projects on Native American reservations from the Dakotas to Montana and Colorado. Bob Gough
of ICOUP explains that this technology is being used to promote a wider campaign for renewable energy on other
reservations: This turbine could have been simply a stand-alone project and the tribe would have been pleased enough.
This is really a show horse. It’s there at the casino to get high visibility -- we’re going to have information kiosks to teach
people about it. But this project was also designed to take us through all the steps we need to learn to build more of these.
There’s a lot more than just putting up a wind turbine and connecting a few wires. With wind turbines you’re connecting
into the North American electricity grid, the largest machine in the world, which involves a lot of rules and policies. We’ve
used this as an opportunity to learn how to do this on a larger scale, and we are sharing that with any of the other tribes that
are interested (Tidwell, 2003:3).
Situated within the broader IEJM in North America, these projects mark a shift towards wind energy activism within the
movement, which traces its own history of resistance to the recent action of the 1960s and 1970s, but more deeply to the
resistance that has always been a part of the colonial experience of being occupied and ‘developed’. The Rosebud turbine is
a community based development project imagined and executed by local and regional activists and engineers, but funded
by a combination of national foundations and federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Energy, Department of Interior and US Department of Agriculture, making for complex and contradictory
alliances between tribes and the state. The project is also situated within the context of environmental and political debates
on energy development around the state of South Dakota, where plans are underway to develop 2000MW of coal-fired
power by the end of 2010 (LaDuke, 2004). The wind turbine is moving to centre stage as a potential solution to many of
movement’s primary concerns: climate and ecological change, natural resource conflicts, cultural preservation,
globalization, and tribal sovereignty.
AT: Heidegger/Technology K’s
The ‘sustainable’ technology of the plan is also ontological—it represents a different way of knowing
and engaging the world, which must be evaluated in comparison to current fossil fuel extraction.
The significance of the relatively recent emergence of wind and solar technologies as tribal development projects is that
tribes are increasingly connecting into this network of renewable energy activism as a means of economic growth,
ecological protection, and cultural preservation. Seemingly an oxymoron -- to preserve ‘tradition’ with the use of high-tech
machines-- advocates of wind and solar power emphasize that cultural preservation is itself about flexible practices, change,
and honouring worldviews in which the modernist distinction between nature and culture is nonsensical. In other words,
when some of the most important cultural resources are the land itself (i.e., mountains for ceremonies, waters for fishing,
soils for growing indigenous foods), to protect nature is also to protect culture. As Bruno Latour has also argued, this
natures-cultures epistemology is also ontology --a different way of knowing, inhabiting and engaging the world (Latour,
1993, 2005). Wind turbines and solar photovoltaic panels are articulating with this worldview, and at the same time
articulating with many tribes’ desires to move beyond fossil fuel extraction as a primary means of economic development,
and towards natural resource practices that are more ‘sustainable’. The wind and the sun introduce new elements of
common property to be harnessed for alternative development projects and increased decentralization and ownership over
the means of power production.
AT: Development/Cap/Biopolitics/Heidegger/Noble Savage

The aff utilizes renewable energy to emphasize concepts of sustainability and environmental justice
which move beyond status quo biopolitical models of development, while avoiding the traps of
neoliberalism and essentialism.
Technologies of existence
This recent emergence of renewable energy technologies on reservations inspires analysis of natural resource conflicts to
move beyond models of resistance in understanding controversies and social struggles over resource management and
energy production to seeing the ways in which concepts such as ‘sustainability’ are being resignified through the
introduction of what I argue are imaginative technologies of existence. I stress existence over resistance not to obscure the
contestations of federal, tribal, and utility consortium proposals for natural resource development, which have been
importantly detailed elsewhere (Gedicks, 2001), but to emphasize the creative, imaginative work of the movement in
envisioning and enacting alternative ways for tribes to self-sustain and grow healthy economies, ecologies, cultures, and
bodies in an integrated manner. There are other technologies of existence engaging particular, situated natural resource
conflicts within the movement: recovery of customary foods and harvesting practices, coalition-building around water
rights and resources, restoration of salmon and sturgeon populations, and projects involving information and film media as
a means of preserving and producing the ‘natural’ resource of culture itself. This constellation of resources -- energy, food,
water, and culture -- are of central concern to the IEJM and creating sustainable methods of generating each advances the
‘good life’ towards which the movement’s work strives.
In this sense, wind and solar projects on reservations are not technologies of existence to ‘make live’ in the biopolitical
sense of a population’s ensured biological survival and micro-practices of regulation, but technologies that articulate with
desire, history, localization, imagination, and being in a way in which the meaning of ‘existence’ exceeds a definition of
continued biological survival or reproduction. These technologies are about a particular quality of existence that speaks to
the late Latin root of the word, existentia, which comes from the earlier Latin exsistere, meaning ‘come into being,’ itself a
combination of ex_ ‘out’ þ sistere ‘take a stand’ (O.A.D., 2001). Thus, when ‘existence’ recovers the notions of coming into
being, externality, and taking a stand, what it means to live and to grow is inherently active and perhaps even risky.
Sustainability, then, in the context of the IEJM, is a bold existence and set of practices informed by a particular history of
struggle and oriented towards a future of well-being, in which the economic, the ecological, and the cultural are
interdependent and mutually constitutive.
The movement’s concept of ‘environmental justice’conveys such a non-reductive understanding of sustainability as a

