Military Affirmative

Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Cory, Lauren, Phillip, Sam, Steve
Table of Contents
Table of Contents...................................................................................................................................................1
1AC..........................................................................................................................................................................4
Observation 1: Inherency......................................................................................................................................5
Observation 1: Inherency......................................................................................................................................6
Observation 2: Colonialism...................................................................................................................................7
Observation 3: Warming Leadership.................................................................................................................10
Observation 3: Warming Leadership.................................................................................................................11
Observation 4: Self – Determination..................................................................................................................12
Observation 4: Self-Determination....................................................................................................................13
Observation 5: Solvency......................................................................................................................................14
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................18
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................19
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................20
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................21
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................22
Colonialism...........................................................................................................................................................23
Colonialism...........................................................................................................................................................24
Colonialism...........................................................................................................................................................25
Colonialism...........................................................................................................................................................26
Colonialism...........................................................................................................................................................27
Colonialism...........................................................................................................................................................28
Colonialsm............................................................................................................................................................29
Colonialism...........................................................................................................................................................30
Colonialism...........................................................................................................................................................31
Colonialism...........................................................................................................................................................32
Colonialism...........................................................................................................................................................33
1
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Colonialism...........................................................................................................................................................34
Colonialism...........................................................................................................................................................35
Self-Determination...............................................................................................................................................36
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................46
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................47
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................48
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................49
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................50
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................51
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................52
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................53
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................54
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................55
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................56
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................57
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................58
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................59
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................60
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................61
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................62
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................63
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................64
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................65
2
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Re-Envision History.............................................................................................................................................66
Re-Envision History ............................................................................................................................................69
Traditional West Fails..........................................................................................................................................73
A2: (They Don’t Deserve Help)..........................................................................................................................75
Modeling...............................................................................................................................................................76
Modeling...............................................................................................................................................................77
Modeling...............................................................................................................................................................78
Neg.........................................................................................................................................................................79
JAS(They Don’t Need Reparations)...................................................................................................................80
Cash Not Enough.................................................................................................................................................81
Corps Will Screw..................................................................................................................................................82
Corps will screw...................................................................................................................................................83
Legislation Solves.................................................................................................................................................84
No Solvency...........................................................................................................................................................87
Neg Inherency.......................................................................................................................................................88
3
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
1AC
4
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Observation 1: Inherency
1. A lack of federal tax credit gives Native Americans a huge disadvantage, especially in the alternative
energy sector.
Mark Shahinian, third year law student, Univ. of Mich., 2007, Special Feature: The Tax Man Cometh Not:
How The Non-Transferability Of Tax Credits Harms Indian Tribes, American Indian Law Review
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. n2 This paper is 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, n3 the low-income housing development industry n4 , and the wind power industry, n5
among others. In some of these fields, tribes cannot make use of the tax credits, and so face a severe financial handicap as
compared to entities that can utilize the tax credits. Perversely, this handicap is present in precisely the industries the federal
government has decided to nurture and encourage - for instance, the wind energy industry.
To bring focus to the discussion of tax credits and tribes, this article examines how the inability of tribes to access federal tax
credits handicaps tribes' ability to own and develop wind farms. Indian tribes could be a major force in the growing
U.S. wind industry. Wind power from tribal lands could provide 22% of installed U.S. electric power generation capacity. n6
Renewable energy development is an issue with broad support in the United States and has the potential to bring significant
economic benefits to the tribes.
Traditional methods of electricity generation are faced with increasing difficulties: coal-fired generation is a liability in the age
of global warming; n7 natural gas prices are high and unpredictable; n8 nuclear power still poses [*270] storage problems; n9
and there are few rivers in the U.S. left undammed for hydroelectricity. n10
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. n11 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. n12
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. n13 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. n14 Renewable energy
development brings high levels of economic benefits to the local community, when compared to fossil-powered electricity. n15
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. n16
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. n17 The Great Plains have wind in abundance, and many tribal
reservations are located in the Great Plains. Wind developers are interested in working with tribes because tribes are single
landowners over vast, windy tracts of land - the area within the Rosebud Reservation boundaries alone is larger than the land
area of the entire state of Rhode Island. Additionally, some power purchasers, realizing the economic plight of the reservations,
are willing to give the tribes better-than-market prices for tribally generated electricity. n18
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. n19
The U.S., especially the Western U.S., needs this tribally produced power. The Western Governors' Association has
convened an energy task force to address Western states' concerns about shortfalls in energy production. The
5
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Observation 1: Inherency
Governors' Association has called for 30,000MW of clean power (including wind) development by 2015, n20 and has pointed
out the need for federal, state, local and tribal authorities to coordinate in siting wind projects. n21
Yet tribes cannot fully participate in the renewable energy industry because of their tax status and their lack of ability to use the
tax credits the federal government allocates to renewable energy companies. Despite the current wind boom, reservations have
not become wind development sites. In fact, [*272] only one major wind development exists on an Indian reservation in the
U.S. - a 50MW project on the land of the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians near San Diego, Calif. n22
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.
2. Native Americans are not eligible for federal incentives.

Rob Capriccioso, staff writer for Indian Country, 4-11-08, Indian Country, Tribes Looking for Federal Wind
Energy Incentive, http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417026
Recent legislative developments have also made it challenging for tribes to obtain federal wind energy seed funding. In
2007, Thune proposed the Wind Energy Development Act, which included $2.25 billion in funding for Clean Renewable
Energy Bonds that tribes could have used to fund pilot wind energy programs. Under Thune's plan, 20 percent of this
bonding would have been specifically set aside for tribes; however, the set-aside did not make it into the current version of
the wind energy tax credit legislation, and it was not in the energy bill that passed last December.
Some tribal energy advocates believe supporting new legislation that promotes Clean Renewable Energy Bonds may be the best
hope for tribes that want to receive federal funding to begin wind energy development. Thune's current legislation proposes
$400 million in funding for the bonds, which energy experts say tribes should be eligible to apply for via the IRS.
3. This means they cannot access their vast potential for wind energy.
Rob Capriccioso, staff writer for Indian Country, 4-11-08, Indian Country, Tribes Looking for Federal Wind
Energy Incentive, http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417026
The wind energy setbacks in Congress have been especially disappointing to some tribes, since their lands often have some of
the highest wind resource potential in the nation.
Research from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that many of the windiest areas in the U.S. are located
close to and on reservations. The laboratory has estimated that the total tribal wind generation potential is about 535 billion
kwh per year, or 14 percent of the total U.S. electric generation in 2004.
South Dakota alone is capable of producing 566 gigawatts of electrical power from wind, which is the equivalent of 52
percent of the nation's electricity demand. Wind energy potential is also great in tribe-rich states including Montana,
Minnesota and Wyoming.
6
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Observation 2: Colonialism
1. Cultural genocide has occurred against Native Americans, and it is our duty
to end it.
Dean B. Suagee, University of Michigan. Spring 1992 “Self-Determination for Indigenous Peoples At The Dawn Of The Solar
Age” Lexis.
Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right to be protected from cultural genocide, including the
prevention of and redress for:
(a) Any act which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct societies, or of their cultural or ethnic
characteristics or identities;
(b) Any form of forced assimilation or integration by imposition of other cultures or ways of life;
(c) Dispossession of their lands, territories or resources; (d) Any propaganda directed against them. 101
Under the Working Group's definition, cultural genocide has taken place all over the world, even recently in the United
States. For instance, the United States' "termination" policy of the 1950s [*697] and early 1960s clearly fits the concept.
102 Racial prejudice and notions of racial superiority provide the rationalizations for cultural genocide. 103 Despite the human
rights norm inherent in the Genocide Convention that all cultural groupings have the right to exist, 104 the destruction of
indigenous peoples continues, in part because of the notion that indigenous ways of life are somehow inferior to those of
modern industrialized societies. Those who seek to defend the rights of indigenous peoples must work to make this
notion simply untenable. Indigenous peoples believe that their right to survive and to control their own territories should be
respected not only because they are entitled to basic human rights but also because they have some values and wisdom to share
with the other peoples of the Earth. To put an end to the destruction of indigenous peoples, indigenous rights advocates
must help the rest of the world to see that there is real value in what indigenous peoples have to offer, especially in their
spiritual relationships with the Earth and with nonhuman living things.
Those who would defend the human rights of indigenous peoples can draw many lessons from the long history of the relations
between the United States and the indigenous tribes and nations of North America. Although the autonomy possessed by Indian
tribes in the United States is less than ideal, tribes do exercise a broad range of governmental powers, and the simple fact that
more than 500 federally recognized tribes continue to exist in the United States 105 suggests that positive as well as negative
lessons may be drawn. Two of the most important lessons are: (1) forced assimilation does not work and (2) local autonomy
and self-government can work. In my view, these two lessons are fundamental for the survival of indigenous peoples
throughout [*698] the world. 106 The next part of this Article examines tribal autonomy in the United States in some detail,
with an emphasis on tribal authority for protection of the environment and the preservation of tribal cultures.
2. The failure to transition to renewables makes us complicit in cultural

genocide.
Dean B. Suagee, University of Michigan. Spring 1992 “Self-Determination For Indigenous Peoples At The Dawn Of The
Solar Age” Lexis.
In this part of the Article, I offer a brief review of the pursuit of economic growth and economic development by the states of
the world in the latter half of this century, including the emerging consensus that development must be "sustainable" and the
lack of consensus on just what the word "sustainable" means. I then briefly review the evidence which indicates that (in the
context of energy development at least) to be sustainable, energy development requires a worldwide shift from technologies
that consume fossil fuels to technologies that derive useful energy from the sun and from natural forces and processes that are
driven by solar energy. The evidence suggests that we really have no choice; rather, the issue is how much global climate
change we are willing to accept before we commit ourselves to achieving this transition. The concluding section of this
part discusses some of the ways in which conventional energy development already has devastated and continues to
threaten indigenous peoples. My point is that by delaying the commitment to bring about the transition to the solar age,
we accept not only the global climate change that will accompany delay but also the cultural genocide of some of the
world's remaining indigenous peoples.
7
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
3. As demonstrated by the discourse of Cowboys and Indians, Native
Americans are colonized citizens of the United States, and forced into a
policy of white superiority. This subjugation leaves them an exploited hollow
shell.
Michael Yellow Bird, Associate Professor Center for Indigenous Nations Studies, 2004-10, Wicazo Sa Review, Vol. 19, No. 2,
Colonization/Decolonization, I, (Autumn, 2004), pp.33-48, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1409497.
America has carefully made sure that Indigenous Peoples continue to fulfill the role of a racial and cultural scapegoat in
the game of cowboys and Indians. However, it is hardly an amusing situation since Indigenous Peoples experience
numerous humiliating assaults from colonial society, for instance, control and manipulation of their tribal governments
by the U.S. federal government, land and resource theft and destruction by U.S. multinational corporations, control and
exploitation of tribal gaming and economic revenue by state governments, poorly funded on-reservation substandard
schools that continue teaching the prevaricated history of the colonizer, and the continued use of racist images and
words to describe Indians. As colonized peoples, many of us have internalized and adapted to the colonizer's dominant
ideology, which has perpetuated our subjugation and repression. As a result we have developed a certain sense of internalized
denigration and personal contempt within our consciousness resulting in self-effacing and destructive behaviors. However, this
45 can change if Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples intelligently resist American colonialism and begin the process of
decolonizing cowboys and Indians, beginning by telling the truth about the racist intent of the cowboys and Indians
phenomenon. We must also intelligently interrogate and reform the colonial structure of this nation and challenge the written
false histories of the American colonizer. Indigenous Peoples must consciously refuse to be little red plastic toy Indians
participating in the racist American myths and policies of white colonial supremacy. Whites must refuse to be little blue plastic
toy cowboys blindly accepting their position of privilege in society and, instead, truthfully amend this nation's history and
practice of colonialism while seeking justice on behalf of those they have colonized here and abroad. Until this is done,
cowboys and Indians will continue to be toys of genocide, icons of colonialism. As colonized peoples, many of us have
internalized and adapted to the colonizer's dominant ideology, which has perpetuated our subjugation and repression. As a
result we have developed a certain sense of internalized denigration and personal contempt within our consciousness
resulting in self-effacing and destructive behaviors. However, this can change if Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples
intelligently resist American colonialism and begin the process of decolonizing cowboys and Indians, beginning by
telling the truth about the racist intent of the cowboys and Indians phenomenon. We must also intelligently interrogate
and reform the colonial structure of this nation and challenge the written false histories of the American colonizer.
Indigenous Peoples must consciously refuse to be little red plastic toy Indians participating in the racist American
myths and policies of white colonial supremacy. Whites must refuse to be little blue plastic toy cowboys blindly accepting
their position of privilege in society and, instead, truthfully amend this nation's history and practice of colonialism while
seeking justice on behalf of those they have colonized here and abroad. Until this is done, cowboys and Indians will continue to
be toys of genocide, icons of colonialism.
8
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
4. The cultural genocide against Native Americans results in extinction
through loss of biodiversity. Empirically, the loss of Native Americans leads
to the loss of species.
Lilian Friedberg, American Indian Quarterly vol. 24, No. 3 Summer 2000 “Dare to Compare: Americanizing
the Holocaust”
Attempts on the part of American Indians to transcend chronic, intergenerational maladies introduced by the settler population
(for example, in the highly contested Casino industry, in the ongoing battles over tribal sovereignty, and so on) are challenged
tooth and nail by the U.S. government and its “ordinary” people. Flexibility in transcending these conditions has been greatly
curtailed by federal policies that have “legally” supplanted our traditional forms of governance, outlawed our languages and
spirituality, manipulated our numbers and identity, usurped our cultural integrity, viciously repressed the leaders of our efforts
to regain self-determination, and systematically miseducated the bulk of our youth to believe that this is, if not just, at least
inevitable.” 55 Today’s state of affairs in America, both with regard to public memory and national identity, represents a
flawless mirror image of the situation in Germany vis-àvis Jews and other non-Aryan victims of the Nazi regime.56
Collective indifference to these conditions on the part of both white and black America is a poor reflection on the nation’s
character. This collective refusal to acknowledge the genocide further exacerbates the aftermath in Native communities and
hinders the recovery process. This, too, sets the American situation apart from the German-Jewish situation: Holocaust denial
is seen by most of the world as an affront to the victims of the Nazi regime. In America, the situation is the reverse:
victims seeking recovery are seen as assaulting American ideals.
But what is at stake today, at the dawn of a new millennium, is not the culture, tradition, and survival of one population
on one continent on either side of the Atlantic. What is at stake is the very future of the humanspecies. LaDuke, in her
most recent work, contextualizes the issues from a contemporary perspective:
Our experience of survival and resistance is shared with many others. But it is not only about Native people. . . . In the
final analysis, the survival of Native America is fundamentally about the collective survival of all human beings. The
question of who gets to determine the destiny of the land, and of the people who live on it—those with the money or those who
pray on the land—is a question that is alive throughout society.57
“There is,” as LaDuke reminds us, “a direct relationship between the loss of cultural
diversity and the loss of biodiversity. Wherever Indigenous peoples still remain, there is
also a corresponding enclave of biodiversity.” 58 But, she continues,
The last 150 years have seen a great holocaust. There have been more species lost in the
past 150 years than since the Ice Age. (During the same time, Indigenous peoples have been
disappearing from the face of the earth. Over 2,000 nations of Indigenous peoples have gone extinct in
the western hemisphere and one nation disappears from the Amazon rainforest every year.) 59 It is not
about “us” as indigenous peoples—it is about “us” as a human species. We are all related. At issue is
no longer the “Jewish question” or the “Indian problem.” We must speak today in terms of the
“human problem.” And it is this “problem” for which not a “final,” but a sustainable, viable solution
must be found—because it is no longer a matter of “serial genocide,” it has become one of
collective suicide. As Terrence Des Pres put it, in The Survivor: “At the heart of our problems is that
nihilism which was all along the destiny of Western culture: a nihilism either unacknowledged even as
the bombs fell or else, as with Hitler or Stalin, demonically proclaimed as the new salvation.”
9
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Observation 3: Warming Leadership
1. Cooperation with Native Americans spurs action for renewable energy in

LDCs.
Dean B. Suagee, University of Michigan. Spring 1992 “Self-Determination For Indigenous Peoples At The Dawn Of
The Solar Age” Lexis.
These attributes of soft energy paths apply equally to industrialized countries and to the LDCs. The economies of most
industrialized countries are more energy efficient than that of the United States; some analysts have concluded that energy
efficiency is a major factor in the global competitiveness of the Japanese. 315 A substantial body of literature indicates that
there is a vast potential for energy efficiency improvements in the LDCs 316 and for the use of soft energy supply options,
especially decentralized, renewable energy systems, in rural areas. 317 A study published by the United Nations has
concluded that, for rural areas in the LDCs, the use of decentralized, renewable, stand-alone energy systems is the most
realistic strategy to achieve rural electrification. 318 This study also found that the practical effect of choosing a strategy for
rural electrification based on extending transmission lines from centralized power plants will be that most rural communities in
the LDCs that do not have electricity will never be connected to a power grid. 319 One should bear in mind, of course, that the
traditional homelands of most of the world's indigenous peoples are located in rural areas of the LDCs.
Through a decade in which the Executive Branch of the United States government has been controlled by administrations that
have demonstrated indifference and hostility toward soft-path options, the United States economy nevertheless has made
substantial progress along several of the soft paths. 320 Progress also has been achieved in the LDCs, some of which have
adopted innovative programs to spur decentralized, renewable, energy [*740] development. 321 Analysts have
recommended a variety of ways to speed up this progress. 322 This part of the Article focuses on ways in which tribal
governments could use their governmental powers to help people in Indian country choose soft energy paths and, drawing on
experiences of the LDCs, suggests some ways in which tribal governments in this country could help to make soft energy
paths viable choices for indigenous peoples and other rural communities in the LDCs.
2. Developing countries greenhouse gas output will continue to rise in the

status quo. Only the aff can reverse this.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change October October 2002 www.pnl.gov/aisu/pubs
Addressing climate change in developing countries poses a fundamentally different challenge.
For most, emission reduction is not a viable option in the near term. With income levels far below those
of developed countries—and per capita emissions on average just one-sixth those of the industrialized
world—developing countries will continue to increase their emissions as they strive for economic growth
and a better quality of life. But their steadfast resistance to the idea of limiting their emissions has led
to claims in some quarters that developing countries are not doing their fair share. Indeed, the Bush
administration, in rejecting Kyoto, declared the Protocol unfair to the United States because it does not
mandate action by large developing countries.
10
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Observation 3: Warming Leadership
3. Native Americans want to use the massive amounts of wind in the reservations to harvest clean energy
and become economically independent.
Becky Bohrer, Staff writer for the LA Times. 9/23/2001. “More Indian Tribes Are Tapping Land’s Potential for
Profit” http://articles.latimes.com/2001/sep/23/local/me-48994
The wind can howl for days without taking a breath, blowing with a force known to tip over railroad cars.
Leaders of the Blackfeet Indian reservation, where unemployment hovers near 70%, hope the wind has enough strength
to carry off some of the poverty too.
The Blackfeet, who live in the shadows of the Rocky Mountains in northwest Montana, are developing what is being called
the first commercial wind farm on an American Indian reservation. Indian leaders hope to harness what often has been
seen as little more than a nuisance and turn it into a moneymaker for their communities.
The wind farm, scheduled for construction near the eastern boundary of Glacier National Park as early as next year, could
produce enough electricity to power 20,000 homes. Besides money and jobs–including an estimated 30 construction jobs
and up to six permanent positions–Indian leaders see a field of dozens of tall wind turbines as a possible tourist draw that
could help other sectors of the local economy.
“It’s one avenue by which we can reach our economic independence,” said Marilyn Parsons, the tribe’s planning director.
The effort is an example of a push by some tribes to develop the natural resources of their lands–but on their own
terms.
“The tribes have learned a lot in the 20th century and they are looking for new opportunities in the 21st century and to
be leaders in their regions for clean economic opportunities,” said Bob Gough, secretary of the Intertribal Council on Utility
Policy.
(Insert Warming Impact)
11
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Observation 4: Self – Determination

1. Increase use of renewable energy resources on tribal lands results in
increased tribal sovereignty, economic development and reduced pollution.
Thomas L. Acker, William M. Auberle, Earl P.N. Duque, William D. Jeffery, David R. LaRoche, Virgil Masayesva, and Dean H.
Smith, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Director for the Center for Sustainable Environments, Director of the Institute for Tribal Environmental Practices, and
Professor of Economics and Applied Indigenous Studies, 9-21-02, Implications of the Regional Haze Rule on Renewable and Wind
Energy Development on Native American Lands in the West College of Business Administration Working Paper Series,
http://ses.nau.edu/pdf/Smith_AWEA.pdf.
One of the key recommendations of the GCVTC report was to assess the potential impact of increasing the use of
renewable energy resources for the generation of electricity as a way to reduce pollution from fossil-fueled power plants in
the West, and thereby improve visibility. The WRAP has commissioned studies to assess the potential for the generation of
electricity from renewable energy resources. One such study focused on the policy actions that States in the West could take
in order to increase the generation of electricity from renewable resources.(2) A similar study focused on actions that Native
American Tribes could take in order to increase electricity generation form renewable resources. However, the tribal study
had an expanded focus that considered not only policy actions, but also the available renewable energy resources in
Indian country, energy information required in a TIP, tribal energy perspectives, and an analysis of the barriers and
opportunities for tribal energy development. The resulting report from this study (“the Tribal Renewables Report”(3))
recommends policies and strategies for tribal leaders to consider in order to use renewable energy resources not only to
reduce pollution but also as a means to assert tribal sovereignty and autonomy and to spur economic development on
tribal lands
2. Indigenous Indian development creates a solvent global model

