Final Wild Lab Aff 1

WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Massey/Parkinson/Ziegler-[ 1 / 145 ]
Indigenous 1AC...................................................................................................................... ............................3

Indigenous 1AC...................................................................................................................... ............................4
Indigenous 1AC...................................................................................................................... ............................5
Indigenous 1AC ..................................................................................................................... ............................7
Indigenous 1AC ..................................................................................................................... ............................8
Indigenous 1AC...................................................................................................................... ............................9
Indigenous 1AC ................................................................................................................... ............................10
Indigenous 1AC.................................................................................................................... ............................12
Wind 1AC.................................................................................................................................................... ......14
Wind 1AC ................................................................................................................................................... ......16
Wind 1AC ................................................................................................................................................... ......17
Wind 1AC.................................................................................................................................................... ......18
Wind 1AC ................................................................................................................................................... ......20
Wind 1AC ................................................................................................................................................... ......22
Wind 1AC ................................................................................................................................................... ......24
Wind 1AC ................................................................................................................................................... ......26
Wind 1AC ................................................................................................................................................... ......28
Wind 1AC ................................................................................................................................................... ......29
Wind 1AC ................................................................................................................................................... ......30
Wind 1AC ................................................................................................................................................... ......31
Wind 1AC ................................................................................................................................................... ......33
Inherency-No Tribal PTCs............................................................................................................ ......................34
Inherency-Energy Relationship Destructive .................................................................................. ...................35
Inherency-Energy Relationship Destructive .................................................................................. ...................37
Solvency-Federal Action Key....................................................................................................................... ......38
Solvency-PTC Access Key................................................................................................. ................................39
Solvency-PTC Access Key................................................................................................. ................................41
Solvency-Say Yes................................................................................................................................... ...........43
Solvency-Say Yes................................................................................................................................... ...........45
Solvency-Technical Assistance Key.......................................................................................... .........................46
Solvency-Financial Incentives Key .......................................................................................... .........................47
Solvency-Rosebud Project................................................................................................................................. 49
Solvency-AT: Native wind not that huge............................................................................... ............................50
Solvency-AT: Natives don’t have resources..................................................................................................... ..51
Indigenous Advantage-Wind Leads to Self-Sustainability/Sovereignty ................................................ .............53
Indigenous Advantage-Wind Leads to Self-Sustainability/Sovereignty ................................................ .............55
Indigenous Advantage-Wind Leads to Economic Development......................................................................... 56
Indigenous Advantage-Wind Leads to Economic Development......................................................................... 58
Indigenous Advantage-Wind Sustains Tribal Culture ........................................................................ ................59
Indigenous Advantage-Impacts................................................................................................. .......................60
Indigenous Advantage-Impacts ................................................................................................ .......................62
Indigenous Advantage-AT: Business Abuses Indigenous Peoples...................................................... ................63
Wind Advantage-Tribal Wind Solves Energy Crisis ........................................................... ................................65
Wind Advantage-Wind Eases Dependence on Coal .................................................................................... ......66
Wind Advantage-Wind Cleaner Than Fossil Fuels .................................................................................... .........68
Wind Advantage-AT: No Demand for Wind Power............................................................... ..............................70
Wind Advantage-Tribal Involvement Solves Global Warming .............................................. .............................72
Wind Advantage-Coal Bad for the Environment.......................................................................................... ......73
Wind Advantage-Coal Bad for the Environment.......................................................................................... ......75
Wind Advantage-Shift to Alternative Energy Inevitable.............................................................. ......................76
Wind Advantage-AT: Wind Turbines Kill Birds................................................................................. ...................77
Wind Advantage-AT: Wind Turbines Kill Bats ................................................................................... .................79
Water Advantage-Nuclear Power Depletes Water Resources ...................................................... ...................80
Water Advantage-Coal Power Pollutes Tribal Water ........................................................................................ .81
Water Advantage-Nuclear Power Pollutes Tribal Water ....................................................... ............................82
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Water Advantage-Nuclear Power Pollutes Tribal Water ....................................................... ............................84