certain quality of existence. The concept proliferates and circulates through the geographically dispersed installations of
wind turbines and solar panels (among the other technologies of existence) and is reinforced at national and transnational
gatherings of HTE and the IEN. As an enunciation of sustainability, ‘environmental justice’ recalls specific cases of
contamination on indigenous lands, articulates with broader environmental and anti-racist movements worldwide, and
critiques dominant approaches to development by posing concrete alternatives. This is a critical, alternative knowledge
being produced through the networked practices of a specific social movement. It is not the sustainability of the‘triple
bottom line’ in neo-liberal theory that self-congratulates its attention not only to capital but also to pre-figured notions of
the environment and society; though it is also not a romanticized ‘traditional’ wisdom of indigenous people, endowed with
some sort of essentialist knowledge and protective role for the natural world. It is, instead, a sophisticated hybrid concept --
in which knowledges of wider energy and trade markets, science and engineering, local resource management issues, global
processes of climate change and wars for oil, and the relational knowing that comes with enacted attachments to place,
converge to inform and generate a call for ‘environmental justice,’ implemented through specific material technologies.
AT: Language K’s- Indian/Native American/Etc.

Critiques of terminology have little effect on the actual treatment of indigenous people—they change
the name, and treat them the same. The best solution is deploying the generic terms in a context that is
critical of the colonizer’s worldview which gave rise to the terms.
d’Errico, Legal Studies Department @ U.Mass., 2005
(Peter, “Native American Indian Studies – A Note on Names”, http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/name.html, Accessed 7/12/08)
"American Indians" derives from the colonizers' world-view and is therefore not the real name of anyone. It is a name given
to people by outsiders, not by themselves. Why should we use any name given to a people by someone other than
themselves? 2
On the other hand, why shouldn't we use it? Almost everybody in the world knows the name and to whom it refers. It is
commonly used by many Indigenous Peoples in the United States, even today. It is the legal definition of these Peoples in
United States law.
Some people get upset about "American Indian" because of its association with Columbus. There is an equally serious
dilemma with the use of "Native American," which came into vogue as part of a concern for "political correctness." The
latter was an effort to acknowledge ethnic diversity in the United States while insisting on an over-arching American unity.
Groups became identified as hyphen-American. Thus, African-American, Irish-American, Italian-American, and so on. For
the original inhabitants of the land, the "correct" term became Native-American.
The word "native" has a generic meaning, referring to anyone or anything that is at home in its place of origin. "Native"
also has a pejorative meaning in English colonization, as in "The natives are restless tonight." From an English perspective
(and, after all, we are talking about English words), "native" carries the connotation of "primitive," which itself has both a
generic definition, meaning "first" or "primary," and a pejorative use, meaning "backward" or "ignorant." And, as we have
seen, "American" derives from that other Italian. So "Native American" does not avoid the problem of naming from an
outsider's perspective.
Concern for political correctness focuses more on appearances than reality. As John Trudell observed at the time, "They
change our name and treat us the same." Basic to the treatment is an insistence that the original inhabitants of the land are
not permitted to name themselves. As an added twist, it seems that the only full, un-hyphenated Americans are those who
make no claim of origin beyond the shores of this land. Many of these folk assert that they are in fact the real "native"
Americans.
We have to discard both "American Indian" and "Native American" if we want to be faithful to reality and true to the
principle that a People's name ought to come from themselves. The consequence of this is that the original inhabitants of
this land are to be called by whatever names they give themselves. There are no American Indians or Native Americans.
There are many different peoples, hundreds in fact, bearing such names as Wampanoag, Cherokee, Seminole, Navajo, Hopi,
and so on and on through the field of names. These are the "real" names of the people.
But the conundrum of names doesn't end there. Some of the traditional or "real" names are not actually derived from the
people themselves, but from their neighbors or even enemies. "Mohawk" is a Narraganset name, meaning "flesh eaters."
"Sioux" is a French corruption of an Anishinabe word for "enemy." Similarly, "Apache" is a Spanish corruption of a Zuni
word for "enemy," while Navajo is from the Spanish version of a Tewa word. If we want to be fully authentic in every
instance, we will have to inquire into the language of each People to find the name they call themselves. It may not be
surprising to find that the deepest real names are often a word for "people" or for the homeland or for some differentiating
characteristic of the people as seen through their own eyes.
The important thing is to acknowledge the fundamental difference between how a People view themselves and how they
are viewed by others, and to not get hung up on names for the sake of "political correctness."
In this context, the difference between "American Indian" and "Native-American" is nonexistent. Both are names given