Miriam Jorgensen, Research Associate for the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development
and consultant to the Standing Rock Sioux and White Mountain Apache Tribes, 97, American Indian Studies, p.
137
In particular, the challenge for American Indian economic development is for it to be indigenously defined and
institutionally based. As such, development will be a process which takes account of Native assets and goals and incorporates
them into specific plans for the future. It will be capable of addressing welfare issues generally, and not income issues alone.
Because it concentrates on institutional development, it will not put limited projects ahead of broader policy-making. It will
create a political-economic environment which is conducive to investment by tribal members and non- members alike.
Furthermore, its political and social institutions will together promote the continued success of these designated welfare-
improving investments. Clearly, development that succeeds at combating poverty and its concomitant ills is not narrowly
"economic." Finally, if Native nations achieve this kind of development, their success will be a beacon not only to other
indigenous peoples whose colonizers allow a measure of political independence, but to all nations which are restructuring
their development outlook. American Indian nations have the potential to show other countries—from Eastern Europe to
Asia and beyond -how development can be done "right."
12
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Observation 4: Self-Determination
3. Suppression of self-determination triggers wars.
Glenn Morris, Professor of the Fourth World Center for the Study of Indigenous Law and Policy at the
University of Colorado, 99, Native American Sovereignty, p. 324-325
More important, the purpose here is to indicate that through the application of contemporary principles of international law,
particularly in the area of decolonization and self-determination, indigenous peoples must ultimately be entitled to decide for
themselves the dimensions of their political, economic, cultural, and social conditions. It must be emphasized that the
construction of this position is not based in the supposition that because indigenous peoples constitute ethnic or cultural
minorities in larger societies they must be protected due to that status. Rather, the position is that since Europeans first
wandered into the Western hemisphere they have acknowledged the unique status of indigenous peoples qua indigenous
peoples. That status is only now being reacknowledged through the application of evolving principles of positive and
customary international law. While such assertions may seem novel and untenable at present, it should be recalled that just
forty years ago, tens of millions of people languished under the rule of colonial domination; today, they are politically
independent. Central to their independence was the development and acceptance of the right to self-determination under
international law. Despite such developments, many colonized peoples were forced by desperate conditions to engage in
armed struggle to advance their legitimate aspirations. Similarly, for many indigenous peoples few viable options remain
in their quest for control of their destinies. Consequently, a majority of the current armed conflicts in the world are not
between established states, but between indigenous peoples and states that seek their subordination. Armed struggle for
most indigenous peoples represents a desperate and untenable strategy for their survival. Nonetheless, it may remain an
unavoidable option for many of them, because if their petitions seeking recognition of their rights in international forums
are ignored, many indigenous peoples, quite literally, face extermination.
13
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Observation 5: Solvency
1. Despite past atrocities, Native Americans support alternative energy and
believe Congress should create a tax incentive to aid in developing these
technologies for tribes.
National Congress of American Indians, 2008, 2008 Political Platform, http://nativevote.org/documents/NCAI%20Politi
cal%20Platform%202008.doc.
WE BELIEVE in the importance of balancing natural resource and economic development with sustainable
conservation principles. To help combat climate change and simultaneously develop new economic opportunities, renewable
energy sources should be a priority for future energy development. Indian Nations across the country have a vast
renewable energy potential, and many of them are leading the way in developing wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy
sources. Indian tribes have a great capacity to assist in the national energy agenda, and work as partners in developing
progressive energy policies. We call upon Congress to adopt legislation that will create a Production Tax Incentive that
will allow Indian tribes to develop alternative energy sources in an economically feasible manner.
WE BELEVE that the United States, as legal trustee of Indian lands, has a special obligation to assist tribes in the
protection, management, and environmentally sound development of their natural resources, including reserved water
rights and mineral resources, toward the end of utilizing them to promote the development of sustainable, diversified, self
governing economies on Indian reservations. The history of the government’s efforts to make these decisions and to manage
these properties unilaterally is replete with scandalous failures, resulting in enormous liabilities for the government,
unmitigated environmental disasters, and incalculable financial losses for Indian tribes and resources owners. In its fiduciary
capacity, and in accordance with the federal Indian policy of tribal self-determination, the federal government must
make available appropriate private sector expertise, where requested, that will be responsive to tribal objectives and
cultural values in making decisions regarding resource development on Indian lands.
2. The tax status of Native Americans removes them from the two criteria necessary for successful wind
power business.
The project owners: Project ownership is the key to the issues discussed in this paper. Only certain owners will find profit in
wind farms. These owners must, for financial reasons, meet two criteria. First, they must have easy access to the capital
markets. Wind farms are extremely capital intensive. A 30MW n33 wind farm (enough to power, on average, 12,000 homes)
such as one proposed for the Rosebud Reservation can cost $ 48 million to build. n34 Modern wind farms are generally in the
100-200MW range, and can represent capital investments of half a billion dollars. n35 Second, the owner must have a large,
steady tax liability from non-wind operations that they can offset with the PTC credits. A 30MW wind farm throws off
more than $ 1.6 million per year in tax credits for the first ten years of its operation. n36
[*275]
The two requirements above - access to capital markets and large tax liability - mean wind farm owners tend to be some
of the largest corporations in the world, and that the owners and financiers of projects tend to be one in the same.
American investment bank Goldman Sachs, financial giant General Electric and Australian investment bank Babcock & Brown
all own or have owned significant wind properties. n37
III. Tax Credits and Tribes
However, the two requirements - access to capital markets and large tax liability - also work to wreck the hopes for
tribal ownership of wind projects. Tribes, as discussed infra, are non-taxable entities. As such, they cannot use tax
credits, and are at a competitive disadvantage compared to taxable owners of wind projects.
14
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Tradable tax credits for wind farms are a financial incentive from Congress to Native Americans to
increase alternative energy.
Making tax credits tradable by tribes - and thereby aligning the financial incentives of tribes with the rest of the U.S. business
community - promotes the federal goal of guiding economic activity, whether in the wind power industry or in other industries
with substantial tax credits.
Congress is bent on fostering renewable energy production in the United States. Congress is also bent on fostering tribal
energy development. If Congress made the PTC tradable, tribes would face the same tax incentives as the rest of the
business community, renewable energy development on tribal lands would increase, and Congress would take a step
forward in achieving its goals of tribal and renewable energy development.
Tax credits are economic incentives the government provides to promote certain activities. n76 With these incentives, the
government is trying to encourage economic activity (such as charitable giving or pollution-free energy production) that
the government considers socially beneficial. n77 The government has an interest in promoting those activities targeted for
promotion to the fullest extent possible, including in Indian Country.
Tradable tax credits promote lasting business and encourage nation-state

building.
How The Non-Transferability of Tax Credits Harms Indian Tribes, American Indian Law Review
Making the PTC tradable for tribes, as part of a program to make all tax credits tradable for tribes, would have a positive
economic impact on tribes. But to fulfill its potential, a tradable tax credit must be enacted as part of broader legislation to
bolster tribal economic development. Or, as one scholar put it, "A federal Indian policy that focuses on the exploitation of tribal
natural resources, and not on the development of tribal economies, is doomed to resistance and failure." n98
Much research has been done over the past decade on the factors that make tribal economies prosper, notably by Stephen
Cornell, Joseph Kalt, Jonathan [*290] Taylor and their colleagues at the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic
Development. n99 The main points of the research stress tribal governance, the importance of tribal sovereignty, tribal corporate
governance and the need to think broadly about economic development in order for tribal enterprises to succeed.
Cornell and Kalt, in particular, stress a nation-building approach:
A nation-building approach to development doesn't say, "let's start a business." Instead, it says, "let's build an
environment that encourages investors to invest, that helps businesses last, and that allows investments to flourish and
pay off." A nation-building approach requires new ways of thinking about and pursuing economic development. Telling
the planning office to go get some businesses going doesn't begin to crack the problem. The solutions lie elsewhere: in
the design and construction of nations that work. n100
New ideas in tax credits and other tax incentives for tribes can be a part of this nation-building approach, by laying the
fiscal framework for tribal business to prosper. But tax credits will only be a part of the solution - moving toward tribal
economic development will require much broader effort than tax credits alone, and Congress should be cautioned against
thinking that solving the PTC transferability problem will prove a magic bullet for tribes.
15
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Anti-nuclear movements pass over Native American reservations as being important battle grounds in the fight
against nuclear energy. We must fight the way in which uranium is exploited from reservations, and allow for a
new beginning of our relationship to reservations.
Ward Churchill, Coordinator of the Colorado chapter of the American Indian Movement, former professor of professor
of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. 1993, Struggle for the Land (Indigenous Resistance to
Genocide Ecocide and exportation in contemporary North America. p. 306-308
There is a long-standing crucial defect in the U.S. anti-nuclear movement-and the broader environmental movement of
which it was/is mostly a part. From the Clamshell and Abalone Alliances of the 1970s to the Freeze Movement of the 1980s, non-
Indian activists have focused all but exclusively on the very final stages of the nuclear cycle.'" In other words, they have inevitably
concentrated on the reactors and weapons composed of byproducts eventually refined from the yellowcake uranium mined and milled
at the front end of the cycle, on Indian land. Hence, their victories, however satisfying in an immediate sense, have always been
tactical, never strategic. Put another-way, whenever they've been successful in closing or preventing a reactor in one place, their oppo-
nents have simply built another (or two) somewhere else; whenever they've caused weaponry to be removed from one location, it's
merely been shifted to another. If the specter of rampant nuclearism is ever to be truly abolished, such approaches must be changed,
and drastically so. The key to a strategic vision for anti-nuclear activism is and has always been in finding ways to sever nuclear
weapons and reactors from their roots. This means, first and foremost, that non-Indians cast off the blinders which
have led them to the sort of narrow "not in my back yard" sensibility voiced by Barry Commoner and his erstwhile vice
presidential running mate, LaDonna Harris (a Comanche and founding member of CERT).'" Rather than endlessly combating
the end-products of the nuclear industry, the movement as a whole must shift its emphasis to preventing uranium from being
taken out of the ground in the first place. This, in turn, means focusing everyone’s primary energy and attention, not on
places like Seabrook and Diablo Canyon, inhabited though they may be by “important" population sectors (i.e., Eu-
roAmericans), but upon places peopled by "mere Indians”: Key Lake and Clear lake in Canada, for example, or
Navajo, Laguna, and a number of other reservations in the united states. Ultimately, stopping the processes of uranium ex-
traction in Indian Country, and consequent nuclear proliferation elsewhere, will be impossible so long as the structure of
colonial domination on the reservations is maintained. This means that coordinative and brokering organization like CERT, and
the prevailing system of ‘tribal governance,” must be opposed right along with the non-Indian governments and corporations
which invented and sustains them. the first priority-for the anti-nuclear movement, the broader environmental
movement, and for North American progressivism in general, must be the decolonization of Native North America. To
accomplish this, indigenous liberation groups like the American Indian Movement must be accorded a central role in setting the
agenda for and defining the priorities of radical social change on this continent. In the alternative (if it may be called that),
there is at best only the prospect of what the French commentator Andre Gorz, in examining his own country's nuclear industry,
once termed 'electric fascism..,B7 More likely, in North America, the radioactive colonization of Indian Country will go on
and on, until-like some proverbial miner's canary sent first into shafts to detect with their lungs the presence of lethal
gas-Indians die of the con· taminates to which their "betters" have forcibly subjected them.'" Unlike the canary, however,
Indians by their deaths provide no early warning of the fate about to befall those who sacrifice them in this fashion. This is true
because, unlike miners who rely upon canaries, those who sacrifice Indians have no place to turn for safe haven once their
victims have died The ecological effects of radioactive colonization know no boundaries. Radon gas and windblown
radioactive particulates do not know they are intended to stop when they reach non-Indian territory. Contaminated
water does not know it is supposed to pool itself only under Indian wells. Irradiated flora and fauna are unaware they
are meant only for consumption by indigenous "expendables." The effects of such contaminants are just as fatal to non-
Indians as they are to Indians; the longevity of radionuclides is still just as "forever" now as it was twenty years ago;
nothing has really changed in these respects since John Gofman and Arthur Tamplin first published Poisoned Power in
1971.'" Neither genocide nor ecocide can be "contained" when accomplished by nuclear means. The radioactive
colonization of Native North America therefore threatens not only Indians, but the survival of the human species itself.
The tools for fighting back against any threat begin, it is said, with a precise understanding of the danger and, from there, the
best means by which to counter it. In this instance, the situation is simple enough: we are all-Indian and non-Indian alike-
finally in the same boat. At last there is no more room for non-Indians to maneuver, to evade, to find more "significant"
issues with which to preoccupy themselves. Either the saving of indigenous lives becomes a matter of preeminent
concern, or no lives will be saved. Either Native North
16
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
America will be liberated, or liberation will be foreclosed for everyone, once and for all. The fight will either be waged on
Indian land, for Indian lives, or it will be lost before it really begins. We I must take our stand, together. And we are all
running out of time in which to finally come to grips with this fact.
17
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Inherency
Tribes use non-Native developers to obtain wind energy projects, but are still
unable to obtain the tax incentive.
Rob Capriccioso, staff writer for Indian Country, 4-11-08, Indian Country, Tribes Looking for Federal Wind Energy Incentive,
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417026
Few, if any, tribes have been able to take advantage of the production tax credits offered to date because many tribes
that have been able to create wind energy projects have relied on non-Native developers to help them get projects off the
ground.
Under current law, tribes are not entitled to the tax credits provided to non-Native developers for renewable energy
production because tribes have a tax-exempt status.
Tribal energy experts say it's important for tribes to be reaching out to Congress regarding the tax-exempt issue, since it
likely discourages non-Native developers from wanting to work with tribes.
Federal incentives leave out Native Americans.

Recent legislative developments have also made it challenging for tribes to obtain federal wind energy seed funding. In
2007, Thune proposed the Wind Energy Development Act, which included $2.25 billion in funding for Clean Renewable
Energy Bonds that tribes could have used to fund pilot wind energy programs. Under Thune's plan, 20 percent of this
bonding would have been specifically set aside for tribes; however, the set-aside did not make it into the current version
of the wind energy tax credit legislation, and it was not in the energy bill that passed last December.
Some tribal energy advocates believe supporting new legislation that promotes Clean Renewable Energy Bonds may be the
best hope for tribes that want to receive federal funding to begin wind energy development. Thune's current legislation
proposes $400 million in funding for the bonds, which energy experts say tribes should be eligible to apply for via the
IRS.
Despite the US’ trust responsibility to tribes, no federal incentive exists that
specifically assists Native Americans. In fact, status quo policies are harmful.
As the Senate and House consider extensions of the renewable energy tax credit, the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy,
which represents 10 tribes, is pushing for legislation that would support tribal wind projects. Officials with the group
note that none of the federal incentives currently in place involving wind energy were designed expressly for tribes,
which they say is ironic since tribes are the only group that the federal government has an explicit trust responsibility to
assist in economic development.
''The federal renewable energy incentives, as designed, are problematic for tribes, in that they are both insufficient and
inappropriate as drivers of tribal development as presently configured,'' the group noted in a recent policy paper. ''The
presently formulated federal incentives have actually worked as disincentives in the unique context of tribal renewable
energy development.''
18
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Inherency
Tribes have the right to independence away from the exploitative state-
corporate apparatus, energy development is the first step.
The Center for Resource Management Task Force for Developing Renewable Energy in Indian Country,
national non-profit organization for business executives, environmental leaders, citizens and government
officials concerned with the environment and , January 1997, Indian Tribes: Their Unique Role in Developing
The Nation’s Renewable Energy Resources, A White Paper, p. 10
Sovereignty is a critical feature of the status and power of federally recognized Indian tribes in the United States.
Sovereignty is a complex concept and can be defined as "the supreme power from which all specific political powers are
derived."24 Sovereignty is inherent; it comes from within a people or culture. Ideally, sovereignty is the unrestricted right
of groups of people to establish themselves in the political, social and cultural fashions that meet their needs. It is the right of a
people to freely define ways in which to use land, resources and manpower for their common good. Finally, sovereignty is the
right of people to exist without external exploitation or interference. 2S Indian tribal governments, as representatives of Indian
reservations (which are technically considered nations) possess all the inherent power of any sovereign government (e.g., of a
state), except as those powers may have been qualified or limited by treaties, agreements, or specific acts of Congress.
Included among these inherent powers of Indian governments are the following: 26
1. The power to determine the form of government.
2. The power to define conditions for membership in the nation.
3. The power to administer justice and enforce laws.
4. The power to tax.
5. The power to regulate domestic relations of its members.
6. The power to regulate property use.
Sovereignty is the foundation upon which tribal relationships with other government and private organizations are
built. In this context tribes interact with federal, state, and local governments in a "government-to-government" relationship.
Similarly, interactions between private industry and tribal governments should acknowledge the legal authority of the tribe.
Tribal sovereignty has not always been respected, however, particularly in the use and management of natural resources
on tribal lands. Early episodes in the management of tribes' natural resource base for the ostensible economic well-being of
reservation residents were characterized. by inexperience on the part of tribal representatives and by blatant opportunism and
exploitation on the part of industry and state and federal government agencies. This practice continued until well into the
1970s, and resulted in unfavorable (to tribes) energy mineral leases, many of which are still in place currently. While many
tribes have made Significant progress in rectifying the unfavorable leases and business deals of the past and in improving the
management of natural resources on their reservations, further progress needs to be made.
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.
The increased capabilities of tribal leadership and the exercise of tribal sovereignty gives tribes a powerful political tool
in managing the entire spectrum of energy development on their lands. With the opportunity for energy resource
development on their lands, tribes will have greater political strength to control and define their participation in development,
production, transmission, marketing, and distribution. The combination of resource development opportunities and tribal
political powers will assist tribes in negotiating energy resource agreements and increase their capabilities to supply energy
products and services to expanded markets through such pursuits as inter-tribal compacts, contacts with power marketers, and
arrangements with national laboratories, and agencies.
As energy policy and the deregulation of various energy industries - specifically the electric utility industry continue to
demand the attention of state and federal lawmakers, Indian tribal governments committed to
19
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Inherency
pursuing energy development have the opportunity to cultivate a powerful voice in the political debate about national
energy strategies.
Tribes have legal power, but need the money.

Tribal governments also have the ability to exercise the power of eminent domain, whereby the tribal government can
purchase the assets of a utility that already exists on tribal lands, and then operate the utility for the benefit of
reservation electric consumers. A tribe pursuing this course of action would have the power to set rates for power sales,
control the operation of the utility, and choose methods for delivering electricity to consumers in its service territory,
including reservation consumers. This means that a tribe interested in renewable energy and energy efficiency could use
its utility to provide renewable power plants for its unserved (e.g., remote, off-grid) customers and could purchase power
for its grid-connected customers from tribal or non-tribal renewable power providers.
Tribes also have the power to regulate energy projects on their lands. This power includes, but is not limited to, the
ability to control utility rights-of-way, to enforce environmental regulations, and to enforce labor, building, business,
and health codes. Any conventional energy, renewable energy or energy efficiency project on Indian lands is subject to the
regulatory power of the tribal government. This power includes both the power to enforce federal regulations, and to enact and
enforce tribal regulations. For instance, tribal environmental protection agencies have, on some reservations, begun
enforcement of the Clean Air Act Amendments and the Clean Water Act and a host of other federal environmental laws.
Tribes have some economic resources to develop alternative energy.

