Natives Affirmative

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff
Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange
***NATIVES AFF***
***NATIVES AFF***.................................................................................................................................... ......................1
....................................................................................................................................................................
1
.
_______________________________________.......................................................................................................... ........4
***1AC***........................................................................................................................................................ ...................4
NATIVES 1AC.................................................................................................................................................................. ....5
NATIVES 1AC................................................................................................................................................................. ....6
NATIVES 1AC.................................................................................................................................................................. ....7
NATIVES 1AC.................................................................................................................................................................. ....8
NATIVES 1AC.................................................................................................................................................................. ....9
NATIVES 1AC............................................................................................................................................................... .....10
NATIVES 1AC............................................................................................................................................................... .....12
NATIVES 1AC............................................................................................................................................................... .....13
NATIVES 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................. .....14
NATIVES 1AC............................................................................................................................................................... .....15
NATIVES 1AC............................................................................................................................................................... .....17
NATIVES 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................. .....18
NATIVES 1 AC...................................................................................................................................................... ............19
................................................................................................................................................................ ...........................21
NATIVES 1 AC........................................................................................................................................................ ...........22
NATIVES 1 AC........................................................................................................................................................ ...........23
______________________________________________.................................................................................. ................25
***CASE***.................................................................................................................................................................... ...25
INHERENCY............................................................................................................................................................... .......26
INHERENCY............................................................................................................................................................... .......27
INDIANS WANT................................................................................................................................................. ...............28
INDIANS WANT—COMPANIES............................................................................................................................... .......29
INDIANS->WIND ENERGY.......................................................................................................................... ...................30
ECON->DETERMINATION............................................................................................................................ ..................31
PTC=SOVEREIGNTY....................................................................................................................................................... .32
ECON SOLVES EXTINCTION......................................................................................................................................... .33
COLONIZATION=EXTINCTION........................................................................................................... ..........................34
ASSIMILATION=EXTINCTION........................................................................................................................... ............35
EXT—GENOCIDE..................................................................................................................................................... ........36
 INDIANS=DIE........................................................................................................................................... ....................37
 INDIANS=DIE........................................................................................................................................... ....................38
 INDIANS=DIE........................................................................................................................................... ....................39
ASSIMILATION KILLS SELF DETERMINATION....................................................................................................... ...40
EXT—GENOCIDE..................................................................................................................................................... ........41
ENVIRO RACISM............................................................................................................................................................ ..43
PTIX CHANGE KEY.................................................................................................................................. .......................44
PTC BEST....................................................................................................................................................................... ....45
SOLVENCY—GENOCIDE...................................................................................................................................... ..........46
SOLVENCY—DETERMINATION.......................................................................................................................... ..........48
SOLVENCY—K SHIT............................................................................................................................... ........................52
SOLVENCY—K SHIT............................................................................................................................... ........................53
SOLVENCY-K SHIT................................................................................................................................ ..........................54
SOLVENCY-RENEWABLES............................................................................................................................... ..............55
SOLVENCY—JOB CREATION........................................................................................................................................ .56
1
SOLVENCY—ECON..................................................................................................................................... ....................60
SOLVENCY-NEW EPISTEMOLOGY................................................................................................................. ..............61
SOLVENCY-K SHIT/EPISTEMOLOGY....................................................................................................... ....................62
DISCOURSE GOOD.................................................................................................................................... ......................64
SOLVENCY-REORIENTING TECH....................................................................................................... ..........................65
TRIBAL ENERGY GOOD.......................................................................................................................... .......................66
RENEWABLES KEY............................................................................................................................... ..........................67
INCENTIVES KEY....................................................................................................................................... .....................68
CULTURE KEY.............................................................................................................................................................. ....69
WIND KEY.................................................................................................................................................................... .....70
A2 BIRDS........................................................................................................................................................... ................71
A2 TRIBE FUNDING SOLVES.................................................................................................................... .....................72
PROTECTION OF INDIGENOUS CULTURE ALL CULTURE................................................................. ..................73
A2 INT’L PROTECTION SOLVES............................................................................................................................... .....74
AT: NATIVES HAVE FUCKED UP THE ENVIRONMENT........................................................................... ..................75
A2 FED BAD......................................................................................................................................................... .............76
A2 TRUST RESPONSIBILITY T/................................................................................................................................. .....77
A2 DEPENDENCE.................................................................................................................................................. ...........78
A2 HOMOGENIZE................................................................................................................................. ...........................79
AT: SOME TRIBES EXCLUDED................................................................................................................. .....................80
A2 INDIAN GOV’TS FAIL..................................................................................................................................... ...........81
A2 ECON=/=INDIAN CULTURE............................................................................................................................... .......82
A2 TECH=/=INDIAN CULTURE................................................................................................................. .....................83
RENEWABLES SPILL OVER............................................................................................................... ............................84
_______________________________________________-...................................................................................... .........85
***2AC***..................................................................................................................................................... ....................85
A2 T—INCENTIVE................................................................................................................................ ...........................86
A2 T—IN US................................................................................................................................................. .....................87
PLAN POP............................................................................................................................................................ ..............88
AGENDA—PLAN POP—CLINTON....................................................................................................... .........................89
A2 ALT $$ SOLVES..................................................................................................................................... ......................90
A2 FLIP MODEL........................................................................................................................................................ ........91
A2 MINNESOTA FLIP......................................................................................................................................... ..............92
A2 LANDOWNERS........................................................................................................................................ ...................93
A2 BONDS................................................................................................................................................. ........................94
A2 CREBS...................................................................................................................................................... ....................95
A2 CERT................................................................................................................................................................... ..........96
A2 SPENDING............................................................................................................................................... ....................97
A2 T/O DA................................................................................................................................................................... .......98
FED KEY............................................................................................................................................................... .............99
FED KEY............................................................................................................................................................ ..............100
FED KEY............................................................................................................................................................ ..............101
FED KEY............................................................................................................................................................ ..............102
FED KEY............................................................................................................................................................ ..............103
FED KEY............................................................................................................................................................ ..............104
FED KEY............................................................................................................................................................ ..............105
STATES BAD................................................................................................................................................................... .106
A2 LOPEZ CP.............................................................................................................................................................. .....107
A2 LOPEZ CP.............................................................................................................................................................. .....108
A2 LOPEZ CP.............................................................................................................................................................. .....109
A2 COURTS CP........................................................................................................................................................ ........110
2
A2 EFFICIENCY CP..................................................................................................................................................... ....111
A2 GIVE BACK THE LAND.......................................................................................................................... .................112
A2 GIVE BACK THE LAND.......................................................................................................................... .................113
A2 RENEWABLES PIC............................................................................................................................................ ........114
A2 BUSINESSES PIC.................................................................................................................................................... ...115
AT: K OF THE TERM “INDIGENOUS.”......................................................................................................... ................116
AT: VOTING RIGHTS CP.................................................................................................................................. ..............117
AT: RIGHTS CP................................................................................................................................................... .............118
ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMING OF NATIVE AMERICAN POLICIES GOOD. .......................................................... .119
ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMING OF NATIVE AMERICAN POLICIES GOOD. ................................. .........................120
A2 COOPTATION K........................................................................................................................................................ .122
A2 FRONTIER K......................................................................................................................................................... .....123
AFF KEY/FRAMEWORK.............................................................................................................................................. ..124
HEG BAD....................................................................................................................................................... ..................125
A2 PROLIF..................................................................................................................................................... ..................126
CASE O/W DA............................................................................................................................................. ....................127
A2 CP..................................................................................................................................................................... ...........128
A2 XO CP..................................................................................................................................................... ....................129
AT: BLOOD QUANTAMS BAD...................................................................................................................... ................130
AT: CP TO USE CULTURAL TIES INSTEAD OF BLOOD QUANTAMS............................................................ .........131
AT: REPARATIONS CP............................................................................................................................................. .......132
___________________________________________........................................................................................ ..............133
***NEG SHIZZ***........................................................................................................................................................... 133
NEG—STATES CP SOLVENCY................................................................................................................................... ...134
NEG—EFFICIENCY 1NC SOLVENCY—ECON.................................................................................... .......................135
NEG—EFFICIENCY SOLVENCY—ECON............................................................................................................. .......136
NEG—EFFICIENCY SOLVENCY—ECON............................................................................................................. .......137
NEG—EFFICIENCY SOLVENCY—CULTURE........................................................................................................ .....138
NEG—LAND CP SOLVES HEG (BAD).......................................................................................................................... 139
NEG—STATE FAILS.............................................................................................................................. .........................140
NEG—FED FAILS................................................................................................................................ ...........................141
NEG—NO SOLVENCY............................................................................................................................... ....................142
NEG—TRUST T/........................................................................................................................................................ ......143
NEG—NO SOLVENCY............................................................................................................................... ....................144
NEG—KNOWING T/............................................................................................................................................. ..........145
NEG—COURT CP S.................................................................................................................................................... .....146
NEG—STATES CP/FEDERALSM LINK.................................................................................................... ....................147
NEG—NO SOLVENCY............................................................................................................................... ....................148
NEG—FED KILLS............................................................................................................................................... ............149
NEG-CORPORATIONS WILL FUCK UP PLAN...................................................................................... ......................150
NEG—WIND POWER BAD.................................................................................................................................... ........151
NEG—WIND POWER BAD.................................................................................................................................... ........152
3
_______________________________________
***1AC***
4
NATIVES 1AC
Contention One is Economic Self determination.
Native Americans have the potential to provide massive quantities of wind power, but current tax policy prevents
access to wind tax grants, blocking economic self determination.
American Indian Law Review 07, 32 Am. Indian L. Rev. 267, “Special Feature: The Tax Man Cometh Not: How The
Non-Transferability Of Tax Credits Harms Indian Tribes” First place winner, 2006-07 American Indian Law Review
Writing Competition, Lexis [ev]
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy," has become a shibboleth of any economic reading of U.S. constitutional
law. Yet behind Justice Marshall's oft-repeated words lies an important insight into the balance of power between
1
sovereign entities. That insight is essentially this: the ability of an entity to maintain its sovereignty depends on economic
power, and that economic power can be taken away by taxation. With the power to tax also comes the power to push, to
encourage, to foster and to favor. If taxation can sap economic power, tax policy can also confer vast economic rents on
certain favored groups. However, America's Indian tribes are a group not favored by federal tax policy. This paper is
2
concerned with elements of U.S. tax policy that do [*269] unrecognized harm to Indian tribes. In the standard analysis,
Indian tribes benefit from tax-free status - it is a bright line rule of U.S. tax policy that tribes and their subsidiary
corporations do not pay federal income taxes. However, the guarantee of tax-free status for Indian tribes also guarantees
the tribes cannot use tax credits granted by the federal government. 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, the low-
3
income housing development industry , and the wind power industry, among others. In some of these fields, tribes
4 5
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. Renewable energy development is an issue with broad support in the
6
United States and has the potential to bring significant economic benefits to the tribes.
5
NATIVES 1AC
Native tribes want to profit from the development of alternative energy—federal action is key to spur this
development
Kevin Shaw and Richard Deutsche, Mr. Shaw is a partner at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston
and Los Angeles, Mr. Deutsch is an associate at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in Houston, 2005,
http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/article.asp?id=2452&nid=6]
Indian tribes today, however, have gained a whole new perspective on energy development. Their motivation: Profits. Major policy
shifts by the federal government changed tribes’ opinions about, and opportunities for, energy production. The deregulation of the
natural gas supply and the more recent turmoil in the reconfiguring of the electricity sector were among the initial factors that have
opened the door for tribes to re-think their position on developing energy resources. But, as explained below, the keys to the growth
and investment in renewable energy on Indian lands have been the federal government’s passage of enactments supporting renewable
energy development on reservations and its hands-off approach to energy programs on reservations which allows the shift of important
regulatory powers to tribal governments. Perhaps the best example of the potential benefits of this shift in attitude is the impressive
story of the Southern Utes in southwestern Colorado. The tribe sits on very large natural gas reserves and sought to obtain more direct
control of its resources from the larger outside companies who previously developed tribal lands for energy extraction. Eventually,
after years of political struggles within the tribe and also with oil and gas producers, the Southern Utes gained the financing to control
its own energy operation and eventually formed a conglomerate with $1.45 billion in assets. The Southern Ute success story could be
the model for similar results with wind power.
Native Lands are the “Saudi Arabia” of renewables—untapped resources create great potential for wind
projects
The federal government recognizes the sovereignty of over 500 different tribes, most of which have “established land holdings,
independent tribal governments, and a growing demand for more energy to fuel emerging and rapidly expanding economies.” With
tribal memberships rising at an annual rate of 3%, American Indian tribes and Native Alaskan groups are the fastest growing
demographic group in the country (outside of immigrant populations). The term “Indian lands” is used to denote federally recognized
Indian reservations. “Indian Country”, on the other hand, encompasses all land within the boundaries of any Indian reservation of any
federally recognized tribe plus all “dependent Indian communities.” Reservations are found in 33 states and cover approximately 3
percent of the land area in the contiguous 48 states. The size of Indian reservations in the U.S. ranges from a few acres to 24 that are
larger than Rhode Island. They are located anywhere from remote rural areas to just outside metropolitan areas. The economies of
many of these reservations are fueled by revenue from their local energy resources, and may increasingly include wind power.
Approximately 2 million acres of Indian land have some kind of energy exploration, but another 15 million acres of potential energy
resources remain untapped. Indian lands hold ten percent of the nation’s onshore gas reserves and a third of the coal in the West. With
regard to wind power, Indian lands hold great potential for wind projects. Tribes in the southwest and on the northern plains have
tremendous wind power resources Opportunities are so abundant on reservations in New Mexico and North Dakota that, at one time or
another, they have been referred to as “the Saudi Arabia of renewables” and “the Saudi Arabia of wind energy,” respectively. The top
ten states for wind energy potential also happen to be states containing large blocks of Indian lands. They include North Dakota,
Kansas, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Minnesota and Iowa.
6
NATIVES 1AC
Giving Natives economic power is the vital to eliminate their dependence on the U.S. government and create self
determination
Robert B. Porter Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Tribal Law and Government Center, University of
Kansas; Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the Sac & Fox Nation of Kansas and Missouri; Member (Heron Clan) and
former Attorney General of the Seneca Nation of Indians (1991-1995), 1998, University of Michigan Journal of Law
Reform, 31 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 899, “A Proposal To The Hanodaganyas To Decolonize Federal Indian Control Law”
Lexis [ev]
It is unlikely that any but the handful of independently wealthy Indian nations would be able to afford to displace federal
and state authority immediately. Indeed, it may be imprudent to eliminate all restrictive federal legislation, case law, and
executive orders. The bigger problem, however, is that in many instances, the anticipated trauma of assuming
governmental responsibility over matters that may not have been handled in generations would be so great that some
Indian nations would likely resist the proposed change, either because [*1001] they could not administratively or
financially assume such new responsibility, or because they may have grown accustomed to being dependent upon the
federal or state governments. This dependence is a critical defect in any modern effort to decolonize federal Indian control
law. Given the changes forced upon Indian people during the last 200 years, there has been a commensurate change in the
native conception of sovereignty. 591 While many Indian nations today may embrace a firm and clear conception of their
own sovereignty, others may not. 592 For the latter, sovereignty may not even have any meaning in the face of
overwhelming pressures to satisfy individual - rather than tribal - needs and desires. Unfortunately, some Indian nations
may be such in name only. In short, colonization has transformed tribal conceptions of self-government so dramatically
that some Indian nations may simply have no idea what it means to assume greater authority over their own affairs. If the
trust responsibility is to have any modern utility, it should be used to force the Indian nations to face up to their self-
governing capabilities and weaknesses. That this act itself might violate tribal sovereignty is not a valid reason for not
doing it. After all, the federal government takes unilateral actions to control Indian lives every day. Because the United
States is unilaterally responsible for destroying tribal self-government and establishing a widespread psychology of
dependence, 593 it should take similarly bold action to revitalize it. While it may seem painful, and maybe even harsh, to
implement, it pales in comparison to what has previously been done to destroy our nations by confiscating our land base
594 and extinguishing our unique way of life. 595
7
NATIVES 1AC
Only tradeable tax credits fulfill the US’s moral obligation to Native tribes and allow for self-determination.
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
23
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
24
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." 25 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
26
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. [*273] II. Tax Credits and the Wind Industry 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. A. Federal Tax Credits for Wind Power Two programs are the primary drivers of wind
development in the U.S. today: (1) State Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and; (2) Federal tax credits, especially the
Production Tax Credit. Two types of federal tax credits come into play: the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and MACRS. 27
These tax credits, especially the PTC, make or break a wind project. The PTC gives owners of wind farms a 1.9 tax credit
for each kilowatt-hour (kWh) the wind farm generates. The current building boom in wind generation is evidence of the
28
PTC's importance - the boom exists now precisely because the current authorization of the PTC expires on Dec. 31, 2008,
and developers are racing to get projects in the ground before that deadline. The PTC is more valuable than the 1.9 /kWh
29
figure would indicate because it effectively supplements earnings after taxes. To make up 1.9 after taxes, the project
owner would have to earn about 2.6 before taxes, making the PTC worth 2.6 in additional earnings. Note that this is 2.6 in
earnings, not revenue, and a corporation with 20% profit margins would have to take in 13 in revenues to earn this
amount. Companies invest in projects only if they expect a return at least equal to the next best alternative, and the PTC
30
has made wind energy an extremely attractive investment.
8
NATIVES 1AC
The federal government must take action to redress historical wrongdoings
Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado
at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 70-1 [ev]
In this changing context, the federal government has once again begun to engage in "damage control," allowing a calculated range of
concessions in order to bolster .4 what it seeks to project as its image abroad. Notably, in 1974, the U.S. Supreme 1 Court announced
for the first time that American Indians have a right to pursue the actual recovery of stolen land through the federal judiciary.5°
Although resort to the courts of the colonizer is hardly an ideal solution to the issues raised by indigenous nations, it does place
another tool in the inventory of means by which we can now pur sue our rights. It has, moreover, resulted in measurable gains for some
of us over the past quarter-century. Probably the best example of this is the suit, first entered in 1972 under the auspices of a
sponsoring organization, of the basically landless Passamaquoddy and Penobscot Nations in present-day Maine to some twelve
million acres acknowledged as being theirs in a series of letters dating from the 1790s and signed by George Washington." Since it
was demonstrated that no ratified treaty existed by which the Indians had ceded their land, U.S. District Judge Edward T. Gignoux
ordered a settlement acceptable to the majority of the native people involved.52 This resulted in the recovery, in 1980, of some
300,000 acres of land, and payment of $27 million in compensatory. damages by the federal government.53 In a similarly argued case,
the Narragansetts of Rhode Island—not previously recognized by the government as still existing—were in 1978 able to win not only
recognition of themselves, but to recover 1,800 acres of the remaining 3,200 stripped from them in 1880 by unilateral action of the
state." In another instance, the Mashantucket Pequot people of Connecticut filed suit in 1976 to recover 800 of the 2,000 acres
comprising their original reservation, created by the Connecticut Colony in 1686 but reduced to 184 acres by the State of Connecticut
after the American War of Independence.55 Pursuant to a settlement agreement arrived at with the state in 1982, Congress passed an
act providing funds to acquire the desired acreage. It was promptly vetoed by Ronald Reagan on April 11, 1983.56 After the Senate
Select Committee on Indian Affairs convened hearings on the matter, however, Reagan agreed to a slight revision of the statute,
affixing his signature on October 18 the same year.57
9
NATIVES 1AC
Contention two is ongoing genocide.
Native Americans are living in extreme poverty-this has made reservations the dumping ground of choice
for our toxic industrial byproducts. Nuclear waste systemically eradicates Native American populations
so that we can sustain our consumption patterns.
Daniel Brook, Finalist in the Livingston Competition for Young Journalists, Winner of Rolling Stones Competition for Young
Journalists, Contributor to Harper’s and the Boston Glove, January, ‘98
(Environmental Genocide: Native Americans and Toxic Waste, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 57, No. 1)
GENOCIDE AGAINST NATIVE AMERICANS continues in modern times with modern techniques. In the past, buffalo were
slaughtered or corn crops were burned, thereby threatening local native populations; now the Earth itself is being strangled, thereby
threatening all life. The government and large corporations have created toxic, lethal threats to human health. Yet, 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 for Indians, these disadvantages are multiplied by dependence on food
supplies closely tied to the land and in which [toxic] materials . .. have been shown to accumulate" (ibid.). This essay will discuss the
genocide of Native Americans through environmental spoliation and native resistance to it. Although this type of genocide is not
(usually) the result of a systematic plan with malicious intent to exterminate Native Americans, it is the consequence of activities that
are often carried out on and near the reservations with reckless disregard for the lives of Native Americans.1 One very significant toxic
threat to Native Americans comes from governmental and commercial hazardous waste sitings. Because of the severe poverty and
extraordinary vulnerability of Native American tribes, their lands have been targeted by the U.S. government and the large
corporations as permanent areas for much of the poisonous industrial by-products of the dominant society. "Hoping to take
advantage of the devastating chronic unemployment, pervasive poverty and sovereign status of Indian Nations", according to Bradley
Angel, writing for the international environmental organization Green- peace, "the waste disposal industry and the U.S. government
have embarked on an all-out effort to site incinerators, landfills, nuclear waste storage facilities and similar polluting industries on
Tribal land" (Angel 1991, 1). In fact, so enthusiastic is the United States government to dump its most dangerous waste from "the
nation's 110 commercial nuclear power plants" (ibid., 16) on the nation's "565 federally recognized tribes" (Aug 1993, 9) that it "has
solicited every Indian Tribe, offering millions of dollars if the tribe would host a nuclear waste facility" (Angel 1991, 15; emphasis
added). Given the fact that Native Americans tend to be so materially poor, the money offered by the government or the corporations
for this "toxic trade" is often more akin to bribery or blackmail than to payment for services rendered.2 In this way, the Mescalero
Apache tribe in 1991, for example, became the first tribe (or state) to file an application for a U.S. Energy Department grant "to study
the feasibility of building a temporary [sic] storage facility for 15,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel" (Ak- wesasne
Notes 1992, 11). Other Indian tribes, including the Sac, Fox, Yakima, Choctaw, Lower Brule Sioux, Eastern Shawnee, Ponca, Caddo,
and the Skull Valley Band of Goshute, have since applied for the $100,000 exploratory grants as well (Angel 1991, 16-17). Indeed,
since so many reservations are without major sources of outside revenue, it is not surprising that some tribes have considered proposals to
host toxic waste repositories on their reservations. Native Americans, like all other victimized ethnic groups, are not passive populations in
the face of destruction from imperialism and paternalism. Rather, they are active agents in the making of their own history. Nearly a century
and a half ago, the radical philosopher and political economist Karl Marx realized that people "make their own history, but they do not make
it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and
transmitted from the past" (Marx 1978, 595). Therefore, tribal governments considering or planning waste facilities", asserts Margaret Crow
of California Indian Legal Services, "do so for a number of reasons" (Crow 1994, 598). First, lacking exploitable subterranean natural
resources, some tribal governments have sought to employ the land itself as a resource in an attempt to fetch a financial return. Second, since
many reservations are rural and remote, other lucrative business opportunities are rarely, if ever, available to them. Third, some reservations
are sparsely populated and therefore have surplus land for business activities. And fourth, by establishing waste facilities some tribes would
be able to resolve their reservations' own waste disposal problems while simultaneously raising much-needed revenue. As a result, "[a]
small number of tribes across the country are actively pursuing commercial hazardous and solid waste facilities"; however, "[t]he risk
and benefit analysis performed by most tribes has led to decisions not to engage in commercial waste management" (ibid.). Indeed,
Crow reports that by "the end of 1992, there were no commercial waste facilities operating on any Indian reservations" (ibid.),
although the example of the Campo Band of Mission Indians provides an interesting and illuminating exception to the trend. The
Campo Band undertook a "proactive approach to siting a commercial solid waste landfill and recycling facility near San Diego,
California. The Band informed and educated the native community, developed an environmental regulatory infrastructure, solicited
companies, required that the applicant company pay for the Band's financial advisors, lawyers, and solid waste industry consultants,
and ultimately negotiated a favorable contract" (Haner 1994, 106). Even these extraordinary measures, however, are not enough to
protect the tribal land and indigenous people from toxic exposure. Unfortunately, it is a sad but true fact that "virtually every landfill
leaks, and every incinerator emits hundreds of toxic chemicals into the air, land and water" (Angel 1991, 3). The U.S. Environmental
10
Protection Agency concedes that even if the . . . protective systems work according to plan, the landfills will eventually leak poisons
into the environment" (ibid.).
11
NATIVES 1AC
[NO TEXT DELETED]
Therefore, even if these toxic waste sites are safe for the present generation-a rather dubious proposition at best-they will pose an
increasingly greater health and safety risk for all future generations. Native people (and others) will eventually pay the costs of these
toxic pollutants with their lives, "costs to which [corporate] executives are conveniently immune" (Parker 1983, 59). In this way,
private corporations are able to externalize their costs onto the commons, thereby subsidizing their earnings at the expense of health,
safety, and the environment. Sadly, this may not be the worst environmental hazard on tribal lands. Kevin Grover and Jana Walker try
"[t]o set the record straight" by claiming that "the bigger problem is not that the waste industry is beating a path to the tribal door
[although it is of course doing so]. Rather, it is the unauthorized and illegal dumping occurring on reservations. For most Indian
communities the problem of open dumping on tribal lands is of much greater concern than the remote prospect that a commercial
waste disposal facility may be sited on a reservation" (Haner 1994, 107).3 There are two major categories of people who illegally
dump waste on tribal land. They have been called "midnight dumpers" and "native entrepreneurs." Midnight dumpers are corporations
and people who secretly dump their wastes on reservations without the permission of tribal governments. Native entrepreneurs are
tribal members who contaminate tribal land, without tribal permission, for private profit or personal convenience. Both midnight
dumpers and native entrepreneurs threaten Native American tribes in two significant ways: tribal health and safety, and tribal
sovereignty.
12
NATIVES 1AC
Poverty on Native American reservations is equivalent to an ongoing genocide.
Ward Churchill, American Writer and Political Activist, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder,
Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 112-3 [ev]
All of this is, unfortunately, on paper. The practical reality is that American Indians, far from being well off, are today the most
impoverished sector of the U.S. population.8 We experience by far the lowest average annual and lifetime incomes of any group. The
poorest locality in the United States for 23 of the past 25 years has been Shannon County, on the Pine Ridge Sioux Reservation in
South Dakota, where a recent study found 88 percent of the available housing to be substandard, much of it to the point of virtual
uninhabitability. The annual per capita income in Shannon County was barely over $2,000 in 1995, while unemployment hovered in
the 90th percentile.9 Bad as conditions are on Pine Ridge, they are only marginally worse than those on the adjoining Rosebud Sioux
Reservation and a host of others. In many ways, health data convey the costs and consequences of such deep and chronic poverty far
better than their financial counterparts. These begin with the facts that, overall, American Indians suffer far and away the highest rates
of malnutrition, death from exposure, and infant mortality (14.5 times the national average on some reservations).I° The Indian health
level is the lowest and the disease rate the highest of all major population groups in the United States. The incidence of tuberculosis is
over 400 percent the national average. Similar statistics show the incidence of strep infections is 1,000 percent, meningitis is 2,000
percent higher, and dysentery is 10,000 percent higher. Death rates from disease are shocking when Indian and non-Indian populations
are compared. Influenza and pneumonia are 300 percent greater killers among Indians. Diseases such as hepatitis are at epidemic
proportions, with an 800 percent higher chance of death. Diabetes is almost a plague [6.8 times the general population rate]." It should
come as no surprise, given the ubiquitousness of such circumstances, that alcoholism and other addictions take an inordinate toll.
Although fewer Indians drink than do nonindians, the rate of alcohol-related accidental deaths among native people is ten times that of
the general population, while the rate of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) among the newborn is 33 times greater.' The suicide rate
among Indians is ten times the national norm, while, among native youth, it is 10,000 percent higher than among our nonindian
counterparts.I3 All told, the current life expectancy of a reservation-based American Indian male is less than fifty years in a society
where the average man lives 71.8 years. Reservation- based Indian women live approximately three years longer than males, but
general population women enjoy an average life expectancy seven years longer than nonindian men.14 Hence, every time an
American Indian dies on a reservation—or, conversely, every time a child is born—it can be argued that about one-third of a lifetime
is lost. This thirtieth percentile attrition of the native population has prevailed throughout the twentieth century; a situation
clearly smacking of genocide.15 This last is, of course, a policy-driven phenomenon, not something inadvertent or merely
"unfortunate." Here, the BIA's exercise of trust authority over native assets comes into play. While it has orchestrated the
increasingly intensive "development" of reservation lands since 1945, a matter which might logically have been expected to alleviate
at least the worst of the symptomologies sketched above, the Bureau's role in setting the rates at which land was/is leased and royalties
for extracted minerals were/are paid by major corporations has precluded any such result.I6 Instances in which the BIA has opted to
rent out the more productive areas on reservations to nonindian ranchers or agribusiness interests for as little as $1 per acre per year,
and for as long as 99 years, are legion and notorious.'? As to mineral royalties, the Bureau has consistently structured contracts "in
behalf of" Indians which require payment of as little as ten percent of market rates while releasing participating corporations from
such normal overhead expenses as the maintenance of minimum standards for worker/community safety and environmental
safeguards. In fact, most such arrangements have not even provided for a semblance of postoperational clean up of mining and
processing sites.I8
13
NATIVES 1AC
Allowing genocide to continue makes all their impacts and extinction inevitable.
Kenneth J Campbell, Professor of Political Science & International Relations at the University of Delaware, '1
(Genocide and the Global Village, p. 15-6)
Regardless of where or on how small a scale it begins, the crime of genocide is the complete ideological repudiation of, and a direct
murderous assault upon. the prevailing liberal international order. Genocide is fundamentally incompatible with, and destructive of, an
open, tolerant. democratic, free market international order. As genocide scholar Herbert Hirsch has explained. The unwillingness of
the world community to take action to end genocide and political massacres is not only immoral but also impractical … [W]ithout
some semblance of stability, commerce, travel, and the international and intranational interchange of goods and information are
subjected to severe disruptions.3 Where genocide is permitted to proliferate, the liberal international order cannot long survive.
No group will be safe: every group will wonder when they will be next. Left unchecked, genocide threat-ens to destroy whatever
security, democracy, and prosperity exists in the present international system. As Roger Smith notes : Even the most powerful
nations - those armed with nuclear weapons may end up in struggles that will lead (accidentally, intentionally. insanely) to the ultimate
genocide in which they destroy not only each other. but mankind itself, sewing the fate of the earth forever with a final genocidal
effort.4 In this sense, genocide is a grave threat to the very fabric of the international system and must be stopped, even at some risk to
lives and treasure.
14
NATIVES 1AC
Alternative energy offers a way out of the devils choice of mining or poverty-alternative energy
development gives tribes a unique opportunity to generate income in a way that is compatible with self-
determination, sovereignty, and traditional Native American values.
Peter Asmus, Senior Associate at the AHC Group (consulting firm specializing in environmental strategy), Winter, ‘98
(Landscapes of Power, The Amicus Journal, Volume 19, Issue 4, p. Proquest) [Bozman]
When Peterson Zah, president and chairman of the Navajo Nation throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, spoke these words several
years ago, he was lamenting the effects of several coal and uranium strip mines and coal-fired power plants on Navajo (and Hopi)
land. Those developments, including the infamous Black Mesa mine of the Peabody Western Coal Company-one of the largest coal
strip mines in the United Stateswere approved in tribal council decisions that were and remain controversial among tribe members.
Over the years, the mines have ripped up land that is deeply sacred to both tribes, brought health damage to mine workers and
radioactive contamination to a local river, and, some tribal members suspect, been the cause of gross deformities in newborn sheep
and even of mysterious deaths. Yet these mines are only some of the more egregious of the many destructive energy projects that
corporate America has brought to Indian Country. Many tribes have faced the painful dilemma of choosing to accept or reject mining
or drilling deals that would bring both environmental damage and desperately needed income. Unemployment hovers around 35
percent on the Navajo Reservation, but it is less severe than on many other reservations-on some, it can reach 90 percent-and energy
development is a large part of the reason. Some 70 percent of the work forces of the mines and power plants are Navajo, and they
provide about half of the tribe's revenues. In the past few years, a few Native Americans, as well as some nonNative
environmentalists, have begun looking to renewable energy sources as a possible way out of this Hobson's choice. Reservations in
the West were typically created on land that European Americans did not want, whether because the soil was too poor, the water too
scarce, or the elements too harsh-such as fierce sun and relentless wind. Could solar and wind power help tribes change the rules of
the energy game on their lands, allowing them to develop economically while honoring a spiritual tradition that holds the earth to be a
living, sacred entity? A task force of Native Americans, environmentalists, renewable-energy companies, and federal government
officials has been created to look into the possibilities and recommend steps toward realizing them. A small Department of Energy
(DOE) program started disbursing grants to tribes for renewable energy and energy efficiency in 1994; according to a paper by DOE's
Stephen Sargent and Ernest Chabot, the program funded thirty-three projects in its first two years. And, most importantly, many Native
Americans are enthusiastic about the idea. "Now is the perfect opportunity to shift gears and take a new direction," argued Zah at a
1993 conference on the topic, sponsored by the nonprofit Center for Resource Management (CRM). "We have the space, the people,
the land. What we are now doing [by depending on coal] is going to be our downfall." For some, small-scale renewables offer a way
to redress the fact that many Native Americans, whose lands bring electric power to millions of other Americans, have no electricity in
their own homes. Notes Navajo energy consultant Harris Arthur, "some 25,000 Navajo, and another 25,000 other Native Americans,
do not currently have electricity." Remote Indian homes and villages can be miles and miles away from transmission lines. The
distance is cultural, as well; some traditional Hopi, for instance, revere the spiritual power of the earth so greatly that they refuse to
allow infrastructure such as power lines to scar their land. Photovoltaic (PV) panels offer a solution that satisfies both ancient cultural
practices and future needs: small-scale solar energy systems that can be installed directly onto homes without the need for power lines
or for imported, polluting fuels. The few traditional Hopi who currently enjoy solar electricity are enthusiastic about it, offering prayer
feathers for the power of the sun that electrifies their homes as they do for the gifts of crops, the rivers, and the land. Harris Arthur has
been preaching what he calls "the gospel of renewable energy" for more than a decade, and now finally sees some light at the end of
the tunnel. This past September, he met with officials in DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency, and with key federal
legislators, to push a program of rural PV systems for the Navajo. Arthur argues that the program would be a natural part of President
Clinton's "Million Solar Roofs" initiative. If his efforts for federal funding fall through, however, he intends to revive a bill "which
was filibustered to death" in the New Mexico legislature earlier this year-but has wide bipartisan support. For others, the harnessing
of solar and wind power represents primarily a business opportunity for the reservations, one of the few such opportunities that are
compatible with the tribes' heritage of self-determination, sovereignty, and environmental values. A few tribes are using renewables to
bolster their existing businesses; the Ute Mountain Utes of Colorado, for instance, are using PV-powered pumps for watering
livestock. And Paul Parker of CRM points out that the upheavals now taking place in the national energy system are creating another
possibility-that Native American tribes could develop their energy resources and sell power to others. Recent actions by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission will open up the transmission highways used to move bulk power throughout the country for use by
anyone who wishes to buy or sell. Corresponding state regulations and legislation will allow customers to choose new power suppliers
just as we now choose telecommunications companies. In these circumstances, Parker says, tribes could emerge as suppliers of
clean, renewable energy to Indians and non-Indians alike. On the one hand, some Native American lands feature the best solar and
wind energy sites in the country. As renewables technology advances, renewable energy is becoming ever more costeffective, and
nowhere more so than at sites like these. On the other, tribal sovereignty laws create legal powers on reservations that other
government entities lack. "At the institutional level, Native Americans have more control over permits and can use tax-exempt
15
financing if power projects are compatible with their culture and goals," says Parker. According to a CRM report published in early
1997, tribes have the legal authority to build power plants and transmission lines and to deliver electricity at the retail level.
16
NATIVES 1AC
[NO TEXT DELETED]
No other government entity has as many options for energy management. Parker envisions Native American tribes becoming critical
players in a national strategy to encourage widespread reliance on renewable energy. Starting in 1998, electricity customers in
California will have the choice of buying their power from environmentally sound suppliers. (See "Living Green," page 45.) Other
states should be extending the option to their citizens in the not-so-distant future. Says Parker, "If people are willing to pay more for
green power, they might be even more interested in purchasing green power from Indian tribes. If tribes were focused on the issue of
renewables, they could become charismatic leaders for the entire nation, bringing their moral and historical weight behind a national
effort to choose clean power." The theory sounds good, but as even Parker admits, putting it into practice is another thing. If Native
Americans are to reap the benefits of any kind of development on their lands, they will have to take the lead in bringing it about. On
many reservations, however, the pattern has far more often been one of exploitation by outside forces. "In the past, tribes have been
passive," says Parker. "They need to be aggressive in order to take advantage of the limited window of opportunity that exists with
deregulation" of the electricity industry. Marty Wilde is still more direct about the potential difficulties. Wilde, an engineer by
training, teaches math and science at the Blackfeet Community College near Browning, Montana. He points out that, for any people
beset by extreme povertyand 45 percent of all Native Americans have living standards below the level the federal government defines
as destitution-there are tremendous obstacles in the way of mustering the political will and financial clout for home-grown economic
development. Nevertheless, with the aid of a DOE grant, the Blackfeet have erected what Wilde claims is the first wind turbine put up
on tribal lands. The pilot project was partly a kind of public relations effort, aimed both at building alliances with outside powers, such
as universities, regional utilities, and state and federal government, and at getting the Blackfeet themselves interested in the prospects
for larger-scale wind power development. "It sits right dab in the middle of the best wind site in the lower forty-eight," says Wilde of
the 100kilowatt turbine, which was completed in May 1996. While some locations have higher average wind speeds, no other location
boasts so large a potential wind development area, notes Wilde. It is projected that 10,000 megawatts of wind power could be
developed here, enough electricity to serve the needs of more than a handfull of states. But Wilde makes it clear that one of the
driving motivations behind the installation of the turbine was for the Blackfeet to undertake a development project on their own, rather
than have outsiders do it for them-and quite possibly take advantage of them or mismanage the project, as has often been the case. The
installation is "a glowing example of how local people took the initiative," he says. "Historically, hustlers have promised the world to
these tribes, only to let them down time and time again. This project could be a major moral boost that will allow the Blackfeet tribes
to determine their own destiny." The Spirit Lake Sioux of North Dakota have now also installed a wind turbine, to power their
casino. By 1996, DOE had given grants toward four other wind projects. And there have been other promising developments. The
Jicarilla Apache tribe, for example, is looking to establish a tribal utility authority. Ideally, they hope to integrate the functions of
generating, transmitting, and distributing power, in order to serve the needs of isolated customers scattered throughout the tribe's vast
land holdings-almost 1 million acres near the New Mexico-Colorado border. A mix of small wind-turbine and photovoltaic plants,
as well as state-of-the-art hydroelectric and clean-burning natural-gas plants, could reduce nuclear and coal consumption in the
region. According to Wyatt Rogers, a consultant to the Denver, Coloradobased Council of Energy Resource Tribes, one of the bright
spots for wind developers in Western reservations is that "the fastest-growing U.S. power markets are near by"-Seattle and the rest of
the Pacific Northwest. The Council has worked primarily with traditional power sources such as coal, but Rogers, himself a Native
American, is trying to prod it to explore renewables as well. They "fit in with our traditional philosophy," he says. "Sources of natural
energy that can be regenerated are definitely preferred over sources that must be wasted." All told, the federal government recognizes
the sovereignty of over 500 different American Indian tribes and Native Alaskan groups. Nearly all have long-established land
holdings, independent tribal governments, and a growing demand for more energy to fuel emerging economies. Today, tribal
memberships are growing at an average annual rate of more than 3 percent, which makes them the fastest-growing demographic group
in the United States after immigrant populations. Will tribes be able to use the sun and wind to contribute to the worldwide effort to
build societies more in harmony with nature? The task force on Native American renewables believes it will take more efforts by
tribes to set up energy authorities like the one planned by the Jicarilla Apache, more work by renewable energy companies to form
partnerships with tribes, and more funding and technical assistance from the federal government. But the rewards could be great. The
damage fossil-fuel development has wreaked on tribal lands underscores the poverty of this country's energy and natural resource
policies. Renewable energy represents a way for tribes to join the power of their traditional beliefs with the power of advanced
technology.
17
NATIVES 1AC
Plan:
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 transaction costs.
18
NATIVES 1 AC
Contention THREE is Episetmology.
The mindset in the status quo allows the exploitation of tribal resources and threatens tribal existence.
The consumption obsessed mindset that permeates the status quo will lead to extinction if we do not allow
Native American attitudes into our policymaking.
Donald Fixico, Professor of History at Arizona State University, ‘98
(The Invasion of Indian Country in the 20th Century, p. 208-215) [Bozman]
From traditional times to contemporary times, Indian people have struggled to maintain a dual balance, both within themselves and
with the universe. Such efforts are very personal since the strength of the Indian societies rested on kinship and social relations.
However, the most important relationship is not that between humans, nor is it that between humans and animals or plants. Rather, the
relationship of people with the universe is the most significant relationship, and Indians have learned that the way in which humans
view themselves in this role is important for an understanding of the essence of life and "the natural order of things." 6 The enormity
of the universe is acknowledged, and the smallness of humans in the universal order of life is accepted. Unlike Anglo-Americans who
perceive themselves as the center of the universe, Indian people traditionally have viewed themselves as minuscule members of a vast
universe. For example, the Western person typically refers to his or her "self" as the reference point and travels accordingly to turn
right or left. The Wintu, by contrast, referred to left and right as the sides of their body but while traveling referred to the cardinal
directions to avoid confusion and becoming lost. If traveling northward, a Wintu would say, the mountains are to the west; a non-
Indian would say, the mountains are on the left. But in returning to go south, the Wintu would know the mountains were to the east,
and the non-Indian would know they were on the right side.7 When the non-Indian faced another direction and perhaps did this again,
he or she became confused, then lost. In kinship terms, the human relationship with the natural environment was more important than
the human-to-human relationship. In time, Indian people understood that their lives depended on the environment, and knew that this
source of energy—so intrinsic to life itself—deserved respect. Their collective attitude lacked an individual ego consciousness,
allowing them to contemplate their societal relations and participation in the universe. Maintaining this relationship influenced cultural
development and the values of life as defined according to each Indian tribal nation by its people. Over the generations, these values
proved to be successful, and it is these traditional values that could offer a useful lesson as global natural resources and the
environment are rapidly depleted by the progress of civilization. Unfortunately, Victorian evolutionists in physical anthropology in the
nineteenth century underestimated the value of nativistic thought and referred to so-called primitive societies as savage and of lesser
intelligence, only to elevate their own race above others.8 Sucha racist view has endangered natural resources in the twentieth century
as the Western mentality has appointed itself the most advanced society of human existence, while dismissing the conservation
philosophies of Native Americans. Racial prejudice and cultural ethnocentricism has obstructed the global cooperation needed to
achieve the best answers for halting the ongoing drain on natural resources and preserving what remains. Although the United States
holds perhaps the most advanced scientific facilities and the greatest wealth for funding environmental conservation, it must overcome
its own prejudice against scholars of different racial and cultural backgrounds in order to stop the depletion of the environment. 9 The
primary focus of the numerous tribal philosophies is on global concerns regarding the exhaustion of natural resources. From
traditional Indian people, we can learn that kinship and social cooperation is important if the global community is to survive. Such
relationships were deeply personal for the Indians, and they carefully treated other people and expected generous social treatment in
return—so unlike the stoic, impersonal role that stereotypes have assigned them. (Naturally, Indian people would appear unfriendly to
non-Indians since the latter decided early on that Native Americans were their enemies.) From the Indian point of view, Anglo-
Americans are less open to other people, and their friendly overtures are suspicious since their mental preoccupation is focused more
on scientific rationalization and less on social relations. If global scientists and government leaders could combine the personal
thinking of American Indians with the Western mind's causal thinking, answers to questions of "Who is responsible for
decreasing natural resources?" and "What is the cause?" could produce a better approach to conserving global resources.10 Before
the arrival of non-Indians in the Western Hemisphere, American Indians learned from their struggles how to live within the limits of
the environment. The environment had a direct impact on their cultural development and directed life's economies, leading to a focus
on agriculture and hunting and gathering or a combination of the two. Among the Hurons, as among many Indian people, fishermen
offered tobacco and invocations to the waters before taking fish from the streams and rivers. Certain spirits of the waters had to be
appeased, lest they jeopardize the fishing.11 Philosophically, this acknowledgment of animism stressed the positive nature of human
involvement with the act of fishing so that positive results would occur.12 Montagnais hunters who depended upon the beaver
practiced conservation hunting since limited moose and caribou lived in their country. By studying the habits of the beaver, the
Montagnais estimated how many animals already were taken and were able to roughly calculate how many were left so that there
would always be enough to hunt. This type of cognition became one of the natural laws that the tribe obeyed. 13 This practice of
conservation ensured a steady supply of food to support the estimated 10,000 Montagnais who are thought to have lived in a dozen
villages.14 Traditional Indians treated the natural environment on a social but elevated level (perhaps operating on a principle of
retribution)15 as they developed philosophical explanations for the causalities of life. They observed the activities of nature and
19
incorporated the patterns expressed in the four seasons, in animal activities, and in plant growth into their social norms, laws,
philosophy, and worldview. The commonality between traditional Indians and animals is the social outcome of their group emphasis
on human-animal relations.16 In the human-animal relationship, all partners are equal and mutually respected, so that people develop
a respect for all life, including the life of plants. All three—humans, animals, and plants—possessed life, and their spirits lived within
their bodies. Many Indian tribes developed clans represented by animal and plant totems, and they practiced group protection and
unity. They courted the positive side of life, abhorred evil, and at times had to combat negative agents from the dark side. Following
traditional practices as their ancestors had enabled Native Americans to be protected from the evil that lay beyond their understanding
of life. Success in maintaining their livelihood, even during hardship, brought a confidence that the ancestors were correct, that
traditions should not be questioned but rather accepted; maintaining a healthy stasis between the people and the destructive forces of
life depended on sustaining those traditions.17 In this sense, traditional Indians were more metaphysical than their non-Indian
counterparts, who eventually drifted from their early European religious beliefs toward a focus on economic gain. The unseen powers
of nature convinced traditional Indians that the laws of nature were greater than their tribal political laws, and thus, much of their own
laws were based on those of nature. Consequently, traditional Indians observed and continue to observe the seen and unseen forces of
life, seemingly without regard to past, present, or future. In the development of tribal religions, nature represented universal
determinism, and this religious concept became an important part of many Indian religions and unified the tribal communities.18 The
Indian relationship with animals dates back to the mythical times when both were new members of the freshly created world. Cree
myths in Canada describe a time when men married certain animals, such as the beaver, and speak about man's relationship with the
animal world. These stories, legends, and parables taken together created an oral history tradition. 19 Waswanipi hunters in the
Canadian boreal forest hunted the moose more easily after accumulating a large amount of knowledge about the animal's habits, so
that the moose "surrendered" its life to the Waswanipi. The hunter respectfully killed the moose swiftly, without torture, (and not
excessively for sport) in order to release the animal's spirit to return to its life in the afterworld. To ensure a successful harvest for
hunting, hunters estimated the animal populations and rotated their hunting areas.20 America's Native populations had learned to
distribute their populations to areas of a size and type that could sustain their people. Since their lives depended upon the environment,
climate and other aspects of nature influenced their cultural development.21 Furthermore, a second point of technological
advancement was incorporated into this conservationist lifestyle, as recorded among the Iroquois people of the eastern Great Lakes.22
Ethically, one does not ask for more than the amount that can be used; if this simple rule is obeyed, less misfortune will occur. Among
the Ojibwa, hunters always shared the game that they killed to ensure that they would not be bewitched by others, and they did not
hoard any materials for fear that misfortune would plague them.23 When contact with Europeans and then the Anglo-Americans
occurred, a different value system, primarily an English one, became a part of the American experience, based on concepts of
individualism and property ownership.24 As other early non-English Europeans participated in capitalism, this resulting exploitation
critically impacted world societies. This continues today and is especially evident in the last half of the twentieth century.25
Motivated by greed, America's capitalistic attitude has set a dangerous precedent for other world powers and Third World nations
alike. Since 1950, the world has lost almost one-fifth of its topsoil from croplands, a fifth of tropical rain forests, and tens of thousands
of plant and animal species.26 The environmental relations among traditional Indians and among non-Indians differ. Traditional
Indians developed a respectful relationship with nature, and early Europeans emulated them in their early settlements in America—
until they adopted an attitude of individual, capitalistic gain. Even American Indians were learning to relate their lives to the natural
environment, Euroamericans began to change that environment. The traditional Indian's natural environment is substantially different
from the American man-made environment, with its domesticated animals and plants that alter the landscape; this latter environment is
designed to support an industrial, modernized society with a burgeoning population.27 This increasing population has placed
enormous demands on the environment, depleting its forests and forcing farmers to use chemicals on the land to produce more and
better crops. But the ultimate effects will be lingering and have many dire consequences. As other nations imitate America's
aggressive consumption of natural resources and the world population increases, Thomas Malthus's theory about geometric population
growth placing enormous demands on the planet's resources will soon be seriously tested. 28 Certainly, in the case of China, which
must feed almost one-quarter of the world's population from an estimated seven percent of the planet's arable land, the precedent is
already being established.29 It has been common knowledge for several years that deserts in some parts of the world are growing
rapidly and that rain forests are being cut away due to the demand of world capitalism. The natural resources and animal life of the
planet are being depleted at an alarming rate. The repercussions of human greed at the individual and corporate levels will be
devastating for the entire planet.30 Throughout the history of human existence, technology has worked against world conservation.
And currently, the greed in the United States has influenced the world's nations, for America's wealth is widely envied. With a
population of less than six percent of the global total, America is both the largest producer and the largest consumer, using a full thirty
percent of the world's energy.31 A sad precedent has been set, for other countries are exploiting their natural resources for wealth just
as this nation has done without the control of strict conservation laws, all in an effort to emulate the United States. This will place
additional pressure on natural resources around the world, especially for industrial nations who depend on Middle East countries
surrounding the Persian Gulf, which has over\ one-half of the world's low-cost oil. Presently, multinational oil companies—Exxon,
Gulf, Mobil, Texaco, Standard Oil of California, British Petroleum (which is fifty percent government owned with private
management), Royal Dutch Shell, and Compagnie Française des Petroles (which is partly owned by private interests but mostly
governmental controlled)—are steadily draining the world's oil supply, and they will do so as long as there is little interest in fuel
alternatives, such as advanced technological uses of coal.32 In 1974, the largest spenders on oil imports were the United States at $24
billion, Japan at $18 billion, the United Kingdom at $8.5 billion; and Italy at $7.5 billion. The largest earners were Saudi Arabia at $20
20
billion, Iran at $17.4 billion, Venezuela at $10.6 billion, Libya at $6.8 billion, and the Union of Arab Emirates at $4.1 billion.33 The
tremendous current usage of oil and the combustion of coal produces carbon dioxide that traps solar energy in the earth's atmosphere,
causing a rise in temperature. This is the "greenhouse effect," and it is predicted to change the climate worldwide. Between 1950 and
1973, a 4.5 percent increase in carbon emissions occurred, and another 4.5 percent increase from 1973 to 1983. From 1983 to 1988,
carbon emissions increased to 3.7 percent, and a similar increase has continued through the 1990s. 34 The sun is a constant in
our lives, and its abundant power, handled properly, could be used to sustain life. As estimated in 1974, solar radiation could provide
more than 500 times the world's total energy consumption.35 Transforming the sun's rays into electricity with the use of solar
photovoltaic cells promises to be widely used by the 2020s or 2030s. By 1990, India had 6,000 village systems in operation. The U.S.
Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) estimated that photovoltiacs have the potential to supply over half of America's electricity by
2030.36 Another natural force that could be used is the wind, a resource that renews itself. In the 1980s, more than 20,000 windmills
producing electricity were used in the world, with the potential to generate 1,600 megawatts. California and Denmark were the leading
areas in this regard, and wind generators began to appear in India and Germany. One estimate reported that wind power could provide
more than ten percent of the world's electricity by the year 2030.37 Another possibility is the stockpiling of energy via fossil fuels
and nuclear fuels. Western Europe and Japan are dependent on other nations' natural resources, and stockpiling may be a means of
support for such nations until new energy resources can be developed. It is suspected that Third World nations will become
industrialized, and stockpiling could also serve their needs.38 Natural gas is yet another alternative that could be used to relieve the
demands on crude oil since only a small portion of it is marketed in world trade, except where large markets exist. Presently, the
United States has an estimated fifteen percent of the world's supply, yet it consumes more than fifty percent of the total available. The
next largest consumers are the countries of the former Soviet Union at approximately twenty percent, which also have some of the
largest supplies; the other large supply exists in Asia.39 It is unfortunate that the future of the planet is so intimately tied to
political interests instead of a global concern for the environment. It is imperative that we take steps to stave off the decimation of
natural resources throughout the world. International stability in politics is essential, especially given the sweeping political changes in
1989 and 1990 nd the move to democracy and economic improvement. Furthermore, sound national economies are important if
nations are to avoid exploiting their environmental resources to dangerously low levels. Unchecked industrial growth has forced made
recovery difficult for many nations. As nations strive to reach international parity in terms of shared wealth and political status,
pollution, forest destruction, and nuclear waste are among the major irreversible problems that we confront. As examples,
radioactive wastes stored in a salt dome at Lyons, Kansas, was found to have leaked. More chilling still is the knowledge that nuclear
waste disposal practices in some countries have involved storing the waste in canisters and dropping them into the oceans. 40 It is
unfortunate that human beings have developed technology that has the potential to destroy their race and the environment. Without
using wisdom while inventing new technologies, the human race will become its own executioner. At present, the motivation of
greed prevails over the concern for environmental conservation, placing the globe on a destructive path. Until this focus on capitalistic
gain is replaced by a focus on human-environmental survival, all life around the world is in danger. Although conservation is practiced
at some levels, long-range consequences must be considered. In the process, we must learn a great deal more about the delicate
balance of nature, as American Indians knew long ago. We need not practice their traditions of environmental kinship and religious
ceremonies, but we should understand their perspective on the role of humans within the environment and all of life. In
changing the current exploitative attitude, a fresh perspective might result and lead us to fuller philosophies about life and the role of
humans within the universe.
21
NATIVES 1 AC
Plan provides an alternative framework for thinking that allows us to incorporate and appreciate Native
American values to create sound policies and solve fundamental global problems
Linda Robyn, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Northern Arizona University, ‘02
(Indigenous Knowledge and Technology Creating Environmental Justice in the Twenty-First Century, The American Indian Quarterly
26.2) [Bozman]
Holistic environmental paradigms stand in sharp contrast to life in an industrial society. Natural Law is preempted in industrial society
as human domination over nature becomes the central way of life. In contrast to the American Indian cyclical process of thinking, this
linear concept of progress dominates industrial societies. Progress is defined in terms of economic growth and technological
advancement and is key to the development of dominant civilized societies. From this perspective, the natural world is seen as
something that is wild and in need of taming and cultivation. Those not part of this mentality are seen as primitive and in need of
being civilized. Civilizing those who are not part of the dominant paradigm is the philosophical basis of colonialism, conquest, and the
view that Western knowledge is the only legitimate way of "knowing." Even though American Indian perspectives have a greater
impact today on environmental politics and policy than previously, American Indian philosophies, values, and knowledge are not
included in those policy decisions that benefit large corporations and serve the interests of the state. There is a vast social distance
between the parties involved in corporate land and mineral issues that causes a breakdown in communication as well as
misinterpretations of each party's actions. Walter Bresett, activist and member of the Red Cliff band of Chippewa, argues that Indians
and non-Indians alike are being victimized by large corporations that reduce economic options. 50 Activist and author Al Gedicks
writes, "the sooner we stop labeling 'native issues' as something separate and distinct from our own survival, the sooner we will
appreciate the critical interconnections of the world's ecosystems and social systems." 51 Environmental concerns can be absolutely
crucial within the context of reservation politics; even before the most hostile of tribal councils, the kind of "Mother Earth" talk that
would make Anglo corporate executives [End Page 215] or legislators roll their eyes can make all the difference. 52 In dealing with
American Indian people when making important decisions, such as formulating environmental policy, corporate America and the
federal government would be wise to realize that among American Indian tribes there is a growing respect and a demand for the
inclusion of generations of cumulative Indigenous knowledge which is essential in balancing business practices with sustainability.
Environmental harms follow the path of least resistance and are connected to many things such as the air we breathe, our food, water,
lifestyles, and legal decisions. Developing economically sustainable alternatives will depend on many variables, such as research,
effective organizing and lobbying, legal representation, effective use of the media, interactive utilization of Native rights and
environmental movements by Indigenous groups and state/local governments, and an essential inclusion of Native beliefs and values
concerning the environment. Including these values singularly or in combination, depending on the context, into the political
deliberative and allocative process can help bring about environmentally sound, long-term, sustainable economic alternatives. With
the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and values, the socially harmful interaction between economic and political institutions
that we have seen in the past can be decreased while at the same time helping restore the balance which is so important to Native
peoples. Clearly, incorporating these kinds of values and beliefs into policy decisions challenges and decolonizes the harmful,
wasteful projects of profit-maximizing corporations and growth-at-all-costs government policies while strengthening Indian
nations as a whole. As a global society, it is possible to examine our relationship with the earth and realize that our future lies in our
ability to sustain ourselves and the developments we choose to impose on the environment. Native traditions have incorporated many
ways to sustain the harvest of resources that will not destroy their future availability. For example, Menominee Tribal Enterprises, in
Keshena, Wisconsin, received international recognition for achievements made toward sustainable forestry practices. Situated on
220,000 acres of forested lands, the Menominee system of intensive forest management "is now a recognized leader in shelterwood
systems for uneven-aged management of white pine, and hemlock-yellow birch ecosystems." 53 We cannot return to a pristine
existence, but we can make the best possible use of what we now have. We have an opportunity as a society to integrate our ways of
"doing" to match the patterns and requirements of nature and the natural environment. Cooperation with the environment is one way to
integrate [End Page 216] Native traditional values and mainstream concepts of development and future survival. With the assistance of
Native traditions and teachings, we as a society can begin to identify patterns of nature that do work and present us with alternatives to
ecological and global crises.
22
NATIVES 1 AC
The worldview we subscribe to will cause inevitable destruction of the biosphere, resulting in extinction.
Only a mindset shift through indigenous worldviews that promote sustainable development presents a
viable alternative.
Ralph Metzner, President of the Green Earth Foundation, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the California Institute of Integral
Studies, PhD in Psychology from Harvard, ‘93
(http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/407/658) [Bozman]
It is widely agreed that the global ecological crisis which confronts the world today represents one of the most critical turning points
that human civilization has ever faced. While earlier cultures have left in their wake a legacy of environmental destruction, including
the classical civilizations of Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Mesoamerica and China, it has always been possible, in the past, to migrate
elsewhere to escape the consequences of deforestation and desertification. In fact, to escape from ecological destruction and
overcrowding was probably one of the chief unacknowledged motives behind the mass migrations from Europe to the Americas
during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. That great icon of the 20th century, the view of the blue-green Earth from space, reminds us
of two inescapable facts, challenging two of our most cherished illusions: one, that national boundaries do not exist on Earth, except in
the maps and minds of humans; and two, that the Earth is finite, its carrying capacity is limited. Because of these two fundamental
facts, the oneness and the finitude of the Earth, the present situation represents a profound historical discontinuity. First, the globe-
encircling power of the multinational, techno-industrial, profit-driven growth monster is now destroying the entire biosphere,
including the life-support systems for humans. And secondly, the relentless operation of the exponential population growth curve,
which is acting as a multiplier on all the other factors of pollution, toxic waste accumulation, loss of soil fertility, loss of biodiversity,
impoverishment, famine, urban decay, and so on, is exceeding the carrying capacity of the biosphere, the inevitable result of which is
massive ecological collapse. Many ecologists estimate that we have less than a decade to turn things around, before the entire global
system goes into irreversible catastrophic collapse. There is reason to believe that the present situation may even represent, not just a
historical crisis, but a discontinuity on the evolutionary time-scale of planet Earth. While species have gone extinct in previous periods
of the Earth's evolutionary history, some scientists calculate that the present rate of extinction, which is estimated to reach 50% of all
remaining species within the next 100 years, is unprecedented since the climatic catastrophe that brought about the extinction of the
dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Not only humanity, but the Earth itself is at a turning point. I would like to address the question of how
it is possible that our species, homo sapiens, the "knowing human", has contrived to get itself into this predicament of truly terrifying
proportions. A growing chorus of voices has been pointing out that the roots of the ecological crisis must lie in the attitudes, values,
perceptions and basic worldview that we humans of the global industrial society have come to hold. This worldview of the
Industrial Age is a product of European and Euro-American culture that has spread throughout the globe with its capital accumulation
approach to economic development. The apparent short-term successes of this capitalist model, and the complete collapse of the only
alternative, communism, have blinded us to the insidious factors of social degeneration inherent in this model. They have also made us
seemingly oblivious and helpless in the face of the catastrophic ecological destruction taking place in almost all the planet's major
ecosystems. The capital accumulation model of economic growth is still being presented, as by an American president recently at the
UNCED conference in Rio, as the desirable model to imitate and apply to Third World underdeveloped countries, who can't even feed
their impoverished populations and keep their children from dying. Meanwhile the indigenous people of the Earth, sometimes referred
to as the Fourth World, are standing by, not at all inclined to follow this model, watching in disbelief while the techno-industrial-
consumerist-addictive growth complex self-destructs before our very eyes, - pleading with us not to destroy the last surviving
remnants of rainforests, wetlands and wilderness. Several different metaphors or analogies have been proposed to explain the
ecologically disastrous split, the pathological alienation, between human consciousness and the rest of the biosphere. One metaphor,
put forward by the American theologian Thomas Berry is that the human species has become autistic in relationship to the natural
world (Berry, 1988). Like autistic children, who do not seem to hear, or see, or feel their mother's presence, we have become blind to
the psychic presence of the living planet and deaf to its voices and stories, that nourished our ancestors in pre-industrial societies.
Another metaphor for our species pathology, put forward by the ecologist Paul Shepard, is that we are suffering from a case of arrested
development, a fixation comparable to that of juvenile psychosis (Shepard, 1982). This metaphor fits with the kind of boisterous,
arrogant pursuit of individual self-assertion that characterizes the consumerist, exploitative model of economic growth, where the
short-term profits of entrepreneurs and corporate share-holders seems to be not only the dominant value, but the only value under
consideration. A third analogy from psychopathology that offers considerable insight, in my view, is the model of addiction. We are a
society whose scientists and experts have been describing for forty years, in horrifying and mind-numbing detail, the dimensions of
global eco-catastrophe - "Silent Spring", "The Population Bomb", "The Limits to Growth", "The Death of Nature", "The End of
Nature" - and we do not seem to be able to stop our suicidal and eco-cidal behavior. This fits the definition of addiction or compulsion:
behavior that continues in spite of the individual knowing that it is destructive to family and social relationships. This metaphor of
addiction or compulsion, on a vast scale, also parallels in many ways the teachings of the Asian spiritual traditions, especially
Buddhism, which have suffering or dissatisfaction as an inevitable feature of all human consciousness and craving or desire at the root
of suffering. Yet another analogy is the notion that we as a species are suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. We, as a species,
23
have forgotten something our ancestors once knew and practiced - certain attitudes and kinds of perception, an ability to empathize
and identify with non-human life, respect for the mysterious, and humility in relationship to the infinite complexities of the natural
world. I wish to develop this idea further in this talk, by examining some crucial turning points in the history of human consciousness,
in which we chose a particular line of development and thereby forgot and neglected something - with fateful consequences. I find this
amnesia analogy to be very hopeful, since it is clearly much easier to remember something that we once knew, than it is to develop an
entirely new adaptation. We can also see that the indigenous peoples of the Fourth World, whether in North and South America,
Southeast Asia or Australia, have been trying for some time to help us remember certain vital attitudes and values that they have
preserved and maintained in their own ways of life. Finally, there is a fifth diagnostic concept that has been advanced. This is the
notion of "anthropocentrism" or "homocentrism", which has been described by a number of eco-philosophers and particularly the
spiritual philosophy of the "deep ecology movement", formulated by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess. President Vaclav Havel
referred to this idea in his 1985 interview with Karel Hvizdala, when he said (and I am translating from the German edition) "I sense
that the proud anthropocentrism of modern man, who is convinced that he can know everything and subordinate everything, is
somehow in the background of the present crisis." The Czech president's remark underscores the fact that by "anthropocentrism" is
meant not only man's apparent inability to empathically identify with other species and life-forms, i.e. to transcend his human self-
identification, which is bad enough, and certainly seems to condone and encourage a reckless exploitative attitude. (Indeed most of us
apparently find it hard enough to identify with other human groups - particular those who are "different" in some way, whether
racially, ethnically, nationally or whatever - a lack that has lead and continues to lead to the well-known story of war, aggression,
colonialism and neglect in inter-human relationships). The deep ecology critique of the modernist anthropocentric worldview goes
further than this lack of empathic identification with non-human life-forms. Rather, it is saying that humans tend to assume, with both
religious and scientific rationalizations, that we as a species are superior to other species and life-forms, and therefore have the right to
dominate, control and use them for our own purposes as we see fit. Nature has instrumental or use value only, not intrinsic value,
according to this human arrogance or superiority complex. It has also been referred to as human chauvinism, or speciesism - the
assumption of superiority and implied right to exploit and abuse. I suggest that the precise comparisons to this attitude are sexism,
racism, nationalism and classism: in each of these forms of collective psychopathology, one group of humans assumes superiority to
another and therefore the right to control, dominate and use the other. This leads us to the perhaps surprising conclusion that
humanism, that much prized core idea and value system of Western civilization, is a precise parallel to sexism, racism, nationalism and
classism (Metzner, 1992). The religious rationalization for humanist arrogance has been the well-known set of instructions from God
to Adam and Eve, in the biblical Book of Genesis: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion
over...all the wild beasts that move upon the earth." (Gen. 1:28). Even though ecologically-minded theologians in recent times have
justly argued that "dominion" does not mean "domination - exploitation" but rather "wise stewardship or management", like a
gardener tending his garden, it cannot be denied that as a matter of historical fact, domination, control and exploitation have been
Western humanity's guiding values in relationship to nature. Some historians (e.g. White, 1967) tell us that in Europe the controlling
and conquering relationship to nature began in earnest during the Middle Ages, at the high point of Christianity's ascendancy, with a
combination of factors: the invention of the iron plow, which allowed greater food production compared to wooden ones, but also
increased soil depletion; the rapid deforestation of Europe's vast forests (which it is estimated originally covered more than two thirds
of the European land-surface) to feed the growing number of iron foundries and metal shops, needed to make plows and tools, armors
and weapons; and wood was also needed to build houses for the growing populations, as well as ships for the navies of the warring
monarchies....The domination and exploitation of nature was not an explicit teaching of the Christian church, of course, but it was
condoned and not prevented by a transcendental theology which saw the divine realm, the civitas dei, as high above and inaccessible
to human beings, and saw the natural world of earth and water, animals and plants, flesh and blood, feelings and pleasures of the
senses, as the corrupted world of the fall, of sin, and of the devil, one of whose names was "Lord of this World". Clearly, wise
stewardship and management of resources for sustainable development, especially in an era of population explosion, is a better
value system in relationship to nature, than the reckless and ego-centric conquest and exploitation attitude which has prevailed until
recently, and which still guides the activities of the great multinational energy corporations. Like the pirate bands of former centuries,
the multinationals, and the capital markets which finance them, operate largely free from the constraints of national laws and
governments, plundering the material resources of the planet, - the forests, minerals, fossil fuels, animals - without even any regard for
sustainable human use, much less ecosystem integrity or the intrinsic value of non-human forms of life. The deep ecology critique of
the anthropocentric worldview asks us to at least question whether we in fact have the knowledge, or the wisdom, to be wise stewards;
and whether we have the ethical right to simply assume that nature exists for us to use. They advocate instead a biocentric or
ecocentric attitude, which acknowledges the complex web of human interdependence with all other life-forms, and calls for us to
develop a "land ethic" and an "ecological conscience" - two terms coined by the American ecologist Aldo Leopold in the 1940's
(Leopold, 1948).
24
______________________________________________
***CASE***
25
INHERENCY
Tribes not energy self sufficient and have shitty electricity.
Tracey LeBeau, Vice President of Earth Energy & Environment, LLC, J.D. from the University of Iowa, Spring, ‘01
(Reclaiming Reservation Infrastructure: Regulatory and Economic Opportunities for Tribal Development, Stanford Law & Policy
Review, Volume 237, Number 12) [Bozman]
To begin to appreciate the regulatory issues surrounding utility facilities and services in Indian Country, one must first understand the
current state of utility services and issues in Indian Country. Utility infrastructures on Indian reservations include utility systems
owned by non-tribal corporations and tribal electric cooperatives, both of which routinely fail to serve the needs of burgeoning tribal
communities. There are a few tribal utility authorities that own and operate utility [*240] facilities and provide utility services to
tribal members. Indian tribes are more often served, however, by a variety of utilities: public investor-owned utilities and cooperatives
provide electricity, natural gas and/or propane service on reservations. In some cases, several utility companies have franchises on a
single reservation. In the process of exploring the establishment of tribally owned utility companies, many tribes have found that
electric transmission and distribution lines are frequently underbuilt and poorly maintained, leading to high electricity line-losses and
higher electricity rates in economically disadvantaged communities. Granted, it is more expensive to serve rural reservation customers
than customers in densely populated areas, because longer distances of line must be run to remote customers and because there are
fewer customers per mile of line to share costs. Nevertheless, rural reservation customers have paid higher rates to compensate
cooperatives and utilities for expenditures on their behalf, and sound arguments can be made that they have on occasion paid
disproportionately more than their non-tribal customer counterparts.
Indian Country is a maze of regulatory uncertainty-Federal action is necessary to clear the way for
renewables.
In the area of utility regulation, uncertainty discourages growth. Regulatory uncertainty discourages industry from making decisions
to meet the energy demands of communities. Many regions of the United States are extremely underdeveloped in electricity
generation and transmission, largely because of market and regulatory uncertainty. Recently, many large metropolitan areas have faced
electricity brown-outs due to a lack of available electricity generation and transmission. Uncertainty also discourages other economic
development, especially of those industries in which energy constitutes a significant operating cost. Regulatory uncertainty in
environmental and utility regulation is especially challenging because of the nature of what is regulated. Ecosystems, waterways,
airspace and transmission systems are all interconnected. If one jurisdiction has one set of rules, and the neighboring jurisdiction has
an entirely different set of rules, how can we hope to regulate for the benefit of all? It may be a bitter pill for jurisdictions to swallow,
but cooperation is a necessary component of an integrated system. Cooperative agreements, negotiated settlements, and concurrent
jurisdiction may facilitate the coordination of regulatory concerns. But the facilitation of those agreements and the harmonization of
tribal and federal law is a task for Indian tribes, federal agencies, and Congress. When these groups converged in the 1980s to address
environmental regulatory primacy and delegation issues concerning reservation environmental protection, the result was a
tremendously more coherent tribal-federal regulatory process.
Indians colonized now.