from the outside. On the other hand, in studying the situation and history of the Original Peoples of the continent, we do not
need to completely avoid names whose significance is understood by all. Indeed, it may be that the shortest way to
penetrate the situation of Indigenous Peoples is to critically use the generic name imposed on them.
The majority of Native Americans/American Indians believe it is acceptable to use either term.
Brunner, Editorial Director, Information Please, 2007
(Borgna, “American Indian versus Native American: A once-heated issue has sorted itself out”,
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmterms.html, Accessed 7/12/08)
Are the terms American Indian and Native American essentially synonyms, in the same way that the terms black and
African American are often used interchangeably? Or is using the term American Indian instead of Native American the
equivalent of using Negro instead of black—offensive and anachronistic? Is the insistence on using Native American to the
exclusion of all other terms a sign of being doctrinaire?
Culture Wars
While these were once raging questions in the culture wars, they have now happily sorted themselves out. Over the years,
the people whom these words are meant to represent have made their preference clear: the majority of American
Indians/Native Americans believe it is acceptable to use either term, or both. Many have also suggested leaving such
general terms behind in favor of specific tribal designations. As the publisher and editor of The Navajo Times, the largest
Native American–owned weekly newspaper, puts it, "I . . . would rather be known as, 'Tom Arviso Jr., a member of the
Navajo tribe,' instead of 'Arviso, a Native American or American Indian.' This gives an authentic description of my
heritage, rather than lumping me into a whole race of people."
The continued use of “Indian” proves that attempted changes in terminology fail, AND there are
numerous appellations for indigenous people, favoring one term over the other is arbitrary.
Peaceful Coexistence
As The American Heritage Book of English Usage points out, "the acceptance of Native American has not brought about
the demise of Indian. Unlike Negro, which was quickly stigmatized once black became preferred, Indian never fell out of
favor with a large segment of the American population."
Now almost every style and usage guide describes these terms as synonyms that can be used interchangeably. In recent
decades, other terms have also come into use, including Amerindian, indigenous people, and Native, expanding the
vocabulary for referring to indigenous people of the United States rather than circumscribing it. Many people will no doubt
favor one appellation over another—and will have strong reasons for doing so—but such choices are (or should be) no
longer accompanied by a sense of righteousness that one term is superior to the other. This simply isn't true.
Native peoples express no particular preference for one term over another—the term is not as
important as the intention.
"We Will Call Ourselves Any Damn Thing We Choose"
No doubt the most significant reason that an inclusive attitude toward these terms of identity has developed is their
common usage among Native peoples. A 1995 Census Bureau Survey of preferences for racial and ethnic terminology
(there is no more recent survey) indicated that 49% of Native people preferred being called American Indian, 37%
preferred Native American, 3.6% preferred "some other term," and 5% had no preference. As The American Heritage Guide
to English Usage points out, "the issue has never been particularly divisive between Indians and non-Indians. While
generally welcoming the respectful tone of Native American, Indian writers have continued to use the older name at least as
often as the newer one."
The criticism that Indian is hopelessly tainted by the ignorant or romantic stereotypes of popular American culture can be
answered, at least in part, by pointing to the continuing use of this term among American Indians themselves. Indeed,
Indian authors and those sympathetic to Indian causes often prefer it for its unpretentious familiarity as well as its
emotional impact, as in this passage from the Kiowa writer N. Scott Momaday's memoir The Names (1976): 'It was about
this time that [my mother] began to see herself as an Indian. That dim native heritage became a fascination and a cause for
her.'
"Names and Labels: Social, Racital, and Ethnic Terms: Indian", The American Heritage® Book of English Usage. A
Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996.
As Christina Berry, a Cherokee writer and producer of the website All Things Cherokee, counsels:
In the end, the term you choose to use (as an Indian or non-Indian) is your own personal choice. Very few Indians that I
know care either way. The recommended method is to refer to a person by their tribe, if that information is known. The
reason is that the Native peoples of North America are incredibly diverse. It would be like referring both a Romanian and
an Irishman as European. . . . [W]henever possible an Indian would prefer to be called a Cherokee or a Lakota or whichever
tribe they belong to. This shows respect because not only are you sensitive to the fact that the terms Indian, American
Indian, and Native American are an over simplification of a diverse ethnicity, but you also show that you listened when they
told what tribe they belonged to.
When you don't know the specific tribe simply use the term which you are most comfortable using. The worst that can
happen is that someone might correct you and open the door for a thoughtful debate on the subject of political correctness
and its impact on ethnic identity. What matters in the long run is not which term is used but the intention with which it is
used.