Water Advantage-Methane Energy Pollutes Tribal Water.......................................................... ........................86
Water Advantage-Water Shortages Hurt Economy/Agriculture................................................... ......................87
Successionism Add On....................................................................................................... ..............................88
Successionism Add On....................................................................................................... ..............................89
Successionism Add On-Global War Impact............................................................................ ...........................91
Successionism Add On-Genocide Impact..................................................................................................... .....92
Tribal Knowledge Add On......................................................................................................................... .........93
Tribal Knowledge Add On......................................................................................................................... .........94
Tribal Knowledge Add On-Link/Impact Extensions............................................................... .............................95
Economy Add On................................................................................................................................. .............97
Acid Rain Add On..................................................................................................................................... .........98
AT: Agent Counterplans.............................................................................................................. ......................99
AT: States Counterplan ............................................................................................................. .....................100
AT: PICs...................................................................................................................................................... .....101
AT: PIC Out of “Permanent”............................................................................................ ................................102
AT: Consult Tribal Nations Counterplan ........................................................................................ ..................103
AT: Give Back the Land Counterplan ........................................................................................................ ......104
AT: Give Back the Land Counterplan ........................................................................................................ ......106
AT: Nuclear War Impacts........................................................................................................................ ........107
AT: Nuclear Extinction Impacts.............................................................................................. ........................108
AT: Elections-Indigenous Vote Key......................................................................................... .........................109
AT: Elections-AT: Indigenous Vote Key.................................................................................................. ...........110
AT: Elections-Sovereignty Key Issue for Indigenous Vote......................................................... .......................111
AT: Elections-Obama Supports Plan............................................................................................... .................112
AT: Elections-McCain Supports the Plan .......................................................................................... ...............114
AT: Elections-Public Supports the Plan ......................................................................................... ..................115
AT: Bush Good-Turn Bipartisanship .............................................................................................................. ...116
AT: Bush Good-Turn Democrats ............................................................................................................ ..........117
AT: Bush Good-Turn Public Popularity .............................................................................................. ...............119
AT: Bush Good-Farming Lobby Turn ........................................................................................................... .....120
AT: Bush Good-NCAI Lobby Turn .................................................................................................................. ...121
AT: Bush Good-AT: Plan is a Flip Flop.......................................................................................................... .....123
............................................................................................................................................................. .........123
AT: Bush Bad-Turn Political Capital .............................................................................................. ...................124
AT: Bush Bad-Turn GOP Base .................................................................................................................... ......125
AT: Bush Bad-Turn Flip Flop ............................................................................................................ ................126
AT: Bush Bad-AT: Plan Bipartisan .................................................................................................................... 127
AT: Spending Disadvantage............................................................................................................ ................128
AT: Tourism Disadvantage............................................................................................................................ ...129
AT: Kritiks-General ......................................................................................................................... ................130
AT: Kritiks-General ......................................................................................................................... ................131
AT: Capitalism Kritik ................................................................................................................................. ......133
AT: Leftist Kritiks (1/2)..................................................................................................................................... 134
AT: Realism (1/2)........................................................................................................................................... ..137
AT: Realism (2/2)........................................................................................................................................... ..139
AT: Topicality-Incentives ............................................................................................................................. ....140
AT: Topicality-Alternative Energy................................................................................................................. ....141
............................................................................................................................................................. .........141
AT: Topicality-‘in the United States’................................................................................................................ .142
AT: Topicality-‘in the United States’................................................................................................................ .144
AT: Topicality-‘in the United States’ We Meet Evidence ........................................................................... .......145
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Indigenous 1AC
CONTENTION ONE IS THE STATUS QUO:
First note that the government's current alternative energy policy blatantly excludes
Tribal nations-funding and grants issued to other groups are off-limits to indigenous
peoples, creating active DISINCENTIVES against the development of wind energy on
Tribal land.
Rob Capriccioso; Staff writer, April 11, 2008.
Indian Country Today, “Tribes look for federal wind energy incentives”. July 8, 2008.
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417026.
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. Thune and other wind energy proponents in the Senate say they want to
extend the production tax credit so that wind energy developers have certainty when it comes to future
projects. Whether their mission includes certainty for tribal entities remains to be seen. Few, if any, tribes
have been able to take advantage of the production tax credits offered to date because many tribes that have
been able to create wind energy projects have relied on non-Native developers to help them get projects off
the ground. Under current law, tribes are not entitled to the tax credits provided to non-Native developers
for renewable energy production because tribes have a tax-exempt status. Tribal energy experts say it's
important for tribes to be reaching out to Congress regarding the tax-exempt issue, since it likely discourages
non-Native developers from wanting to work with tribes. Thune's office seems amenable. ''As a general
matter, we know tribes are very supportive of wind energy,'' said Jon Lauck, a senior adviser to Thune. ''They
know this is an area that could jump-start their economies, and we'd like to help them.'' Recent legislative
developments have also made it challenging for tribes to obtain federal wind energy seed funding. In 2007,
Thune proposed the Wind Energy Development Act, which included $2.25 billion in funding for Clean
Renewable Energy Bonds that tribes could have used to fund pilot wind energy programs. Under Thune's plan,
20 percent of this bonding would have been specifically set aside for tribes; however, the set-aside did not
make it into the current version of the wind energy tax credit legislation, and it was not in the energy bill that
passed last December. Some tribal energy advocates believe supporting new legislation that promotes
Clean Renewable Energy Bonds may be the best hope for tribes that want to receive federal funding to begin
wind energy development. Thune's current legislation proposes $400 million in funding for the bonds, which
energy experts say tribes should be eligible to apply for via the IRS. ''Seed monies would be helpful,''
Renville said. ''But we haven't factored those into our current projects.'' As the Senate and House consider
extensions of the renewable energy tax credit, the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, which represents 10
tribes, is pushing for legislation that would support tribal wind projects. Officials with the group note that none
of the federal incentives currently in place involving wind energy were designed expressly for tribes, which
they say is ironic since tribes are the only group that the federal government has an explicit trust
responsibility to assist in economic development. ''The federal renewable energy incentives, as designed,
are problematic for tribes, in that they are both insufficient and inappropriate as drivers of tribal development
as presently configured,'' the group noted in a recent policy paper. ''The presently formulated federal
incentives have actually worked as disincentives in the unique context of tribal renewable energy
development.''
Specifically, Tribal nations are excluded from receiving Production Tax Credits, the vital
government incentives used to develop wind power.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, regulatory board for utilities,20*06*, *Tribal Joint Venture
Production Tax Credit, http://intertribalcoup.org/policy/index.html,]
Current federal renewable energy incentives serve to underwrite the productive development of a variety of
renewable energy resources. Federal incentives, such as the Production Tax Credit (PTC), the Renewable
Energy Production Incentive (REPI), and the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs), have all been designed
to meet the needs of a variety of entities(for-profit developers, municipal utilities, cooperatives, and other
non-profit public power entities). But these incentives were not designed expressly for Tribes, ironically the
only group that the federal government has an explicit trust responsibility to assist in economic
development*.*While Tribes have been recently included in the eligibility of several of these renewable
energy incentive programs (usually as an afterthought), none have been designed or adapted to meet their
unique situation, as governments with abundant trust assets, but with limited practical access to long-term
financing, and with limited control over their membership as a rate base for competitive commercial
development on or off their reservations.
Indigenous 1AC
And, Tribal nations bear the brunt of U.S. energy production-the current relationship is
characterized by dumping coal-fired plants on tribal lands, threatening global climate
change and cultural extinction.
Bryan Morlock 2008 (Honor the Earth, "Coal is Done: Let's Move to the Next Millennium",
http://www.honorearth.org/media/pdfs/whatsnew/BS2_Flyer3.08.pdf)
Native communities continue to bear the brunt of energy production in America from both a pollution and
financial perspective. Native communities spend up to one-fifth of their income (households and/or tribal
revenue) on energy, yet very few tribes either have conservation mechanisms or their own energy production
systems. In addition, mines and power plants are frequently sited near or on Native land, meaning that
pollution disproportionately impacts Native communities. Now is the time to recognize this destructive
pattern of energy injustice and stop the construction of additional coal power plants like Big Stone II, near the
Sisseton-Wahpeton Dakota reservation. Coal fired power plants have the highest output of carbon dioxide per
unit of electricity of any fossil fuel. The burning of coal emits 60 hazardous air pollutants including mercury,
arsenic and carbon dioxide and the region’s power plants are about the dirtiest in the country. Nearby power
plants in the Dakotas burn lignite coal, the lowest ranked type of coal for energy value. They might as well be
burning dirt. The region is home to 10% of the biggest carbon dioxide emitters in the country, and all but two
plants in North Dakota rank in the top fifty mercury polluters per electricity produced. Mercury drops into
lakes and land, poisoning the fish and water and then the people. When it comes to carbon, Big Stone II is
projected to produce about 4.7 million tons of CO2 each year,3 the equivalent of putting 700,000 more cars
on the road. We’re already surrounded by coal plants that dirty our air; it doesn’t make sense to add more
pollution and more sickness. Each year America burns 1 billion tons of coal, emitting 2 billion tons of carbon
dioxide, the main culprit in the global climate crisis. Climate change seriously threatens Native communities’
ways of life with changing weather patterns, melting ice and the spread of new disease. The average
temperature of North and South Dakota are projected to increase almost 4 degrees in the next fifty to
seventy-five years and the consequences of this climate change will include drought, highly destructive wind
and rain storms, hail and climate unpredictability, a detrimental loss in commercial crops, and the rise of a
number of vector borne diseases. Climate change will affect our jobs, our health, and our children’s health. It
will alter our way of life and our traditions. We have a responsibility to take action to protect the earth and the
seventh generation to come.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Indigenous 1AC
And, this policy of ignoring indigenous sovereignty, while using Tribal lands as dumping
sites for our nation’s energy waste characterizes the existing relationship of
oppression. This is the root cause of all wars today – foreign excursions are extensions
of racial assaults at home.
Street 2004
(Paul, Author, “Those Who Deny the Crimes of the Past Reflections on American Racist Atrocity Denial, 1776-
2004”, March 11, accessed online p. L/N) DMZ
It is especially important to appreciate the significance of the vicious, often explicitly genocidal "homeland"
assaults on native-Americans, which set foundational racist and national-narcissist patterns for subsequent
U.S. global butchery, disproportionately directed at non-European people of color. The deletion of the real
story of the so-called "battle of Washita" from the official Seventh Cavalry history given to the perpetrators of
the No Gun Ri massacre is revealing. Denial about Washita and Sand Creek (and so on) encouraged US
savagery at Wounded Knee, the denial of which encouraged US savagery in the Philippines, the denial of
which encouraged US savagery in Korea, the denial of which encouraged US savagery in Vietnam, the denial
of which (and all before) has recently encouraged US savagery in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's a vicious circle of
recurrent violence, well known to mental health practitioners who deal with countless victims of domestic
violence living in the dark shadows of the imperial homeland's crippling, stunted, and indeed itself occupied
social and political order. Power-mad US forces deploying the latest genocidal war tools, some suggestively
named after native tribes that white North American "pioneers" tried to wipe off the face of the earth (ie,
"Apache," "Blackhawk," and "Comanche" helicopters) are walking in bloody footsteps that trace back across
centuries, oceans, forests and plains to the leveled villages, shattered corpses, and stolen resources of those
who Roosevelt acknowledged as America's "original inhabitants." Racist imperial carnage and its denial, like
charity, begin at home. Those who deny the crimes of the past are likely to repeat their offenses in the future
as long as they retain the means and motive to do so.
And, this mindset has been used time and time again to justify the worst atrocities in
human history-the drive to save humanity through the extermination of a particular
group perpetuates the genocidal illusion used to justify the Holocaust, dooming us all to
planetary extinction.
Santos, social theorist, the director of the Center for Social Studies at the University of Coimbra, 2003
“Collective Suicide?” Bad Subjects Issue 63, April, http://eserver.org/bs/63/santos.html. Original in
Portuguese, Translation by Jean Burrows
According to Franz Hinkelammert, the West has repeatedly been under the illusion that it should try to save
humanity by destroying part of it. This is a salvific and sacrificial destruction, committed in the name of the
need to radically materialize all the possibilities opened up by a given social and political reality over which it
is supposed to have total power. This is how it was in colonialism, with the genocide of indigenous peoples,
and the African slaves. This is how it was in the period of imperialist struggles, which caused millions of
deaths in two world wars and many other colonial wars. This is how it was under Stalinism, with the Gulag,
and under Nazism, with the Holocaust. And now today, this is how it is in neoliberalism, with the collective
sacrifice of the periphery and even the semiperiphery of the world system. With the war against Iraq, it is
fitting to ask whether what is in progress is a new genocidal and sacrificial illusion, and what its scope might
be. It is above all appropriate to ask if the new illusion will not herald the radicalization and the ultimate
perversion of the Western illusion: destroying all of humanity in the illusion of saving it.
Sacrificial genocide arises from a totalitarian illusion manifested in the belief that there are no alternatives to
the present-day reality, and that the problems and difficulties confronting it arise from failing to take its logic
of development to ultimate consequences. If there is unemployment, hunger and death in the Third World, this is not the result of market failures; instead,
it is the outcome of market laws not having been fully applied. If there is terrorism, this is not due to the violence of the conditions that generate it; it is due, rather, to the fact that
total violence has not been employed to physically eradicate all terrorists and potential terrorists.
This political logic is based on the supposition of total power and knowledge, and on the radical rejection of
alternatives; it is ultra-conservative in that it aims to reproduce infinitely the status quo. Inherent to it is the
notion of the end of history. During the last hundred years, the West has experienced three versions of this logic, and, therefore, seen three versions of the end of
history: Stalinism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the plan; Nazism, with its logic of racial superiority; and neoliberalism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the market.
The first two periods involved the destruction of democracy. The last one trivializes democracy, disarming it in the face of social actors sufficiently powerful to be able to privatize the
state and international institutions in their favor. I have described this situation as a combination of political democracy and social fascism. One current manifestation of this
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
combination resides in the fact that intensely strong public opinion, worldwide, against the war is found to be incapable of halting the war machine set in motion by supposedly
democratic rulers.
At all these moments, a death drive, a catastrophic heroism, predominates, the idea of a looming collective
suicide, only preventable by the massive destruction of the other. Paradoxically, the broader the definition of
the other and the efficacy of its destruction, the more likely collective suicide becomes. In its sacrificial
genocide version, neoliberalism is a mixture of market radicalization, neoconservatism and Christian
fundamentalism. Its death drive takes a number of forms, from the idea of "discardable populations", referring
to citizens of the Third World not capable of being exploited as workers and consumers, to the concept of
"collateral damage", to refer to the deaths, as a result of war, of thousands of innocent civilians. The last, catastrophic
heroism, is quite clear on two facts: according to reliable calculations by the Non-Governmental Organization MEDACT, in London, between 48 and 260 thousand civilians will die
during the war and in the three months after (this is without there being civil war or a nuclear attack); the war will cost 100 billion dollars, enough to pay the health costs of the world's
poorest countries for four years.
Is it possible to fight this death drive? We must bear in mind that, historically, sacrificial destruction has always been linked to the economic pillage of natural resources and the labor
force, to the imperial design of radically changing the terms of economic, social, political and cultural exchanges in the face of falling efficiency rates postulated by the maximalist
It is as though hegemonic powers, both when they are on the rise and when they
logic of the totalitarian illusion in operation.
are in decline, repeatedly go through times of primitive accumulation, legitimizing the most shameful
violence in the name of futures where, by definition, there is no room for what must be destroyed. In today's
version, the period of primitive accumulation consists of combining neoliberal economic globalization with the
globalization of war. The machine of democracy and liberty turns into a machine of horror and destruction.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Indigenous 1AC
THUS THE PLAN:
The United States federal government should authorize permanent Tribal eligibility for Production
Tax Credits and provide technical assistance to Tribal nations for the purpose of developing wind
powered energy.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Indigenous 1AC
CONTENTION TWO IS SOLVENCY:
With PTCs and technical assistance, Tribal nations can meet half the nation’s electricity
needs with wind power, while establishing self-sufficiency-Rosebud project proves.
Shadi Rahimi, staff writer, 3/24 (2008, Indian Country Today, "Tribes push for change in federal policy for
wind development", http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096416864)
Energy experts say the swift, steady Dakota winds in the northern Great Plains could theoretically meet the
nation's entire electrical needs with clean, renewable power. But federal legislation has been thwarting a
greener energy future led by tribes. Because tribes are tax-exempt, they are not entitled to the tax credits
provided to non-Native developers for renewable energy production. And if an outside company wants to
team up with a tribe, the federal government will not allow a full tax credit. That is ''basically stopping'' tribal
ownership of wind turbines, says Tom Boucher, president of NativeEnergy, a Vermont-based company that
helps build renewable energy projects. Current legislation ''encourages outside developers not to partner with
tribes because they will be penalized,'' said Bob Gough, secretary of the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy,
which represents 10 tribes. Now, as the Senate and House are considering extensions of the renewable
energy tax credit, which expires this December, the Intertribal COUP is pushing for legislation in favor of tribal
ownership. Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., has introduced a companion bill in the Senate that would allow tribes
to be principal owners of renewable energy projects and would provide their non-Native partners with a full
tax credit, Gough said. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., has introduced a similar bill in the House, he said. Outside
capital is essential to making tribally owned wind turbine projects a reality, said Boucher, whose company
helped the Rosebud Sioux build a wind turbine with the help of federal grants and loans. Intertribal COUP's
push, supported by the National Congress of American Indians, comes at an opportune time - just as the Bush
administration is attempting to portray an image of good environmental stewardship. ''America is in the lead
when it comes to energy independence. We're in the lead when it comes to new technologies. We're in the
lead when it comes to global climate change,'' President Bush said in a speech at the Washington
International Renewable Energy Conference March 5. Developing countries and the United States are being
pushed to reduce their dependency on fossil fuels, and Bush has been alluding to wind energy and other
renewable power sources in his speeches. ''America has to change its habits. It has to get off oil,'' Bush said
at the conference to delegates from more than 120 countries, adding that the concentration of greenhouse
gases is increasing from the burning fossil fuels, leading to global climate change. In the western United
States, a majority of the utility-scale energy is generated by the burning of fossil fuels, which fills the air with
sulfur, nitrogen and carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas linked to climate
change, which environmental experts say is contributing to droughts in the Rockies and across the northern
Plains, leading to the slow ruin of ranching and farming economies. By contrast, wind power can generate
clean electricity on a large, utility scale. And in the northern Plains, Gough said, wind projects can also create
sustainable tribal economies. ''We're looking at reservations that have limited resources and boundaries;
some tribes have been involved in coal mining in the Southwest, but their water and coal resources have
gone to meet other people's needs and are not sustainable.'' Intertribal COUP, which owns a major stake in
NativeEnergy, represents 10 tribes in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota - where the power blowing
mostly unharnessed through reservations like Fort Berthold in North Dakota is more than 17,000 times
greater than what is being utilized by the tribe's 65 kilowatt wind turbine, according to Tex Hall, former
chairman of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation. Wind energy is able to be produced at a fixed, non-
escalating cost for up to 30 years, experts say. The wind potential of the Dakotas has earned the region the
moniker: ''The Saudi Arabia of wind.'' Tribes in the region have been eager to follow in the footsteps of the
Rosebud Sioux, who unveiled the first wind power turbine on Indian land five years ago. Studies show the
average wind speed on the Rosebud reservation is 18 miles per hour (enough to supply 2.4 million kilowatt-
hours of electricity in a year). The $1.2 million Rosebud pilot project has been held up as a model for other
tribes. But the cost of wind turbines has only been rising in the past several years, Boucher said. His
company and Intertribal COUP are hoping that their efforts on Capitol Hill will pay off, allowing tribes to
partner with outside investors while maintaining majority ownership of wind turbine projects. Someday soon,
tribes can become major suppliers of green power to the federal government, the largest consumer of energy
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
in the world, and other markets across the country, Gough said. Until then, a change in the federal tax credit
is the first step, he said.
Indigenous 1AC
Specifically, penalties to Production Tax Credits are a disincentive for companies to
invest in indigenous energy, and this was only furthered by the House’s slashing of
indigenous energy funding – allowing open PTC access is key because it’s the critical
component to wind energy production.
Hall 2004
(Tex, President of the National Congress of American Indians, “Native American Interview: Tex Hall, National
Congress of American Indians”, US Department of Energy, accessed online June 22, 2008, p.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/filter_detail.asp?itemid=678) DMZ
A number of national energy policy issues could support native renewable energy development, particularly
wind energy development. Tribes need to have equal access to the federal renewable energy incentives. In
the Great Plains, we are running into a variety of overriding policy issues, as well as local nuts-and-bolts
concerns in the practical application of wind development on Tribal lands. As a member of Intertribal Council
on Utility Policy (COUP), we have proposed several specific policy directions and actions by the executive and
legislative branches that will do a great deal to assist Tribes in the development of wind energy. I will address
these issues in three areas, which are equally important: First, it is essential to continue funding the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) grants program for renewable energy projects because they provide funding for
planning, feasibility, and development of real projects. The DOE and the Wind Powering America program
have initiated a meaningful outreach to Tribes through the Native American Wind Interest Groups and
technical assistance partnerships. This is a great model that demonstrates the trust responsibility of the U.S.
Government to the Tribal Nations. Second, Congress must authorize the Tribal eligibility for the Production Tax
Credit (PTC) that drives all wind projects in this country. Tribes are now penalized in that they cannot attract
the private investor to develop partnerships for projects on Tribal lands. Indians are the only people with a
"trust relationship" with the federal government. Our treaties require the federal government to assist us in
developing our reservation economies. But all renewable energy incentives go to tax-paying developers via
the PTC or to states or subdivisions of state through the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI).
Indians are the only group excluded from any of the federal renewable energy incentives, yet we are the only
ones with a legal obligation — our treaties — for federal assistance! Currently, because Tribes are not taxed
entities (a status we secured from the United States in return for our giving them most of this continent), any
developer that teams up with a Tribe in a joint venture for wind development is penalized by only being able
to use a portion of the available PTCs, which are apportioned under federal law by the percentage of
ownership in the production facility. So if a tribe has any ownership in a project on Tribal lands, our partner
must forego any incentives represented by our ownership. The PTC is the main driver for wind development in
this country, but this federal incentive policy steers investment capital away from Indian lands. Intertribal
COUP once proposed a Tribal energy production incentive to correct this federal oversight. Wryly called a
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
"TEPI", it gently reminded Congress that it had an obligation to provide an equal playing field for Indian
energy development.
And, development of wind energy can further tribal sovereignty, but federal technical
assistance is key to level the playing field to allow incentives to work in the first place.
Hall 2004
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.
Indigenous 1AC
Tribal nations will say yes-there is support in the indigenous communities to develop
and use wind energy.
Thomas L. Acker et al 2002 (Thomas L. Acker, Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering William M.
Auberle, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Earl P.N. Duque, Associate Professor, Mechanical
Engineering William D. Jeffery, Adjunct Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering David R. LaRoche,
Program Director, Center for Sustainable Environments Virgil Masayesva, Director, Institute for Tribal
Environmental Professionals Dean H. Smith, Associate Professor, Economics and Applied Indigenous Studies)
Sustainable Energy Solutions, “The Implications of the Regional Haze Rule on Renewable and Wind Energy
Development on Native American Lands in the West” accessed July 8, 2008, BC
Tribal lands in the West have great potential for the development and delivery of electricity generated from wind and other renewable
resources. Many tribes are interested in generating, selling, and using such electricity. Substantial barriers exist, however, to the full
implementation of tribal opportunities for development of renewable energy resources. Of particular importance to rural residents is the
fundamental need for basic or reliable electric service. As tribes seek ways to provide greater electrification, electricity that is generated
and distributed from renewable resources could be one of the best alternatives to consider. The following list is a selection of activities
from which tribes in the WRAP region and their collaborators may participate when developing renewable energy resources. They are
presented here to inform potential collaborators about some of the activities in which tribes may need to participate if developing
renewable resources. For a collaborator working with a tribe, it is important to realize that tribal choices concerning development will
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
likely occur in the context of their overall goal of maintaining and strengthening their cultural, social, economic, and political integrity,
not just as a business opportunity. Tribal-state-federal relations must also be considered in their legal, economic, and cultural contexts
when exploring the development and delivery of electric energy across political boundaries.
Also, the development of Tribal wind can begin to decentralize the existing power
structure, serving to reestablish representative democracy and tribal sovereignty by
shifting away from hazardous coal and nuclear plants forced onto Tribal land.
Winona LaDuke, Executive Director of Honor the Earth and Green Party vice presidential candidate in 2000,
2007 (Winter, Yes!, "Local Energy, Local Power", http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1553)
Indeed, it is a time of change, brought on by rising oil prices and crumbling infrastructure. Native peoples
have an eye to the horizon, where wind turbines, solar panels, and a movement for local control of energy are
rising. This is a movement, not about technologies and gadgetry, but about what the future should look like.
Will it be centralized, with the necessities of life coming from far away, or will it have local food and local
energy? This is about a movement which is found in the winds that sweep the reservations and ranches of the
Great Plains, in the sun that bakes the Southwest, and in the grasses and grains of the prairies. All of these
resources lend themselves to locally controlled power production. In the United States, we are missing the
canoe. Centralized power production based on fossil fuel and nuclear resources has centralized political
power, disconnected communities from responsibility and control over energy, and created a vast, wasteful
system. Renewable energy, which has the opposite effect, is the fastest growing energy source in the world.
And according to Exxon, energy is the biggest business in the world. So tackling this issue has some large
implications. At the very least, the United States is missing major economic opportunities. When the Rosebud
Sioux wanted to build a wind generator, they had to import turbine parts from Denmark, and that's a long
way away. When George Bush can say in his State of the Union address that the United States is addicted to
oil, it's time to admit that we are energy junkies. The United States, with only 5 percent of the world's
population, consumes one third of the world's energy. In just the past 70 years, the world has burned 97
percent of all the oil ever used. We have allowed our addictions to overtake our common sense and a good
portion of our decency. We live in a country with the largest disparity of wealth between rich and poor of any
industrialized nation. As the price of energy rises, the poor are pushed farther out on the margins. Renewable
energy is a way to reverse that trend. We need to recover democracy, and one key element is democratizing
power production. Alternative energy represents an amazing social and political reconstruction opportunity,
one that has the potential for peace, justice, equity, and some recovery of our national dignity. Distributed
power production, matched with efficiency, is the key. According to the Department of Energy, we squander
up to two-thirds of our present fossil-fuel electricity as waste; we lose immense amounts in inefficient
production, heating, and transportation systems. We must reduce our consumption, then create distributed
energy systems, where local households and businesses can produce power and sell extra into the grid.
Relatively small-scale and dispersed wind, solar, or even biomass generation provides the possibility for
production at the tribal or local level without involving big money and big corporations. That, in turn, allows
for a large measure of local accountability and control—pretty much the definition of democracy—and an
appreciation for where we are and where we need to go. Some of the largest wind projects in the country are
in Minnesota, where the Plains come to the edge of the Great Woods and the winds sweep across the
southern part of the state. Funding for Minnesota's renewable energy programs is largely the result of a hard-
fought battle in the Minnesota legislature over a nuclear waste dump adjacent to the Prairie Island Dakota
reservation. The tribe's concern over the health effects of nuclear waste next to their community led to state
legislation requiring a significant investment in renewable energy, which spear–headed wind development.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Indigenous 1AC
The development of wind energy on tribal lands is key to establishing self-sustainability,
providing for a higher quality of life. The plan is the necessary affirmation of tribal
sovereignty, reorienting existing energy relationship.
POWELL, 2006 (Department of anthropology University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Dana Powell
Technologies of Existence: The indigenous environmental justice movement
Accessed online http://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/develp/v49y2006i3p125-132.html July 8, 2008)
The project is also situated within the context of environmental and political debates on energy development
around the state of South Dakota, where plans are underway to develop 2000MW of coal-fired power by the
end of 2010 (LaDuke, 2004). The wind turbine is moving to centre stage as a potential solution to many of
movement’s primary concerns: climate and ecological change, natural resource conflicts, cultural
preservation, globalization, and tribal sovereignty. Twenty years earlier and1100miles south, Hopi engineers,
activists, and tribal leaders began to install solar photovoltaic panels on rooftops of residential homes,
bringing electricity to families who had been living off the grid,without electricity Projects on the Hopi and
Navajo reservations have proliferated over the past two decades, with the Hopi solar business NativeSun and
engineer DebbyTewa leading theway. In recent years, these projects have connected with the emerging wind
power projects in the Plains region, through the work of the national Native NGOs, HTE, and the IEN, and have
become central to these groups’ common visions and overlapping strategies of environmental justice and
sustainable development on tribal lands. In the last two years, these two national networks have collaborated
with grassroots environmental and cultural protection organizations to install additional technologies on Newe
Segobia, or Western Shoshone territory, on the Pine Ridge Lakota reservation, and on the Navajo reservation.
These installations have become intermeshed with ongoing indigenous environmental justice campaigns
focused on conflicts centring primarily on aspects of energy production, such as the recent conflicts over the
proposed mining of the sacred Zuni Salt Lake; the proposed federal nuclear waste storage sites on the Skull
Valley Goshute reservation and at Yucca Mountain, Nevada; and uranium mining on the Navajo and Hopi
reservations. In several of these cases, the environmental justice activists are challenging tribal governments'
contracts with regional utilities and/or federal agencies. Without a long digression into the history and politics
of natural resource use and development on reservation lands, suffice to say it is not always but is often a site
of intense internal debate and conflict for tribes themselves. The significance of the relatively recent
emergence of wind and solar technologies as tribal development projects is that tribes are increasingly
connecting into this network of renewable energy activism as a means of economic growth, ecological
protection, and cultural preservation. Seemingly an oxymoron – to preserve 'tradition' with the use of high-
tech machines – advocates of wind and solar power emphasize that cultural preservation is itself about
flexible practices, change, and honouring worldviews in which the modernist distinction between nature and
culture is nonsensical. In other words, when some of the most important cultural resources are the land itself
(i.e., mountains for ceremonies, waters for fishing, soils for growing indigenous foods), to protect nature is
also to protect culture. As Bruno Latour has also argued, this natures-cultures epistemology is also ontology –
a different way of knowing, inhabiting and engaging the world (Latour, 1993, 2005). Wind turbines and solar
photovoltaic panels are articulating with this worldview, and at the same time articulating with many tribes'
desires to move beyond fossil fuel extraction as a primary means of economic development, and towards
natural resource practices that are more 'sustainable'. The wind and the sun introduce new elements of
common property to be harnessed for alternative development projects and increased decentralization and
ownership over the means of power production. This recent emergence of renewable energy technologies on
reservations inspires analysis of natural resource conflicts to move beyond models of resistance in
understanding controversies and social struggles over resource management and energy production to
seeing the ways in which concepts such as ‘sustainability’ are being resignified through the introduction of
what I argue are imaginative technologies of existence. I stress existence over resistance not to obscure the
contestations of federal, tribal, and utility consortium proposals for natural resource development, which have
been importantly detailed elsewhere (Gedicks, 2001), but to emphasize the creative, imaginative work of the
movement in envisioning and enacting alternative ways for tribes to self-sustainand grow healthy economies,
ecologies, cultures, and bodies in an integrated manner. There are other technologies of existence engaging
particular, situated natural resource conflicts within the movement: recovery of customary foods and
harvesting practices, coalition-building around water rights and resources, restoration of salmon and sturgeon
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
populations, and projects involving information and film media as a means of preserving and producing the
'natural' resource of culture itself. This constellation of resources – energy, food, water, and culture – are of
central concern to the IEJM and creating sustainable methods of generating each advances the 'good life'
towards which the movement's work strives. In this sense, wind and solar projects on reservations are not
technologies of existence to ‘make live’ in the biopolitical sense of a population’s ensured biological survival
and micro-practices of regulation, but technologies that articulate with desire, history, localization,
imagination, and being in a way in which the meaning of ‘existence’ exceeds a definition of continued
biological survival or reproduction. These technologies are about a particular quality of existence that speaks
to the late Latin root of the word, existentia, which comes from the earlier Latin exsistere, meaning ‘come into
being,’ itself a combination of ex_ ‘out’ þ sistere ‘take a stand’ (O.A.D., 2001). Thus, when ‘existence’ recovers
the notions of coming into being, externality, and taking a stand, what it means to live and to grow is
inherently active and perhaps even risky. Sustainability, then, in the context of the IEJM, is a bold existence
and set of practices informed by a particular history of struggle and oriented towards a future of well-being, in
which the economic, the ecological, and the cultural are interdependent and mutually constitutive.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind 1AC
CONTENTION ONE IS THE STATUS QUO:
First note that the government's current alternative energy policy blatantly excludes
Tribal nations-funding and grants issued to other groups are off-limits to indigenous
peoples, creating active DISINCENTIVES against the development of wind energy on
Tribal land.
Rob Capriccioso; Staff writer, April 11, 2008.
Indian Country Today, “Tribes look for federal wind energy incentives”. July 8, 2008.
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. Thune and other wind energy proponents in the Senate say they want to
extend the production tax credit so that wind energy developers have certainty when it comes to future
projects. Whether their mission includes certainty for tribal entities remains to be seen. Few, if any, tribes
have been able to take advantage of the production tax credits offered to date because many tribes that have
been able to create wind energy projects have relied on non-Native developers to help them get projects off
the ground. Under current law, tribes are not entitled to the tax credits provided to non-Native developers
for renewable energy production because tribes have a tax-exempt status. Tribal energy experts say it's
important for tribes to be reaching out to Congress regarding the tax-exempt issue, since it likely discourages
non-Native developers from wanting to work with tribes. Thune's office seems amenable. ''As a general
matter, we know tribes are very supportive of wind energy,'' said Jon Lauck, a senior adviser to Thune. ''They
know this is an area that could jump-start their economies, and we'd like to help them.'' Recent legislative
developments have also made it challenging for tribes to obtain federal wind energy seed funding. In 2007,
Thune proposed the Wind Energy Development Act, which included $2.25 billion in funding for Clean
Renewable Energy Bonds that tribes could have used to fund pilot wind energy programs. Under Thune's plan,
20 percent of this bonding would have been specifically set aside for tribes; however, the set-aside did not
make it into the current version of the wind energy tax credit legislation, and it was not in the energy bill that
passed last December. Some tribal energy advocates believe supporting new legislation that promotes
Clean Renewable Energy Bonds may be the best hope for tribes that want to receive federal funding to begin
wind energy development. Thune's current legislation proposes $400 million in funding for the bonds, which
energy experts say tribes should be eligible to apply for via the IRS. ''Seed monies would be helpful,''
Renville said. ''But we haven't factored those into our current projects.'' As the Senate and House consider
extensions of the renewable energy tax credit, the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, which represents 10
tribes, is pushing for legislation that would support tribal wind projects. Officials with the group note that none
of the federal incentives currently in place involving wind energy were designed expressly for tribes, which
they say is ironic since tribes are the only group that the federal government has an explicit trust
responsibility to assist in economic development. ''The federal renewable energy incentives, as designed,
are problematic for tribes, in that they are both insufficient and inappropriate as drivers of tribal development
as presently configured,'' the group noted in a recent policy paper. ''The presently formulated federal
incentives have actually worked as disincentives in the unique context of tribal renewable energy
development.''
Specifically, Tribal nations are excluded from receiving Production Tax Credits, the vital
government incentives used to develop wind power.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, regulatory board for utilities,20*06*, *Tribal Joint Venture
Production Tax Credit, http://intertribalcoup.org/policy/index.html,]
Current federal renewable energy incentives serve to underwrite the productive development of a variety of
renewable energy resources. Federal incentives, such as the Production Tax Credit (PTC), the Renewable
Energy Production Incentive (REPI), and the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs), have all been designed
to meet the needs of a variety of entities(for-profit developers, municipal utilities, cooperatives, and other
non-profit public power entities). But these incentives were not designed expressly for Tribes, ironically the
only group that the federal government has an explicit trust responsibility to assist in economic
development*.*While Tribes have been recently included in the eligibility of several of these renewable
energy incentive programs (usually as an afterthought), none have been designed or adapted to meet their
unique situation, as governments with abundant trust assets, but with limited practical access to long-term
financing, and with limited control over their membership as a rate base for competitive commercial
development on or off their reservations.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind 1AC
THUS THE PLAN:
The United States federal government should authorize Tribal eligibility for Production Tax Credits
and provide technical assistance to Tribal nations for the purpose of developing wind powered
energy.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind 1AC
CONTENTION TWO IS SOLVENCY:
With PTCs and technical assistance, Tribal nations can meet half the nation’s electricity
needs with wind power, while establishing self-sufficiency-Rosebud project proves.
Shadi Rahimi, staff writer, 3/24 (2008, Indian Country Today, "Tribes push for change in federal policy for
wind development", http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096416864)
Energy experts say the swift, steady Dakota winds in the northern Great Plains could theoretically meet the
nation's entire electrical needs with clean, renewable power. But federal legislation has been thwarting a
greener energy future led by tribes. Because tribes are tax-exempt, they are not entitled to the tax credits
provided to non-Native developers for renewable energy production. And if an outside company wants to
team up with a tribe, the federal government will not allow a full tax credit. That is ''basically stopping'' tribal
ownership of wind turbines, says Tom Boucher, president of NativeEnergy, a Vermont-based company that
helps build renewable energy projects. Current legislation ''encourages outside developers not to partner with
tribes because they will be penalized,'' said Bob Gough, secretary of the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy,
which represents 10 tribes. Now, as the Senate and House are considering extensions of the renewable
energy tax credit, which expires this December, the Intertribal COUP is pushing for legislation in favor of tribal
ownership. Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., has introduced a companion bill in the Senate that would allow tribes
to be principal owners of renewable energy projects and would provide their non-Native partners with a full
tax credit, Gough said. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., has introduced a similar bill in the House, he said. Outside
capital is essential to making tribally owned wind turbine projects a reality, said Boucher, whose company
helped the Rosebud Sioux build a wind turbine with the help of federal grants and loans. Intertribal COUP's
push, supported by the National Congress of American Indians, comes at an opportune time - just as the Bush
administration is attempting to portray an image of good environmental stewardship. ''America is in the lead
when it comes to energy independence. We're in the lead when it comes to new technologies. We're in the
lead when it comes to global climate change,'' President Bush said in a speech at the Washington
International Renewable Energy Conference March 5. Developing countries and the United States are being
pushed to reduce their dependency on fossil fuels, and Bush has been alluding to wind energy and other
renewable power sources in his speeches. ''America has to change its habits. It has to get off oil,'' Bush said
at the conference to delegates from more than 120 countries, adding that the concentration of greenhouse
gases is increasing from the burning fossil fuels, leading to global climate change. In the western United
States, a majority of the utility-scale energy is generated by the burning of fossil fuels, which fills the air with
sulfur, nitrogen and carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas linked to climate
change, which environmental experts say is contributing to droughts in the Rockies and across the northern
Plains, leading to the slow ruin of ranching and farming economies. By contrast, wind power can generate
clean electricity on a large, utility scale. And in the northern Plains, Gough said, wind projects can also create
sustainable tribal economies. ''We're looking at reservations that have limited resources and boundaries;
some tribes have been involved in coal mining in the Southwest, but their water and coal resources have
gone to meet other people's needs and are not sustainable.'' Intertribal COUP, which owns a major stake in
NativeEnergy, represents 10 tribes in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota - where the power blowing
mostly unharnessed through reservations like Fort Berthold in North Dakota is more than 17,000 times
greater than what is being utilized by the tribe's 65 kilowatt wind turbine, according to Tex Hall, former
chairman of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation. Wind energy is able to be produced at a fixed, non-
escalating cost for up to 30 years, experts say. The wind potential of the Dakotas has earned the region the
moniker: ''The Saudi Arabia of wind.'' Tribes in the region have been eager to follow in the footsteps of the
Rosebud Sioux, who unveiled the first wind power turbine on Indian land five years ago. Studies show the
average wind speed on the Rosebud reservation is 18 miles per hour (enough to supply 2.4 million kilowatt-
hours of electricity in a year). The $1.2 million Rosebud pilot project has been held up as a model for other
tribes. But the cost of wind turbines has only been rising in the past several years, Boucher said. His
company and Intertribal COUP are hoping that their efforts on Capitol Hill will pay off, allowing tribes to
partner with outside investors while maintaining majority ownership of wind turbine projects. Someday soon,
tribes can become major suppliers of green power to the federal government, the largest consumer of energy
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
in the world, and other markets across the country, Gough said. Until then, a change in the federal tax credit
is the first step, he said.
Wind 1AC
Specifically, penalties to Production Tax Credits are a disincentive for companies to
invest in indigenous energy, and this was only furthered by the House’s slashing of
indigenous energy funding – allowing open PTC access is key because it’s the critical
component to wind energy production.
Hall 2004
A number of national energy policy issues could support native renewable energy development, particularly
wind energy development. Tribes need to have equal access to the federal renewable energy incentives. In
the Great Plains, we are running into a variety of overriding policy issues, as well as local nuts-and-bolts
concerns in the practical application of wind development on Tribal lands. As a member of Intertribal Council
on Utility Policy (COUP), we have proposed several specific policy directions and actions by the executive and
legislative branches that will do a great deal to assist Tribes in the development of wind energy. I will address
these issues in three areas, which are equally important: First, it is essential to continue funding the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) grants program for renewable energy projects because they provide funding for
planning, feasibility, and development of real projects. The DOE and the Wind Powering America program
have initiated a meaningful outreach to Tribes through the Native American Wind Interest Groups and
technical assistance partnerships. This is a great model that demonstrates the trust responsibility of the U.S.
Government to the Tribal Nations. Second, Congress must authorize the Tribal eligibility for the Production Tax
Credit (PTC) that drives all wind projects in this country. Tribes are now penalized in that they cannot attract
the private investor to develop partnerships for projects on Tribal lands. Indians are the only people with a
"trust relationship" with the federal government. Our treaties require the federal government to assist us in
developing our reservation economies. But all renewable energy incentives go to tax-paying developers via
the PTC or to states or subdivisions of state through the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI).
Indians are the only group excluded from any of the federal renewable energy incentives, yet we are the only
ones with a legal obligation — our treaties — for federal assistance! Currently, because Tribes are not taxed
entities (a status we secured from the United States in return for our giving them most of this continent), any
developer that teams up with a Tribe in a joint venture for wind development is penalized by only being able
to use a portion of the available PTCs, which are apportioned under federal law by the percentage of
ownership in the production facility. So if a tribe has any ownership in a project on Tribal lands, our partner
must forego any incentives represented by our ownership. The PTC is the main driver for wind development in
this country, but this federal incentive policy steers investment capital away from Indian lands. Intertribal
COUP once proposed a Tribal energy production incentive to correct this federal oversight. Wryly called a
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
"TEPI", it gently reminded Congress that it had an obligation to provide an equal playing field for Indian
energy development.
And, development of wind energy can further tribal sovereignty, but federal technical
assistance is key to level the playing field to allow incentives to work in the first place.
Hall 2004
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.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind 1AC
ADVANTAGE ONE IS WIND:
First note that Three Biggest feedbacks are all positive and guarantee rapid warming
greater than ever anticipated- newest research proves
New Scientist 7-24-04
THE graph flashed up on the screen for only a few seconds, but it set alarm bells ringing. Had I read it right? The occasion was a
workshop on climate change at the UK's Met Office in Exeter. If carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled from its pre-industrial level, the
graph suggested, global warming would rise far above the widely accepted prediction of between 1.5 and 4.5 degreesC. The real
warming could be as high as 10 degreesC. Surely some mistake? Too much wine at lunch? But no. This was for real. Till
now, climate modellers' forecasts of future warming have resembled the famous bell curve, with the most likely
result of doubling CO2 being a temperature increase of about 3 degreesC, and with declining probabilities on either side for a narrow
range of higher and lower temperature rises . But not in this case. The graph, shown by James Murphy of the Met Office's Hadley
Centre for Climate Prediction, had a long "tail" at the higher end, reaching up to 6, 8 and even 10 degreesC.
Temperature rises of this much would have serious implications. CO2 is expected to reach double its pre-industrial levels
within a century if we carry on burning coal and oil in what economists call a "business-as-usual" scenario. Nobody has seriously tried to
work out what this extra warming would mean for the planet or human society. But it would certainly not mean business as usual.
First, a health warning. Murphy was not making a firm prediction of climatic Armageddon. But nor was this a Hollywood movie full of
impossible science. The high temperatures on the display, he said, "may not be the most likely, but cannot be discounted". Nor was
Murphy alone with his tail. He showed a projection by David Stainforth from the University of Oxford that suggested a possible
warming of 12 degreesC or more. This new generation of scarily skewed distributions will start turning up in the
journals soon. They arise because modellers have for the first time systematically checked their models for
uncertainties and discovered that they have an Achilles' heel: clouds. While clouds have always been regarded as one
of the biggest uncertainties in calculations of global warming, they are turning out to be far more of a wild card than anyone imagined.
The fear is that global warming will either reduce how cloudy the planet is, or significantly change the type of
clouds in the sky, and their influence of the planet's radiation budget. This could amplify global warming more
than so far anticipated. Being mostly of an age to remember 1970s Joni Mitchell songs, the climate scientists say they have "looked at
clouds from both sides now", and they don't like what they see. Later this month, many of the researchers at the Exeter workshop will
sit down again in Paris to begin work on the UN's fourth global assessment of climate change, which will be published by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007. The sessions will discuss how sensitive the climate system is to infusions of
CO2 and other greenhouse gases. If the evidence presented at the Exeter meeting holds true, the UN will have to ratchet up its
predictions of global warming, and in particular warn that their worst-case scenarios have just not been worst-
case enough. The climate's sensitivity to warming depends critically on feedbacks that may amplify or damp down
the initial warming. If you double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the direct greenhouse effect is only about 1 degreesC. Not much
to worry about. But climate scientists expect the warming to trigger a series of feedbacks, of which the three
biggest, at least in the next few decades, will be from ice, water vapour and clouds. Take ice. As the world
warms, snow and ice from polar caps and mountain glaciers melts and is replaced by open water, bare rock, tundra and forests. As
this happens, the surface of the Earth becomes darker and absorbs more radiation from the sun. This positive
feedback is already evident in much of the Arctic, where warming in recent decades has happened faster than elsewhere. But it
will also warm up the global atmosphere. Water vapor, like CO2, is a potent greenhouse gas. Without it our planet would
freeze. But what will happen to water vapour as the world warms is not as clear-cut as with ice. A warmer surface will certainly
cause more water to evaporate. And, though some sceptics disagree, this will probably increase the amount of water vapour in
the atmosphere. That again will amplify warming. In the standard climate models extra water vapour in the air will at
least double the direct warming effect of CO2. Add the impacts of water vapour and ice together and we are close to climate
scientists' central prediction -- a warming of about 3 degreesC for a doubling of CO2. But it's when we come to the third feedback
mechanism that things get really sticky. Clouds are clearly linked to water vapour. A lot of water vapour in the air eventually
forms clouds. During their short lives, clouds produce both positive and negative feedbacks. We all know that during the day, they can
keep us cool by reflecting the sun's harsh rays. And at night they keep us warm, acting like a blanket that traps heat rising from the
ground. But which of these effects wins out depends a lot on the height at which the clouds form, their depth, colour and density.
Researchers still know surprisingly little about how many and what sort of clouds are up there. Last year, for instance, it emerged that
there may be vastly more heat-trapping cirrus clouds in the upper atmosphere than anyone had thought. Some studies suggest that,
taken globally, the cooling and warming effects of clouds may largely cancel each other out. But nobody is sure. And small changes in
either the area of cloud cover or the types of clouds that form could change things radically. So for modellers of our future climate there
are two issues. Will global warming change clouds? And will the changes produce positive or negative feedback on the climate? A first
guess would suggest that extra evaporation and water vapour in the atmosphere will make more clouds. But it may not be so simple.
Higher evaporation rates in the heat of a greenhouse day may "burn off" clouds without them ever producing
rain. Equally, clouds may "rain out" more quickly, leaving clearer skies rather than cloudier ones. The fear is that clearer skies will
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
amplify, rather than damp down global warming. And there is growing evidence that this clear-skies effect could already
be under way. One of the foremost experts on clouds and climate, Bruce Wielicki of NASA's Langley Research Center, has found that
there are fewer clouds these days in the tropics. Since the mid-1980s, he says, the rising and descending motions of air that cover the
entire tropics, for example in the Hadley circulation cells , appeared to increase in strength. The result was faster formation of storm
clouds in areas where the air rises -- what meteorologists call the inter-tropical convergence zone -- but with the clouds raining out more
quickly, which left the rest of the tropics drier and less cloudy. New research showing a decrease in "earthshine", the sunlight
reflected from the Earth onto the moon, is still controversial , but seems to confirm both that the Earth's cloud cover is
falling and that the reflectivity of clouds plays a vital role in controlling the planet's radiation budget, says Peter
Cox, head of climate chemistry at the Met Office. Wielicki is still cautious about what is behind the clearer tropical skies, but many
others see them as strong evidence of global warming. And this matters a great deal because an estimated
two-thirds of global water-vapour feedback, and probably an equal proportion of the cloud feedback, take
place in the tropics. So, clearer tropical skies could bring a major positive feedback to global warming.
Even if global warming is not the cause of clearer tropical skies, Wielicki says his findings show that we are being complacent if we think
clouds are an unchanging feature of the world. Not only are they highly variable but their potential effects on climate are poorly
understood. The extent to which clouds control the planetary thermostat may be between two and four times
greater than previously thought, he says. Most disturbing, he says, is that "climate models used to forecast the effect of global
warming have so far failed to pick up on this".
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind 1AC
And, Even minor developments in wind technology can end dependence on the coal-fired
plants that are the largest contributors to CO2 emissions.
AWEA 8
American Wind Energy Association. Accessed 6/25/8. http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html.
Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides cause acid rain. Acid rain harms forests and the wildlife they support. Many
lakes in the U.S. Northeast have become biologically dead because of this form of pollution. Acid rain also
corrodes buildings and economic infrastructure such as bridges. Nitrogen oxides (which are released by
otherwise clean-burning natural gas) are also a primary component of smog. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a global
warming pollutant --its buildup in the atmosphere contributes to global warming by trapping the sun's rays on
the earth as in a greenhouse. The U.S., with 5% of the world's population, emits 23% of the world's CO2. The
build-up of global warming pollution is not only causing a gradual rise in average temperatures, but also
seems to be increasing fluctuations in weather patterns and causing more frequent and severe droughts and
floods. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) warned in July, 2003, that extreme weather events
appear to be increasing in number due to climate change. Particulate matter is of growing concern because of
its impacts on health. Its presence in the air along with other pollutants has contributed to make asthma one
of the fastest growing childhood ailments in industrial and developing countries alike, and it has also recently
been linked to lung cancer. Similarly, urban smog has been linked to low birth weight, premature births,
stillbirths and infant deaths. In the United States, the research has documented ill effects on infants even in
cities with modern pollution controls. Toxic heavy metals accumulate in the environment and up the biological
food chain. A number of states have banned or limited the eating of fish from fresh-water lakes because of
concerns about mercury, a toxic heavy metal, accumulating in their tissue. Development of just 10% of the
wind potential in the 10 windiest U.S. states would provide more than enough energy to displace emissions
from the nation's coal-fired power plants and eliminate the nation's major source of acid rain; reduce total
U.S. emissions of CO2 by almost a third; and help contain the spread of asthma and other respiratory
diseases aggravated or caused by air pollution in this country. If wind energy were to provide 20% of the
nation's electricity -- a very realistic and achievable goal with the current technology -- it could displace more
than a third of the emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Specifically, Tribal nations could meet all of the nation’s energy needs with wind power,
wiping out coal-fired plants and related pollution.
2003 (Summer, Yes!, "Tribes Find Power in Wind", http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=611)
Northern Great Plains tribes have come up with an ambitious energy plan that could provide huge amounts of
clean energy to North America: tribal wind power. “We believe the wind is wakan, a holy or great power. Our
grandmothers and grandfathers have always talked about it, and we recognize that,” explains Pat Spears, a
Lower Brule tribal member who is the president of the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, or Intertribal COUP.
On May 1, the first tribally owned wind generator was dedicated on the Rosebud Reservation. That turbine is
a model project, and Intertribal COUP hopes it will set the stage for a broad wind generating plan for the
tribes in the Great Plains region, bringing at least 3,000 megawatts of power to market in the next decade.
This ambitious goal is but a fraction of the over 300 gigawatts of wind power potential found on the Great
Plains Indian reservations, equal to almost half of all present US installed electrical capacity. The wind power
potential on just the Rosebud and Pine Ridge reservations alone could meet the Kyoto targets for all of North
America. Presently, wind energy is the fastest growing energy source in the country and the world. New plans
are sprouting up everywhere, and by and large, those consist of utilities buying wind rights from landholders
who have windy lands, and giving those individuals a percentage of the royalties, about 2 or 3 percent, with
the rest of the profit going to the utility. Because the only costs for wind turbines are putting them up and
some maintenance—but nothing for fuel—the profit margin can be high. That's what Intertribal COUP wants to
keep in Indian country. The reservations could provide some of the most cost-efficient wind power in the
world, while cutting pollution downwind. “We have learned with watersheds, that you don't pollute upstream
from where you get your drinking water,” says Rosebud Tribal Utility Commission Attorney Bob Gough. The
tribes have extended this idea to the “windshed,” a term coined by Inter-tribal COUP to talk about why
anyone east of the Great Plains might like to see a bit more wind power and a bit less coal burned. For Great
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Plains tribes, a clean energy windshed means sustainable homeland economic development (SHED) built
upon wind energy. On the White Earth Reservation, like many other Ojibwe reservations, pollution from coal-
fired power plants and incinerators upwind from tribal lands pollutes local waters and reduces the amount of
fish that can safely be consumed. That's a huge problem for tribal fishing cultures.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind 1AC
The impact debate is over, GCM’s underestimate warming’s effects which include
international water wars, ethnic conflicts, and agricultural collapse.
Dr. Kennedy, who we guarantee will be the most qualified source on the issue, 6-24-04 started his
distinguished career as a neurobiologist. He then served as Commissioner of the FDA and then for 12 years as President of Stanford
University. Today, he conducts his research through the Institute for International Studies, focusing on transboundary environmental
problems, and is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and editor in chief of Science, the journal of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science. http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Kennedy%2Epdf
Let me begin with the science underlying what we now understand about climate change. Last week, as David mentioned, I helped
organize a symposium at AAAS and a briefing session for policy and press people here on climate science. We had ten of the most
distinguished climate scientists in the United States, led off by Sherry Rowland, the Nobel Laureate in chemistry.
And the purpose was to make a careful assessment of the science and be pretty candid about what we know for sure of what we think
may be true and what is merely a plausible but unproven possibility. So here is a short summary of what I think the consensus is on
each of those categories. First, what we know. General circulation models, climate models that take into account variations in the Sun's energy, volcanic
events, other events that are important in managing the Earth's greenhouse, application of those models to the past thousand years explained fluctuations
in average global temperature very well indeed, up until the last hundred years. Over the last hundred years, they failed miserably unless you add into the
models' calculations the addition of the greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons--that are the results of human economic activity.
That's why the average temperature of the globe has increased by just about a Fahrenheit degree over the past
century, accompanied by a rise in sea level somewhere between 10 and 20 centimeters. The primary causative agent
is carbon dioxide, which in pre-industrial times was about 280 parts per million by volume, and now is at 380 and rising steadily as we continue business as
usual.I think since someone mentioned Kyoto and all of its symbolism, there is a certain respect in which Kyoto is a dual failure. It was a failure both because
the initial targets were inadequate to take us out of this problem; and, second, because they were unattainable by many of the participating nations. Thus,
Kyoto and Kyoto's failure to date has left us without any basis for meeting the goals of the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change. And lest we all
forget, the United States is not only a signatory but a party to that agreement, and under that agreement we are committed to limit atmospheric
concentration of greenhouse gases to avoid--and I quote from the framework--"dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." Well, why, a
dozen years later, is there some doubt about the dangers of this interference? The carbon dioxide we add to the atmosphere will stay there. Its average
There's no disagreement about whether average global temperature will
residence time in the atmosphere is a century.
continue to rise. It will. The scientific dispute is about how much and why the disagreement about how much. It's
reassuring about those general circulation models that when they're applied to past climate in backcasting efforts, like the
instance I described at the beginning, they give a reasonably accurate prediction of climate history. Perhaps more interesting,
they regularly somewhat understate the magnitude of the real climate change; that is, nature regularly turns out to be a little
harsher than the models suggest. So as we project into the future, it would be wise to look at the outside rather than the low side of where they might take us. And
where they might take us first, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and also to an evaluation by the National Academies following President
Bush's request that it undertake such an evaluation, the increase in average global temperature by the end of this century will reach between 1.5 and 5.8 degrees
Centigrade, not Fahrenheit. Well, that's a big range, and so obviously one must ask why the range. These models, like most, contain some uncertainties. Some of these
are scientific: how increased cloud cover is going to affect the projections. Some clouds cool the climate by reflecting sunlight from above. Some warm it by trapping
heat that is leaving from below. Another uncertainty is how changes in the Earth's reflectiveness, its albedo, may come about due to melting ice and how that might
accelerate heating. So these various feedbacks impose a set of uncertainties of their own. Others are economic and social. We don't know how national policies and
international agreements that we undertake between now and the end of the century might serve to constrain the amount of greenhouse gases that we're adding. So
these uncertainties--probably about half of them due to differences or unpredicted feedbacks in the models themselves, and the rest to social and economic unknowns--
have provided arguments for those who would prefer to postpone economically difficult choicesfor controlling and mitigating our emissions. But it's important that even
at the very lowest estimates there will be substantial changes in the nature of human life on the only planet we currently occupy. The rather modest impacts of the past
century have already produced profound changes in regional climate dynamics, and we need to be conscious of those. Substantial ice sheet melting and retreat is taking
place on both the Arctic and on the west Antarctic ice sheet. In the Arctic, where climate warming has been extreme, sea ice has sharply diminished and rivers become
ice-free much earlier. Low-latitude mountain glaciers, investigated in a very adventurous way by my colleague Lonnie Thompson at Ohio State, are shrinking. The famous
snow-capped summit of Kilimanjaro, by the way, will be bare within 15 years, converting hundreds of old African safari shots into priceless historic treasures. Biological
cycles are experiencing the effects of warming, with upward extensions in the range of Alpine flora and advances in the time of flowering or first instances of bird
breeding, by an average of five day per decade. The models have all predicted more frequent and severe weather events, and we have had heat waves in the upper
Midwest and Paris, accelerated beach erosion on coasts all over the world, and disastrous floods and landslides in Central America. Well, that's now, considerable effects
models tell us unambiguously is that the climate
and much to worry about. But, of course, we're more interested in the future. What the
system is headed for further disruption. Now, the standard scenario foresees a slow ramp of global warming,
and our projections are based on taking that out essentially indefinitely. But there's another possibility, and the past climate
tells us to watch out for it because the past climate is riddled with sudden events that models applied retrospectively
failed to predict well. One possible alternative, especially in the North Atlantic, invokes a change in the basic ocean circulation gyre that brings warm water
from equatorial regions up through the Gulf Stream, crosses eastward in the North, and the possibility is that as melt water from glaciers or added
precipitation dilutes that water in the course of its trip across the North Atlantic, it will now fail to sink, and the return current that must match the upward
current of the warm water in the Gulf Stream would be blocked. Well, that scenario, elaborately extended, is the basis for that movie that Eileen told you
about, which you should see only for amusement. Beyond the silliness does lie a prospect that is worth taking fairly seriously, and that is that a gradual
may intercept the threshold for some nonlinear dynamic process triggering abrupt
change in average global temperature
change in a direction that we can't now accurately predict. The bottom line from this concern, it seems to me, is, of course,
there is uncertainty. The uncertainty comes because we are engaged in a large-scale, uncontrolled experiment on the only planet we
have. I want to turn briefly to some impacts that what we know about climate is likely to have on other important global
problems. Jim Woolsey is going to talk about security, and I will mention only one aspect of that because it happens to have something to
do with how I got interested in the climate problem in the first place. I didn't know very much about climate until the Carnegie
Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict asked a group of us at Stanford to look at environmental change and its possible impacts on
regional security in the world. One of the things that we looked at was what might happen in places like the delta of the Ganges and
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Brahmaputra Rivers, where storm surges now regularly displace large numbers of people and where huge numbers of
people, 15 million or so, live within the first meter or two of normal sea level. Some combination of sea level rise and
storm surge from more extreme weather events is likely to produce much larger displacements. We know they will have to
go somewhere. In the past, they have fled in much smaller numbers to Bengal, where friendly relationships have not followed. The
security problems arising from a massive influx of a traditionally hostile population combined with an almost
certainly high level of cholera infection does not present a very optimistic picture. Water is a desperately
important resource in most parts of the world. Drought is often followed by famine or emigration. Here in the United
States, warmer winters threaten mountain snowpacks and will soon demand a revision of interstate and even international water allocation agreements.
Maritime rivers are already undertaking management steps to deal with saline intrusions due to sea level rise or storm surges. In Great Britain, the barrier
that protects London from occasional flooding of the Thames estuary is now being used six times a year compared to less than once a year in the 1980s. I
could mention a couple of others. Agriculture obviously is one of the most vital of human activities. The regional distribution of global warming impacts might
in the tropics, where the people are poorest and
provide some temporary help to some kinds of temperate zone agriculture. But surely
least able to adapt, and where many food crops are near the limit of their physiological tolerance for
temperature, the consequence of even a modest warming event could be far more serious. So my point is that
climate change is not a problem that can be isolated and talked about as though it were all alone. Instead, it's likely to interact with most
of the other problems humans face all over the world.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind 1AC
And, Runaway Warming Kills Billions
Lester W. Milbrath is director of the Research Program in Environment and Society at the State University of New York at Buffalo and
a professor emeritus of political science and sociologyThe Futurist. Washington: May/Jun 1994. Vol. 28, Iss. 3; pg. 26
As this scenario plays out, it is improbable that the climate system will not change at all or that it will gradually change to
a new pattern and settle down, as is assumed in most current economic thinking. The most-probable climate scenario is for
even more chaos. Many meteorologists and climatologists already perceive the climate system as chaotic. If humans increasingly
perturb that system, we could expect it to become even more chaotic. But how chaotic will it become, what kinds of chaos might we
expect, and how long will it last? No one knows the answers to those questions. From chaos theory, we do suspect that systems which
become extremely chaotic may collapse or shift to a new pattern--one that may or may not be stable. The climatic catastrophes of
recent years do suggest one possible scenario of climate behavior. Frequent, unexpected climatic disasters may be interspersed into
"normal" climate patterns. The resulting loss of life and property could reduce the human propensity to multiply and to increase
economic throughput. Experiencing these losses may lead people to lose faith in the premise of continuity. This will retard economic
growth despite the desperate efforts of governments to promote it. Another scenario suggests that there could be an extended
period, perhaps a decade or two, when there is oscillation-type chaos in the climate system. Plants will be
especially vulnerable to oscillating chaos, since they are injured or die when climate is too hot or too cold, too
dry or too wet. And since plants make food for all other creatures, plant dieback would lead to severe declines
in agricultural production. Farm animals and wildlife would die in large numbers. Many humans also would starve.
Several years of climatic oscillation could kill billions of people. The loss of the premise of continuity would also
precipitate collapse of world financial markets. That collapse would lead to sharp declines in commodity markets, world trade, factory
output, retail sales, research and development, tax income for governments, and education. Such nonessential activities as tourism,
travel, hotel occupancy, restaurants, entertainment, and fashion would be severely affected. Billions of unemployed people would
drastically reduce their consumption, and modern society's vaunted economic system would collapse like a house of
cards.
And, Food shortages lead to World War III