26.2) [Bozman]
Colonialism continues today, but with different foreign powers than in the past, that is, banks, corporations, speculators,
governments, and various development agencies. Today Indigenous peoples are on the frontline of contemporary colonial struggles.
They are sitting on resources the rest of the world wants at the lowest possible cost. Their territories are still considered frontier lands,
un-owned, underutilized, and, therefore, open to exploitation. Because Indigenous populations are small, politically weak, and usually
physically isolated, their vast environmental knowledge base is, for the most part, denigrated by these new colonizers, making
Indigenous populations easy targets as resource colonies. Central to the concept of resource colonization is, as John Bodley
emphasizes in his work, Victims of Progress, "that the prior ownership rights and interests of the aboriginal inhabitants are totally
ignored as irrelevant by both the state and the invading individuals.
26
INHERENCY
Current division of power over native lands is problematic
James A. Casey, Cornell Law Review, 1-1994,
“NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis
The status of Indian Nations in the United States today has been called quasi-sovereignty. n6 Although the federal
government recognizes the various tribes as sovereign peoples with some rights of self-determination, n7 it
subordinates their authority to govern themselves [*405] and their land to that of Congress. Thus, in many
locations within the borders of the United States there exist three sovereigns - the Indian Nations, the individual
states, and the federal government - all with uncertain powers with respect to each other. This situation causes severe
conflicts of interest in which the federal and state governments, the more powerful sovereigns, normally prevail and
effectively erode the sovereign base of the Indian Tribes.
The current fed-state-tribal relationship is hurting Native American

sovereignty

This Note argues that the constant erosion of the remnants of tribal sovereignty is the result of the lack of definition
and consent in the current tribal-federal-state relationship. Furthermore, it proposes a system to re-establish the
sovereign base of the Indian Nations. The foundation of this system would consist of free association agreements,
which would create a new and clearly defined relationship between the tribal, federal and state governments. These
agreements would provide a basis for consensual dealings between three equal and coexisting sovereigns. Such
agreements would return at least some of the sovereign rights that the current system has stolen from the Indian
Nations.
Natives are subject to federal law and cannot control their own destiny
Consent would be the touchstone of the agreements. Any limitation of a nation's sovereign authority must take its
legitimacy from consensual arrangements between countries. Thus, consent is a necessary aspect of any relationship
between governments. Congress, however, currently does not need the consent of the tribes before legislating with
respect to them. n8 Since the tribes may neither accept nor reject the actions of Congress, they do not control their
own destiny and thus, are not sovereign in any meaningful sense of the word. The current relationship is one of
control, not consent.
27
INDIANS WANT
Indians want AE to use and sell.
David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al September 2002 College of
Business Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 02-21, “The Implications of the
Regional Haze Rule on Renewable and Wind Energy Development on Native American Lands in the West”
http://ses.nau.edu/pdf/Smith_AWEA.pdf pg 4 [ev]
The tribes contacted in the ITEP assessment were selected to represent a diversity of tribal perspectives, based upon
geographic distribution, population, land size, urban versus rural location, experience with renewable energy, and level of
existing energy infrastructure. While these data are not definitive and may not be representative of all 237 tribes within the
13-state WRAP region, they do suggest some valuable insights. A few pertinent results from the tribal surveys are listed
below: For three-quarters of the tribes polled, no central office or agency is in charge of tribal energy issues, such as a
utility authority. Three-quarters of the tribes are interested in using renewable energy systems, especially if the cost of
energy is competitive with current energy supplies. Over 80% of the tribes indicated an interest in selling electricity on the
deregulated electric market. Through comments associated with the assessments, it was apparent that the particular
opportunities available and the barriers facing each tribe’s development of renewable energy were as individual and
unique as the tribes themselves. Many of the tribes were concerned about cultural issues (such as sacred sites),
environmental issues (not damming a river), political issues (intra- and inter-tribal politics and external relations with
states), and economics (the cost of energy). In general, tribes were quite interested in the potential opportunities for
economic development offered by developing renewable energy resources, as well as the ability to gain energy
independence. Furthermore, tribes in rural settings were more interested in developing renewable resources compared to
tribes located in urban settings. When considering energy development, the relative cost of power and marketplace
constraints are certainly relevant to tribes, but they may not be the determining or even the most important factors. For
most tribes the development of renewable energy is inextricably intertwined with the challenges of economic
development. Furthermore, renewable energy may offer many tribes the ability to electrify portions of their reservations
that currently have no electrical service, or to increase the reliability of service.
Tribes are pursuing alternative energy projects.