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}1 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
Because of tribal sovereignty and the unique legal and political standing of tribes, there are several financial resources
and mechanisms which can be leveraged. for economic development and energy project development. Equity financing
options are more available to tribes now than they have been in the past because many tribes now have financial resources
available for project development. Tribes have also been more successful at attracting equity investment from non-Indian firms.
Tribes can also now take full advantage of various debt financing options. These mechanisms are described in detail in this
section.
20
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Inherency
Tribes need money.
The Nation’s Renewable Energy Resources, A White Paper, p. 15-16
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 pre· requisite to any economic
development initiative, and financial resources are needed for investment in infrastructure, services and businesses.44
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.4S
In order to improve their opportunities for generating revenue and creating a climate favorable to financial investment, tribes
need to address several important prerequisites to development and long-term sustainability of economic activities. These
include:
1. Policies that delineate the roles and responsibilities of the public and private sectors and are supportive of economic
activities;
2. Access to capital financing on terms and conditions that are appropriate for a range of investment needs;
3. Development of economic and financial institutions that can identify investment opportunities and mobilize and target
resources effectively;
4. A legal system that facilitates investment and protects the interests of all parties engaged in financial
or commercial transactions.46
Tribes interested in pursuing the development of renewable energy projects need to examine a diverse range of financing
options; many of these options can actually be considered to be financial resources of tribes and are discussed in Section III.C.,
Financial Resources. Tribes need to explore in depth the various advantages their unique legal, sovereign status can have
in packaging financing options and in structuring economic development institutions and projects on the reservation.
21
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Inherency
Native American tribes are awesome for alternative energy . Alternative
energy is awesome for Native Americans.
The role of Indian tribes in energy development is changing. No longer interested in passively leasing their natural
resources, tribes are becoming more aggressive in managing their own resources and more active participants in
regional markets and national policy development.
The circumstances and characteristics of renewable energy development are consistent with tribal goals of becoming
more self-reliant and expanding economic opportunities that are compatible with cultural and environmental values.
Many tribes have extensive renewable resources which, if developed, may serve the needs of rural electrification on the
reservation or provide a possible revenue stream in the event that power is sold to markets off the reservations. In the
past, energy development that has occurred on reservations has been initiated by private sector companies and federal agencies.
Renewable energy development on reservations is now being initiated by tribes, to meet tribal goals. This new approach to
energy development may require new relationships with outsiders, as tribes interact with private sector entities and
various government agencies, and new structures on the reservation, such as tribal utility authorities.
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.
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.
22
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Colonialism
Native Americans Live under an internal colonialism in, which they are controlled entirely by the larger state
apparatus.
Ward Churchill, Coordinator of the Colorado chapter of the American Indian Movement, former
professor of professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. 1993, Struggle for the
Land (Indigenous Resistance to Genocide Ecocide and exportation in contemporary North America. pp.
23-24
One of the major problems confronting those attempting to articulate the status of the indigenous nations of this
continent has to do with the specific form of imperialism imposed upon us: "internal colonialism."" The idea of internal
colonialism is undoubtedly somewhat unorthodox. The conventional analysis of colonization ranges from that adopted by the
United Nations (which requires by strict definition that an ocean separate the colonizer from the colonized in order for a "true"
condition of colonization to exist) to that of conventional socialist thinking which, with certain exceptions, subscribes to a less
specific though similar interpretation.'" Internal colonialism is the result of a peculiarly virulent form of socioeconomic
penetration wherein the colonizing country literally exports a sufficient proportion of its population to supplant (rather
than enslave) the indigenous population of the colony. Elsewhere, this method has been termed "settler colonialism."" Often
under such conditions, the settler population it self revolts at a certain point against the mother country regime and establishes
itself as an independent or quasi independent sovereignty; the indigenous people" "nations consequently become colonized
entities within a given national territory rather than subject to the more classic form of colonization from abroad. Aside from
the United States and Canada, the modern world witness several other leading examples of this state of affairs. Among these
are Australia, Northern Ireland, New Zealand, Bolivia, Peru, Guatemala, Ecuador, South Africa and Israel. Until liberated by
African revolutionary forces, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) at least aspired to this model. Current indications are that the
phenomenon of internal colonialism has been dramatically underestimated as a global condition. It requires serious
study on the part of progressive intellectuals and governments, as well as the development implementation of effective
ways and means of supporting impacted nationalities as soon as possible. The liberation struggle we wage is not extended
against the discrimination and class exploitation visited by a dominant society and its bourgeoisie upon ethnic and racial
minorities within the United States, although we staunchly oppose these conditions and fully support those who actively resist
them. Rather, as colonized nations we are pursuing strategies and courses of action designed to lead to decolonization
within the colonizing "mother country”
23
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Colonialism
Native Americans have become Colonized citizens by the United States Government, and have accepted a
policy of white superiority. Indigenous peoples now passively accept their roles as passive human beings,
who can be used any way we want. We can see this in our culture around the discourse in which we talk
about Cowboys and Indians.
Michael Yellow Bird, Associate Professor Center for Indigenous Nations Studies. 2004-10, Wicazo Sa
Review, Vol. 19, No. 2, Colonization/Decolonization, I, (Autumn, 2004), pp.33-48,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1409497.
America has carefully made sure that Indigenous Peoples continue to fulfill the role of a racial and cultural scapegoat in the
game of cowboys and Indians. However, it is hardly an amusing situation since Indigenous Peoples experience numerous
humiliating assaults from colonial society, for instance, control and manipulation of their tribal governments by the U.S.
federal government, land and resource theft and destruction by U.S. multinational corporations, control and exploitation of
tribal gaming and economic revenue by state governments, poorly funded on-reservation substandard schools that continue
teaching the prevaricated history of the colonizer, and the l continued use of racist images and words to describe Indians. As
colonized peoples, many of us have internalized and adapted to the colonizer's dominant ideology, which has perpetuated our
subjugation and repression. As a result we have developed a certain sense of internalized denigration and personal contempt
within our consciousness resulting in self-effacing and destructive behaviors. However, this 45 can change if Indigenous and
non-Indigenous Peoples intelligently resist American colonialism and begin the process of decolonizing cowboys and Indians,
beginning by telling the truth about the racist intent of the cowboys and Indians phenomenon. We must also intelligently
interrogate and reform the colonial structure of this nation and challenge the written false histories of the American colonizer.
Indigenous Peoples must consciously refuse to be little red plastic toy Indians participating in the racist American myths and
policies of white colonial supremacy. Whites must refuse to be little blue plastic toy cowboys blindly accepting their position
of privilege in society and, instead, truthfully amend this nation's history and practice of colonialism while seeking justice on
behalf of those they have colonized here and abroad. Until this is done, cowboys and Indians will continue to be toys of
genocide, icons of colonialism. As colonized peoples, many of us have internalized and adapted to the colonizer's dominant
ideology, which has perpetuated our subjugation and repression. As a result we have developed a certain sense of internalized
denigration and personal contempt within our consciousness resulting in self-effacing and destructive behaviors. However,
this can change if Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples intelligently resist American colonialism and begin the process of
decolonizing cowboys and Indians, beginning by telling the truth about the racist intent of the cowboys and Indians
phenomenon. We must also intelligently interrogate and reform the colonial structure of this nation and challenge the written
false histories of the American colonizer. Indigenous Peoples must consciously refuse to be little red plastic toy Indians
participating in the racist American myths and policies of white colonial supremacy. Whites must refuse to be little blue plastic
toy cowboys blindly accepting their position of privilege in society and, instead, truthfully amend this nation's history and
practice of colonialism while seeking justice on behalf of those they have colonized here and abroad. Until this is done,
cowboys and Indians will continue to be toys of genocide, icons of colonialism.
24
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Colonialism
Native American reservations are used for corporate and state benefits, which Native Americans never
see the piece of. Corporations move in make a profit and only leave a trail of environmental destruction
in their place, we can see this with the example of uranium.
Ward Churchill, Coordinator of the Colorado chapter of the American Indian Movement, former professor of
professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. 1993, Struggle for the Land (Indigenous
Resistance to Genocide Ecocide and exportation in contemporary North America. pp 264-265
Although only about two-thirds of U.S. uranium deposits lie within reservation boundaries, as much as 90 percent of the
country's mining and milling have been undertaken on or immediately adjacent to Indian land since the lpineral
became a profitable commodity during the early '50s. The bulk of this activity has occurred in the Grants Uranium Belt of
the Colorado Plateau, the so-called 'Four Corners" region, where the boundaries of Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico
intersect. The Four Corners is home to the greatest concentration of land based indigenous population remaining in North
America: the Dine(Navajo), Southern, Ute Mountain, Zuni, Laguna, Acoma, and several other Pueblo nations all reside there.
Since by far the most extensive activity has occurred on the\Navajo and Laguna Reservations, it will be useful to
consider the situation of each in turn. In 1952, the U.S. Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) awarded
the Kerr-McGee Corporation the first contract----duly rubberstamped by the federally-created and supported Navajo
Tribal Council-to mine uranium on Dine land, employing about 100 Indian miners at two-thirds the off-reservation pay
scale." In the same year, a federal inspector at the corporation's mine near the reservation town of Shiprock, New Mexico,
found the ventilation fans in the facility's main shaft were not functioning." When the same inspector returned in 1955, the fans
ran out of fuel during his visit. By 1959, radiation levels in the Shiprock mine were estimated as being 90 to 100 times
the maximums permissible for worker safety." Nothing was done about the situation before the uranium deposit played out
and the Shiprock operation was closed in 1970. At that point, Kerr-McGee simply abandoned the site, leaving the local
community to contend with 70 acres of uranium tailings containing about 85 percent of the original radioactivity found
in raw uranium ore, much of it continuously emitted in clouds of radon and thoron gas. The huge mounds of waste, which
remain virulently mutogenic and carcinogenic for thousands of years, begin less than 60 feet from the only significant surface
water in the Shiprock area, the San Juan River. It was shortly discovered that the BIA had 'overlooked" inclusion of a clause
requiring the corporation to engage in any sort of operational clean up. As Richard O. Clemmer has explained the problem:
[R]adon and gases, while themselves inert, readily combine with the molecular structure of human cells and decay into
radioactive thorium and [polonium]. Radon and thoron gases, if inhaled, irradiate cells in the lining of the respiratory tract,
causing cancer. The millions of gallons of radioactive water [released by the uranium industry also] carry deadly selenium,
cadmium, and lead and thoron gases, if inhaled, irradiate cells in the lining of the respiratory tract, causing cancer. The
millions of gallons of radioactive water [released by the uranium industry also] carry deadly selenium, cadmium, and
lead that are easily absorbed into the local food chain, as well as emitting alpha and beta particles and gamma rays.
Human ingestion of radioactive water can result in alpha particles recurrently bombarding human tissue and
eventually tearing apart the cells comprising that tissue. Uranium-bearing tailings are constantly decaying into more
stable elements and therefore emit radiation, as do particles of dust that blow with the wind and truck travel on dirt
roads.
25
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Colonialism
Our Great Leaders present in our every day society helped to commit the genocide against the native
American nations across this continent. These leaders helped run our national government are at fault
for destroying Native American culture.
Michael Yellow Bird, Associate Professor Center for Indigenous Nations Studies. 2004-10, Wicazo Sa
Review, Vol. 19, No. 2, Colonization/Decolonization, I, (Autumn, 2004), pp.33-48,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1409497.
I mistakenly pulled out a one-dollar bill from my wallet, thinking it was a twenty. The cashier stared at me as I put it back, but
not before I looked at the picture of George Washington, remembering that cowboys call this guy one of the founding fathers of
the United States while the Seneca called him "Caunotaucarius" (the town destroyer). I recalled a conversation with a Seneca
brother who informed me that the father of this country sent American troops through his people's territory burning down
villages, destroying all crops and stored foodstuffs, killing many, and leaving the rest to starve through the bitter winter. I
pulled out a five and searched for another and a couple of ones with no luck. Ah yes, Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator
pictured on the five-dollar bill, "freed" black slaves and gave orders to hang thirty-eight Dakotas following the so-called
Dakota Uprising in Minnesota. This hanging was called the "greatest mass execution in U.S. history," and, according to the
Guinness Book of Records, lynching these Dakotas made "Old Honest Abe" the record holder for the largest hanging of people
from one gallows. During Lincoln's presidency, the Dakota were mistreated, cheated, and abused by white settlers, Indian
agents, and traders who had pushed them off their lands, leaving them only one-tenth of their original territory. They were
starving because the wild game was gone from their hunting grounds, which were claimed by white settlers. They were also
deceived in the treaties that they made with the United States and did not get annuities and food promised to them. When
Dakota chief Little Crow requested food from Indian agent Thomas Galbraith for his starving people, he was condescendingly
told by trader Andrew Myrick that they should "eat grass or their own dung."5 I put back the five and finally pulled out a
twenty and gave it to the cashier who put it in the register while she counted my change. As I waited, I remembered that
Andrew Jackson, the brave Indian fighter on the twenty-dollar bill, was called the "devil" by the Creek Nation because of his
wanton slaughter of unarmed Creeks. "At the Battle of Horse Shoe Bend, Jackson and his troops surrounded eight hundred
Creeks and killed almost all of them, including women and children. Afterward his soldiers made bridle reins of skins taken
from the corpses; they also cut off the tip of each dead Indian's nose for a body count. Jackson was also responsible for illegally
driving the Cherokees off their homelands in Georgia and force-marching them to Oklahoma, but not before five to eight
thousand (mostly elders, children, and women) died on the "trail of tears." As I collect my change, it occurs to me that I got rid
of the Cherokee/Creek killer, but now have three more town destroyers and one more Dakota executioner.
26
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Colonialism
We have yet to reconcile our past crimes against Native Americans Which still continue to this day, the
United States still continues to exploit and control the Native American populations in this country.
Ward Churchill, Coordinator of the Colorado chapter of the American Indian Movement, former professor of
professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. 1993, Struggle for the Land (Indigenous
Resistance to Genocide Ecocide and exportation in contemporary North America. pp 7-8
The history of 500 years of warfare directed against the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas is gradually coming to light.
Even those who acknowledge the genocidal nature of European and Euroamerican policies regarding American Indians,
however, tend to see them as the extremes of a different era: the brutality of the Conquistadores or the massacres permeating
the saga of the "Winning of the West." The underlying motivation prompting the genocide of Native Americans, the lust for
their territories and the resources within them, is typically hidden behind a rhetoric extolling the "settlement" of essentially
vacant and "undiscovered" lands. To admit otherwise risks revealing that the past motive for genocide exists as much today, and in
some ways more so. This volume of the series on Genocide and Resistance illustrates through a sequence of case studies that the
destruction of indigenous peoples through the expropriation and/or destruction of their land bases is very much an ongoing
phenomenon in both the United States and Canada. The processes are not simply genocidal; they are increasingly ecocidal in their
implications.' Not only the people of the land are being destroyed, but, more and more, the land itself. The nature of native resistance
to the continuing onslaught of the invading industrial culture is shaped accordingly. It is a resistance forged in the crucible of a
struggle for survival. As "Perversions of Justice" demonstrates, the philosophical/legalistic rationalization of such circumstances is not
new. Rather, the present situation is simply the outgrowth of a juridical doctrine which has been evolving in the U.S. since before the
very earliest moments of the republic. This ideology of expansionism-popularly known as "ManifestDestiny"-has on going direct
impacts upon the indigenous peoples of North America. The ideology also supported philosophical developments elsewhere. A
salient example is Adolf Hitler's concept of lebensraumpolitik ("politics of living space"). The ideology stipulated that
Germans were innately entitled, by virtue of an imagined racial and cultural superiority, to land belonging to others. This
rendered Germany morally free in its own mind to take such lands through the aggressive use of military force.'
27
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Colonialism
Native Americans have been forced to become more like the “white” person, so that they could extol the
same idea of private property so the U.S. government could take their land away from them.
Vine Deloria, Jr. Indian rights advocate and former Executive Director of the National Congress of
American Indians, 1969. Custer Died For your Sins pp 7-8
American blacks had become recognized as a species of human being by amendments to the Constitution shortly after the Civil
War. Prior to emancipation they had been counted as three fifths of a person in determining population for representation in the
House of Representatives. Early Civil Rights bills nebulously state that other people shall have the same rights as "white
people," indicating there were "other people." But Civil Rights bills passed during and after the Civil War systematically ex-
cluded Indian people. For a long time an Indian was not presumed capable of initiating an action in a court of law, of
owning property, or of giving testimony against whites in court. Nor could an Indian vote or leave his reservation.
Indians were America's captive people without any defined rights whatsoever. Then one day the white man discovered
that the Indian tribes still owned some 135 million acres of land. To his horror he learned that much of it was very
valuable. Some was good grazing land, some was farm land, some mining land, and some covered with timber. Animals
could be herded together on a piece of land, but they could not sell it. Therefore it took no time at all to discover that
Indians were really people and should have the right to sell their lands. Land was the means of recognizing the Indian as a
human being. It was the method whereby land could be stolen legally and not blatantly Once the Indian was thus
acknowledged, it was fairly simple to determine what his goals were. If, thinking went, the Indian was just like the white, he
must have the same out look as the white. So the future was planned for the Indian people public and private life. First
in order was allotting them reservations so that they could sell their lands. God s foreordained plan to repopulate the
continent fit exactly with the goals of the tribes as they were defined by their white friends. It is fortunate that we were
never slaves. We gave up land instead of life and labor. Because the Negro labored, he was considered a draft animal. Because
the Indian occupied large areas of land, he was considered a wild animal. Had we given up anything else, or had anything else
to give up, it is certain that we "could have been considered some other thing.” Whites have had different attitudes toward the
Indians and the blacks since the Republic was founded. Whites have always refused to give non-whites the respect which they
have been found to legally possess. Instead there has always been a contemptuous attitude that although the law says one thing,
"we all know better." Thus whites steadfastly refused to allow blacks to enjoy the fruits of full citizenship. They systematically
closed schools, churches, stores, restaurants, and public places to blacks or made insulting provisions for them. For one
hundred years every program of public and private white America was devoted to the exclusion of the black. It was, perhaps,
embarrassing to be rubbing shoulders with one who had not so long before been defined as a field animal. The Indian suffered
the reverse treatment. Law after law was passed requiring him to conform to white institutions. Indian children were
kidnapped and forced into boarding schools thousands of miles from their homes to learn the white man's ways.
Reservations were turned over to different Christian denominations for governing. Reservations were for a long time
church operated. Everything possible was done to ensure that Indians were forced into American life. The wild animal
was made into a household pet whether or not he wanted to be one.
28
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Colonialsm
We have tried to destroy the culture of the Native Americans, we have forced our justice upon them, our
way of living, thus destroying their cultural practices.
Vine Deloria, Jr. Indian rights advocate and former Executive Director of the National Congress of American
Indians, 1969. Custer Died For your Sins pp. 9-10
The white world of abstract symbols became a nightmare for Indian people. The words of the treaties, clearly stating that
Indians should have "free and undisturbed" use of their lands under the protection of the federal government, were cast aside by
the whites as if they didn't exist. The Sioux once had a treaty plainly stating that it would take the signatures or marks of
three-fourths of the adult males to amend it. Yet through force the government obtained only 10 percent of the required
signatures and declared the new agreement valid. Indian solutions to problems which had been defined by the white
society were rejected out of hand and obvious solutions discarded when they called for courses of action that were not
proper in white society. When Crow Dog assassinated Spotted Tail the matter was solved under traditional Sioux
customs. Yet an outraged public, furious because Crow Dog had not been executed, pressured for the Seven Major
Crimes Act for the federal government to assume nearly total criminal jurisdiction over the reservations. Thus foreign
laws and customs among the basic concepts of justice came to dominate Indian life. If, Indians reasoned, justice is for
Society’s benefit, why Isn’t our Justice accepted? Indians became convinced they were the world s stupidest people. Words
and situations never seemed to fit together. Always, It seemed, the white man chose a course of action that did not work. The
white man preached that it was good to help the poor, yet he did nothing to assist the poor in his society. Instead he put
constant pressure on the Indian people to how’d their worldly goods, and when they failed to accumulate capital but
freely gave to the poor, the white man reacted violently. The failure of communication created a void into which poured
the white do-gooder, the missionary, the promoter, the scholar, and every conceivable type of person who believed he
could help. White society failed to understand the situation be cause this conglomerate of assistance blurred the real issues
beyond recognition. The legend of the Indian was embellished or tarnished according to the need of the intermediates to
gain leverage in their struggle to solve problems that never existed outside of their own minds. The classic example, of
course, is the old-time missionary box. People were horrified that Indians continued to dress in their traditional garb.
Since whites did not wear buckskin and beads, they equated such dress with savagery. So do gooders in the East held fantastic
clothing drives to supply the Indians with civilized clothes. Soon boxes of discarded evening gowns, tuxedos, tennis shoes,
and uniforms Hooded the reservations. Indians were made to dress in these remnants so they could be civilized. Then,
realizing the ridiculous picture presented by the reservation people, neighboring whites made fun of the Indian people
for having the presumption to dress like whites. But in the East, whites were making great reputations as "Indian experts," as
people who devoted their lives to helping the savages. Whenever Indian land was needed, the whites pictured the tribes as
wasteful people who refused to develop their natural resources. Because the Indians did not "use" their lands, argued many
land promoters, the lands should be taken away and given to people who knew what to do with them. White society
concentrated on the individual Indian to the exclusion of his group, forgetting that any society is merely a composite of
individuals. Generalizations by experts universalized "Indianness" to the detriment of unique Indian values. Indians with a
common cultural base shared behavior patterns. But they were expected to behave like a similar group of whites and rarely did.
Whites, on the other hand, generally came from a multitude of backgrounds and shared only the need for economic subsistence.
There was no way, therefore, to combine white values and Indian behavior into a workable program or intelligible subject of
discussion.
29
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Colonialism
The Government believes they can solve for the Native American’s problems, however they only work in a
paternalistic framework. Along with the Private sector they still treat Native Americans as ignorant savages who
need to be saved
Vine Deloria, Jr. Indian rights advocate and former Executive Director of the National Congress of American
Indians, 1969. Custer Died For your Sins pp. 14-15
This last year saw the results of a number of TASK FORCE REPORTS. In 1960, when the New Frontier burst upon the scene, a TASK
FORCE REPORT was prepared. It made the recommendations listed above. In 1966 two additional TASK FORCES went abroad in
search of the solution to the "Indian problem." One was a secret Presidential TASK FORCE. One was a semi-secret Interior TASK
FORCE. In March of 1968 the President asked for a 10 percent increase in funds for Indian programs and after eight years of
Democratic rule, a TASK FORCE recommendation was actually carried out. Government agencies always believe that their
TASK FORCES are secret. They believe that anonymous experts can ferret out the esoteric answers to an otherwise insoluble
problem. Hence they generally keep secret the names of people serving on their TASK FORCES until after the report is issued. Only
they make one mistake. They always have the same people on the TASK FORCE. SO when Indians learn there is a TASK FORCE
abroad they automatically know who are on it and what they are thinking. Paternalism is always a favorite subject of the TASK
FORCES. They make it one of the basic statements of their preambles. It has therefore become an accepted tenet that
paternalism dominates government-Indian relationships. Congress always wants to do away with paternalism. So it has a
policy designed to do away with Indians. If there are no Indians, there cannot be any paternalism. But governmental paternalism is
not a very serious problem. If an employee of the Bureau of Indian Affairs gives any tribe any static the problem is quickly resolved.
The tribal chairman gets on the next plane to Washington. The next morning he walks into the Secretary of the Interior's office and
raises hell. Soon a number of bureaucrats are working on the problem. The tribal chairman has a good dinner, goes to a movie, and
takes the late plane back to his reservation. Paternalism by field men is not very popular in the Department of the Interior in
Washington. Consequently, there is very little paternalism in the governmental sector if the tribe knows what it is doing. And
most tribes know what they are doing. In the private sector, however, paternalism is a fact of life. Nay, it is the standard
operating procedure. Churches, white interest organizations, universities, and private firms come out to the reservations
asking only to be of service IN THEIR OWN INIMITABLE WAY. No one asks them to come out. It is very difficult, therefore, to
get them to leave. Because no chairman has the time to fly into New York weekly and ask the national churches to stop the
paternalistic programs of their missionaries, the field is ripe for paternalism. Most of them are not doing much anyway. But, people in
the private area are working very hard to keep Indians happy. When Indians get unhappy they begin to think about kicking out the
white do-gooders, paternalism or not. And if the private organizations were kicked out of a reservation, where would they work? What
would they claim as their accomplishments at fund-raising time? Churches, for example, invest great amounts to train white men
for Indian missions. If there were ever too great a number of Indian missionaries, Indians might think they should have their
own churches. Then there would be no opportunity to convert the pagans. Where, then, would clergy misfits go if not to Indian
missions?
30
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Colonialism
Our Policy towards Native Americans still works under a discovery framework believing since we
discovered the “Americas” we can do anything we want to do with it, even if there are already millions of
people living there.
American Indians, 1969. Custer Died For your Sins pp. 30-31
Hucksterism and land theft have gone hand in hand in American history. The tragedy of the past is that it set precedents for
land theft today when there is no longer any real need to steal such vast areas. But more damage is being done to Indian
people today by the United States government than was done in the last century. Water rights are being trampled on.
Land is being condemned for irrigation and reclamation projects. Indian rights are being ground into the dirt it is fairly
easy to trace the principal factors leading to the great land steals. The ideological basis for taking Indian land was
pronounced by the Christian churches shortly after the discovery of the New World, when the doctrine of discovery was
announced. Discovery negated the rights of the Indian tribes to sovereignty and equality among the nations of the
world. It took away their title to their land and gave them the right only to sell And they had to sell it to the European
nation that had discovered their land. Consequently the European nation-whether England, France, Spain, or Holland-that
claimed to have discovered a piece of land had the right to that land regardless of the people living there at the time. This was
the doctrine of the Western world which was applied to the New World and endorsed as the will of God by the Christian
churches of Western Europe. As early as 1496 the King of England, head of the English church, commissioned John Cabot to
discover countries then Unknown to Christian peoples and to take possession of them in the name of the English king. In
Cabot's commission was the provision that should any prior Christian title to the land be discovered it should be recognized.
Christianity thus endorsed and advocated the rape of the North American continent, and her representatives have done their
utmost to contribute to this process ever since. After the Revolution the new United States adopted the doctrine of discovery
and continued the process of land acquisition. The official white attitude toward Indian lands was that discovery gave
the United States exclusive right to extinguish Indian title of occupancy either by purchase or conquest. It turned out
that the United States acquired the land neither by purchase nor by conquest, but by a more sophisticated technique
known as trusteeship. Accordingly few tribes were defeated in war by the United States, but most sold some land and allowed
the United to hold the remainder in trust for them. In turn, the tribes acknowledged the sovereignty of the United States in
preference to other possible sovereigns, such as England, France, and Spain. From the humble beginning the federal
government stole some two billion acres of land and continues to take what it can without arousing the ire of the
ignorant public. This fight for land has caused much bitterness against the white man. It is this blatant violation of the
treaties that creates such frustration among the Indian people. Many wonder exactly what their rights are, for no
matter where they turn treaties are disregarded and laws are used to deprive them of what little land remains to them.
31
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Colonialism
In the beginning the Native Americans helped us become a Nation, and we returned the favor by destroying all
of theirs.
American Indians, 1969. Custer Died For your Sins p. 35
Then Indian people remember how weak and helpless the United States once was, how much it needed the good graces of the
tribes for its very existence, how the tribes shepherded the ignorant colonists through drought and blizzard, kept them
alive, helped them grow-they burn with resentment at the treatment they have since received from the United States
government. It is as if a man had invited a helpless person to his home, fed and clothed him until he was strong and able
to care for himself, only to have the person he had nursed wreak incredible havoc on the entire household. And all this
destruction in the name of help. It is too much to bear. Treaties were originally viewed as contracts. Many treaties contain the
phrase "contracting parties" and specify that each party must agree to the terms of the treaty for it to be valid. It would have
seemed that, if treaties were contracts, the United States was required under the impairment of contracts or due process
clause to protect the rights of the Indian tribes. Or at least it so seemed to the Cherokees, Choctaws, and other tribes
who continually went to court to establish their property rights. But, although on one occasion, New Jersey was not
allowed to break a contract with a band of the Delawares, the federal government has not traditionally recognized treaties as
contracts. So tribes had no recourse in the federal courts although many treaties had provided that the tribes should
have rights and that the United States should stand behind the treaty provisions as guarantor. Often when discussing
treaty rights with whites, Indians find themselves being told that "We gave you the land and you haven't done anything
with it." Or some commentator, opposed to the welfare state remarks, "We gave the Indians a small piece of land and then put
them on the dole and they are unable to take care of themselves." The truth is that practically the only thing the white men
ever gave the Indian was disease and poverty. To imply that gave the Indian was disease and poverty. To imply that
Indians were given land is to completely reverse the facts of history.
32
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Colonialism
The United States Government has yet to keep a promise to the Native American people other to keep them on
reservations. They have made them the poorest people in the nation, and destroyed their nations
Hundreds of treaties guaranteeing the tribes free and undisturbed use of their remaining lands. Some of the treaties had
been assured by the missionaries. The Indians had not, however, been given lifetime guarantees. Perhaps the only bright spot
in all of Indian-Congressional relations came at the beginning of the New Deal. Backed by a sympathetic President and drawn
up by scholar John Collier probably the greatest of all Indian commissioners-the Indian Reorganization Act was passed in
1934. This act, known popularly as the Wheeler-Howard Act, provided for self-government of the reservations by the Indian
residents. Written into the law was a prohibition on further allotment of Indian lands and provisions for land consolidation
programs to be undertaken by the tribal councils in order to rebuild an adequate land base. In many cases the Indian Bureau
was authorized to buy land for landless Indians and to organize them as recognized tribal groups eligible for governmental
services. Programs for rehabilitation were begun, Indians were given preference in hiring within the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
and a revolving loan fund for economic development was created. Overall the IRA was a comprehensive piece of legislation
which went far beyond previous efforts to develop tribal initiative and responsibility, but one provision was unfortunate. Once
having voted down the acceptance of the provisions of the act, a reservation was forbidden from considering it again.
Unfortunately, Indian tribes were given only a short ten years under this act to bring themselves to an economic and social
standard equal with their white neighbors. Following World War II the Congressional policy toward Indian self-government
was to change radically. But that story deserves a special chapter in this book. In looking back at the centuries of broken
treaties, it is clear that the United States never intended to keep any of its promises. Like other areas of life, the federal
government adapted its policies to the expediency of the moment. When the crisis had passed, it promptly proceeded on
its way without a backward glance at its treachery. Indian people have become extremely wary of promises made by the
federal government. The past has shown them that even the most innocent-looking proposal is often fraught with impli-
cations the sum total of which is loss of land. Too often the attitude of the white man was, "Tell the Indians anything to
keep them quiet. After they are settled down we can do what we want to do." Alvin Josephy brings this attitude out
magnificently in his book The Nez Perce Indians and the Opening of the Northwest. "What," people often ask, "did you
expect to happen? After all, the continent had to be settled, didn't it?" We always reply, "Did it?" And continue, "If it
did, did it have to be settled in that way?" For if you consider it, the continent is now settled and yet uninhabitable in
many places today. There were many avenues open for the government besides wholesale theft. In Canada, for example,
there are Indian reservations in every province. Indians have not had their basic governmental forms disturbed. They still
operate with chiefs and general councils. Nor were they forced to remove themselves whenever and wherever the white man
came. Nor did they have their lands allotted and then stolen piece by piece from under them. It would have been fairly simple
for the federal government to have provided a special legal status whereby Indian rights would have vested while keeping their
original sovereignty and entitlements of self-government. There was no need for the government to abruptly change from
treaty negotiations to a program of cultural destruction, as it did in 1819 with its Indian assimilation bill. And when
the Five Civilized Tribes had adapted to a semi-white political structure the government could have supported the great
experiment of the Cherokees instead of removing them to Oklahoma.
33
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Colonialism
We need to build a New trusteeship between the U.S. government and Native Americans to reconcile past
grievances, for they still have no reason to trust us. We must use this as the first step in the long line of
reconciliations to making a better future for all of us.
The betrayal of treaty promises has in this generation created a greater feeling of unity among Indian people than any other
subject. There is not a Single tribe that does not burn with resentment over the treatment it has received at the hands of an
avowedly Christian nation. New incidents involving treaty rights daily remind Indian people that they were betrayed by a
government which insists on keeping up the facade of maintaining its commitments in Vietnam. The complicity of the churches
too is just beginning to be recognized. After several hundred years of behind-the-scenes machinations, the attempt of the
churches to appear relevant to the social needs of the 196O'S is regarded as utter hypocrisy by many Indian people. If, they
argue, the churches actually wanted justice, why haven't they said or done anything about Indian rights? Why do they continue
to appear in bib-overalls at the Poor People's March? Why do they wait until a problem is nearly solved and then piously
proclaim from the pulpits that they have discovered that the movement is really God's will? Even today Indian rights are
stuck in a legalistic limbo from which there is apparently no escape. When a tribe tries to get its rights defined it is
politely shunted aside. Some tribes have gone to the Supreme Court to seek relief against the United States by claiming
a violation of their rights as wards. They have been told in return that they are not wards but "dependent domestic
nations:' And when other tribes have sought relief claiming that they are dependent domestic nations, they have been
told they are "wards of the government." Under the laws and courts of the present there is no way for Indian people to
get the federal government to admit they have rights. The executive branch of the government crudely uses Indian lands as
pawns in the great race to provide pork-barrel agencies with sufficient dam-building projects to keep them busy. Until America
begins to build a moral record in her dealings with the Indian people she should not try to fool the rest of the world about her
intentions on other continents. America has always been a militantly imperialistic world power eagerly grasping for economic
control over weaker nations. The Indian wars of the past should rightly be regarded as the first foreign wars of American
history. As the United States marched across this continent, it was creating an empire by wars of foreign conquest just
as England and France were doing in India and Africa. Certainly the war with Mexico was imperialistic, no more or less
than the wars against the Sioux, Apache, Utes, and Yakimas. In every case the goal was identical: land. When the frontier was
declared officially closed in 1880 it was only a short time before American imperialistic impulses. Drove this country into the
Spanish-American War and the acquisition of America's Pacific island empire began. The tendency to continue imperialistic
trends remained constant between the two world wars as this nation was involved in numerous banana wars in Central and
South America. There has not been a time since the founding of the republic when the motives of this country were
innocent. Is it any wonder that other nations are extremely skeptical about its real motives? In the world today? When
one considers American history in its imperialistic light, it becomes apparent that if morality is to be achieved in this
country's relations with other nations a return to basic principles is in order. Definite commitments to fulfill extant
treaty obligations to Indian tribes would be the first step toward introducing morality into American foreign policy.
Many things can immediately be done to begin to make amends for past transgressions. Passage of federal legislation
acknowledging the rights of the Indian people as contained in the treaties can make the hunting and fishing rights of the Indians
a realty.
34
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Colonialism
We don’t consider Native American as people with legitimate needs, and demands. However instead we view
them as objects that live on resource filled land, which we can use for our own benefit.
Ward Churchill, Coordinator of the Colorado chapter of the American Indian Movement, former
professor of professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. 1993, Struggle for the
Land (Indigenous Resistance to Genocide Ecocide and exportation in contemporary North America. pp.
270-271
Navajo Ranchers Association around Crownpoint, seeking to prevent what had Occurred at Church Rock from happening to
them, filed suit in federal court in 1978 to block Mobil Oil from launching a pilot uranium project in the Dalton Pass area, the
judge ruled that the corporation's activities would have "insufficient impact" to necessitate so much as an environmental impact
study." In 1979, he refused to allow the plaintiffs to cancel Mobil's leases to their land, which the BIA had approved over their
objections.'" When the Dine plaintiffs argued in 1980 that their pastoral way of life would be destroyed by the plans of
Mobil, Gulf, Kerr-McGee, Exxon and a dozen other energy corporations which had by then queued up to mine
uranium near Dalton Pass, the judge responded that he couldn’t understand why they'd want to continue it anyway
given the 'opportunity" for them to become miners and millers." Such thinking was upheld by the Ninth U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals, and this matter, too, was eventually 'settled" on terms entirely acceptable to the corporations. Things
are no better with regard to cleanup. Despite passage of the much-touted Uranium Mine Tailings Radiation Control Act in
1978," the first attempt to address the question of radioactive wastes on Navajo land-tailings abandoned around the Foote
Mineral Company mill near Shiprock in 1968-was not completed until 1986. This project was finished in such 'timely" fashion
only because Harold Tso, head of the Navajo Environmental Protection Administration, had himself convinced the tribal
government to begin expending royalty monies on the effort as early as 1973." The next three such operations at Navajo-
clearing tailings piles at long-abandoned mill sites in Monument Valley and Tuba City, Arizona (Rare Metals Corporation), and
Mexican Hat, Utah (Texas Zink Corporation)-are all under exclusive federal control. Scheduled for completion in late 1991,
none were finished by the summer of 1992. Virtually nothing has been done with mill tailings around Church Rock, or at
several other comparable locations on the reservation." Nor is this the end of it. A 1983 study by the federal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) concluded there were nearly 1,000 additional "significant" nuclear waste sites surrounding
the proliferation of abandoned mines, large and small, scattered about Dine territory. Cleanup of these locations was/is
not required by any law, and they were designated by the EPA as "too remote" to be of "sufficient national concern” to
warrant the expense of attempting their rehabilitation." And so they remain, from White Mesa in the east to Tuba City in
the west, hundreds upon hundreds of radioactive "sand piles," still played on by Dine youngsters and swept by the wind across
the land'" Such is the fate of the largest indigenous nation-in terms of both land base and population-in the United
States.
35
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Self-Determination
Tribal Sovereignty is on the forefront of energy policy in order to preserve
their heritage.
Gary C. Bryner, Research Associate, Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law, and Professor,
Public Policy Program, Brigham Young University, Spring 2002, University of Colorado Law Review,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T4168877713
Many energy resources are located on tribal lands, and the conflicts therefore include issues of tribal sovereignty. In
some cases, tribes welcome the opportunity for harvesting resources on lands that have seen little economic development.
In other cases, development clashes with preservation values and subsistence fishing and farming. The Badger-Two
Medicine area within the Lewis and Clark National Forest has been proposed for recognition as a historic site with the
National Register of Historic Places because it is a renowned Indian cultural retreat. n354 It is also, however, a potential site for
oil and gas exploration. [*407] It is the only remaining area where the Blackfeet Tribe members are able to hunt, fish, and
log timber. n355 The Forest Service estimates that the odds of finding oil and gas is less than one-half of one percent, but Ocean
Energy, a Houston-based company, has acquired leases in the area from the Chevron Corporation. n356 Some tribal members
argue that the land was never sold by the tribe, but only leased to the federal government for fifty years in 1895. n357
In Weatherman Draw/Valley of the Chiefs, a 4,200-acre parcel south of Billings, Montana, ten native tribes claim the area
as a sacred land and home to ancient art. The tribes, along with the Sierra Club and the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, have opposed development, and successfully worked with the BLM to designate it as one of the agency's
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in 1999. n358 For the past seven years, Anschutz Exploration, a Denver energy
company, has sought permission from the BLM to explore for oil, arguing that there may be as many as ten million barrels
to be harvested. n359 In February 2001, the BLM office in Billings approved one exploratory well. n360 Blackfeet tribal
members have proposed allowing Anschutz to drill on the tribe's reservation in northwest Montana, which they believe
contains about two billion barrels of oil reserves, in exchange for the company giving up its permit to drill in the Valley of
the Chiefs. n361 Not only does energy policy need to provide for environmental preservation and resource development, but it
must also ensure that tribal sovereignty and authority over tribal lands and resources is secured.
36
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Self-Determination
Sovereignty is the linchpin of Native American Culture