William Calvin, theoretical neurophysiologist at the University of Washington, Atlantic Monthly, January, The
Great Climate Flip-Flop, Vol 281, No. 1, 1998, p. 47-64
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful countries
to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would go
marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their armies,
before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving
their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This
would be a worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War -- but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze.
The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than
650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the
North Atlantic.
Also, Species loss risks extinction

Paul Warner, American University, Dept of International Politics and Foreign Policy, August, Politics and Life Sciences, 1994, p 177
Massive extinction of species is dangerous, then, because one cannot predict which species are expendable to
the system as a whole. As Philip Hoose remarks, "Plants and animals cannot tell us what they mean to each other." One can
never be sure which species holds up fundamental biological relationships in the planetary ecosystem. And,
because removing species is an irreversible act, it may be too late to save the system after the extinction of key plants or animals.
According to the U.S. National Research Council, "The ramifications of an ecological change of this magnitude [vast
extinction of species] are so far reaching that no one on earth will escape them." Trifling with the "lives" of
species is like playing Russian roulette, with our collective future as the stakes.
And, Climate induced water conflicts go nuclear

Weiner, Prof. At Princeton, The Next 100 Years p. 270 1990
If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb, then we may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb, the Change Bomb.
And in a world as interlinked as ours, one explosion may lead to the other. Already in the Middle East, from North
Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates, tensions over dwindling water supplies and rising populations are
reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint. A climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might
trigger international tensions that will unleash some of the 60,000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since
Trinity.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind 1AC
Finally, Wind energy is the best alternative to fossil fuels and can offset its
environmental and social harms
Shoock 2007 [JD Candidate, Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, 12 Fordham J. Corp. & Fin. L.
1011, WIND: HOW A TWO-TIERED NATIONAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD, A SYSTEM BENEFITS FUND,
AND OTHER PROGRAMS WILL RESHAPE AMERICAN ENERGY INVESTMENT AND REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL
EXTERNALITIES, lexis]
Environmentally, the externality costs of air pollution, acid rain, and global warming are also significant. n88 For
instance, according to one set of estimates, the "annual marginal cost of air pollution and acid deposition" is between
$ 10.39 and $ 11.02 per short ton of coal; for climate change, the marginal cost is between $ 0 and $ 4.50 per million [*1022]
Btu. n89 Absent any consideration of climate change, the approximate "social costs of coal as a percentage of
private costs range from about 40% to 275%." n90 The range for natural gas is 12% to 95%, 112% to 123% for petroleum,
and 14% to 17% for nuclear. n91 Another set of estimates emphasizes that "coal is by far the most under-priced energy
resource," n92 and that at a price of $ 30 per ton would carry with it external costs of almost $ 160 without
including climate change risks which would bring costs to $ 190 per ton. n93 While monetizing the total social and
environmental costs to society of fossil fuel use is an inexact science, the causal link between polluting fuels and resulting externalities is
undeniable. n94 Despite arguments and economic models that show wide-ranging and heavy social costs to fossil fuel burning, and in
particular coal consumption, unless and until the industries themselves are compelled to account for these costs,
investment will remain high in traditional energy sources. n95 Alternatives, still too underdeveloped as a whole
to compete with the infrastructure n96 and reliability of fossil fuels, n97 will need time [*1023] and money to
make up the difference. n98 With technological advances in turbine design reducing the levelized cost of
output, n99 and not reliant on fossil fuel burning like biomass power, n100 wind energy has the best chance of all truly
clean energy sources to make the most immediate and long-lasting impact on the electricity market. n101
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind 1AC
ADVANTAGE TWO IS WATER:
First note that the U.S. is facing massive water shortages across the country-putting us
on the brink of a resource crisis
BRIAN SKOLOFF Associated Press Writer, 2007.
ABC News, “Much of U.S. Could See a Water Shortage”, July 9, 2008.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3781555.
An epic drought in Georgia threatens the water supply for millions. Florida doesn't have nearly enough water
for its expected population boom. The Great Lakes are shrinking. Upstate New York's reservoirs have dropped
to record lows. And in the West, the Sierra Nevada snowpack is melting faster each year. The low water
level at Lake Allatoona in Emerson, Ga., is shown Thursday, Oct. 25, 2007. Almost a third of the Southeast is
covered by an "exceptional" drought, the worst drought category. (John Bazemore/ AP Photo ) Across
America, the picture is critically clear the nation's freshwater supplies can no longer quench its thirst. The
government projects that at least 36 states will face water shortages within five years because of a
combination of rising temperatures, drought, population growth, urban sprawl, waste and excess.
Unfortunately, coal-fired power plants use tremendous amounts of water, contributing

to nation-wide water shortages.
McKeown, Master's degree in Anthropology and International Development from the George Washington
University, 2007
(Alice, THE DIRTY TRUTH ABOUT COAL: Why Yesterday’s Technology Should Not Be Part of Tomorrow’s Energy
Future, accessed on 7/9/2008, http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/dirtytruth/coalreport.pdf)
Coal-fired power plants also require huge amounts of water for cooling and other purposes. An average 500
megawatt (MW) coal-fired power plant uses more than 25 gallons of water for each kilowatt hour produced,
which translates to 300 million gallons of water per day or 12 million gallons of water per hour. In the U.S.,
electric power plants account for 48 percent of total water withdrawals every year—an astounding 195 billion
gallons of water every day. Coal-fired power plants use so much water that some have had to limit their
operations because of water shortages, while other new plants have faced opposition due to local concerns
about water use.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind 1AC
And, nuclear power plants devastate water supplies-they use massive amounts of water
to operate, and pollute the water they don’t use. This will lead to catastrophic water
shortages and conflict.
Dr. Jim Green and Dr. Sue Wareham, PhD nuclear campaigner and MAPW advocate, 2007 (October 28,
Science Alert, "Nuclear Power and Water Scarcity", http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20072910-
16508.html)
Some problems associated with nuclear power are much discussed – such as its connection to the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Less well known is the fact that nuclear power is the most
water-hungry of all energy sources, with a single reactor consuming 35-65 million litres of water each day.
Water scarcity is already a serious problem for Australia's power-generation industry, largely because of our
heavy reliance on water-guzzling coal-fired plants. Current problems in Australia's power industry resulting
from water shortages include: expensive long-distance water haulage to some power plants as local supplies
dwindle; reduced electrical generating capacity and output at some coal and hydro plants; higher and more
volatile electricity prices; increased risks of blackouts; and intensified competition for water between power
plants, agriculture, industries, and environmental flows. Introducing nuclear power would exacerbate those
problems. A December 2006 report by the Commonwealth Department of Parliamentary Services notes that
the water requirements for a nuclear power station are 20-83 per cent higher than for other power stations.
Moreover, those calculations do not include water consumption by uranium mines. The Roxby Downs mine in
South Australia uses 35 million litres of water each day, with plans to increase this to 150 million litres each
day. Mine operator BHP Billiton does not pay one cent for this water despite recording a record $17 billion
profit in 2006-07. Water outflows from nuclear power plants can damage the local environment. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency states: "When nuclear power plants remove water from a lake or river for
steam production and cooling, fish and other aquatic life can be affected. Water pollutants, such as heavy
metals and salts, build up in the water used in the nuclear power plant systems. These water pollutants, as
well as the higher temperature of the water discharged from the power plant, can negatively affect water
quality and aquatic life." A report by the U.S. Nuclear Information and Resource Service details the
destruction of delicate marine ecosystems and large numbers of animals, including endangered species, by
nuclear power plants. Most of the damage is done by water inflow pipes, while expulsion of warm water
causes further damage. Another documented problem is 'cold stunning' - fish acclimatise to warm water but
die when the reactor is taken off-line and warm water is no longer expelled. In New Jersey, local fishermen
estimated that 4,000 fish died from cold stunning when a reactor was shut down. Nuclear reactors in
numerous European countries have been periodically taken off-line or operated at reduced output in recent
years because of water shortages driven by climate change, drought and heat waves. Nuclear utilities have
also sought and secured exemptions from operating conditions in order to discharge overheated water. The
water consumption of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency and conservation measures is
negligible compared to nuclear or coal. Operating a 2,400 Watt fan heater for one hour consumes 0.01 litres
of water if wind is the energy source, 0.26 litres if solar is the energy source, 4.5 litres if coal is the energy
source, or 5.5 litres if nuclear power is the energy source. Tim Flannery, the 2007 Australian of the Year,
notes that hastening the uptake of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal 'hot rocks'
will help ease the water crisis as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions - a win-win outcome. Globally,
there is another compelling reason to ensure that decisions on water allocation - including its use in energy
production - are made wisely and equitably. Limited access to water is already contributing to armed
conflicts ('water wars') in a number of places around the globe. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recently
noted that shortages of food and water in sub-Saharan Africa were a precursor to the current tragic violence
in Darfur. The problem goes "far beyond Darfur", he warned, as many other places are now suffering water
shortages.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind 1AC
And, the current reliance on hydropower, coal-fired, and nuclear power plants is
devastating the nation’s water supply and contributing to drought conditions-only a
shift to tribal wind can preserve the nations’ water reservoirs.
Hall 2004
In the West, we have seen more than four years of drought. Most of the utility-scale energy generated in the
West is from burning fossil fuels, a non-renewable energy source. Today, the world uses so much fossil fuel
that we see the impacts on the price we pay at the gas pump, on the quality of our air (even in rural
America), and as the scientists tell us and as Indian people have seen first hand, on our larger regional and
global climate. Carbon dioxide is a prime greenhouse gas that is associated with the long-term weather
changes we are now experiencing. Our current energy policies contribute to the drought conditions that
reduce the snowpack in the Rockies where the Missouri River starts and throughout the northern plains. Our
cheap electricity may contribute significantly to the ruin of our ranching and farming economies through the
prolonged drought associated with climate change and increased weather extremes and variability. With less
hydropower due to the low water levels, the current federal policy is to buy and burn more fossil fuels,
creating more greenhouse gases and filling the sky with sulfur, nitrogen, and carbon gases. Our current coal,
gas, and nuclear generators also consume a tremendous amount of precious water through steam generators
and power plant cooling systems. In the face of this, wind power projects on the Great Plains can generate
electricity on a large, utility scale without consuming water in the process. People may even pay an extra
premium for wind power if it can help to preserve our regional water supply. Tribal wind projects could replace
diminished hydropower in the federal grid system while building up sustainable Tribal homeland economies.
The continuation of the drought conditions, climate change, and the necessary emissions reductions will only
result in an increase in the cost of power from fossil fuel sources such as coal. Wind energy can be produced
at a fixed, non-escalating cost for up to 30 years. No other source of power can claim that. The Tribes can
save the federal government money, generate Tribal revenue and jobs, and increase the flexibility and
improve management of the Missouri River.
And, these poor management techniques are creating massive water shortages that will
devastate the multiple parts of the U.S. economy and the entire agricultural sector.
Keith Schneider, regular contributor to the NYT, 7/9 (2008, Corporate Social Responsibility News, "U.S.
Faces Era of Water Scarcity", http://www.csrwire.com/News/12592.html)
Just as diminishing supplies of oil and natural gas are wrenching the economy and producing changes in
lifestyles built on the principle of plenty, states and communities across the country are confronting another
significant impediment to the American way of life: increased competition for scarce water.Scientists and
resource specialists say freshwater scarcity, even in unexpected places, threatens farm productivity, limits
growth, increases business expenses, and drains local treasuries.In May, for example, Brockton,
Massachusetts, inaugurated a brand-new, $60 million reverse osmosis desalinization plant to supply a portion
of its drinking water. The Atlantic coast city, which receives four feet of rain annually, was nevertheless so
short of freshwater that it was converting brackish water into water people actually could drink.Builders in the
Southeast are confronting limits to planting gardens and lawns for new houses as a result of local water
restrictions prompted by a continuing drought. The Ogallala Aquifer, the vast underground reservoir beneath
the Great Plains, is steadily being depleted. California experienced the driest spring on record this year.And
scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego forecast that within 13 years Lake Mead
and Lake Powell along the Colorado River, the two largest reservoirs in the southwest United States, could
become "dead pool” mud puddles."The whole picture is not pretty, and I don’t think that anyone has looked
at the subject with the point of view of what's sustainable," said Tim Barnett, a research marine geophysicist
at Scripps and co-author of the the study. "We don't have anybody thinking long range, at the big picture that
would put the clamps on large-scale development."Era of Water Scarcity"I truly believe we're moving into an
era of water scarcity throughout the United States," said Peter Gleick, science advisor to Circle of Blue and
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
president of the Pacific Institute, a think tank specializing in water issues based in Oakland, California. "That
by itself is going to force us to adopt more efficient management techniques."The U.S. Drought Monitor, a
weekly online report produced by the Department of Agriculture and the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration, shows that severe drought still grips much of the American Southeast, is
spreading east from California across the Rocky Mountains, and has also settled in the Texas Panhandle and
parts of Oklahoma and Colorado.While agriculture in the Colorado Basin faces shortages, farmers to the east
in the high plains - tapping the Ogallala Aquifer - have progressively seen their wells dry up. The aquifer is the
largest in the United States and sees a depletion rate of some 12 billion cubic meters a year, a quantity
equivalent to 18 times the annual flow of the Colorado River. Since pumping started in the 1940s, Ogallala
water levels have dropped by more than 100 feet (30 meters) in some areas.In an interview with Circle of
Blue, Kevin Dennehey, program coordinator for the Ground-Water Resources Program at the U.S. Geological
Survey, said, "The problem with the aquifer is that it’'s a limited resource. There is not an unlimited supply, so
the recharge is much less than the withdrawals."The prognosis for farmers, whose irrigation accounts for 94
percent of the groundwater use on the high plains, does not look optimistic. In the future, irrigation may not
be possible at all as the levels continue to drop past the well intakes of farmers. More likely, before the
pumping stops, the cost of drilling and maintaining deeper wells may exceed the value of what can be grown,
severely limiting the farmland's value. "There is no other water available," said Dennehey.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind 1AC
And, the agricultural sector is the key to the entire economy
Jeff Nunley, executive director of South Texas Cotton and Grain Association, 2007 (Farm Policy Facts, "A
Safety Net for All Americans", http://www.farmpolicyfacts.org/mm_safety_net_for_americans.cfm)
“We provide an underpinning for our entire agriculture sector which represents 20% of our GDP. We
contribute to the balance of foreign trade. Agriculture exports are a significant factor in lowering our trade
deficit. This helps support the value of our currency, which increases our consumers’ buying power for
imported goods and improves our standard of living.”
“Stable food prices stabilize the entire economy. Without a farm program, food prices would still probably
average around 10%. However, because food prices would be much more volatile from one year to the next,
it would be difficult for consumers to know exactly how much to budget. One year, food costs might be 25%
of disposable income and the next they could be 5%. In the years when food costs were high, consumers
would curtail other spending to ensure they meet their primary need of food. The entire economy would feel
the shocks of volatile food prices. People at the lowest end of the economic ladder would suffer most from
sudden spikes in food prices.”
The impact is extinction