When you can’t refer to a specific tribe, either term is acceptable—the label is not as important as the
context.
Berry, Cherokee Writer, No Date
(Christina, “What’s in a Name? Indians and Political Correctness”,
http://www.allthingscherokee.com/articles_culture_events_070101.html, Accessed 7/12/08)
In the end, the term you choose to use (as an Indian or non-Indian) is your own personal choice. Very few Indians that I
know care either way. The recommended method is to refer to a person by their tribe, if that information is known. The
reason is that the Native peoples of North America are incredibly diverse. It would be like referring both a Romanian and
an Irishman as European. It's true that they are both from Europe but their people have very different histories, cultures, and
languages. The same is true of Indians. The Cherokee are vastly different from the Lakota, the Dine, the Kiowa, and the
Cree, but they are all labeled Native American. So whenever possible an Indian would prefer to be called a Cherokee or a
Lakota or whichever tribe they belong to. This shows respect because not only are you sensitive to the fact that the terms
Indian, American Indian, and Native American are an over simplification of a diverse ethnicity, but you also show that you
listened when they told what tribe they belonged to.
When you don't know the specific tribe simply use the term which you are most comfortable using. The worst that can
happen is that someone might correct you and open the door for a thoughtful debate on the subject of political correctness
and its impact on ethnic identity. What matters in the long run is not which term is used but the intention with which it is
used. Terms like "redskin" and "injun" are obviously offensive because of the historical meaning behind them; however, the
term "Indian" is increasingly falling back into use. But when used in the wrong context any label can be offensive.
Their language criticisms are absurd—the only way to use non-European terms would be to refer to
several hundred correct tribal names.
Means, American Indian Movement Activist, Leader of the 71 day armed takeover of Wounded Knee,
1980
(Russell, “FOR AMERICA TO LIVE, EUROPE MUST DIE!” July, http://www.russellmeans.com/, Accessed: 7/12/08)
You notice I use the term American Indian rather than Native American or Native indigenous people or Amerindian when referring
to my people. There has been some controversy about such terms, and frankly, at this point. I find it absurd. Primarily it seems that
American Indian is being rejected as European in origin-which is true. But all the above terms are European in origin; the only
non-European way is to speak of Lakota-or, more precisely, of Oglala, Brule, etc.-and of the Dineh, the Miccousukee, and all the
rest of the several hundred correct tribal names.
AT: “Tribe” K
Tribe is a legal term in the U.S.—even if it is problematic in other contexts, it is necessary in this
instance, because it is how indigenous nations are statutorily designated.
Tolerance.org, No Date
(Essay adapted from “Talking About ‘Tribe’: Moving From Stereotypes to Analysis”, originally published by Africa Policy
Information Center in ’97. Principal author is Chris Lowe, an Africa Historian,
http://www.tolerance.org/teach/printar.jsp?p=0&ar=213&pi=ttm, Accessed 7/12/08)
Under U.S. law, "tribe" is a bureaucratic term. For a community of Native Americans to gain access to programs, and to
enforce rights due to them under treaties and laws, they must be recognized as a tribe. This is comparable to unincorporated
areas' applying for municipal status under state laws. Away from the law, Native Americans often prefer the words "nation"
or "people" over "tribe."
No Alternative: “Tribe” will continue to be used by historians, ethnologists, and Native Americans—it
can’t be eliminated from the lexicon.
Miller, Assistant Professor of History @ Southern Utah University, 2006
(Mark Edwin, Forgotten Tribes: Unrecognized Indians and the Federal Acknowledgement Process, pp. 10-11)
In spite of the hopelessly muddled issues involved, most scholarly definitions of the concept of an Indian tribe do include
common elements. There is a loose agreement on the criteria the BIA uses to recognize tribes as well – if not a consensus
on exactly how to measure and quantify them. Most concerned parties believe that groups claiming to be “tribes” must
have some qualities that distinguish them from other and that they use to distinguish themselves from outsiders. In other
words, there has to be a “thing” in being, in order to acknowledge it. Scholars of ethnicity generally hold that tribes are
groups with a territory, community, and political organization; many definitions also include common culture, language,
genealogy, and identity. In general, many in the anthropological profession believe the term connoted an ethnic group in
contrast to the central state that had some loosely defined political structure and group norms that controlled and integrated
group behavior. Therefore, despite problems with the acknowledgement process, ethnologists, historians, and lawyers
generally continue to find the term “tribe” useful and are loath to throw it out, while American Indians are giving it new life
and meaning. Because of its utility and widespread usage, it seems doubtful that the term “tribe” will be banished from the
lexicon of English in the near future.
AT: “Tribe” K (1/2)
Churchill’s critique of “tribe” employs selective interpretation of obscure dictionary definitions and
historical falsehood; it is a manipulative semantic game designed to undercut the real world self-
determination of Native American tribes.
Lavelle, Executive Director of the Center for the SPIRIT [Support and Protection of Indian Religious and
Indigenous Traditions], ‘96
(John, “Sorely Lacking in…Scholarly Integrity”, American Indian Quarterly, Winter, Vol. 20, Issue 1, p. 109,
http://www.pirateballerina.com/images/lavellereview.htm, Accessed 7/12/08)
In short, Churchill's ersatz version of the "Declaration of War" is a strategically manipulated and subtly distorted device,
which could be used to undermine rather than support Indian tribes in their efforts to safeguard their sacred traditions and
culture. Yet another noteworthy problem in Indians Are Us? is Churchill's harangue in "Naming Our Destiny" against
popular use of the word "tribe." "[T]o be addressed as 'tribal,'" Churchill insists, "is to be demeaned in a most
extraordinarily vicious way" (p. 295). The persuasiveness of Churchill's case against the word "tribe" is decisively
undercut, however, by Churchill's reliance on his contrived, indefensible position concerning the nonexistent "eugenics
code" of the 1887 General Allotment Act, as critiqued previously in this essay. And so, Churchill's argument that "the
preoccupation with 'blood lines' connoted by the term 'tribe'" (p. 296) is rooted in "a system of identifying Indians in
accordance with a formal eugenics code dubbed 'blood quantum' which is still in effect at the present time" (p. 333) is as
fallacious and unavailing as the tribal sovereignty-bashing conspiracy theory on which that argument entirely depends.
In a section of "Naming Our Destiny" entitled "'Tribes' versus 'Peoples,'" Churchill endeavors further to rationalize his
antipathy for the word "tribe" by invoking "the definitive Oxford English Dictionary," which in one obscure definition,
according to Churchill, defines "tribe" as a group in the classification of plants, animals, etc., used as superior and
sometimes inferior to a family; also, loosely, any group or series of animals. [p. 294] Churchill then excerpts definitions for
the word "people" from the Oxford dictionary and, curiously, from a 1949 edition of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,
to decree that the word "people" in all ways is preferable to the word "tribe," since "tribe" embodies an "expressly
animalistic emphasis . . . . . . . . . . . . It follows that when indigenous peoples are passed off as tribes . . . they are effectively
cast as being subhuman" (p. 298).
Of course, Churchill never explains why he so fervently insists on vesting in English dictionaries the ironclad authority to
dispose of an issue of self-naming that for Indian people is a matter exclusively for the tribes themselves to decide. Be that
as it may, it is instructive to examine a few of the wobbles in the eccentric spin of Churchill's treatment of language.
First, Churchill's disdain for the word "tribe," by his own avowed reasoning, should extend with equal force to the word
"family," since each of these terms may denote a general category in the classification of plants, animals, and other living
organisms, within the science of taxonomy. Likewise, since the word "community" may denote any interacting population
of life forms (human and/or nonhuman) in the language of scientific ecology, Churchill logically should be just as disgusted
by any reference to human beings per se as constituting a "community." Clearly, if a person actually were to be repulsed
and enraged whenever words like "family," "community" and "tribe" were used in ordinary conversation-and merely
because these terms, like most words, have multiple, divergent meanings-then such a person would be in need of
psychological treatment for what would amount to a debilitating disorder in interpersonal communication.
Second, Churchill summons forth his sundry dictionary definitions in a noticeably lopsided manner. For instance, Churchill
chooses not to divulge the fact that Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary lists a definition for the word "peoples" that
has as much "animalistic emphasis" as Churchill's comparably obscure definition for the word "tribe." This omission is
especially noteworthy because Churchill admits that he in fact consulted this very same dictionary-Webster's Ninth-in order
to "cross-reference the 'old' definitions obtained [in the 1949 Webster's] with those in newer iterations of the same
dictionary, to see whether there have been changes" (pp. 332-333). According to a definition in Webster's Ninth suppressed
by Churchill,
AT: “Tribe K” (2/2)