Troy R. Johnson, professor of American Indian Studies and U.S. History at California State University,
Long Beach, 1999, Introduction of Contemporary Native American Studies p. 7-8
As Native people and Indian Nations prepare to move into the twenty-first century, no issues are more critical to
understanding the challenges to the modern tribal structure and the relationship of Natives to their indigenous heritage
than the issues of nationalism and sovereignty. In fact, it can be stated that nationalism and sovereignty are two of the
unifying threads that Native American people have retained despite U. S. government assaults upon their very
foundations-foundations that are rooted in the U. S. Constitution and reinforced by U. S. Supreme Court cases
beginning with the John Marshall Court in Johnson v. McIntosh, 1823 and continuing, although in a diminished state, into the
close of the twentieth century.
Native nationalism and sovereignty are the linchpins upon which the relationship between the federal government and
Native people hinge. In this regard, it should be remembered that the understanding of what constitutes these two concepts has
changed over time, and, much to the distress of Native Americans, it has more often changed for the worse than for the better.
It is the terms of these agreements- how they are understood historically, how they are interpreted and defined, what constitutes
their parameters and jurisdiction-that directly or indirectly informs every aspect of Native polities to the present day. One needs
only to review the various federal government policies toward Indian people to see great vacillation in approaches to the
recognition or whittling away of the concepts of nationalism and sovereignty: the formative years (1789-1871), allotments and
assimilation (1871-1928), the period of Indian reorganization (1928-1945), the termination period (1945-1961), and the era of
self-determination (1961present.) Each period represents a shift in the U.S. government's historical, cultural, and political
understanding of Indian Nations and Indian people.
Indian people have been proactive from the time of first European contact in an effort to comprehend and adjust to the
non-Indian, Western governing process. Because of the federal governments constantly changing approach, the results
have been, at best, frustration, and, at worse, a loss of traditional homelands and an imposed cultural crisis forced upon
the indigenous people. The ability of Native Americans to empower their communities and successfully address the
spectrum of political issues raised in this volume depends on the recognition of sovereignty and the attainment of the
means for integrated self-governance. In their contributions to this section, Ward Churchill and Arif Dirlik discuss the bases
of past and future claims to sovereignty and provide hemispheric perspectives on struggles for self-determination by
indigenous peoples.
37
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Self-Determination
The United States has historically failed to recognize the sovereignty of Native
Americans.
Troy R. Johnson, professor of American Indian Studies and U.S. History at California State University,
Long Beach, 1999, Introduction of Contemporary Native American Studies p. 8-9
Native Americans struggle for their national sovereignty with a dominant U.S. government that constantly imposes the
subordinate status of tribes. Because of this relationship of subordination and dependency, Native polities largely take
place on local levels and under the auspices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), an internal branch of the federal
government created specifically to address the "Indian Problem." However, as the Native peoples assert the centrality of
national sovereignty, Native American politics become, really, a matter of international politics. Because U.s. treaties
have recognized (in theory, if not in practice) the independent nationhood of tribes, Native people can make strategic use of
international law. Despite the fact that United States courts have ruled tribes subordinate rather than equal nations,
Native Americans have taken some initiatives in supranational arenas to gain voice and gamer support, and to use the
ideological and political resources of international organizations and movements. In this context, claims can be brought to
a third party in opposition to U.s. policy that would not be actionable under the jurisdiction of domestic courts.
The United Nations (U.N.) has provided the most visible institutional setting for international collaboration among indigenous
groups, and many more regional coalitions have been fanned as well. One of the major goals of this alliance building is to
influence the development of universally recognized legal standards that govern conduct between sovereign nations and
monitor human rights "Within national boundaries. International bodies may apply a degree of pressure on powerful nations
such as the United States that American Indian tribes alone would be unable to leverage.
Clearly, while indigenous groups may derive great benefits from political action in international arenas, such alliances
must also negotiate the large-scale economic and ideological interests of powerful nations with complex agendas. Thus,
the terms on which international policy is developed, its underlying motivations and power relations, and the specific
contexts of its implementation, must be rigorously examined if Native Americans are to develop successful strategies. In
this section, Stephen Quesenberry examines recent U.N. initiatives concerning indigenous and human rights, and advocates
Native Americans' active engagement in international politics. Fae L. Korsmo, through a case study of the Gitksan and
Wet'suwet'en in British Columbia, examines the interface between indigenous groups and national and international
governmental bodies. Specifically, international politics requires a universalization of concepts and terms according to
which standards and legislation are developed, and of crucial concern for the assertion of indigenous rights is the form
in which testimony for these purposes is considered legitimate. For example, the status and admissibility of oral history
into courts is a source of great debate. In this respect, indigenous groups around the world stand to gain a great deal
from sharing experiences of, and strategies for, engaging in political struggles and asserting their voices and rights.
38
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Self-Determination
Empirically failure to support self-determination rights leads to global