Task Force on Developing Renewable Energy on Tribal Lands, ‘98
(INDIAN TRIBES: THEIR UNIQUE ROLE IN DEVELOPINTHE NATION'S RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES, p. google)
Tribal lands have historically played an important role in the development of uranium and fossil fuels. These developments have
brought both benefits and adverse impacts to tribal lands and cultures, as the development often occurred with little direct tribal
participation. The prospects for renewable energy development present a rather different picture: the drive toward renewable energy
development is occurring at the initiative of the tribes themselves . This is happening because tribes perceive their role as something
more than leasers of resources and because of the apparent fit of renewable technologies with tribal cultures and development goals.
Tribes are pursuing renewable energy projects for a number of reasons, including the following:
28
INDIANS WANT—COMPANIES
Tribes want to partner with companies.
Though many tribes are interested in developing renewable energy resources, there are many external and internal factors
that a tribe has to consider when contemplating development. (4) Some of these factors, such as distance to market or
access to capital can be significant barriers to development, while others such as the availability of natural resources
and tribal sovereignty can be assets. Cultural compatibility of the renewable resource development can also be
important. While the relative importance of the various factors depends upon each individual tribe, it is true that many
tribes interested in developing renewable energy may welcome partners that can help overcome some of the barriers they
face. For example, a company with technical expertise in wind energy development could successfully partner with a tribe
if the tribe were to benefit economically, with jobs provided for tribal members and joint ownership of the project by the
tribe and the partner company.
29
INDIANS->WIND ENERGY
Indian wind energy easy to develop.
It has been established that many tribes in the West are interested in developing their renewable and wind energy
resources. The question that naturally arises next concerns the availability of wind resources on Native American lands.
Wind energy resource maps from the national wind resource assessment of the United States, created in 1986 for the U.S.
Department of Energy by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, are documented in the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the
United States. (5) Wind maps based on this data and overlaid with tribal boundaries and transmission lines were created
by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to assist tribes in evaluating their potential for wind energy development.
Wind resource maps similar to the one shown in Figure 2 are presented for each of the 13 states in the WRAP region in
Reference (6) (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South
Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming), along with resource maps for solar, biomass and geothermal energy. There are
237 tribes in the WRAP region. Based upon NREL wind energy resource maps, there are about 60 reservations in the
WRAP region that have a class-5 wind resource (excellent) or better. Many of these reservations with the wind resource
have sufficient land to develop the wind resource, and some are in proximity to existing transmission lines.
30
ECON->DETERMINATION
Economic development is key to self determination—allows gov’t reform and political power.
former Attorney General of the Seneca Nation of Indians (1991-1995), 1998, Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy, 8
Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 97, “Decolonizing Indigenous Governance: Observations on Restoring Greater Faith and
Legitimacy in the Government of the Seneca Nation” Lexis [ev]
During the last 50 years, however, the governing responsibilities of the Nation have increased dramatically. Following the
famous Forness case, the Nation had to defend its jurisdiction against the State's aggressive efforts to have Congress
137
grant it criminal and civil jurisdiction over Nation lands. Following that unsuccessful effort, the Nation then had to fight
138
the federal government's attempt to terminate it and confiscate one-third of the Allegany Reservation for the Kinzua
Reservoir. While these efforts ultimately were unsuccessful, the Nation's leaders were nonetheless called upon to deal
with a whole new realm of governmental responsibilities - lobbying Congress, litigating in federal court, and developing
sufficient public support for maintaining a coherent national position to defend the Nation against these threatening
actions. These events pushed the Nation government into a new level of governmental responsibility, but it was the
aftermath of these events that had an even more profound effect on internal developments. The taking of 10,000 acres of
the Allegany Reservation precipitated the removal of hundreds of Senecas and caused a disrupting ripple effect that is still
being felt today. In addition to this direct effect, there was also an indirect effect associated with the federal government's
settlement with the Nation for the sum of approximately $ 15 million. Unlike the insignificant revenue that had [*119]
been brought in from the Salamanca leases during the past 100 years, for the first time ever, the Seneca Nation had a great
deal of money. 139 With this money came power and change. In the 1970s, these funds made it possible for the Nation
government to expand its governmental capacity and to begin to provide services to the Seneca People. These efforts were
supported by an influx of millions of dollars of federal money through the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act of 1975. 140 Service and training programs were started, health care facilities were constructed, businesses
were established, and jobs were created. By 1980, in a span of only twenty years, the Nation's government expanded from
zero to four hundred full-time employees. Government services and employment continued to expand through the 1980s.
While much of the federal money had been eliminated by Reagan Administration cutbacks, the Nation was able to make
up for this with the establishment of State tax-free cigarette and gasoline businesses and the operation of two high stakes
bingo halls. As a result of these new sources of income, by 1993, Nation employment had expanded to approximately
eight hundred employees. During the last 30 years, then, the Seneca Nation government has evolved from having almost
no significant governmental responsibilities to becoming a force that affects the lives of every Seneca in one way or
another. One out of five people living within Seneca territory works for the Seneca Nation in either the government's
service or business capacity. The Nation has become a multi-million dollar economic and political force both within and
outside its territory. In 1996, it was estimated that the Seneca Nation had an economic impact of $ 330 million on the
Western New York economy. 141
31
PTC=SOVEREIGNTY
PTC key to sovereignty—business equality and reduced grants.
It is commonly thought that Indian tribes enjoy a significant business advantage because they are tax-free entities. This is
often true - an entity that does not pay 35% of its earnings to the government is generally better off than one that does.
However, in certain industries, the tax credits available are so great that not paying taxes hurts the tribes in a side-by-side
business comparison to taxable entities, such as corporations. This paper will argue that tribes should be given the
opportunity to transfer to tax-paying partners the tax credits they would have earned from certain projects but for their tax-
free status. Making tax credits tradable for tribes will accomplish three important goals: (1) The federal government will
be able to better promote targeted economic activities by giving tribes the same financial incentives as the rest of the
business community; (2) Tribal dependence on federal grants will be reduced, as larger pools of investment capital
become available to tribes and tribal wealth increases; (3) As dependence is reduced, tribal sovereignty will increase. This
paper will examine the issue of tax credit tradability through the lens of wind energy projects, which normally receive
large tax credits, but which are structurally very difficult for tribes - as non-tax-paying entities - to develop.
32
ECON SOLVES EXTINCTION

Economic opportunity key to avert Native American extinction.
Lexis [ev]
For over 200 years, the Seneca Nation 2 has maintained a peaceful relationship with the United States in accordance with
the Treaty of Canandaigua. 3 While it is true that both of our nations have benefited from this Treaty, mine has sacrificed
greatly: because of the American people's colonization, we have lost almost all of our aboriginal lands and much of our
traditional way of life. 4 These losses resulted from federal and state governmental actions over the generations 5 that
violated [*901] the letter and spirit of our Treaty and that interfered with our sovereign right of self-determination. 6
While I realize that you are not directly responsible for this state of affairs, you are the head of the government that made
solemn promises of noninterference and respect to my Nation 7 and to the other Indigenous nations located within the
United States. 8 The effect of these violations on our ability to survive as distinct peoples has been dramatic. Indeed,
because of what America and its colonizing predecessors have done to deny us the opportunity to choose our own future,
it is my belief that Indigenous people are in grave danger of becoming extinct. Despite this history and the effect that it
has had on us, I remain committed to the belief that we can revitalize our sovereignty and thus ensure the survival of our
future generations. In order to do so, we must find ways to generate economic opportunity for all of our people, to
preserve our unique languages and cultures, and to develop vibrant tribal governments. Perhaps as never before, some of
us currently have resources that might allow us to accomplish these goals and to cast off the hardship associated with the
last few hundred years. While we know that much of the blame for our condition can be placed at the feet of your Nation,
we fully accept that the burden of safeguarding our future rests on our own shoulders.
33
COLONIZATION=EXTINCTION
Colonization=extinction.
Lexis [ev]
Nonetheless, this otherwise natural process was dramatically altered by colonization. These colonizing efforts were
accomplished by force and often with great speed, producing dramatic changes within Indigenous societies and interfering
with the natural process of adaptation and change. 345 This disruption has had a genocidal effect; 346 groups of
Indigenous [*954] peoples that existed 500 years ago no longer exist. 347 There should be no doubt that their extinction
was not an accident - it was the product of a concerted effort to subjugate and eliminate the native human population in
order to allow for the pursuit of wealth and manifest destiny. 348 As a result, extinction is the most dramatic effect of
colonization. Allowed to run its full course, colonization will disrupt and destroy the natural evolutionary process of the
people being colonized to the point of extinction.
34
ASSIMILATION=EXTINCTION
Assimilation=extinction.
Lexis [ev]
As I see it, the complete destruction of the Indian nations will occur when the Indian people who comprise those nations
have become indistinguishable from the rest of American society. Viewed this way, when all of the people comprising an
Indian nation have become so assimilated into the dominant society as to be indistinguishable from the society at large,
then they will have, by definition, become members of the colonizing society. Regardless of whether Indian people
them [*956] selves perceive this transformation, their assimilation is surely relevant to an American society called upon
to make a policy decision concerning whom to recognize as members of separate sovereign nations. It is hard to defend
the position that a people who are no longer distinct from American society should nonetheless be afforded recognition as
such. This is especially true when this recognition may translate into a sovereign status that denies the application of the
laws of the recognizing people. If there is absolutely no way to distinguish a group of so-called Indigenous people from a
group not claiming to be Indigenous, on what basis does one deny that the same social contract should apply? It is wholly
illegitimate to deny equal treatment on the sole basis that one's ancestors, but not oneself, at some time in the past had a
distinct Indigenous existence. Colonization has had a dramatic effect on Indian nations solely by virtue of the many
generations of Indian people who have been forced to abandon their tribal way of life and who have otherwise assimilated
into the cultural and social fabric of the United States. 358 While there is some evidence that the number of people in the
United States self-identifying as "Indian" has increased, 359 this may simply be the result of a broadening of the
definition of Indian to include people of Indian ancestry who are not tribal members, i.e., who are "Native American."
Indeed, this phenomenon may be further evidence of a breakdown of Indian identity where ethnicity and race, and not
political and cultural affiliation, have become the defining criteria. 360
35
EXT—GENOCIDE
Genocide kills more people than war, results in the collapse of all morality, and makes war inevitable.
ProjectArcix, a global, cooperative effort to address disaster management and response, ‘6
(Genocide: Consequences, http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/01412/lite/syntheticdisasters/genocide/consequences.html)
Genocide is one of the most atrocious crimes known to humanity. It is an indiscriminate killing of a group of people with total
disregard for the individual. Its immediate effect is death and dehumanization. Its long term implications include global fragmentation
and political disintegration through escalation and the collapse of international order. In the last century, the number of battle-related
victims is much smaller than that of genocides, indicating that genocide has a higher mortality rate. The inherent quality of killing on
the basis of identity makes it worse than warfare. Genocide is usually inflicted on noncombatants who cannot defend themselves:
infants, children, expectant mothers, the elderly, and civilians in general. Furthermore, genocide represents an egregious violation of
basic human rights – the right to live. Genocide also has global impacts – it disregards international law, creates political instability,
destroys entire cultures, and obliterates of morals. Kenneth J. Campbell in Genocide and the Global Village indicates that unchecked
genocide will eradicate global cooperation and make larger conflicts inevitable. If genocide goes unchecked, no group is safe as every
group could be the next. Campbell further says that even the most powerful nations may be drawn in and ultimately may threaten
civilization through accidental or intentional use of more powerful weapons
36
 INDIANS=DIE
The exploitation of tribal resources threatens tribal existence, setting a precedent for worldwide
extinction.
(The Invasion of Indian Country in the 20th Century, p. 208-215) [Bozman]
From traditional times to contemporary times, Indian people have struggled to maintain a dual balance, both within themselves and
with the universe. Such efforts are very personal since the strength of the Indian societies rested on kinship and social relations.
However, the most important relationship is not that between humans, nor is it that between humans and animals or plants. Rather, the
relationship of people with the universe is the most significant relationship, and Indians have learned that the way in which humans
view themselves in this role is important for an understanding of the essence of life and "the natural order of things." 6 The enormity
of the universe is acknowledged, and the smallness of humans in the universal order of life is accepted. Unlike Anglo-Americans who
perceive themselves as the center of the universe, Indian people traditionally have viewed themselves as minuscule members of a vast
universe. For example, the Western person typically refers to his or her "self" as the reference point and travels accordingly to turn
right or left. The Wintu, by contrast, referred to left and right as the sides of their body but while traveling referred to the cardinal
directions to avoid confusion and becoming lost. If traveling northward, a Wintu would say, the mountains are to the west; a non-
Indian would say, the mountains are on the left. But in returning to go south, the Wintu would know the mountains were to the east,
and the non-Indian would know they were on the right side.7 When the non-Indian faced another direction and perhaps did this again,
he or she became confused, then lost. In kinship terms, the human relationship with the natural environment was more important than
the human-to-human relationship. In time, Indian people understood that their lives depended on the environment, and knew that this
source of energy—so intrinsic to life itself—deserved respect. Their collective attitude lacked an individual ego consciousness,
allowing them to contemplate their societal relations and participation in the universe. Maintaining this relationship influenced cultural
development and the values of life as defined according to each Indian tribal nation by its people. Over the generations, these values
proved to be successful, and it is these traditional values that could offer a useful lesson as global natural resources and the
environment are rapidly depleted by the progress of civilization. Unfortunately, Victorian evolutionists in physical anthropology in the
nineteenth century underestimated the value of nativistic thought and referred to so-called primitive societies as savage and of lesser
intelligence, only to elevate their own race above others.8 Sucha racist view has endangered natural resources in the twentieth century
as the Western mentality has appointed itself the most advanced society of human existence, while dismissing the conservation
philosophies of Native Americans. Racial prejudice and cultural ethnocentricism has obstructed the global cooperation needed to
achieve the best answers for halting the ongoing drain on natural resources and preserving what remains. Although the United States
holds perhaps the most advanced scientific facilities and the greatest wealth for funding environmental conservation, it must overcome
its own prejudice against scholars of different racial and cultural backgrounds in order to stop the depletion of the environment. 9 The
primary focus of the numerous tribal philosophies is on global concerns regarding the exhaustion of natural resources. From
traditional Indian people, we can learn that kinship and social cooperation is important if the global community is to survive. Such
relationships were deeply personal for the Indians, and they carefully treated other people and expected generous social treatment in
return—so unlike the stoic, impersonal role that stereotypes have assigned them. (Naturally, Indian people would appear unfriendly to
non-Indians since the latter decided early on that Native Americans were their enemies.) From the Indian point of view, Anglo-
Americans are less open to other people, and their friendly overtures are suspicious since their mental preoccupation is focused more
on scientific rationalization and less on social relations. If global scientists and government leaders could combine the personal
thinking of American Indians with the Western mind's causal thinking, answers to questions of "Who is responsible for
decreasing natural resources?" and "What is the cause?" could produce a better approach to conserving global resources.10 Before
the arrival of non-Indians in the Western Hemisphere, American Indians learned from their struggles how to live within the limits of
the environment. The environment had a direct impact on their cultural development and directed life's economies, leading to a focus
on agriculture and hunting and gathering or a combination of the two. Among the Hurons, as among many Indian people, fishermen
offered tobacco and invocations to the waters before taking fish from the streams and rivers. Certain spirits of the waters had to be
appeased, lest they jeopardize the fishing.11 Philosophically, this acknowledgment of animism stressed the positive nature of human
involvement with the act of fishing so that positive results would occur.12 Montagnais hunters who depended upon the beaver
practiced conservation hunting since limited moose and caribou lived in their country. By studying the habits of the beaver, the
Montagnais estimated how many animals already were taken and were able to roughly calculate how many were left so that there
would always be enough to hunt. This type of cognition became one of the natural laws that the tribe obeyed. 13 This practice of
conservation ensured a steady supply of food to support the estimated 10,000 Montagnais who are thought to have lived in a dozen
villages.14 Traditional Indians treated the natural environment on a social but elevated level (perhaps operating on a principle of
retribution)15 as they developed philosophical explanations for the causalities of life. They observed the activities of nature and
incorporated the patterns expressed in the four seasons, in animal activities, and in plant growth into their social norms, laws,
philosophy, and worldview.
37
 INDIANS=DIE
The commonality between traditional Indians and animals is the social outcome of their group emphasis on human-animal relations.16
In the human-animal relationship, all partners are equal and mutually respected, so that people develop a respect for all life, including
the life of plants. All three—humans, animals, and plants—possessed life, and their spirits lived within their bodies. Many Indian
tribes developed clans represented by animal and plant totems, and they practiced group protection and unity. They courted the
positive side of life, abhorred evil, and at times had to combat negative agents from the dark side. Following traditional practices as
their ancestors had enabled Native Americans to be protected from the evil that lay beyond their understanding of life. Success in
maintaining their livelihood, even during hardship, brought a confidence that the ancestors were correct, that traditions should not be
questioned but rather accepted; maintaining a healthy stasis between the people and the destructive forces of life depended on
sustaining those traditions.17 In this sense, traditional Indians were more metaphysical than their non-Indian counterparts, who
eventually drifted from their early European religious beliefs toward a focus on economic gain. The unseen powers of nature
convinced traditional Indians that the laws of nature were greater than their tribal political laws, and thus, much of their own laws
were based on those of nature. Consequently, traditional Indians observed and continue to observe the seen and unseen forces of life,
seemingly without regard to past, present, or future. In the development of tribal religions, nature represented universal determinism,
and this religious concept became an important part of many Indian religions and unified the tribal communities.18 The Indian
relationship with animals dates back to the mythical times when both were new members of the freshly created world. Cree myths in
Canada describe a time when men married certain animals, such as the beaver, and speak about man's relationship with the animal
world. These stories, legends, and parables taken together created an oral history tradition. 19 Waswanipi hunters in the Canadian
boreal forest hunted the moose more easily after accumulating a large amount of knowledge about the animal's habits, so that the
moose "surrendered" its life to the Waswanipi. The hunter respectfully killed the moose swiftly, without torture, (and not excessively
for sport) in order to release the animal's spirit to return to its life in the afterworld. To ensure a successful harvest for hunting, hunters
estimated the animal populations and rotated their hunting areas.20 America's Native populations had learned to distribute their
populations to areas of a size and type that could sustain their people. Since their lives depended upon the environment, climate and
other aspects of nature influenced their cultural development.21 Furthermore, a second point of technological advancement was
incorporated into this conservationist lifestyle, as recorded among the Iroquois people of the eastern Great Lakes.22 Ethically, one
does not ask for more than the amount that can be used; if this simple rule is obeyed, less misfortune will occur. Among the Ojibwa,
hunters always shared the game that they killed to ensure that they would not be bewitched by others, and they did not hoard any
materials for fear that misfortune would plague them.23 When contact with Europeans and then the Anglo-Americans occurred, a
different value system, primarily an English one, became a part of the American experience, based on concepts of individualism and
property ownership.24 As other early non-English Europeans participated in capitalism, this resulting exploitation critically impacted
world societies. This continues today and is especially evident in the last half of the twentieth century.25 Motivated by greed,
America's capitalistic attitude has set a dangerous precedent for other world powers and Third World nations alike. Since 1950, the
world has lost almost one-fifth of its topsoil from croplands, a fifth of tropical rain forests, and tens of thousands of plant and animal
species.26 The environmental relations among traditional Indians and among non-Indians differ. Traditional Indians developed a
respectful relationship with nature, and early Europeans emulated them in their early settlements in America—until they adopted an
attitude of individual, capitalistic gain. Even American Indians were learning to relate their lives to the natural environment,
Euroamericans began to change that environment. The traditional Indian's natural environment is substantially different from the
American man-made environment, with its domesticated animals and plants that alter the landscape; this latter environment is
designed to support an industrial, modernized society with a burgeoning population.27 This increasing population has placed
enormous demands on the environment, depleting its forests and forcing farmers to use chemicals on the land to produce more and
better crops. But the ultimate effects will be lingering and have many dire consequences. As other nations imitate America's
aggressive consumption of natural resources and the world population increases, Thomas Malthus's theory about geometric population
growth placing enormous demands on the planet's resources will soon be seriously tested. 28 Certainly, in the case of China, which
must feed almost one-quarter of the world's population from an estimated seven percent of the planet's arable land, the precedent is
already being established.29 It has been common knowledge for several years that deserts in some parts of the world are growing
rapidly and that rain forests are being cut away due to the demand of world capitalism. The natural resources and animal life of the
planet are being depleted at an alarming rate. The repercussions of human greed at the individual and corporate levels will be
devastating for the entire planet.30 Throughout the history of human existence, technology has worked against world conservation.
And currently, the greed in the United States has influenced the world's nations, for America's wealth is widely envied. With a
population of less than six percent of the global total, America is both the largest producer and the largest consumer, using a full thirty
percent of the world's energy.31 A sad precedent has been set, for other countries are exploiting their natural resources for wealth just
as this nation has done without the control of strict conservation laws, all in an effort to emulate the United States. This will place
additional pressure on natural resources around the world, especially for industrial nations who depend on Middle East countries
surrounding the Persian Gulf, which has over\ one-half of the world's low-cost oil. Presently, multinational oil companies—Exxon,
Gulf, Mobil, Texaco, Standard Oil of California, British Petroleum (which is fifty percent government owned with private
management), Royal Dutch Shell, and Compagnie Française des Petroles
38
 INDIANS=DIE
(which is partly owned by private interests but mostly governmental controlled)—are steadily draining the world's oil supply, and
they will do so as long as there is little interest in fuel alternatives, such as advanced technological uses of coal.32 In 1974, the largest
spenders on oil imports were the United States at $24 billion, Japan at $18 billion, the United Kingdom at $8.5 billion; and Italy at
$7.5 billion. The largest earners were Saudi Arabia at $20 billion, Iran at $17.4 billion, Venezuela at $10.6 billion, Libya at $6.8
billion, and the Union of Arab Emirates at $4.1 billion.33 The tremendous current usage of oil and the combustion of coal produces
carbon dioxide that traps solar energy in the earth's atmosphere, causing a rise in temperature. This is the "greenhouse effect," and it is
predicted to change the climate worldwide. Between 1950 and 1973, a 4.5 percent increase in carbon emissions occurred, and another
4.5 percent increase from 1973 to 1983. From 1983 to 1988, carbon emissions increased to 3.7 percent, and a similar increase has
continued through the 1990s. 34 The sun is a constant in our lives, and its abundant power, handled properly, could be used to
sustain life. As estimated in 1974, solar radiation could provide more than 500 times the world's total energy consumption.35
Transforming the sun's rays into electricity with the use of solar photovoltaic cells promises to be widely used by the 2020s or 2030s.
By 1990, India had 6,000 village systems in operation. The U.S. Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) estimated that photovoltiacs
have the potential to supply over half of America's electricity by 2030.36 Another natural force that could be used is the wind, a
resource that renews itself. In the 1980s, more than 20,000 windmills producing electricity were used in the world, with the potential
to generate 1,600 megawatts. California and Denmark were the leading areas in this regard, and wind generators began to appear in
India and Germany. One estimate reported that wind power could provide more than ten percent of the world's electricity by the year
2030.37 Another possibility is the stockpiling of energy via fossil fuels and nuclear fuels. Western Europe and Japan are
dependent on other nations' natural resources, and stockpiling may be a means of support for such nations until new energy resources
can be developed. It is suspected that Third World nations will become industrialized, and stockpiling could also serve their needs.38
Natural gas is yet another alternative that could be used to relieve the demands on crude oil since only a small portion of it is
marketed in world trade, except where large markets exist. Presently, the United States has an estimated fifteen percent of the world's
supply, yet it consumes more than fifty percent of the total available. The next largest consumers are the countries of the former Soviet
Union at approximately twenty percent, which also have some of the largest supplies; the other large supply exists in Asia.39
It is unfortunate that the future of the planet is so intimately tied to political interests instead of a global concern for the
environment. It is imperative that we take steps to stave off the decimation of natural resources throughout the world. International
stability in politics is essential, especially given the sweeping political changes in 1989 and 1990 nd the move to democracy and
economic improvement. Furthermore, sound national economies are important if nations are to avoid exploiting their environmental
resources to dangerously low levels. Unchecked industrial growth has forced made recovery difficult for many nations. As nations
strive to reach international parity in terms of shared wealth and political status, pollution, forest destruction, and nuclear waste are
among the major irreversible problems that we confront. As examples, radioactive wastes stored in a salt dome at Lyons,
Kansas, was found to have leaked. More chilling still is the knowledge that nuclear waste disposal practices in some countries have
involved storing the waste in canisters and dropping them into the oceans. 40 It is unfortunate that human beings have developed
technology that has the potential to destroy their race and the environment. Without using wisdom while inventing new
technologies, the human race will become its own executioner. At present, the motivation of greed prevails over the concern for
environmental conservation, placing the globe on a destructive path. Until this focus on capitalistic gain is replaced by a focus on
human-environmental survival, all life around the world is in danger. Although conservation is practiced at some levels, long-range
consequences must be considered. In the process, we must learn a great deal more about the delicate balance of nature, as American
Indians knew long ago. We need not practice their traditions of environmental kinship and religious ceremonies, but we should
understand their perspective on the role of humans within the environment and all of life. In changing the current exploitative
attitude, a fresh perspective might result and lead us to fuller philosophies about life and the role of humans within the universe.
39
ASSIMILATION KILLS SELF DETERMINATION

Assimilation kills self determination.
Lexis [ev]
I don't mean to suggest that there are not some Indian nations that are trying to reverse the effects of colonization and to
revitalize their unique sovereign existence by redeveloping their language, culture, government, laws, economies, and so
on. 370 My point is that by envisioning the chasm that exists between modern Indigenous existence and the point from
whence we started, it is hard to ignore the degree to which we have all been assimilated to some degree, or to ignore the
impact that this assimilation might have on our desire and ability to self-determine in the future. Regardless of how one
evaluates the degree to which the Indian people have been colonized and assimilated into [*959] American society, the
fact that assimilation and colonization are still occurring at all is strong evidence that the Indian nations may be less able
than they once were, or may even be unwilling, to sustain a distinct existence. While it is surely the case that some
incorporation of the dominant society's culture and identity may be both natural and necessary, colonization may induce
some Indigenous people to take this process to the extreme. If one can imagine an Indian nation that seeks to exercise its
sovereignty solely for the purpose of replicating itself in the image of the dominant society, then it is possible to see that
colonization has achieved the ultimate success - the self-colonization of the colonized people. 371 When Indian nations
make conscious choices to pay the colonizing nation's taxes, live by its laws, and actively seek to replicate its way of life,
there is little distinct tribal existence left around which to wrap the cloak of tribal sovereignty. Sovereignty can include the
choice to recreate yourself in the image of the colonizing society; but once that point is achieved, I do not believe that
there remains any legitimate basis upon which to distinguish yourself as a separate sovereign nation. [*960] Whether
Indian people want to hear it or not, our flirtation with American society and culture is more akin to a moth being drawn
to the fire than to a thirsty man being drawn to an oasis. America is like a cultural Pandora's Box; it is the nature of
American culture both to destroy and to accommodate cultural differences. In some respects, this unique character makes
it hard to define what an "American" is, simply because America is an immigrant nation filled with pockets of wildly
divergent racial, ethnic, and social groups. It is the ability of American society - its political, economic, social, and legal
institutions - to find ways to harmonize and assimilate these divergent backgrounds that is one of its most defining
characteristics as a nation. Because Americans are quite used to differences among the population, many provisions exist
within American law to respect those differences. 372 The problem for a totally assimilated Indian nation, however, is that
the claim for sovereign recognition may ring quite hollow in a society where powerfully distinct cultural and religious
groups all find ways to exist in America without being recognized as sovereign nations.
40
EXT—GENOCIDE
The government takes advantage of Natives’ poverty by blackmailing them
into accepting their lethal waste—this is genocide
Daniel Brook 98, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 105-113 (article
consists of 9 pages), “Environmental Genocide: Native Americans and Toxic Waste”,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3487423.pdf
GENOCIDE AGAINST NATIVE AMERICANS continues in modern times with modern techniques. In the past, buffalo
were slaughtered or corn crops were burned, thereby threatening local native populations; now the Earth itself is being
strangled, thereby threatening all life. The government and large corporations have created toxic, lethal threats to human
health. Yet, 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 for Indians, these
disadvantages are multiplied by dependence on food supplies closely tied to the land and in which [toxic] materials . ..
have been shown to accumulate" (ibid.). This essay will discuss the genocide of Native Americans through environmental
spoliation and native resistance to it. Although this type of genocide is not (usually) the result of a systematic plan with
malicious intent to exterminate Native Americans, it is the consequence of activities that are often carried out on and near
the reservations with reckless disregard for the lives of Native Americans.1 One very significant toxic threat to Native
Americans comes from governmental and commercial hazardous waste sitings. Because of the severe poverty and
extraordinary vulnerability of Native American tribes, their lands have been targeted by the U.S. government and the large
corporations as permanent areas for much of the poisonous industrial by-products of the dominant society. "Hoping to
take advantage of the devastating chronic unemployment, pervasive poverty and sovereign status of Indian Nations",
according to Bradley Angel, writing for the international environmental organization Green- peace, "the waste disposal
industry and the U.S. government have embarked on an all-out effort to site incinerators, landfills, nuclear waste storage
facilities and similar polluting industries on Tribal land" (Angel 1991, 1). In fact, so enthusiastic is the United States
government to dump its most dangerous waste from "the nation's 110 commercial nuclear power plants" (ibid., 16) on the
nation's "565 federally recognized tribes" (Aug 1993, 9) that it "has solicited every Indian Tribe, offering millions of
dollars if the tribe would host a nuclear waste facility" (Angel 1991, 15; emphasis added). Given the fact that Native
Americans tend to be so materially poor, the money offered by the government or the corporations for this "toxic trade" is
often more akin to bribery or blackmail than to payment for services rendered.2 In this way, the Mescalero Apache tribe in
1991, for example, became the first tribe (or state) to file an application for a U.S. Energy Department grant "to study the
feasibility of building a temporary [sic] storage facility for 15,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel" (Ak-
wesasne Notes 1992, 11). Other Indian tribes, including the Sac, Fox, Yakima, Choctaw, Lower Brule Sioux, Eastern
Shawnee, Ponca, Caddo, and the Skull Valley Band of Goshute, have since applied for the $100,000 exploratory grants as
well (Angel 1991, 16-17). Indeed, since so many reservations are without major sources of outside revenue, it is not
surprising that some tribes have considered proposals to host toxic waste repositories on their reservations. Native
Americans, like all other victimized ethnic groups, are not passive populations in the face of destruction from imperialism
and paternalism. Rather, they are active agents in the making of their own history. Nearly a century and a half ago, the
radical philosopher and political economist Karl Marx realized that people "make their own history, but they do not make
it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly
found, given and transmitted from the past" (Marx 1978, 595). Therefore, tribal governments considering or planning
waste facilities", asserts Margaret Crow of California Indian Legal Services, "do so for a number of reasons" (Crow 1994,
598). First, lacking exploitable subterranean natural resources, some tribal governments have sought to employ the land
itself as a resource in an attempt to fetch a financial return. Second, since many reservations are rural and remote, other
lucrative business opportunities are rarely, if ever, available to them. Third, some reservations are sparsely populated and
therefore have surplus land for business activities. And fourth, by establishing waste facilities some tribes would be able
to resolve their reservations' own waste disposal problems while simultaneously raising much-needed revenue. As a result,
"[a] small number of tribes across the country are actively pursuing commercial hazardous and solid waste facilities";
however, "[t]he risk and benefit analysis performed by most tribes has led to decisions not to engage in commercial waste
management" (ibid.). Indeed, Crow reports that by "the end of 1992, there were no commercial waste facilities operating
41
on any Indian reservations" (ibid.), although the example of the Campo Band of Mission Indians provides an interesting
and illuminating exception to the trend. The Campo Band undertook a "proactive approach to siting a commercial solid
waste landfill and recycling facility near San Diego, California. The Band informed and educated the native community,
developed an environmental regulatory infrastructure, solicited companies, required that the applicant company pay for
the Band's financial advisors, lawyers, and solid waste industry consultants, and ultimately negotiated a favorable
contract" (Haner 1994, 106). Even these extraordinary measures, however, are not enough to protect the tribal land and
indigenous people from toxic exposure. Unfortunately, it is a sad but true fact that "virtually every landfill leaks, and
every incinerator emits hundreds of toxic chemicals into the air, land and water" (Angel 1991, 3). The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency concedes that even if the . . . protective systems work according to plan, the landfills will eventually
leak poisons into the environment" (ibid.). Therefore, even if these toxic waste sites are safe for the present generation-a
rather dubious proposition at best-they will pose an increasingly greater health and safety risk for all future generations.
Native people (and others) will eventually pay the costs of these toxic pollutants with their lives, "costs to which
[corporate] executives are conveniently immune" (Parker 1983, 59). In this way, private corporations are able to
externalize their costs onto the commons, thereby subsidizing their earnings at the expense of health, safety, and the
environment. Sadly, this may not be the worst environmental hazard on tribal lands. Kevin Grover and Jana Walker try
"[t]o set the record straight" by claiming that "the bigger problem is not that the waste industry is beating a path to the
tribal door [although it is of course doing so]. Rather, it is the unauthorized and illegal dumping occurring on reservations.
For most Indian communities the problem of open dumping on tribal lands is of much greater concern than the remote
prospect that a commercial waste disposal facility may be sited on a reservation" (Haner 1994, 107).3 There are two major
categories of people who illegally dump waste on tribal land. They have been called "midnight dumpers" and "native
entrepreneurs." Midnight dumpers are corporations and people who secretly dump their wastes on reservations without the
permission of tribal governments. Native entrepreneurs are tribal members who contaminate tribal land, without tribal
permission, for private profit or personal convenience. Both midnight dumpers and native entrepreneurs threaten Native
American tribes in two significant ways: tribal health and safety, and tribal sovereignty.
42
ENVIRO RACISM
Natives are uniquely subject to the lethal nuclear waste—this is environmental
racism
First, toxic waste poses a severe health and safety risk. Some chemical agents cause leukemia and other cancers; others
may lead to organ ailments, asthma, and other dysfunctions; and yet others may lead to birth defects such as anencephaly.
Toxic waste accomplishes these tragic consequences through direct exposure, through the contamination of the air, land,
and water, and through the bioaccumulation of toxins in both plants and animals. And because of what Ben Chavis in
1987 termed "environmental racism," people of color (and poor people) are disproportionately affected by toxic waste.
Native Americans are especially hard hit because of their ethnicity, their class, and their unique political status in the
United States. A second problem that Native Americans must confront when toxic waste is dumped on their lands is the
issue of tribal sovereignty, and more specifically the loss of this sovereignty. "Native American governments retain all
power not taken away by treaty, federal statute, or the courts.
43
PTIX CHANGE KEY