T. E. Bearden, LTC, U.S. Army (Retired), the President and Chief Executive Officer, CTEC, Inc., a Fellow
Emeritus of Alpha Foundation's Institute of Advanced Study (AIAS) and a Director of the Association of
Distinguished American Scientists, 2000
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the
stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the
arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be
released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea {[7]} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and
South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China—
whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States—attacks Taiwan. In addition to
immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the
conflict, escalating it significantly.
Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few
nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of
preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is
almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch
immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as
possible.
As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD
arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself {[8]}. The resulting great
Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many
decades.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Inherency-No Tribal PTCs

Lack of accessibility due to lack of production tax credits puts natives at a disadvantage
in the wind industry
Lyderson, 2008 (Kari Lydersen writes for the Washington Post out of the Midwest bureau and just
published a book, Out of the Sea and Into the Fire: Latin American-US Immigration in the Global Age.
“Windpower” Colorlines published 3/01/08 accessed online via Elibrary)
Tribes are also at a disadvantage in competing with non-tribal entities to sell power back to the grid. Tribes
can't take advantage of tax-credit incentives for clean energy, since as sovereign nations they don't pay
taxes. A non-tribal entity can offer a utility lower prices for its energy, since it is subsidized by the federal
government in the form of tax breaks. Legislation currently pending in the House (H.R. 1954) would allow
tribes to partner with a private entity so that the project could take advantage of clean-power tax breaks, and
Gough said similar legislation may soon be introduced in the Senate. Tribes can be compensated for creating
clean energy without selling it back to the grid through the sale of green tags, or carbon offset credits.
Intertribal COUP has spearheaded a program to pair tribes with cities such as Aspen, Boulder, Denver and
Seattle that have committed to meet Kyoto greenhouse gas reduction goals through a nonprofit organization
called "NativeWind." Tribes with wind and solar power projects could sell carbon-offset credits to these
municipalities. However, some critics argue carbon offsets are a red herring in the fight to reduce global
warming, since they allow a company, municipality or other entity to claim they are reducing their carbon
footprint without actually reducing emissions.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Inherency-Energy Relationship Destructive

US approach to Tribal lands in regard to energy is extremely negative
Casas-Cortés et al 2008
(María Isabel Casas-Cortés University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Michal Osterweil University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill Dana E. Powell University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Blurring Boundaries:
Recognizing Knowledge-Practices in the Study of Social Movements Anthropological Quarterly 81.1 (2008) 17-
58 http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/anthropological_quarterly/v081/81.1cortes.html)
Thus "energy justice" as articulated by movement activists (LaDuke 1999, 2005)10 presents a political
analysis of the chain of energy production and policy in several ways. As a concept, it also posits an
alternative knowledge of the impacts of resource extraction on particular Native communities. At the same
time, it influences scientific investigation on the viability of renewable energy technologies, such as wind and
solar power, on Native territories. Finally, it lays claim to the highly contentious field of knowledge
surrounding energy policies, technologies, and economic "development" projects for tribes and First Nations.
"Energy Justice" advocates (Native and non-Native) presented empirical research on uranium extraction on
Navajo lands for plutonium production by U.S. military and nuclear industries. They also shared knowledge of
coal extraction and refineries in places such as the Fort Berthold reservation in South Dakota and Ponca land
in Oklahoma—communities that are soot-soaked and asthma-ridden from decades of pollution. They
discussed the two current federal proposals for storage of high-level nuclear waste, one on Skull Valley
Goshute land in southern Utah and the other on Western Shoshone land at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Outlining
the controversies surrounding the Yucca Mountain site in particular, activists articulated their critiques of
federal and tribal energy development with scientific discourses of geography, geology and physics, as well
as with a cosmology of ancestors, spirits and animate ecologies, which are as intrinsic and authoritative in
their politics of nature as soil samples or other material data. In this way, "energy justice" emerges from a
commingling of epistemological practices: "Western" and "natural" science and technology, economics,
Native epistemologies and the lived experiences of members in these impacted communities.
Harsh US policy toward tribal lands and its people destroy the lively hood of indigenous
people, destroying culture.
Udel 2007 (Lisa J. Udel, Revising Strategies The Intersection of Literature and Activism in Contemporary
Native Women's Writing Accessed July 9, 2008
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/studies_in_american_indian_literatures/v019/19.2udel.html)
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
The question of Indian survival in contemporary America runs throughout the work of these three authors. In
All Our Relations: Native Struggles for Land and Life, LaDuke details the work occupying current grassroots
Native environmentalist groups. LaDuke structures All Our Relations in ten chapters, each identifying a
specific tribe and an environmental/political problem, along with the group's organized efforts to address it.
The chapters provide a detailed map of the area under discussion with Indian place names as well as the
Anglo place names and a narration of historical events leading up to the current crisis and, in some cases,
recent Native victories. LaDuke [End Page 66] profiles the Seminoles, the Northern Cheyennes, and the effect
of nuclear waste on Western Shoshone land, as well as her own work with the White Earth Reservation Land
Recovery Project and current use of solar energy among the Hopis, as examples of political issues confronting
contemporary Native Americans. One of the central concerns of Native survival for LaDuke, then, is the
material conditions of reservation life. She notes that all reservations are plagued by "ethnostress," which
LaDuke describes as "what you feel when you wake up in the morning and you are still Indian, and you still
have to deal with stuff about being Indian—poverty, racism, death, the government, and stripmining," the
conditions that arise from being Indian in a country that opposes the political, cultural, and religious aspects
of that identity (90). One of the primary environmental problems facing Native groups today is the use of
reservation lands as nuclear waste dumps.2 In addition to the pollution of indigenous land bases, the
expropriation of land and its resources remains another issue of deep concern to Native groups. Such use of
Native lands has obvious repercussions on the health of its residents as well as their autonomy over cultural,
political, and spiritual matters. LaDuke, like many Native activists, articulates an ecoculturalist ideology when
she points to a symbiotic relationship between indigenous people and the environment. They link their
systems of cultural organization to a specific place that contains and imparts memories of their history and
identity.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Inherency-Energy Relationship Destructive

The US-Tribal Energy relationship is currently plagued by atrocities
Navajo Congressional Testimony March 30, 2008
(Released March 30, 2008. TEstimoney of Navajo president to congress members.
http://www.navajo.org/News%20Releases/George%20Hardeen/Mar08/Navajos%20won't%20allow%20uranium
%20mining,%20President%20tells%20subcommittee,%20for%20March%2030.pdf accessed July 9, 2008
President Shirley said that as the Cold War raged more than 50 years ago, the United States government
began a massive effort to mine and process uranium ore for use in the country’s nuclear weapons programs.
Much of that uranium was mined on or near Navajo lands by Navajo hands. “Today, the legacy of uranium
mining continues to devastate both the people and the land,” he said. “The workers, their families, and their
neighbors suffer increased incidences of cancers and other medical disorders caused by their exposure to
uranium. Fathers and sons who went to work in the mines and the processing facilities brought uranium dust
into their homes to unknowingly expose their families to radiation.” “The mines, many simply abandoned,
have left open open scars in the ground with leaking radioactive waste. The companies that processed the
uranium ore dumped their waste in open – and in some cases unauthorized – pits, exposing both the soil and
the water to radiation.”
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Solvency-Federal Action Key

Specifically, federal assistance is necessary as both a funding source and technical
assistance.
Hall 2004
The U.S. Department of Energy held its first Tribal energy summit in conjunction with the NCAI Executive
Meeting in Washington, DC, this past February. This is an important first step to building a closer relationship
between the administration and Tribes. We need the DOE to request funding for a variety of Indian energy
initiatives, especially in the field of renewables, in which over the past ten years the DOE has never once
requested appropriations at the levels authorized by Congress. Tribes also need direct assistance for
weatherization so that our overall energy usage can be more efficient and our application of renewable
energy can be more cost-effective. The Wind Powering America has done an excellent job of bringing program
information to Native Americans throughout the country, to Indian Tribes and to Native Alaskans and
Hawaiians. With limited funding compared to those available for state programs, the WPA Native American
Initiative has helped build Tribal capacity through the anemometer loan program and through the WEATS
program, to which our Tribe has sent several representatives for training in wind energy applications. Tribes
could use more technical assistance in working through the interconnection issues to be able to connect
utility-scale wind energy to the federal grids. We need to find a way to integrate the tremendous wind
resources throughout the West into the federal hydropower grid system, which was originally built to deliver
renewable energy throughout the region. With the drought conditions likely to continue, lower water levels for
the foreseeable future, and increasing hydropower costs, now is the time to bring significant Tribal wind
power into the mix for long-term savings over the annual retail purchases of supplemental power at retail
rates. At Ft. Berthold, for example, we have sacrificed much of our reservation homeland for Lake Sakakawea
behind the Garrison Dam, which is capable of producing over 500 megawatts of hydropower. If we could
integrate about 100 megawatts of wind power with this hydropower, we could build a significant Tribal
economy based on clean energy generation.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Solvency-PTC Access Key

Tribal nation access to PTCs is critical to wind development and displacing coal-fired
plants.
Pat Spears and Bob Gough, president and secretary of the Intertribal COUP, 2008 (May/June, Solar Today,
"Drawing on the Sacred Winds", http://www.solartoday.org/2008/may_june08/sacred_winds.htm)
The Rosebud tribe’s wind project was a landmark for tribal wind development, overcoming legal and business
barriers that had discouraged utility-scale renewable energy development interconnected to the integrated
regional grid system of federal and private operators. It paved the way for other Intertribal COUP tribes to
install utility-scale turbines. These include 65-kW turbines commissioned on the Fort Berthold Reservation in
North Dakota in 2005 and at the KILI Radio Station on South Dakota’s Pine Ridge Reservation in May, along
with the multimegawatt project planned at Rosebud. Yet these turbine installations are but the first stage of
the Intertribal COUP’s wind-development plan. The Council vision is to tap the immense wind power potential
on tribal lands, integrating two-dozen projects in six states with the federal hydroelectric generation and
transmission grid. Tens of thousands of tribal members on 20 reservations would benefit directly from new,
sustainable jobs and from the power and health benefits of local clean energy. Our initial goal is for eight to
12 distributed projects totaling several hundred megawatts. Tribal ownership in large-scale projects will
require a sharable production tax credit (PTC), so that tribes can maintain equity in reservation-based wind
projects without losing the federal PTC incentives that help to lower the cost of power from wind projects.
Under present law, in a project where a tribe is an equity partner, the tribe gets the tax credits in proportion
to its ownership interest but cannot use them as a government without a federal income tax liability. This
situation penalizes private capital seeking to partner with tribes on reservation projects and raises the cost of
power into markets that assume the supplier’s capture of the full PTC. Two bills before Congress (HR 1954 and
S2520) provide such a remedy for tribal joint ventures, where the goal is not only to build wind turbines on
reservations, but also to position tribes as full business partners. Large tribal wind projects distributed across
six northern Great Plains states could relieve some of the Missouri River’s hydropower burden. By displacing a
portion of polluting coal on the grid with clean wind power, we’ll conserve water that would be consumed for
steam and cooling and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. For the tribes, the renewing winds will sustain
both the people and their lands with local jobs, clean electricity, community-building revenues and healthy air
and water.
PTCs are critical to ensure the development of wind energy.

The New York Times, April 30, 2008.
The New York Times, “Dumb as We Wanna Be”. July 8, 2008. Lexi Nexis.
We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to
raise taxes on the things you want to discourage -- gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars -- and you
want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage -- new, renewable energy technologies. We are
doing just the opposite. Are you sitting down? Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now,
Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate
investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The
bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to
extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind
and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be
throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies. These credits are
critical because they ensure that if oil prices slip back down again -- which often happens -- investments in
wind and solar would still be profitable. That's how you launch a new energy technology and help it achieve
scale, so it can compete without subsidies. The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for
by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would
back down, and Mr. Bush -- showing not one iota of leadership -- refused to get all the adults together in a
room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program;
Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years. ''It's a disaster,'' says Michael Polsky, founder of Invenergy, one
of the biggest wind-power developers in America. ''Wind is a very capital-intensive industry, and financial
institutions are not ready to take 'Congressional risk.' They say if you don't get the [production tax credit]
we will not lend you the money to buy more turbines and build projects.'' It is also alarming, says Rhone
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, that the U.S. has reached a point ''where the
priorities of Congress could become so distorted by politics'' that it would turn its back on the next great
global industry -- clean power -- ''but that's exactly what is happening.'' If the wind and solar credits expire,
said Resch, the impact in just 2009 would be more than 100,000 jobs either lost or not created in these
industries, and $20 billion worth of investments that won't be made.
PTCs are necessary for the continuation of wind power.

The New York Times, May 5, 2008
The New York Times, “Big Oil's Friends in the Senate”. July 8, 2008. Lexis Nexis
Listen to almost any politician, President Bush included, and you'll hear that the fight against global warming
cannot be won without cleaner technologies that will ease dependence on fossil fuels. Yet these same
politicians are on the verge of allowing modest but vital tax credits to expire that are crucial to the future of
renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. These credits are necessary to attract new
investment in renewable sources until they become competitive with cheaper, dirtier fuels like coal. When the
credits disappear, investments shrivel. The production tax credit for wind energy has been allowed to
expire three times. In each case, new investment dropped by more than 70 percent. The credits for wind and
solar expire at the end of this year, so action now is important. Though there is plenty of blame to go
around, Mr. Bush and Senate Republicans bear a heavy burden. The House approved, as part of last year's
energy bill, a multiyear extension of the credits, while insisting -- under its pay-as-you-go rules -- that they be
offset by rescinding an equivalent amount in tax credits for the oil companies. The oil companies (though
rolling in profits) screamed, Mr. Bush lofted veto threats, and the Senate, by a one-vote margin, refused to go
along.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Solvency-PTC Access Key

Empirically, Production Tax Credits are the key incentive to develop wind energy.
Anita Huslin; Washington Post Staff Writer, April 14, 2008
The Washington Post, “Energy Boost; Solar and Wind Businesses Powered by Tax Breaks”, July 8, 2008. Lexis
Nexis
For Tony Clifford, president of Standard Solar, the threats of climate change and high energy prices have been
great for business. His Gaithersburg firm, which installs solar panels for homes, has tripled its revenue in the
past year and raised new funds for expansion. Last week, he got another piece of good news. The Senate
agreed to extend solar and wind energy tax breaks as part of a housing bill that is likely to win approval in the
House. An elimination of the tax incentives would have been a blow to Clifford's business, forcing him to cut
his staff of 20 and tell subcontractors he no longer needed them. "We just raised $3.5 million in new capital
with the expectation that the incentives were going to get extended," Clifford said. "If the [federal tax breaks]
do not happen, that's going to be a significant disincentive for a lot of venture capital." Although the solar
business is booming across the United States, federal tax incentives remain key to fueling the industry's
continued growth, utilities and solar firms say. Solar energy is still more expensive than more conventional
sources, such as coal or natural gas, and is likely to remain so for a few years. But solar costs are coming
down while coal and gas plant construction costs are going up, and the solar industry says the eight-year
extension of tax breaks in the Senate legislation would help create a cleaner, more reliable source of energy.
For 31 years, the federal government has subsidized new wind and solar projects. A tax break that provides
up to 30 cents on every dollar it costs to build solar facilities and one for operating wind turbines are set to
expire this year. The Senate last week voted to renew them. Now, proponents are pressing the House, which
passed a stand-alone tax package with similar extensions, to do the same. Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)
and John Ensign (R-Nev.) sponsored the renewable energy tax incentives as an amendment to a housing bill
last week. The measure provides up to $500 for consumers to install energy-efficient products in their homes
and extends a production tax credit for electricity produced from wind, solar and other renewable sources.
Businesses that manufacture and install solar or photovoltaic fuel cells would get a 30 percent investment tax
credit. "We are not only providing certainty to these industries, infusing money into our economy, but
creating high-paying, long-term jobs to help Americans get through these tough economic times," Cantwell
said. This makes bankers, solar panel and wind turbine manufacturers, and contractors happy. Without the
subsidies, they say, companies would start putting projects on hold, freezing contractors out of the new work
and companies and governments out of ways to buy more clean technology. Indeed, in February, Arizona
Public Service Co. announced its intention to build a 280 megawatt solar installation using parabolic mirrors
to concentrate heat and steam turbines to generate electricity. But the plant needs regulatory approval and
isn't expected to come online until 2011. Don Robinson, the utility's senior vice president of planning and
administration, said the plant will be built only if the federal tax incentives are extended. The alternative-
energy industry has learned not to take the tax credits for granted. The wind industry, for instance, has had
its production tax credits lapse three times -- in 1999, 2001 and 2003. According to the American Wind
Energy Association, new installed wind capacity declined 93, 73 and 77 percent, respectively.
The production tax credit is the most effective incentive

Fresh Energy 7
1/2/7. http://www.fresh-energy.org/media_center/news_releases/2007-01-02_PTC.htm.
“This study concludes that the single most important federal incentive to invest in wind is the Congressional
Production Tax Credit. We concur,” said Dee Long, former speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives
and retiring Transportation Policy Program Director at Fresh Energy. “It remains part of the Congress’ tangible
commitment to renewable energy in the region and nation.” The release of the study coincides with action in
the closing hours of the 109th Congress to grant a one-year extension for the program, which had been
scheduled to expire on December 31, 2007. The credit will now run through December 31, 2008. The action
provides continuity for significant growth and investment for wind energy in the region, lending stability to
the renewable energy sector, which has suffered since its adoption from numerous short-term
extensions. Legislators from the Midwest Region were critical to the passage of the extension. Iowa Senator
Charles Grassley, author of the Wind Incentives Act of 1992, which first established the production tax credit,
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
said, “Investors need certainty about tax policy before putting their money into a wind energy or biomass
project. The tax extension gives them certainty for another year.”
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Solvency-Say Yes
Federal funding will be accepted-broad support and sufficient infrastructural support
within the communities.
Development on Native American Lands in the West” accessed July 8, 2008, BC/EB
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
Indigenous peoples will say yes-75% of tribes want to begin alternative energy
programs and 83% of tribes are interested in selling electricity on the market.
Western Regional Air Partnership Air Pollution Prevention Forum 2003
Northern Arizona University, “Generating Electricity from Renewable Resources in Indian Country:
Recommendations to Tribal Leaders from the Western Regional Air Partnership” July 8, 2008 BC
Below is a list summarizing some of the general conclusions that can be drawn from ITEP’s assessment: No
central office or agency is in charge of tribal energy issues, such as a utility authority (75% of reporting
tribes). • No access to data about tribal electrical energy consumption is available (75%), although most
(67%) do know how to acquire this information. • There is no awareness of laws or regulations that influence
energy supplies delivered to the tribe, or government programs to promote the use of renewable energy
(75%). • Tribes are interested in using renewable energy systems (75%), especially if the cost of energy is
competitive with current energy supplies. It is interesting to note, however, that tribal interest in renewable
energy derives primarily from a desire for better or more reliable service, rural electrification, and economic
development (but not necessarily from a desire for improving air quality). Also, some tribes in urban settings
with access to reliable utility electricity expressed no interest in renewable energy development. • There is
an interest in selling electricity on the deregulated electric market (83%). • Tribes are interested in various
types of assistance in planning and implementing renewable energy projects (58%)
Tribal peoples want wind power programs and will work with the federal government.
Laundry list of reasons.
Development on Native American Lands in the West” accessed July 8, 2008, BC/EB
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
The tribes contacted in the ITEP assessment were selected to represent a diversity of tribal perspectives,
based upon geographic distribution, population, land size, urban versus rural location, experience with
renewable energy, and level of existing energy infrastructure. While these data are not definitive and may not
be representative of all 237 tribes within the 13-state WRAP region, they do suggest some valuable insights. A
few pertinent results from the tribal surveys are listed below: __ For three-quarters of the tribes polled, no
central office or agency is in charge of tribal energy issues, such as a utility authority. __ Three-quarters of the
tribes are interested in using renewable energy systems, especially if the cost of energy is competitive with
current energy supplies. __ Over 80% of the tribes indicated an interest in selling electricity on the
deregulated electric market. Through comments associated with the assessments, it was apparent that the
particular opportunities available and the barriers facing each tribe’s development of renewable energy were
as individual and unique as the tribes themselves. Many of the tribes were concerned about cultural issues
(such as sacred sites), environmental issues (not damming a river), political issues (intra- and inter-tribal
politics and external relations with states), and economics (the cost of energy). In general, tribes were quite
interested in the potential opportunities for economic development offered by developing renewable energy
resources, as well as the ability to gain energy independence. Furthermore, tribes in rural settings were more
interested in developing renewable resources compared to tribes located in urban settings.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Solvency-Say Yes
Tribes Will Say Yes
Development on Native American Lands in the West” accessed July 8, 2008, BC
Many Native American tribes are interested in developing renewable energy resources. Of the 237 tribes in
the WRAP region, about 60 have an excellent wind resource (Class 5 or better). The Regional Haze Rule
provides a potential impetus for tribes with air quality programs and visibility concerns to consider renewable
energy development. Beyond that, however, tribal development of wind and renewable energy provides a
potential for economic development and increased tribal sovereignty. In order to successfully develop their
renewable resources, tribes may seek partners to help overcome some of the financial and technical barriers.
For potential collaborators it is important to realize that partnering with tribes to develop their resources will
likely need to occur in the context of their overall goal of maintaining and strengthening their cultural, social,
economic, and political integrity, not just as a business opportunity. Furthermore, it is important to realize that
among the tribes in the WRAP region, there is great diversity when considering their differing levels of energy
and economic infrastructures, both physical and institutional.
Tribes want wind development for five reasons.