instability.
Eric Kolodner, currently completing a joint degree at New York University School of Law and Princeton
University's Woodrow Wilson School, Fall 1994, Connecticut Journal of International Law, 10 Conn. J. Int'l L.
153
The refusal to recognize self-determination movements can also produce severe international ramifications. The current
conflict in Kashmir demonstrates how a previous denial of a people's right to selfdetermination can foment the conflicts
of the present and ensure the uncertainty of the future. In 1947, Great Britain decided to partition its South Asian colony
into two independent countries: Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan. 32 The ruling prince of Kashmir (a northern state in British
India) was granted the option of merging with India or Pakistan, or declaring an independent state. 33 This Hindu prince chose
independence for his predominantly Muslim kingdom. 34 A Pakistani-sponsored revolt in Kashmir, however, derailed the
prince's plans, and he was forced to ask for Indian military aid in exchange for Kashmir's accession to this new Hindu state. 35
A U.N.-mediated cease-fire divided Kashmir between Pakistan and India, and a U.N. resolution called for a plebiscite in which
Kashmiris could opt for union with India or Pakistan. 36 The plebiscite was never held, and India formally annexed Kashmir in
1957. 37 For the past thirty-five years, Kashmir has been a source of conflict between India and Pakistan, with dozens of
guerrilla organizations engaged in fighting. 38 The past few years have witnessed intensified vio- lence [*159] with over
3000 deaths in 1990 alone. 39 If the U.N. had permitted the Kashmiris to exercise their right to self-determination
through the plebiscite it promised, this current conflict could potentially have been mitigated or even averted.
The serious consequences of the international community's refusal to support self-determination movements are also
evident in the former Yugoslavia and Somalia. The failure to promptly address self-determination claims in these two
territories contributed to the conflict in which they are now embroiled. 40 "A failure to respond more quickly, directly,
and comprehensively to self-determination claims in the future will cause more such needless tragedy . . . ultimately
with profound consequences for U.S. interests and American ideals.
39
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Self-Determination
The right to self determine does not implicate secession. Only by allowing self
determination rights can we prevent secession and global instability.
Eric Kolodner, currently completing a joint degree at New York University School of Law and Princeton
University's Woodrow Wilson School, Fall 1994, Connecticut Journal of International Law, 10 Conn. J. Int'l L.
153
The international community has historically focused only upon the external aspect of self-determination. Similarly, observers
who assert the need to curtail contemporary self determination movements often possess this limited conception of self-
determination, and furthermore, they erroneously render external self-determination virtually coterminous with the
right to secession. 44
Justified concerns exist that granting the right to secede in today's world would effectuate an incessant cycle of
demands for external self [*160] determination where alleged peoples within peoples within peoples would petition for
their right to independence from a multi-ethnic State. 45 The ensuing international system would be highly fragmented,
politically unstable, incapable of addressing global problems, and economically unfit to provide the necessities of life to
many of the world's inhabitants. 46 The international community should, therefore, continue to maintain that an
unfettered right to secede simply does not exist. 47
The external right to self-determination, however, does not necessarily implicate secession. A legitimate exercise of
external self-determination, for example, can also result in a situation where a people becomes loosely federated with
another independent State; runs its own domestic affairs while relinquishing control of its foreign relations to another
State; or entirely merges with an existing nation. 48 For example, in 1965, the territory of Ifnii chose to incorporate with
Morocco; and in 1975, the Mariana Islands chose to become freely associated with the United States. 49
Although external self-determination does not necessarily implicate secession, it is undeniable that the exercise of this
right will sometimes send tremors through the domestic or international order. However, this risk of increased tension
should not persuade the international community to categorically reject movements for external self-determination.
There currently exist and will exist situations in which a people possesses a legitimate claim to external self-
determination and where its interests and rights cannot be protected unless it is granted external self-determination --
even if this involves the establishment of a new independent state. Such peoples potentially include the East Timorese in
Indonesia, the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, and the Tibetans living under the Chinese government.
Self-Determination
The rights of indigenous peoples, though paramount, will never amount to
much without reconceptualizing industrial energy usage.
40
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Dean B. Suagee, attorney, 1992, SELF-DETERMINATION FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AT THE DAWN OF THE SOLAR
AGE, University of Michigan Law Review,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4168507277&format=GNBFI&so
rt=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=51&resultsUrlKey=29_T4168507282&cisb=22_T4168507281&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=7420
&docNo=59
The experience in the United States also provides numerous examples of tribes that have suffered severe cultural and
social disruption because of the decimation of wildlife populations and other profound changes in the natural environment
caused by the dominant society. Part III suggests that the international recognition of rights will be a hollow success for
indigenous peoples unless the industrialized societies also achieve a transition from environmentally destructive to
environmentally sustainable development. In particular, Part III focuses on energy consumption both in the industrialized
societies and in the less developed countries. This Article focuses on energy for one significant reason. In many parts of
today's world, the kinds of environmental damage that threaten the survival of indigenous peoples are driven by the
ways in which the economic engines of the industrialized and industrializing countries consume energy. Over the past
two decades, we have learned new ways to provide the kinds of services and benefits [*676] that in the past we provided
by consuming nonrenewable energy resources. These new ways render the environmental destruction and pollution of
the old ways both unnecessary and unjustifiable. Part III presents an overview of the alternative energy development
scenario, sometimes called the "soft energy path," which is based on energy efficiency and environmentally sustainable solar
and other renewable energy technologies. Taking soft energy paths will not in itself solve the global environmental crisis, but it
is an essential part of the solution.
Self-Determination
Native Americans are the crusaders against the destruction of nature,
engaging the green movement spiritually.
41
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
&docNo=59
The global environmental crisis is real -- unless we make some fundamental changes in the ways that our global
economy extracts resources from the earth and gives off pollution and wastes, the natural systems that support human
societies will collapse. n6 Even if we do succeed in expeditiously making the fundamental changes that are necessary,
there still is no guarantee that we can avoid the widespread collapse of ecosystems. n7 In his bestselling book on the global
environmental crisis, Senator Albert Gore includes some indigenous peoples [*677] among examples of "resistance
fighters" who are on "the front lines of the war against nature now raging throughout the world," n8 Senator Gore argues
that the global environmental crisis is "rooted in the dysfunctional pattern of our civilization's relationship to the
natural world," n9 in which people have lost their sense of connection to the natural world. He believes that healing the
damage we have done to the earth and changing our dysfunctional civilization into one that is based on stewardship
rather than exploitation must be, in essence, spiritual endeavors. n10 Indigenous peoples, where their cultures remain
substantially intact, have not lost their spiritual connections to the natural world. Rather, they maintain connections to the
natural world. Rather, they maintain connections to the earth which are fundamentally sacred in nature, and they know
a great deal about stewardship that could be of benefit to the rest of humankind. n11
Over the next several decades, sustainable energy technologies will figure prominently in a worldwide social movement --
the "sustainability revolution" -- that will change human life on earth as profoundly as did the agricultural revolution of
eight thousand years ago or the industrial revolution of two hundred years ago. n12 The natural world will be changed
profoundly in any event, through global warming, the loss of biodiversity, the thinning of the ozone layer, and other
global trends that are already underway. If humankind is to accomplish the sustainability revolution, we need to be able
to envision a future world in which we would like to live and which we would wish for future generations. n13 Our collective
vision of a sustainable future also must include room for the remaining indigenous peoples of the world to carry on their
ancient cultures and to decide for themselves how much of the "modern" world to allow into their cultures.
42
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Self-Determination
Self-determination isn’t black and white, it’s about seeking a perpetual

condition of freedom.
&docNo=59
In the controversy over the right to self-determination, many observers, both those representing states and those
representing indigenous peoples, have framed the right as all or nothing, one which indigenous peoples either have or do not
have. n81 Under this view, if indigenous peoples do have the right to self-determination, it implies that they have an absolute
right to choose political independence and to be recognized by the international community as an independent state. As could
be guessed, existing states oppose indigenous peoples having such a right and have argued that indigenous peoples are not
"peoples" as the term is used in the International Human Rights Covenants. n82
Characterizing the right to self-determination in such an absolute way may be counterproductive because doing so gets
in the way of fashioning real-world arrangements to ensure the survival of indigenous peoples. Most indigenous peoples
do not seek recognition as independent states, n83 but rather seek to establish relationships with states that will provide
autonomy within their traditional territories. n84 Professor Hannum stresses that self-determination has both an external
aspect, the right to choose to be recognized as an independent state, and an internal aspect, the right of autonomous self-
government; he suggests that internal self-determination is much more important for ensuring that indigenous peoples
have control over their own lives and the survival of their cultures. n85 Many indigenous peoples need protection against
private persons (individuals and corporations) who intrude into their territories and against attempts by subnational levels of
government to [*693] assert jurisdiction within their territories. n86 Many, perhaps most, indigenous peoples would
forswear freely any claims to external sovereignty in exchange for enforceable promises that states would provide
protection against such threats (although indigenous peoples will be wary of such promises until there are enforcement
mechanisms under international law). As Professor Anaya says, "The absolutist view of self-determination moreover, misses
the principle's essential thrust, which is not fundamentally about exercising a one-shot choice for some degree of
'sovereignty' but, rather, is about securing for individuals and groups a political order that promotes a perpetual
condition of freedom." n87 In other words, in its quest for external self-determination, the absolutist view neglects internal self-
determination.
Self-determination is not about taking the land from that which is sovereign
over it, but about the decision over natural resources.
&docNo=59
It seems to me that the debate about self-determination is not really about the threat that indigenous peoples will choose
to become independent states. The argument about independence and the territorial integrity of states looks suspiciously like
a straw man. n91 Perhaps the argument is really about who has the right to decide what uses of natural resources will be
permitted within the territories of indigenous peoples. The overwhelming concern of indigenous peoples is to preserve
the integrity of the natural environments on which their ways of life depend. n92 States, transnational corporations, and
others see these natural environments as largely unused, and they seek to exploit natural resources without much regard
for the use patterns of indigenous peoples. n93 If a state which claims sovereignty over the territory of an indigenous
people either seeks itself to exploit the resources of that territory in ways that threaten the survival of the indigenous people,
or permits such exploitation, the indigenous people would be likely to choose independence or association with another
state. This suggests that whatever the right to "self-determination" means, it must, at the very least, include the right to
reject absolutely the exploitation of natural resources in ways that the indigenous peoples determine for themselves
threaten their rights to remain distinct self-governing peoples. n94 Perhaps the real reason that states object to self-
determination is the specter of indigenous peoples having such an absolute right to control their territories, territories
which the states see as their own.
43
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Self-Determination
In order to end cultural genocide, it is necessary to make known the value of

indigenous cultures.
&docNo=59
Under the Working Group's definition, cultural genocide has taken place all over the world, even recently in the United
States. For instance, the United States' "termination" policy of the 1950s [*697] and early 1960s clearly fits the concept.
n102
Racial prejudice and notions of racial superiority provide the rationalizations for cultural genocide. n103 Despite the
human rights norm inherent in the Genocide Convention that all cultural groupings have the right to exist, n104 the destruction
of indigenous peoples continues, in part because of the notion that indigenous ways of life are somehow inferior to those
of modern industrialized societies. Those who seek to defend the rights of indigenous peoples must work to make this
notion simply untenable. Indigenous peoples believe that their right to survive and to control their own territories should be
respected not only because they are entitled to basic human rights but also because they have some values and wisdom to share
with the other peoples of the Earth. To put an end to the destruction of indigenous peoples, indigenous rights advocates
must help the rest of the world to see that there is real value in what indigenous peoples have to offer, especially in their
spiritual relationships with the Earth and with nonhuman living things.
Those who would defend the human rights of indigenous peoples can draw many lessons from the long history of the
relations between the United States and the indigenous tribes and nations of North America. Although the autonomy
possessed by Indian tribes in the United States is less than ideal, tribes do exercise a broad range of governmental powers,
and the simple fact that more than 500 federally recognized tribes continue to exist in the United States n105 suggests
that positive as well as negative lessons may be drawn. Two of the most important lessons are: (1) forced assimilation does
not work and (2) local autonomy and self-government can work. In my view, these two lessons are fundamental for the survival
of indigenous peoples throughout [*698] the world. n106 The next part of this Article examines tribal autonomy in the United
States in some detail, with an emphasis on tribal authority for protection of the environment and the preservation of tribal
cultures.
Economic analysis of the environment is fundamentally flawed: it relies on a

false mindset that hinders it.
&docNo=59
The widespread tendency of economists to downplay the severity of global environmental problems results in part from
the intellectual framework of the discipline of economics, which is quite different from that of ecology. The Worldwatch
Institute explains this difference as follows:
From an economist's perspective, ecological concerns are but a minor subdiscipline of economics -- to be "internalized"
in economic models and dealt with at the margins of economic planning. But to an ecologist, the economy is a narrow
subset of the global ecosystem. Humanity's expanding economic activities cannot be separated from the natural systems
and resources from which they ultimately derive, and any activity that undermines the global ecosystem cannot continue
indefinitely. Modern societies, even with their technological sophistication, ignore dependence on nature at their own
peril. n225
44
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Self-Determination
Consumers being eco-conscious coupled with technological advances and tax

credits have lead to amazing wind energy production.
Brit T. Brown and Benjamin A. Escobar, respectively attorney and chemical engineer, 2007, Energy Bar Association, Wind
Power: Generating Electricity and Lawsuits, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-
20.896904.6850326094&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216168576418&returnToKey=20_T4168
990931&parent=docview#n1
For these and other reasons, wind energy is the fastest growing source of electricity worldwide. According to the American
Wind Energy Association [*491] (AWEA), wind generating capacity increased by 27% in 2006, with similar increases
expected in 2007. n6 In the United States, more than 11,600 megawatts of wind generating capacity are already installed,
which is roughly enough to power 2.9 million homes. Put another way, it would take approximately forty million barrels
of oil per year to generate the same volume of electricity. This impressive growth has been made possible by consumers'
willingness to pay slightly higher energy rates for green energy, state and federal subsidies in the form of tax credits and
otherwise, and technological advances that have enhanced the design of wind turbines, thereby making wind-generated
electricity increasingly cost competitive with electricity generated from fossil fuels.
45
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
Wind energy is the most cost effective option.
Wind energy is currently the most cost-effective renewable resource being developed. Because of dramatic
improvements in the technology, the levelized cost of energy generated using wind turbines has dropped from more
than $1.00 per kWhr in 1978 to less than 10 cents\kWhr in 1988.16 Generally, installed capital costs of wind capacity are
between $900 and $1,000 per kW, with annual operation and maintenance costs of about 1 cent\kWhr. On a levelized basis, the
cost of energy from wind farms located at Class IV sites or better is 5-7 cents\kWhr. The U.s. Department of Energy has
projected that the capital costs for wind could fall to approximately $750 per kW by the year 200017 with wind energy costs in
the range of 3-6 cents/kWhr.
While the costs for various solar energy technologies have dropped considerably in recent years, these technologies,
particularly photovoltaics, remain fairly expensive relative to many other electric resources, including wind, geothermal
and conventional resources such as coal and natural gas. Currently, photovoltaic module prices in the United States range
from $4,500 to $5,000 per kW.18 Total system costs, which typically include metering, labor and interconnection charges,
range from $6,000 to as high as $20,0Cl0 per kW. Levelized costs for energy generated using photovoltaics range from 20
cents\kWhr to as high as 60 cents\kWhr. In spite of these relatively high costs, photovoltaic technologies have already
proven to be very cost-effective for distributed generation and remote applications, because relatively expensive
transmission line extensions can be avoided.. There is also substantial support and commitment among energy industry
stakeholders, including Enron, the Electric Power Research Institute and technology vendors, to promote solar technologies in
a variety of settings. These dynamics should continue to drive capital costs downward.
Estimating the costs of geothermal energy is more difficult because it is highly dependent on site quality, technology choices,
the size of the facility, the assumed capacity factor, discount rates and costs for operation and maintenance. There are many
possible project design options, which also have a significant impact on the overall cost of geothermal energy. The Department
of Energy estimates construction costs for geothermal projects to be as low as $1,800 per kW and as high as $3,000 per kW.
Generally, geothermal energy has a levelized cost of approximately 5 cents\kWhr, which is highly competitive with
conventional resources. To the extent geothermal projects can be expanded to have higher capacities than presently (e.g., up to
100 to 300 MW), these costs will be even lower.20
Biomass energy (i.e., energy from growing plants such as trees, com, wheat, and cane or from animal, agricultural, municipal,
and household wastes) has been developed on a relatively large scale in the United States and technologies and applications
have been proven effective. Conventional biomass power plants are similar to coal-fired power plants, which makes the capital
costs also similar. The current average cost for biomass is approximately 7 cents\kWhr.21 However, biomass resources are
highly variable and unpredictable, making the resulting energy supply somewhat unreliable. Thus, any biomass development
initiative would likely require a "firming" power source.
Although some of the cost data presented here for various renewable energy resources may seem prohibitive. Indian tribes have
abundant renewable resources and unique economic development tools, which may make them more likely developers of these
resources than traditional industry organizations. Further, renewable energy offers value to both the power provider and the
consumer. When renewables are included as part of a utility's resource mix, the utility can benefit from reduced reserve
requirements, elimination/deferral of transmission and distribution costs and dispatchability/remote operation.
Customers can benefit from improved environmental quality, access to more diversified services, reduced risk of
fluctuations in fuel prices, and potentially lower costs for electricity.22
46
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
Tax status of Native Americans is not matter or economics or business, it is a matter of equality.
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. n23 The moral basis of arguments for an
equitable - even favorable - tax treatment of tribes tends to rest on the federal trust responsibility toward tribes
established early in U.S. history and articulated by Chief Justice Marshall in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. n24 Writing of the
Tribal Tax Status Act of 1982, legal scholar Robert Williams said "To satisfy the 'moral obligations of the highest
responsibility and trust' incumbent upon the United States in its dealings with Indian nations, federal Indian Country
development policy must address itself to the structural barriers currently preventing tribal economic and social self-
sufficiency." n25 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." n26
By aligning the tax incentives tribal businesses face with those faced by the rest of the business community, the federal
government will meet its goals of energy development, reduced tribal dependency and increased tribal sovereignty. That
alignment of incentives can be made a reality by making wind energy tax credits tradable. More broadly, allowing
tribes to utilize all tax credits now available only to tax-paying entities will better align the interests of tribal business
and U.S. policy, and also will better provide for tribal economic development.
47
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
The tax status of Native Americans removes them from the two criteria necessary for successful wind
power business.
The project owners: Project ownership is the key to the issues discussed in this paper. Only certain owners will find profit
in wind farms. These owners must, for financial reasons, meet two criteria. First, they must have easy access to the
capital markets. Wind farms are extremely capital intensive. A 30MW n33 wind farm (enough to power, on average, 12,000
homes) such as one proposed for the Rosebud Reservation can cost $ 48 million to build. n34 Modern wind farms are generally
in the 100-200MW range, and can represent capital investments of half a billion dollars. n35 Second, the owner must have a
large, steady tax liability from non-wind operations that they can offset with the PTC credits. A 30MW wind farm throws
off more than $ 1.6 million per year in tax credits for the first ten years of its operation. n36
[*275]
The two requirements above - access to capital markets and large tax liability - mean wind farm owners tend to be some
of the largest corporations in the world, and that the owners and financiers of projects tend to be one in the same.
American investment bank Goldman Sachs, financial giant General Electric and Australian investment bank Babcock & Brown
all own or have owned significant wind properties. n37
III. Tax Credits and Tribes
However, the two requirements - access to capital markets and large tax liability - also work to wreck the hopes for
tribal ownership of wind projects. Tribes, as discussed infra, are non-taxable entities. As such, they cannot use tax
credits, and are at a competitive disadvantage compared to taxable owners of wind projects.
Tribal owned wind farms are destined to fail, even compared to corporate owned wind farms on tribal
land.
The importance of tax credits goes beyond the merely theoretical. Tax credits for renewable energy are substantial - one
study found the PTC contributes 17% of a wind project's bottom line. n39 Tribes' lack of access to the PTC denies them
a huge piece of revenue that taxable entities have access to.
Financial data from wind farms is usually confidential, but results of an academic study by Andrew Mills that compared
hypothetical tribally owned projects to projects owned by corporations indicate that tribally owned projects give a far worse
return on investment than do corporate-owned projects. The tribally owned projects on tribal land also fare worse in
how much economic benefit they bring to the tribe as compared to an outside project built on tribal land. The reason
for the discrepancy is that tribally owned projects cannot take advantage of federal tax credits for wind energy
production. n40 Mills' side-by-side comparisons of a tribally owned wind farm and commercially owned wind farm found the
tribal wind farm provides a 2% internal rate of return on investment while the same wind farm, commercially owned, provides
a 12% return - the difference lies almost entirely in the tax credits. n41 This difference is so vast that to achieve the same rate
of return, a tribe must receive $ 71/MWh for power sales from this hypothetical wind farm as compared to $ 53/MWh
for a commercial entity. This 34% premium is too big for tribes to overcome in electricity markets that routinely see
wholesale electricity prices average $ 23/MWh - about the same as the $ 18 difference between the $ 71/MWh and $
53/MWh price points. n42
48
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
Tribes have succeeded in the realm of fossil fuels, but have struggled in wind power due to their tax-
exempt status.
Nevertheless, Indian tribes, as opposed to individual Indians, remain tax-free entities. This non-taxability is one of the few
bright-line rules in Indian law. "Income tax statutes do not tax Indian tribes. The tribe is not a taxable entity," as the
IRS has simply put it. n49 Some corporate forms, if owned by tribes, are also not taxable. n50
This tax-free status has been a boon to some tribes and their subsidiary corporations, allowing them to develop industries free
from the burden of [*279] paying out 35% of their income to the government. The Southern Ute Tribe has leveraged natural
gas reserves on its land to amass a business empire that holds $ 1.45 billion in assets. n51 Other tribes, such as the Mississippi
Choctaw, have done equally well. n52 Unfortunately, in some industries, such as wind power, this tax-free status has
proven an insurmountable handicap for tribes.
The Standard Flip Model does not work for Native American wind farm projects.
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. n53
This Standard Flip model presents two key problems that seem small to outsiders, 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. n54 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. n55 However, the tribal council nearly killed the project, expressing 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." n56 Tribal 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. n57
49
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
The Minnesota Flip Model has worked, but never outside of Minnesota or for larger projects.
Alternatively, the tribe could use the "Minnesota Flip". n58 The Minnesota Flip is structured so that the landowner can "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) n59 which allows outside investors to diversify across a number of projects. They receive extensive
state support (from Minnesota's 1.5 /kWh production incentive) n60 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.
Being a landowner is not enough, the profit is in the project ownership.

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. n61 However, the return on a large wind turbine can equal $ 270,000 - $
340,000 per year - over fifty times the landowner payments. n62 Clearly, the money is in owning projects, not in being a
landowner.
Subsidized sources of capital have failed for tribes seeking to profit on wind farms.
Financing tribal wind farms through 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. n63
The most obvious source of this cheap money would be tax-exempt bonds issued by tribal governments. 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. n64 Meeting this standard will be 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. n65
50
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
Clean or Renewable Energy Bonds have consistently failed to help tribes with renewable energy ventures.
Clean or Renewable Energy Bonds n66 - a federal attempt to help tribes and other non-taxable entities (such as electric 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. n67 Reasons for the non-participation are unclear, but
may have to do with tribal inexperience with this new financial mechanism - and with bonding in general, n68 due to
historic restrictions on tribal bonding authority. n69 Whatever the reasons, CREBs bonds have not appealed to tribes.
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. n70 Indeed, the largest CREBs-funded project was $ 31 million - hardly enough for a
small wind farm - despite applications for projects up to $ 80 million in size. n71
Tradable tax credits are a win-win situation.