"peoples" may be defined as "lower animals usu. of a specified kind or situation... 'squirrels and chipmunks: the little furry
[peoples].'" In addition, Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language calls to mind yet another
amusing "nonhuman" meaning for the word "peoples." According to this particular Webster's (not concededly referenced by
Churchill), the word "peoples" may denote "supernatural beings that are thought of as similar to humans in many respects...
'kobolds, trolls, and such [peoples] are not to be trusted.'" Thus, it appears that Churchill's pedantic argument against the
word "tribe" rests not on any objective analysis of dictionary definitions at all, but rather on a highly manipulative process
of selectively disclosing those definitions that would appear consistent with Churchill's antitribal thesis, while carefully
concealing those definitions that would seem to contradict that thesis. So much for the manifest silliness of competing (and,
in Churchill's case, cheating) in a game of Trivial Pursuit with "definitive" dictionaries to ascertain by what name Indian
tribes will be permitted to identify themselves.
But beyond all the tedious game-playing and semantic trickery in "Naming Our Destiny," there remains unresolved a very
serious implied question: By what mechanism does an abstraction like "Indian self-determination" get transformed into real
selfempowerment for Indian people?
As demonstrated in this essay, Ward Churchill expends a great deal of effort in Indians Are Us? espousing the counter-
intuitive thesis that Indian tribes themselves are an obstacle in the struggle for Indian self-empowerment, and should be
aggressively disavowed and devalued, therefore, in all political discussions bearing on Indian self-determination. Of course,
the very fact that Churchill strives to "prove" his case against Indian tribes by falsifying the historical record, misstating the
views of fellow scholars, issuing distorted versions of public documents, and shrewdly manipulating language is enough to
dissuade any sensible reader from taking Churchill's anti-tribal propaganda seriously. Still, the goal of clarifying and
affirming the integral role of Indian tribes in the dynamic of Indian selfempowerment is extremely important and
challenging -- much more so than is the relatively easier task of dismissing Ward Churchill's obfuscation of this profound
topic.
Topicality – AT – Incentive
Status quo tax policy is a disincentive
''The federal renewable energy incentives, as designed, are problematic for tribes, in that they are both insufficient
and inappropriate as drivers of tribal development as presently configured,'' the group noted in a recent policy paper.
''The presently formulated federal incentives have actually worked as disincentives in the unique context of tribal
renewable energy development.''
[Note: “the group” = Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, which represents 10 tribes]
Topicality – AT – Substantial Increase – No Native American