Working within the current system of federal Indian law fails to solve
underlying problems
There have been many proposals to solve the sovereignty problems outlined above. Some examples include a
constitutional amendment guaranteeing the sovereign status of Indian tribes, n189 legislative enactments to undo the
injustices of the past and provide for increased representation in the government, n190 and increased dependence on
and control of the government trust relationship. n191 All of these approaches suffer, however, from the same basic
flaw: they ground themselves in the current system of federal Indian law. n192 As [*434] the above discussion
indicates, the current system does not adequately protect the rights of Indian tribes because it is not based upon their
consent and it provides no defined method for dealing with the conflicts that threaten tribal sovereignty. Without
addressing these two fundamental problems, approaches that merely doctor the injustices wrought by the system
relieve the symptoms but fail to treat the disease.
Before discussing an approach that would address these problems, however, a very basic question must be answered.
What incentive does the United States have to enter into a new arrangement with the Indian tribes? n193 The tempting
answer is that, beyond the moral rightness of treating indigenous peoples with dignity, fairness and respect, there are
none. Yet, the United States has at least two possible incentives, the first being international in nature and the second
domestic.
44
PTC BEST
Tradeable credits ideal.
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.
45
SOLVENCY—GENOCIDE
Tribal sovereignty key to stop illegal dumping
As an extension of this principle, native governments retain authority over members unless divested by the federal
government" (Haner 1994, 109- 110). Jennifer Haner, a New York attorney, asserts that illegal dumping threatens tribal
sovereignty because it creates the conditions that make federal government intervention on the reservations more likely
(ibid., 121). The federal government can use the issue of illegally dumped toxic waste as a pretext to revert to past
patterns of paternalism and control over Native American affairs on the reservations; Native Americans are viewed as
irresponsible, the U.S. government as their savior. Less abstract examples of threats to sovereignty include the experience
of the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe. The Waste Tech Corporation "wanted to restrict the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe from having full
access to their own tribal land ... [and also wanted] the unilateral right to determine where access roads would be built,
and the unilateral right to decide to take any additional land they desired" (Angel 1991, 3). Another concrete example is
Waste Management, Inc.'s attempt to curtail the powers of the Campo Environ- mental Protection Agency and to dilute
other tribal regulations. Amcor officials at the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, as a further example, sought
exemption from any environmental laws mandated for tribal lands after the contract was signed. All of these acts are
threats to the sovereignty of Native American tribes and contribute to the genocidal project. Tribal lands are detrimentally
affected through other external and un- wanted environmental influences, as well. Indeed, "[o]ff-site pollution is [also] a
major problem for Native Americans" (Lewis 1994, 189). There are many examples, and each one is a very significant
tragedy: When tankers like the Exxon Valdez spill their cargoes of crude oil, they pollute thousands of miles of coastline .
. . Pollutants from mining and processing plants migrate into reservation air and water. Cyanide heap-leach mining in
Montana is polluting water on the Fort Belknap reservation. Radioactive pollution and toxic waste from the Hanford
nuclear weapons plant threaten all tribes who depend on the Columbia River. . . The Mdewakanton Sioux of Prairie
Island, Minnesota, fear the health impacts of a nuclear power plant built on the edge of their small reservation, while the
Western Shoshones protest the use of their land as a nuclear test site. Industrial waste dumps surround the St. Regis Indian
Reservation, fouling the St. Lawrence River. Poorly treated urban waste and agricultural effluent threatens nearby
reservation environments (ibid.). Deadly environmental threats also emanate from uranium and coal mining, U.S. military
target practice and war games, spent ammunition shells, discarded batteries, and asbestos. Sadly, this is only a partial list.
In fact, a survey of only 25 Indian reservations revealed "that 1200 hazardous waste generators or other hazardous waste
activity sites were located on or near 109 ? . .[those] reservations selected for the survey" (Williams 1992, 282). The issue
is serious, the scope is wide, and the results are disastrous. Native Americans have always altered their environment, as
well as having it altered by others. The environment, like culture, is inherently dynamic and dialectical. Native Americans
"used song and ritual speech to modify their world, while physically transforming that landscape with fire and water,
brawn and brain. They did not passively adapt, but responded in diverse ways to adjust environments to meet their cultural
as well as material desires" (Lewis 1994, 188). However, the introduction of toxic waste and other environmental hazards,
such as military-related degradation, have catastrophically affected the present and future health and culture of Native
Americans. Yet, Native Americans and other people of color, along with poor people, women, and environmentalists, have
been organizing against toxic waste and fighting back against the government and the corporations. In- deed, "the
intersection of race discrimination and exposure to toxic hazards", according to Andrew Szasz, Professor of Sociology at
the University of California, Santa Cruz, "is one of the core themes of the [anti-]toxics movement" (Szasz 1994, 151).4 In
spite of the often desperate poverty of Indian tribes, "a wave of resistance has erupted among Indian people in dozens of
Indian Nations in response to the onslaught of the waste industry" (Angel 1991, 5). Sporadic resistance has also developed
into organized and sustained opposition. Facing the threat of a toxic waste facility on their land in Dilkon, Arizona, in
1989, the Navajo formed a group called Citizens Against Ruining our Environment, also known as CARE. CARE fought
the proposed siting by educating and organizing their community, and their success inspired other similarly situated
Native Americans. (CARE later merged with other Navajo groups fighting for the community and the environment, to
create a new organization, called Dine CARE). The following year, in June 1990, CARE hosted a conference in Dilkon
called "Protecting Mother Earth: The Toxic Threat to Indian Land", which brought together "over 200 Indian delegates
46
from 25 tribes throughout North America" (ibid.). The following year's conference in South Dakota included over 500
Indigenous delegates from 57 tribes" (ibid., 6). It was at this second annual conference that the delegates created the
Indigenous Environmental Net- work. The IEN states that it is "an alliance of grass roots peoples whose mission is to
strengthen, maintain, protect and respect the traditional teachings, lifestyles and spiritual interdependence to the
sacredness of Mother Earth and the natural laws" (Aug 1993, 7). This is wholly in concert with "the most enduring
characteristic of American Indians throughout the history of the continent: the ability to incorporate technological, natural,
and social changes while maintaining cultural continuity" (Crow 1994, 593). Therein lies the natural affinity between
Indian opposition to toxic waste and the broader environmental justice movement. "Environmental justice," according to
the journal of the Citizens' Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste, Everyone's Backyard, "is a people-oriented way of
addressing 'environmentalism' that adds a vital social, economic and political element . . .When we fight for
environmental justice, we fight for our homes and families and struggle to end economic, social and political domination
by the strong and greedy" (Szasz 1994, 152-153). Fighting for environmental justice is a form of self-defense for Native
Americans. As the Report of Women of All Red Nations declared, "To contaminate Indian water is an act of war more
subtle than military aggression, yet no less deadly . .. Water is life" (February 1980, in Collins Bay Action Group 1985, 4).
Toxic 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 re- locate so that the
land rip-offs can proceed without hitch. Water is life but the corporations are killing it. It's a genocide of all the
environment and all species of creatures" (Bend 1985, 25; emphasis in original). In effect, toxic pollution is a genocide
through geocide, that is, a killing of the people through a killing of the Earth. Environmental threats are, unfortunately, not
new. In the mid-1800s, Chief Seattle of the Suquamish tribe reportedly stated that "[t]he Earth does not belong to [human
beings]; [humans] belong to the Earth. This we know. All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. All
things are connected. Whatever befalls the Earth befalls the [children] of the Earth. [Human beings] did not weave the
web of life; [they are] merely a strand in it. Whatever [they do] to the web, [they do to themselves]" (Chief Seattle 1987,
7). In this vein, genocide is ultimately also suicide. Five hundred years after the commencement of colonialism and
genocide, "the exploitation and assault on Indigenous people and their land continues. Instead of conquistadors armed
with weapons of destruction and war, the new assault is disguised as 'economic development' promoted by entrepreneurs
pushing poisonous technologies. The modern-day invaders from the waste disposal industry promise huge amounts of
money, make vague promises about jobs, and make exaggerated and often false claims about the alleged safety of their
dangerous proposals" (Angel 1991, 1). Yet, also 500 years later, Native Americans are still resisting the onslaught and are
still (re)creating themselves and their cultures. And increasingly, Native Americans are better organized and more united
than ever in their struggle against environmental racism and for environmental justice.
47
SOLVENCY—DETERMINATION
Renewables are sweet for Indiansself-determination, less coal and nuclear use and more jobs.
Peter Asmus, Senior Associate at the AHC Group (consulting firm specializing in environmental strategy), Winter, ‘98
(Landscapes of Power, The Amicus Journal, Volum 19, Issue 4, p. Proquest) [Bozman]
When Peterson Zah, president and chairman of the Navajo Nation throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, spoke these words several
years ago, he was lamenting the effects of several coal and uranium strip mines and coal-fired power plants on Navajo (and Hopi)
land. Those developments, including the infamous Black Mesa mine of the Peabody Western Coal Company-one of the largest coal
strip mines in the United Stateswere approved in tribal council decisions that were and remain controversial among tribe members.
Over the years, the mines have ripped up land that is deeply sacred to both tribes, brought health damage to mine workers and
radioactive contamination to a local river, and, some tribal members suspect, been the cause of gross deformities in newborn sheep
and even of mysterious deaths. Yet these mines are only some of the more egregious of the many destructive energy projects that
corporate America has brought to Indian Country. Many tribes have faced the painful dilemma of choosing to accept or reject mining
or drilling deals that would bring both environmental damage and desperately needed income. Unemployment hovers around 35
percent on the Navajo Reservation, but it is less severe than on many other reservations-on some, it can reach 90 percent-and energy
development is a large part of the reason. Some 70 percent of the work forces of the mines and power plants are Navajo, and they
provide about half of the tribe's revenues. In the past few years, a few Native Americans, as well as some nonNative
environmentalists, have begun looking to renewable energy sources as a possible way out of this Hobson's choice. Reservations in
the West were typically created on land that European Americans did not want, whether because the soil was too poor, the water too
scarce, or the elements too harsh-such as fierce sun and relentless wind. Could solar and wind power help tribes change the rules of
the energy game on their lands, allowing them to develop economically while honoring a spiritual tradition that holds the earth to be a
living, sacred entity? A task force of Native Americans, environmentalists, renewable-energy companies, and federal government
officials has been created to look into the possibilities and recommend steps toward realizing them. A small Department of Energy
(DOE) program started disbursing grants to tribes for renewable energy and energy efficiency in 1994; according to a paper by DOE's
Stephen Sargent and Ernest Chabot, the program funded thirty-three projects in its first two years. And, most importantly, many Native
Americans are enthusiastic about the idea. "Now is the perfect opportunity to shift gears and take a new direction," argued Zah at a
1993 conference on the topic, sponsored by the nonprofit Center for Resource Management (CRM). "We have the space, the people,
the land. What we are now doing [by depending on coal] is going to be our downfall." For some, small-scale renewables offer a way
to redress the fact that many Native Americans, whose lands bring electric power to millions of other Americans, have no electricity in
their own homes. Notes Navajo energy consultant Harris Arthur, "some 25,000 Navajo, and another 25,000 other Native Americans,
do not currently have electricity." Remote Indian homes and villages can be miles and miles away from transmission lines. The
distance is cultural, as well; some traditional Hopi, for instance, revere the spiritual power of the earth so greatly that they refuse to
allow infrastructure such as power lines to scar their land. Photovoltaic (PV) panels offer a solution that satisfies both ancient cultural
practices and future needs: small-scale solar energy systems that can be installed directly onto homes without the need for power lines
or for imported, polluting fuels. The few traditional Hopi who currently enjoy solar electricity are enthusiastic about it, offering prayer
feathers for the power of the sun that electrifies their homes as they do for the gifts of crops, the rivers, and the land. Harris Arthur has
been preaching what he calls "the gospel of renewable energy" for more than a decade, and now finally sees some light at the end of
the tunnel. This past September, he met with officials in DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency, and with key federal
legislators, to push a program of rural PV systems for the Navajo. Arthur argues that the program would be a natural part of President
Clinton's "Million Solar Roofs" initiative. If his efforts for federal funding fall through, however, he intends to revive a bill "which
was filibustered to death" in the New Mexico legislature earlier this year-but has wide bipartisan support. For others, the harnessing
of solar and wind power represents primarily a business opportunity for the reservations, one of the few such opportunities that are
compatible with the tribes' heritage of self-determination, sovereignty, and environmental values. A few tribes are using renewables to
bolster their existing businesses; the Ute Mountain Utes of Colorado, for instance, are using PV-powered pumps for watering
livestock. And Paul Parker of CRM points out that the upheavals now taking place in the national energy system are creating another
possibility-that Native American tribes could develop their energy resources and sell power to others. Recent actions by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission will open up the transmission highways used to move bulk power throughout the country for use by
anyone who wishes to buy or sell. Corresponding state regulations and legislation will allow customers to choose new power suppliers
just as we now choose telecommunications companies. In these circumstances, Parker says, tribes could emerge as suppliers of
clean, renewable energy to Indians and non-Indians alike. On the one hand, some Native American lands feature the best solar and
wind energy sites in the country. As renewables technology advances, renewable energy is becoming ever more costeffective, and
nowhere more so than at sites like these. On the other, tribal sovereignty laws create legal powers on reservations that other
government entities lack. "At the institutional level, Native Americans have more control over permits and can use tax-exempt
financing if power projects are compatible with their culture and goals," says Parker. According to a CRM report published in early
1997, tribes have the legal authority to build power plants and transmission lines and to deliver electricity at the retail level. No other
government entity has as many options for energy management.
48
[NO TEXT DELETED]
Parker envisions Native American tribes becoming critical players in a national strategy to encourage widespread reliance on
renewable energy. Starting in 1998, electricity customers in California will have the choice of buying their power from
environmentally sound suppliers. (See "Living Green," page 45.) Other states should be extending the option to their citizens in the
not-so-distant future. Says Parker, "If people are willing to pay more for green power, they might be even more interested in
purchasing green power from Indian tribes. If tribes were focused on the issue of renewables, they could become charismatic leaders
for the entire nation, bringing their moral and historical weight behind a national effort to choose clean power." The theory sounds
good, but as even Parker admits, putting it into practice is another thing. If Native Americans are to reap the benefits of any kind of
development on their lands, they will have to take the lead in bringing it about. On many reservations, however, the pattern has far
more often been one of exploitation by outside forces. "In the past, tribes have been passive," says Parker. "They need to be aggressive
in order to take advantage of the limited window of opportunity that exists with deregulation" of the electricity industry. Marty Wilde
is still more direct about the potential difficulties. Wilde, an engineer by training, teaches math and science at the Blackfeet
Community College near Browning, Montana. He points out that, for any people beset by extreme povertyand 45 percent of all Native
Americans have living standards below the level the federal government defines as destitution-there are tremendous obstacles in the
way of mustering the political will and financial clout for home-grown economic development. Nevertheless, with the aid of a DOE
grant, the Blackfeet have erected what Wilde claims is the first wind turbine put up on tribal lands. The pilot project was partly a kind
of public relations effort, aimed both at building alliances with outside powers, such as universities, regional utilities, and state and
federal government, and at getting the Blackfeet themselves interested in the prospects for larger-scale wind power development. "It
sits right dab in the middle of the best wind site in the lower forty-eight," says Wilde of the 100kilowatt turbine, which was completed
in May 1996. While some locations have higher average wind speeds, no other location boasts so large a potential wind development
area, notes Wilde. It is projected that 10,000 megawatts of wind power could be developed here, enough electricity to serve the needs
of more than a handfull of states. But Wilde makes it clear that one of the driving motivations behind the installation of the turbine
was for the Blackfeet to undertake a development project on their own, rather than have outsiders do it for them-and quite possibly
take advantage of them or mismanage the project, as has often been the case. The installation is "a glowing example of how local
people took the initiative," he says. "Historically, hustlers have promised the world to these tribes, only to let them down time and time
again. This project could be a major moral boost that will allow the Blackfeet tribes to determine their own destiny." The Spirit
Lake Sioux of North Dakota have now also installed a wind turbine, to power their casino. By 1996, DOE had given grants toward
four other wind projects. And there have been other promising developments. The Jicarilla Apache tribe, for example, is looking to
establish a tribal utility authority. Ideally, they hope to integrate the functions of generating, transmitting, and distributing power, in
order to serve the needs of isolated customers scattered throughout the tribe's vast land holdings-almost 1 million acres near the New
Mexico-Colorado border. A mix of small wind-turbine and photovoltaic plants, as well as state-of-the-art hydroelectric and clean-
burning natural-gas plants, could reduce nuclear and coal consumption in the region. According to Wyatt Rogers, a consultant to
the Denver, Coloradobased Council of Energy Resource Tribes, one of the bright spots for wind developers in Western reservations is
that "the fastest-growing U.S. power markets are near by"-Seattle and the rest of the Pacific Northwest. The Council has worked
primarily with traditional power sources such as coal, but Rogers, himself a Native American, is trying to prod it to explore
renewables as well. They "fit in with our traditional philosophy," he says. "Sources of natural energy that can be regenerated are
definitely preferred over sources that must be wasted." All told, the federal government recognizes the sovereignty of over 500
different American Indian tribes and Native Alaskan groups. Nearly all have long-established land holdings, independent tribal
governments, and a growing demand for more energy to fuel emerging economies. Today, tribal memberships are growing at an
average annual rate of more than 3 percent, which makes them the fastest-growing demographic group in the United States after
immigrant populations. Will tribes be able to use the sun and wind to contribute to the worldwide effort to build societies more in
harmony with nature? The task force on Native American renewables believes it will take more efforts by tribes to set up energy
authorities like the one planned by the Jicarilla Apache, more work by renewable energy companies to form partnerships with tribes,
and more funding and technical assistance from the federal government. But the rewards could be great. The damage fossil-fuel
development has wreaked on tribal lands underscores the poverty of this country's energy and natural resource policies. Renewable
energy represents a way for tribes to join the power of their traditional beliefs with the power of advanced technology.
49
Renewable energy on Native American reservations would make them energy self-suficient, extending
their sovereignty.
Marjane Ambler, Editor of Tribal College Journal, Winter, ‘05
(Building Green Campuses for the Seventh Generation, Tribal College, Volume 17, Issue 2) [Bozman]
"We believe the wind is wakan, a holy or great power. Our grandmothers and grandfathers have always talked about it, and we
recognize that," explains Patrick Spears, president of Intertribal COUP (Intertribal Council on Utility Policy). That organization is
developing a plan for wind generation to revitalize tribal communities and economies across the Northern Great Plains, according to
Winona LaDuke of Honor the Earth in their book on renewable energy. North Dakota has the highest wind energy potential in the
country, according to the American Wind Energy Association. With help from federal and private funds, tribal colleges are
demonstrating the value of decentralized power production (also known as distributed generation). Whether or not it is feasible to
generate enough electricity from the wind and sun to serve a large region, they have found that it is feasible to serve local needs.
When you look around the towns and cities where you live, chances are you don't see very many buildings, especially institutional
buildings, that boast 40- 60% energy savings. Most of us have accepted the conventional wisdom in the United States that renewable
energy is a nice idea but expensive and unrealistic, and that energy conservation saves pennies, not thousands of dollars. But
gradually and quietly, the momentum is growing, both on reservations and elsewhere. Governors of 18 Western states have set a goal
of 30,000 megawatts of clean energy by 2015, according to Dr. Stanley R. Bull of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The
importance of reducing dependence upon utility companies extends beyond energy. Tribes extend their sovereignty when they
become more energy self-sufficient. Even small systems are important. Honor the Earth partnered with Oglala Lakota College
recently to install a 2-kilowatt solar/wind hybrid renewable energy system at a community center. Such a symbolic step is part of
social change -it gives individual tribal members more control over their destiny. As these tribal colleges pass knowledge of
renewable energy on to their students and their communities, they accomplish more than just reducing their energy bills. They leave a
legacy of knowledge for the seventh generation.
50
Developing renewables allows tribes to become more self-sufficient.

Most tribes are seeking both greater levels of self governance and self sufficiency which requires a careful balance of political and
economic aims in order to foster overall tribal welfare. Indian tribal leadership has become much more informed, educated and
pro-active with respect to the conduct of business matters and the management of energy-related industries on tribal lands. Many
tribes now recognize that their natural resource base, including both conventional and renewable energy resources, represents
something far more valuable than has been traditionally reflected in royalties and lease payments to non-Indian businesses. Tribes
view the energy resource supply and electric utility industry as presenting lucrative economic development opportunities that can be
pursued in a way that is reconcilable with self-determination, sovereignty and environmental protection.
Renewables are all around badass for tribes.

Historically, Native American culture, values and customs have reflected an unparalleled commitment to and respect for the natural
environment; many tribes still maintain this commitment. However, too often tribes have been confronted with extremely unfavorable
choices between preserving their identity, securing economic opportunity, and protecting the environment. As a result, many tribes
have had to compromise traditional values in the name of economic progress.29 In attempts to identify less environmentally impacting
economic development opportunities, an increasing number of tribes are considering the devel opment of renewable energy projects
(as well as projects utilizing or combining natural gas) as realistic and attractive ventures. Because of tribes' historical and renewed
commitment to environmental protection, they represent logical partners for non-Indian businesses wishing to develop renewable
energy projects. Renewable energy development also represents an opportunity for tribes to link their environmental ethics and
priorities with those of self-determination and sustainable economic development.
51
SOLVENCY—K SHIT
Epistemology must come first-the plan reorients our relationship to nature?
26.2) [Bozman]
Policy is built on a variety of philosophical and epistemological arguments, ultimately grounded in subjective choice, and developed
using the political skills of strategy and persuasion. Based on this, the central question becomes: What philosophical and
epistemological frame of reference is best suited for developing and initiating policy leading to environmental justice and power
relations that are based on reciprocity rather than hierarchical domination? The critical perspective used here stresses the significance
of values in rethinking how environmental policy should be dealt with and is tested by placing [End Page 211] views about the
environment into an American Indian, specifically Chippewa, way of life. In other words, there is a need to reconceptualize
neocolonial values deemed to be authoritative. When making decisions, policy should be grounded in doctrines and principles that
stress reciprocal power and a holistic way of viewing the environment. For most of this century, positivist philosophies dominated
social science with the belief that questions and problems posed in the social world could be understood and solved using the same
techniques as those applied to the physical world. Some have come to question the ability of positivist approaches to deal with
complex social issues like those considered in U.S. policy. 43 The basic problem with the positivist approach is its inability to provide
a way to transcend political interest in order to obtain policy knowledge. What is suggested here is how policy analysis might benefit
from a methodology which acknowledges that scientific knowledge is dependent upon the normative assumptions and social meanings
of the world it explores. John Dryzek is one of the leading political scientists in policy analysis in the United States. Dryzek suggests
that policy analysis should address ethics and normative theory and the apparent normative basis of the status quo in the decision-
making process; that is, the values and interests represented in the existing regime and policy process. 44 Along the same lines,
political scientist Mary Hawkesworth argues that in order to effectively examine policy, the underlying values which drive
decision making must be acknowledged. Most importantly, for Hawkesworth, sources of power must be critically examined.
Indeed, the critical study of any subject should take into account the hierarchies of power that are inherent in our society. 45
The critical perspective proposed here challenges policy analysts to place themselves within an environmental justice
framework which would attempt to uncover the underlying assumptions that may contribute to and produce unequal protection. A
framework such as this addresses the ethical and political questions of "who gets what, why, and how much." 46 Addressing ethical
and political questions such as these is important because one frame of reference by itself does not inform the whole of the problems
associated with negative environmental impacts on people of color and low income groups. The critical perspective challenges the
policy analyst to choose among social values, and, because values underlie decisions, the policy analyst should recognize that by
choosing only one framework, their frame of reference is culturally bound and dependent. This point is made by critically examining
the values and lifestyle of American Indians. [End Page 212] A Way of Life A critical perspective offers a new frame of reference
for policy-making grounded in the doctrines and principles of many American Indian people regarding the environment. This
perspective demands critical thinking about the policies of both private and public sectors developed by those privileged with power in
response to environmental issues. The critical perspective questions the assumptions upon which current policies are based, examines
traditional solutions, and advocates new ways of thinking about the environment. While not perfect by any means, this perspective
allows for different realities and reciprocal relations of power based upon mutual respect and insists that these different realities should
be reflected in decisions and policies made to include Indigenous peoples. Formulating environmental policies from a critical
perspective includes taking into consideration questions about responsibilities toward the environment and how these responsibilities
ought to be reflected in the policies adopted by the government, in the private sector, and in the habits of the population as a whole. As
we begin to view our history and future as Native people from a critical perspective, we can reinterpret the values and validity of our
own traditions, teachings, and culture within a contemporary context. With this in mind, there are many things that are possible to
share with our global society. One of the most important of these from a Native as well as a non-Native perspective, is the
reestablishment of a land ethic that is based upon the sound experience of our heritage. Some of these values may be transferable to
the whole of society now that we are beginning a new century. Native philosophies of the land generally demonstrate an ethic that
presents the earth as vital because we are all born of the earth and require its resources for our very survival. From this perspective it is
also possible to see how the relationships that we form with nature are of essential importance. This is one of the elemental teachings
that originate generally from within Native culture that expresses our relatedness to nature, creation, and each other. It is important to
understand that we must begin, as a global society, to realize this wholeness or relatedness. To illustrate, for many Ojibwa/Chippewa
people, the environment is not an issue. It is a way of life. As with other tribes, the Ojibwa consider themselves inseparable from the
natural elements of their land, placing environmental sustainability at the forefront. Environmental sustainability is the ability of a
community to utilize its natural, human, and technological resources to ensure that all members of present and future generations can
attain a high degree of health and well-being, economic security, and a say in shaping their future [End Page 213] while maintaining
the integrity of the ecological systems upon which all life and production depends. The most important aspects of sustainability
include economic security, ecological integrity, democracy, and community. 47
52
SOLVENCY—K SHIT
[NO TEXT DELETED]
As expressed by our ancestors, we are part of nature and must begin to express an idea of community rather than conquest. Native
teachings can help us understand our relationship with life and creation as well as expand our awareness of nature and natural cycles.
We can begin to see that the earth is a resource for all our needs, in fact, our only resource. As human beings, it becomes increasingly
valuable for us to recognize this relationship so that we may benefit by using the gifts of creation effectively and efficiently. By
utilizing the environment and eliminating waste in appropriate ways, we begin to establish a way of seeing the future from the
perspective of generations to come; not only with respect to oil and luxury items, but by placing value on clean air, water, and soil in
ways that will sustain us and our societies into the future. Such an awareness of life can begin to have a profound effect on our
whole global society. As a community sharing life with the earth, we can see our dependence with, not independence from, nature.
Through the realization that holistic Indigenous knowledge concerning the environment is important and essential to our survival as
a whole, the teachings that Native peoples of the Americas present to our global society can be utilized in many ways, if given the
chance.
53
SOLVENCY-K SHIT
Need to take into account Indian perspectives.
26.2) [Bozman]
Holistic environmental paradigms stand in sharp contrast to life in an industrial society. Natural Law is preempted in industrial society
as human domination over nature becomes the central way of life. In contrast to the American Indian cyclical process of thinking, this
linear concept of progress dominates industrial societies. Progress is defined in terms of economic growth and technological
advancement and is key to the development of dominant civilized societies. From this perspective, the natural world is seen as
something that is wild and in need of taming and cultivation. Those not part of this mentality are seen as primitive and in need of
being civilized. Civilizing those who are not part of the dominant paradigm is the philosophical basis of colonialism, conquest, and the
view that Western knowledge is the only legitimate way of "knowing." Even though American Indian perspectives have a greater
impact today on environmental politics and policy than previously, American Indian philosophies, values, and knowledge are not
included in those policy decisions that benefit large corporations and serve the interests of the state. There is a vast social distance
between the parties involved in corporate land and mineral issues that causes a breakdown in communication as well as
misinterpretations of each party's actions. Walter Bresett, activist and member of the Red Cliff band of Chippewa, argues that Indians
and non-Indians alike are being victimized by large corporations that reduce economic options. 50 Activist and author Al Gedicks
writes, "the sooner we stop labeling 'native issues' as something separate and distinct from our own survival, the sooner we will
appreciate the critical interconnections of the world's ecosystems and social systems." 51 Environmental concerns can be absolutely
crucial within the context of reservation politics; even before the most hostile of tribal councils, the kind of "Mother Earth" talk that
would make Anglo corporate executives [End Page 215] or legislators roll their eyes can make all the difference. 52 In dealing with
American Indian people when making important decisions, such as formulating environmental policy, corporate America and the
federal government would be wise to realize that among American Indian tribes there is a growing respect and a demand for the
inclusion of generations of cumulative Indigenous knowledge which is essential in balancing business practices with sustainability.
Environmental harms follow the path of least resistance and are connected to many things such as the air we breathe, our food, water,
lifestyles, and legal decisions. Developing economically sustainable alternatives will depend on many variables, such as research,
effective organizing and lobbying, legal representation, effective use of the media, interactive utilization of Native rights and
environmental movements by Indigenous groups and state/local governments, and an essential inclusion of Native beliefs and values
concerning the environment. Including these values singularly or in combination, depending on the context, into the political
deliberative and allocative process can help bring about environmentally sound, long-term, sustainable economic alternatives. With
the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and values, the socially harmful interaction between economic and political institutions
that we have seen in the past can be decreased while at the same time helping restore the balance which is so important to Native
peoples. Clearly, incorporating these kinds of values and beliefs into policy decisions challenges and decolonizes the harmful,
wasteful projects of profit-maximizing corporations and growth-at-all-costs government policies while strengthening Indian
nations as a whole. As a global society, it is possible to examine our relationship with the earth and realize that our future lies in our
ability to sustain ourselves and the developments we choose to impose on the environment. Native traditions have incorporated many
ways to sustain the harvest of resources that will not destroy their future availability. For example, Menominee Tribal Enterprises, in
Keshena, Wisconsin, received international recognition for achievements made toward sustainable forestry practices. Situated on
220,000 acres of forested lands, the Menominee system of intensive forest management "is now a recognized leader in shelterwood
systems for uneven-aged management of white pine, and hemlock-yellow birch ecosystems." 53 We cannot return to a pristine
existence, but we can make the best possible use of what we now have. We have an opportunity as a society to integrate our ways of
"doing" to match the patterns and requirements of nature and the natural environment. Cooperation with the environment is one way to
integrate [End Page 216] Native traditional values and mainstream concepts of development and future survival. With the assistance of
Native traditions and teachings, we as a society can begin to identify patterns of nature that do work and present us with alternatives to
ecological and global crises.
54
SOLVENCY-RENEWABLES
Lizana K. Pierce [et al.], U.S. Department of Energy, Golden Field Office, June, 2K
(http://www.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/report_native_lands.cfm) [Bozman]
A natural connection has existed for centuries between Native Americans and renewable energy. Sustainable Native American
communities have utilized the naturally occurring energy in sunshine, flowing water, and the wind. Since renewable energy is
generally clean energy, it complements Native Americans' respect for the environment and their concern for future generations (the
"seventh-generation" viewpoint). Recently a number of tribes have actively pursued development of their renewable energy resources,
with a view to energy self-sufficiency as well as economic development. Some of the recent efforts are described in this paper.
Alt energy is sweet for Indians.

Lizana K. Pierce [et al.], U.S. Department of Energy, Golden Field Office, June, 2K
(http://www.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/report_native_lands.cfm) [Bozman]
Native American tribes are now beginning to look much more closely at their renewable energy resources as new revenue generators.
Investments in such areas as ecotourism, biomass power plants, and wind farms have the potential for producing economic
development and jobs for tribal members. In addition, tribes are looking at the potential for renewable resources to improve their
quality of life. This is especially true where there are homes with no current electricity supply. In addition, the environmental
advantages of renewable energy are significant. The development of renewable resources holds great promise for Native Americans
across the land.
55
SOLVENCY—JOB CREATION
Tax incentives would allow Native American tribes to develop renewables, making them energy self-
sufficient, increasing tribal sovereignty.
Jerry Reynolds, Staff Writer for Indian Country Today, 9-12-‘7
(Indian Country Today, Volume 27, Issue 14, p. Proquest) [Bozman]
"Fortunately, tribal elders possess world views and life-ways [including technologies] closely tied to the unique environments where
they have lived. "Many Native peoples continue to find their identities, cultures, in the broadest sense, and most important life lessons
in the landscapes and seascapes that they call home: their indigenous knowledge emerges from their natural environments. Their main
message is that nature and culture cannot be divorced - that biological diversity and cultural diversity are inextricably connected. "...
As new ways to thrive in life-enhancing cultured are sought out, Native traditions and world views must be acknowledged." The
brevity of Wildcat's allotted time in a tight schedule, on what was essentially an occasion for advocacy, prevented any chance to
explore the nuts and bolts of this acknowledgment. But at an energy conference in Washington in mid-July, and in follow-up
interviews afterward, a vanguard advocate of renewable fuels development for tribes made a case for the practical role of Native
culture in rescuing the environment. Dean Suagee of the Washington law firm Hobbs, Straus, Dean and Walker, citing an array of
research, said the energy industry's response to global wanning and other factors are adding to the incentives tribes can rely on as they
consider renewable fuels development. But in the big picture, he added, investors still want to finance big projects for large-scale
energy users, and most tribes are not large-scale energy users. So tribes have got to continue injecting themselves into the national
conversation on energy as a way of having an impact of the kind Wildcat envisioned, but also to attract investors. Wildcat and Suagee
seem to come together in their thinking here: the unique local environments of tribes, and the cultural imperatives they give rise to, as
described by Wildcat, can in Suagee's view produce renewable fuels development that generates prosperity, and makes their local
environments more self-sufficient in energy. Although the full incentives tribes need for local renewable fuels development are still in
formation, Suagee said the new jobs that will come of the energy industry's transition will number about 3 million. They will be jobs
based in the United States, and a portion of them can be jobs created by tribal governments. Renewable fuels should be thought of as a
"wedge" made up of multiple approaches, Suagee said, a diversity of possibilities for a diversity of tribes - biomass (wood and
undergrowth from thinned forests), biofuels (from agricultural byproducts), solar and photovoltaic heat, and above all, now wind
energy. New law, including authority for tribes to transfer a share of their tax break (as governments) to investors in return for equity,
is needed to improve the incentives for tribes and their investors to-lay transmission lines from tribal wind towers to the national
energy transmission grid, Suagee said. Federal agencies are already empowered to purchase electricity generated by tribes, but it has
to be transmissible at a profit, under long-term contracts, before investors will come forward. In the interim, tribes can improve their
energy efficiency and launch a learning curve with only a single wind tower. Energy efficiency is another alternative for tribes. In
particular, tribes can lead a trend toward "green building" through incentives for energy-efficient construction in the Native American
Housing and Self-Determination Assistance Act. "We know how to build buildings so they use no energy," Suagee said, adding that it's
relatively easy to build so that homes use close to zero total energy. Energy efficiency however, is the hardest component of reduced
use to implement. State governments all but abandoned the cause in the 1990s, opting instead to push retail competition with its
predictable surge in energy usage. Tribal governments on the other hand, acting on a different philosophy, have the authority to force
adoption of energy-efficient building codes. And they can reduce their use of gasoline through new approaches to land-use planning.
Little assistance is available for tribes that seek efficiencies in their fuel use, according to Suagee. "We need a step-by-step guide for
tribal governments," he said. Taken altogether, Suagee believes the steps of energy efficiency and renewable fuels development can
lead tribes to a leap forward in job creation - as well as an exemplary step back for us all from the brink of "global burning."
56
Alternative energy would create a lot of jobs on reservations.
Shannon Biggs, Director of the Local Green Economy program at Global Exchange, Autumn, ‘07
(Harnessing the Wind, Earth Island Journal, Volume 22, Issue 3, p. Proquest) [Bozman]
During the late 1980s, while searching for a low-cost energy source to meet the reservation's needs, the Rosebud Sioux learned that
the wind on their reservation could potentially meet one-twelfth of the entire US electricity demand. Despite a lack of experience in
wind technology or energy policy, the tribe determined to harness what people were calling the tri-state area of the Dakotas and
Nebraska: "the Saudi Arabia of wind." They constructed the first native^owned wind turbine on reservation land, distinguishing
themselves as enterprising leaders on the edge of eco-energy technology. In the process, the Sioux have shown how communities can
take advantage of unique local resources to bolster their economic self-sufficiency. By choosing a "green" solution that honors their
belief in living in balance with nature, thè Rosebud Sioux have contributed to solving the US energy problem and the global warming
challenge, and have inspired other Native American nations to explore how to meet their power needs in an environmentally wise
fashion. A Viable Empowerment Strategy It is hard to overestimate the potential of wind. It does not pollute or require painful
extraction methods such as mountaintop removal for coal or superheating the earth for oil, and it will never disappear. Although -it
currently accounts for less than one percent of total US energy output, wind is a multi-billion dollar industry, and the fastest growing
energy technology in the country. Today, wind power in the United States exceeds 11,600 megawatts, enough to light the city of
Detroit. Experts at the American Wind Energy Associa- . tion's 2007 annual conference forecast that by 2030 an estimated half a
trillion dollars in investment will bump wind's share of the US electricity generation to 20 percent. Despite the promise of wind, the
US remains reliant on dirty electricity generation methods. The utility industry says this is due to the expense of converting the energy
infrastructure to cleaner technologies. But the argument that fossil fuels are cheaper is called into question after taking into account all
of the government subsidies for carbon-heavy energy. The 2005 energy bill gave the on, gas, and coal industries some $32 billion in
subsidies over five years. Wind power companies received less than one percent of federal support for energy projects. There is truth
to the claim that the infrastructure is not yet in place to bring full-scale wind energy nationwide. "The Dakotas, Texas, Wyoming, and
other rural places have vast wind resources," says wind energy expert Dale Osborn. "But the problem is that they are in the middle of
nowhere. Large developers need to focus on transmission, but building it in short order is not yet possible." Osborn is a wind pioneer
and the owner of a small wind firm, DISGEN. He is often credited with growing the US wind industry from its infancy in the 1980s to
its more robust and technically advanced state- today. He points out that transmission obstacles have been overcome in the past with
federal assistance. "If you think about how agribusiness evolved," says Osborn, "there wasn't electricity [in rural areas] so co-ops were
formed with the support of the federal government. It made no sense for commercial enterprise to install it. Crops were grown in -the
country, but there was no way to get those goods to market, so the federal government developed the highway system." But there is
no need for tribes or other rural communities to wait for big picture solutions that may not ever benefit them. As Osborn reckons, "We
can't just do it with large-scale projects geared for big population centers. We need other, small-scale strategies [for the rest of the
country]. And beyond energy policy, other than coal and gas, wind represents the largest economic opportunity for rural
communities that I have ever seen." As the Rosebud experience illustrates, small-scale wind production is a viable community-
controlled economic empowerment strategy that is ready right now. Tag It Green Patrick Spears is the president of the Intertribal
Council On Utility Policy (ICOUP), a consortium of Plains tribes working to bring lucrative green power to reservations. As he says,
"The wind is a blessing. Harnessing this gift, we can benefit our people, help reduce the impact of global warming, and provide
economic restoration. I've never seen a situation oolite like it. It's win-win-win." Like all tribes, economic restoration has been a long
time coming for the Sioux. In 1944, the Flood Control Act authorized six darns to be built along the once-mighty Missouri River,
forcing many Plains Indians to move away from traditional lands along the fertile .river basin. While some tried to make a go of it in
US cities, most were relocated to less hospitable lands and poorly planned communities on the reservations. Life on the Rosebud
reservation is difficult. There is a casino, but the reservation's remote location does not attract a lot of traffic. Winters are long and with
the windchill, temperatures can fall 30 degrees below zero. Unemployment, according to tribal officials, is between 80 and 90 percent,
and a multitude of health and social problems persist, as they do on other reservations. Spears was only 13 years old when the land
where his uncles taught him to hunt and fish was flooded. "It's a serious emotional issue for us," he says. "Clustered housing, no jobs,
not much fresh food ...
57
[NO TEXT DELETED]
It wasn't our choice to move, but we're doing the best with what remains. We were giving up our land for the public good, for the rest
of America." The move to the reservation was just the latest chapter in an ongoing, history of hardship, violated treaties, and broken
promises. Despite the overwhelming obstacles the tribe faced in erecting the turbine - vast sums of technical data to master, a complete
lack of financing, absolutely no expertise in wind technology - the biggest challenge was convincing the tribe to trust outsiders.
"When you lose a war, like the Indian wars, and the people are put on reservations - they were like prison camps, initially - well, it has
taken generations for people to trust," says Tony Rogers, director of the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Utilities Commission (RSTUC). "Some
thought maybe by creating our own energy we would be making trouble with the local electric cooperative, that maybe they would
disconnect [our] service." Similar to other tribes' experiences, the Sioux found that the economic opportunities that came their way
were often exploitive, placing the environment and community health in jeopardy. In the 1990s the Sioux entered into a contract with
the Hormel corporation and Bell Farms to place a large industrial hog farm on the reservation. That dea! proved far more poDuting
and far less profitable than promised and it took years in court to shut it down. Experiences like that tempered the tribe^s enthusiasm
for wind energy, and reaffirmed for them that ownership of the turbine, as well as the technical knowledge to develop it, needed to be
native. Rogers, who was ultimately tapped to oversee the project, laughs, recalling those early days: "If you had asked me in 1996
how to do this, I'd say, 'I'll get back to you.' We had to teach ourselves. The Elders told us to be patient, to bring back the knowledge
and teach us. I had some good teachers. Dale Osborn - he just wanted to help us. That is how we learned." Tribal attorney Bob
Gough and Patrick Spears were instrumental in convincing the tribe to overcome their mistrust of outsiders, and worked closely with
Rogers and Osborn to conduct preliminary assessments and to understand the highly technical side of the work. As Osborn says, "I
wanted to help them do their first two or three projects. The transfer of technical knowledge, that was a totally foreign concept for the
renewable energy sector." But it was something Osborn was compelled to do, in part, because of his belief in the potential of small-
scale wind energy as an important resource for rural communities. He adds, "But Bob [Gough] and Pat [Spears] were superior in
helping the tribes recognize the true potential of what they had, creating the general marketing awareness." The cost of erecting the
turbine was more than $1 million, and the tribe was insistent that control remain in their hands. "We had to find our own funding,"
Rogers says. "We got a cooperative Department of Environment grant. A 50-50 grant, we had to match it. . . .We had a lot of people to
convince." ICOUP was also involved in the hunt for financing of the turbine, and developed what would turn out to be a critical
partnership with a one-year-old alternative energy broker, NativeEnergy. What NativeEnergy brought to the table was a bold
marketing plan that would ensure tribal control over the commercial turbine by raising $250,000 of the capital through the sale of
renewable energy credits, also known as "Green Tags." Green Tags enable those with no access to clean energy to offset the carbon
emissions caused by their daily energy consumption. This is done by paying a little more - through a Green Tag purchase - for
someone else to switch to clean energy where it is available. For every Green Tag purchased, a set amount of energy that wouid have
come from a polluting source is instead generated from a renewable "green" source. The Green Tag can also be used to erect new wind
turbines - like the ones NativeEnergy promotes - thus creating new sources of green energy for the future. Green Tags are generally
sold to the public in small numbers, but in this case, NativeEnergy bought the remaining Green Tags up front, and then sold them to
green-friendly companies, including Ben & Jerry's and the Dave Matthews Band. Green Tag financing also came from Turner
Network Television, which was filming a movie on Lakota lands. Soldiering On After an eight-year process, a 190-foot, 750-
Kilowatt commercial turbine was installed in March 2003. It is named "Little Soldier" in honor of Alex Lunderrnan, a tribal elder who
passed away in 1999, but whose vision, Rogers says, inspired the process. "He believed that we could use modern technology and
nature's resources in a way that was compatible with our values," Rogers told a reporter for Fortune Small Business who was covering
the windmill inauguration. Over the next 25 years, this single windmill will eliminate 50,000 tons of carbon dioxide, comparable to
the emissions from 8,300 cars during that same time. After costs are recouped - which is estimated to occur in 2010 - the turbine will
become a source of profit for the tribe, and a source of new jobs in the fast-growing green energy sector. But the power of the Little
Soldier promises to goes far beyond one windmiD. The Rosebud tribe is making plans for a large-scale wind farm that could earn up
to $20 million a year for the nation and create hundreds of jobs. The Rosebud Sioux success has also inspired other tribes to embrace
wind power. The Spirit Lake Sioux and Turtle Mountain Chippewa reservations in North Dakota - along with the Inupiat community
in Kotzebue, Alaska - have recently erected their own wind turbines. As the centerpiece of its tribal empowerment strategy, ICOUP
acCjUired a controlling interest in NativeEnergy in 2005, making it truly "Native." The Green Tags will help support new reservation
energy development.
58
Kate Burke, Manager of the Energy Program of the National Confederation of State Legislatures and Linda Sikkema, Director of the
the National Confederation of State Legislatures’ Institute for State-Tribal Relations, June, ‘07
(Native American Power, State Legislatures, Volume 33, Issue 6, p. Proquest) [Bozman]
Native American tribes are tapping into alternative energy sources with great benefits to themselves and their neighbors. Developing
renewable energy just may be a booming industry for many tribes in Indian Country. More and more tribes are looking at clean
alternative energy sources to power their homes and bring in jobs, all while respecting Mother Earth's resources. They are tapping
power from solar and geothermal sources, and from wind, biomass, hydrogen and ocean waves. "Renewable energy has the potential
to be as big-or bigger-a revenue generator for tribes as casinos are for some of them today." says Lizana Pierce of the U.S. Department
of Energy in Golden, C'olo. "Currently, tribal land encompasses aboul 5 percent of the land in the lower 48 states and contains about
10 percent of all energy resources-conventional and renewable." POTENTIAL ABOUNDS Wind and solar energy especially have
great potential on tribal lands. The wind energy capacity on tribal lands is approximately 14 percent of the annual U.S. electric
generation. The solar energy potential is 4.5 times the annual U.S. electric generation. The two dozen reservations in the northern
Great Plains have a combined wind power potential that exceeds 300 gigawatts-half of the current electrical generation in the United
States. New energy projects are popping up all around the country. The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs in Central Oregon are
on their way to becoming a major energy supplier in the Pacific Northwest, The tribes' own interest in two large hydroelectric projects
and a biomass project that operates on wood waste from the tribes' lumber mill. Another project in the works is a large biomass plant
that will use forest waste to generate renewable electricity for more than 15,000 homes. With funding from the U.S. Department of
Energy, Warm Springs also is working on a wind energy assessment, and is studying geothermal resources on the reservation. There
are more examples around the country. A wind turbine powers Four Bears Casino near Ft. Berthoud. N.D. The Mohegan Nation in
Uncasville, Conn., tapped the Connecticut Clean Hnergy Fund to finance two giant fuel cells that use hydrogen and operate like a
battery. This cleaner power replaces diesel generators as the source of emergency power for the tribe's gambling facility. The tribe
plans eventually to go off-grid by adding more fuel cells for their main power source as well. HELPING THEIR OWN One-third of
the 2.4 million Native Americans living on or near tribal lands live in poverty. The unemployment rate is double the national average.
There are an estimated 18,000 families in the Navajo Nation alone still living without electricity. "Our hope is that if the tribes choose
to develop these renewable energy resources." says DOE's Pierce, "it could enable local economic development and contribute to
additional jobs." For some tribes, taking on renewable energy projects means helping members pay for. and in some cases acquire,
power. If iribes can generate their own power, they can lower utility bills and bring power to more people. Energy projects also
provide new jobs, and potential profits translate into additional assets for tribes. In some cases not only do tribes benefit, but so do the
areas near the reservation. A handful of tribes supply power to neighboring communities, which can be beneficial for the tribes as well
as the surrounding area.
59
SOLVENCY—ECON
Alternative energy is key to Native economic growth.