Tradable tax credits would be an ideal solution for all parties - tribes, government and private business. Tribes would
gain economic development opportunities; government would be able to further promote the business ventures it is
trying to encourage through the tax code and would reduce tribal dependency on federal dollars; private business
would be able to partner (and profit) with tribes in developing an important natural resource. Each party would bring
something to the table. The tribes would contribute the resources - land, wind and labor. The outside investor would
contribute the capital. The federal government would contribute the tax credits. The tribes and the outside investor
would be partners, both sharing in the venture's profits. The tribe would take much of the cash flow, while the outside
equity investor would take all of the tax credits and, depending on the arrangement, some of the cash flow from the
project.
The idea of a tradable tax credit is not a new one, nor is it without precedent. A group advocating renewable energy
development on Indian lands originally proposed the idea for tribes n72 and the Western Governors' Association has supported it.
n73
In Oregon, the state's Business Energy Tax Credits allow renewable energy project owners to trade ("pass through" is the
Oregon term) state renewable energy tax credits to taxable entities. Project owners can be non-profit organizations, tribes
or public entities that partner with Oregon businesses or residents with an Oregon tax liability. n74
51
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
Tradable tax credits for wind farms are a financial incentive from Congress to Native Americans to
increase alternative energy.
Making tax credits tradable by tribes - and thereby aligning the financial incentives of tribes with the rest of the U.S.
business community - promotes the federal goal of guiding economic activity, whether in the wind power industry or in
other industries with substantial tax credits.
Congress is bent on fostering renewable energy production in the United States. Congress is also bent on fostering tribal
energy development. If Congress made the PTC tradable, tribes would face the same tax incentives as the rest of the
business community, renewable energy development on tribal lands would increase, and Congress would take a step
forward in achieving its goals of tribal and renewable energy development.
Tax credits are economic incentives the government provides to promote certain activities. n76 With these incentives,
the government is trying to encourage economic activity (such as charitable giving or pollution-free energy production)
that the government considers socially beneficial. n77 The government has an interest in promoting those activities
targeted for promotion to the fullest extent possible, including in Indian Country.
The PTC is an effective way to merge two important goals of Congress – increase alternative energy and
help tribal communities.
Congress has acted on its goals of increasing renewable energy production by enacting the PTC - Congress has also
acted on its goals of increasing tribal energy resource production by enacting parts of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Congress would like tribal corporations to work toward resource development in the same manner as non-reservation
businesses. The 2005 Energy Policy Act articulates Congress' intent to foster energy development on tribal lands. n81 The
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in its report on the bill, wrote "There are abundant energy resources
available for production on Indian lands. Development of those resources must be encouraged." n82
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.
52
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
Tradable tax credits decrease tribal dependency on the federal government.
Increasing tribal revenues from wind energy production - or any other economic activity that prospers off-reservation
in a tax-credit environment and could benefit tribes if tax credits are made tradable - is a good way to meet federal
goals of reducing tribal dependence.
[*287]
The reduction of tribal dependence has been a congressional goal since the nineteenth century. Even during the passage
of the Allotment Acts in the late nineteenth century, the twisted logic of the time said that forcing tribal members into farming
would push the Indians toward "real and permanent progress." n83
This goal of reduced tribal dependence was first codified in the economic development context nearly 100 years ago - in
the Buy Indian Act of 1908. n84 The Act directs the Department of Interior to give preference to Indians as far as is practicable
in hiring and procurement. n85 The Buy Indian Act has been expanded over the years. In 1974, it was made to apply to all
federal contracts. n86
Congress has been willing to extend the same type of support evinced by the Buy Indian Act to tribal energy programs.
For example, in 2001, the full House of Representatives passed the Hayworth amendment to the proposed energy bill adding
"energy products and energy by-products" to the categories of materials covered under the Buy Indian Act. n87 That bill, House
Bill 4, died in conference committee in 2002. However, the ideas from the Hayworth amendment are incorporated into the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 - the Act provides for federal purchases of power generated by Indian tribes. n88
Even outside the energy development or economic development contexts, the Federal Government has made clear
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. n89
[*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".
53
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
Tradable tax credits increase Native American sovereignty.
Tribal sovereignty may be the number one concern of tribes. Indeed, one prominent legal scholar identifies the right of
self-government as the tribes' most valuable reserved right. n90 Historically, tribes have had good reason to fear a loss
of sovereignty, n91 and modern jurisprudence has done little to assure them of their long-term status. n92
In narrow terms, allowing tribes to develop and own their own wind generation will give them more control over their
resources, thus increasing tribal sovereignty. In broader terms, increased economic self-determination - and specifically the
ability of a local population to use and manage resources - is at the heart of many of the concerns about sovereignty around the
world, from the debate over free trade n93 to the rapidly developing jurisprudence concerning the efforts of California and
northeastern states to impose restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. n94
Policymakers have thrown strong weight behind the idea that increased development of tribal energy and natural resources
leads to increased tribal sovereignty. The Reagan Administration, for example, believed that strengthening tribal governments
could be accomplished by resource development. The 1983 policy statement quoted above noted, "[t]his [*289]
Administration pledges to assist tribes in strengthening their governments by removing the federal impediments to tribal self-
government and tribal resource development."
The Reagan administration's philosophy was still prominent in 2005, when Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Section 503(a)(1) of the 2005 Act reads, "To assist Indian tribes in the development of energy resources and further the goal of
Indian self-determination, the Secretary shall establish and implement an Indian energy resource development program" n95
In the Senate Report on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Energy and Natural Resources committee wrote:
The Committee believes that the provisions contained in this legislation, especially when combined with the tax provisions
to be offered from the Finance Committee, are the genesis for improving the national security of this Nation, enhancing
the environment, strengthening self-government for Native American communities, decreasing dependence on foreign
sources of energy, aiding the economy, and diversifying the energy base of the country. n96
Note that the Senate Report specifically mentioned the tax provisions to be offered from the Finance Committee. In fact,
language in the Act itself indicates that Congress may have wanted to address tribal tax issues at a later date. Section 503
further provides the "Secretary of Energy shall submit to congress a report on the financing requirements of Indian tribes for
energy development on Indian land." n97
The concerns of Native Americans vary by tribe, but most shared the desire for
economic development through alternative energy.
Thomas L. Acker, William M. Auberle, Earl P.N. Duque, William D. Jeffery, David R. LaRoche, Virgil
Masayesva, and Dean H. Smith, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Environmental Engineering,
Mechanical Engineering, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Director for the Center for Sustainable
Environments, Director of the Institute for Tribal Environmental Practices, and Professor of Economics
and Applied Indigenous Studies, 9-21-02, Implications of the Regional Haze Rule on Renewable and
Wind Energy Development on Native American Lands in the West College of Business Administration
Working Paper Series, http://ses.nau.edu/pdf/Smith_AWEA.pdf.
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 intertribal 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 tribe located in urban settings.
54
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
Wind energy is readily available within many tribal lands in the West.
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.
The wind energy potential on Tribal Lands is enormous.

National Conference on State Legislature, legislature service organization, June 2007, Native American Power,
http://www.ncsl.org/magazine/articles/2007/07SLJune07_Native.pdf
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.
Empirically, Native Americans have been able to utilize Alternative Energy technology.
National Conference on State Legislature, Legislature service organization, June 2007, Native American Power,
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 Energy 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.
55
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
Many Native Americans live in poverty and alternative energy technology can
alleviate some of this. The tribes, however, often do not have the resources to
fund the project alone.
National Conference on State Legislature, legislature service organization, June 2007, Native American Power,
One-third of the 2.4 million Native Americans living on or near tribal lands live in poverty. The unemployment rate is
double the national average. There are an estimated 18,000 families in the Navajo Nation alone still living without electricity.
“Our hope is that if the tribes choose to develop these renewable energy resources,” says DOE’s Pierce, “it could enable
local economic development and contribute to additional jobs.”
For some tribes, taking on renewable energy projects means helping members pay for, and in some cases acquire, power.
If tribes can generate their own power, they can lower utility bills and bring power to more people.
Energy projects also provide new jobs, and potential profits translate into additional assets for tribes. In some cases not only
do tribes benefit, but so do the areas near the reservation. A handful of tribes supply power to neighboring
communities, which can be beneficial for the tribes as well as the surrounding area.
Funding for new projects can be a challenge, however. Many tribes have been able to invest their own money, while
others have turned to banks, the federal government and other tribes. Since 1992, the Tribal Energy Program at the
U.S. Department of Energy has supported tribes with renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies to encourage
self-sufficiency, economic development and employment opportunities. So far, the DOE has invested $12.4 million in 76
projects in Indian Country with tribes putting in around $3.3 million.
Despite past atrocities, Native Americans support alternative energy and

believe Congress should create a tax incentive to aid in developing these
technologies for tribes.
National Congress of American Indians, 2008, 2008 Political Platform, http://nativevote.org/documents/NCAI%20Politi
cal%20Platform%202008.doc.
WE BELIEVE in the importance of balancing natural resource and economic development with sustainable
conservation principles. To help combat climate change and simultaneously develop new economic opportunities, renewable
energy sources should be a priority for future energy development. Indian Nations across the country have a vast
renewable energy potential, and many of them are leading the way in developing wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy
sources. Indian tribes have a great capacity to assist in the national energy agenda, and work as partners in developing
progressive energy policies. We call upon Congress to adopt legislation that will create a Production Tax Incentive that
will allow Indian tribes to develop alternative energy sources in an economically feasible manner.
WE BELEVE that the United States, as legal trustee of Indian lands, has a special obligation to assist tribes in the
protection, management, and environmentally sound development of their natural resources, including reserved water
rights and mineral resources, toward the end of utilizing them to promote the development of sustainable, diversified, self
governing economies on Indian reservations. The history of the government’s efforts to make these decisions and to manage
these properties unilaterally is replete with scandalous failures, resulting in enormous liabilities for the government,
unmitigated environmental disasters, and incalculable financial losses for Indian tribes and resources owners. In its fiduciary
capacity, and in accordance with the federal Indian policy of tribal self-determination, the federal government must
make available appropriate private sector expertise, where requested, that will be responsive to tribal objectives and
cultural values in making decisions regarding resource development on Indian lands.
56
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
Implementing energy efficient programs saves tribes money.
Thomas L. Acker, William M. Auberle, John D. Eastwood, David R. LaRoche, Amanda S. Ormond, Robert P.
Slack, and Dean H. Smith, Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering, Professor, Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Lecturer in Economics, Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments, Principal, The
Ormond Group, Graduate Research Assistant, Mechanical Engineering, and Associate Professor, Economics
and Applied Indigenous Studies respectively; February 2004, College of Business Administration Northern
Arizona University, http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl
=en&lr=&client=firefoxa&q=cache:jBniSwlv3c8J:www.franke.nau.edu/Faculty/Intellectual/workingpapers/pdf/
Smith_EnergyEfficiency.pdf+Tribal+Energy+Program
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 handinhand with new electrification, providing a costeffective means to decrease
operating costs while improving the performance of newly electrified homes and other buildings.
Native America spends a lot for fossil fuels every year. Conversely, their potential for creating alternative
energy is huge.
Brian Awehali, Award winning journalist and tribal member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, 06-05-2005,
Native Energy Futures, http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featawehali_nativefutures.htm
The editors at the Business Journal might have been a tad hyperbolic in their assessment, but energy on Indian land is
certainly big business. In 2004, some $400 million was split between 41 tribes for the sale of oil, gas, and coal on their
lands. According to the Indigenous Environmental Network, 35% of the fossil fuel resources in the US are within Indian
country; The Department of the Interior estimates that Indian lands hold undiscovered reserves of almost 54 billion tons of
coal, 38 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 5.4 billion barrels of oil. Indian lands also contain enormous amounts of
alternative energy: “Wind blowing through Indian reservations in just four northern Great Plains states could support
almost 200,000 megawatts of wind power,” Winona LaDuke told Indian Country Today in March 2005. “[And] tribal
landholdings in the southwestern US…could generate enough power to eradicate all fossil fuel burning power plants in
the US.”
57
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
Tax subsidies are a mask for companies to imperialize.
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? “Consistent with the President’s
National Energy Policy to secure America’s energy future,” testified Theresa Rosier, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs, “increased energy development in Indian and Alaska Native communities could help the Nation have more
reliable home-grown energy supplies. [The Native American Energy Development and Self-Determination Act of 2003]
promotes increased and efficient energy development and production in an environmentally sound manner.”
The bill did not ultimately pass, but the idea that “America’s energy future” should be linked to having “more reliable
home-grown energy supplies” can be found in other native energy-specific legislation that has passed into law. What
this line of thinking fails to take into consideration is that Native America is not actually USAmerica, and that the
“supplies” in question belong to sovereign nations, not to the United States or its energy sector.
58
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
If we are ever to have a chance at fixing the ecological problem, indigenous
peoples must engage in sustainable development.
&docNo=59, This card has been internally edited
With respect to energy, however, we do know what the key elements of sustainable development must be. We know that
the burning of fossil fuels by humans is the leading source of the buildup of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere,
and that carbon dioxide is the most significant "greenhouse" gas in terms of its cumulative contribution to global
warming. n250 Although the industrialized countries are responsible for most of the carbon dioxide that has been added to the
atmosphere since the industrial revolution, the [Less Developed Countries'] share is increasing and can be expected to
grow dramatically if their energy policies rely primarily on fossil fuels. n251 Thus, if we are to have any hope of stabilizing
atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and avoiding the likelihood of global climate change associated with the
greenhouse effect, both the industrialized countries and the LDCs need to shift away from fossil fuels. n252 This means
that development must be energy efficient and that the favored options for producing energy must be solar and other renewable
energy technologies. n253
59
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
Despite the advantages of moving from fossil fuels, hard energy policies still
ravage indigenous peoples.
&docNo=59
In the late 1980s, as people became aware of the problem of global warming, the soft energy approach began to creep back into
the public dialogue. Global warming, after all, is largely caused by the emission of carbon dioxide from the combustion of
fossil fuels, and the soft energy approach seeks to displace the use of fossil fuels. n264 Although the Bush Administration
asserted that measures to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases would adversely affect the United States economy,
n265 a substantial body of analytical work shows that such assertions are unfounded. n266 [*730] Indeed, the economic
benefits of soft energy paths compare favorably to those of hard energy paths. n267 A body of literature based on Third
World experiences suggests that soft energy paths also can lead to substantial economic benefits for the LDCs,
particularly in rural areas where soft energy paths may be the only viable option. n268 The literature also suggests that we
must reconsider conventional ways of thinking about energy because the institutional frameworks that have been
developed for conventional energy technologies are often inappropriate for soft energy technologies. n269 The time has
come for political leaders to realize that soft energy paths are not only the key to dealing with global warming, but are also part
of the only viable long-term strategy for economic recovery in the United States and other industrialized countries and for
economic development in the Third World.
2. Conventional Energy and Indigenous Peoples -- For the dominant societies of the United States and other industrialized
and less developed countries, the failure of political leaders to see the sunlight and to embrace the vision of soft energy
paths has resulted in missed opportunities. The results for indigenous peoples have been tragic. Mining for nonrenewable
energy resources such as coal and uranium has wreaked environmental damage in the homelands of indigenous peoples
in the southwest and northern plains in the United States, as well as in northwestern Canada, Australia, and South
America. n270 The adverse [*731] environmental impacts of mining, especially surface mining, affect indigenous peoples in
a variety of ways, many of which should be obvious given the cultural and spiritual ties that indigenous peoples have
with the land. Impacts of nonrenewable energy development are not limited to mining. Oil extraction in the Amazon, which
is accompanied by roads, oil spills, and disease-bearing outsiders, has caused the destruction of some indigenous peoples
and threatens to destroy others. n271 Oil and gas exploration and extraction in northern Canada and Alaska have caused
damage to wildlife habitats and have opened up areas of the north to "sport hunters" who have recklessly depleted wildlife
populations. n272 A number of Alaska native villages suffered devastating impacts from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. n273 Moreover,
some indigenous peoples believe that the extraction of petroleum causes harm to the Earth itself and interferes with their duty
to protect the Earth. n274
60
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
Moving away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy has tremendous
economic benefits.
&docNo=59
For many reasons, choosing soft energy paths over hard energy paths will serve the interests of most people in the United
States economy and worldwide. Hard-path technologies are very capital intensive, while soft-path technologies are much
more labor intensive. n310 Thus, soft paths lead to more employment. Soft paths also tend to cost less, as do energy efficiency
measures, especially when cost accounting is done on a life-cycle basis where the typically high initial costs are offset by
savings from low operating costs later. n311 Accordingly, over the past two decades, soft paths have added much more to
new "supplies" of end-use energy in the United States economy than have hard paths, despite massive subsidies for
hard paths. n312 Because soft-path technologies use locally available resources and employ people to do work in local
economies, investments in soft paths pump money into local economies while hard-path spending drains money away to
other regions and other countries. n313 Money that stays home can be reinvested in other sectors of the economy.
Moreover, because soft-path supplies tend to be less capital intensive than hard path [*739] supply options, choosing soft
paths means that a larger portion of the total capital available for investment can be invested in other sectors. n314
61
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
It’s time for a new mental ecology. We must reconceptualize the way we view
the earth and think of it in a positive manner, for only when we envision the
coming together of the community can positive change occur. Indigenous
peoples have enacted these changes before, it is time we follow their path and
create a new earth of care and respect.
&docNo=59
Several of the writers whose works have been cited in this Article have called for individuals and communities and nations
to change the way we think about the Earth. n353 Indigenous peoples also have called for such a global change of mind.
n354
The oral history of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy provides an inspirational example of what can be
accomplished when people change the way they think. When the Peacemaker planted the Great Tree of Peace and
brought together the Five Nations to form the Confederacy, one of the keys to his success was persuading individuals to
use their powers of rational thought [*749] to overcome fear and hatred and to act for the common good. n355 This kind
of reasoning is what is sometimes called the "discipline of the Good Mind." n356 If we are to cope effectively with the global
environmental crisis, we will need for people all over the world to exercise such positive mental discipline. The authors of
Beyond the Limits suggest that there are essentially three mental models among which we can choose, only one of which
offers a chance of avoiding ecological collapse on a global scale. n357 This model says
That the limits are real and close, and that there is just exactly enough time, with no time to waste. There is just exactly
enough energy, enough material, enough money, enough environmental resilience, and enough human virtue to bring about a
revolution to a better world.
That model might be wrong. All the evidence we have seen, from the world data to the global computer models, suggests
that it might be right. There is no way of knowing for sure, other than to try it. n358
This conclusion, based on scientific analysis, bears a striking similarity to a statement made by one of the Kogi religious
leaders, a similarity which I think is not entirely coincidental. The words of the Kogi spokesman are these:
Many stories have been heard that the sun will go out, the world will come to an end. But if we all act well and think
well it will not end. That is why we are still looking after the sun and the moon and the land. n359
Around the world, indigenous peoples are doing their best to fulfill their sacred duties to care for the Earth. The states of
the world, nongovernmental organizations, and concerned individuals can help by respecting, and by insisting that others
respect, the human rights of indigenous peoples, including the right of self-determination.
Native American reservations are many of the windiest areas in the US.
The wind energy setbacks in Congress have been especially disappointing to some tribes, since their lands often have some of
the highest wind resource potential in the nation.
Research from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that many of the windiest areas in the U.S. are located close to
and on reservations. The laboratory has estimated that the total tribal wind generation potential is about 535 billion kwh per
year, or 14 percent of the total U.S. electric generation in 2004.
South Dakota alone is capable of producing 566 gigawatts of electrical power from wind, which is the equivalent of 52 percent of
the nation's electricity demand. Wind energy potential is also great in tribe-rich states including Montana, Minnesota and
Wyoming.
62
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
Native American tribes are awesome for alternative energy . Alternative
energy is awesome for tribes.
The role of Indian tribes in energy development is changing. No longer interested in passively leasing their natural
resources, tribes are becoming more aggressive in managing their own resources and more active participants in
regional markets and national policy development.
The circumstances and characteristics of renewable energy development are consistent with tribal goals of becoming
more self-reliant and expanding economic opportunities that are compatible with cultural and environmental values.
Many tribes have extensive renewable resources which, if developed, may serve the needs of rural electrification on the
reservation or provide a possible revenue stream in the event that power is sold to markets off the reservations. In the past,
energy development that has occurred on reservations has been initiated by private sector companies and federal agencies.
Renewable energy development on reservations is now being initiated by tribes, to meet tribal goals. This new approach
to energy development may require new relationships with outsiders, as tribes interact with private sector entities and
various government agencies, and new structures on the reservation, such as tribal utility authorities.
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.
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.
Wind is waiting to be made use of throughout Native American lands, but they
need the help of the government to achieve this goal.
Tex Hall, President of the National Congress of American Indians, 3-1-2004,
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/filter_detail.asp?itemid=678&print
Wind is an incredible untapped energy resource that could go a long way toward making this country energy
independent. It has been said that an ocean of energy crosses the Great Plains every day. Tribes here have many
thousands of megawatts of potential wind power blowing across our reservation lands.
Tribes in the Great Plains could look to the wind as a constant source of renewable energy to help meet our own local
energy needs in a way that protects our air, water, and land. Tribes are interested in protecting their sovereignty and
providing for their reservation communities. Tribally owned wind projects can provide an opportunity to generate
power locally in a clean way that meets our needs in an affordable way, now and for the future. Wind power can
provide several sources of revenue to the tribe, through the sale of energy, the sale of green tags, and the use of
production incentives.
But to realize this potential, tribes need technical assistance from the federal government to assess our resources and
site projects. We need to level the economic playing field so that tribes can use the production incentives available to off-
reservation development. Tribes need access to the federal grid to bring our value-added electricity to market
throughout our region and beyond.
Wind is part of our culture. Most of the Great Plains Tribes have distinct names and stories about the winds that recognize the
different personalities and characteristics of the winds coming from the four directions.
Today, our persistent winds represent a fabulous opportunity for all people on the Great Plains to generate clean, reliable
electricity without digging up our lands or polluting our air or water.
63
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
Tradable tax credits rock at life.
Tradable tax credits are a targeted, practical policy instrument. They have been used by the states, they are revenue
neutral, and they enjoy broad political support from politicians, policymakers, and tribal groups. Tradable tax credits
carry out the clearly articulated congressional goals of providing incentives to certain economic activities, reducing
tribal dependency through resource development, and increasing tribal sovereignty.
[*291]
Indian Country suffers from a $ 50 billion shortfall in capital investment. n101 The federal government has a number of
tools at its disposal which it can use to address the problem - a tradable tax credit is lying at the top of the toolbox and
should be made a permanent fixture of U.S. energy and Indian law.
Though there are many hindrances to Native American tribes developing

alternative energy sources, outside facilitation is welcome so long as it
benefits the tribe.
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.
Wind energy plentiful in native tribal land.