When asked about the type of renewable resources that tribes were engaged in developing, all of the
electricity-generating technologies discussed in Appendix B (solar, wind, biomass, and hydroelectric) received
about equal consideration except for geothermal (it is the most scarce of the renewable resources). However,
concerning electricity generation and consumption, tribes indicated that they were most interested in energy
efficiency or conservation programs (93%), wind energy (63%), or solar energy (63%). The top five reasons
offered by tribes that were interested in developing renewable energy are listed below (the number in paren-
theses indicates the percentage of respondents who thought it was an important reason): oCompatible with
natural environment (82%) oPotential to generate income for the tribe (70%) oPotential for employment
(67%) oCompatible with culture of tribe (63%) oReduced dependence of tribe on outside providers (60%).
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Solvency-Technical Assistance Key

Open access to the federal grid is key to giving incentives to municipalities – without
this, energy never leaves the ground.
Hall 2004
Finally, in my opinion the next most important need is to allow Tribes access to the federal transmission grid
and the purchase of wind energy to meet existing power needs of cooperatives, municipal utilities, and other
regional utilities. As to the nuts-and-bolts issues, we have learned the significance of using wind to meet off-
grid applications versus interconnecting to the local and regional power grids. Off-grid applications require
back-up power or storage systems. These systems can operate independently, although it can be more costly
due to the back-up requirements, but it can be economic if it would actually cost more to run transmission
lines to serve a remote load. Interconnecting to the local and regional grids that are owned and operated by
non-Tribal utilities raises a host of issues, including jurisdiction, rights of way, demand charges, net metering,
and others. When Tribes evolve from consumers of electricity to actual power generators, we are moving into
a new territory that is already occupied by established interests who may not be so willing to let us
participate on an equal footing. We can look for partnerships and for fair dealing with the contributions we
can make to the nation's energy supply, but we will need to address many technical and policy obstacles
along the way.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Solvency-Financial Incentives Key

Tribal wind development is critical to address issues of self-sufficiency and climate
change, but federal funding is key.
For many tribal peoples, the winds are holy, bringing renewal, warmth and strength. And tribal lands are rich
in wind. The wind energy potential on reservations nationwide exceeds 535 billion kilowatt-hours annually —
enough to power more than 50 million homes annually. Much of that resource is found on the northern Great
Plains reservations. Indeed, the prairie winds and the Missouri River are inextricably tied to the culture and
history of the Great Plains’ two-dozen tribes. Despite these gifts, the reservations never had the size or the
moisture needed to sustain agricultural economies. Their richest bottomlands were flooded behind federal
dams on the Missouri to generate electricity for everyone in the region except the tribes. But today, tribal
leaders are drawing on the winds to forge a renewable energy economy — and the next chapter in a tradition
promoting self-reliance and harmony between humankind and nature. Since 1995, a coalition of Great Plains
tribes known as the Intertribal Council On Utility Policy (COUP) has worked to generate jobs and new revenue
streams through tribal-owned wind energy projects. These utility-scale turbines are arrayed along federal
transmission lines that carry hydroelectric power from the mainstem Missouri River dams. That allows the
tribes to sell surplus power to the Western Area Power Administration where it’s especially needed. (WAPA
markets and transmits electricity from federal hydroelectric power plants.) As persistent drought throughout
the West has reduced federal hydropower production nearly 50 percent, WAPA has filled the shortfall with
lignite coal-fired electricity — significantly increasing greenhouse gas emissions near tribal lands. Nationally,
reservation households are 10 times less likely to be electrified than other U.S. households. Those households
that are electrified pay a higher portion of their incomes to power energy-inefficient structures. The COUP
intertribal energy vision begins with making tribal housing more affordable and efficient through better design
and retrofitting. The tribes can use energy audits, weatherization projects and local natural materials like
straw bale and earthen plasters to create local jobs, save energy and money, and enhance the quality of life.
But even with greater energy efficiency, small wind and solar projects are expensive, especially for tribal
communities, where unemployment may be 50 percent.
Rosebud proves that Tribal wind can meet all of America’s energy needs, but federal
assistance is key.
2007 (Winter, Yes!, "Local Energy, Local Power", http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1553)
The wind does not stop blowing on the Sicangu Lakota reservation at Rosebud in what is called South Dakota.
This reservation is arguably one of the most challenging places in the country to put up an alternative project.
This community, home of Crazy Horse's people, has never had it easy, and over the years, their political and
economic power has been waning. South Dakota politicians cut pieces off the reservation, large corporate
pork producers eyed the lack of environmental regulations and tried to move into the area, and geographic
isolation meant that the community could easily become economic prey to the larger society. That is why the
Rosebud Tribe's wind project—a 750-kilowatt turbine that sits behind the small tribal casino—is remarkable.
Despite immense bureaucratic obstacles—the “white tape” so common on reservations—and the absence of
big political or financial champions, the Rosebud Tribal Utility Authority was born. Tribal advocates like Bob
Gough, attorney for the Rosebud people and the heirs of Crazy Horse, and Tony Rogers, director of the
Rosebud Tribal Utility Authority, found funding for the project, jumped through regulatory hoops, and found a
market locally and on one of the Dakotas' many air force bases. The project, generating electricity for the
past three years, is now the prototype for a larger 30 megawatt project planned for the reservation. The
reality is that this region of North America has more wind power potential than almost anywhere in the world.
Twenty-three Indian tribes have more than 300 gigawatts of wind generating potential. That's equal to over
half of present U.S. installed electrical capacity. Those tribes live in some of the poorest counties in the
country, yet the wind turbines they are putting up could power America—if they had more markets and
access to power lines. Nationally, groups like the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy are working with tribal
leaders to bring more wind-generated power on line and to manage the growth of the next energy economy,
a critical element of development strategy. Indian reservations may be the windiest places in the country, but
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
tribes are still struggling to develop the financial and technical resources and tribal infrastructure needed to
realize the potential and to keep jobs and control in the community. As Bob Gough explains, “In the business
of renewable energy, tribes are either going to be at the table or on the menu.” Who controls the next
generation of power production will determine much about the success of the local, renewable energy
strategy.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Solvency-Rosebud Project
Rosebud shows that Tribal wind farms can create self-sufficiency, federal funding is key.
The Rosebud Sioux tribe of south-central South Dakota initiated the phased wind-development plan.
Dedicated in 2003, Rosebud’s initial utility-scale, 750-kilowatt (kW) turbine, “Little Soldier,” is installed at the
Rosebud Hotel and Casino, the tribe’s largest commercial development center. But to achieve the
installation, the tribe had to overcome countless challenges, starting with financing. In 1999, Rosebud
became the first tribe to receive a grant — covering half the turbine’s cost, about $500,000 — under the U.S.
Department of Energy’s Tribal Renewable Energy Grants. Three years later, the tribe secured a loan from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service to finance the balance. This project was originally
conceived as a community wind project, designed to supply power to the tribe’s largest single energy-
consuming facility. However, because the tribal development site, as an energy load, is controlled by a
nontribal utility, the tribe faced the imposition of a $7 per kilowatt-month demand charge for using the 750-
kW wind turbine. This $5,250-permonth demand charge, for the utility to “stand by” to provide power when
the wind doesn't blow, is on top of the cost for any needed “supplemental” energy, to be purchased by the
utility on the open market. Because these demand charges and unknown supplemental energy costs
eviscerate the economics of tribal renewable projects, the tribe decided instead to sell the bulk of the
turbine's output as bundled “green power” to a local Air Force Base on a short-term contract. That established
the precedent for tribes to be green power vendors to the U.S. government. The tribe sold off the remaining
generation and environmental attributes of the turbine’s output into separate markets, as “energy” to the
local utility and as “green tags,” or carbon offsets, to marketer NativeEnergy (nativeenergy.com, of which
COUP has a majority equity stake on behalf of its member tribes).
The Rosebud project shows that indigenous energy benefits the government with
cheaper, more secure energy.
Hall 2004
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe's single 750-MW wind turbine project demonstrates that an Indian tribe can develop
the capacity to plan, build, own, and operate a utility-scale wind project. It demonstrates the potential of
becoming a self-sustaining source of electricity to meet Tribal loads at their casino and hotel. They have also
broken the trail for commercial sale of Tribal green power to our federal treaty partners, the U.S. Government,
by interconnecting through their local distribution system into the federal transmission grid (operated by
WAPA) to supply renewable energy to the Ellsworth Air Force Base. The federal government is the largest
consumer of energy in the world, making it a tremendous market. The federal grid system that was built to
transmit renewable hydropower from the dams like the one that has flooded our reservation at Ft. Berthold
links all the reservations across the Plains. Indian tribes could become a major supplier of green power to
federal facilities and other markets around the country. Rosebud has also demonstrated some novel methods
for financing a tribally owned wind project through negotiating the first federal rural utilities service (RUS)
loan for a Tribal renewable project and by participating in the upfront sale to NativeEnergy of the green tags
to be generated over the life of the project separately from the sale of the energy. These are financing models
for development that allow Tribes to own our projects and not merely lease our resources.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Solvency-AT: Native wind not that huge

Even if you win that funding doesn’t lead to a massive breakout of wind energy, only a
small amount is key to giving reservations energy independence.
Hall 2004
We have an unbelievable wind resource at Ft. Berthold. According to the wind potential resource maps
produced by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado, we have many thousands of times more
power in the wind than the amount of energy we use on the reservation. Although we would never develop all
of this resource, just a small fraction could become a foundation for sustainable economic development on
the reservation, powering Tribal projects such as our planned gas refinery and for sale and export over the
regional transmission grid.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Solvency-AT: Natives don’t have resources

Current small projects show that tribes have necessary resources to expand energy.
Hall 2004
Our Tribe has received an initial grant from DOE to develop a single turbine to provide power for our casino
and hotel at Newtown, ND. We completed all the studies and broke ground late last year. We are currently
completing final negotiations with regard to interconnection to meet Tribal load and perhaps sell off
occasional surplus power for those times when the wind produces more energy that we can use directly. We
are also engaged in a second round of feasibility studies that examine the wind development potential at
other sites on the reservation. Our Tribe is a member of Intertribal COUP, and one of our Tribal members, Terry
Fredericks, serves as its vice president. We are participating in the COUP environmental justice community
revitalization demonstration project, which lays the road map for collaborative Tribal wind energy
development. Ft. Berthold will site an initial 10-MW project as part of an 80-MW distributed generation
intertribal project. A collaborative 80-MW project could attain an economy of scale that would make a local
10-MW project affordable. A 10-MW project at Ft. Berthold would, along with our WAPA hydropower allocation,
help to meet most of our Tribal energy requirements. We could use this power directly at our planned refinery,
providing even more local jobs and economic opportunities, and it would otherwise be absorbed in the local
distribution system. This project would connect us to the grid for potential export and expansion. Wind,
combined with some of our future gas production, could allow Ft. Berthold to provide power directly to the
grid.
Despite past failures, Native Americans can establish effective wind power
Mills, Masters Degree in Science from Berkley, 2006
(Andrew, Wind Energy in Indian Country:Turning to Wind for the Seventh Generation, accessed on 7/8/2008)
Winds of change are blowing in Indian Country – and bringing with them a new source of sustainable jobs and
revenue. Numerous tribes in the United States have pursued clean, renewable energy sources ranging from
ancient design practices that use passive solar heating or passive cooling to modern, utility-scale wind
turbines. While different tribes have unsuccessfully attempted to build wind projects in the past, recent
developments in Indian wind energy projects demonstrate that wind energy projects on tribal land are not
only possible, but provide an opportunity for participation in clean energy development.
Your claims that development won’t happen are wrong.

Tribes interested in developing sources and use of renewable energy could benefit from considering the
findings from these studies. Cornell and Kalt concluded that many of the common explanations for lack of
successful economic development on Indian reservations, while not necessarily wrong, are of unequal
importance or are insignificant, misleading, or mistaken. As an alternative, they offered what they believe to
be a more useful analytical framework that identifies the key ingredients of successful economic
development, determines which are most important, and identifies which ones tribes actually can do
something about. The key ingredients of development identified by Cornell and Kalt are the following: •
External factors: Political sovereignty, market opportunity, access to financial capital, and distance from
markets • Internal assets: Natural resources, human capital, institutions of governance, culture •
Development strategy: Overall economic system, choice of development activities
Your empirical claims are false

WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Regardless of the effectiveness of past treaties and negotiations, tribes entering into agreements for funding,
land, or supply must honor the agreements if they want to maximize stability. This does not mean clauses
cannot be written into contracts allowing renegotiation at some future time; rather, once a contract has been
entered into, all future governments must honor that contract. This, of course, is a partial definition of self-
determination: the tribe is accountable for its own actions. With stable government and detailed analysis, the
tribe will be able to develop a detailed plan for specific renewable energy projects. Rather than accepting BIA
negotiated contracts, such as the Peabody Coal contract on Hopi and Navajo land which subsequently led to
conflict and turmoil, the tribe itself should determine its best interest and negotiate from a position of stability
and knowledge. When the negotiations are completed, it is in the best interest of the tribe that its future
governments should honor those contracts.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Indigenous Advantage-Wind Leads to Self-

Sustainability/Sovereignty
Sustainable energy sources for Tribal nations allows for preservation of sovereignty by
breaking and reversing the biopolitical structure of violent and hazardous resource
extraction.
POWELL, 2006 (Department of anthropology University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Dana Powell
Technologies of Existence: The indigenous environmental justice movement
Accessed online http://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/develp/v49y2006i3p125-132.html July 8, 2008)
Not completely unlike the Ecuadorian Pachakutik movement Walsh describes, the movement for
‘environmental justice’ in indigenous communities in the US is experimenting with alternative strategies to
restructure the production of power to advance democracy and sovereignty for indigenous communities. This
essay addresses the possible resignification of development being produced by the practices and discourses
of a particular indigenous movement in the US, which addresses controversies over natural resource
management on reservation lands. In particular, I consider the emergence of renewable energy projects
within the movement as new modes of economic, ecological, and cultural development, countering the
history of biopolitical regimes of natural resource extraction, which have marked indigenous experience in
North America since Contact. I argue that these emerging technologies not only resist but also propose
alternatives to the dominant models of energy production in the US.
Energy independence through wind technology can advance tribal autonomy and
guarantee sovereignty.
Acker et al 2002 (Thomas L. Acker, Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering William M. Auberle,
Professor, Civil and Environmental EngineeringEarl P.N. Duque, Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering
William D. Jeffery, Adjunct Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering David R. LaRoche, Program Director,
Center for Sustainable Environments Virgil Masayesva, Director, Institute for Tribal Environmental
Professionals Dean H. Smith, Associate Professor, Economics and Applied Indigenous StudiesThe Implications
of the Regional Haze Rule on Renewable and Wind Energy Development on Native American Lands in the
West accessed online July 8, 2008 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.
Only energy independence can establish cultural and political sovereignty.

Bain et al 2004 (BAIN, BALLENTINE, DESOUZA, MAJURE, SMITH, AND TUREK. Authors of AMERICAN INDIAN
CULTURE AND RESEARCH JOURNAL 28:2 (2004) 67–79 “Navajo Electrification for Sustainable Development:
The Potential Economic and Social Benefits” access July 8, 2008
http://aisc.metapress.com/index/92G2314855771GHQ.pdf)
Economic development, a process that involves every part of the social system, can help maintain tribal
character. It is vital to formulate all development plans with an understanding of how they affect the overall
societal makeup. Only when the tribe both has control of its resources and can sustain its identity as a distinct
civilization does economic development make sense; otherwise, the tribe must choose between cultural
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
integrity and economic development. A common misconception involves the seeming conflict between
maintaining a tribe’s cultural heritage and increasing economic activity on the reservation. However, a main
purpose of this work is to show that cultivating the economy can confirm and develop the tribal culture.
Maintaining the cultures and strengthening sovereign powers is a manifest imperative in Indian country. One
way to achieve this goal is to develop tribal resources—in this case the sun’s rays—in a manner that respects
the cultural context.
Wind power can allow tribal sustainability and sovereignty

Toensing, 2008 (01-02-2008 Gale Courey Toensing staff WRITER Indian country today “ Green energy
provides opportunities for tribes” accessed online July 8, 2008 via ELibrary)
He lauded the nations that are already exploring their opportunities to develop wind, geothermal, solar and
biofuels, and for looking at the second and third generation technologies that are on the horizon, such as
grass and oil crops, low-end hydro power, wave and tidal energies, and the conversion of algae into energy. "I
think the opportunities not only for development of these renewable energy sources on Native American
lands, but also distribution of that energy is going to lead to job creation and job retention and support of
social service networks," he said. "And, sovereignty being the bottom line, you control your own resources
and you're in a much better position than leaving it out there for somebody else to make these decisions for
you." Renewable sources are neither new nor unfamiliar to tribal communities; they are the elemental earth,
fire, water and wind, handed from the forefathers, according to Cassidy.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Indigenous Advantage-Wind Leads to Self-

Sustainability/Sovereignty
Working with the government on wind development can allow tribal nations to
strengthen their culture, political status and sovereignty.
Acker et al 2002 (Thomas L. Acker, Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering William M. Auberle,
Professor, Civil and Environmental EngineeringEarl P.N. Duque, Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering
William D. Jeffery, Adjunct Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering David R. LaRoche, Program Director,
Center for Sustainable Environments Virgil Masayesva, Director, Institute for Tribal Environmental
Professionals Dean H. Smith, Associate Professor, Economics and Applied Indigenous StudiesThe Implications
of the Regional Haze Rule on Renewable and Wind Energy Development on Native American Lands in the
West accessed online July 8, 2008 http://ses.nau.edu/pdf/Smith_AWEA.pdf.
Many Native American tribes are interested in developing renewable energy resources. Of the 237 tribes in
the WRAP region, about 60 have an excellent wind resource (Class 5 or better). The Regional Haze Rule
provides a potential impetus for tribes with air quality programs and visibility concerns to consider renewable
energy development. Beyond that, however, tribal development of wind and renewable energy provides a
potential for economic development and increased tribal sovereignty. In order to successfully develop their
renewable resources, tribes may seek partners to help overcome some of the financial and technical barriers.
For potential collaborators it is important to realize that partnering with tribes to develop their resources will
likely need to occur in the context of their overall goal of maintaining and strengthening their cultural, social,
economic, and political integrity, not just as a business opportunity. Furthermore, it is important to realize that
among the tribes in the WRAP region, there is great diversity when considering their differing levels of energy
and economic infrastructures, both physical and institutional.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Indigenous Advantage-Wind Leads to Economic

Development
Tribal wind projects would help native economies
Development of natural resources, including energy sources like coal or renewable resources such as timber products,
adds to the economic base. Wind energy can contribute to the economic base in a similar manner. If the power
from the wind farm is sold to utilities in Arizona or California, for instance, then the income earned by local wind farm
employees or land lease fees adds to the economic base of the Navajo economy.
Greater economic prosperity leads to tribal self-determination

One of the elements that linked tribal self-determination to increased economic development was that
besides the tribes choosing their own future, they also began to take on leadership roles in projects on their
land. Studies found that tribally managed projects transferred skills and information to members, enhanced
tribal employment, and lead to retention of expenditures in the tribal economy (Ambler 1990, 28). In general,
conditions improve on tribal lands when their rights to self-government are respected (Suagee 1998).
Energy development key to economic development

Energy development can play an important role in economic development by building capacity within tribes
and by providing revenues to tribal governments for economic development projects. Capacity is built within
tribal governments by taking on responsibility of managing energy projects.
Wind Energy leads to economic development

Wind energy offers the same potential as energy development in boosting economic development through
capacity building and self-determination. For tribes that depend on energy revenues for their tribal programs,
wind energy offers the potential to partially diversify the source of revenues. In the short run, periods of
energy resource price fluctuations can be stabilized with funds from wind projects. Of course in the long run, the
value of wind energy depends on the cost of alternative energy prices. If the price of natural gas were to fall to a low level
for an extended time, a tribe like the Navajo Nation would have royalties and taxes on gas reduced and the rent
they could collect on selling electricity from a wind project would also be reduced.
Energy independence would allow indigenous populations to remove their population

from poverty and unemployment.
Burke and Sikkema 2007 (Burke, Kate, and Linda Sikkema. "Native American power: Native American
tribes are tapping into alternative energy sources with great benefits to themselves and their neighbors."
Kate Burke is NCSL's energy program manager and Linda Sikkema is director of NCSL's Institute for State-
Tribal Relations. Accessed online via Expanded academic ASAP July 8, 2008)
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 Lilies 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
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
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.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Indigenous Advantage-Wind Leads to Economic

Development
Plan provides the means for self-sufficiency and economic growth
Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network/International Indian Treaty Council, 2006,
UN Commission on Sustainable Development 14th Session, “Meeting Growing Needs for Energy Services
through Increased Use of Renewable Energy” July 8, 2008,
http://www.sdissues.net/SDIN/uploads/CSD%2014%20IP%20Intervention%20%5BWIND%20RESOURCES%5D%
20Wednesday%20Afternoon%20Rm%204%20May%203%20(FINAL).doc
Renewable energy generated on indigenous lands and territories can have significant public health,
environment, economic, social and legal benefits for indigenous peoples. Mechanisms for the further
development of locally-indigenous controlled wind power and renewable energy projects throughout the world
would help address indigenous sustainable development goals. At this point, the cheapest source of
renewable energy is wind power. Some things to reflect as lessons learned is these indigenous wind power
projects must have meaningful and proactive consultation between the federal national government and the
indigenous leadership and community as well as providing technical and financial assistance to the
indigenous tribes. In the words of one of our indigenous woman leaders in the U.S., “Make wind, not war.”
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Indigenous Advantage-Wind Sustains Tribal Culture

‘Soft alternatives’ solve this decimation of native culture by providing more eco-friendly
solutions to our energy needs
Suagee 1992
(Dean B., J.D. @ U. of North Carolina, “Self-Determination for Indigenous Peoples at the Dawn of the Solar
Age”, 25 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 671, Spring and Summer, accessed online July 9, 2008, p. L/N) DMZ
This Article challenges readers to help make the principle of self-determination for indigenous peoples a
reality. Part I presents an overview of the emerging international law of the rights of indigenous peoples and
discusses the threat of cultural genocide. Part II presents a comparative law example of the status of
indigenous peoples under the domestic law of the United States, where American Indian tribes n5 retain a
[*675] substantial measure of their original sovereignty. Although the status of Indian tribes in the United
States is less than ideal, a large number do continue to exist as politically distinct communities, and each
tribe is intent on being treated as a permanent feature of our federal system. This continued and distinct
existence teaches many lessons that are applicable in the international arena. In particular, Part II notes the
recent trend in United States environmental law of authorizing Indian tribal governments to be treated as
states and offers some comments on one federal grant program which is designed for the express purpose of
helping Indian tribes to preserve their cultural heritage. The experience in the United States also provides
numerous examples of tribes that have suffered severe cultural and social disruption because of the
decimation of wildlife populations and other profound changes in the natural environment caused by the
dominant society. Part III suggests that the international recognition of rights will be a hollow success for
indigenous peoples unless the industrialized societies also achieve a transition from environmentally
destructive to environmentally sustainable development. In particular, Part III focuses on energy consumption
both in the industrialized societies and in the less developed countries. This Article focuses on energy for one
significant reason. In many parts of today's world, the kinds of environmental damage that threaten the
survival of indigenous peoples are driven by the ways in which the economic engines of the industrialized and
industrializing countries consume energy. Over the past two decades, we have learned new ways to provide
the kinds of services and benefits [*676] that in the past we provided by consuming nonrenewable energy
resources. These new ways render the environmental destruction and pollution of the old ways both
unnecessary and unjustifiable. Part III presents an overview of the alternative energy development scenario,
sometimes called the "soft energy path," which is based on energy efficiency and environmentally sustainable
solar and other renewable energy technologies. Taking soft energy paths will not in itself solve the global
environmental crisis, but it is an essential part of the solution.
Wind allows for the preservation of indigenous culture

Dana E Powell, Department of Anthropology at University North Carolina Chapel Hill, 2008,
Palgrave McMillan, “Local/Global Encounters: Community Rights and Natural Resources,” Accessed July 8,
2008 BC
The significance of the relatively recent emergence of wind and solar technologies as tribal development
projects is that tribes are increasingly connecting into this network of renewable energy activism as a means
of economic growth, ecological protection, and cultural preservation. Seemingly an oxymoron – to preserve
'tradition' with the use of high-tech machines – advocates of wind and solar power emphasize that cultural
preservation is itself about flexible practices, change, and honouring worldviews in which the modernist
distinction between nature and culture is nonsensical. In other words, when some of the most important
cultural resources are the land itself (i.e., mountains for ceremonies, waters for fishing, soils for growing
indigenous foods), to protect nature is also to protect culture. As Bruno Latour has also argued, this natures-
cultures epistemology is also ontology – a different way of knowing, inhabiting and engaging the world
(Latour, 1993, 2005). Wind turbines and solar photovoltaic panels are articulating with this worldview, and at
the same time articulating with many tribes' desires to move beyond fossil fuel extraction as a primary means
of economic development, and towards natural resource practices that are more 'sustainable'. The wind and
the sun introduce new elements of common property to be harnessed for alternative development projects
and increased decentralization and ownership over the means of power production.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Indigenous Advantage-Impacts
Global decolonization movements are critical to averting environmental collapse and
extinction.
Tinker 96
(George E., Iliff School of Technology, “Defending Mother Earth: Native American Perspectives on
Environmental Justice, ed. Jace Weaver, p. 171-72) DMZ
My suggestion that we take the recognition of indigenous sovereignty as a priority is an overreaching one that
involves more than simply justice for indigenous communities around the world. Indeed, such a political move
will necessitate a rethinking of consumption patterns in the North, and a shift in the economics of the North
will cause a concomitant shift also in the Two-thirds World of the South. The relatively simple act of
recognizing the sovereignty of the Sioux Nation and returning to it all state-held lands in the Black Hills (for
example, National Forest and National Park lands) would generate immediate international interest in the
rights of the indigenous, tribal peoples in all state territories. In the United States alone it is estimated that
Indian nations still have legitimate (moral and legal) claim to some two-thirds of the U.S. land mass.
Ultimately, such an act as return of Native lands to Native control would have a significant ripple effect on
other states around the world where indigenous peoples still have aboriginal land claims and suffer the
ongoing results of conquest and displacement in their own territories. American Indian cultures and values
have much to contribute in the comprehensive reimagining of the Western value system that has resulted in
our contemporary ecojustice crisis. The main point that must be made is that there were and are cultures that
take their natural environment seriously and attempt to live in balance with the created whole around them in
ways that help them not overstep environmental limits. Unlike the West’s consistent experience of alienation
from the natural world, these cultures of indigenous peoples consistently experienced themselves as part of
the that created whole, in relationship with everything else in the world. They saw and continue to see
themselves as having responsibilities, just as every other creature has a particular role to play in maintaining
the balance of creation as an ongoing process. This is ultimately the spiritual rationale for annual ceremonies
like the Sun Dance or Green Corn Dance. As another example, Lakota peoples planted cottonwoods and
willows at their campsites as they broke camp to move on, thus beginning the process of reclaiming the land
humans had necessarily trampled through habitation and encampment. We now know that indigenous
rainforest peoples in what is today called the state of Brazil had a unique relationship to the forest in which
they lived, moving away from a cleared area after farming it to a point of reduced return and allowing the
clearing to be reclaimed as jungle. The group would then clear a new area and begin a new cycle of
production. The whole process was relatively sophisticated and functioned in harmony with the jungle itself.
So extensive was their movement that some scholars are now suggesting that there is actually very little of
what might rightly be called virgin forest in what had been considered the “untamed” wilds of the rainforest.
What I have described here is more than just a coincidence or, worse, some romanticized falsification of
Native memory. Rather, I am insisting that there are peoples in the world who live with an acute and
cultivated sense of their intimate participation in the natural world as part of an intricate whole. For
indigenous peoples, this means that when they are presented with the concept of development, it is sense-
less. Most significantly, one must realize that this awareness is the result of self-conscious effort on the part
of the traditional American Indian national communities and is rooted in the first instance in the mythology
and theology of the people. At its simplest, the worldview of American Indians can be expressed as Ward
Churchill describes it: Human beings are free (indeed, encouraged) to develop their innate capabilities, but
only in ways that do not infringe upon other elements – called “relations,” in the fullest dialectical sense of
the word – of nature. Any activity going beyond this is considered as “imbalanced,” a transgression, and is
strictly prohibited. For example, engineering was and is permissible, but only insofar as it does not
permanently alter the earth itself. Similarly, agriculture was widespread, but only within norms that did not
supplant natural vegetation. Like the varieties of species in the world, each culture has contributed to make
for the sustainability of the whole. Given the reality of eco-devastation threatening all of life today, the
survival of American Indian cultures and cultural values may make the difference for the survival and
sustainability for all the earth as we know it. What I have suggested implicitly is that the American Indian
peoples may have something of values – something corrective to Western values and the modern world
system – to offer to the world. The loss of these gifts, the loss of the particularity of these peoples, today
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
threatens the survivability of us all. What I am most passionately arguing is that we must commit to the
struggle for the just and moral survival of Indian peoples as peoples of the earth, and that this struggle is for
the sake of the earth and for the sustaining of all life. It is now imperative that we change the modern value
of acquisitiveness and the political systems and economics that consumption has generated. The key to
making this massive value shift in the world system may lie in the international recognition of indigenous
political sovereignty and self-determination. Returning Native lands to the sovereign control of Native peoples
around the world, beginning in the United States, is not simply just; the survival of all may depend on it.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Indigenous Advantage-Impacts
Loss of indigenous cultures risks extinction.
UN 1992
(United Nations Station of Sustainable Development, Leaflet 10, accessed online
www.unhchr.ch/html/racism/indileaflet10.doc) DMZ
It is widely accepted that biological diversity cannot be conserved without cultural diversity, that the long-
term security of food and medicines depends on maintaining this intricate relationship. There is also a
growing realization that cultural diversity is as important for the evolution of civilization as biodiversity is for
biological evolution. The promotion of homogenous cultures poses a serious threat to human survival on both
fronts. A workshop on “Drug Development, Biological Diversity and Economic Growth,” convened by the
National Cancer Institute of the US National Institutes of Health in 1991, concluded that “Traditional
knowledge is as threatened and is as valuable as biological diversity. Both resources deserve respect and
must be conserved”.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Indigenous Advantage-AT: Business Abuses