Energy Tax Credit Now
Plan is a massive increase in incentives - Current law is a disincentive, rendering Native American Tribes
ineligible
As growing numbers of tribes pursue wind energy projects, tribal energy advocates are cautiously hoping that new
developments in Congress could eventually lead to tax credits and incentives to aid tribal economies.
''We're not really holding our breath for Congress to step in with funding,'' said Bruce Renville, a wind energy
planner with the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe. ''But certainly, grants or other incentives would be helpful.''
In recent weeks, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., co-sponsored the bipartisan Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008, which
would extend the renewable energy production tax credit for one year. The current production tax credit incentive of 2 cents
per kilowatt-hour is scheduled to expire in December.
Thune's proposed production tax credit would only benefit entities that already have profits from wind energy
production, but the legislation also includes bond funding that tribes could apply for to help establish wind energy
projects.
Thune and other wind energy proponents in the Senate say they want to extend the production tax credit so that wind
energy developers have certainty when it comes to future projects.
Whether their mission includes certainty for tribal entities remains to be seen.
Few, if any, tribes have been able to take advantage of the production tax credits offered to date because many tribes
that have been able to create wind energy projects have relied on non-Native developers to help them get projects off
the ground.
Under current law, tribes are not entitled to the tax credits provided to non-Native developers for renewable energy
production because tribes have a tax-exempt status.
Tribal energy experts say it's important for tribes to be reaching out to Congress regarding the tax-exempt issue, since it
likely discourages non-Native developers from wanting to work with tribes.
Federal tax credit inapplicable to tribes now