Stacy Feldman, Staff writer for Solve Climate, March 25, 2008, Solve Climate, http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080325/native-
americans-left-out-america-s-wind-power-boom
It’s too bad, really. Tapping the gales of the Northern Plains could be a giant, unprecedented boon for America’s clean
energy portfolio -- and the tribal economies of the area, of course.
Just ask The US Department of Energy. Even it has explicitly stated that the two dozen reservations in the northern
Great Plains have a combined wind power potential that's equal to a stunning 50 percent of the entire installed
electrical generation capacity in the United States.
64
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Solvency
Economic analysis of the environment is fundamentally flawed: it relies on a
false mindset that hinders it.
&docNo=59
The widespread tendency of economists to downplay the severity of global environmental problems results in part from
the intellectual framework of the discipline of economics, which is quite different from that of ecology. The Worldwatch
Institute explains this difference as follows:
From an economist's perspective, ecological concerns are but a minor subdiscipline of economics -- to be "internalized"
in economic models and dealt with at the margins of economic planning. But to an ecologist, the economy is a narrow
subset of the global ecosystem. Humanity's expanding economic activities cannot be separated from the natural systems
and resources from which they ultimately derive, and any activity that undermines the global ecosystem cannot continue
indefinitely. Modern societies, even with their technological sophistication, ignore dependence on nature at their own
peril. n225
Wind energy is beneficial to both small and large economies.

Kamaal R. Zaidi, Attorney, 2007, Albany Law Environmental Outlook Journal http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacade
mic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4168507277&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resul
tsUrlKey=29_T4168507282&cisb=22_T4168507281&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=221806&docNo=1
Wind energy is one of the fastest growing forms of renewable energy in the world. n68 Aside from having minimal negative
impact on the environment, wind energy technology impacts the economy by setting more reasonable electricity prices for
consumption, and creating new jobs in the renewable sector. n69 [*211] Infrastructure plans in both urban and rural
settings are incorporating wind energy in preparation for future resource development. In 2005 alone, Canada's wind
energy capacity grew by fifty four percent. n70 In Canada, like many other nations, there are two forms of wind energy
applications: (1) large scale and (2) small scale. n71 Large-scale wind generation gives power to local utility grid systems,
which provide energy to large communities. n72 Small-scale wind generation contributes to energy in smaller, more
locally designated sites. n73 With recent advances in wind turbine technology, application of wind energy is contributing to
employment in the renewable sector.
65
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Re-Envision History
The aff is able to “re-envision” US-Native American relations, which is key
solving past problems
William Bradford Professor of Law at University of Indiana 3/9/04 Beyond Reparations: An American Indian
Theory Of Justice Pg. 44
Therefore, the first step in applying JAI theory is the retelling and re-envisioning of U.S.-Indian
relations from “objective” perspectives as well as from the cultural viewpoint of the victims of that
history.364 Indian claims stories—rich sources of oral history that contextualize and humanize the Indian
experience while revealing the inadequacies of the record as it has been constructed—can be a powerful
source of liberation for all Americans.
Without a correct understanding of Native American history we cannot

properly address reparations.
Although most Americans disavow the malignant racism that inspired their forefathers,360 they
remain a remarkably presentist people, particularly with regard to the factual and moral understandings of
the events marking the “discovery,” formation, and expansion of their nation.361 This ahistoricism has
dire consequences for Indian redress, particularly where claims are asserted on unfamiliar intellectual
terrain and arise out of violations of complex historical agreements “rather than being ignited by the fire
of the moment[.]”362 Without a firm understanding of the nexus between past acts of injustice coupled
with the present effects of a legal order erected to serve the conqueror on the one hand and the Indian
claim for redress on the other, it is all too easy for existing theories of justice—particularly JAS, and to a
lesser extent JAC—to treat Indian claims as pleas for distributional justice rather than as moral arguments
demanding the internalization of the consequences of this unjust history.
A deeper understanding of US-Native American history is needed to establish justice

The brutal reality of invasion, slavery, forced relocation, genocide, land theft, ethnocide, and
forcible denial of the right to self-determine has not percolated deeply into contemporary understandings
of U.S-Indian history. The role of the U.S. in the deliberate destruction of Indian populations, property
rights, and cultural patrimonies is for most Americans a hidden history that must be revealed and asserted
as a factual predicate supporting redress before theories of justice can be evaluated.
66
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Re-Envision History
The US has historically failed to understand Native American concepts of. Past
efforts to establish self determination have failed.
Although no Indian tribe had codified a body of written law as of 1776, many tribes had kinship based
rules of conduct and belief that conditioned members to adhere to sacred values of order, harmony,
and peace.166 Intra-tribal disputes were typically resolved not through formal adjudication but rather with
the aid of respected elders who would guide disputants to a restorative compromise. “[T]hough it
appeared to the casual white observer that anarchy reigned,”167 spiritual consensus produced a coherent
jurisprudence. Despite retention of nearly exclusive subject matter and personal jurisdiction to the
territorial limits of their reservations even as of the late 19th century,168 Indian tribes, with no easily
identifiable legal institutions, procedures, or records, were beset by a constellation of religious
proselytizers and BIA agents who, concluding they were without law,169 imposed legal “civilization.”170
The 1883 case of Ex parte Crow Dog,171 in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal
conviction of an Indian charged with the murder of another Indian, induced Congress to extend the
complete coercive power of federal criminal law to the reservations. Determined to rectify the “savage
quality” of tribal law, Congress applied “white man’s morality”172 with the Major Crimes Act of 1885 to
expressly establish concurrent federal jurisdiction over major felonies committed by Indians on
reservations regardless of the status of their victims.173 Legal challenges failed to reestablish tribal legal
self-determination but provided the judiciary occasion to further undergird plenary power.174 The
paternalistic assault upon Indian legal sovereignty, joined on the religious front with the adoption of the
CIO/CFR courts, intensified during the Great Depression with the passage of the Indian Reorganization
Act of 1934 [“IRA”].175 Although the IRA expressly recognized that tribes might create their own
courts176 and enact their own laws,177 the legislation imposed BIA-drafted boilerplate constitutions178 that
created strange new substantive and procedural obligations. Moreover, after the passage of Public Law
280 in 1954,179 providing that specified States could unilaterally accept concurrent jurisdiction over
Indian territory within their borders, the entire body of State civil and criminal law was extended to
classes of cases involving Indians.180 Fearing that failure to create acceptable tribal courts would result in
States taking jurisdiction over all cases occurring on reservations,181 and understanding that review of the
exercise of regulatory jurisdiction over Indian affairs was an exercise in futility, tribes begrudgingly
implemented constitutions and adversarial justice systems.
67
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
68
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Re-Envision History
Only by granting sovereignty can the US fully heal past injustices.
However, if the U.S. acknowledges, recognizes responsibility for, and repairs the gross injustices suffered by Indians
over the course of its creation and expansion, JAI obligates
Indians to find it in their hearts and minds to forgive. If the U.S. restores a meaningful measure of land to
Indian tribes and amends its legal and political order to ensure respect for and protection of fundamental
Indian rights to self-determination, a new regime of peace and justice worthy of emulation and export
must be rewarded with the most precious gift Indians can bestow: forgiveness. By forgiving the U.S. and
all its people in a solemn ceremony479 broadcast globally to symbolize the dawn of the new relationship,
Indians will finally be allowed to heal, and all Americans will be released from the chains of history and
freed to forge a better tomorrow. The U.S. and Indian tribes are not only intertwined geographically and
historically, they are interdependent. Indian autonomy and prosperity on the one hand, and U.S.
legitimacy and global leadership on the other, are inseverable, with each a necessary condition for the full
realization of the other.480 Just as the political and economic development of its “domestic dependent
nations” is tied to U.S. leadership of the global political economy, so also is the moral legitimacy of the
U.S. linked to its respect and promotion of the rights of Indians of Indians to self-determine. If U.S.-
Indian relationships advance on the basis of a recognition of, and respect for, mutual sovereignties, with
disputes resolved not by coercion and domination but by negotiation and harmonization, a new era of just
peace, worthy of emulation and export, will follow.
69
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Re-Envision History
Native American Self Determination is an essential process in the healing of
past injustices.
In fact, most tribes do not define secession and independent statehood as the desired end-state of a program
of self-determination but rather an intermediate status that would devolve degrees of political and legal
power that has been arrogated to the U.S. and the States and allow tribes to “challenge . . . intrusions across
the full spectrum of locations at which . . . injury is felt.”452 A pragmatic approach, organized around issue-area
autonomy, that would allow Indians to “recuperate” traditional laws and modalities of governance453 and assert
alternative institutional structures more consonant with their cultural imperatives represents an approach to self-
determination that demands a lesser quantum of independence while departing sufficiently from the current
paradigm to satisfy most tribes.454 Under this approach, which might well be implemented by the resumption
of the treatymaking process, the presumption against autonomous tribal self-governance, gradually accreting
since the early 19th century,455 would be overturned, and tribes would once more be presumed to possess near-
absolute territorial autonomy complete with the powers to create and enforce laws over all persons within
their jurisdiction in respect to all issue-areas, save for commerce and the dimensions of external sovereignty—
i.e., foreign relations and defense. Where Indian self-determination does not implicate the external powers of U.S.
sovereignty, matters concerning whether and how Indians choose to hunt and fish, to produce the necessities of life,
to raise children, to pass on knowledge to succeeding generations, to create and enforce law, and to worship ought
simply to be of no concern beyond the territorial limits of Indian jurisdiction. Finally, under the pragmatic
program of Indian self-determination, rather than shed their allegiance to the U.S., individual Indians
would, through participation in their own institutions and the elaboration of their own systems of social
regulation and welfare, enjoy an enhanced bicultural identity while retaining their national identity as U.S.
citizens.
The US has demolished Native American rights of self-governance, destroying

their ability to be fully independent.
Although Indian tribes are separate sovereigns in retention of all rights and powers not explicitly
ceded to the U.S. by treaty196 or abrogated by explicit legislative intent,197 U.S. Indian policy has been
generally hostile to the right of Indian tribes to self-govern as politically distinct communities.198 If the
theme of the 19th century was eradication of Indians and the seizure of their land, the motif of the 20th
century was the destruction by law of tribal sovereignty. With the passage of the IRA, Indian tribes,
traditionally hyperdemocratic and consensus-driven institutions,199 were reconstituted and subjected to the
veto power of the Secretary of the Interior;200 subsequent legislative and judicial action has stripped
Indian tribes of control over their form, property, and powers.201 Relations with post-IRA Indian tribes,
rather than proceed as if between mutual sovereigns, are conducted largely through a welter of executive
agencies.202 As a result, the terms and conditions of Indian existence are frequently dictated from Washington, rather than
debated on the reservations.203 Federal agencies to which Congress delegates
power smother tribes under a blanket of regulation204 that, although it provides the means of subsistence,
suppresses traditional modes of social control and value allocation, and the Secretary of the Interior looms
large over every aspect of tribal life.205 A dawning recognition that Indians are entitled to self-govern has
spurred calls to end the fundamental asymmetry of U.S.-Indian relations. Nevertheless, decades after
introduction of the federal policy of “Indian Self-Determination,”206 tribes remain politically subordinate
to and thus economically dependent upon the U.S.
70
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Re-Envision History
Tribes have everything going for them for the alternative energy development.
Indian tribes, through a unique combination of natural resources, political/legal status, and increased ability to meet internal
needs have the potential to make a significant contribution to the development and utilization of the nation's renewable energy
supply. Deregulation of the electric utility industry, national environmental policy changes, and the ability of tribes to use their
unique legal status to promote the development of renewable energy represent important opportunities, both for tribes and for
non-Indian entities. Several renewable energy projects are already underway on Indian reservations across the country, however, the
potential for tribes to meet their own energy needs, as well as the growing demand for renewable energy in other markets, is
largely unfulfilled. Many of the constraints which have excluded tribes from playing a meaningful role in public policy formulation
or economic development on their lands continue to be barriers to active tribal participation in renewable energy development.
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:
• Tribes have abundant solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal resources.
• Renewable energy is often the most cost effective solution for rural electrification and remote power needs.
• Renewable energy technologies have low environmental impacts and are generally compatible with tribal cultures.
• Renewable energy projects can be built in modular ways, requiring lower capital costs.
• Tribal legal status provides unique financing options.
• Renewable energy development may provide an opportunity to offset declining revenues from fossil fuel production.
• Developing renewable energy can be an integral component of tribal self-sufficiency, sovereignty, and nation-building.
The alternative energy industry is primed for Native Americans right now.
The electric utility industry is currently undergoing significant changes, to respond to demand for more deregulated,
competitive markets, as well as increased awareness and concern among consumers regarding quality and price of
service and environmental preservation. This phenomenon is creating important new opportunities and risks, both for
traditional industry stakeholders and for new market entrants. Indian tribes that have been involved in conventional
energy resource development, as well as tribes that are exploring ways to utilize new technologies and renewable energy
resources, must assess these emerging opportunities and risks within the context of the goals, values and resources of
their respective tribal governments and reservations. Tribes that are currently developing or that are considering
developing renewable energy resources must reconcile the objectives of self-sufficiency and self-determination with the
new market opportunities both on and off the reservation.
71
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Re-Envision History
Native American tribes have industry preference.
In addition, tribal governments are considered "preference customers" of power marketing administrations. As
preference customers, they can enter into contracts with PMAs for firm wholesale power, regardless of existing PMA
contract commitments to its other customers. Although tribes do not have to establish "tribal utility authorities" to
become preference customers, they do have to acquire the means for accepting and distributing any power received
from a power marketing administration. If a tribe were to develop electrical generation (whether conventional or
renewable), it could use its status as a PMA preference customer to obtain hydroelectric power at wholesale (i.e.,
reduced) prices, to "firm" its electrical generation capability and output. While a tribe obtaining wholesale power from
a PMA can not resell the power for a profit (except as authorized), tribes that develop generation and wish to market
surplus power may be able to take advantage of the new FERC Rules 888-889 (described in Section 1I.A.1 of this paper,
Federal Initiatives: The FERC's Open Access Rule) to obtain transmission to potential markets.
Tribes have the ability to organize to be very effective.

In the face of the changes occurring in the electric utility industry and the simultaneous potential barrier of price and
opportunity presented by "green power," tribes are in a position to structure their resource development to respond
effectively to different likely market scenarios. Tribes could establish or become "independent renewable (and
conventional) power producers" (IPPs), distribution utilities, power generators and/or operators of transmission, or joint
venture partners in resource development or power generation projects. In any of these pursuits new organizations
(structures) will have to be adopted by tribes, and this will require extensive deliberations by governing councils and
tribal members and, ultimately, financial commitment and leadership. This means that, in addition to possessing the
renewable energy resource, tribes must meet some minimal organizational priorities.
The concept of an "energy board" or an independent development arm of the tribe is frequently suggested as an
appropriate organizational structure to pursue energy development on the reservation. The concept has appeal because
such a board could function outside of the main tribal political system, thus maintaining an independent incorporated
status vis a vis the industry and other governments.
72
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Re-Envision History
Native tribes are key to the development of alternative energy.
Vernon Masayesva, chairman of the Hopi Tribe and executive director of the Black Mesa Trust, 1997, in
Crossing the Threshold, Preface to Indian Tribes: Their Unique Role In Developing The Nation's Renewable
Energy Resources, Paul Parker, ed
One of the most compelling reasons for a bullish outlook on renewables is that an important, new constituency has
joined the parade. Indian tribes have discovered, or more correctly, rediscovered the promise and potential of
renewable energy. Reservations are in fact, poised to become the Nation's showplace for renewable energy development.
They are not only situated in the most concentrated renewable resource zones (as the White Paper shows), but they also
represent new sources of aggregate demand. Reservations offer logical sites for bulk generation facilities, logical settings
for remote applications, logical settings for distributed generation and logical settings for new transmission interties.
Reservations are, in short, the vital link that can 'bring renewables to market."
Tribal governments are also well positioned politically to play an aggressive role in the Country's renewable future.
Their sovereign status makes tribes logical players in the new "restructured" electric utility industry. And we should
not forget that many tribal governments have a wealth of experience with conventional energy development. From 1937
to 1995 Indian reservations were the source of nearly $18 billion in coal sales, $5 billion in gas sales, $9.8 billion in oil sales,
and $2.5 billion in sales ot other energy sources. The total value of energy produced on Indian reservations since 1937 now
exceeds $25.5 billion!
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.
Traditional West Fails
73
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
The unwillingness to give Native Americans self-determination is driven by

dominant western philosophy, and is devastating to Natives.
William Bradford Professor of Law at University of Indiana 05 Another Such Victory And We Are Undone: A
Call To An American Indian Declaration Of Independence Pg. 4
Even if federal Indian law was not already structurally incompatible with the selfdetermination16
of Indian nations and ready-made for exploitation by foes of sovereign governments within the external borders of the U.S.,
its interpretation, guided by the dominant
philosophies of Western liberal jurisprudence and modern international legal positivism—the
former distrustful of the Indian normative universe and thus bent upon remaking tribes to
comport with a secular, individualist model of governance; the latter unwilling to recognize
tribes as subjects of law and as bearers of natural legal rights actionable in domestic and
international courts—would prove hostile, and perhaps fatal, to territorially-based Indian
sovereignty.
The American legal process is entirely incompatible with Native Americans;

any attempt to work with the courts will fail, or stop short of secession will
fail.
William Bradford Professor of Law at University of Indiana 05 Another Such Victory And We Are Undone: A
Call To An American Indian Declaration Of Independence Pg. 5
Part I of this Article briefly sketches the ongoing historical process whereby tribal
sovereignty, once accorded great deference by the international community, has been
incrementally denatured and corroded by federal Indian law. Part II situates Lara within this
history and reframes the decision as a Pyrrhic victory for Indian tribal sovereignty. Part III
defends the premise that federal Indian law and its interpretation and application in courts of the
United States is an irremediably evil legal system utterly inconsistent with contemporary understandings of the natural
right to self-determination. Part IV propounds an alternative legal
theory, rooted in natural law and partly reflected in the international indigenous rights regime,
that substantiates the right of Indian tribes to a quantum of self-determination incompatible with
continued political association with the United States. Part V elaborates and defends an
American Indian Declaration of Independence as the legitimate expression of the natural legal
right of Indian peoples to self-determination and as a rejoinder to Lara and the philosophical and
historical foundation upon which it rests. Finally, Part VI examines and rejects alternate
proposals for the realization of Indian self-determination that stop short of secession.
74
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
A2: (They Don’t Deserve Help)

JAS theory is one of imperialist conquest, which is inherently biased against
Native Americans, and uses their survival of Genocide against them.
At its core, JAS theory is a not terribly subtle justification for conquest and forced assimilation.
While JAS theorists may consider this characterization as reductionist and reflexively dismissive of the
obvious merits of their theory—namely, its pragmatic and utilitarian approach to preserving the interests
of the non-Indian majority—stripped of its academic veneer JAS theory is little more than the medieval
dogmas once enunciated by conquistadors as justification for their adventures in the Americas. The
indispensability thesis central to JAS theory—that formerly Indian lands are indispensable not to Indian
survival, as Indians have somehow survived without them, but to non-Indians currently in possession,
who would suffer impoverishment and uprooting were they stripped of title—actually marshals the fact
that Indians have managed to survive expropriation, genocide, and ethnocide as evidence against their
claim: had Indians been extinguished as the consequence of the expropriation of their lands, then and only
then would JAS theorists concede that Indian lands were indispensable to Indians, and even then there
would be no claimants left for the benefit of whom justice might be done. In other words, Indians have
proven that they can do without Indian lands, but non-Indians either cannot or should not have to make
the same showing. The only explanations JAS theory offers to support its historical agnosticism and
differential treatment are two: (1) that was then, and this is now; and (2) the fundamental precept of
Western liberal jurisprudence, that like cases are decided alike, does not apply to Indian claims.
JAS is a racist theory, which foster rationalizes genocide against Native