Indigenous Peoples
Trust doctrine solves – the government is 100% effective in vitalizing native economies.
Failure of the government to intervene is what allows strip mining, uranium production
and exploitation from capitalism
Wood 1995
(Mary Christina, Assistant Prof. of Law @ U. of Oregon, “Protecting the Attributes of Native Sovereignty”, 1995
Utah L. Rev. 109, p. L/N) DMZ
Many presume that the national Self-Determination policy will revitalize the reservation economies by
supporting the autonomy of tribes to negotiate with large corporations for resource development. Still, it is
useful to question whether the arrival of twentieth-century corporate America on the doorstep of Indian
Country has indeed brought economic prosperity to the native nations. The answer must provide a backdrop
to any trust analysis concerning the economic attribute of sovereignty. Some have persuasively argued that
many modern Indian development schemes are designed to enrich non-Indian market interests at the
expense of native economic sustainability. The allegation is made forcefully by Ward Churchill and Winona
LaDuke in an article describing the domestic "colonialism" still waged against tribes under the guise of
promoting tribal economic development and sovereignty. n183 The authors analyze the historic transition of
[*155] some native economies to industrial economies, focusing in large part on the role of anglo-style tribal
governments formed under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 ("IRA"). n184 Closely accountable to the BIA
in their early years, the tribal councils often acceded readily to the development requests of the government,
n185 and as the authors describe, operated as "classic vehicle[s] of necolonialism." n186 The authors suggest
that on many reservations federal policies extinguished subsistence-based, self-sufficient native economies,
n187 and established in their place a new socioeconomic structure primed for industrial exploitation: a
dependent Indian population desperate enough to meet the "cruder labor needs of industrialism," combined
with tribal governments willing to negotiate the reservations' future through leasing contracts. n188 With
these components, the industrial model gained a firm foothold in the Southwest, enabling mineral companies
to reap vast quantities of reservation resources. n189 As the authors note, the industrial experience
devastated many [*156] tribes. n190 A repeating pattern of toxic contamination across many of the
Southwest reservations n191 left large-scale environmental damage that, for all practical purposes, often
precluded any return to a subsistence, land-based economy. n192 The work force, trained for no other type of
employment, was often left adrift. The health effects on Indian workers resulting from daily encounters with
toxic elements were substantial and often lethal, resulting in an exploding demand for health and social
services on the reservation. n193 Rarely were private interests held accountable for their environmental and
economic damage. n194 The entire scenario-- depletion of raw natural resources, use of reservation
populations for dangerous, unskilled work, and the unchecked proliferation of toxins into the surrounding
ecosystem--does indeed suggest exploitation on a grand scale and calls into question whether the industrial
paradigm is beneficial to tribes over the long term. n195 For many, however, even posing the question may
be inappropriate. In the era of Self- Determination, no development occurs without tribal council approval,
and there is a prevailing assumption that tribal councils approve only those projects that benefit the tribal
economy without risking other important values. Secondguessing [*157] tribal council decisions, even in a
broad policy context, may affront contemporary notions of tribal sovereignty. Although the concern is valid,
nevertheless, the constraints faced by tribal councils in making economic decisions warrant inquiry,
particularly in the context of trust analysis. The notion of tribal selfdetermination rests on a basic presumption
that decisions are freely made throughout the full arena of tribal decision-making. At least in the economic
realm this assumption ignores the constraints facing tribes in the modern economy. Many tribes lack the basic
economic freedom which is the presumed hallmark of the United States' capitalist system of free enterprise.
Impoverished and sometimes desperate for any source of income, some tribal councils will accept
unfavorable--and in some cases repugnant--corporate offers of development, regardless of the consequences
to their society. n196 Many tribes entertain offers of strip mining, uranium production, and waste disposal
despite the severe health, safety, environmental, social, and economic effects, simply because there is no
other perceived alternative. n197 Lack of economic freedom is a familiar mark of exploitation, n198 yet it
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
persists [*158] in Indian Country behind a cheerful veil of tribal self-determination. n199 Because of severe
economic dependency, tribes may find their options unreasonably, if not coercively, dictated by the
preferences of economically dominant non-Indian parties.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind Advantage-Tribal Wind Solves Energy Crisis

Tribal lands could meet the entire nation’s electricity needs with wind power-federal
incentives are key.
Rob Capriccioso 4/11 (2008, Indian Country Today, "Tribes look for federal wind energy incentives",
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2008/04/11/tribes-look-for-federal-wind-energy-incentives/)
The wind energy setbacks in Congress have been especially disappointing to some tribes, since their lands
often have some of the highest wind resource potential in the nation. Research from the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory indicates that many of the windiest areas in the U.S. are located close to and on
reservations. The laboratory has estimated that the total tribal wind generation potential is about 535 billion
kwh per year, or 14 percent of the total U.S. electric generation in 2004. South Dakota alone is capable of
producing 566 gigawatts of electrical power from wind, which is the equivalent of 52 percent of the nation’s
electricity demand. Wind energy potential is also great in tribe-rich states including Montana, Minnesota and
Wyoming. ”We have always known that we have some of the best wind energy resources in the country,” said
Renville, and recent wind measurement assessments have confirmed that assumption. His tribe is currently
preparing to find a partner to help them harness wind energy and ultimately sell it to electric companies.
Renville expects that the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe will soon be in the position to install up to 50 wind
turbines in an effort to diversify its economy. Thus far, the tribe has funded all of its wind energy efforts on its
own.
Indigenous peoples and protected lands have enough wind to provide most of the
nations energy.
Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network/International Indian Treaty Council, 2006,
UN Commission on Sustainable Development 14th Session, “Meeting Growing Needs for Energy Services
through Increased Use of Renewable Energy” July 8, 2008,
http://www.sdissues.net/SDIN/uploads/CSD%2014%20IP%20Intervention%20%5BWIND%20RESOUR
CES%5D%20Wednesday%20Afternoon%20Rm%204%20May%203%20(FINAL).doc
Within the United States our Indigenous network is working with other Indigenous organizations and tribes in
pursuing alternative clean energy development as our contribution to address these critical issues of global
warming that is caused by the fossil fuel industry. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that 75% of the
electricity demand in the lower 48th parallel of the U.S. could be produced by wind resources in a region we
call the Great Plains, which is a rural area of the U.S. The wind power potential for twelve of our Indigenous
tribes in the Great Plains states of North and South Dakota alone, has the potential to exceed 250 gigawatts
of power. Renewable energy development within the indigenous territories of both the U.S. and Canada can
help our indigenous tribes in the development of sustainable homeland economies, as well as providing
energy security to the country at large.
Tribal nations could generate enough wind power to eradicate all fossil fuel burning
electricity.
Awehali, 2006 (Brian Awehali June 5, 2006 Brian is LiP Founder and Editor-in-Chief
http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featawehali_nativefutures.htm accessed July 7, 2008)
Tribal 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, “Tribal landholdings in the southwestern US…could generate
enough power to eradicate all fossil fuel burning power plants in the US.” The questions to be answered now
are: what sort of energy will Indian lands produce, who will make that decision, and who will end up benefiting
from the production? According to 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 homegrown energy supplies.” This, she says, is “consistent with the President’s National Energy
Policy to secure America’s energy future. ”Rosier’s statement conveys quite a lot about how the government
and the energy sector intend to market the growing shift away from dependence on foreign energy. The idea
that “America’s energy future” should be linked to having “more reliable homegrown energy supplies” can be
found in native energy-specific legislation that has already passed into law. What this line of thinking fails to
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
take into account is that Native America is not the same as US America. The domestic “supplies” in question
belong to sovereign nations, not to the United States or its energy sector.
Wind Advantage-Wind Eases Dependence on Coal

Wind energy decreases fossil fuel consumption and solves emissions and environmental
problems
Zaidi 2007 [Kamaal, J.D. Candidate, University of Tulsa, 11 Alb. L. Envtl. Outlook 198, ARTICLE: WIND
ENERGY AND ITS IMPACT ON FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PLANNING: POWERING RENEWABLE ENERGY IN
CANADA AND ABROAD, lexis]
The global wind energy industry is growing at a rapid pace. n204 From a purely economic perspective, producing wind
energy helps reduce the high costs of electricity consumption. n205 Fossil fuels represent the traditional
means of producing energy, but given the finiteness of this resource, the high levels of pollution it produces,
and the rapid rise in consumption costs from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, the advent of cheaper
and more efficient wind energy tools like wind turbines are proving to be an attractive alternative. n206 While
some forms of wind energy are more costly to apply than [*232] conventional means (such as with offshore wind projects), the high
demand for electricity consumption is causing conventional energy costs to rise at a rapid rate. n207 In contrast, wind energy costs
are declining due to the improved technological advancements in producing more efficient wind energy
production from wind turbine engines. n208 Governments, industries, and consumers are beginning to realize the potential
benefits associated with renewable energy extraction and application. n209 From an environmental perspective, the use of wind
energy greatly reduces the adverse effects of land and air pollution, while conserving local habitats by
lessening the impact on wildlife. n210 It is thus important to examine some global approaches in applying wind energy as an
important renewable alternative.
Wind energy could ease our dependence on coal-fired power for electricity.
Aslam, writer for One World, 2006
(Abid, Problem: Foreign Oil, Answer: Blowing in the Wind?, accessed on 7/8/2008,
http://us.oneworld.net/node/130133)
In particular, ''wind energy is emerging as a centerpiece of the new energy economy because it is abundant,
inexpensive, inexhaustible, widely distributed, clean, and climate-benign,'' meaning that it does not add to
global warming, said Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute. Scientists blame global warming for
increases in storms, floods, and droughts as well as the spread of tropical diseases in temperate zones. Last
year, U.S. wind-generating capacity grew 36 percent to 9,149 megawatts. It could expand by another 50
percent this year, Brown said. According to Brown, a pioneer in his field, enough wind energy can be
harnessed from three states--North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas--to satisfy national electricity needs. All at
falling prices. The cost of wind-generated electricity has fallen from 38 cents per kilowatt-hour in the early
1980s to 4-6 cents today, Brown said. Indeed, many consumers of 'green electricity'--wind energy, for the
most part--now pay less for their electricity than do customers using conventional power. ''When Austin
Energy, the publicly owned utility in Austin, Texas, launched its GreenChoice program in 2000, customers
opting for green electricity paid a premium,'' said Brown. ''During the fall of 2005, climbing natural gas prices
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
pulled conventional electricity costs above those of wind-generated electricity.'' ''This crossing of the cost
lines in Austin and several other communities is a milestone in the U.S. shift to a renewable energy
economy,'' he added. Austin Energy buys wind-generated electricity under 10-year, fixed-price contracts and
passes this stable price on to its GreenChoice subscribers, Brown explained. Among customers signing up for
the option were corporate majors Advanced Micro Devices, Dell, IBM, Samsung, and 3M. In the public sector,
the Round Rock, Texas school district expects to save local taxpayers $2 million over 10 years by switching to
green electricity, Brown said. Despite media coverage that has focused on opposition to large wind turbine
installations in places like Cape Cod, he added, most locales have welcomed the technology and commercial
wind farms have been set up in 30 states. He cited the example of upstate New York, where dairy farmers in
Lewis County near Lake Ontario embraced the 195-turbine Maple Ridge Wind Farm--and the $5,000-$10,000
annual royalty offered for each of the turbines on their land, which they still could use for pasture or other
productive purposes. ''Rural communities welcome wind farms because they provide income to farmers and
ranchers, skilled jobs, cheap electricity, and additional tax revenue to upgrade schools and maintain roads,''
said Brown. Policymakers in Washington could aid the growth of renewable energy--and help America outgrow
its oil dependence--by preserving or enhancing incentives such as the production tax credit, aimed at
offsetting subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear power, Brown said.
The US could decrease dependence on fossil fuels with wind power.

China Daily, 2006
(“WIND, SOLAR ENERGIES NOW A MATCH FOR OIL AND COAL”, accessed on 7/8/2008, LexisNexis)
Renewable resources currently provide more than 6 per cent of total US energy, but that figure could increase
rapidly in the years ahead, according to a new report. Many of the new technologies that harness renewables
are, or soon will be, economically competitive with fossil fuels. Dynamic growth rates are driving down costs
and spurring rapid advances in technologies. The "American Energy: The Renewable Path to Energy Security
report, released by the Worldwatch Institute and the Centre for American Progress said since 2000, global
wind energy generation has more than tripled; solar cell production has risen six-fold; production of fuel
ethanol from crops have more than doubled; and bio-diesel production has expanded nearly four-fold. Annual
global investment in "new" renewable energy has risen almost six-fold since 1995, with cumulative
investment over this period nearly $180US billion. "With oil prices soaring, the security risks of petroleum
dependence growing, and the environmental costs of today's fuels becoming more apparent, the country
faces compelling reasons to put these technologies to use on a larger scale," notes the report. Some of the
findings include: The United States boasts some of the world's best renewable energy resources, which have
the potential to meet a rising share of the nation's energy demand. All but four US states now have incentives
in place to promote renewable energy, while more than a dozen have enacted new renewable energy laws in
the past few years, and four states strengthened their targets in 2005. California gets 31 per cent of its
electricity from renewable resources; 12 per cent of this comes from non-hydro sources such as wind and
geothermal energy. Texas now has the country's largest collection of wind generators. The United States led
the world in wind energy installations in 2005. Despite strong public support and rapidly rising interest in
renewable technologies, the United States has not kept up with the rapid growth in the sector globally over
the past decade. If the United States is to join the world leaders in renewable energy among them Germany,
Spain, and Japan it will need world-class energy policies based on a sustained and consistent policy
framework at the local, state, and national levels.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind Advantage-Wind Cleaner Than Fossil Fuels

Wind is the cleanest form of energy-doesn’t use fuel, emit CO2, or produce waste.
Zaidi 2007 [Kamaal, J.D. Candidate, University of Tulsa, 11 Alb. L. Envtl. Outlook 198, ARTICLE: WIND
ENERGY AND ITS IMPACT ON FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PLANNING: POWERING RENEWABLE ENERGY IN
CANADA AND ABROAD, lexis]
Wind energy is regarded as "green" technology because it produces no air pollutants or greenhouse gases,
and thus has little impact on the environment. n47 Therefore, wind energy neither uses any source of fuel, nor
produces toxic or radioactive waste. n48 Wind farms have had some impact on specific bird and [*208] bat populations. n49
However, as long as an appropriate site is located, the capture of wind energy also poses little threat to
damaging surrounding ecosystems, including wildlife and fauna and flora. n50 Wind farming is popular among farmers because
they can still grow crops and graze livestock on their land with little interference from wind turbines. n51 Using wind energy instead of
conventional fossil fuels to power approximately 200 homes would leave around 900,000 kilograms of coal in the ground and reduce
annual greenhouse emissions by 2,000 tonnes. n52 In the context of global environmental reforms like the Kyoto
Protocol (The Protocol), harnessing renewable forms of energy such as wind becomes a crucial step in meeting
broad objectives of sustainable resource development. n53 The Protocol was a global agreement ratified in 1997 by
developed nations, in response to the increasing demands of renewable energy use and high rates of industrialized pollution. n54 The
Protocol curbs greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, and contributes to global climate change. [*209] While Canada signed the Protocol,
other industrialized countries, including many traditional energy producers, were skeptical of the threat posed by global warming. n55
Indeed, commentators debate the costs and benefits of the Protocol, and whether there is a dramatic shift in climate change. n56
Despite this, searching for renewable energy sources is a high priority for nations striving to change their methods of extracting and
using natural resources, while achieving economic self-sufficiency and price controls on soaring energy costs. n57
Wind is the best clean alternative to fossil fuels.

Wiesner 2007 [Jared, JD Candidate, William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, Winter, 31
Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 571, NOTE: A Grassroots Vehicle for Sustainable Energy: The Conservation
Reserve Program & Renewable Energy, lexis]
wind turbines provide an attractive form of energy because they are clean. n224
From an environmental perspective,
Unlike electrical energy produced from fossil fuels, energy produced by turbines comes from a naturally clean source. n225
Thus, the numerous undesirable emissions that accompany the use of fossil fuels can be avoided when a wind
turbine is used instead. n226 On a political level, the use of wind turbines as a source of electricity falls in line with this nation's
recently enhanced energy policy goals. n227 Electrical energy from wind can be produced within the United States, and there is no
doubt the United States has a plentiful supply of wind. n228 Wind is also renewable because it is derived from the sun
and thus unsusceptible to the problem of depletion that faces finite fuels.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind Advantage-AT: No Demand for Wind Power

High demand for wind power now
RACHEL LAYNE AND CHRISTOPHER MARTIN, Bloomberg News, March 13, 2008
The Gazette (Montreal), “Wind power sales soar”, July 8, 2008. Lexis Nexis
General Electric Co. and Vestas Wind Systems AS, the world's two biggest wind-turbine makers, are reaping
benefits from record orders by U.S. utilities racing to add generating capacity even as they face the loss of
subsidies. GE, Vestas and Siemens AG stand to gain, although the extension of the production tax credit,
due to expire in December, is stalled in the U.S. Congress. Four years ago, the last time the credit wasn't
renewed, orders came to a near standstill. Now, rising natural gas prices and state greenhouse-emission
laws are fuelling a surge in demand for wind power, which accounts for 30 per cent of new generating
capacity and might boost GE's wind-turbine sales 25 per cent to $6 billion this year. Xcel Energy Inc., the
biggest U.S. provider of wind power, is buying 67 GE turbines for a Minnesota wind farm because the state
requires it to get almost one-third of its power from non-polluting sources. That will help GE reach operating
income margins of 17 per cent on wind turbines based on this year's sales, as much as five percentage points
greater than those of Danish competitor Vestas. Wind is the fastest-growing unit at GE Energy, the world's
biggest power-plant equipment maker. "Customers are giving billions of dollars of orders already because
they're afraid they're going to lose their spot in line," said John Krenicki, who runs GE's energy division. GE
posted more than $4.5 billion in wind-turbine sales last year, the most since it bought the business in 2002 for
less than $300 million from Enron Corp. GE's total revenue last year was $172.7 billion. GE, which became
the biggest U.S. supplier last year with 45 per cent of the market, has announced $1.7 billion in orders since
Feb. 28, including its second billion-dollar contract since November with Invenergy Wind LLC. Chicago-based
Invenergy has developed wind farms for such companies as MidAmerican Energy Holdings, the utility owned
by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Operating profit margins at GE's wind unit, now "mid-single
digit," might widen to at least 10 per cent as more turbines are installed and service contracts signed, said
Nicole Parent, a Credit Suisse analyst. "In our universe, GE is the best way to play the alternative energy
end market, particularly as it becomes a bigger portion of GE's total portfolio," Parent wrote in a Feb. 11
research note. She predicts the shares will rise 23 per cent in the next 12 months. GE Wind's profit margin
will eventually be about $1 billion, vice-chairman John Rice told an investor conference last month. If it
reaches that this year, when sales are forecast to rise to $6 billion, the profit margin would be 17 per cent.
Krenicki said global wind margins should improve two percentage points this year. Vestas said earnings
margins this year before interest and tax will be 10 to 12 per cent. Since 2004, GE's wind-turbine production
has increased six-fold and sales have quadrupled. U.S. utilities last year added wind turbines producing an
estimated 5,244 megawatts, a 45-per-cent increase, the American Wind Energy Association said. Installations
this year might equal last year's record as companies rush to finish projects before the credit expires, the
Washington-based trade organization said.
Wind is an economically feasible option

Runge and Tiffany 7
C. Ford (Professor of Economics and Law @ UMinn) and Douglas (Research fellow in econ @ UMinn). 1/1/7.
“Re-Examining the Production Tax Credit for Wind Power: An Assessment of Policy Options. Online.
Although wind is regarded by many as a minor energy source, it has provided power to people for thousands
of years by filling sails, and was captured for power mills and waterworks many centuries ago, essentially by
combining the idea of a sail with a rotating turbine. Faced with growing costs for hydrocarbon-based fuels and
legal and waste-disposal problems for nuclear fuels, wind appears increasingly attractive. With total U.S.
energy consumption projected to increase faster than production through 2025, leading to increases in net
energy imports from 27 percent of total consumption in 2003 to 38 percent in 2025, the importance of
domestic renewables, including wind, will grow.2 Apart from a growing dependence on foreign energy, CO2
emissions by the United States are projected to increase from 5,789 million metric tons (mmt) in 2003 to
8,062 mmt in 2025, an average annual increase of 1.5 percent.3 Wind power produces little or no CO2 or
other emissions, representing a clean alternative to fossil fuels. Wind energy is therefore a potentially
significant investment in both energy security and reduced dependence on imported fuels, as well as a
response to the environmental damages and climate disruptions increasingly linked to fossil fuel
consumption. In addition, wind energy can help promote rural development and employment. In states like
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
North Dakota, for example (which ranks 1st in development potential but 13th in state level production), each
1,000 megawatts of wind capacity is estimated to generate $1 billion in capital investment, $5.3 million in
annual property taxes, and nearly 400 indirect and secondary jobs.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind Advantage-Tribal Involvement Solves Global

Warming
Tribal involvement in is key to spurring action on global warming.
Donnelly, Staff writer for the Boston Globe, June 17, 2007
(John, “Indians speak forcefully on climate US tribes join discourse on global warming”, accessed on 7/7/2008,
LexisNexis)
"It's August color," he said of the tea-colored river. "It's not normal." The Mohawk Indian, along with members
of five other Native American tribes, was preparing for a sacred ceremony by the river to pray for "Earth
Mother." He said the planet was reacting to the overwhelming amount of pollution humans have produced
that caused changes around the globe, even in the river at his doorstep. "Earth Mother is fighting back - not
only from the four winds but also from underneath," he said. "Scientists call it global warming. We call it Earth
Mother getting angry." In recent months, some Native American leaders have spoken out more forcefully from
New Hampshire to California about the danger of climate change from greenhouse gases, joining a growing
national discourse on what to do about the warming planet. Scientists have documented climate change, but
Native Americans speak of it in spiritual terms and remind others that their elders prophesized environmental
tragedy many generations ago. Those who study Native American culture believe their presence in the
debate could be influential. They point to "The Crying Indian," one of the country's most influential public-
service TV ads. In the spot, actor Iron Eyes Cody, in a buckskin suit, paddles a canoe up a trash-strewn urban
creek, then stands by a busy highway cluttered with litter. The ad ends with a close-up of Cody, shedding a
single tear after a passing motorist throws trash at his feet. The "Keep America Beautiful" public service
announcement, which aired in the 1970s and can be seen on YouTube.com, helped usher in landmark
environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. "Within the last six
months, there's just been a loss of faith in the insistence [by some politicians] that global warming isn't
happening, and that we have nothing to do with it," said Shepard Krech III, an anthropology and
environmental studies professor at Brown University. Krech is the author of "The Ecological Indian," which
examines the relationship between Native Americans and nature. Though many citizens will look for "a
consensus in the scientific community" to convince them of climate change, Krech said, others will seek
"perspectives from Indian society ... Native Americans have a rich tradition that springs from this belief they
have always been close to the land, and always treated the land well." At a United Nations meeting last
month, several Native American leaders spoke at a session called "Indigenous Perspectives on Climate
Change." Also in May, tribal representatives from Alaska and northern Canada - where pack ice has vanished
earlier and earlier each spring - traveled to Washington to press their case. In California, Minnesota, New
Mexico, and elsewhere, tribes have used some of their casino profits to start alternative or renewable energy
projects, including biomass-fueled power plants. Here in the White Mountains, where Native Americans have
become integrated in the broader society, some have questioned the impact of local development. Jan
Osgood, an Abenaki Indian who lives in Lincoln, N.H., and who attended the sacred ceremony on the Baker
River, said she worries about several proposals that would clear acres of national forest on Loon Mountain for
luxury homes. "It breaks my heart," she said. She approached Ted Sutton, Lincoln's town manager, about the
project and gave him a book called "Touch the Earth: A Self-Portrait of Indian Existence," a collection of
writings by North American Indians that detailed the history of the US government's unfulfilled promises to
their tribes. The gift spurred their friendship, and an exchange of ideas of how to ensure development does
not ruin the mountains. After reading the book, Sutton said he agrees with the Native American philosophy of
life: Use nature respectfully, never taking more than is needed. "American Natives have been telling us all
along that this was going to happen to the earth," Sutton said. "They were telling us hundreds of years ago
that what we were doing [to the environment] would come back and haunt us. They have been proven right.
But hopefully we've started to listen to them and move back to some better management of our lives."
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind Advantage-Coal Bad for the Environment

Coal is uniquely bad for the environment
University, 2007
Long known as a major source of air pollution, coal-fired power plants are also major contributors to global
warming, accounting for almost 40 percent of our nation’s carbon dioxide pollution (CO2), the global warming
pollutant.3 But the truth is that the pollution created by generating electricity from coal does not start or stop
at the power plant. It stretches all the way from the coal mine to long after coal is burned and the electricity
has been used in our homes and businesses. Mining and burning coal scars lungs, tears up the land, pollutes
water, devastates communities, and makes global warming worse.
The natural landscape is destroyed by coal mining