John Busch, leader of the Native American Renewable Energy Education Project et al, January 1998, Native American
Renewable Energy Education Project, UC Berkeley, “Native Power: A Handbook on Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
for Native American Communities” http://www1.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/guide/pdfs/nativepower.pdf pg. 43 [ev]
Many tribes are blessed with excellent renewable resources—some of the sunniest and windiest spots in North America
are on tribal lands. All things being equal, the better the resource, the cheaper it is to produce power, and the more
profitable its development will be. In the newly restructured utility industry, utilities will no longer have a monopoly on
generating, transmitting, or selling power, thereby opening the door to independent power producers, including tribes.
Tribes have an advantage in being able to use sovereign powers to provide additional incentives, such as low-cost
financing and tax incentives for renewable energy investments. With the natural resources to produce electricity, and the
legal capacity to sell it commercially, many tribes have an opportunity to use renewable energy as a means of economic
development.
60
SOLVENCY-NEW EPISTEMOLOGY
Kerri Halliday, Writer for Gatherings (Magazine about Ecopsychology), August, ‘03
(http://www.ecopsychology.org/journal/gatherings8/html/mirror/defining_halliday.html) [Bozman]
There has been an increasing awareness by many authors that environmental problems manifesting themselves today result from the
relationship humans have with their environment. Consequently, there has been growing attention given to gaining insights into the
relationship humans have with nature. This has resulted in many suggestions being put forward as remedies for “healing” what has
been identified as the human/nature split. Many of the suggestions revolve around the need for there to be a shift from our current
mechanistic, Newtonian worldview to a new worldview. Wilber (1990), for example, proposes a truly unified worldview one that
“would unite science, philosophy-psychology and religion-mysticism”, while Capra (1992) would characterise the new paradigm as
needing to be “holistic, ecological, or systemic“. This “transcendental paradigm”, advanced by Wilber (1990) and supported by Matus
and Steindl-Rast (1992), or “overall knowledge quest” would include not only the “hardware” of physical sciences but also the “soft
ware” of philosophy and psychology and the “transcendental ware” of mystical-spiritual religion” (Wilber, 1990). Spretnak (1993)
also believes the ecological problems we face today are due to our epistemology and drive for modernity. For solutions to the
problems she believes it is necessary to examine and adopt aspects of the wisdom traditions into our new epistemology. The
wisdom traditions she explores are: the wisdom of the Buddha’s teachings about Dhamma, the wisdom of Native American
spirituality, the wisdom of Goddess spirituality and the wisdom of the Abrahamic traditions.
Spretnak (1993) believes as we seek to renew a sense of deep connectedness with the rest of the natural world, the native people’s
intimate relationship with the cosmological processes show us what is possible. Metzner (1993) would support this view believing the
comparison of our own culture to Native cultures is very important in alleviating the conceptions of the spirit/nature spilt so prevalent
in the western worldview. To address our perceived split from nature we need to recognise and respect worldviews and spiritual
practices different from our own, with Metzner (1995) believing that this is “perhaps the best antidote to the West’s fixation on the
life-destroying dissociation between spirit and nature”. Metzner (1993) believes for native peoples “spirituality is not separate or
above nature - the spiritual is the natural”.
The overwhelming consensus by authors of the spiritual traditions of native peoples is that they give us a sense of our subtle
interelatedness with the rest of the natural world. This is highlighted by Spretnak (1993) in the following passage “the cosmic union of
humans and the rest of the Earth community”, including the stars and the moon, is central to the Native American worldview. Native
people perceive “the environment” as a sensate, conscious entity suffused with spiritual powers. Hence their interactions are a
respectful and spiritual exchange. “Everything we do is a prayer. Our religion is a way of life. In, fact, there is no word in Indian
languages for “religion”, the closest concept usually being “the way you live”. At the heart of western society’s problems is that the
“sense of the sacred - our human perception of the larger reality, ultimate mystery, or creativity in the universe- has become so
diminished that we lack the richly nuanced spiritual vocabulary of the language and visual arts that is the birthright of everyone born
into a traditional native culture” (Spretnak, 1993). Clearly modern society is out of touch with the insights of the great wisdom
traditions, those rich cultural repositories of thousands of years of human development of relationship with the sacred.
61
SOLVENCY-K SHIT/EPISTEMOLOGY
The worldview we subscribe to will cause inevitable destruction of the biosphere, resulting in extinction.
North American Indigenous worldviews that promote sustainable development present a viable
alternative.
It is widely agreed that the global ecological crisis which confronts the world today represents one of the most critical turning points
that human civilization has ever faced. While earlier cultures have left in their wake a legacy of environmental destruction, including
the classical civilizations of Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Mesoamerica and China, it has always been possible, in the past, to migrate
elsewhere to escape the consequences of deforestation and desertification. In fact, to escape from ecological destruction and
overcrowding was probably one of the chief unacknowledged motives behind the mass migrations from Europe to the Americas
during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. That great icon of the 20th century, the view of the blue-green Earth from space, reminds us
of two inescapable facts, challenging two of our most cherished illusions: one, that national boundaries do not exist on Earth, except in
the maps and minds of humans; and two, that the Earth is finite, its carrying capacity is limited. Because of these two fundamental
facts, the oneness and the finitude of the Earth, the present situation represents a profound historical discontinuity. First, the globe-
encircling power of the multinational, techno-industrial, profit-driven growth monster is now destroying the entire biosphere,
including the life-support systems for humans. And secondly, the relentless operation of the exponential population growth curve,
which is acting as a multiplier on all the other factors of pollution, toxic waste accumulation, loss of soil fertility, loss of biodiversity,
impoverishment, famine, urban decay, and so on, is exceeding the carrying capacity of the biosphere, the inevitable result of which is
massive ecological collapse. Many ecologists estimate that we have less than a decade to turn things around, before the entire global
system goes into irreversible catastrophic collapse. There is reason to believe that the present situation may even represent, not just a
historical crisis, but a discontinuity on the evolutionary time-scale of planet Earth. While species have gone extinct in previous periods
of the Earth's evolutionary history, some scientists calculate that the present rate of extinction, which is estimated to reach 50% of all
remaining species within the next 100 years, is unprecedented since the climatic catastrophe that brought about the extinction of the
dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Not only humanity, but the Earth itself is at a turning point. I would like to address the question of how
it is possible that our species, homo sapiens, the "knowing human", has contrived to get itself into this predicament of truly terrifying
proportions. A growing chorus of voices has been pointing out that the roots of the ecological crisis must lie in the attitudes, values,
perceptions and basic worldview that we humans of the global industrial society have come to hold. This worldview of the
Industrial Age is a product of European and Euro-American culture that has spread throughout the globe with its capital accumulation
approach to economic development. The apparent short-term successes of this capitalist model, and the complete collapse of the only
alternative, communism, have blinded us to the insidious factors of social degeneration inherent in this model. They have also made us
seemingly oblivious and helpless in the face of the catastrophic ecological destruction taking place in almost all the planet's major
ecosystems. The capital accumulation model of economic growth is still being presented, as by an American president recently at the
UNCED conference in Rio, as the desirable model to imitate and apply to Third World underdeveloped countries, who can't even feed
their impoverished populations and keep their children from dying. Meanwhile the indigenous people of the Earth, sometimes referred
to as the Fourth World, are standing by, not at all inclined to follow this model, watching in disbelief while the techno-industrial-
consumerist-addictive growth complex self-destructs before our very eyes, - pleading with us not to destroy the last surviving
remnants of rainforests, wetlands and wilderness. Several different metaphors or analogies have been proposed to explain the
ecologically disastrous split, the pathological alienation, between human consciousness and the rest of the biosphere. One metaphor,
put forward by the American theologian Thomas Berry is that the human species has become autistic in relationship to the natural
world (Berry, 1988). Like autistic children, who do not seem to hear, or see, or feel their mother's presence, we have become blind to
the psychic presence of the living planet and deaf to its voices and stories, that nourished our ancestors in pre-industrial societies.
Another metaphor for our species pathology, put forward by the ecologist Paul Shepard, is that we are suffering from a case of arrested
development, a fixation comparable to that of juvenile psychosis (Shepard, 1982). This metaphor fits with the kind of boisterous,
arrogant pursuit of individual self-assertion that characterizes the consumerist, exploitative model of economic growth, where the
short-term profits of entrepreneurs and corporate share-holders seems to be not only the dominant value, but the only value under
consideration. A third analogy from psychopathology that offers considerable insight, in my view, is the model of addiction. We are a
society whose scientists and experts have been describing for forty years, in horrifying and mind-numbing detail, the dimensions of
global eco-catastrophe - "Silent Spring", "The Population Bomb", "The Limits to Growth", "The Death of Nature", "The End of
Nature" - and we do not seem to be able to stop our suicidal and eco-cidal behavior. This fits the definition of addiction or compulsion:
behavior that continues in spite of the individual knowing that it is destructive to family and social relationships. This metaphor of
addiction or compulsion, on a vast scale, also parallels in many ways the teachings of the Asian spiritual traditions, especially
Buddhism, which have suffering or dissatisfaction as an inevitable feature of all human consciousness and craving or desire at the root
of suffering. Yet another analogy is the notion that we as a species are suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. We, as a species,
62
have forgotten something our ancestors once knew and practiced - certain attitudes and kinds of perception, an ability to empathize
and identify with non-human life, respect for the mysterious, and humility in relationship to the infinite complexities of the natural
world. I wish to develop this idea further in this talk, by examining some crucial turning points in the history of human consciousness,
in which we chose a particular line of development and thereby forgot and neglected something - with fateful consequences. I find this
amnesia analogy to be very hopeful, since it is clearly much easier to remember something that we once knew, than it is to develop an
entirely new adaptation. We can also see that the indigenous peoples of the Fourth World, whether in North and South America,
Southeast Asia or Australia, have been trying for some time to help us remember certain vital attitudes and values that they have
preserved and maintained in their own ways of life. Finally, there is a fifth diagnostic concept that has been advanced. This is the
notion of "anthropocentrism" or "homocentrism", which has been described by a number of eco-philosophers and particularly the
spiritual philosophy of the "deep ecology movement", formulated by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess. President Vaclav Havel
referred to this idea in his 1985 interview with Karel Hvizdala, when he said (and I am translating from the German edition) "I sense
that the proud anthropocentrism of modern man, who is convinced that he can know everything and subordinate everything, is
somehow in the background of the present crisis." The Czech president's remark underscores the fact that by "anthropocentrism" is
meant not only man's apparent inability to empathically identify with other species and life-forms, i.e. to transcend his human self-
identification, which is bad enough, and certainly seems to condone and encourage a reckless exploitative attitude. (Indeed most of us
apparently find it hard enough to identify with other human groups - particular those who are "different" in some way, whether
racially, ethnically, nationally or whatever - a lack that has lead and continues to lead to the well-known story of war, aggression,
colonialism and neglect in inter-human relationships). The deep ecology critique of the modernist anthropocentric worldview goes
further than this lack of empathic identification with non-human life-forms. Rather, it is saying that humans tend to assume, with both
religious and scientific rationalizations, that we as a species are superior to other species and life-forms, and therefore have the right to
dominate, control and use them for our own purposes as we see fit. Nature has instrumental or use value only, not intrinsic value,
according to this human arrogance or superiority complex. It has also been referred to as human chauvinism, or speciesism - the
assumption of superiority and implied right to exploit and abuse. I suggest that the precise comparisons to this attitude are sexism,
racism, nationalism and classism: in each of these forms of collective psychopathology, one group of humans assumes superiority to
another and therefore the right to control, dominate and use the other. This leads us to the perhaps surprising conclusion that
humanism, that much prized core idea and value system of Western civilization, is a precise parallel to sexism, racism, nationalism and
classism (Metzner, 1992). The religious rationalization for humanist arrogance has been the well-known set of instructions from God
to Adam and Eve, in the biblical Book of Genesis: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion
over...all the wild beasts that move upon the earth." (Gen. 1:28). Even though ecologically-minded theologians in recent times have
justly argued that "dominion" does not mean "domination - exploitation" but rather "wise stewardship or management", like a
gardener tending his garden, it cannot be denied that as a matter of historical fact, domination, control and exploitation have been
Western humanity's guiding values in relationship to nature. Some historians (e.g. White, 1967) tell us that in Europe the controlling
and conquering relationship to nature began in earnest during the Middle Ages, at the high point of Christianity's ascendancy, with a
combination of factors: the invention of the iron plow, which allowed greater food production compared to wooden ones, but also
increased soil depletion; the rapid deforestation of Europe's vast forests (which it is estimated originally covered more than two thirds
of the European land-surface) to feed the growing number of iron foundries and metal shops, needed to make plows and tools, armors
and weapons; and wood was also needed to build houses for the growing populations, as well as ships for the navies of the warring
monarchies....The domination and exploitation of nature was not an explicit teaching of the Christian church, of course, but it was
condoned and not prevented by a transcendental theology which saw the divine realm, the civitas dei, as high above and inaccessible
to human beings, and saw the natural world of earth and water, animals and plants, flesh and blood, feelings and pleasures of the
senses, as the corrupted world of the fall, of sin, and of the devil, one of whose names was "Lord of this World". Clearly, wise
stewardship and management of resources for sustainable development, especially in an era of population explosion, is a better
value system in relationship to nature, than the reckless and ego-centric conquest and exploitation attitude which has prevailed until
recently, and which still guides the activities of the great multinational energy corporations. Like the pirate bands of former centuries,
the multinationals, and the capital markets which finance them, operate largely free from the constraints of national laws and
governments, plundering the material resources of the planet, - the forests, minerals, fossil fuels, animals - without even any regard for
sustainable human use, much less ecosystem integrity or the intrinsic value of non-human forms of life. The deep ecology critique of
the anthropocentric worldview asks us to at least question whether we in fact have the knowledge, or the wisdom, to be wise stewards;
and whether we have the ethical right to simply assume that nature exists for us to use. They advocate instead a biocentric or
ecocentric attitude, which acknowledges the complex web of human interdependence with all other life-forms, and calls for us to
develop a "land ethic" and an "ecological conscience" - two terms coined by the American ecologist Aldo Leopold in the 1940's
(Leopold, 1948).
63
DISCOURSE GOOD
Discussion of Utopian ideas can set forth vision and cultural interaction to end the destruction of
Indigenous peoples
Robert Clinton, Wiley B. Rutledge Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of Law; A.B., 1968,
University of Michigan; J.D., 1971, University of Chicago, 1993, "Redressing the Legacy of Conquest: A
vision for a Decolonized Federal Indian Law," Lexis
This essay has two purposes. First, it will briefly sketch the supportive roles law and the western legal
system traditionally have played in rationalizing the colonialist impulse in the western settlement of the
Americas at the expense of its aboriginal occupants. Because others already have thoroughly plowed this
ground, n28 this section of the essay primarily will examine the highlights of colonialism historically evident
in federal Indian law. Second, in conjunction with the visionary theme of this symposium, this essay will
plot a utopian agenda for the decolonization of federal Indian law. It will suggest that vestiges of colonialist
theories remain imbedded in modern federal Indian law and will indicate approaches that might be
considered to eradicate such vestigial impacts of American colonialism. In the present legal and political
climate, the author has little hope that the results of this vision quest rapidly will be followed by federal
Indian law. Rather, the purpose of setting forth this agenda is to begin a dialogue working toward a vision
of cultural interaction between Indian peoples of the United States and non-Indian communities [*86] that
would not be as destructive to Indian peoples, cultures, and communities as were the first 500 years.
64
SOLVENCY-REORIENTING TECH
The plan reorients our role to technology?
In pointing to the role of mechanistic science and industrial technology in aggravating our alienation from the Earth, I do not suggest
an impossible neo-Luddite return to a pre-industrial era. I do suggest that it is possible to recall certain values that we have lost, and
that it is desirable to examine the value systems with which we develop and apply technology. Economist-philosophers such as E.F.
Schumacher, Ivan Illich and others have suggested "small-scale" and "appropriate technologies". Instead of being used to feed
runaway cycles of exploitation and addictive consumerism ("producing more and more goods for more and more people"), technology
needs to be re-directed toward the preservation and restoration of damaged eco-systems, which can sustainably support all forms
of life, including but not limited to the human. Models and designs for this kind of ecologically sensitive technology exist - we only
have to muster the political will to choose them.
Similarly, in pointing to the role of transcendental monotheism and the Christian anti-pagan bias in the severing of our spiritual
connection to the natural world, I do not imply that we must all become pagans and deny 2000 years of Christianity, plus Judaism and
Islam. These traditions have become an indelible part of our psychic constitution. I do believe it is possible for Christians, Jews and
Muslims to re-connect with the nature religion of their ancestors, and that when they do so, a tremendous spiritual revitalization can
take place, in which the natural world and the divine world are recognized as one and the same. I see this as a kind of remembering,
like Odin the shaman-god drinking from the well of remembrance, situated at the root of the great world tree - from which he gained
ancestral and evolutionary knowledge of the origins of things, and the value of such remembering for the present and the future.
65
TRIBAL ENERGY GOOD

Tribal energy is an important part of the federal energy sector
Andrea S. Miles, Third-year student, University of Oklahoma College of Law, 2006, American Indian
Law Review, lexis
Production from Tribal energy land equals ten percent of the total federal onshore production of energy minerals. n11
In 2001, production from tribal land was 13.1 million barrels of oil, 285 billion cubic feet of gas, and 29.4 million
tons of coal. n12 The Department of Energy estimated that tribal lands hold 890 million barrels of oil and natural gas
liquids and 5.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. n13 Former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, then- Chairman of the
[*463] Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, noted the importance of the tribal energy mineral estate during a
hearing in 2003. n14 He stated Indian-owned energy resources are still largely undeveloped: 1.81 million acres are
being explored or in production, but about 15 million more acres of energy resources are undeveloped... There are 90
tribes that own significant energy resources - both renewable and non-renewable - and they want to develop them. n15
66
RENEWABLES KEY
Only renewable energy solves—compatibility w/ culture.
Renewable energy relies on the natural flows of wind, running water, sunshine, growing plants, and earth heat. Energy
efficiency is doing more with less energy. These concepts have always been part of the traditional ways of native peoples.
Today, as tribes grapple with new challenges, they are seeking ways to develop their communities based on sound, long-
term sustainable practices. Renewable energy and energy efficiency offer the prospect for a sustainable energy future with
important links to the past. No group of people in the United States is more motivated to pursue sustainable energy
development than Native Americans. For one thing, no other group has received fewer benefits from the conventional
energy system. Native Americans pay the highest rates for fuel and electricity, have the highest percentage of unelectrified
and unweatherized houses, and have the least control over energy services. No group has suffered more from the
production of conventional energy, in terms of pollution from power plants, radioactivity from uranium tailings, acid
drainage from coal mines, and loss of lands flooded for large hydroelectric dams. In contrast to conventional energy, many
Native Americans see renewable energy and energy efficiency as friendly to the environment and compatible with their
values.
67
INCENTIVES KEY
Tribes see renewables as a way to increase their quality of life but need incentives.
In spite of significant progress being made on many reservations, these statistics underscore the need for continued commitment,
innovation and investment on Indian reservations to improve economic opportunity and quality of life. As has been described earlier in
this paper, many tribes are interested in taking control of their natural resource base and are examining potential new opportunities in
the electric utility industry and energy supply industry. Renewable energy development is a particularly attractive development option
for many tribes because of the abundance of the resources on tribal lands and the consistency these projects have with traditional tribal
environmental ethics. However, tribes need much assistance, including technical and financial resources, education, and planning
and policy development support, in order to bring many of their promising renewable energy projects to fruition.
68
CULTURE KEY
Must endorse Indigenous cultural rights-they’re key to survival of indigenous peoples.
Cindy Holder, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Victoria, ‘08
(Culture as an Activity and Human Right, Alternatives 33) [Bozman]
Following the ICCPR, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) now takes it as part of its settled interpretive
framework for indigenous human rights “that continued utilization of traditional collective systems for the control and use of territory
are in many instances essential to the individual and collective well-being, and indeed the survival of, indigenous peoples” and that
such control and use includes not just its capacity to sustain life but also its function as “the geographic space necessary for the
cultural and social reproduction of the group.”34 Consequently, the IACHR includes policies such as “the introduction of infrastructure
(roads, dams, etc.) that destroys and threatens the physical and cultural integrity of the indigenous areas” as rights-violating in virtue
of its assault on indigenous peoples’ capacity to sustain the communal life necessary to cultural activity.35 This recognition of the
fundamental importance of land to cultural integrity is most clearly stated by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (the inter-
American court) in its Awas Tingni decision: “The close ties of indigenous peoples with the land must be recognized and understood
as the fundamental basis of their cultures, their spiritual life, their integrity and their economic survival. For indigenous communities,
relations to the land are not merely a matter of possession and production but a material and spiritual element that they must fully
enjoy.”
69
WIND KEY
Wind power uniquely solves economic development.
Traditional methods of electricity generation are faced with increasing difficulties: coal-fired generation is a liability in the age of
global warming; 7 natural gas prices are high and unpredictable; 8 nuclear power still poses [*270] storage problems; 9 and there are
few rivers in the U.S. left undammed for hydroelectricity. 10 These problems have opened up a market opportunity for wind-generated
electricity. Wind power has stepped in to fill the gap left by traditional power sources and provides new generation capacity. 11 Builders
of wind farms will add about 2750 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity in 2006, which will produce about as much electricity as
is used by the entire state of Rhode Island. 12 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. 13 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. 14 Renewable energy
development brings high levels of economic benefits to the local community, when compared to fossil-powered electricity. 15
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. 16 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. 17 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. 18 Tribes do not have experience with operating wind farms as businesses, but tribes do have long experience in more
traditional forms of energy development. The tribes of the Southwest, especially the Navajo and Southern Utes, have long-developed
their coal and oil and gas resources. The Utes have become quite wealthy off revenues from energy development. 19
Only wind solves—other alternatives aren’t viable.

The cost of producing electricity with renewables is very dependent on the location, the type of technology, and the
quality of the resource. Native American lands are blessed with some of the best renewable energy resources in the United
States and tribes have already started producing energy from these sources, including a 50 MW biomass project, and a
number of 50 to 100 kW pilot wind projects. Currently, only wind and biomass can generate competitively priced
renewable electricity for commercial-scale applications. High temperature geothermal resources are commercially viable,
but good sites are extremely rare. Photovoltaics, despite a 20-fold drop in prices in as many years, remain comparatively
expensive for grid-connected applications. Solar thermal technologies are still largely experimental.
70
A2 BIRDS
Smart design solves birds.

Wind is pollution and waste free, but it does have a few drawbacks. The whoosh of blades against the wind creates a low,
steady drone. From a single, well-maintained turbine this sound is almost inaudible, but the noise from an entire wind
farm cannot be missed. The steady winds that make for good windpower sites sometimes coincide with prime habitat for
birds of prey or with stop- off points for migrating birds. Spinning turbine blades are hazardous to these birds. Such
problems can be avoided through careful site evaluation and system design.
71
A2 TRIBE FUNDING SOLVES
Native Americans don’t have access to private capital-government funding is key.

As a result of the growing movement among tribes for self-determination, many tribes are now seeking more active roles in owning,
developing and regulating energy and natural resource enterprises on their reservations. However, tribes still lack predictable and
diversified revenue sources with which to capitalize the development and regulation of industries on their reservations, including
renewable energy projects. Access to capital is a prerequisite to any economic development initiative, and financial resources are
needed for investment in infrastructure, services and businessesfi4 Indian communities in general have not experienced advanced
development of their financial systems or institutions. Banks, mortgage companies, venture capital firms and other finance institutions
are almost nonexistent on Indian reservations, and off-reservation institutions frequently do not adequately serve Indian communities.
Tribes need government help.

Although this new role for tribes in energy development may be emerging as a result of their own initiative, the vast opportunities
cannot be fulfilled without the support and positive actions of government and the private sector. Tribes have needs and
limitations which, if not addressed through a cooperative partnership with private and public sector entities, may prevent tribes from
realizing their goals of developing renewable energy. The realization of tribal goals to become independent players in the energy
industry will require significant knowledge-sharing from those private sector entities that have already negotiated the process.
72
PROTECTION OF INDIGENOUS CULTURE ALL CULTURE

Protecting indigenous cultureprotecting culture everywhere.
Cindy Holder, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Victoria, ‘08
(Culture as an Activity and Human Right, Alternatives 33) [Bozman]
The specific circumstances that have dictated the need for documents spelling out indigenous peoples’ cultural rights, and in particular
the centrality of indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination to adequately addressing their claims, explains why an activity
conception of cultural rights has emerged from thinking about indigenous peoples’ rights. However, the value of an activity
conception is not limited to indigenous peoples. In this, the movement to clarify and spell out the implications of human rights
for the rights of indigenous peoples marks an important step forward for the protection of cultural rights more generally.The
understanding of cultural rights that has emerged from international documents treating indigenous peoples’ rights presents the interest
cultural rights protect as an interest in being able to do something, to engage in a kind of activity, rather than an interest in being able
to access, consume, or enjoy a kind of thing. In this understanding, cultural rights are essential to human dignity not because they
secure individuals in their ability to obtain goods or achieve a specific state of affairs, but because culture is what people do when they
are living their lives within a people. This way of describing what persons have at stake in cultural rights is reminiscent of Dan
Sperber’s description of culture as participation in a shared process or activity. 42 Some may also see a resonance with Pierre
Bourdieu’s description of culture as a practice.43 In my own view, describing culture as a process or activity is preferable in this
context to describing it as a practice, because the language of activity more clearly communicates the idea that what a cultural right
protects is the ability of persons and peoples to produce cultures, and to produce them in a way that allows them to describe those
cultures as their own.44 This consideration is not decisive, however. What matters is not so much the terminology that we use to
describe the conception of culture that is at work in the documents treating indigenous peoples’ rights, but that the conception of
culture that emerges from those documents encourages a better understanding of what cultural rights protect.
73
A2 INT’L PROTECTION SOLVES

Domestic racism outweighs.
Erik Larson, Department of Sociology at Macalester College, ‘08
(Emerging Indigenous Governance, Alternatives 33) [Bozman]
As a consequence of the success of the global indigenous peoples’ movement, international bodies have established a baseline of
global norms concerning indigenous rights. Although few formal mechanisms exist for exercising these rights, emergent norms shape
governance. Internationally, the premises underlying indigenous rights have become resources that enable expanded agency for
indigenous peoples and that provide for legitimacy of international action.1 While the transnational indigenous peoples’ movement and
the secretariats of international organizations regulate access to these global resources, these actors have little authority in domestic
contexts governed by nation-states. Accordingly, the influence of global norms depends on their diffusion to and implementation in
domestic environments.2 The outcomes of normative diffusion, therefore, depend on the manners in which the global principles
intersect with and are incorporated into domestic governance processes, particularly definition and policymaking.
74
AT: NATIVES HAVE FUCKED UP THE ENVIRONMENT

Wrong!
To return to primal societies, we would expect that societies with such an animistic, shamanistic, panentheistic worldview would have
a very different, more respectful and less destructive relationship with their natural environment. And indeed, although pre-conquest
Native Americans intervened in sometimes drastic ways with their environment, there is no evidence that in the tens of thousands of
years of habitation of the American continent, they ever achieved anything even close to the kinds of massive destruction that has
occurred in the past 500 years. Ecologists in all parts of the world who have been searching for ways to formulate ecologically
sustainable ways of development, have increasingly come to the realization that the indigenous peoples of the Third and Fourth World,
with their so-called "primitive" animistic and shamanistic beliefs, have in fact been practicing the kinds of sustainable life-styles that
we are now trying to develop (Mander, 1991). Indeed, how could it be otherwise? An ecological adaptation has to be sustainable for it
to have survived. The primal cultures surviving today far exceed our Western civilization in longevity.
75
A2 FED BAD
Self-determination solves harms w/ federal policy.
Lexis [ev]
Because of this fundamental reality, even the most altruistic and noble attempts to address the problems of Indian country
have failed. 286 From the beginning, when treaties were the predominant method of handling Indian affairs, the pressure
to develop and expand has been so great that the solemn promises made by the United States in those agreements to
secure [*945] Indian land and peace have all been broken. 287 Even the Self-Determination Policy, 288 the most
successful federal Indian policy to date, has been hampered by the inability of the United States to let the Indian nations
actually administer their own affairs in the face of their apparent willingness to do so. 289 While this policy has
encouraged tribes to assume greater control over their own affairs, there remains a huge bureaucracy, the BIA, which
continues to micro-manage tribal affairs, destroy tribal initiative, and resist any meaningful reform efforts. 290
76
A2 TRUST RESPONSIBILITY T/
Protection from states uniquely justifies trust law.
Lexis [ev]
Tribal self-determination is denied whenever the United States asserts its trust responsibility and imposes its view of
ensuring the well-being of the Indian nations. While treaty provisions acknowledged that the United States would provide
"protection" to the Indian nations, 318 the Supreme Court expanded this limited and negotiated protection into a full-
blown "guardian-ward" relationship that has justified the suppression of tribal self-determination. 319 To be sure, the
federal trust responsibility does have two faces, the protection of Indian nations from external threats and the regulation of
internal affairs. To the extent that the trust responsibility is exercised to safeguard tribal interests against the states and
other external threats, it may be fully consistent with the treaty-based conceptions of protection. But to the extent that the
trust responsibility is exercised to interfere with internal tribal affairs such as land [*951] allotment, 320 native religious
practices, 321 and the "approval" of tribal laws, 322 because the federal government "knows best," it violates fundamental
rights of Indigenous self-determination. 323
77
A2 DEPENDENCE
Fulfilling ethical obligation is not colonization—the federal gov’t has a unique moral obligation to Natives based on
treaties.
Lexis [ev]
While decolonizing the federal-tribal relationship may result in lowering the finances required to manage Indian affairs, it
does not necessarily mean, however, that federal spending on Indian programs should decrease. A decolonized
relationship does not mean that there will be no relationship at all. The United States remains committed by treaty and
legal obligations - which have certainly not been fully funded to date - to make provisions for the Indian nations and to
protect them from external threats 376 regardless of whether it adopts a colonizing or decolonizing policy for dealing with
them. 377 Indeed, President Nixon, in announcing his Self-Determination Policy, stated: "There is no reason why Indian
communities should be deprived of the privilege of self-determination merely because they receive monetary
support from the Federal government. Nor should they lose Federal money because they reject Federal control." 378
The only question that remains, then, is whether or not the federal government will expend these resources
efficiently. The new Self-Governance Policy was driven, in part, by the desire to achieve more cost effective
administration of monies [*962] spent on behalf of the Indian nations. 379 Unfortunately, the temptation thus far in
implementing this Policy has been for the federal government to absorb any cost savings and not to pass on to the Indian
nations the financial benefits of dismantling the BIA's administrative structure. Considerable pressure has been exerted by
some in Congress to transfer these savings to general budget reduction. 380 In Congress, Senator Slade Gorton, Chair of
the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, has exerted the same pressure. 381 So dramatic has this pressure been that
some tribal leaders have described this process as "termination by appropriation." 382 The tendency to ignore one of the
weakest voices in the federal political process is inevitable. What must be realized, however, is that the appropriations to
the Indian nations 383 are not simply some kind of special interest "pork barrel" program. These payments should be
regarded as solemn legal obligations made by the United States. Simply because the Indian nations no longer wish to
be treated as a dependent people does not mean that the United States should abandon its legal and fiscal
responsibilities to them.
78
A2 HOMOGENIZE
All tribes share common philosophies about the environment.
There are over 500 different tribes in the US. Their needs and aspirations vary greatly, as do their resources. Not all tribes have the
capabilities or desire to aggressively develop renewable energy resources. However, all tribes do share a common philosophy of
preserving their culture and the natural environment, and share a desire to become more self -sufficient. Renewable energy
technologies can play an important role in this common philosophy.
We aren’t homogenizing Indian cultures, we’re creating a pattern for action.