Americans
In other words, rather than present a theory of justice, JAS theorists elaborate a rationalization for
genocide and ethnocide that suggests to Indians that “our culture is superior to yours, that’s why we won
the war, and to the victors go the spoils, so either content yourselves with scraps we throw you savages or
better yet shed your anachronistic Indianness and embrace our modern civilization, but either way stop
bringing up the past—it poisons our national body politic and scares us nice non-Indian people.” Simply
put, JAS, almost absolutely indifferent to the present effects of past injustice, categorically rejects any
moral or legal obligations flowing from conquest and genocide In the face of the claim that the theft of
Indian land and the murder of Indian people are neutral facts, Indians might conclude that the only path to
justice is down the very same road whereby their rights to land and self-determination were taken.
75
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Modeling
It’s time for a new mental ecology. We must reconceptualize the way we view
the earth and think of it in a positive manner, for only when we envision the
coming together of the community can positive change occur. Indigenous
peoples have enacted these changes before, it is time we follow their path and
create a new earth of care and respect.
&docNo=59
Several of the writers whose works have been cited in this Article have called for individuals and communities and nations
to change the way we think about the Earth. n353 Indigenous peoples also have called for such a global change of mind.
n354
The oral history of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy provides an inspirational example of what can be
accomplished when people change the way they think. When the Peacemaker planted the Great Tree of Peace and
brought together the Five Nations to form the Confederacy, one of the keys to his success was persuading individuals to
use their powers of rational thought [*749] to overcome fear and hatred and to act for the common good. n355 This kind
of reasoning is what is sometimes called the "discipline of the Good Mind." n356 If we are to cope effectively with the global
environmental crisis, we will need for people all over the world to exercise such positive mental discipline. The authors of
Beyond the Limits suggest that there are essentially three mental models among which we can choose, only one of which
offers a chance of avoiding ecological collapse on a global scale. n357 This model says
enough energy, enough material, enough money, enough environmental resilience, and enough human virtue to bring about a
revolution to a better world.
Many stories have been heard that the sun will go out, the world will come to an end. But if we all act well and think
well it will not end. That is why we are still looking after the sun and the moon and the land. n359
Around the world, indigenous peoples are doing their best to fulfill their sacred duties to care for the Earth. The states of
the world, nongovernmental organizations, and concerned individuals can help by respecting, and by insisting that others
respect, the human rights of indigenous peoples, including the right of self-determination.
76
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Modeling
Within the international community, indigenous peoples are fighting for their
lives, but are threatened by nations and corporations seeking fuel. We must
act to aid in preserving their culture.
&docNo=59
All over the world, indigenous peoples n16 are fighting for their lives and for their ways of life. n17 Some indigenous peoples
have been engaged in these struggles for hundreds of years, while other peoples, because of the remoteness of the
environments in which they live, have been spared from such struggles until more recent times. But remoteness no
longer ensures protection. The industrialized countries of the world and transnational corporations now have the
technological capability to extract oil from the once untouchable Arctic and Amazon, to build massive hydropower dams, to
rearrange river systems from the tundra to the tropics, and to clearcut forests virtually anywhere in the world. The governments
of the less developed countries also have access to this brutal technological capability.
The economies, the cultures, and the religious world views of indigenous peoples are based upon the environments in
[*679] which they live. n18 The destruction of these environments renders the survival of these peoples as distinct societies
difficult or impossible. Despite the forces that threaten their survival, however, indigenous peoples in many parts of the
world somehow have managed to carry on. With a total estimated population of some 200 to 300 million, indigenous
peoples constitute about four or five percent of the world's population. n19
Even though indigenous peoples are minority cultures, n20 they rightly insist that we draw a distinction between them
and ethnic or national minorities. Generally, the distinction reflects the legacy of the age of colonialism. One definition of
the term "indigenous" was proposed by the Special Rapporteur on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous
Populations, who was appointed under the auspices of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination
and Protection of Minorities:
Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-
colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now
prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to
preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, [*680] and their ethnic identity, as the
basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal
systems. n21
Although no commonly accepted definition of indigenous peoples has yet been fashioned, n22 the Special Rapporteur's
definition includes some of the key concepts that fit most cases. Particularly, it includes the concepts that indigenous peoples
identify themselves as indigenous, that their ways of life are tied to their ancestral territories, that peoples who are relative
newcomers exercise some degree of political domination over them, and that they are determined to remain distinct peoples.
Although some of these factors also apply to many ethnic minorities, the cultural connection to ancestral lands generally serves
to distinguish indigenous peoples from ethnic minorities. n23 All over the world, indigenous peoples express their connection to
their lands and their respect for the environment in spiritual terms. n24 They provide living proof that it is possible [*681] for
human societies to provide for their needs over countless generations without destroying the ecosystems on which they depend,
and that religious teachings can serve at least as well as science in setting the rules for living in balance with the natural world.
Although some indigenous peoples do not face imminent threats to their survival as distinct peoples, many do, and the forces
that threaten them are largely beyond their control. To a large extent, the peoples of the industrialized (and industrializing)
world have the power to decide whether indigenous peoples will survive. Utilitarian reasons can be advanced for
ensuring indigenous peoples' survival. For instance, we can learn from their experience in balancing human needs with
environmental preservation and from their knowledge of herbal medicine. To do this, however, we need to take some time
to appreciate the subtleties of teachings which have been handed down over countless generations since mythic time. At
another level, however, one can argue that we should not be governed by utilitarian thinking alone. We should act instead on
principle. Indigenous peoples are part of the human family and we should treat them as such. We should recognize that
they are entitled to human rights under international law as a matter of principle.
77
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Modeling
Renewable energy sources are key to Indigenous rights worldwide.
AGE, University of Michigan Law Review, Lexis
Five hundred years after the dawn of the age of colonialism, Mother Earth is in danger, and so are many of the indigenous
peoples that somehow have managed to survive as distinct [*748] societies. Indigenous peoples seek recognition of their
human rights under international law, and they regard environmental protection as a necessary part of their human
rights. In the industrialized countries and the LDCs, many people in the environmental movement have embraced the concept
of sustainable development as a necessary part of any long-term strategy to resolve global environmental problems. In any
realistic strategy to achieve sustainable development, energy efficiency and community-scale renewable energy systems
must be prominently featured.
This Article has presented an overview of the emerging international law of the human rights of indigenous peoples and has
argued that, for the promise of the international recognition of these rights to be fulfilled, the industrialized countries
and the LDCs must choose to take soft energy paths and must make concerted efforts to achieve real progress along
these paths. This Article also has suggested some ways in which tribal leaders in the United States could help to expedite the
global transition to the solar age. The reasons for choosing soft energy paths are both principled and pragmatic. Indigenous
peoples are part of the human family and, by that simple fact, they deserve to be treated with dignity and with respect
for their human rights. Aside from principle, and although we may not realize it, the people of the industrialized world and
the less developed countries need indigenous peoples to survive as distinct societies. As the people of the world strive for
models of development that are sustainable over the long term, we need, as examples, indigenous peoples whose ways of life
have proven to be sustainable over countless generations, since the dawn of mythic time.
Several of the writers whose works have been cited in this Article have called for individuals and communities and nations to
change the way we think about the Earth. n353 Indigenous peoples also have called for such a global change of mind. n354 The
oral history of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy provides an inspirational example of what can be accomplished
when people change the way they think. When the Peacemaker planted the Great Tree of Peace and brought together the Five
Nations to form the Confederacy, one of the keys to his success was persuading individuals to use their powers of rational
thought [*749] to overcome fear and hatred and to act for the common good. n355 This kind of reasoning is what is sometimes
called the "discipline of the Good Mind." n356 If we are to cope effectively with the global environmental crisis, we will need
for people all over the world to exercise such positive mental discipline. The authors of Beyond the Limits suggest that
there are essentially three mental models among which we can choose, only one of which offers a chance of avoiding
ecological collapse on a global scale. n357 This model says
enough energy, enough material, enough money, enough environmental resilience, and enough human virtue to bring about
a revolution to a better world.
Many stories have been heard that the sun will go out, the world will come to an end. But if we all act well and think well it
will not end. That is why we are still looking after the sun and the moon and the land. n359
Around the world, indigenous peoples are doing their best to fulfill their sacred duties to care for the Earth. The states
of the world, nongovernmental organizations, and concerned individuals can help by respecting, and by insisting that
others respect, the human rights of indigenous peoples, including the right of self-determination.
78
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Neg
79
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
JAS(They Don’t Need Reparations)
Although terrible the injustices against native Americans were commit

centuries in the past, making reparations a naïve attempt to solve “dead
history”.
JAS theorists reject as foolishly naïve a “natural way of reasoning” that would require that lands illicitly taken by colonial
invaders and passed on to their descendants through the generations be nonetheless returned.275 Although JAS theory
recognizes that the historical record has an important place in the development and application of a theory of justice
with respect to Indian claims, for JAS theorists the historical injustices suffered by Indian claimants must be weighed
against the current injustice that would be inflicted upon innocent owners now in possession of erstwhile Indian lands
were those lands stripped away and restored to Indian ownership.276 To sanction a moral understanding that demands
restoration of Indian lands would have practical effects, foremost among them the dispossession and impoverishment of
non-Indian landowners, an outcome with which JAS theorists are not prepared to abide.277 To avoid this, JAS theorists
urge us to reconceive of the historical injustices suffered by Indian tribes and individuals as a “dead history”278 and to
accept that Indian claims for redress have been superseded by demographic and ecological transformations279—in other
words, while injustice may have been inflicted in centuries past, injustice is perishable, and the accreting rights of non-Indians
in Indian land have incrementally extinguished, or at least rendered morally irrelevant, any present claims for its restoration.
80
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Cash Not Enough
Cash is not enough to heal the wounds left by centuries of injustice against
Native Americans. Only by giving rights of self-determination can justice be
acquired.
However, JAC theory is morphologically similar to reparations, and thus far too quick to assume
that cash and Indian land are commensurable327 and far too susceptible to counter-claims that, even if
money may in respect to some tribal claims be a roughly adequate remedy, sufficient compensation either
has already been paid or will be paid to discharge the obligation to remedy all the past injustices visited
upon all Indians. Simply put, money can play at best an indirect part in the satisfaction of the harms of
which Indians complain: although a diversity of opinion exists within Indian Country, most Indians desire
above all not to be made whole financially but rather to exercise their rights to self-determine and to
324 Although express their unique cultures and religions upon their sacred ancestral lands.328 Only land restoration and
legal transformations that permit the (re)development of separate political identities can actualize these
fundamental rights and relieve the economic deprivation and emotional pain Indians bear
intergenerationally. While cash would improve Indians’ bargaining position in regard to reclamation of
lands and reduce their sociopolitical dependency upon the U.S., there is no amount of money that can
compel unwilling sellers, public or private, to reconvey formerly Indian lands, and no dollar figure for
which tribes would be willing to trade their right to self-govern. Cash, however beneficial to its
recipients, cannot restore to Indians the capacity to self-determine on their aboriginal landmass.
81
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Corps Will Screw
Tax subsidies are a mask for companies to imperialize.

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? “Consistent with the President’s
National Energy Policy to secure America’s energy future,” testified Theresa Rosier, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs, “increased energy development in Indian and Alaska Native communities could help the Nation have more
reliable home-grown energy supplies. [The Native American Energy Development and Self-Determination Act of 2003]
promotes increased and efficient energy development and production in an environmentally sound manner.”
The bill did not ultimately pass, but the idea that “America’s energy future” should be linked to having “more reliable
home-grown energy supplies” can be found in other native energy-specific legislation that has passed into law. What
this line of thinking fails to take into consideration is that Native America is not actually USAmerica, and that the
“supplies” in question belong to sovereign nations, not to the United States or its energy sector.
Alligning with native Americans has become a veneer for privatization through
no-bid business.
The Alaska tribal companies have, according to Scherer, “become a way for large corporations with no Native American
ownership to receive no-bid contracts, an avenue for federal officials to steer work to favored companies, and a device
for speeding privatization.” Evidence for this assertion abounds. From 2002 through the end of 2004, the Olgoonik
Corporation, owned by the Inupiat Eskimo tribe, garnered revenues in excess of $225 million for construction work on
US military bases around the world. Because of its tribal status, Olgoonik procured this work without having to bid
against others for it. It then subcontracted most of the work to the infamous multinational corporation Halliburton.
82
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Corps will screw

Empirically, Native based Alternative Energy companies have been used to
further pollution covertly.
NativeEnergy, which wants to help consumers “enjoy a climate neutral lifestyle,” was founded in 2000 with a mission “to get
more wind turbines and other renewable energy systems built.” There were no Native Americans present in the
management of NativeEnergy at the time of its founding. The multiphase wind development initiative, which began in
earnest with the completion of the first wind turbine in 2003, was billed as a way to bring renewable energy–related jobs
and training opportunities to the citizens of this sovereign nation, who are among the poorest in all of North America.
NativeEnergy’s President and CEO Tom Boucher is an energy industry vet who formerly worked at Green Mountain Energy,
a subsidiary of a company now controlled by oil industry giant BP and Nuon, a Netherlands-based energy company. Boucher
was convinced there was profit to be made in alternative energy, and the Rosebud project was his test case. Boucher
financed the project by selling, of all things, air. More specifically, he took advantage of the new “flexible emissions
standards” created by the Kyoto Protocol. Essentially, the standards created tax-deductible pollution credits (or “green
tags”) for ecologically responsible companies, which can then be sold to polluters wishing to “offset” their carbon
dioxide generation without actually reducing their emissions.
83
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Legislation Solves
Recent legislation has removed many of the legal protectors of Native

American rights that existed in the past.
It’s probably no coincidence that this purchase coincided with that month’s passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which
contains native energy–specific provisions in its Title V. Supporters like Tex Hall, president of the National Congress of
American Indians, touted the act as “one of the most important tribal pieces of legislation to hit Indian country in the past
20 years. [It] provides real incentives for energy companies to partner with Indian tribes in developing tribal resources.”
Keeping in mind that tribal-owned companies are exempt from a great deal of the regulation, oversight, and
competitive bidding stipulations that apply to other businesses, and that the legislation increases subsidies for wind
energy in particular, the act leaves NativeEnergy ideally situated to exploit its tribal status.
But there are a host of alarming provisions in the act. For starters, Section 1813 of Title V gives the US the obviously
dangerous power to grant rights of way through Indian lands without permission from Indian tribes, if deemed to be in
the strategic interests of an energy-related project. Other critics have derided the act as a fire sale on Indian energy,
characterizing various incentives as a broad collection of subsidies for US energy companies, particularly those in Texas. And,
according to a 2005 Democracy Now! interview with Clayton Thomas-Muller, Native Energy Organizer for the Indigenous
Environmental Network, the act “rolls back the protections of the National Environmental Policy Act and the protections
of the National Historic Preservation Act, both of which are critical pieces of legislation that grassroots indigenous
peoples utilize to protect our sacred sites.”
Most importantly, under the guise of promoting tribal sovereignty (leaving out those aspects of sovereignty that have little or
nothing to do with economics), the act also releases the federal government from its traditional trust responsibility to
tribes where resource development is concerned.
The trust relationship between the US and native tribes has been a crucial way for Native Americans to hold the
government legally accountable, as evidenced by the many recent court losses suffered by the Department of the Interior and
Treasury during the years-long Indian Trust Case filed by Eloise Cobell on behalf of more than 500,000 Native American
landholders. [See “Fighting Long Odds,” November 2003.] The trust relationship was originally imposed on Native Americans
in 1887, after the passage of the Dawes Allotment Act. This act was a fairly straightforward (and successful) attempt to
break down tribal unity by dispersing parcels of land to individual Indian “heads of household” who signed on to the
government’s “tribal rolls.” The land was not to be managed by Native Americans, however: It was held “in trust,” and
the government was supposed to disburse to Native landholders the royalties generated by the leasing of their lands to
timber, mining, livestock, and energy interests. But for the most part, the government didn’t disburse the money, and now
admits that at least $137 billion of it is simply missing. Without the trust relationship, which among other things makes the
government legally responsible for the money it manages, Cobell and her coplaintiffs could not have sued.
84
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Legislation Solves
Legislation isn’t as benign as it seems – even the most recent ecological legislation that affected Native
Americans was really imperialism in disguise.
The Energy Policy Act also shifts responsibility for environmental review and regulation from the federal to tribal
governments. This, too, was promoted under the auspices of increasing tribal sovereignty, but it doesn’t take a genius to
know that Native Americans won’t be any more successful in regulating the energy industry than the US government, a
host of well-funded environmental groups, and the UN have been. In fact, it probably only takes a village-variety idiot to
comprehend the predictably disastrous outcome of this shift for Native Americans.
It’s hard to believe, in light of the relevant history, that an ever-avaricious energy industry—which has been all too willing to
play a game of planetary ecological brinksmanship in the name of profit—places any value on tribal sovereignty unless there’s
a way to exploit it. It’s hard to believe, after hundreds of years of plunder and unaccountability, that further deregulation,
coupled with economic incentives, and even with the participation of some well-meaning “green” players on the field, is going
to deliver anything but the predictable domination of Native Americans by white European economic powers.
In fact, I’ll go out on a limb and say that the emerging Native American energy infrastructure looks more like the
beginnings of a new rush on Indian lands than it does the advent of any kind of brave new sovereign era.
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.”
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 allocated $2 billion to assist with Tribal energy.
George W. Bush, President of the United States, November 2, 2005, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051102
16.html
To enhance energy opportunities and strengthen tribal economies, my Administration is working to ease the regulatory
barriers associated with tribal energy development. In August, I signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, allocating $2 billion
in the form of grants, loans, and loan guarantees for exploration, development, and production of energy. This
legislation will help ensure that latest energy technologies are being used throughout our country.
Currently, The Energy Policy Bill of 2005 assists tribes in energy resources.
Environment News Service, 9-8-05, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2005/2005-08-08-01.asp, Internally Edited
Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, a Democrat who co-chairs the Senate Energy Committee with fellow New Mexican
Republican Pete Domenici, said the [Energy Policy] bill [of 2005] will help Native Americans. The bill creates an Office of
Indian Energy Policy & Programs at the Department of Energy that will use grants, technical assistance, and loan
guarantees to assist Pueblos and Tribes with the production of energy resources; increasing the supply of electricity to
Indian homes and businesses; and managing energy development and use in a manner that protects tribal lands and
communities.
"This new energy policy will give Indian Country a voice at the Department of Energy and will help tribes cut through
the bureaucracy that has held up energy development on Indian lands," Bingaman said. "This is a major step forward."
Legislation Solves
Legislation is pending on incentives for tribes.
85
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
WASHINGTON - As growing numbers of tribes pursue wind energy projects, tribal energy advocates are cautiously
hoping that new developments in Congress could eventually lead to tax credits and incentives to aid tribal economies.
''We're not really holding our breath for Congress to step in with funding,'' said Bruce Renville, a wind energy planner with the
Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe. ''But certainly, grants or other incentives would be helpful.''
In recent weeks, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., co-sponsored the bipartisan Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008, which
would extend the renewable energy production tax credit for one year. The current production tax credit incentive of 2 cents
per kilowatt-hour is scheduled to expire in December.
Thune's proposed production tax credit would only benefit entities that already have profits from wind energy
production, but the legislation also includes bond funding that tribes could apply for to help establish wind energy
projects.
The DOE is trying to offset the cost of setting up wind resources to Native Americans through loans.
US Department of Energy, 9-27-2005,
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/na_anemometer_loan.asp
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) Native American Anemometer Loan Program is part of an
effort to promote the installation of wind turbines on Native American lands. NREL's program allows Native American
tribes to borrow anemometers and the equipment needed for installation so that they may measure the wind resource
on tribal lands. By significantly reducing the cost of quantifying the wind resource in tribal lands, NREL expects that more
tribes will be encouraged to install wind turbines. The Anemometer Loan Program is administered jointly by NREL and
the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) as part of the U.S. Department of Energy's Wind Powering America
Initiative. The map below shows the locations where anemometers are currently installed and where monitoring is complete.
86
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
No Solvency
Despite the potential of wind energy, other issues must be addressed before it will be
successful.
US Department of Energy, 4-10-2008,
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/native_americans.asp
There are more than 700 American Indian tribes and Native Alaskan villages and corporations located on 96 million acres
in the United States. Many of these tribes and villages have excellent wind resources that could be commercially developed
to meet their electricity needs or for electricity export.
Changing national utility policy, a keen interest in economic development, environmental concerns, and availability of low-
cost financing have kindled a strong interest in tribal wind development opportunities. However, several key issues need
to be addressed, including lack of wind resource data, tribal utility policies, sovereignty, perceived developer risk,
limited loads, investment capital, technical expertise, and especially transmission to markets.
87
Natives Aff
DDI 2008 BQ
Neg Inherency
Tribes currently have the autonomy to regulate air quality within their reservations.
The Regional Haze Rule
In 1999, EPA issued the national regional haze rule (RHR). (64 Fed.Reg. 35714-35774, codified at 40 CFR
51.300-309). Although the RHR has provisions that apply to all states and tribes in the United States, one provision
of the RHR embraces the recommendations of the GCVTC and offers states in that region the option of complying with
the RHR requirements by developing implementation plans to achieve the goals set forth by the GCVTC and later by the EPA. Section 309
of the RHR presents a method of reducing haze that focuses on the implementation of renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Tribes within the GCVTC Region may seek approval from the EPA to implement the regional haze program through tribal
implementation plans (TIPs) developed under the provisions of the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR). Promulgated in 1998, the
TAR recognizes the authority of eligible tribes to regulate all sources of air pollution within the exterior boundaries of
the reservation, including those on non-Indian-owned fee land within the reservation. Tribes generally are exempt from statutory
deadlines and the sanctions imposed for failure to meet those deadlines, and have a great deal of flexibility in developing
their air quality management programs.
88

Military Affirmative

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Military Affirmative

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natives Aff

2. Native Americans are not eligible for federal incentives.

2. The failure to transition to renewables makes us complicit in cultural

Observation 3: Warming Leadership

1. Cooperation with Native Americans spurs action for renewable energy in

2. Developing countries greenhouse gas output will continue to rise in the

Observation 3: Warming Leadership

(Insert Warming Impact)

Observation 4: Self – Determination

2. Indigenous Indian development creates a solvent global model

Tradable tax credits promote lasting business and encourage nation-state

Federal incentives leave out Native Americans.

Tribes have legal power, but need the money.

Tribes have some economic resources to develop alternative energy.

Sovereignty is the linchpin of Native American Culture

Empirically failure to support self-determination rights leads to global

Self-determination isn’t black and white, it’s about seeking a perpetual

In order to end cultural genocide, it is necessary to make known the value of

Economic analysis of the environment is fundamentally flawed: it relies on a

Consumers being eco-conscious coupled with technological advances and tax

Being a landowner is not enough, the profit is in the project ownership.

Tradable tax credits are a win-win situation.

The wind energy potential on Tribal Lands is enormous.

Despite past atrocities, Native Americans support alternative energy and

Though there are many hindrances to Native American tribes developing

Wind energy plentiful in native tribal land.

Wind energy is beneficial to both small and large economies.

Without a correct understanding of Native American history we cannot

A deeper understanding of US-Native American history is needed to establish justice

The US has demolished Native American rights of self-governance, destroying

Tribes have the ability to organize to be very effective.

Traditional West Fails

The unwillingness to give Native Americans self-determination is driven by

The American legal process is entirely incompatible with Native Americans;

A2: (They Don’t Deserve Help)

JAS is a racist theory, which foster rationalizes genocide against Native

JAS(They Don’t Need Reparations)

Although terrible the injustices against native Americans were commit

Cash Not Enough

Corps Will Screw

Tax subsidies are a mask for companies to imperialize.

Corps will screw

Recent legislation has removed many of the legal protectors of Native

You might also like