The PTC is inapplicable, however, as an incentive to tribally-owned projects because Tribes, as governments, have
no federal tax liability against which to use the credits, and outside investors seeking to joint venture with a Tribe
are penalized with the loss of the PTC to the extent of tribal ownership in the partnership.

Native Americans Aff - Brovero

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Native Americans Aff - Brovero

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Page 1 of 184

Native Americans Affirmative – GDI08

Harm – Coal Mining – Environmental Racism....................................................................................................................................58

Renewables Good – Indigenous Modeling – Global Environment/Culture......................................................................................114

AT: Biopolitics/Development K.........................................................................................................................................................170

1AC – Contention 1 – Inherency

1AC – Contention 2 – Harms

1AC – Scenario ___ – Environment

Preserving groundwater is key to sustaining life

1AC – Scenario ___ – Health

1AC – Scenario ___ –Genocide

1AC – Contention 3 - Solvency (1/7)

Q. Why is wind important to the Tribes of the Great Plains?

[CARD CONTINUES – NO OMISSIONS]

1AC – Contention 3 - Solvency (2/7)

[CARD CONTINUED – NO OMISSIONS]

1AC – Contention 3 - Solvency (3/7)

1AC – Contention 3 - Solvency (4/7)

1AC – Contention 3 - Solvency (5/7)

1AC – Contention 3 - Solvency (6/7)

[CARD CONTINUES – NO OMISSIONS]

1AC – Contention 3 - Solvency (7/7)

[CARD CONTINUED – NO OMISSIONS]

1AC – Contention 4 – Impact Calculus (1/3)

1AC – Contention 4 – Impact Calculus (2/3)

1AC – Contention 4 – Impact Calculus (3/3)

Inherency – Status Quo Policy Is a Disincentive

Inherency – No Federal Incentives Now

Tribes are not eligible for any federal incentives now

Congressional action key - federal incentives necessary

Inherency – AT – Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act Solves

Inherency – AT – Wind Energy Development Act Solves

Harm – AT – Native Americans Want Mining/Toxic Industries

Harm – AT – Native Americans Want Mining

Harm – Status Quo Policy Hampers Wind Investment

Harm – Status Quo Policy Hampers Renewables Investment

[Note: “company” = Native Green Energy]

Lack of incentives thwarts Native American renewable energy development

[Note: PTC = Production Tax Credit]

Harm – Dislocation – Extinction

Harm – Environment Key to Native American Survival

Harm – Native American Cultures

Harm – Native American Cultures

Impact – Environmental Racism

Environmental racism affects all aspects of Native American tribal life

Impact – Trust Doctrine Good – Environmental Protection

Harm – Policy Making Exclusion

Harm – Impact Calculus – SQ Calculus = Exploitation

Impact Calculus – Racism Impacts

REJECTING RACISM IS A MORAL IMPERATIVE WHICH OUTWEIGHS ALL OTHER

Impact Calculus – Racism Impacts

NO CONCESSIONS-- WE CANNOT ACCEPT ANY DEGREE OF RACISM, IT MAKES

Impact Calculus – Racism Outweighs Nuclear War

Impact Calculus – Absolutism Good/Utilitarianism Bad

Impact Calculus – Absolutism Good/Utilitarianism Bad

Impact Calculus – AT: Absolutism Bad

Harm – Status Quo Electricity Generation – Pollution

Harm – Global Warming

Harm – Mining – Human Health

Harm – Mining – Environmental Racism

Harm – Mining – AT – Regulations Solve

Harm – Toxic Waste - Genocide

Impact – Environmental Genocide

Harm – Pollution – Disease