One way in which to approach the issue of promoting greater legitimacy in tribal government is to consider
reincorporating notions of the aboriginal governing process into modern governmental institutions. 21 In this article, I
plan to discuss this proposition, but not against a general backdrop of what might be good for all Indian nations. With
hundreds of different Indigenous nations to deal with, it would not be appropriate to paint with too broad a brush and draw
conclusions that might be relevant for one particular Indian nation but not another. Accuracy would require a great deal of
study and investigation within a particular Indian nation to know exactly what kind of action should be taken to
reincorporate traditional governing concepts. Thus, in this article I will focus attention on the government of only one
specific Indian nation -- the Seneca Nation of Indians. In doing so, my objective is to develop an analytical approach that
might be useful to others looking to initiate a governmental reform process within their own Indigenous nations.
79
AT: SOME TRIBES EXCLUDED

Every tribe can develop renewables-different tribes will develop different renewables.
The decentralized nature of renewable energy provides tribes with tremendous quantities of solar, wind, geother - mal, and biomass
resources proportional to the size of land holdings and dependent upon the local climatic zones. While macro studies of renewable
resources provide some indication of the renewable resources, micro-siting analysis are required for any particular development or
project. The variety of renewable resources ensures that each tribe will have some development potential within the portfolio of
emerging technologies; northern plains tribes have high wind resources, southwestern tribes have large solar energy potential, and
other tribes have abundant biomass or geothermal resources. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado, has an exten-
sive database of renewable energy resources for the United States. Their network of data collection sits provide multi-year data for all
of the renewable resources on a macro scale. Appendices C,D,E, & F includes national renewable energy resource maps for solar,
wind, geothermal, and biomass energy. Major tribal lands are also highlighted to indicate the potential for tribal renewable energy
development.
80
A2 INDIAN GOV’TS FAIL

Colonization is root cause of corrupt Indian gov’ts.
Indigenous societies, as with all human societies, have a particular manner in which they are structured. Fundamentally,
this social structure is determined by the behavioral patterns, or social formations, that exist within the population. In a
naturally evolving society, these social formations flow from the basic activities engaged in by members of the society to
survive and thrive. Thus, for example, how basic needs are distributed, how those needs are satisfied, who has the power
to make decisions and take action, and how competing interests and disputes are redressed all shape the behavior engaged
in by individuals. When viewed cumulatively, these social formations reveal certain natural "cleavages" within the
society, or, in other words, the points at which members of the society negotiate and compromise with one another in
order to accomplish important societal objectives. Cleavages may thus be represented by such things as age, kinship,
gender, and duty. For a society to avoid internal fragmentation and decay, and thus ensure its long term survival, the
political infrastructure of the society must be in accord with the natural cleavages that exist within it. Or put another way,
the formal system of distributing power and imposing "checks and balances" on that power must be based upon the actual
cleavages that arise out of its social formations. Failure to do so not only will result in conflict amongst the cleavages and
within them, but can also lead to the destruction of the society itself. What is most damaging in this process is the fact that
the resulting conflict is not of the ordinary variety and thus may not be effectively handled and redressed by the society
itself. Colonization is the involuntary exploitation of or annexation of lands and resources belonging to another people of
different race or ethnicity and the involuntary expansion of political power over them with the partial or complete
displacement of their prior political organization. 22 By design, colonization has the effect of disrupting the underlying
social formations and affecting the cleavages that exist within the target society. Naturally, the degree to which this
disruption occurs is a reflection of the intensity and direction of the colonial activity itself. Aggressive, direct efforts at
transforming the target society's social formations will naturally have a greater disruptive impact than passive, indirect
efforts. Viewed this way, the efforts taken by the United States to transform Indigenous governance have misaligned the
cleavages that exist within Indigenous societies. In the most dramatic instances, such as the imposition of constitutional
governments under the IRA or the imposition of corporate governments under ANCSA, the distribution of power and the
system of checks and balances that previously existed has been disrupted by the superimposed colonial superstructure.
The establishment of these new and foreign governmental processes -- primarily "statism" enhanced by "electoralism"
(majority rule) -- has changed the [*101] alignment of the cleavages that existed within the affected societies. Not only
has this realignment induced conflict within the society, but it has also initiated a process of transforming underlying
social formations. While it is possible that this transformation might have been so complete as to totally eliminate the
traditional cleavages in a particular indigenous society, to the extent that this transformation has been incomplete, there
should remain some aspect of that society's pre-colonial social structure.
81
A2 ECON=/=INDIAN CULTURE
Marjane Ambler, Former Editor of the Tribal College Journal, Spring, ‘91
(Indian energies devoted to self-sufficiency, National Forum Volume 71, Issue 2, p. Ebsco) [Bozman]
Across the nation, tribes gradually now are finding ways to make economic progress fit into their own value systems. Economists have
begun to recognize the feasibility of such combinations of cultural and economic self-determination. Tribes reject the proposition,
common among some non-Indians, that having jobs necessitates rejecting their culture. "You do not have to be poor to be Indian," the
Americans for Indian Opportunity (a national Indian organization) says, only half jokingly. Asked by a non-Indian whether he had
become less Indian when he became a lawyer, Philip Sam Deloria asked rhetorically in return, "Does a car mechanic become a
Volkswagen when he learns his profession?"
82
A2 TECH=/=INDIAN CULTURE
Marjane Ambler, Former Editor of the Tribal College Journal, Spring, ‘91
(Indian energies devoted to self-sufficiency, National Forum Volume 71, Issue 2, p. Ebsco) [Bozman]
Many outsiders do not understand that Indian culture has never been static, that Indian people have adapted to survive. In the 1700s,
they recognized the benefits of European-introduced trade goods, such as horses and glass beads, and adopted them into their tribal
economic systems. Today, they continue to seek methods to combine the best of their own ways with those of the dominant society in
order to survive in a cash economy. Tribes use income from commercial ventures to sponsor language camps where young tribal
members can learn their native tongues. Some use their income to support tribal colleges, which reinforce cultural practices while
instilling skills important to Western education. Too often non-Indians automatically reject the idea of oil wells, factories, or bingo
parlors on Indian reservations. They assume that when such development occurs, the traditions vanish. Such mythology encourages a
fatalism, as if American Indians will necessarily be destroyed, either by poverty or by Western industrialization overriding
anachronistic cultures.
83
RENEWABLES SPILL OVER

Developing renewables on reservations acts a catalyst to renewable development nationwide.
Finally, the White Paper discusses the important distinction between the terminal nature of this conventional energy production and
the sustainable nature of renewable energy production. The benefits of sustainable energy development will only grow over time. For
tribes, it is an opportunity too tangible to pass up; and reservations can be the catalyst for industry, the U.S. Department of Energy
and state and local governments to cross the threshold to America's renewable energy future.
84
_______________________________________________-
***2AC***
85
A2 T—INCENTIVE
PTC=Renewable energy incentive.
Tax credits are economic incentives the government provides to promote certain activities. With these incentives, the
76
government is trying to encourage economic activity (such as charitable giving or pollution-free energy production) that
the government considers socially beneficial. The government has an interest in promoting those activities targeted for
77
promotion to the fullest extent possible, including in Indian Country. The PTC is a tax credit Congress created to foster
the production of renewable energy. The PTC is a broad incentive - it has aided renewable energy developments from
California to Maine. An examination of the record of congressional debates surrounding the renewal of the PTC in 2005
makes clear Congress was interested in both reducing dependence on foreign fossil [*286] fuels and stimulating the
78
growth of domestic renewable energy businesses. To this end, Congress decided to enact a tax incentive (the PTC) that
79
will cost taxpayers over $ 300 million a year over the next decade.80
86
A2 T—IN US
PTC=w/in the US.
Making the PTC tradable would merge those two goals. Congress should - and, the record indicates, does - want Indian
tribes to face the same set of incentives as non-Indian business entities. Both logic and congressional action indicate that
the government would want all economic activity within the boundaries of the United States to face the same incentive
system, in order to broadly encourage the activities targeted by tax credits. Congress has articulated its goals of energy
security and clean energy production. Tribes, given the proper incentives, and a tradable PTC, can help the U.S. meet
those goals.
87
PLAN POP
Plan popular—Congressional goals.
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.
Congress loves Native self determination.

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. 87 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. Even outside the energy development or economic development contexts, the Federal Government has made clear
88
through the years that it would like to see the tribes less dependent on direct grants of federal dollars. The Reagan
administration advocated reduced tribal dependence in an important policy statement issued in 1983. "It is important to
the concept of self-government that tribes reduce their dependence on federal funds by providing a greater percentage of
the cost of their self-government," the administration wrote. 89 [*288] Any measures that give the tribes a leg up in the
economic development game reduce their economic dependency on the federal government. Wind power development
could play a role in this economic development, but only if tribes have access to the PTC. Wind power development
would provide the "greater percentage of the cost of [tribal] self government" that the Reagan administration sought and it
would push the tribes toward "real and permanent progress".
88
AGENDA—PLAN POP—CLINTON
( ) Clinton
A. Clinton loves the plan.

Jerry Reynolds, Staff Writer for Indian Country Today, 11-14-‘7
(Indian Country Today, Volume 27, Issue 3, p. Proquest) [Bozman]
WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Clinton made her most concerted bid yet for the nationwide Native vote in next year's presidential
primaries Nov. 6, announcing endorsements from some fourscore tribal leaders and individuals and detailing a platform of support for
tribal sovereignty, government-to-government consultation, and the federal trust responsibility toward tribes. In addition, the
Democratic presidential candidate and senator from New York pledged to appoint American Indians, with their on-the-ground grasp of
Native issues, to key posts within government, including her own direct liaison to Native communities; nominate judges who respect
tribal sovereignty and the governmentto-government relationship; elevate the director of the IHS to assistant secretary "so that he or
she can advocate more effectively for Native American health care needs"; increase Indian Head Start and educational funding;
promote alternative energy sources among tribal governments and "work to fund the weatherization of all low-income homes in Indian
country"; and bring more resources and better data to law enforcement in Indian country. Days in advance of Veterans Day, Clinton
said that under her administration, veteran benefits will extend to all veterans, including the 20,000 American Indians and Alaska
Natives serving as of December 2005. Citing the "Heroes at Home" legislation she has sponsored in the Senate, authorizing work
leave for family members of wounded veterans, she added, "When someone volunteers to serve America, we serve them."
B. Clinton’s key to the agenda.

Scott Reed, Chairman of Chesapeake Enterprises, Political Analyst, Winter, ‘4
(Master of the Senate, The International Economy, p. Google)
Three years later, Hillary Clinton has emerged as a giant in the Senate. Many of the same Republicans who voted to convict Mr.
Clinton—such established Clinton-haters as Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and Judd Gregg of New
Hampshire—have actually coauthored legislation with Mrs. Clinton. More than a dozen Republican Senators have stood with her at
press conferences because Hillary guarantees media attention . And the typical comments Republican Senators now make about
Hillary Clinton sound like they were written for Hallmark cards. While she has charmed her Republican antagonists, she has seduced
her Democratic colleagues. In her first months in the Senate, she gushed and awed at Democratic dinosaur Robert Byrd of West
Virginia. She was appropriately deferential to liberal lion Ted Kennedy. And she politely demurred as her media-savvy New York
colleague Chuck Schumer elbowed her out of the way before the television cameras. As important as interpersonal relations are in the
clubby Senate, Hillary has become a powerhouse because she came to Washington with a plan to be successful and has executed it
with a determination not seen since Lyndon Johnson. Instead of hiring only Clinton loyalists, she appointed a savvy, connected staff
beginning with top aide Tamera Luzzatto to steer her through the arcane rules and habits of the Senate. They showed their worth when
Clinton pulled an audacious move and surprised the newly appointed Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist with an amendment to
extend unemployment benefits for millions of out-of-work Americans. After hours of parliamentary legerdemain, flustered
Republicans cried uncle and reached an agreement with Clinton on the amendment. A rookie staff could not have pulled off that
maneuver. Hillary quickly made her Northwest Washington home the top fundraising venue for Democratic incumbents and aspirants.
Her generosity, whether she appears at fundraisers for others or spreads money around through her own political action committee,
has made it very difficult for senior Senate Democrats to say “no” to her when she needs an item for New York or special language for
a liberal special interest group included in legislation. During the final days of the past legislative session it was Hillary Clinton, not
Ted Kennedy, whom an anxious Massachusetts business contacted about quietly removing harmful special-interest language in an
appropriations bill, according to a well-placed source. In response, a senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee deleted the
offending language, noting the help Ms. Clinton had provided to several vulnerable Democrats on the Committee. Hillary parlayed
her fundraising prowess to win a special favor from Minority Leader Tom Daschle—not a seat on the Appropriations Committee
which most senators would kill for, but a position in the leadership to carve out a Democratic message aimed at countering George W.
Bush and protecting at-risk Democrats. Through her message operation she is able to communicate and coordinate with all wings and
all regions of the Democratic Party. And to further her credentials as a big thinker for the Party, Clinton was the force behind the
creation of the Center for American Progress—a well-financed, Democratic ideas machine led by former Bill Clinton chief of staff
John Podesta. Many believe that every move by Hillary Clinton is a prelude to an inevitable run for the presidency, probably in 2008.
That is likely to be so. But while the entire political world obsesses about her political ambitions, Hillary Clinton has quickly and
methodically become a force to be reckoned with in the Senate. Like Lyndon Johnson before her, Hillary Clinton is mastering the
Senate to fit her agenda.
89
A2 ALT $$ SOLVES
Only PTCs solve—comparative.
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.
90
A2 FLIP MODEL
Flip model kills sovereignty.
One proposal has been for tribal wind projects to use a "flip" model of ownership. In the Standard Flip model, during the
first ten years of a project's operation - while the tax credits are in place - a large equity investor owns 99% of the project
and the tribe/landowner owns 1%. The equity investor can take the tax credits associated with its share of the project.
After the tax credits run out (after ten years), the project is "flipped" (i.e., sold) to the tribe. Over a three- year span, the
tribe buys back the project (in an arms-length transaction for fair market value) from the equity investor. After that, the
tribe is the 99% owner of the project. This Standard Flip model presents two key problems that seem small to outsiders,
53
but have proven insurmountable in the tribal context. First, the outcome of flips is completely unknown. The wind market
is young, and few, if any projects have actually passed the ten-year mark and flipped over. [*280] Therefore, there are no
data points to suggest what "fair market value" might be for a ten-year-old wind farm. Tribes, as naturally conservative
government entities, are wary of this arrangement. 54 Second, the Standard Flip conflicts with the tribes' desire to own the
resource projects on their lands. On the Rosebud reservation, for example, a 30MW wind farm has been proposed for
tribal lands, with a Standard Flip model of ownership. However, the tribal council nearly killed the project, expressing
55
strong reservations about outside ownership of the project and the flip model. "Ownership is important to the tribes" said
Ken Haukaas, the Rosebud tribal official in charge of implementing the wind project. "They want to own it." Tribal 56
concerns about outside ownership are founded on historical experience; as recently as the 1990s, the Rosebud Sioux tribe
became embroiled in a major legal battle with an outside investor who owned a pork production facility on the
reservation. 57
91
A2 MINNESOTA FLIP
Minnesota flip fails outside Minnesota.
Alternatively, the tribe could use the "Minnesota Flip". The Minnesota Flip is structured so that the landowner can
58
"own" 1% of a project in a cash flow sense but retain 51% or more voting rights on the projects' control. Ownership then
flips to the landowner in the same fashion as the Standard Flip. Such a model could satisfy tribes' desire to retain control
of projects, while still allowing the partnerships with taxable investors that make wind projects financially viable. Typical
Minnesota Flip projects are small, (1.8MW) 59 which allows outside investors to diversify across a number of projects.
They receive extensive state support (from Minnesota's 1.5 /kWh production incentive) 60 that increases their profit
margins. Finally, they benefit from high electricity prices in the Minneapolis region. These factors combine to make
Minnesota flip projects appealing. However, the Minnesota Flip has never done well outside Minnesota. Without the small
project size, state support and high prices, outside investors have not felt comfortable with a model that forces an investor
to put up 99% of the capital (to gain 99% of the cash flow) but subjects that taxable partner to the risks associated with
minority ownership status. None of these three [*281] factors (small project size, state subsidy and high electricity
prices) are present in the Great Plains states or the Southwest - the areas likely to see significant tribal wind development.
92
A2 LANDOWNERS
Landowners don’t get the money.
Another proposal has been for tribes to take landowner payments for placing wind turbines on their land - becoming a
passive partner in wind projects. Unfortunately, landowner payments for a project are tiny compared to the overall profits
of a project, and this option would not benefit tribes much. Landowner payments for wind projects cluster around $ 4000
to $ 6000 per turbine per year. However, the return on a large wind turbine can equal $ 270,000 - $ 340,000 per year -
61
over fifty times the landowner payments. 62 Clearly, the money is in owning projects, not in being a landowner.
93
A2 BONDS
Bond financing fails.
Financing tribal wind farms though low-priced bonds also does not work in practice. Recent research has shown the
problems tribes encounter in seeking cheap or subsidized sources of capital that would obviate the need to take advantage
of the PTC. The most obvious source of this cheap money would be tax-exempt bonds issued by tribal governments.
63
However, tax-exempt bonds present two problems. First, tribes have had problems convincing the IRS that tribal projects
are part of an "essential government function" as required for tribal tax-exempt bonds. Meeting this standard will be
64
more problematic for large wind farms designed to sell power to off-reservation customers - precisely the kind of wind
farm that will make tribes the most money. Second, even if financed with tax-free bonds, tribal projects do worse than
PTC-enabled projects in a side-by-side comparison and do not meet standard requirements for return on investment. 65
94
A2 CREBS
CREBs fail—tribal support.
Clean or Renewable Energy Bonds - a federal attempt to help tribes and other non-taxable entities (such as electric
66
power cooperatives or municipal utilities) overcome the PTC issues - have also failed to work for tribes and do not have
the potential to work on a large scale. CREBs bonds give the buyer of the bonds a 1.9 /KWh tax credit, in the hope that
non-taxable entities can finance projects by selling CREBs bonds to taxable entities. One group of CREBs bonds has been
approved, with apparently only one tribe among the 709 applicants. Reasons for the non-participation are unclear, but
67
may have to do with tribal inexperience with this new financial mechanism - and with bonding in general, 68 due to
historic restrictions on tribal bonding authority. Whatever the reasons, CREBs bonds have not appealed to tribes.
69
CREBs fail—funding.
The more serious problem for wind development is that CREBs bonds are allocated in limited amounts - the national cap
was $ 800 million for 2006, and continued funding is dependent on year-by-year congressional approval, making them an
uncertain investment vehicle. Also, CREBs bonds are financed through a smallest-to-largest mechanism, whereby the
smallest qualifying projects are chosen first, and the largest ones receive funding on an as-available basis. The size
requirement tends to favor solar installations over wind farms - in the 2006 CREBs allocation 434 solar projects were
funded, as compared to 112 wind projects. Indeed, the largest CREBs-funded project was $ 31 million - hardly enough
70
for a small wind farm - despite applications for projects up to $ 80 million in size.
71
95
A2 CERT
CERT is a joke-it’s mismanaged and Native Americans hate it.
(The Invasion of Indian Country in the 20th Century, p. 169) [Bozman]
The stability of CERT has been weakened by the suspicion that it is mismanaged and that it has given poor advice to tribes.
Furthermore, four tribes have withdrawn from CERT. The Cheyenne River Sioux of South Dakota withdrew because they were
convinced that CERT would force their tribe to mine its uranium. The Colville Confederated Tribes of Washington withdrew due to
disagreement with CERT's aggressive public relations, and the Shoshone and Arapaho Tribes of the Wind River Reservation in
Wyoming became skeptical that CERT had any special expertise to offer them. The Assiniboine-Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
Reservation considered withdrawing from CERT after an article appeared in a national Indian newspaper claiming that the
organization was not totally accountable to the tribes. CERT only met with the tribal board of directors twice a year, and critics
claimed that the directors were not sufficiently involved with CERT business to direct the organization.34
96
A2 SPENDING
Decolonization solves federal budget.
Lexis [ev]
It is extremely expensive and inefficient for the Indian nations to remain dependent upon the United States. Over the
course of its history, the federal government has spent untold billions of dollars seeking to colonize the Indian nations and
to manage and control what has remained of their otherwise self-governing existence. 374 As a result, what has occurred
is the establishment of an inefficient and ineffective federal bureaucracy and the crippling of the self-governing capacity
of the Indian nations. 375 In short, colonization has been an expensive proposition from the viewpoints of both the federal
government and the Indian nations.
97
A2 T/O DA
Tradeoffs calculus makes exploitation inev.
Lexis [ev]
As recently as in the 1980s, the United States and the Indian nations dependent upon the federal trust responsibility faced
a difficult fiscal crisis. 291 Accordingly, the federal government made items of discretionary spending subject to cutbacks.
292 Even as the American economy has grown stronger, the Indians, one of the poorest and weakest voices within the
United States, stand to lose, as we always have. 293 Even worse, the policies that might be developed to help guide future
conduct may be too heavily influenced by this competition for scarce resources. Unless deliberate action is taken to resist
this pressure, Congress may be tempted at some time in the future to once again resolve America's troubles on the backs
of the Indigenous peoples located within its borders. 294
98
FED KEY
Only the fed can do it-the states don’t have authority over Native Americans.
In 1985 the Ninth Circuit, in State of Washington Department of Ecology v. United. States Environmental Protection Agency, n42 held
that states could not enforce their hazardous waste regulations against Indian tribes or individuals on Indian land. In crafting a
standard for resolving statutory ambiguities, the court stated: When a statute is silent or unclear with respect to a particular issue, we
must defer to the reasonable interpretation of the agency responsible for administering the statute. By leaving a gap in the statute,
Congress implicitly has delegated policy-making authority to the agency...We may not substitute our judgment for that of the
agency as long as the agency has adopted a reasonable construction of the statute. n43 The court further noted that "states are
generally precluded from exercising jurisdiction over Indians in Indian Country unless s has clearly expressed an intention to
permit it." n44 A similar issue was addressed by the Eighth Circuit in Blue Legs v. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
n45 which held that federal jurisdiction existed to enforce provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
concerning the prohibition of open dumps against tribes, in part because the tribes have the responsibility and authority, stemming
from their inherent sovereignty, to regulate, operate, and maintain solid waste disposal facilities on the reservations. Congress and
tribes then worked together successfully to introduce and enact several amendments to federal environmental statutes authorizing the
federal EPA to propose rules and regulations by which Indian tribes could establish environmental programs and related regulatory
structures. The EPA was placed in a federal oversight role over all state implementation programs, and that authority was extended to
tribal implementation programs that sought designation and approval.
99
FED KEY
Federal incentives solve Indian econ.
Expand the Federal Government’s Program for Procurement of Green Energy Tribes and their collaborators may consider
requesting that the Federal government encourage Power Marketing Agencies to obtain electricity generated from
renewable resources on tribal lands, combined with the Federal government programs in Executive Order 13123 for the
Federal Government’s procurement of green energy. A portion of the electricity generated from these renewable resources
could be made available for tribal use, similar to hydropower electricity made available from the Western Area Power
Administration.
Federal action key to change.

In this changing context, the federal government has once again begun to engage in "damage control," allowing a
calculated range of concessions in order to bolster .4 what it seeks to project as its image abroad. Notably, in 1974, the
U.S. Supreme 1 Court announced for the first time that American Indians have a right to pursue the actual recovery of
stolen land through the federal judiciary.5° Although resort to the courts of the colonizer is hardly an ideal solution to the
issues raised by indigenous nations, it does place another tool in the inventory of means by which we can now pursue our
rights. It has, moreover, resulted in measurable gains for some of us over the past quarter-century. Probably the best
example of this is the suit, first entered in 1972 under the auspices of a sponsoring organization, of the basically landless
Passamaquoddy and Penobscot Nations in present-day Maine to some twelve million acres acknowledged as being theirs
in a series of letters dating from the 1790s and signed by George Washington." Since it was demonstrated that no ratified
treaty existed by which the Indians had ceded their land, U.S. District Judge Edward T. Gignoux ordered a settlement
acceptable to the majority of the native people involved.52 This resulted in the recovery, in 1980, of some 300,000 acres
of land, and payment of $27 million in compensatory. damages by the federal government.53 In a similarly argued case,
the Narragansetts of Rhode Island—not previously recognized by the government as still existing—were in 1978 able to
win not only recognition of themselves, but to recover 1,800 acres of the remaining 3,200 stripped from them in 1880 by
unilateral action of the state." In another instance, the Mashantucket Pequot people of Connecticut filed suit in 1976 to
recover 800 of the 2,000 acres comprising their original reservation, created by the Connecticut Colony in 1686 but
reduced to 184 acres by the State of Connecticut after the American War of Independence.55 Pursuant to a settlement
agreement arrived at with the state in 1982, Congress passed an act providing funds to acquire the desired acreage. It was
promptly vetoed by Ronald Reagan on April 11, 1983.56 After the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs convened
hearings on the matter, however, Reagan agreed to a slight revision of the statute, affixing his signature on October 18 the
same year.57
100
FED KEY
Federal action to ensure self-determination is key to Native culture.
Lexis [ev]
I am writing to you to request your assistance in decolonizing federal Indian control law in order to ensure the
preservation and strengthening of the Seneca Nation and all of the other Indian nations located within the United States.
19 Have no doubt that I believe that the primary responsibility for the protection and strengthening of our nations rests
with our people and our leaders. Unfortunately, however, American colonization has inflicted a heavy toll on our capacity
for self-determination. 20 We are weak from the efforts taken by Americans before you to transform our tribal societies
and way of life by force. 21 Accordingly, your help is needed to make changes over those matters that are within your
control. 22 I realize that the challenge of revitalizing tribal sovereignty is a difficult one and that this problem is unlikely
to be resolved quickly. Even if desired, several hundred years' worth of colonizing influence will never be totally undone;
to the extent that it can be undone, it will not be undone easily. The most reasonable and prudent course for our
Indigenous nations to pursue is to attempt to harmonize the good things that have been forced upon us by others with the
good things that are [*904] unique to and traditional within our own societies. Our common problem, however - the
interference and restrictions associated with federal Indian control law - must be minimized in our lives if this
process is to take place.
The federal gov’t has authority over tribal relations—not states.

Lexis [ev]
The last of the foundational federal Indian control law decisions written by Marshall was Worcester v. Georgia. 103
Worcester addressed whether a state could extend its legislative authority to regulate the conduct of non-Indians within
Indian territory. 104 Marshall concluded that the State of Georgia had no authority to enforce its laws within Cherokee
territory because relations with Indian nations were an exclusively federal matter. 105 In obvious respects, Marshall's
reasoning in Worcester diverged significantly from the reasoning contained in Johnson and Cherokee Nation. He analyzed
in great detail the sovereign existence of the Cherokee Nation, mainly utilizing the Treaty of Hopewell between the
Cherokees and the United States as his vehicle. 106 He concluded that while the Treaty provides that the Cherokees shall
be under the protection of the United States, such a provision should not be construed as a relinquishment of Cherokee
sovereignty: "Protection does not imply the destruction of the protected." 107 Indeed, his reasoning in this regard seems
almost totally at odds with his reasoning in Cherokee Nation. 108 Despite this apparent departure from his prior practice
of suppressing the Indian nations within American law, Marshall's Worcester opinion can easily be read as consistent with
Johnson and Cherokee Nation if it is viewed as another instance in which federal power is deemed paramount in the face
of a competing interest - in this case, the interest of a State. Thus despite his hearty acknowledgment of Cherokee [*919]
sovereignty in Worcester, much of Marshall's reasoning defending and rationalizing colonization from his earlier opinions
remained in the decision. 109
101
FED KEY
States empirically don’t have the resources to establish comprehensive Indian policy.
Lexis [ev]
Fortunately, like all previous federal Indian policies, the Termination Policy failed, 222 because separating Indian people
from their tribal lands and tribal way of life did not dramatically improve their condition, as had been predicted. 223
Many Indian nations, like the Menominee of Wisconsin, never gave up the fight for recognition of their sovereignty and
eventually were "restored" to federal recognition. 224 Moreover, many states began to feel the brunt of assuming social
service responsibility [*936] for former reservation communities. 225 These factors, combined with criticism of the
federal government's haste and a lack of Indian input in implementing the policy, led to the abandonment in practice of the
Termination Policy in the early 1960s. 226
Fed key—external protection.

Lexis [ev]
Finally, the Self-Governance Act does not adequately address the reality that not all Indian nations will be able to
reassume a full or significant measure of their former self-governing powers. The cold, hard truth of the matter is that a
significant number of Indian nations have been so vanquished by colonization that they are truly "domestic dependent
nations." 483 The Self-Governance Policy preserves the possibility that the federal government will one day again respect
the full measure of tribal sovereignty. But, as Johnson and Hamilton note: "As the castle walls of paternalism crumble,
what should be done about the tribes left inside?" 484 Although it appears that Johnson and Hamilton were thinking only
of those Indian nations who are inside the "castle walls" for purposes of federal financial support, the bigger problem lies
in dealing with the reality that some Indian nations will be inside the "castle walls" either because they choose to be there,
or because they will be unable to leave. This is a significant policy quandary with no easy solution. It is inevitable that the
federal trust responsibility must be preserved in some modified form to respect the underlying [*980] treaty obligations
and to ensure the survival of the Indian nations. Given the territorial limitation on tribal sovereignty, the federal
government must remain involved to protect Indian lands, resources, and sovereignty from external threats. But as the
Self-Governance Policy encourages some Indian nations to self-determine and decolonize, the heretofore unacknowledged
barrier between those Indian nations inside and outside of the "castle walls" will become more prominent. The Self-
Governance Policy has begun the process of dividing the Indian nations into two categories: "domestic autonomous
nations" and "domestic dependent nations." If the United States is prepared to continue its colonial policies to ensure some
increasingly weak vestige of tribal self-government for the "domestic dependent nations," then perhaps there is little to be
concerned about. If not, then all of the Indian nations must be prepared for the possibility that the weaker nations will be
the first ones "terminated" under some future effort to "ethnically cleanse" the United States of the weakest Indian nations
within its boundaries - that is, those most assimilated and least equipped to administer their own territory and affairs.
102
FED KEY
The states don’t have authority over Native Americans.
In 1985 the Ninth Circuit, in State of Washington Department of Ecology v. United. States Environmental Protection Agency, n42 held
that states could not enforce their hazardous waste regulations against Indian tribes or individuals on Indian land. In crafting a
standard for resolving statutory ambiguities, the court stated: When a statute is silent or unclear with respect to a particular issue, we
must defer to the reasonable interpretation of the agency responsible for administering the statute. By leaving a gap in the statute,
Congress implicitly has delegated policy-making authority to the agency...We may not substitute our judgment for that of the
agency as long as the agency has adopted a reasonable construction of the statute. n43 The court further noted that "states are
generally precluded from exercising jurisdiction over Indians in Indian Country unless Congress has clearly expressed an
intention to permit it." n44 A similar issue was addressed by the Eighth Circuit in Blue Legs v. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, n45 which held that federal jurisdiction existed to enforce provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) concerning the prohibition of open dumps against tribes, in part because the tribes have the responsibility and authority,
stemming from their inherent sovereignty, to regulate, operate, and maintain solid waste disposal facilities on the reservations.
Congress and tribes then worked together successfully to introduce and enact several amendments to federal environmental statutes
authorizing the federal EPA to propose rules and regulations by which Indian tribes could establish environmental programs and
related regulatory structures. The EPA was placed in a federal oversight role over all state implementation programs, and that authority
was extended to tribal implementation programs that sought designation and approval.
All Native American policies require fed secretarial approval.

Nancy Appleby [ et al.], Partner at Bracewell & Guiliani LLP, April, ‘06
(Oppurtunities in Indian Country, Oil & Gas Investor, Volume 26, Issue 4, p. Proquest) [Bozman]
One of the most fundamental principles of federal Indian law is the federal government's trust responsibility to tribes. This fiduciary
obligation is manifest in, among other things, the federal responsibility to manage trust assets on behalf of tribes. Currently, trust asset
management involves some 45 million acres. The government's role is more than just an asset manager. Federal legislation requires
that the secretary of the Interior approve encumbrances of trust and restricted land and says that certain types of contracts with tribes
are not valid unless they are approved by the secretary. Typically, all energy and related development proposals, from new building
construction to pipeline rights of way, require secretarial approval. Additionally, Indian lands cannot be accessed without
permission. Finally, federal approval of agreements affecting Indian lands is a "major federal action" that triggers environmental
review under the National Environmental Policy Act.
103
FED KEY
Fed key to take responsibility and give Natives priority
Sandra Zellmer 2002, Professor, Tulane University Law School, University of Colorado Law Review,
“SUSTAINING GEOGRAPHIES OF HOPE: CULTURAL RESOURCES ON PUBLIC LANDS,” p. lexis
[*433] Both the tribes' cultural and spiritual relationships to specific sites and natural resources and their
relationship with the federal government are unique. In dealing with Indian Nations, the United States "has
charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust." n75 The trust relationship
places parameters on the discretion of federal agencies, and in some cases requires prioritization of Indian
interests, particularly those that relate to treaty resources. n76 This unparalleled political and legal
relationship is founded on the tribes' natural rights as "distinct, independent political communities" and
"undisputed possessors of the soil, from time immemorial," n77 and the United States' "conquest" and
appropriation of tribal lands during westward expansion. n78
Fed must take action to redress wrongdoings and take responsibility
The pressure for land provided the subtext, if not the explicit objective, of federal Indian relations
throughout the nineteenth century. n84 The treaty era effectuated the official government objective of
isolating tribes by rupturing their ties to [*435] the land and removing them to remote reservations. n85 By
the close of the century, assimilation had become the cornerstone of federal Indian policy, effectuated
largely through the General Allotment Act of 1887, n86 designed to "break up the tribal system" by selling
off communally held reservation lands. n87 The laws of the allotment era attempted to impose western real
property values on Indian people by allocating the land to individual tribal members and allowing its sale.
n88
Allotment policies were infused with a paternalistic commitment to "civilize" Indian people and inspire
"a sense of responsibility" through ownership of individual parcels of land, dissolving tribal cohesion in
the process. n89
Federal trust responsibility is key to end the cultural genocide happening now
Assimilation and allotment policies can be described as "cultural genocide." n97 No other group in the
United States has [*437] survived such an extended course of officially sanctioned brutality, and no other
group has been recognized as a separate sovereign, entitled to govern its own people and control its own
destiny. Tribal sovereignty and the protection of cultural integrity and land-based resources are critical
aspects of the federal trust responsibility, given the extensive backdrop of government involvement in
Indian culture, religion, and property rights.
104
FED KEY
Using the federal government to make policy is the best way to return self
determination to tribes
Many treaties explicitly recognize tribal governments as sovereign nations entitled to certain political
rights, including the right to self-government. n98 Treaties also reflect the special place that the land holds
for the tribes, with provisions for exclusive possession of tribal lands and non-exclusive use of off-
reservation lands for hunting, fishing, and other subsistence practices. n99 To effectuate treaties, and to
alleviate barriers to political, economic, and cultural autonomy posed by religious suppression, removal,
and allotment, an array of twentieth century federal statutes promotes tribal self-determination with respect
to land management, education, and other areas of governance. n100 Congress has explicitly recognized that
religious [*438] practices are an integral part of tribal culture and identity and has agreed to protect tribal
interests in their own distinctive culture and religion as a matter of national policy n101 and international
law. n102 Along with tribal treaties, these statutes provide an expression of the government's trust
relationship with tribes, as well as a recognition of international human rights norms.
105
STATES BAD
Having a clearly defined fed-state-tribal rights is key to native American
sovereignty. Increased State power would prevent solvency.