University, 2007
Coal mining can cause irreparable harm to the natural landscape, both during mining and after. Trees, plants,
and topsoil are cleared from the mining area, destroying forests and wildlife habitat, encouraging soil erosion
and floods, and stirring up dust pollution that can cause respiratory problems in local communities. In
mountaintop removal mining, a coal company literally blasts apart the tops of mountains to reach thin seams
of coal buried below. Underground mining, including an intensive method known as longwall mining, leaves
behind empty underground spaces which can collapse and cause the land above to sink. Known as
subsidence, this process can cause serious structural damage to homes, buildings, and roads when the land
collapses beneath them.5 It can also lower the water table and change the flow of groundwater and streams..
Coal pollution uniquely affects minorities

University, 2007
Many scientific studies have shown that communities of color are disproportionately exposed to harmful air
pollution, including pollution from coal-fired power plants. Over half of the nation’s population lives in
counties that have unhealthy levels of air pollution like soot and smog.64 Furthermore, one study found that
60 percent of Latinos and 50 percent of African- Americans live in areas that are failing two or more national
air quality standards, as compared to only 33 percent of whites.65 One of the contributing factors may be
that communities of color and low income communities tend to live in areas that are closer to harmful sources
of pollution. African-Americans are more likely to live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant.66 African-
Americans and Latinos also tend to live closer to other sources of toxic pollution like waste sites and bus
depots, which makes them more likely to develop health problems from air pollution.67 In addition to living
closer to coal-fired power plants, African- Americans also have one of the highest rates of asthma among any
cultural group, and are three times as likely as whites to die from asthma.68, 69 Numerous studies have
shown that smog and soot pollution can trigger asthma attacks and increase the need for hospitalizations.70
Coal plants produce mercury pollution

University, 2007
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Additionally, coal-fired power plants emit large quantities of toxic air pollutants such as chromium, lead,
arsenic, hydrogen chloride, and mercury. In fact, they are one of the largest sources of man-made mercury
pollution in the U.S.75 After mercury is released in the exhaust, it enters the air and then rains down into our
streams, lakes, and other waters where it poisons the fish and seafood that eventually make their way to our
dinner tables.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind Advantage-Coal Bad for the Environment

Mercury pollution uniquely harms Tribal lands
University, 2007
One group that may be at particular risk from mercury pollution exposure is American Indians, especially
individuals who live on reservations or in communities that depend on fish for subsistence. 83 Studies of the
Seminoles, Chippewa, and other native groups show that American Indians tend to eat many more fish meals
per year than average, putting them and their families at greater risk from mercury pollution.84 In addition to
being a staple of the diet, fish and fishing among indigenous groups also may serve as part of a strong
cultural identity, connecting the individuals with the land and the seasons. For instance, in Florida, Seminole
Indians living near the Everglades continue to rely on fish as a major part of their traditional diet, even though
studies have linked mercury pollution to the death of endangered Florida panthers and local bird populations.
85 Another example is in the Midwest, where Chippewa Indians depend heavily on fish for cultural identity,
including during annual ritual ceremonies.86 Every year the seasonal break up of ice is celebrated through a
communitywide feast of walleye fish that are caught during a big spearfishing event.87 Fish that is not eaten
at the feast is often taken home and frozen for future meals.88 In both examples, testing has shown that
people in these areas who eat a lot of fish have mercury levels well above the safe limit. One sample from the
Chippewa indicated that 36 percent were at risk.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind Advantage-Shift to Alternative Energy

Inevitable
The shift away from oil to alternative energy inevitable-it’s a question of when, not if
Woods, Staff Writer for the Times, July 6, 2008
(Richard, “How China’s thirst for oil can save the planet”, accessed on 7/8/2008,
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4277055.ece)
These days even diehard petrolheads know that in the long run there is no choice but to find an alternative to
the black gold that has lubricated the world for more than a century. All sorts of initiatives for clean, green
and renewable energy are being supercharged by oil prices that hit a new record last week of $146 a barrel –
and may well go higher. Among mainstream analysts, predictions of the price reaching $200 are
unexceptional. Last month Gazprom, the Russian oil giant, suggested it would hit $250 next year. The
maverick energy guru Robert Hirsch, who forecast the present oil squeeze, has suggested the price could
reach $500 a barrel within three to five years. Gas prices are also soaring and coal, though cheap and
plentiful, is one of the worst emissions. sources of CO2 What is bad news for businesses and consumers,
however, is good for investors in green energy. Vast sums of money are pouring into technologies that until
relatively recently were the preserve of niche businesses and environmental campaigners. This year should
see a record £73 billion or more invested in “clean technology” despite the credit crunch, according to a
report published last week by the consultants New Energy Finance for the United Nations.“The green energy
gold rush is attracting legions of modern-day prospectors in all parts of the globe,” said Achim Steiner, head
of the UN environment programme.
Increased oil prices make the shift to alternative energy inevitable.

Business and Financial News on 2 June 2008
(“Transition to alternative energy is inevitable”, accessed on 7/8/2008,
http://www.lifeisbusiness.com/article/347)
Prompt rise in prices for oil has for the first time for long time created threat of sharp delay of rates of
economic growth and has provoked increase in demand practically to all alternative energy sources.
Moreover, some experts mark, that the current power policy of many countries can in long-term prospect very
strongly affect the future of the Earth and even to alter in the further economic and geopolitical balance. Now
the future depends on those decisions, which are accepted now. Authorities of the developed and developing
countries should pay more attention to a problem of demand for oil as in the further it is impossible to
exclude an opportunity of an energy crisis. Meantime, on a background of sharp growth of demand for oil and
mineral oil, the prices for this raw material have jumped up practically twice, and last week for the first time
in history have overcome a mark 135 doll./barr. And, in market participants’ opinion, while demand for oil
from developing countries (for example, China) will grow, it is not necessary to expect reductions of prices on
this raw material. Already now the prices are on record-breaking high marks and not in the best way affect
consumers. Already now demand for alternative energy is much higher than several years ago.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind Advantage-AT: Wind Turbines Kill Birds

Most birds die of natural collisions—wind turbines kill virtually no birds.
Over the past fifteen years, a number of reports have appeared in the popular press about wind turbines
killing birds. Some writers have gone so far as to dub wind generators "raptor-matics" and "cuisinarts of the
sky". Unfortunately, some of these articles have been used as "evidence" to stop the construction of a wind
generator in someone's back yard. The reports of dead birds create a dilemma. Do wind generators really kill
birds? If so, how serious is the problem? A confused public oftentimes does not know what to believe. Many
people participate in the U.S.'s second largest past time, bird watching. Other's are truly concerned about the
environment and what they perceive as yet another assault on our fragile ecosystem. Unwittingly, they rally
behind the few ill-informed obstructionists who have realized that the perception of bird mortality due to wind
turbines is a hot button issue, with the power to bring construction to a halt. Birds live a tenuous existence.
There are any number of things that can cause their individual deaths or collective demise. For example, bird
collisions with objects in nature are a rather common occurrence, and young birds are quite clumsy when it
comes to landing on a perch after flight. As a result, about 30% of total first-year bird deaths are attributed to
natural collisions. By far, the largest causes of mortality among birds include loss of habitat due to human
infringement, environmental despoliation, and collisions with man-made objects. Since wind turbines fall into
the last category, it is worthwhile to examine other human causes of avian deaths and compare these to
mortality from wind turbines.
Birds dieing is non-unique-they crash into telecommunications towers.

American Wind Energy Association 2003
“PUTTING WIND POWER'S EFFECT ON BIRDS IN PERSPECTIVE,” byline Mick Sagrillo July 8, 2008,
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html //BC
This is not news, as bird collisions with lighted television and radio towers have been documented for over 50
years. Some towers are responsible for very high episodic fatalities. One television transmitter tower in Eau
Claire, WI, was responsible for the deaths of over 1,000 birds on each of 24 consecutive nights. A "record
30,000 birds were estimated killed on one night" at this same tower.7 In Kansas, 10,000 birds were killed in
one night by a telecommunications tower.8 Numerous large bird kills, while not as dramatic as the examples
cited above, continue to occur across the country at telecommunication tower sites. The number of
telecommunication towers in the U.S. currently exceeds 77,000, and this number could easily double by 2010.
The rush to construction is being driven mainly by our use of cell phones, and to a lesser extent by the
impending switch to digital television and radio. Current mortality estimates due to telecommunication towers
are 40 to 50 million birds per year.9 The proliferation of these towers in the near future will only exacerbate
this situation.
Non-unique—cats kill more birds than wind turbines.

Cats, both feral and housecats, also take their toll on birds. A Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) report states that, "recent research suggests that rural free-ranging domestic cats in Wisconsin may be
killing between 8 and 217 million birds each year. The most reasonable estimates indicate that 39 million
birds are killed in the state each year."
Wind turbines kill .01% of birds. Even with an exponential increase in turbines the bird
population wouldn’t be anymore threatened
This report states that its intent is to "put avian mortality associated with windpower development into
perspective with other significant sources of avian collision mortality across the United States."14 The NWCC
reports that: "Based on current estimates, windplant related avian collision fatalities probably represent from
0.01% to 0.02% (i.e., 1 out of every 5,000 to 10,000) of the annual avian collision fatalities in the United
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
States."15 That is, commercial wind turbines cause the direct deaths of only 0.01% to 0.02% of all of the
birds killed by collisions with man-made structures and activities in the U.S.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Wind Advantage-AT: Wind Turbines Kill Bats

Wind turbines kill virtually no bats ever-statistics prove.
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html Bat populations are endangered by human activities in general.
Disturbing or awakening hibernating bats disrupts their metabolism, often leading to starvation over winter.
Pesticides in the insects that bats prey upon can accumulate in the fats that bats depend upon for over-
wintering or migration, resulting in massive bat die-offs. Finally, loss of habitat threatens bats similarly to the
way that bird species are endangered. But do wind turbines in particular threaten bats? The interaction of
bats with wind turbines is, like many other behaviors that bats exhibit, not well understood. While there have
been numerous studies centered around birds and wind turbines, relative few of these studies have included
bats. The ones that have been done, however, suggest that wind turbines do not pose a significant threat to
bat populations. One of these studies, "Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor
Nesting, and Mortality Information from Proposed and Existing Wind Developments," by WEST, Inc., released
December, 2002, concludes that "bat collision mortality during the breeding season is virtually non-existent,
despite the fact that relatively large numbers of bat species have been documented in close proximity to wind
plants. These data suggest that wind plants do not currently impact resident breeding populations where they
have been studied in the U.S."
Less than three bats die for every wind turbine-You can’t access your impact.
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html The Buffalo Ridge study concludes by putting a number on the
bat mortality at from 2.45 to 3.21 bat fatalities per turbine, depending on location of the wind farm. The
Kewaunee County report came up with similar results. Over the two-year span of that study, researchers
documented 1.16 bat fatalities per turbine per year. Adjusting for possible sampling error could bring this
number as high as 4.26 bat fatalities per turbine per year. Like the other studies, the Kewaunee County study
found that the bulk of those killed by the wind turbines, over 90%, were migrating bats, not resident breeding
populations.
Non-Unique-Bats crash into lighthouses tall buildings and towers.

http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html We do know that many bats, like birds, die due to collisions
with "lighthouses, communications towers, tall buildings, power lines, and fences" (Buffalo Ridge report). But,
as with birds, the number of fatalities due to wind turbines is extremely low compared to collisions with other
man-made structures
You can’t even fake an impact—there is no risk of population implications.

Curry Kerlinger, consultant to the Wind Power Industry on Birds and Bats, 2008
“Bats and Power” accessed July 8, 2008, http://www.currykerlinger.com/bats.htm//BC
Here's what we know about this issue: The numbers of bats involved are small at most wind plants, although
in Minnesota and Wyoming moderate numbers have been found. Many of the bats involved in collisions with
wind turbines were apparently migrating. About seven species of bats have been documented to collide with
wind turbines. Bats involved are primarily common, tree-dwelling bats with widespread geographic
distributions. Endangered or threatened species have not been involved. Population impacts seem unlikely.
Bat fatalities have not emerged as a significant issue at wind plants in Europe. Migrating bats may turn off
their “sonar” causing them to fly into towers. Small numbers of bats also collide with communication towers.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Water Advantage-Nuclear Power Depletes Water

Resources
Nuclear power plants deplete massive amounts of the nation’s water supply.
James Kanter 2007 (May 20, International Herald Tribune, "Climate change puts nuclear energy into hot
water", http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/20/africa/nuke.php?page=1)
But there is a less well-known side of nuclear power: It requires great amounts of cool water to keep reactors
operating at safe temperatures. That is worrying if the rivers and reservoirs which many power plants rely on
for water are hot or depleted because of steadily rising air temperatures. If temperatures soar above average
this summer - let alone steadily increase in years to come, as many scientists predict - many nuclear plants
could face a dilemma: Either cut output or break environmental rules, in either case hurting their reputation
with customers and the public. Governments and the energy industry are just starting to grasp the
vulnerabilities of water-hungry power plants. If the complications prove serious in countries where inland
sources of water are growing scarce, where seafront nuclear stations are unwelcome or impractical and where
alternative cooling technologies are too expensive, it could take the bloom off of nuclear as a source of clean
energy and leave it more unclear than ever where sizable new power supplies might come from. "We're going
to have to solve the climate-change problem if we're going to have nuclear power, not the other way around,"
said David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer who is with the Union of Concerned Scientists. "As the climate
warms up, nuclear power plants are less able to deliver," he said. France relies on nuclear power more than
any other country and is held up by advocates of nuclear power as a model for how to generate enough
cheap and reliable electricity to sell surpluses abroad while reducing carbon dioxide emissions. But global
warming is exposing France to new risks. In countries like Australia, where the government is considering
introducing nuclear power, and the United States, which gets about a fifth of its electricity from nuclear
power, some officials and operators warn of similar pitfalls if plants are built in areas where there already are
water shortages. Finding enough water for nuclear plants "is front and center of everything we will do in the
future," said Craig Nesbit, a spokesman at Exelon, a Chicago-based company operating the largest group of
U.S. nuclear plants.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Water Advantage-Coal Power Pollutes Tribal Water

Coal mining pollutes water
University, 2007
Coal mining is frequently associated with water pollution, including acid mine drainage. One source of acid
drainage is from gobs, or piles of waste coal and other rocks that are cast aside during mining.17 Another
more common source of mine drainage is abandoned mines that fill with water that becomes acidic and
mixes with heavy metals and minerals.18 When this toxic water leaks out, it combines with groundwater and
streams, causing water pollution and damaging soils. Acid mine drainage can harm plants, animals, and
humans. For example, in Pennsylvania alone acid mine drainage has polluted more than 3,000 miles of
streams and ground waters, which affects all four major river basins in the state.19 The toxic pollution has
even led to places termed “no fish,” or streams where fish cannot survive because the water is so polluted.
Acid mine drainage has also been a problem for the past two decades in western Maryland, where officials
have documented 342leaks of toxic water and where a new discharge killed all of the fish in the Georges
Creek in 2006.20 Coal preparation, or “washing,” is another source of water pollution. Coal preparation uses
large quantities of water and chemicals to separate impurities from mined coal to make it easier to burn.
Using anywhere from 20 to 40 gallons of water per ton of coal,21 coal washing separates out non-combustible
components, which can be up to 50 percent of what is processed, and typically washes them away in a sludge
known as slurry.22 Up to 90 million gallons of slurry are produced every year in the U.S.
Coal mining pollutes water

University, 2007
Coal mining is frequently associated with water pollution, including acid mine drainage. One source of acid
drainage is from gobs, or piles of waste coal and other rocks that are cast aside during mining.17 Another
more common source of mine drainage is abandoned mines that fill with water that becomes acidic and
mixes with heavy metals and minerals.18 When this toxic water leaks out, it combines with groundwater and
streams, causing water pollution and damaging soils. Acid mine drainage can harm plants, animals, and
humans. For example, in Pennsylvania alone acid mine drainage has polluted more than 3,000 miles of
streams and ground waters, which affects all four major river basins in the state.19 The toxic pollution has
even led to places termed “no fish,” or streams where fish cannot survive because the water is so polluted.
Acid mine drainage has also been a problem for the past two decades in western Maryland, where officials
have documented 342leaks of toxic water and where a new discharge killed all of the fish in the Georges
Creek in 2006.20 Coal preparation, or “washing,” is another source of water pollution. Coal preparation uses
large quantities of water and chemicals to separate impurities from mined coal to make it easier to burn.
Using anywhere from 20 to 40 gallons of water per ton of coal,21 coal washing separates out non-combustible
components, which can be up to 50 percent of what is processed, and typically washes them away in a sludge
known as slurry.22 Up to 90 million gallons of slurry are produced every year in the U.S.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Water Advantage-Nuclear Power Pollutes Tribal Water

Uranium mining and nuclear power plants are polluting Tribal water reservoirs
Lisa Garrigues / Today correspondent, April 21, 2008.
Indian Country Today, “Southwest tribes fight to halt new uranium mining”. July 9, 2008.
A federal judge in early April blocked the British company Vane Minerals from continuing exploratory uranium
mining near the Grand Canyon. The judgment was a victory for environmental groups and for the 13 tribes
that are affected by uranium mining in the western United States. But the renewed interest in an old mineral
has tribal leaders on edge. At a congressional field hearing in Flagstaff March 28, Navajo Nation President
Joe Shirley Jr. said Navajos ''do not want to sit by, ignorant of the effects of uranium mining, only to watch
another generation of mothers and fathers die.'' ''We are doing everything we can to speak out and do
something about it,'' he continued. ''We do not want a new generation of babies born with birth defects. We
will not allow our people to live with cancers and other disorders as faceless companies make profits only to
declare bankruptcy and then walk away from the damage they have caused, regardless of the bond they
have in place.'' Representatives from the Kaibab Paiute, Havasupai, Hualapai and Hopi tribes also testified
at the hearing, along with representatives from the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service, local
counties, mining companies and the scientific community. The judge's ruling came as the result of a
complaint against the Forest Service entered by the Sierra Club, the Grand Canyon Trust and the Center for
Biologic Diversity. The Southwest's recent uranium boom, caused by a worldwide interest in nuclear-
powered alternatives to the dwindling supply of oil, has shot the price of uranium up to $136, from $10 in
1984, and lined the pockets of savvy investors and the treasuries of mining companies. At least five
companies have recently applied for uranium mining permits in New Mexico, where the uranium reserves are
estimated at 500 million pounds or more. Most of these reserves are on Navajo land. The nuclear power
fueled by uranium has been promoted by conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation as a clean
and ''logical'' source of alternative energy, and industry officials say the new mining activities could provide
much needed income and jobs. But the Navajo and other tribes in the region are still struggling from the
effects of the first uranium boom, from the 1950s to the 70s, when exposure brought cancer, birth defects
and premature death to people who worked in the mines as well as those who lived near them. Despite
assurances by uranium mining companies that new mining techniques are safer than the ones used before,
many tribal leaders are not convinced. ''I've yet to see any kind of new technology that's safe that's going
to protect the welfare of human beings and the environment.'' said Navajo tribal council member Amos
Johnson. ''The legacy of uranium mining has left a devastating impact on our people. We have hundreds of
abandoned mines where they've explored for uranium, and now some of those have been left open and have
contaminated groundwater.'' The Navajo have attempted to stop the surge in new uranium mining by
banning all mining activities on their land in 2005. But an 1872 mining law has made it easy for mining
companies to stake their claims in the Southwest. The Forest Service has also used a process known as
''categorical exclusion,'' introduced by the Bush administration, to expedite mining permits. ''They will
probably resort to congressional action to have indigenous sovereignty overruled, and we really hope that
doesn't happen,'' Johnson said. In March, Shirley addressed a U.S. Senate committee to request that the
U.S. respect Navajo sovereignty and vowed to take ''any and all measures'' to prevent uranium mining on
Navajo lands. Other Native nations have begun taking their own measures. Last year, the All Indian
Pueblo Council adopted a resolution against uranium mining in the Mount Taylor area of New Mexico,
deploring the ''significant and irreparable cultural and religious damages that have resulted from the failure of
the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department to consult with Acoma, the 19 Pueblos
and other affected tribes'' prior to issuing mining permits. Supai Waters, Keeper of the Secrets for the 650
Havasupai people who live inside the Grand Canyon, said Vane Minerals' exploratory mining near there had
already resulted in ''high-grade splotches'' that were visible in aerial footage. Other mining activities have
invaded the sacred sites of many of the region's tribes, including the Hopi and the Paiutes, he said. The
Havasupai are working to change their constitution to reflect stronger language against uranium mining in
the Grand Canyon, ''completely banning it - no mining, no extractions at all,'' Waters said. He emphasized
the importance of the region's Colorado River, which holds, in the oral tradition of many local tribes, not only
sustenance but creation itself. ''It is the sacred water that gave birth to a lot of those tribes that live close
to it.'' Recent mining activities were already affecting the aquifers near the river, he said. ''We are
unified to completely ban these detrimental developments that are going to be put on our sacred lands, all
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
the way from the west rim of the Grand Canyon to Blanding, Utah, to the Colorado River and Montezuma's
ruins, to Prescott and Kingman, Arizona.''
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Water Advantage-Nuclear Power Pollutes Tribal Water

Uranium mining destroys Tribal water sources
Rob Capriccioso, May 09, 2008
Indian Country Today, “A nuclear problem”. July 9, 2008.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has given hope to a growing group of Natives from the Pine Ridge
Indian Reservation in what's being called a classic ''David vs. Goliath'' battle for federal oversight involving a
proposed expansion of a nearby uranium mine. A three-judge panel from the commission ruled in late April
that Native opponents to new developments on the Crow Butte Resources mine, located approximately 30
miles south of the reservation, raised valid arguments regarding groundwater contamination and health
issues. The panel called for oral arguments on the matter, as well as a hearing on objections to the foreign
ownership of the mine, which is owned by the Canadian firm Cameco Corp., the world's largest uranium
producer. NRC's whopping 130-page decision came as a result of Cameco's desire to expand the mine,
which opened in 1991 and produces approximately 800,000 pounds of yellowcake uranium each year. Crowe
Butte officials have been petitioning to renew their existing license, and have filed notices of intention to
develop two new uranium mines. For several years, members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe have monitored
developments at the 2,100-acre Crow Butte site. Many have growing concerns that activities there are
affecting the quality of water on their lands, perhaps even leading to higher cancer rates and increased
health problems for children and elders. ''The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has basically given us the
right to fight for our rights,'' said Debra White Plume, director of Owe Aku/Bring Back the Way, a nonprofit
Lakota cultural group on Pine Ridge. She notes that raising funds to challenge Cameco has been difficult;
lawyers have been working largely pro bono on behalf of opponents, but science experts have been costly to
retain. NRC named Owe Aku and the Western Nebraska Resources Council, an environmental advocacy
group, as parties in the forthcoming hearings. Tribal leaders, including Chief Oliver Red Cloud and Chief Joe
American Horse, have also made arguments against the proposed expansion, and the OST could eventually
become a plaintiff in the case. Well-known Indian leaders, including Winona LaDuke, are supporting the efforts
as well. Some opponents to the expansion believe that fractures in underground rock allow the water used
in Cameco's mining process ultimately to end up mixing with water that people use for drinking and
sanitation, thereby spreading contamination from one aquifer to others. Miners remove uranium by
pumping water and bicarbonate into the ground; they then withdraw the solution and recover the mineral.
Preliminary scientific evidence suggests water near Pine Ridge contains contaminants associated with
underground minerals and metals being disturbed, and more research is under way. ''It's a desecration of
Mother Earth,'' White Plume said. ''In the Lakota way of thought, water is sacred - it's our first tool, our first
dwelling, our first medicine. It's a gift. Water is our relation, and it's our obligation to protect our relation.''
White Plume's argument might have legal footing under the ''Winters Doctrine,'' which serves to preserve
Indian water rights. The OST also recently passed an ordinance declaring its land a nuclear-free zone, and
leaders have promised to prosecute violators. ''Once you contaminate that groundwater, you cannot
recapture that contamination,'' White Plume said. ''And we're going to live here - our future generations are
going to live here - and we are going to suffer the impacts of that contamination.'' Cameco officials insist
their leach mining process is safe, noting that 100 to 200 feet of impermeable underground material
separates aquifers near the Crow Butte mine from aquifers that are used to give water to people. They also
say they closely monitor wells to detect and fix any problems. Regarding the NRC ruling to further examine
the expansion, Gord Struthers, a spokesman for Cameco, said the uranium company respects the regulatory
process. ''We're committed to safe and sustainable operations,'' he said. ''And we're following the process
in good faith.'' Struthers added that Cameco ''would never propose anything that wasn't entirely safe and
protective of people's health.'' After more scientific review, he expects there will be no question that the
proposed expansion is safe. But lawyers for the opponents to the expansion think Cameco has not being
entirely forthcoming, and believe further NRC review will have dramatic consequences for the company.
David Frankel, a lawyer representing the Western Nebraska Resources Council, said that there is no authority
under federal law for a foreign-owned company, such as Cameco, to receive licenses to mine uranium in the
U.S. ''It amounts to the illegal exportation of nuclear materials,'' he said, and added that under the Atomic
Energy Act, the government is authorized to regulate the transfer of nuclear materials under ''U.S. national
interests.'' ''It looks like our country's resources, especially those in Indian country, are being picked off by
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
foreign companies so that uranium can be sold on the market to the highest bidder,'' Frankel said. ''That's not
so good for the U.S. because it does pollute our water, it does pollute our environment.'' If the Crow Butte
mine is harming American Indians and others, it would be a violation of the law, according to Frankel. ''This
is an abusive situation. When people are wondering if they can safely go into sweat lodges, something is
wrong.'' NRC officials said a decision on whether to permit the Crowe Butte mine expansion is still several
months away.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Water Advantage-Methane Energy Pollutes Tribal