Definition is the other necessary aspect of intergovernmental relations. If two governments reach an agreement, it is
important that they rigorously define the scope of the agreement. If the parties do not establish their respective rights
and obligations it is impossible to develop methods for dealing with conflicts. In the current tribal-federal
relationship, the rights and obligations of the tribes change whenever the federal government alters its policy or the
state governments push for more control over the tribes. The tribal right of self-govern [*406] ment remains
undefined and, consequently, there is neither security for the tribes, nor any limitation on the changes that can be
imposed by the state and federal governments. Thus, without both consent and definition, tribal sovereignty is an
uncertain and malleable concept.
Having multiple competing actors with authority over the same land prevents
solvency. CP gives states control of one part of the process, kill sovereignty
The fluctuations evident throughout the history of federal Indian policy-making are the results of an ill-defined
tribal-federal relationship. Because of the absolute nature of sovereignty, the existence of multiple sovereign
authorities within the same territory creates, in the absence of dispute resolution mechanisms capable of preserving
the authority of all concerned parties, an unstable relationship. n74 This instability results in the erosion of the weaker
nation's sovereign authority. Unless the tribes and the federal government develop a mutually defined relationship
that ensures the security of interests vital to both sides, these conflicts will continue to erode the sovereign base of
the Indian tribes.
A mixture of state and federal government authority hurts the tribes

The outcomes of Lone Wolf, Oliphant, and Colville, reveal that the current state of the law does not protect tribal
sovereignty. In deciding these cases, the Court balanced the interests of the tribes, the state and the federal
government. This calculus invariably results in the tribal interests losing out to the interests of the state and federal
gov [*425] ernments. This conclusion is supported by the fact that Indian sovereignty currently holds a weak
position in the courts of the conquerors. n151 Writing for the majority in County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and
Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, Justice Scalia noted that the "platonic notions of Indian sovereignty' that guided
Chief Justice Marshall have, over time, lost their independent sway. n152 Thus, even the limited notions of
sovereignty expounded in the Marshall cases are no longer viable in the context of tribal-federal and tribal-state
relationships. n153
106
A2 LOPEZ CP
( ) Uncertainty
A. Jurisdictional battles about jurisdiction of Native Americans causes uncertainty and burdensome
regulatory regimes.
Until these questions are settled, tribal rights-of-way will be renegotiated to include language favorable to tribal regulatory
jurisdiction. However, perceived questions regarding tribal regulatory authority over these lands will make it difficult to advance and
enforce tribal tax, zoning, and other civil codes. While it might not please everyone, it might ultimately be best for all parties if the
federal government brought rationality and harmony to this area. In many aspects of Indian law, policy, culture, and philosophy,
everything eventually comes full circle, as does this article. While the courts have created a window of opportunity for states and anti-
tribal interests to attack tribal sovereignty, tribes and Congress must close that window and seal it tight, for the benefit of all.
Jurisdictional battles, and their recent impractical outcomes, ultimately create a more burdensome regulatory [*251] regime for
all governments - tribal, state, and federal.
B. Turns the counterplan-uncertainty discourages the growth of renewables in Native American

reservations.
In the area of utility regulation, uncertainty discourages growth. Regulatory uncertainty discourages industry from making decisions
to meet the energy demands of communities. Many regions of the United States are extremely underdeveloped in electricity
generation and transmission, largely because of market and regulatory uncertainty. Recently, many large metropolitan areas have faced
electricity brown-outs due to a lack of available electricity generation and transmission. Uncertainty also discourages other economic
development, especially of those industries in which energy constitutes a significant operating cost. Regulatory uncertainty in
environmental and utility regulation is especially challenging because of the nature of what is regulated. Ecosystems, waterways,
airspace and transmission systems are all interconnected. If one jurisdiction has one set of rules, and the neighboring jurisdiction has
an entirely different set of rules, how can we hope to regulate for the benefit of all? It may be a bitter pill for jurisdictions to swallow,
but cooperation is a necessary component of an integrated system. Cooperative agreements, negotiated settlements, and concurrent
jurisdiction may facilitate the coordination of regulatory concerns. But the facilitation of those agreements and the harmonization of
tribal and federal law is a task for Indian tribes, federal agencies, and Congress. When these groups converged in the 1980s to address
environmental regulatory primacy and delegation issues concerning reservation environmental protection, the result was a
tremendously more coherent tribal-federal regulatory process.
107
A2 LOPEZ CP
CP kills defined rules between states and tribes by devolving authority to
states
Tribal-State-Federal Relationships. Because the Indian nations are located throughout the various states of the union,
it will be necessary to establish the scope of authority at the tribal, federal, and state levels. For example, the
agreement could provide for compacts with the state in which a tribe resides. These compacts should be separate
agreements, negotiated with the individual states, that govern relationships that are best left between the state and
the tribe. n227 For example, a [*444] tribe might make a compact with the state to establish mutual local law
enforcement. n228 The agreement would need to establish a [*445] method for making these compacts and
determining their allowable scope. The agreement could also provide for collateral agreements with the federal
government, as previously discussed. A clause allowing for tribal-state compacts might state as follows:
The State in which the tribe resides shall have no governmental authority over the tribe and its laws shall have no
effect within the boundaries of tribal land absent a specific provision in this agreement. n229
The Tribe and the State in which it resides may make separate compacts with respect to matters of mutual concern
provided that it does not conflict with the language or purposes of this Free Association Agreement or other tribal-
federal collateral agreements. n230
The procedures for making a Tribal-State Compact will follow the agreement-making procedures set down in this
Agreement. Furthermore, such Compact will be self-executing as between the tribe and the state subject to any
express provision to the contrary.
These compacts would have the important effect of allowing the tribes and the states to develop mutually beneficial
working relationships. These relationships would enable the individual tribes to assume greater control over their
destiny. Mutually beneficial relationships would also help to lessen the tension between the tribes and the states,
creating a more cooperative co-existence. When conflicts did occur, the tribe and the state would be in a better
position to create a solution acceptable to all parties.
These are only some of the areas that would have to be covered in individual free association agreements. By fully
elaborating the rights, duties and obligations of the tribal, state and federal entities, free association agreements
would protect tribal authority from arbitrary modification by the United States government. As a result, the tribes
would exercise greater control over their own destiny. In addition, the Indian peoples brought under this legal
regime would have a greater affinity for the new system because it would be the result of their own efforts, rather
than the fiat of a greater power. Thus, the system would be both consensual and well-defined. It would re-establish
the sovereign base of the tribes, which, in turn, would provide the platform for a stronger, more fruitful relationship,
less prone to resentment and ideological conflict, between the Indian tribes and the people and government of the
United States of America. [*446]
108
A2 LOPEZ CP
CP fails—even if there is state jurisdiction, congress will take over
John R. Bielski, Temple University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education,Temple Law Review,
Winter, 2000, COMMENT: JUDICIAL DENIAL OF SOVEREIGNTY FOR ALASKAN NATIVES: AN END TO
THE SELF-DETERMINATION ERA, lexis
[*1322] Furthermore, the Court's claim that the federal supervision requirement ensures that the federal
government, rather than the states, will "exercise primary jurisdiction of the lands" has no support in the
early cases defining "dependent Indian communities." The Court has long recognized that Congress,
through its plenary power, can designate federal jurisdiction over Native American lands that are also
under state jurisdiction. n437 The Kagama Court recognized that Congress has this authority because Native
Americans are dependent on the protection of the federal government. n438 This role as guardian over
Native peoples provided the basis for such authority. n439 Similarly, Sandoval recognized this congressional
authority and declared that it provides the basis for exercising federal power "over all dependent Indian
communities ... whether within or without the limits of a State." n440 McGowan quoted this language
approvingly. n441 In addition, McGowan acknowledged that its finding of Indian country does not mean that
the "Federal Government ... asserts exclusive jurisdiction within the colony." n442 Although more recent
cases have concluded that a finding of Indian country does mean that the federal government, rather than
the state, has exclusive jurisdiction in that area, n443 they have relied on 18 U.S.C. 1151, rather than the
existence of state jurisdiction, to determine whether the federal or state government has jurisdiction. n444
The Court's new federal superintendence requirement suggests that the existence of state jurisdiction over
the land will be considered in determining Indian country. n445 Given the fact that all Native American
lands reside within the borders of one of the fifty states, considering whether an area is under state
jurisdiction will thwart future attempts to establish Indian country through congressional action.
109
A2 COURTS CP
The courts are systemically eroding tribal sovereignty-congressional action is a crucial check.
As these cases demonstrate, courts are creating an impractical regulatory structure within Indian Country, making it difficult for tribes
to carry out sensible, comprehensive economic development strategies. One Indian law commentator aptly described this judicial trend
as one more step in the process of colonializing Indian tribes and Indian lands Because in these cases the congressional intent is
unstated, however, the outcomes turn on judicial presumptions, rather than legislative resolutions, concerning the question of whether
tribes are sovereigns or merely membership organizations. Thus, it is the court, not Congress, that has exercised front-line
responsibility for the vast erosion of tribal sovereignty. n70 In particular, courts have been pained to recognize that Congress has
plenary power with respect to Indian tribes. There is a real threat that courts will further erode the rights of Indian tribes to regulate
essential service activities within reservation boundaries, especially since precedents are confusing and easily manipulated. Many
courts, including the current Supreme Court, are prone to using convenient dicta to rationalize their own exercise of plenary power
over Indian law. In summarizing the current trend in the Supreme Court, Frickey states "that the [Supreme] Court has exercised this
extraordinary authority in an area in which Congress has long operated with plenary power supports the disturbing conclusion that the
Court has assumed a legislative function." n71
110
A2 EFFICIENCY CP
Cooperation between efficiency and renewable programs key.
The technologies available for saving energy and utilizing renewable sources have improved significantly over recent
years. Much has been learned about how to develop beneficial and cost-effective projects. It is widely accepted today that
energy efficiency and renewable energy go together, that they complement each other. Energy saving opportunities
abound at lower costs than conventional fuels. On the other hand, renewable energy is generally more expensive than
conventional sources. Together, the package of energy efficiency and renewable energy can provide an affordable, clean
path to energy self-reliance. Native Americans have been blazing that path, examples of which are in the pages that
follow.
111
A2 GIVE BACK THE LAND

Sucession would be undesirable for natives; they could not be successful as
their own entity
Statehood through secession might be the most decisive solution to the consent and definition problems of tribal-
federal relations. Obviously, the tribes would no longer have a consent problem, from their perspective, if they
seceded and formed their own international states. The definition problem would be solved because the tribes would
be subject to international law, which is based on the concept of protecting state autonomy and sovereignty. In the
case of the Indians, however, these options are neither the most practical nor the most desirable. Given the physical
location of the tribes and the economic and military disparity between the two entities, secession is not a practical
option nor even a distinct possibility. Although many tribes could handle statehood from an economic standpoint it
is highly doubtful that they could operate effectively in the international arena. The problem is one of recognition by
the nations of the world. [*431]
Article I of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States sets out the following qualifications for
statehood: (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) government, and (d) capacity to enter into relations
with other states. n178 This fourth qualification poses the problem. Brownlie equates it with the concept of
independence, and asserts that the question is that of foreign control overbearing the decision-making of the entity
concerned on a wide range of matters of high policy and doing so systematically and on a permanent basis. n179 The
current trust relationship between the Indian tribes and the United States government brings the question of
independence into serious doubt in the eyes of other nations. Thus, it is probable that other countries would not
recognize the independent Indian nations, even if they were willing and able to declare themselves as states. n180
The predominant view in current international law is that the non-recognition of a state by another state has no effect
upon the legal status of the former. n181 It would be naive, however, to deny that, in practice, recognition can have
important legal and political effects. n182 If other nations did not recognize the Indian nations' claims of independent
statehood, which would be likely given their relationship with the United States, then they would be unable to join
the other nations of the world in the international arena. Furthermore, even if the tribes did have certain rights as
states, if they were not recognized as such there would be no way of enforcing those rights. Thus, claims of
statehood offer little hope for Indians tribes at the current time.
The international stance on the subject of secession makes it an even less attractive solution. Under current
international law, seces [*432] sion is not a favored method of self-determination. n183 The Declaration on Friendly
Relations, while advancing the right of self-determination, provides:
Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would
dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity or [sic] sovereign and independent
States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as
described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory
without distinction as to race, creed or colour. n184 This provision is a strong indicator that the member countries of
the United Nations do not consider secession a viable option for self-determination of peoples. n185 Thus, regardless
of the capability of individual tribes to declare themselves as states, the member nations of the United Nations
would probably not allow them to secede.
112
A2 GIVE BACK THE LAND

Improving the current federal-state-tribal relationship solves alone—giving
back the land is not the right approach
Finally, while the relationship between the Indian tribes and the federal and state governments has not always been
optimal, it is a foundation upon which a new structure can be built. Given the geographic, economic, and political
relationships, as well as the fact that Indian peoples, many of whom have developed definite and beneficial ties to
the United States, are scattered throughout the nation, living both on and off reservations, it would be unproductive
and inefficient to sever these relationships. n186 Also, demanding full statehood would likely cause a very negative
reaction in the world community. n187 Indigenous peoples must look for solutions that will attract maximum
international support; full statehood for Indian tribes may be too radical a [*433] notion to garner such support. n188
Thus, a non-secessionist solution to the problem of Indian sovereignty erosion is the most reasonable. The question
still remains, however, as to where within the range of possibilities this non-secessionist solution falls.
113
A2 RENEWABLES PIC
Environment important to Indians.
26.2) [Bozman]
As we begin to examine the relationship between American Indians and environmental justice, it is important to note that American
courts have many times in the past criminalized, whether consciously or not, traditional knowledge. Indian people who have
challenged multinational corporate giants and the government through political activism in an effort to halt environmentally
destructive projects on their lands have been criminalized and arrested to silence their claims. Leaving traditional knowledge out of
environmental policy is a grave injustice because it is socially injurious to Native peoples and, in effect, all people, not only in the
United States but worldwide. When writing about Indigenous peoples, the exclusion of environmental issues also establishes an
injustice because it does not recognize the origins of social institutions among all human beings. Therefore, everything in American
Indian culture is associated with an environmental perspective, even issues that filter through the American court system. As will
be examined, Native peoples today are using their sophisticated traditional knowledge, combined with militant strategies in some
cases, to effect change. Providing equitable justice for Indigenous people establishes an important precedent that can put social
institutions like criminal justice in a context where the connection between society and the environment is recognized. American
Indian institutions originate within Native cultures in ways that associate policies with natural principles and natural laws defined by
traditional cultural perspectives. The following represents a reflection of this understanding.
114
A2 BUSINESSES PIC
Tribes need businesses-there’s no one to invest on reservations.
Few tribes have independent sources of revenue and many have historically relied to a great extent on federal support, both for
economic development and for day-today financing of tribal governmental functions and services. Unlike in non-Indian communities,
a vigorous private sector is largely absent on many reservations, and changing this situation will require substantial investment,
training and improvement of both physical and institutional infrastructure.31 Some tribes have been successful at establishing business
ventures, arranging joint tax agreements with states, or adopting their own limited tax systems to raise revenues required for tribal
government functions. The advent of casino gambling on certain reservations has provided a source of revenues for some tribes, which
has been reinvested in reservations.32
115
AT: K OF THE TERM “INDIGENOUS.”

The plan uses a subjectivist definition of indigenous that allows indigenous peoples to identify themselves.
Erik Larson, Department of Sociology at Macalester College, ‘08
(Emerging Indigenous Governance, Alternatives 33) [Bozman]
The process of identifying indigenous peoples provides a clear example of self-determination in practice. Debate concerning defining
“indigenous” has centered on an objectivist-subjectivist divide. An objectivist definition—based on a set of criteria to determine who
is indigenous—results in over- or underidentification due to the diversity of indigenous peoples’ experiences and the potential for state
interference with claims of indigenous status.17 Subjectivist definitions allow indigenous peoples to identify themselves; however, the
Working Group on Indigenous Populations’ experience of individual self-identification illustrates the difficulties, as demonstrated by
the controversy over Afrikaner/Boer participation in the working group in the middle of the 1990s. In response to these situations, the
chairperson-rapporteur prepared a document on the concept “indigenous,” concluding that a precise objectivist definition was
impossible and that a subjectivist definition better fit with self-determination.18 In practice, the working group went beyond a simple
subjectivist approach, identifying as indigenous “those who feel themselves to be indigenous and are accepted as such by members of
the group” and relying “upon organizations of indigenous peoples themselves to draw attention to any improper assertions of the right
to participate as ‘Indigenous’ peoples.”19 This practice represents a collective subjectivist definition of “indigenous”— that is,
indigenous peoples acting as a whole identify others who are indigenous. Indigenous peoples thereby possess a collective authority
that extends beyond an individual people and also possess self-determination as a collective actor in global governance. 20 For
instance, beyond serving to identify who is indigenous, the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus has effective power to nominate members of
the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
116
AT: VOTING RIGHTS CP

Sheryl R. Lightfoot, Department of Political Science of the University of Minnesota, ‘08
(Indigenous Rights in International Politics, Alternatives 33, p. Project Muse) [Bozman]
At first glance, the domestic political-participation explanation also appears plausible since indigenous people tend to be quite active
in domestic (liberal democratic) politics in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, often running candidates in elections, forming
indigenous political parties, and contributing financially to national candidates who support indigenous issues. The problem with this
explanation is that it does not account for the marked distinction in indigenous-rights advances between these three countries and the
United States or Latin America. Indigenous groups in the United States are equally participatory in domestic politics,16 yet indigenous
rights in the United States have not witnessed the same advances as seen in the other three countries. In fact, indigenous rights in the
United States, having enjoyed some advancement during the 1970s, 1980s, and into the 1990s, have witnessed a sharp negative turn
in recent years, with increasing state encroachment on indigenous sovereignty and negative court rulings regarding indigenous right.
117
AT: RIGHTS CP
Framing Indigenous policies in terms of rights separates questions of homelands and natural resources,
meaning the counterplan cant solve the case.
Jeff Corntassel, Faculty of Human and Social Development, Indigenous Governance Programs at the University of Victoria, ‘08
(Toward Sustainable Self-Determination, Alternatives 33) [Bozman]
As the above example demonstrates, the rights discourse can take indigenous peoples only so far. Over the past thirty years,
indigenous self-determination claims have been framed by states and global organizations in four distinct ways that jeopardize the
futures of indigenous communities. First, the rights-based discourse has resulted in the compartmentalization of indigenous powers of
selfdetermination by separating questions of homelands and natural resources from those of political/legal recognition of a limited
indigenous autonomy within the existing framework of the host state(s). 5 This was evident from the above-referenced Nisga’a Final
Agreement, which provided a political/legal basis for limited autonomy but neglected to address interrelated issues of regenerating
sustainable livelihoods, food security, and renewal of community relationships with the natural world. Second, in several cases, the
rights discourse has led states to deny the identities or very existence of indigenous peoples residing within their borders (or to reframe
them as minority populations or other designations that carry less weight or accountability under international law).6 For example,
Botswana refuses to acknowledge peoples residing within its borders as indigenous (that is, San, Nama/Khoe), instead referring to
them in its constitution as a “race,” “community,” or “tribe.” Botswana staunchly opposed ratification of the nonbinding United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (hereafter referred to as the declaration), claiming that the declaration “raised
issues with serious economic, political, and constitutional ramifications, which in Botswana’s view, could only contribute to ethnic
conflicts within nations of which African had had more than a fair share.” 7 Third, the framing of rights as political/legal entitlements
has deemphasized the cultural responsibilities and relationships that indigenous peoples have with their families and the natural world
(homelands, plant life, animal life, etc.) that are critical for their well-being and the well-being of future generations. In contrast with a
dominant Western perspective on self-determination and sustainability, indigenous peoples tend to “concern themselves with and have
based their whole world-view on) the idea of learning how to give back to Creation, rather than taking away.”8 Finally, the rights
discourse has limited the applicability of decolonization and restoration frameworks for indigenous peoples by establishing ad hoc
restrictions. This was clear with the ratification of UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (1960), which set limits on decolonization
through the implementation of a so-called Salt Water Thesis, stipulating that only territories separated by water or that were
geographically separate from the colonizing power could invoke self-determination.9 There have been some promising initiatives
undertaken recently for setting new global standards for restorative justice, such as UN General Assembly resolution 60/147 (2006) to
implement “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International
Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.”10 However, the applicability of resolution 60/147
becomes limited when attempting to restore territories and natural resources to indigenous peoples as a result of ongoing colonial
encroachment by their host states.
118
ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMING OF NATIVE AMERICAN

POLICIES GOOD.
In order to move beyond the limitations of the existing rights discourse, I propose that indigenous powers and views of
selfdetermination be rethought and repositioned in order to meet contemporary challenges to indigenous nationhood. Strategies that
invoke existing human rights norms and that solely seek political and legal recognition of indigenous self-determination will
not lead to a self-determination process that is sustainable for the survival of future generations of indigenous peoples.
Additionally, indigenous mobilization strategies of surveillance and shame have not been effective for generating substantive changes
in existing humanrights norms and customary international law.11 In order for indigenous self-determination to be meaningful, it
should be economically, environmentally, and culturally viable and inextricably linked to indigenous relationships to the natural
world. These relationships are discussed specifically in Special Rapporteur Erica-Irene Daes’s comprehensive United Nations report
entitled Indigenous Peoples’ Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources. In this report, Daes asserts that “the right of permanent
selfdetermination over natural resources was recognized because it was understood early on that without it, the right of self-
determination would be meaningless.”12 In other words, self-determination has to be sustainable in practice or it merely becomes
another venerated paper right. Unfortunately, what is considered sustainable practice by states comes at a high price for indigenous
communities, often leading to the further degradation of their homelands and natural resources.13 It is time for indigenous peoples to
reassert sustainability on their own terms. Therefore, I propose the concept of sustainable self-determination as a benchmark for the
restoration of indigenous livelihoods and territories and for future indigenous political mobilization.
119
ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMING OF NATIVE AMERICAN

POLICIES GOOD.
The aff is an affirmation of sustainable self-determination-this conception of self determination promotes
natives? And shit without having bad parts of rights discourse?
Previous research on the self-determination of peoples tends to focus on political/legal recognition of this right, while giving little
consideration to the environment, community health/well-being, natural resources, sustainability, and the transmission of cultural
practices to future generations as critical, interlocking features of an indigenous self-determination process.54 As indigenous legal
scholar S. James Anaya asserts, “Any conception of self-determination that does not take into account the multiple patterns of human
association and interdependency is at best incomplete or more likely distorted.” 55 Even when culture or land are mentioned as an
essential part of indigenous self-determination, these linkages are often expressed within a narrow rights framework that diminishes
the full scope of these ongoing relationships to the natural world and/or fails to describe sustainability as a critical benchmark for an
indigenous self-determination process.56 While Anaya differentiates between remedial and substantive forms of self-determination, he
does not account for sustainable self-determination as a critical benchmark in the ongoing self-determination process. When
differentiating substantive forms of self-determination from remedial ones, Anaya concedes that remedial forms of selfdetermination,
such as decolonization, tend to be limited by practices of state sovereignty, which “influence the degree to which remedies may be
subject to international scrutiny.”57 Given the existing barriers to indigenous decolonization through the enforcement of the Salt Water
Thesis and other global norms designed to protect existing state borders, indigenous peoples have also found substantive forms of self-
determination, which are described as “a standard of governmental legitimacy within the modern human rights frame,” to be limited.58
It remains to be seen whether General Assembly resolution 60/147 (2006) in rights to remedies and reparations will be widely applied
to indigenous peoples and their decolonization efforts. While there are existing political/legal foundations for substantive and remedial
forms of self-determination, the attainment of these standards or global norms are meaningless in a discussion of ongoing self-
determination without considering a third factor—the sustainability of self-determination in praxis. It follows that a process of
indigenous self-determination is more than a political/legal struggle—at its core are spiritual and relational responsibilities that are
continuously renewed. Unfortunately, as Alfred and Corntassel point out, “there are new faces of empire that are attempting to strip
indigenous peoples of their very spirit as nations and of all that is held sacred, threatening their sources of connection to their distinct
existences and the sources of their spiritual power: relationships to each other, communities, homelands, ceremonial life, languages,
histories. . . . These connections are crucial to living a meaningful life for any human being.”59 While previous studies have treated
indigenous political autonomy, governance, the environment, and community health as separate concepts, in actuality they are
intrinsically linked. For example, health has much deeper meaning than just the absence of disease or injury, as Arquette, et al., point
out in their study of Mohawks of Akwesasne: Health, then, has many definitions for the Mohawk people of Akwesasne. Health is
spiritual. Health is rooted is rooted in the heart of the culture. Health is based on peaceful, sustainable relationships with other peoples
including family, community, Nation, the natural world, and spiritual beings.60 After considering Arquette and associates’
conceptualization of community health/well-being, it becomes apparent that indigenous struggles to “make meaningful choices in
matters touching upon all spheres of life on a continuous basis” warrants further exploration in terms of “what is sustainability?” and
“what is being transmitted to future generations?”61 Deskaheh’s articulation of self-determination gets at the heart of indigenous
struggles today: “We are determined to live the free people that we were born.”62 Furthermore, the process of living as the “free people
that we were born” entails having the freedom to practice indigenous livelihoods, maintain food security, and apply natural laws on
indigenous homelands in a sustainable manner.63 Critical to this process is the long-term sustainability of indigenous livelihoods,
which includes the transmission of these cultural practices to future generations. Tully elaborates: “The right of self-determination is,
on any plausible account of its contested criteria, the right of a people to govern themselves by their own laws and exercise
jurisdiction over their territories.”64 Embedded in this broader conceptualization of selfdetermination is a set of interlocking and
reciprocal responsibilities to one’s community, family, clans/societies (an aspect of some but not all indigenous nations), homelands,
and the natural world. While the Brundtland Commission defined sustainability in 1987 as “meeting the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” this definition does not go far enough as a benchmark for
indigenous political, cultural, economic, and environmental restorative justice (in theory and in practice).65 For indigenous peoples,
sustainability is intrinsically linked to the transmission of traditional knowledge and cultural practices to future generations .66 Without
the ability of community members to continuously renew their relationships with the natural world (i.e., gathering medicines, hunting
and fishing, basket-making, etc.), indigenous languages, traditional teachings, family structures, and livelihoods of that community are
all jeopardized. Indigenous connections between well-being and food security/ livelihoods are critical to the realization and practice of
a sustainable self-determination. When such relationships are severed, “the knowledge, worldviews, values and practices about these
relationships and about other aspects of their food and agro-ecological systems, commonly erode over time as well.” 67 In other words,
disruptions to indigenous livelihoods, governance, and natural-world relationships can jeopardize the overall health, well-being,
identity, and continuity of indigenous communities. Just as contemporary research on self-determination tends to exclude
120
sustainability and environmental factors from the process, research on integrated ecosystem assessment tends to exclude culture as a
key criterion for sustainability. However, according to one comprehensive ecosystem assessment framework, “cultural services” are
important benefits that people obtain from ecosystems through “spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and
aesthetic experiences.”68 Examples of cultural services include cultural diversity, knowledge systems, educational values, social
relations, sense of place, and cultural heritage values. 69 Just as with the three other components that comprise a viable environmental
ecosystem, such as “supporting services” (production of atmospheric oxygen, soil formation, etc.), “provisioning services” (food,
fiber, natural medicines, fresh water, etc.), and “regulating services” (airquality maintenance, climate regulation, regulation of human
disease, and so on), cultural services are an integral part of an indigenous ecosystem.70 Sustainable self-determination as a process is
premised on the notion that evolving indigenous livelihoods, food security, community governance, relationships to homelands and
the natural world, and ceremonial life can be practiced today locally and regionally, thus enabling the transmission of these traditions
and practices to future generations. Operating at multiple levels, sustainable selfdetermination seeks to regenerate the implementation
of indigenous natural laws on indigenous homelands and expand the scope of an indigenous self-determination process. First, it refutes
global and state political/legal recognition and colonial strategies founded on economic dependency as the main avenues to
meaningful self-determination. Second, this approach rejects the compartmentalization of standard political/legal definitions of self-
determination by taking social, economic, cultural, and political factors of shared governance and relational accountability into
consideration for a broader view of self-determination that can be sustained over future generations. Third, rather than engage solely in
the global indigenous-rights discourse, sustainable self-determination operates at the community level as a process to perpetuate
indigenous livelihoods locally via the regeneration of family, clan, and individual roles and responsibilities to their homelands.
Finally, indigenous peoples begin to significantly influence the global political economy by rebuilding and restrengthening “their
local and regional indigenous economies, which are by definition inherently sustainable.”71 By starting with the regeneration of
individual and family responsibilities in the self-determination process, indigenous communities hold the potential to reestablish larger
regional trading networks with each other in order to promote formidable alliances and sustainable futures.
121
A2 COOPTATION K
The benefits of cooperation outweigh and solve their kritik—by combining non-Indian activism with Indian
activism, we can prevent imperialist cooptation and achieve change.
at Boulder, Routledge 03 Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader pg 106 [ev]
It is in this last connection that the greatest current potential may be found, not only for the Newes in their struggle to
retain (or regain) their homeland, but for (re)assertion of indigenous land rights more generally, and for the struggles of
nonindians who seek genuinely positive alternatives to the North American status quo. In the combination of forces
presently coalescing in the Nevada desert lie the seeds of a new sort of communication, understanding, respect, and the
growing promise of mutually beneficial joint action between native and nonnative peoples in this hemisphere.294 For the
Shoshones, the attraction of a broad—and broadening—base of popular support for their rights offers far and away the
best possibility of bringing to bear the kind and degree of pressure necessary to compel the federal government to restore
all, or at least some sizable portion, of their territory. For the nonindian individuals and organizations involved, the
incipient unity they have achieved with the Newes represents both a conceptual breakthrough and a seminal practical
experience of the fact that active support of native land rights can tangibly further their own interests and agendas.295 For
many American Indians, particularly those of traditionalist persuasion, the emerging collaboration of nonindian groups in
the defense of Western Shoshone lands has come to symbolize the possibility that there are elements of the dominant
population that have finally arrived at a position in which native rights are not automatically discounted as irrelevancies or
presumed to be subordinate to their own.296 On such bases, bona fide alliances can be built. Herein lies what may be the
most important lesson to be learned by those attempting to forge a truly American radical vision, and what may ultimately
translate that vision into concrete reality: Native Americans cannot hope to achieve restoration of the lands and liberty
which are legitimately theirs without the support and assistance of nonindians, while nonindian activists cannot hope to
effect any transformation of the existing social order which is not fundamentally imperialistic, and thus doomed to
replicate some of the most negative aspects of the present system, unless they accept the necessity of liberating indigenous
land and lives as a matter of first priority.297 Both sides of the equation are at this point bound together in all but
symbiotic fashion by virtue of a shared continental habitat, a common oppressor, and an increasingly interactive history.
There is thus no viable option but to go forward together, figuratively joining hands to ensure our collective well-being,
and that of our children, and our children's children.
122
A2 FRONTIER K
The frontier identity was used to marginalize and oppress Natives--breaking free from it means
redressing historical wrongdoings
Robert Clinton, Wiley B. Rutledge Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of Law; A.B., 1968,
University of Michigan; J.D., 1971, University of Chicago, 1993, "Redressing the Legacy of Conquest: A
vision for a Decolonized Federal Indian Law," Lexis
Another factor contributing to the popular and academic inattention to this subject is the American
preoccupation with its positive self-image - the conception of the United States as a land of liberty where
opportunities abound, property rights are respected, and laws protect even the powerless. For most of this
century, the "frontier of settlement" thesis, first advanced by Frederick Jackson Turner n9 and popularized
by disciples like Ray Billington, n10 rationalized this Eurocentric vision of western frontier history so far as
Indian communities were concerned. The Turner thesis suggested that American values and its unique
democratic institutions and traditions of individualism were forged in the libertarian world of the western
frontier at the farthest reach of Euro-American settlement of the Americas. Thus, according to the Turner
thesis, to understand American history one studies and celebrates the westward push of Euro-American
settlement, rather than the patterns of interactive cultural exchange and exploitation that [*81] occurred as
the indigenous civilizations of the Americas and the Euro-American settlers contended with each other over
resources, culture, and power. Under the Turner thesis, which has dominated the thinking and teaching of
American history for most of the twentieth century, the Indian civilizations on the other side of the frontier
line of settlement were simply ignored - marginalized peoples inevitably swept away by the march of
western civilization. Under this view of history, the nation's aboriginal occupants almost literally
disappeared from the story of the westernization of the Americas - an echo of Cooper's great literary icon,
the vanishing Indian. While modern western historians increasingly reject the Turner thesis and portray
American history, in part, as a clash of two civilizations competing for the same resources and power, n11
the traditional view spawned by the Turner thesis lingers. Confronting the contributions of American law to
the expropriation of Indian lands, the forced assimilationist attack on Indian landholding patterns and
Indian culture, and the destructions of the Indian economies in ways that precluded distinct evolution to
successful new forms consistent with tribal desires represents a sobering reality. This reality is one which
few non-Indian scholars are prepared to confront as it is inconsistent with the American ideal.
123
AFF KEY/FRAMEWORK
A new political framework is key to emancipation—trying to function within the preexisting political system dooms
the indigenous movement to failure.
The question which inevitably arises with regard to indigenous land claims, especially in the U.S., is whether they are
“realistic.” The answer, of course, is “no they aren’t.” Further, no form of decolonization has ever been realistic when
viewed within the construct of a colonialist paradigm. It wasn't realistic at the time to expect George Washington's rag-tag
militia to defeat the British military during the American independence struggle. Just ask the British. It wasn't realistic, as
the French could tell you, that the Vietnamese should be able to defeat U.S.-backed France in 1954,298 or that the
Algerians would shortly be able to follow in their footsteps.299 Surely, it wasn't reasonable to predict that Fidel Castros's
pitiful handful of guerrillas would overcome Batista's regime in Cuba, another U.S. client, after only a few years in the
mountains.3°0 And the Sandinistas, to be sure, had no prayer of attaining victory over Somoza twenty years later."' Henry
Kissinger, among others, knew that for a fact. The point is that in each case, in order to begin their struggles at all,
anticolonial fighters around the world have had to abandon orthodox realism in favor of what they knew (and their
opponents knew) to be right. To paraphrase Daniel Cohn-Bendit, they accepted as their agenda—the goals, objectives, and
demands which guided them—a redefinition of reality in terms deemed quite impossible within the conventional wisdom
of their oppressors. And, in each case, they succeeded in their immediate quest for liberation.302 The fact that all but one
(Cuba) of the examples used subsequently turned out to hold colonizing pretensions of its own does not alter the truth of
this—or alter the appropriateness of their efforts to decolonize themselves— in the least. It simply means that
decolonization has yet to run its course, that much remains to be done.303
124
HEG BAD
American hegemony sacrifices Native Americans to fuel our imperial war regime.
Such "savings" accrue to U.S. corporations in the form of superprofits indistinguishable from those gleaned through their
enterprises in the Third World, a matter which has unquestionably facilitated the emergence of the United States as the
world's dominant economic power in the post-World War II context.19 Minerals such as uranium, molybdenum, and
zeolite, moreover, are not only commercially valuable but strategically crucial, an important factor in understanding
America's present global military ascendancy.2° All of this has been obtained, as a matter of policy, at the direct expense
of Native North America as well as other underdeveloped regions of the world. As Eduardo Galeano once explained to
mainstream Americans, with respect to the impact of their lifestyle(s) on Latin America: "Your wealth is our poverty."21
The correlation is no less true on American Indian reservations. It holds up even in such superficially more redeemable
connections as U.S. efforts to curtail acid rain and other collateral effects of electrical power generation through reliance
upon low sulfur bituminous rather than high sulfur anthracite coal.
125
A2 PROLIF
Western superiority over Native Americans is the root cause of nuclear proliferation—only by changing our
relationship to the Native can we halt the damning spread of nuclear warheads.
If the disposal of mountainous accumulations of transuranic and other wastes has become a problem admitting to no easy
solution, its existence essentially accrues from the fact that even the most progressive and enlightened sectors of the settler
society have busied themselves for forty years with the protesting of nuclear proliferation at its tail end rather than at its
point(s) of origin. For all the mass actions they have organized at reactors and missile bases over the years, not one has
ever been conducted at a mining/milling site like Church Rock, Shiprock, or Laguna.207 Had things been otherwise,._- it
might have been possible to choke off the flow of fissionable materials at their source rather than attempting to combat
them in their most proliferate and dispersed state(s). The opposition, however, has for the most part proven itself as
willing to relegate native people to stations of marginality, even irrelevancy, as has the order it ostensibly opposes. And
here, to borrow from Malcolm X, it can be said that the chickens have truly come home to roost.2°8 This takes the form of
the increasingly ubiquitous cancers that have made their appearance across the spectrum of American society since World
War II, and the spiraling rates of congenital birth defects and suppressed immune systems evident among those whose
lives began during the 1940s or later.2°9 Plastering "no smoking" signs on every flat surface in North America will have
absolutely no effect in preventing or curing these and myriad other radiation-induced maladies.21° Wherein lies the cure?
In a technical sense, it must be admitted that no one knows. We are very far down the road. The wages of radioactive
colonialism are by and large being visited upon the colonizing society itself, and will likely continue to be in what is, in
human terms, a permanent fashion. Such effects as have already obtained may well prove irreversible.211 Whether or not
this is true, one thing is clear: any effort to counter the effects of nuclear contamination must begin by halting its
continuing proliferation. Unavoidably, then, success devolves first and foremost upon devising means of stopping still
more uranium from coming out of the ground. Until that is accomplished, struggles to shut down individual reactors, to
clean up specific mill-sites and production facilities, to reduce the number of nuclear warheads in military inventories or
even to figure out how to dispose of the existing accumulation of wastes will prove futile.212 The principle of course is as
time-honored as it is true: to correct a problem it is necessary to confront its source rather than its symptoms. In and of
itself, however, uranium mining is not the source of the affliction at hand. Underlying the mining process is the
nature of the relationship imposed by the United States upon indigenous peoples within its borders, that of internal
colonization, without which such things could never have happened in the first place. And underlying that is a
mentality shared by the North American settler population as a veritable whole: a core belief that it is somehow inherently,
singularly, even mystically, entitled to dominate all it encounters, possessing or at least benefiting from that which belongs
to others, regardless of the costs and consequences visited upon those thereby subjugated and dispossessed.' 3 It can thus
be said with certainty that if the dominant society is to have the least Prospect of addressing the steadily mounting
crisis of nuclear pollution it has no real option but to end the radioactive colonization of Native North America.
This can happen only if U.S. elites are forced to abandon their ongoing pretense of holding legitimate and perpetual "trust
authority" over native peoples, thus facilitating the genuine exercise of indigenous self-determination and our more
general decolonizat1°n.214 In turn, this can happen only to the extent that there is a wholesale alteration in the "genocidal
mentality" which marks the settler population.215 The key in this regard is a breaking down of the codes of denial, both
individual and institutional, by which the settler society has always shielded itself from the implications of its own values
and resulting actions.216 The process is in part simply a matter of insisting that things be called by their right names
rather than the noble- sounding euphemisms behind which reality has been so carefully hidden: terms like "discovery" and
"settlement" do not reflect the actualities of invasion and conquest they are used to disguise; colonialism is not a matter of
"trust," it is colonialism, a crime under international law; genocide isn't an "inadvertent" outcome of "progress," it is
genocide, an always avoidable crime against humanity; ecocide is not "development," it is ecocide, the most blatant and
irremediable form of environmental destruction; mere possession constitutes "nine-tenths of the law" only among thugs
devoted to enjoying the fruits of an organized system of theft.217
126
CASE O/W DA
Preventing the ecological destruction of the status quo outweighs risk of a DA—extinction is inevitable unless we
change our path.
In the alternative, if the current psychopolitical/socioeconornic status quo prevails, things are bound to run their deadly
course. Felix Cohen's figurative miners will inevitably share the fate of their canary, the genocide they so smugly allow as
an "acceptable cost of doing business" blending perfectly into their own autogenocide until the grim prospect of species
extinction has at last been realized. There is, to be sure, a certain unmistakable justice attending the symmetry of this
scenario ("What goes around, comes around," as Charlie Manson liked to say).221 But, surely, we—all of us, settlers as
well as natives—owe more to our future generations than to bequeath them a planet so thoroughly irradiated as to deny
the possibility of life itself.
127
A2 CP
Failure to examine the political implications of our definition of Indian status dooms legislation to failure.
Lexis [ev]
As a result, ideology plays an important and unpredictable role in how federal Indian policy is developed. Regardless of
the time period, "the question of how the Indians' political status will be defined is, implicitly or explicitly, a part of Indian
policy discussions. Whether Indians are to be more or less [*941] sovereign is thus a permanent consideration when
legislating Indian affairs." 255 These are inherently matters of judgment and opinion, and their resolution is
quintessentially political in nature. Whether Congress decides to support and advocate Indian concerns or to undermine
and suppress them, government policy will be significantly affected. Emma R. Gross has concluded that "given the
existence of these tensions in Indian policy development, and the fact that they have defied attempts to definitely resolve
the underlying questions at stake, Indian legislation is often contradictory or seems to reverse itself." 256
128
A2 XO CP
Executive branch fails at Indian policy—conflicting interests.
Lexis [ev]
The executive branch, primarily through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), has a long and undistinguished record in
managing the federal government's relationship with the Indians. 265 Fraught with the inherent conflict of interest of
serving both as the trustee of the tribes 266 and as the defenders of federal interests generally, 267 the executive branch
has had the difficult task of trying to implement the conflicting policies developed by Congress over the years. 268 By
virtue of its unenviable task as "overseer," the BIA has been unable to participate meaningfully in policy debate and has,
too often, become the object of ridicule rather than the recipient of respect in the dialogue over the federal-tribal
relationship. 269 Furthermore, the BIA may well be more concerned about its own bureaucratic self-interest than about
the concerns of the Indian people it is supposed to be serving as trustee. 270
129
AT: BLOOD QUANTAMS BAD

Blood quantam critics rest thir case on false assumptions-Native Americans never had static identities-
quantams are the most effective way for allowing tribes to set their own identities.
Carole Goldberg, Director of the Joint Degree Program in Law and American Indian Studies @ UCLA, April, ‘2
(Members Only? Designing Citizenship Requirements for Indian Nations, 50 Kan. L. Rev. 437, p. Lexis) [Bozman]
Recent commentators have chided contemporary tribal governments for holding to minimum descendance or "blood quantum"
requirements for citizenship, observing that such provisions depart from traditional (read pre-contact or early post-contact) North
American tribal practices. n114 These authors point out that tribal membership traditionally depended more on social incorporation
into clan or kinship group than on ancestry, and that inclusion of members of outside groups was common. n115 These criticisms
imply that Indian nations' membership practices were static during the pre-contact period, and that tribes err when they depart from
such pre- contact practice. Even assuming that membership criteria remained constant before contact, a questionable assumption, it
does not follow that Indian nations today should continue to adhere to those criteria. Supposing that earlier practices are the only one
that can be justified today is another way of promoting what some have called the "menagerie theory of Indian law that treats Indian
reservations as historic human zoos." n116 It denies that traditions are vital and dynamic in response to changing conditions. Consider
the reasons why Indian nations today might prefer some type of blood quantum or minimum percentage of ancestry requirement, even
though absolute criteria of that type were not part of historical practice. First, Indian nations today may anticipate that outsiders are
more culturally different from insiders than in precontact North America. In that earlier time, warring tribes or trading partners may
have shared more in terms of technology, values, and social understandings than Indians and non-Indians share today. The fact that
some Indian nations today reduce their minimum blood quantum requirements for individuals belonging to other tribes may reflect
such an analysis. n117 [*460] Second, tribes may have been more willing to adopt outsiders at a time when they were less likely to
feel threatened that the adoptees' worldview and culture would overwhelm their own by virtue of material power and sheer numbers.
n118 Third, earlier practices of adoption and incorporation may also have been shaped by concerns for population loss due to warfare
and disease n119 that do not preoccupy some tribes today. There may be good reasons to question minimum blood quantum
requirements, but departure from tradition probably isn't one of them. In fact, biological relationship has always formed some part,
often a significant part, of tribal belonging. Extended kinship groups or clans formed the basic units of nearly all tribal societies.
Indeed, for anthropologists, a social structure based on kinship is the defining characteristic of a tribe as opposed to some other form
of political organization, such as a state. n120 For outsiders to be incorporated into a tribal system, they must be assimilated to some
family-like role and/or find their place in a prevailing clan system. n121 Conversely biological descendants can be disqualified from
membership if they lack requirements for clan belonging. n122 And biological outsiders can qualify for membership under some
circumstances if a family or clan had an established ceremony or other means by which kinship or clan roles could be assumed. n123
But these exceptions do not destroy the dominant rule that proper descendance is the key to tribal belonging, and a person possessing
such descendance could far more readily establish membership than someone who did not. n124 Thus, for example, Gould's and
Neath's ideas of entirely substituting [*461] some cultural affiliation requirement for descendance n125 is no less a departure from
tribal "tradition" than exclusive reliance on biology or blood quantum to define tribal citizenship.
Even if blood quantams depart from Native traditions, they’re still good.
As the work of the Clinic has proceeded, law review articles have been attacking ancestry-based tribal membership requirements and
advocating substitution of "nonracial" criteria such as cultural affiliation or residence. n4 These articles seem to draw force from an
ideology that requires assaults upon all legal provisions that can possibly be characterized as racial in nature. n5 To support their
positions, these authors assert, sometimes erroneously, that existing blood quantum requirements are federally imposed rather than
"traditionally" tribal, n6 implying that tribal law can be authentic and entitled to respect only so long as it adheres to practices that
predate European contact. This critique of tribal citizenship provisions necessitates a searching examination of the historical and
contemporary choices that Indian nations have available and are making regarding citizenship. Insofar as these choices reflect
contemporary concerns of tribal communities, there is no reason to deny their legitimacy merely because they depart from
"traditional" measures.
130
AT: CP TO USE CULTURAL TIES INSTEAD OF BLOOD

QUANTAMS
The counterplan’s impossible to enforce and makes no sense-blood quantams are the only objective and
plausible way for determining tribal membership.
First, who would be afforded the opportunity to demonstrate adequate cultural ties? Would an Indian nation be obliged to give a
hearing to anyone who learned the language and rituals? If so, tribes might be overwhelmed with applications for citizenship,
especially well-off gaming tribes. Would a different standard be applied to close relations of tribal members in order to expedite
administration and to recognize the [*464] significance of family ties? If so, the use of a cultural fluency or cultural ties criterion
would not escape the wrath of those who oppose all "race-based" classifications. n136 Second, how, and at what intervals, would
prospective tribal members have to demonstrate their cultural ties in order to prove their right to citizenship? Would children be given
an opportunity to draw closer to their culture than their less interested parents? What would be the status of these children until such
time as they were prepared to stand for review of their cultural ties? What about individuals who go through a youthful period of
rejecting their culture, but then decide to return? Would they be able to reapply? There is great potential for community divisiveness if
the extent of one's cultural fluency is transformed into grounds for disenrollment or exclusion from citizenship. One way to respond
to some of these concerns is to designate a particular surrogate for cultural ties, such as reservation residence, and let that stand for the
more complex determination. The problem with this response is that it is likely to miss many culturally connected individuals who
need to live away from the reservation for one reason or another, such as the tribal member who is teaching the tribal language in an
American Indian Studies program at a university in her state. Reservation residence in particular is a problematic criterion, because the
Indian nation, in its capacity as landowner, can decide to restrict who can reside within the tribal territory. Third, the whole idea that
individuals can "prove" their tribal membership through demonstrations of cultural fluency or "lose" it by forgetting the culture is
anathema to many tribal worldviews. According to these worldviews, belonging to a "people" is not an affirmative choice of the
individual, but rather a condition of one's birth. Thus, for example, the Tlingit of Sitka believe that adoption in the sense of termination
of parental rights and establishment of new such rights is impossible. Once one is born into a clan, it is impossible to separate from it,
even in death. n137 Those who argue for cultural affiliation as the sole criterion for tribal citizenship do not fully appreciate the
nature of such societies and the difficulties attached to culturally based citizenship criteria. As a means for excluding people with clan
and kinship ties by birth, such criteria [*465] actually abrade culture. As a wholesale means for including people who lack clan
and kinship ties, culturally based criteria could overwhelm Indian nations with wannabees. While culturally based criteria might be
sound bases for overcoming residence requirements of otherwise eligible tribal citizens, for overcoming arbitrary consequences of
other citizenship provisions, or for otherwise supplementing descent-based citizenship requirements through adoption or
naturalization, Indian nations might want to look to vehicles other than citizenship requirements to advance cultural sovereignty.
131
AT: REPARATIONS CP
Reparations fail-impossible to calculate.
William Bradford, Assistant Professor of Law at Indiana University, 2002/2003
(With a Very Great Blame on Our Hearts, 27 Am. Indian L. Rev. 1, p. Lexis) [Bozman]
Reparations foes suggest the practical impossibility of a fair damage assessment arising from the unprecedented scope of the harms
alleged and the potential number of claimants. Implicit in this doctrinal objection is the claim that reparations breaches the obligation
to avoid bankrupting the government while inflating actual injuries suffered. n435 Advocates scoff at the notion that reparations
threatens the fiscal health of the nation and counter that imposing requirements of scientific precision in elaborating the individual
value of the harms, along with membership in the remedial class, would establish more stringent standards than those applicable in
other class-action litigation. In other words, because exactitude in the assessment of damages is less important than other social goals
of the law, "better rough justice than no justice at all." n436 For reparationists, the common-law cy pres doctrine n437 establishes a
permissible degree of misallocation of damages to afford compensatory justice even where establishment of class membership and/or
the mechanism and scope of individual injuries is problematic. n43
Reparations fail-we need to seek justice on a person by person level.

Some critics of reparations n449 challenge the bleak assumption that racism is singularly dispositive of the life chances of minorities
and unremediable by social intercourse. n450 Others suggest alternative explanations for racial disparities in employment, healthcare,
housing, education, and wealth accumulation: for some, the socioeconomic indicia of minority disadvantage relative to whites is
ascribable to genetic intellectual inferiority, n451 while for still others, racial inequality, though not inherent in the nonwhite
condition, can be ameliorated only by incremental policies of racial self-reliance -- in essence, minorities must lift themselves up "by
their own bootstraps" n452 and eschew external relief. To the extent that compensation in any form is owed to the victims of racial
discrimination, anti-reparationists look to standard tort and civil rights remedies and insist that individuals, rather than groups, advance
and prove their claims. n453
Reparations cause a backlash.

More than any other remedy, reparations transforms the material condition of recipients. Moreover, it connotes culpability: n469 for a
majority that rejects group hierarchy, harm, and responsibility, reparations is a radical redistribution of wealth, rather than a
disgorgement and reallocation of an unjust acquisition, that exacerbates unrest. n470 Reparations thus yields resistance, n471
backlash, n472 and "ethnic elbowing." n473 As it would strip their [*100] racial privileges along with their currency, reparations is
opposed by all but the most altruistic whites. n474
132
___________________________________________
***NEG SHIZZ***
133
NEG—STATES CP SOLVENCY
Indian-State cooperation key to effective energy program.
Explore State-Tribal Agreements for Renewable Energy Projects on Tribal Lands Some tribes may want to explore with
states the possibility of a state-tribal agreement for renewable energy projects on tribal lands as part of a state’s strategy to
meets its own goals for renewable energy (especially those goals related to state compliance with the RHR). Such
agreements could provide an incentive for locating projects on tribal lands or could remove a disincentive that would arise
if location of the project on tribal land meant that the state would not receive credit for the project as part of its progress
toward meeting its RHR renewable energy goals.
134
NEG—EFFICIENCY 1NC SOLVENCY—ECON

Energy efficiency key to economic growth—import replacement and product spillover.
David R. LaRoche Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments et al February 2004 College of Business
Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 04-04, “Recommendations for Reducing Energy
Consumption and Improving Air Quality through Energy Efficiency in Indian Country”
http://www.franke.nau.edu/Faculty/Intellectual/workingpapers/pdf/Smith_Recommendations.pdf pg 6-7 [ev]
Jacobs (2000, pg. 19) has noted that “Development ... operates as a web of interdependent co- developments.” EE
programs can enhance such co-developments, which incorporate multiple members of the community and bring vital
improvements to its economic structure. According to a study done on the Navajo Reservation (Yazzie 1989),
approximately 87 cents of each dollar earned was spent off the reservation in border towns, where goods and services
were purchased. As the economic development process continues and a more diverse selection of goods and services is
offered on the reservation, people will spend more money on the reservation rather than in border towns. The term for this
is import replacement, and it is a vital part of the economic development process. Although major efforts have been made
to increase retail opportunities on reservations in the last decade, additional expansion can be stimulated by providing
affordable renewable energy and by encouraging the creative and entrepreneurial spirit of community members. By
introducing energy efficiency programs to the reservation, the tribe will be refueling itself. In order to replace imports
with domestically produced goods and services, the whole reservation economy must participate in development, which
spreads work opportunities throughout the community. The goal is to seek diversification rather than mere expansion of
existing goods and services. When energy efficiency is realized, the cost of doing business is lowered, and the economic
landscape will become correspondingly more fertile, producing business opportunities such as sales of more efficient
appliances, light fixtures, bulbs, and accessories. Combining the energy efficiency programs with a program for increased
electrification creates a potential for both retail and manufacturing expansion. There will be a new found need for items
like refrigerators, fans, extension cords, and computers, which could be sold on the reservation. Leakage of money off the
reservation will decrease, and the tribe will profit from increases in both reservation business activity and employment
opportunities. As the technicians working for the energy businesses begin to develop their skills installing and
implementing the new, efficient systems, spontaneous entrepreneurial ideas could arise. Perhaps small components of the
systems could be produced locally. Alternatively, new and better designs for components may result from the creativity of
the tribe’s entrepreneurs. Native American tribes could move ahead of the rest of the world by inventing specialized tools
desired by the rest of the planet. This is Jacobs’s (2000) “web of co-developments.” There is no way of foretelling the
future, but the strong entrepreneurial nature of the indigenous cultures almost assures development of new opportunities,
products, and services.
135
NEG—EFFICIENCY SOLVENCY—ECON
Energy efficiency solves.
Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 04-03, “Identification and Implementation of
Potential Energy Efficiency Programs in Indian Country”
http://www.franke.nau.edu/Faculty/Intellectual/workingpapers/pdf/Smith_Implementation.pdf pg 2 [ev]
Tribal members spend anywhere between 1 percent and 20 percent of their incomes on basic energy services (Energy
Information Administration 2000). Depending on the type and sector (e.g., commercial, residential, etc.) of an energy
efficiency (EE) project, successful implementation of the project can have a significant impact due to the potentially large
percentage of income expended on energy. However, for these benefits to be realized, the EE project must be successfully
implemented. Because EE measures vary from simple behavioral changes to complex technological applications, a proper
understanding of how to implement an energy efficiency program and how to select appropriate EE measures is crucial to
achieving successful implementation. Toward this end, it is important to understand the demographics and different
market segments in order to focus efforts in areas that will create the greatest yield in energy cost savings and other
benefits. Furthermore, if a tribe has not previously undertaken any energy efficiency projects, it is likely that there are
ample opportunities to achieve substantial savings by implementing a variety of EE measures, including “low tech”
projects. The purpose of this paper is to describe how to establish a successful energy efficiency program as well as
suggest potential EE measures.
Efficiency key to Indian econ growth.

Administration at Northern Arizona University, Working Papers Series 04-02, “Economic Analysis of Energy Efficiency
Measures: Tribal Case Studies with The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, The Pascua
Yaqui Tribe, and The Yurok Tribe” http://www.franke.nau.edu/Faculty/Intellectual/workingpapers/pdf/Smith_EnergyEfficiency.pdf pg
2 [ev]
Energy efficiency is maximizing the effective utilization of energy while minimizing the costs of that energy.
Implementation of energy efficiency (EE) programs by a tribe can have many positive impacts. These include the
reduction of energy costs and the associated freeing of significant financial resources for other important uses, improving
electrical service, increased energy independence, improved air quality, reduction in environmental impacts, and others.
Foremost amongst these benefits may be the potential for reduced energy costs. By employing EE measures, it is easily
possible to save 10 percent on energy costs and the potential exists to save in excess of 50 percent. Thus, if a tribe spends
$100,000 annually on energy, it can expect a minimum energy cost savings of $10,000 annually, and perhaps significantly
more. In 1997, U.S. Indian households spent $757 million on energy supplies. Thus if only 10 percent of that cost were
eliminated via EE, then $76 million would be available for other purposes on Indian lands instead of energy. The
magnitude of these savings will increase significantly if other energy end-uses such as commercial and government
entities are included. Furthermore, EE can go hand-in-hand with new electrification, providing a cost-effective means to
decrease operating costs while improving the performance of newly electrified homes and other buildings.
136
NEG—EFFICIENCY SOLVENCY—ECON
Energy efficiency boosts reservation and American econs.
http://www.franke.nau.edu/Faculty/Intellectual/workingpapers/pdf/Smith_Recommendations.pdf pg 5 [ev]
The primary benefit of improvements in energy efficiency is, of course, the cost savings. Often a moderate expenditure
today will result in substantial future savings. Indeed, after an energy management program is initiated, energy cost
savings up to 15 percent can be easily realized with little capital investment. Eventually, savings on the order of 30
percent are routinely obtained, and sometimes savings of as high as 50 to 70 percent can be achieved (Capehart et al.
1997). These savings free financial resources for better use elsewhere, often regardless of the sector that implements the
efficiency improvement. A few examples may help to illustrate this general concept: A family may choose to insulate their
home to permanently reduce the heating or cooling cost; money is spent the first year, but money is saved every year
afterward. The money saved can be applied to whatever that family perceives as its next greatest need. A business may, for
example, install new light fixtures that provide the same illumination benefits at a lower cost. There is an initial outlay of
cash, but then these reduced costs last for the lifetime of the new fixtures, raising the incomes of the business and perhaps
its employees. A governmental entity may have similar opportunities to implement efficiency measures. Such measures
will free budgetary resources, allowing that entity to better accomplish its mission. In addition to decreasing the energy-
related costs in a household, business, or government office, efficiency improvements may also further the economic
development of a region, or may change its pattern of economic activity by freeing resources for other, more productive
tasks. Jobs are created for local workers to repair or weatherize buildings, and if some of the materials used are locally
produced or processed, work is generated in those sectors as well. Money saved through efficiency improvements will
eventually be spent on other goods and services, some of which are available on the reservation. A family with lower
utility bills may now spend more on locally produced services such as dining, entertainment, daycare, or preventive
medical care. As activity in these sectors increases, employment and incomes will increase as well. As this additional
income is spent, it circulates throughout the economy, further increasing employment and incomes through a phenomenon
known as the multiplier effect. Not all money saved through EE returns to the local economy, but will continue to flow off
the reservation through the purchase of non-local goods and services, such as when purchasing new appliances.
137
NEG—EFFICIENCY SOLVENCY—CULTURE
Energy efficiency key to cultural preservation.
Many tribes face two major needs: employment and economic development. Perhaps tribal economic development could
avoid the conventional model where pure profits are the main consideration. Although profits must still be a consideration,
culture and traditions could also play an operative role in blending successful commerce with traditional lifeways.
Economic security can help lead to cultural self-preservation. Energy efficiency is an ideal way to help achieve such
security because it does not depend solely on scarce resources in danger of being depleted. Instead it can help protect them
for future generations. Becoming more energy efficient can lead not only to direct opportunities for people in education
and employment through its economic benefits, but also to a myriad of secondary reservation-based opportunities. This
can all be done in a way that does not detract from the culture, but rather helps to preserve it. Economic development
occurs when diverse activities and businesses are given the opportunity to prosper and flourish within a stable political
background. Such development is a process that weaves through the social system; it can assist sustaining tribal character.
Energy efficiency key to culture and growth.

Some of the benefits of implementing efficient energy programs on reservations will be social. The lack of jobs and
insufficient income, two of the most pressing issues on reservations (Smith, 2000, pg. 95), tend to create a downward
spiral in quality of life because people see no opportunity for improvement. The result is often substance abuse, domestic
unrest, and attrition of people to places where jobs can be found. Those who seek highly specialized jobs tend to leave the
reservation in search of such work; a brain drain takes away the most talented members of the population. However,
appropriate economic development will likely ameliorate such social ills. The brain drain effect will decrease because
there will be more opportunities for people to use their talents on the reservation. The experience of earning a steady
income will give hope for improvement, as well as providing successful role models for others. This increase in activity
will also likely reduce substance abuse. Individuals will begin to see opportunities to enrich their lives rather than feeling
hopeless.
138
NEG—LAND CP SOLVES HEG (BAD)

Decolonization kills heg.
Viewed from any angle, the situation is obvious. Shorn of its illegally occupied territories, the U.S. would lack the critical
mass and internal jurisdictional cohesion necessary to impose itself as it does at present. This is all the more true in that
even the fragments of land still delineated as Indian reservations are known to contain up to two-thirds of the uranium, a
quarter of the readily accessible low sulfur coal, a fifth of the oil and natural gas, and all of the zeolites available to feed
America's domestic economy.144 Withdrawal of these assets from federal control would fatally impair the ability of the
U.S. to sustain anything resembling state-corporate business as usual. By every reasonable standard of measure, the
decolonization of Native North America must thus be among the very highest priorities pursued by anyone, anywhere,
who is seriously committed to achieving a positive transformation of the global status quo.145
139
NEG—STATE FAILS
Change from within the statist structure is impossible—states have too much at stake.
The stakes embodied in this denial are staggering. There are twenty different indigenous peoples along the peninsula
British colonizers called Malaya (now Malaysia), 380 in "postcolonial" India, 670 in the former Dutch/Portuguese colony
of Indonesia.157 In South America, the numbers range from 35 in Ecuador to 210 in Brazi1.158 There are scores,
including such large nationalities as the Yi, Manchus, and Miao, encapsulated within the Peoples Republic of China.'" In
Vietnam, two dozen-odd "montagnard tribes" of the Annamese Cordillera have been unwillingly subsumed under
authority of what the Vietnamese constitution unilaterally proclaims "a multinational state."166 The same situation
prevails for the Hmongs of Laos.161 Not only the Chechens of the south but at least three-dozen smaller northern peoples
remain trapped within the Russian rump state resulting from the breakup of the Soviet Union.162 In Iraq and Turkey, there
are the Kurds;163 in Libya and Morocco, the Bedouins of the desert regions.164 Throughout subsaharan Africa, hundreds
more, many of them partitioned by borders defended at gunpoint by statist regimes, share the circumstance of the rest.165
Similar situations prevail in every quarter of the earth 166 Observed from this standpoint, it's easy enough to see why no
state, regardless of how bitterly opposed it might otherwise be to the United States, has been—or could be—willing to
attack the U.S. where it is most vulnerable. The vulnerability being decidedly mutual, any precedent thus established
would directly contradict the attacking state's sense of self-preservation at the most fundamental level. Hence, the current
process of militarily enforced politicoeconomic "globalization"167—world imperialism, by any other namet68—must be
viewed as a collaborative endeavor, involving even those states which stand to suffer most as a result (and which have
therefore been most vociferously critical of it). It follows that genuine and effective opposition can only accrue from
locations outside "official" venues, at the grassroots, among those who understand their interests as being
antithetical not only to globalization, per se, but to the entire statist structure upon which it depends.
140
NEG—FED FAILS
Federal action can’t solve—court decisions prove that racism is too engrained.
Other nations, however, have not fared as well, even in an atmosphere where the U.S. has sometimes proven more than
usually willing to compromise as a means to contain questions of native land rights. The Wampanoags of the Mashpee
area of Cape Cod, for example, filed suit in 1974 in an attempt to recover about 17,000— later reduced to 11,000—of the
23,000 acres historically acknowledged as theirs. (The Commonwealth of Massachusetts unilaterally declared their
reservation a "township" in 1870.) At trial, the all-white jury, each of whom had property interests in the Mashpee area,
were asked to determine whether the Wampanoag plaintiffs were "a tribe within the meaning of the law." After
deliberating for 21 hours, the jury returned with the absurd finding that they were nor such an entity in 1790, 1869, and
1870 (the years which were key to the Indians' case), but that they were in 1832 and 1834 (years in which it was important
they had been "a tribe" for purposes of alienating land to the government). Their claim was then denied by District Judge
Walter J. Skinner.58 An appeal to the U.S. First Circuit Court failed, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the
case.59 Given such mixed results, it is plain that that justice in native land claims cases cannot ultimately be expected to
accrue through the federal court system. Whatever remedial potential resides in judicial and diplomatic venues must
therefore be pursued through bodies such as the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations, which is even
now engaged in finalizing a "Universal Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,"6° and the International Court of
Justice (ICJ, or "World Court"), which must interpret and render opinions based in such law.61 From there, it can be
expected that international scrutiny and pressure, as well as changed sentiments among a growing segment of the U.S.
body politic, may serve to force the United States to edge closer to a fair and equitable handling of indigenous rights.62 In
the meantime, nearly every litigation of land claims within the federal system adds to the weight of evidence supporting
the international case presented by native people: when we win, it proves we were entitled to the land all along; when we
lase, it Proves that the "due process rights" the U.S. insists protect our interests are, at most, inconsistently available to us.
Either way, these legalistic endeavors force cracks in the ideological matrix of the American empire. In combination with
extralegal efforts such as refusal to leave their homes by native traditionals and physical occupations of contested areas by
groups such as AIM, as well as the increasing international work by indigenous delegations, they comprise the core of the
ongoing land struggles which represent the future of Native North America.63
141
NEG—NO SOLVENCY
No solvency—federal law.
Lexis [ev]
Nevertheless, no matter how much responsibility we assume for the redevelopment of our sovereignty, the United States
remains a barrier to our forward progress. America, because of its geography, its people, its culture, and its media, is an
overwhelming influence on the Indigenous nations located within its borders. 9 As a result, tremendous forces inhibit the
preservation and strengthening of the unique fabric of our nations and thus form considerable obstacles to our
redevelopment. 10 One of the most significant barriers to our redevelopment lies in the body of American law. Since its
founding, the United States has developed an extensive body of law - so-called [*902] "federal Indian law" - to define
and regulate its relationship with the Indian nations remaining within its borders. 11 While this law may seem to have a
neutral purpose, it would be more accurate to say that "federal Indian law" is really "federal Indian control law" because it
has the twofold mission of establishing the legal bases for American colonization of the continent 12 and perpetuating
American power and control over the Indian nations. 13 Unfortunately, in addition to this foundational problem, the law
itself is not simple or uniform. Federal Indian control law is a hodgepodge of statutes, cases, executive orders, and
administrative regulations that embody a wide variety of divergent policies towards the Indian nations since the time the
United States was established. 14 Because old laws reflecting these old policies have rarely been repealed when new ones
reflecting new policies have been adopted, 15 any efforts that might be taken by the Indian nations and the federal
government to strengthen Indian self-determination must first cut through the legal muck created by over 200 years of
prior federal efforts to accomplish precisely the opposite result. As I see it, this legal minefield profoundly effects tribal
sovereignty. For example, conflicting federal laws - such as those that provide for the federal government's protective
trust responsibility over Indian affairs 16 and those that allow federal, [*903] state, and private interests to interfere with
tribal self-government 17 - make it impossible for the Indian nations to exercise fully their sovereign right of self-
determination. As past efforts to destroy our sovereign existence continue to have their corrosive effect, so too, in my
view, does the natural result of those efforts: the destruction of Indigenous culture and the eventual assimilation of Indian
people into American society. 18 Inevitably, in the absence of any affirmative efforts to decolonize both the Indian nations
and federal Indian control law, I believe that our distinct native identity will continue to erode, and with it, the existence of
our nations.
142
NEG—TRUST T/
Federal trust responsibility is the most critical factor in stripping tribes of self-determinaton.
Lexis [ev]
While this conclusion was based significantly upon a textual reading of the Constitution, 97 Marshall expanded his
analysis in dicta to address the precise nature of the federal-tribal relationship. 98 In so doing, he developed the most
important and longstanding mechanism utilized by the United States for exercising control over the lives and lands of
Indian people: the federal government's trust responsibility. 99 In denying the Cherokee Nation the status of a foreign
nation with the right to invoke the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, 100 Marshall memorialized in federal law the
self-interested determination that the Indians were a subservient people dependent upon the United States. It is not a far
stretch to conclude from this opinion that Marshall continued to perceive the aboriginal inhabitants of the continent as
uncivilized heathens. Indians "in a state of pupilage" could never be thought to appeal to "an American court of justice for
an assertion of right or a redress of wrong" - "thei r appeal was to the tomahawk, or to the government." 101 Marshall's
opinion in Cherokee Nation furthered the rationalization of American colonization by concluding that the Indian nations
are merely "domestic dependent nations" 102 and thus are barred from exercising the rights of self-determination inherent
in all free peoples.
143
NEG—NO SOLVENCY
No solvency—law.
Lexis [ev]
Because of its deep foundation, colonization remains firmly embedded in the body of modern federal Indian control law
and policy. This observation should be of little surprise, because all federal policies for dealing with the Indian nations -
the Removal Policy, the Reservation Policy, the Peace Policy, the Allotment Policy, the Reorganization Policy, the
Termination Policy - and the "archaic, European-derived law" supporting them have been "ultimately genocidal in both
practice and intent." 245 Only since the ushering in of the Self-Determination Policy in the early 1970s, has the United
States avoided using the language of subjugation and assimilation in creating and carrying out its policy toward the Indian
nations. This state of affairs has led Robert Clinton to write that "colonialist roots ... are entrenched deeply in the body of
[*939] modern federal Indian law. Vestiges of the law's historic colonial role in legitimating conquest and expropriation
remain imbedded in the doctrines employed today[,] allegedly to protect Indian interests." 246 So long as the United
States preserves the colonial foundation of its Indian law, it will be unable to formulate an effective and mutually
beneficial policy for dealing with the Indian nations.
144
NEG—KNOWING T/
The assumption that we “know” what the Indians want is the root cause of colonization.
Lexis [ev]
Moreover, federal Indian policy has been based upon a paternalistic ethnocentrism that has never viewed Indigenous
people as capable of determining our own future. American policymakers have assumed that their way of life was superior
and worth emulating, that their society was in a superior position to safeguard Indian interests, and that their opinions
[*940] about the future of Indian people were the correct ones. These faulty assumptions have been a constant
throughout America's dealings with the Indian nations. 250 Indeed, the degree to which this paternalistic ethnocentrism
has infiltrated even the most "beneficial" federal Indian policies raises the possibility that these beliefs are defining
characteristics of what it means to be an American. 251 This imbalance of perspectives has undermined the development
of stable relations between the Indian nations and the United States.
145
NEG—COURT CP S
Only court->legislative spillover.
Lexis [ev]
[*943] The problems afflicting the legislative and executive branches have not affected the judiciary. The Supreme Court
has always played a central role in the development of federal Indian control law. 271 Although the court has not always
been especially active in Indian cases, its pronouncements have served as the cornerstones for American law and policy
towards the Indian nations. 272 Unlike its relationship to other bodies of law, the Court has written virtually the entire
body of federal law applicable to the Indian nations. The Court has defined the scope of federal power over tribes, 273
limited the tribal sovereignty recognized by the United States, 274 and fleshed out the responsibilities of the United States
as trustee for the Indians. 275 While it has, in recent years, become less hospitable to claims favoring Indian interests, 276
it nonetheless has consistently built upon its established precedents - the Marshall trilogy - that suppress tribal autonomy
in the face of federal power. 277
146
NEG—STATES CP/FEDERALSM LINK

Supreme Court shifts mean States have control of Indian policy.
Lexis [ev]
In addition to the challenges associated with the separation of powers, federalism has also affected management of Indian
affairs. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states claimed [*944] that their authority to manage Indian affairs co-
existed with that of the federal government. 278 While the replacement of the Articles by the Constitution clarified that
the federal government would have primary authority over managing Indian affairs, 279 the states continued to challenge
this federal constitutional authority for years thereafter. 280 Despite the clarity of pronouncements such as those in
Worcester v. Georgia 281 and Williams v. Lee, 282 the states have continued to press for control over the Indian territory
within their borders. 283 The recent trend, in fact, has been for the Supreme Court to grant the states an even greater role
in the administration of Indian affairs. 284
147
NEG—NO SOLVENCY
No solvency—trust responsibility.
Lexis [ev]
The second problem with the Self-Governance Policy is that it preserves without modification the federal trust
responsibility over Indian affairs. 468 As a result, while Self-Governance presents the possibility of greater tribal
independence, any measure of improvement will be offset by one of the most well-entrenched instruments of colonial
oppression - the federal trust responsibility. Under the Self-Governance Policy, the trust responsibility comes into play in
two areas: (1) in those instances in which the federal government has assumed clear trust duties for Indian lands and
resources, and (2) through the process of [*976] negotiating and settling upon compact terms. 469 If the Indian nations
are going to have true self-determination and sovereignty, the federal government cannot maintain full trust responsibility
over their affairs. By definition, these two concepts are irreconcilable.
148
NEG—FED KILLS
Fed action kills self-determination.
Lexis [ev]
Overall, the problem with recent administrative efforts to strengthen tribal sovereignty is that they seem founded upon a
faulty assumption - that the federal government can actually make the Indian nations more sovereign. The reality, of
course, is that only the Indian nations can strengthen themselves. Federal agencies that seek to support tribal self-
government are left with the choice of either providing support to the tribes as they might determine or doing nothing. The
problem with federally sponsored programs - even those that originate with tribal requests - is that the federal "solutions"
can only be conceived of in terms of activities in which the federal agency already engages, e.g., enforcing federal laws,
commandeering the states, and providing funding for federally-defined priority programs. This lack of vision can and will
have a dramatic effect on tribal sovereignty. Rarely do federal priorities mesh with tribal priorities, 507 and it is unlikely
that they ever will. It is also unlikely that many federal agency staff members have ever worked within tribal government.
Moreover, few tribal officials appear to conceive of the federal government's role as other than a funding source or in
terms of what the federal government already does. 508 Thus, the inertia associated with the federal government's
priorities prevails in the face of less well-defined tribal priorities, and the Indian nations simply carry out whatever federal
program happens to be funded at the moment. 509 At best, this process destabilizes long-term tribal [*986] planning; at
worst, it is colonization by absorbing the Indian nations into the dominant society's administrative infrastructure. 510 In
this process, it doesn't matter that the federal agency or certain federal officials are well-intentioned or even that the
federal government acknowledges limitations on its participation. 511 The end result of federal government absorption of
Indian nations through its administrative policy is the further weakening of tribal self-determination by supplanting a
distinct tribal governmental and legal identity with that of the federal government. 512
149
NEG-CORPORATIONS WILL FUCK UP PLAN

Corporations will use the plan to hide their fossil fuel extraction.
Brian Awehali, Editor in Chief of Lip Magazine, 6-5-06
(http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featawehali_nativefutures.htm) [Bozman]
Now imagine, if you can, that you run a US-based energy company at a time when increasing resistance to US imperialism, coupled
with rising business costs related to political instability, has made getting the oil, coal, and gas from foreign sources more difficult.
Imagine that you’re savvy enough to know that your fossil fuel-based business model is about to get dramatically less lucrative. If you
didn’t already have them, you’d probably want to start setting up operations in the more business-friendly, less regulated Wild West of
Indian Country. If you were really devious—or maybe just smart—you might want to have your cake and eat it too, by getting tax
subsidies and favorable terms for developing your next business model while greenwashing your ongoing fossil fuel operations.
Wouldn’t you?
The corporations the plan helps concede that they’re going to exploit tribes.
Brian Awehali, Editor in Chief of Lip Magazine, 6-5-06
(http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featawehali_nativefutures.htm) [Bozman]
But don’t take my word for it. Take it from Billy Connelly, the senior advisor on marketing and communications for NativeEnergy, the
company, you’ll recall, that helped usher in the dawn of this renewable energy rush. When asked during a March 2006 phone
interview why the demonstration of a potentially viable renewable energy economy on Native American lands wasn’t simply an
example of small businesses laying the groundwork for the eventual control and megaprofits of major corporations, Connelly sighed
and said simply, “I’d be pleasantly surprised if this didn’t follow that age-old pattern.”
150
NEG—WIND POWER BAD

Wind power is insignificant, merely a tool for politicians to act like they are doing something, and overly
expensive
Many critics of wind power dismiss it as insignificant. “[D]espite its wide current public appeal and its
admitted virtues, wind power is an inevitably insignificant and environmentally flawed source of energy and a
financial and political diversion from an intelligent solution to energy issues.”126 One eye-catching statistic is
commonly cited: Despite the explosion of wind power facilities, wind power contributes less than 1% of U.S.
power requirements.127 Naysayers also discount it as a cynical tool employed by politicians to demonstrate their
green side. “Renewable energy…is a showy way for politicians to prove that they are doing something.”128 Or as
one opponent sneered: “Tinkering at the edges of the problem by supporting a technology like wind, which is
unpredictable, intermittent and dependent on machines whose output is derisory, is a dangerous distraction and
a piece of ‘green’ window dressing designed to allow the government to avoid the problem.”129
Critics also point to the relative high cost of wind turbines as opposed to fossil-fired plants. Wind energy
is capital-intensive, a fact that opponents often feast on.130 For instance, one critic poses the following argument
against wind power:
A 1.5mw GE turbine costs approximately $1.5 million to purchase and install. Of

that sum at least 1$ [sic] constitutes the turbine cost. At this cost the 160,000
turbines needed for 10% of U.S. power would cost about $240 billion. At the
current costs, coal fired ($500,000 per mw) plants aggregating that amount would
be sufficient to generate almost six times as much power, albeit with energy
source costs.13
Other expenses include transmission lines, which can run $100,000 per mile. There are also annual
leasing fees to farmers, which range from $2000 - $3000 per year for every turbine on their land.
151
NEG—WIND POWER BAD

Wind power is too unreliable
Opponents of wind power also say that the reliability of wind turbines is questionable since the
unpredictability of wind makes it impossible to make realistic power production estimates.133 For instance, the
New Mexico Wind Energy Center, which is located 150 miles east of Albuquerque and sells power to the state’s
largest utility, has a maximum output of 206 megawatts.134 Most of the year, however, the wind is not blowing
enough for the wind farm to produce the potential maximum of 206 megawatts. When the wind blows slower,
the plant will produce as little as 25 megawatts, which constitutes 1/8 th of its capacity.135 As a general rule, wind
facilities can expect to produce power at an average rate of approximately 30% of their rated capacity. A turbine
cannot produce power when the wind does not blow consistently at an adequate speed. Conversely, a turbine
will also have to shut down when winds gust at too high a speed.136 Further, as wind turbines have become more
sophisticated, efficient and high tech, they have become more vulnerable to the problems that accompany such
new and developing technologies. For instance, the newness of some designs currently being installed makes it
difficult to establish reliable expectations for their economic lifespan.137
152

Natives Affirmative

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natives Affirmative

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 Natives Aff

Regan, Emma & Jill Serrano/Strange

has made wind energy an extremely attractive investment.

Indians colonized now.

“NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis

The current fed-state-tribal relationship is hurting Native American

“NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis

“NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis

Tribes are pursuing alternative energy projects.

ECON SOLVES EXTINCTION

ASSIMILATION KILLS SELF DETERMINATION

PTIX CHANGE KEY

“NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis

Developing renewables allows tribes to become more self-sufficient.

Renewables are all around badass for tribes.

Alt energy is sweet for Indians.

Alternative energy is key to Native economic growth.

TRIBAL ENERGY GOOD

Only wind solves—other alternatives aren’t viable.

Smart design solves birds.

A2 TRIBE FUNDING SOLVES

Native Americans don’t have access to private capital-government funding is key.

Tribes need government help.

PROTECTION OF INDIGENOUS CULTURE ALL CULTURE

A2 INT’L PROTECTION SOLVES

AT: NATIVES HAVE FUCKED UP THE ENVIRONMENT

We aren’t homogenizing Indian cultures, we’re creating a pattern for action.

AT: SOME TRIBES EXCLUDED

A2 INDIAN GOV’TS FAIL

RENEWABLES SPILL OVER

Congress loves Native self determination.

A. Clinton loves the plan.

B. Clinton’s key to the agenda.

Federal action key to change.

The federal gov’t has authority over tribal relations—not states.

Fed key—external protection.

All Native American policies require fed secretarial approval.

Fed must take action to redress wrongdoings and take responsibility

“NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis

“NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis

A mixture of state and federal government authority hurts the tribes

“NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis

B. Turns the counterplan-uncertainty discourages the growth of renewables in Native American

“NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis

A2 GIVE BACK THE LAND

“NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis

A2 GIVE BACK THE LAND

“NOTES: SOVEREIGNTY BY SUFFERANCE: THE ILLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY”, lexis

AT: K OF THE TERM “INDIGENOUS.”

AT: VOTING RIGHTS CP

ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMING OF NATIVE AMERICAN

ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMING OF NATIVE AMERICAN

AT: BLOOD QUANTAMS BAD

AT: CP TO USE CULTURAL TIES INSTEAD OF BLOOD

Reparations fail-we need to seek justice on a person by person level.

Reparations cause a backlash.

NEG—EFFICIENCY 1NC SOLVENCY—ECON

Efficiency key to Indian econ growth.

Energy efficiency key to culture and growth.

NEG—LAND CP SOLVES HEG (BAD)

NEG—STATES CP/FEDERALSM LINK

NEG-CORPORATIONS WILL FUCK UP PLAN

NEG—WIND POWER BAD

A 1.5mw GE turbine costs approximately $1.5 million to purchase and install. Of