Water
Methane Mining sucks resources and destroys native water sources.
Adrian Jawort, 2007
Indian Country Today, “Northern Cheyenne lose at coalbed methane hearing”. July 9, 2008.
Limited coalbed methane (CBM) development will be allowed in southeast Montana's Powder River Basin
section bordering the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, according to a Sept. 11, 2 - 1 decision by a
panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case stemming from 2005. The Northern Cheyenne Tribe
had been against the encroaching development CBM mines surrounding the borders of their land, citing
environmental and cultural concerns. U.S. Judge Magistrate Richard Anderson said the Environmental Impact
Statement had not analyzed the impact of coalbed methane mines sufficiently in 2005, and ordered the
Bureau of Land Management to prepare a coalbed methane environmental impact statement in April 2005.
Anderson, however, said he'd permit the BLM to allow up to 500 wells while the new coalbed methane EIS
was being prepared. Those wells were not allowed to be drilled pending the outcome of the Northern
Cheyenne Tribe's June 2005 emergency appeal. The coalbed methane EIS is expected to be completed by
this winter, according to BLM spokesman Greg Albright. Chief Judge Mary Schroeder felt the decision for
CBM to be drilled negated the National Environmental Policy Act. ''Allowing this activity to take place before
completion of the [EIS] is contrary to the core purpose of the NEPA, which is to ensure consideration of all
alternatives before major government action is taken,'' Schroeder wrote. The Northern Cheyenne felt that
perhaps due to heavy pressure to domestically develop natural resources, judgment was rushed for approval
when the BLM hastily approved the drilling of areas next to the reservation without considering the cultural
and environmental implications that could arise. They also feel there was no look into alternative energy
resources that wouldn't include CBM, such as perhaps wind, solar energy and biofuels. Northern Cheyenne
Tribal President Eugene Little Coyote said, ''The tribe remains steadfast in its opinion that the National
Environmental Policy Act process should be completed before any major federal action is taken. The tribe is
confident that its position, as endorsed by the chief judge for the 9th Circuit in her dissenting opinion, will
ultimately be upheld.'' As the coalbed methane mines throughout north-central Wyoming's Powder River
Valley brought in natural gas energy for the United States and great profits to the state, CBM companies
looked further north towards the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation in southeastern Montana for rights to
drill that could include incentives for the tribe. ''The tribal council has a tough job in balancing these needs
with BIA and IHS budget cuts and the tribe's long-standing tradition of protecting the environment and their
sacred homeland,'' noted tribal member Dion Killsback, an associate of Holland & Knight LLP who serves on
the Northern Cheyenne Tribe's general counsel. ''That is why the tribal council, in collaboration with the
tribe's natural resource, environmental, cultural, legal and economic departments are currently developing a
comprehensive energy development policy to address all these concerns,'' Killsback said. After a 2006
letter of intent from the Great Bear Corp. of Oklahoma proposed coalbed methane and regular coal mining,
and was approved, it was then brought to the Northern Cheyenne tribal membership last November. They
voted 941 - 365 against the development of coalbed methane, but approved an initiative that would develop
coal reserves. Although the coal mining initiative was approved, Little Coyote stated in a press release that
they would have a ''develop comprehensive development policy'' in regards to its own mineral resources, and
no official action has even taken place for that yet. CBM mining is done by bringing underground reservoir
water to the surface in order to depressurize it. Then methane is able to escape from the coal bed on which
the water sits and settle in the underground air. The extraction of underground water is a major issue for
the tribe since it may affect their own underground springs that also supply local lakes with water, as is the
disposing of salinated water into the Tongue River. According to a recent Montana State University study,
there are three wells to extract water per 80 acres, and each well pulls out an average of 17,280 gallons of
water per day. The court's current decision left it unclear to all parties whether drilling would ensue,
pending another possible appeal.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Water Advantage-Water Shortages Hurt

Economy/Agriculture
Water scarcity is one of the primary detriments to the U.S. economy-only significant
policy changes can reverse the trend
Keith Schneider, regular contributor to the NYT, 7/9 (2008, Corporate Social Responsibility News, "U.S.
Faces Era of Water Scarcity", http://www.csrwire.com/News/12592.html)
Freshwater scarcity is proving to be the new risk to local economies and regional development plans across
the country. Just like the rising price of gasoline, the expanding number of home foreclosures, stagnant
incomes, and several other stubborn 21st-century trends, water is imposing limits on how America grows."So
the business-as-usual future is a bad one,” Gleick continued. "We know that in five years we'll be in trouble,
but it doesn’t have to be that way. If there were more education and awareness about water issues, if we
started to really think about the natural limits about where humans and ecosystems have to work together to
deal with water, and if we were to start to think about efficient use of water, then we could reduce the
severity of the problems enormously. I'm just not sure we’re going to."
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Successionism Add On
Even if Native Americans have never been truly sovereign, their legal system and
domestic economic policies are their last vestiges of freedom – denying these ensures a
decimation of their self-determination.
D’Errico 1997
(Peter, U. of Mass Prof, “American Indian Sovereignty: Now you See it, Now you Don’t”, Humboldt State,
accessed online July 8, 2008, p. L/N) DMZ
According to the theory of sovereignty in federal Indian law, "tribal" peoples have a lesser form of
"sovereignty," which is not really sovereignty at all, but dependence. In the words of Chief Justice John
Marshall in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), American Indian societies, though they are "nations" in the
general sense of the word, are not fully sovereign, but are "domestic, dependent nations." The shell game of
American Indian sovereignty -- the "now you see it, now you don't" quality -- started right at the beginning of
federal Indian law. The foundation of federal Indian law is the assertion by the United States of a special kind
of non-sovereign sovereignty. In 1973, the federal district court for the district of Montana stated the
underlying principle in the case of United States v. Blackfeet Tribe, 364 F.Supp. 192. The facts were simple:
The Blackfeet Business Council passed a resolution authorizing gambling on the reservation and the licensing
of slot machines. An FBI agent seized four machines. The Blackfeet Tribal Court issued an order restraining all
persons from removing the seized articles from the reservation. The FBI agent, after consultation with the
United States Attorney, removed the machines from the reservation. A tribal judge then ordered the U.S.
Attorney to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt of the tribal court. The U.S. Attorney applied
to federal court for an injunction to block the contempt citations. The Blackfeet Tribe argued that it is
sovereign and that the jurisdiction of the tribal court flows directly from this sovereignty. The federal court
said: No doubt the Indian tribes were at one time sovereign and even now the tribes are sometimes
described as being sovereign. The blunt fact, however, is that an Indian tribe is sovereign to the extent that
the United States permits it to be sovereign -- neither more nor less. [364 F.Supp. at 194.] The court
explained: While for many years the United States recognized some elements of sovereignty in the Indian
tribes and dealt with them by treaty, Congress by Act of March 3, 1871 (16 Stat. 566, 25 U.S.C. s 71),
prohibited the further recognition of Indian tribes as independent nations. Thereafter the Indians and the
Indian tribes were regulated by acts of Congress. The power of Congress to govern by statute rather than
treaty has been sustained. United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 6 S.Ct. 1109, 30 L.Ed. 228 (1886). That
power is a plenary power (Matter of Heff, 197 U.S. 488, 25 S.Ct. 506, 49 L.Ed. 848 (1905)) and in its exercise
Congress is supreme. United States v. Nice, 241 U.S. 591, 36 S.Ct. 696, 60 L.Ed. 1192 (1916). It follows that
any tribal ordinance permitting or purporting to permit what Congress forbids is void. ... It is beyond the
power of the tribe to in any way regulate, limit, or restrict a federal law officer in the performance of his
duties, and the tribe having no such power the tribal court can have none. [Id.] The fundamental premise of
"American Indian sovereignty" as defined in federal Indian law is that it is not sovereignty. Federal power
truncates "tribal sovereignty" in myriad ways too numerous to list here. Federal Indian law is perhaps the
most complex area of United States law (including tax laws). In civil and criminal law both, the range and
scope of "tribal sovereignty" is fragmented into overlapping and contradictory rules premised on one
foundation: the "plenary power" of the United States. That such "plenary power" is nowhere stated in the U.S.
Constitution is no more than a small nuisance to the judges who have declared its existence. Administrative
agencies and Congress alike grasp firmly to their judicially-created prerogatives of total power over their
"wards," in whose "trust" they act as they see fit. Federal Indian law is the continuation of colonialism. On the
basis of a non-sovereign "tribal sovereignty," the United States has built an entire apparatus for dispossessing
indigenous peoples of their lands, their social organizations, and their original powers of self-determination.
The concept of "American Indian sovereignty" is useful to the United States because it denies indigenous
power in the name of indigenous sovereignty.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
And ignoring calls by indigenous groups to self-determination makes secessionist

conflicts inevitable, threatening world order.
Kolodner 1994
(Eric, NYU School of Law, “The Future of the Right to Self-Determination”, Fall, 10 Conn. J.Int’l L. 153, accessed
online July 9, 2008, p. L/N) DMZ
Recently, however, some commentators have suggested that the international community should begin to
resist movements for self-determination. This perspective derives from a misguided conception of self-
determination and a short-sighted view on geo-political realities. Contrary to the assumption of these
observers, self-determination is not coterminous with secession, and therefore, self-determination movements
do not inherently produce international instability. In fact, since efforts to limit the self-determination
movements of today often foment the conflict of tomorrow, recognizing legitimate claims for self-
determination might ensure world stability. Rather than abandoning this important right, the international
community must readjust its conception of self-determination to address the changing needs of the post-Cold
War world. It should emphasize the internal aspects of this right, which in many respects comport with
principles of democratic governance that have recently assumed a primacy throughout the world.
Additionally, by the international community sup- [*167] porting movements for internal self-determination,
it can potentially avoid the disruption that often accompanies movements for external self-determination.
Because some peoples still suffer under neo-colonial oppression, however, the international community
should not categorically reject movements for external self-determination. Only when principles of internal
self-determination cannot satisfy the legitimate needs of an aggrieved people, should the international
community support this people's right to external self-determination. It should attach stringent conditions
upon the legitimate exercise of this right, however. Only by limiting movements for external self-
determination and recognizing legitimate movements for internal self-determination, can the international
community simultaneously foster human rights, support democracy, and maintain world peace and stability.
Successionism Add On
These movements go global
Bartmann 1999
(Barry, Chair of the Dept. of PoliSci@ U of Prince Edward Islands, “Facing New Realites”, June 2-6, accessed
online July 9, p. L/N) DMZ
The resistance to secessionist movements for self-determination is rooted, in part, in the careful and delicate
balance of power that characterised the Cold War period. Such movements were seen to be inherently
destabilising, particularly in an international system in which any political change was seen in terms of a zero
sum game of gains and losses. There were fears too that the success of such movements would open a
Pandora's Box of separatist causes that would unravel the fragile unity of too many states. Indeed, this fear is
not unjustified, particularly in Africa, where nation-building has been slow to support the brittle institutional
structures of the inherited colonial states. It is not surprising that the Organisation of African Unity would so
staunchly support the unequivocal terms of the principle of territorial integrity.
The impact is nuclear war

Shehadi 1993
(Kamal, Research Assoc. @ IISS, “Ethnic Self-Determination and the Break-up of States”, p. 81-82/Netlibrary)
DMZ
This paper has argued that self-determination conflicts have direct adverse consequences on international
security. As they begin to tear nuclear states apart, the likelihood of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of
individuals or groups willing to use them, or to trade them to others, will reach frightening levels. This
likelihood increases if a conflict over self-determination escalates into a war between two nuclear states. The
Russian Federation and Ukraine may fight over the Crimea and the Donbass area; and India and Pakistan may
fight over Kashmir. Ethnic conflicts may also spread both within a state and from one state to the next. This
can happen in countries where more than one ethnic self-determination conflict is brewing: Russia, India and
Ethiopia, for example. The conflict may also spread by contagion from one country to another if the state is
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
weak politically and militarily and cannot contain the conflict on its doorstep. Lastly, there is a real danger
that regional conflicts will erupt over national minorities and borders. Self-determination conflicts also have
indirect consequences on international security. First, they undermine fundamental principles of international
relations which are necessary - but not sufficient - for peace and stability, These principles are state
sovereignty - but not in the archaic sense of absolute sovereignty - territorial integrity and the inviolability of
borders, and are being undermined while no conscious effort is made to find alternative rules of the game.
Second, self-determination conflicts break some alliances and make others look obsolete, thereby
exacerbating regional security dilemmas and national insecurities. States and substate communal groups
constantly shift alliances to keep up with shifting strategic environments. This danger is serious enough to
have affected even an alliance as solid as the Atlantic alliance. It was observed, although maybe somewhat
overstated, that 'les conflits de 1'ex-Yugoslavie menacent de detruire la relation de securite et de defense
batie entre I'Amerique du Nord et I'Europeoccidentale'. Finally, ethnic conflicts, their proliferation and the
inability to formulate a common response to them destroy whatever is left of the illusion of a 'new world
order'.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Successionism Add On-Global War Impact

This leads to endless seccssionist wars, ethnic cleansing, and great power conflicts.
Fearon 1998
(James, Associate Prof. of Polisci @ U. of Chicago, “The International Spread of Ethnic Conflict”, p. 107-
108/Netlibrary) DMZ
Continuing the analogy, the principle of national self-determination remains as powerful and problematic
today as it was in the 1920s and 1930s. No one seriously questions the principle,2 but in the former Soviet
Union and Eastern Europe after communism, “self-determination” strongly pursued would seem to imply an
endless succession of irredentist and secessionist wars, state repression of minorities, ethnic cleansing,
enormous numbers of refugees and attendant problems, and perhaps fertile grounds for escalation to major-
power conflict. In the 1930s, according to some, Chamberlain and company’s acceptance of the principle of
self-determination deeply influenced their initial response to Hitler’s expansionist program (Taylor 1961, 189).
In responding to diverse ethnic conflicts and nationalisms to the East, the Western powers have been similarly
torn between the desire for peace and stable borders on the one hand, and acceptance of the principle of self-
determination on the other.3 Could this confusion foster ethnic wars and allow them to spread across borders
in such a way as to ignite serious major power conflict?
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Successionism Add On-Genocide Impact

Successionism makes mass killing of the opposing group inevitable – this is how
genocides start.
Shehadi 1993
(Kamal, Research Assoc. @ ISSS, December, “Ethnic Self-Determination and the Break Up of States”, p.
73/NetLibrary) DMZ
There are three main arguments levelled against border changes as a solution to protracted self-
determination conflicts. The first objection is that border changes in one case, however desirable in ending
the conflict, will have adverse consequences on other borders in the region and, possibly, elsewhere. This
raises the scenario of self- determination conflicts spilling over into neighbouring states and challenging their
borders as well. It is based on the assumption that the future and legitimacy of one international border is
tied to all others, that if one pillar goes, the whole edifice will crumble. This assumption is warranted only
when demonstration and contagion effects are likely to operate. The demonstration effect means that a
change in one border is likely to lead to changes in other borders. The success of one communal group in
bringing about this change encourages others and facilitates further changes. The demonstration effect
operates mostly within the same state, by demonstrating the weakness of the central authorities in dealing
with communal groups. Only in such a situation will giving in to one communal group’s desire to secede
encourage others. The concern for ‘contagion’ is more serious since new states are unlikely to be stable
internally. The creation of independent Central Asian states, for example, has made it easier for conflict to
spread from Central Asia to China. The Uighurs, among others, now find a more receptive environment from
which to operate inside China than when these states were part of the Soviet Union. Contagion from Kosovo
could also drag Macedonia into a civil war which opposes ethnic Albanians and ethnic Macedonians. Except in
these limited circumstances, a change in borders is not likely to destabilise a whole region. Even in one of the
unstable regions of the world, the Horn of Africa, Eritrean success in achieving self-determination has not
caused other border changes or even made future ones more likely to succeed. Further more, when a new
state is created, measures can be taken to protect it from the spill-over of neighbouring conflicts: the
deployment of UN observers; the dispatch of CSCE missions; and international help in building an internal
security force and developing democratic institutions (organisation and monitoring of elections, independent
judiciary, representative bodies, and intermediate associations such as unions and political parties). The
second objection is that opening up the possibility of border changes will revive dormant conflicts and ignite
the use of force. This is based on the assumption that self- determination claims are made when there is an
opportunity for the creation of a new state. However, this is seldom the case. Selfdetermination conflicts take
place mostly for internal reasons and are driven primarily by internal considerations, not by international
ones. Force will be used irrespective of what is on the bargaining table, whether borders or political systems,
because adversaries know that their bargaining power depends in large part on the military situation. The
possibility of border changes, however, may also encourage genocides and mass transfers of populations as
militias seek to create ethnically homogenous entities before they are recognised. To avoid this, the possibility
of border changes should be linked explicitly to the behaviour of the combatants.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Tribal Knowledge Add On

The development of wind energy on tribal land is the best way to further tribal
knowledge, allowing for a preservation of culture and the environment.
Dana E Powell, Department of Anthropology at University North Carolina Chapel Hill, 2008,
Palgrave McMillan, “Local/Global Encounters: Community Rights and Natural Resources,” Accessed July 8,
2008 BC
This trend, embedded in a broader network of environmental justice projects in Native America, is a move
towards renewable energy technologies on reservations: wind power and solar power in particular. While
these projects engage wider energy markets, global discourses on climate change and the 'end of oil', and
funds from federal agencies, they also embody an alternative knowledge grounded in an historical,
indigenous social movement in which economic justice for indigenous peoples is intimately intermeshed with
questions of ecological wellness and cultural preservation. As such, wind and solar technologies are being
presented and implemented as alternative approaches to dominant practices of economic development and
carry with them a history of centuries of struggle, as well as the hope for a better future. These emerging
practices of a social movement-driven development agenda draw our attention to the cultural politics,
meanings, histories, and conceptual contributions posited by unconventional development projects. As part of
an emerging movement in support of localized wind and solar energy production on tribal lands, these
projects are responses to the biopolitical operations of 20th century development projects. They respond to a
long history of removal, regulation, knowledge production, and life-propagating techniques administered on
reservation-based peoples. The movement itself addresses controversies in a way that interweaves the
economic, the ecological, the cultural, and the embodied aspects of being and being well in the world; as a
member of the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) said to me: The movement is really about health and
people dying ... people can't have an enjoyable life anymore. The work of the movement is never about the
power plant itself, but about how all the EJ (environmental justice) issues come together and link up to affect
people's lives ... its about having a good life (B Shimek, 2004, personal communication). Such an analysis
resonates with Arturo Escobar's emphasis on a framework of a 'political ecology of difference' and the need to
consider 'cultural distribution' conflicts in studies or other engagements with natural resource issues (Escobar
(2006) Introduction). Concerns of 'cultural distribution' have BCome crucial work for the IEJM as it seeks to
resignify development as 'environmental justice' in the context of a particular history of illness and disease,
environmental contamination, poverty, and place-based worldviews. I argue that the way in which the IEJM
has coalesced around these alternative development projects suggests that these projects are 'technologies
of resistance' (Hess, 1995) to dominant forms of economic development, but also – and perhaps more
significantly – imaginative technologies of existence, mediating a particular discourse of natural resource
controversies, including values of a 'good life'. As such, renewable energy technologies are resignifying the
politics of 'sustainability' through the movement's concept of 'environmental justice', which cuts across
reductive interpretations of economy, ecology, and culture.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Tribal Knowledge Add On

Sustainable agriculture is only possible through embracing indigenous knowledge. This
knowledge came from years of observational work with the environment instead of a
test station of capitalist elites. These systems only appear ‘simple’ and ‘antiquated’
because of the lens in which we view environmental protection.
Rajasekaran 93
(B., Center for Indigenous Knowledge for Agriculture and Rural Development @ Iowa State, “A framework for
incorporating indigenous knowledge systems into agricultural research, extension, and NGO’s for sustainable
agricultural development”, Studies in Technology and Social Change No. 21, Technology and Social Changes
Program @ Iowa State U., accessed online July 7, 2008, p. L/N) DMZ
Indigenous knowledge is local knowledge that is unique to a given culture or society (Warren, 1987).
Indigenous knowledge is the systematic body of knowledge acquired by local people through the
accumulation of experiences, informal experiments, and intimate understanding of the environment in a
given culture (Rajasekaran, 1993). According to Haverkort (1991), indigenous knowledge is the actual
knowledge of a given population that reflects the experiences based on traditions and includes more recent
experiences with modern technologies. Local people, including farmers, landless laborers, women, rural
artisans, and cattle rearers, are the custodians of indigenous knowledge systems. Moreover, these people are
well informed about their own situations, their resources, what works and doesn't work, and how one change
impacts other parts of their system (Butler and Waud, 1990). 1.2 Value of indigenous knowledge Indigenous
knowledge is dynamic, changing through indigenous mechanisms of creativity and innovativeness as well as
through contact with other local and international knowledge systems (Warren, 1991). These knowledge
systems may appear simple to outsiders but they represent mechanisms to ensure minimal livelihoods for
local people. Indigenous knowledge systems often are elaborate, and they are adapted to local cultural and
environmental conditions (Warren, 1987). Indigenous knowledge systems are tuned to the needs of local
people and the quality and quantity of available resources (Pretty and Sandbrook, 1991). They pertain to
various cultural norms, social roles, or physical conditions. Their efficiency lies in the capacity to adapt to
changing circumstances. According to Norgaard (1984, p. 7): Traditional knowledge has been viewed as part
of a romantic past, as the major obstacle to development, as a necessary starting point, and as a critical
component of a cultural alternative to modernization. Only very rarely, however, is traditional knowledge
treated as knowledge per se in the mainstream of the agricultural and development and environmental
management literature, as knowledge that contributes to our understanding of agricultural production and
the maintenance and use of environmental systems. 1.3 Diversity of indigenous knowledge Indigenous
knowledge systems are: adaptive skills of local people usually derived from many years of experience, that
have often been communicated through "oral traditions" and learned through family members over
generations (Thrupp, 1989), time-tested agricultural and natural resource management practices, which pave
the way for sustainable agriculture (Venkatratnam, 1990), strategies and techniques developed by local
people to cope with the changes in the socio-cultural and environmental conditions, practices that are
accumulated by farmers due to constant experimentation and innovation, trial-and-error problem-solving
approaches by groups of people with an objective to meet the challenges they face in their local
environments (Roling and Engel, 1988), decision-making skills of local people that draw upon the resources
they have at hand.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Tribal Knowledge Add On-Link/Impact Extensions

The status quo is inhibited by the assumption of traditional subservience – we presume
local solutions to the environment to ‘primitive’ and ‘behind the times’ – in reality, these
solutions are premised from generations of observational approaches to the
environment. Ignoring the value of native solutions only perpetuates further
deterioration of the environment, and complete collapse of global food supplies.
Rajasekaran 93
(B., Center for Indigenous Knowledge for Agriculture and Rural Development @ Iowa State, “A framework for
incorporating indigenous knowledge systems into agricultural research, extension, and NGO’s for sustainable
agricultural development”, Studies in Technology and Social Change No. 21, Technology and Social Changes
Program @ Iowa State U., accessed online July 7, 2008, p. L/N) DMZ
2.7 Consequences of disregarding indigenous knowledge systems Undermining farmers' confidence in their
traditional knowledge can lead them to become increasingly dependent on outside expertise (Richards, 1985;
Warren, 1990). Small-scale farmers are often portrayed as backward, obstinately conservative, resistant to
change, lacking innovative ability, and even lazy (IFAP, 1990, p. 24). The International Federation of
Agricultural Producers (IFAP) enumerated certain reasons for such a perception: Lack of understanding of
traditional agriculture which further leads to a communication gap between promoters and practitioners
giving rise to myths; The accomplishments of farmers often are not recognized, because they are not
recorded in writing or made known; and Poor involvement of farmers and their organizations in integrating,
consolidating, and disseminating what is already known. One of the greatest consequences of the under-
utilization of indigenous knowledge systems, according to Atteh (1992, p. 20), is the: Loss and non-utilization
of indigenous knowledge [which] results in the inefficient allocation of resources and manpower to
inappropriate planning strategies which have done little to alleviate rural poverty. With little contact with rural
people, planning experts and state functionaries have attempted to implement programs which do not meet
the goals of rural people, or affect the structures and processes that perpetuate rural poverty. Human and
natural resources in rural areas have remained inefficiently used or not used at all. There is little congruence
between planning objectives and realities facing the rural people. Planners think they know what is good for
these `poor', `backward', `ignorant', and `primitive' people. 2.8 Need for a conceptual framework Despite
continuous importance given to linkages between research-extension-farmer while developing, disseminating,
and utilizing sustainable agricultural technologies, several socio-political and institutional factors act as
constraints for such an effective linkage (Oritz et al., 1991). After a decade of rhetoric about feedback of
farmers' problems to extension workers and scientists, a large gap remains between the ideal and reality
(Haugerud and Collinson, 1991). Kaimowitz (1992: 105) provided illustrations to support the above statement:
Researchers perceived extension agents and institutions to be ineffective and unclear about their mandate,
making researchers reluctant to work with extension. When researchers did work with extension agents, they
tended to look down on them and view them as little more than available menial labor, an attitude strongly
resented by the extension workers. Keeping these potential constraints in conventional transfer of
technology, a framework for incorporating indigenous knowledge systems into agricultural research and
extension has been developed with the following salient features: strengthening the capacities of regional
research and extension organizations; building upon local people's knowledge that are acquired through
various processes such as farmer-to-farmer communication, and farmer experimentation; identifying the need
for extension scientist/ social scientist in an interdisciplinary regional research team; formation of a
sustainable technology development consortium to bring farmers, researchers, NGOs, and extension workers
together well ahead of the process of technology development; generating technological options rather than
fixed technical packages (Chambers et al., 1989); working with the existing organization and management of
research and public sector extension; bringing research-extension-farmer together at all stages is practically
difficult considering the existing bureaucracies and spatial as well as academic distances among the
personnel belonging to these organizations. Hence, utilizing the academic knowledge gained by some
extension personnel (subject matter specialists) during the process of validating farmer experiments;
outlining areas that research and extension organizations need to concentrate on during the process of
working with farmers. understanding that it is impractical to depend entirely on research stations for
innovations considering the inadequate human resource capacity of the regional research system. Chambers
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
and Jiggins (1987, p.5) supported the need for such a framework: The transfer of technology (TOT) model fits
badly with the needs and priorities of resource-poor farmers. Agricultural extension programs are still biased
towards techniques and strategies which are capital-intensive. Resource-poor farmers (RPF) are scattered and
are not able to make their needs and priorities readily known and felt. The TOT model cannot easily handle
the complex interactions of RPF farming; links between crops, especially with intercropping and multiple tiers;
agro-forestry and livestock-crop-tree complementaries; and the progressive adjustments required in the field
in the face of seasonal and inter-annual fluctuations.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Economy Add On
Wind energy creates jobs and economic growth.
AWEA, National Trade Association of the U.S wind energy industry,April 28, 2k8,accessed July 9, 2008,
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/Supply_Chain_Workshop_29Apr08.html
“I'm honored to welcome AWEA to our state,” said Iowa Governor Chet Culver (D). “It is our responsibility to
tap clean, renewable energy resources to spur investment and create new, green-collar jobs in Iowa.
Communities across Iowa that have experienced real economic challenges, like Keokuk, Fort Madison and
Newton, have recently seen a new rebirth by tapping into our booming wind industry. While each of these
cities is in the process of adding hundreds of new wind-generation manufacturing jobs, this is only the
beginning of what is possible.”“Wind energy has not only helped power many parts of Iowa, but it has
provided millions of dollars in economic activity to struggling communities,” added Senator Chuck Grassley
(R-IA). “Wind is an affordable and inexhaustible source of domestically produced energy. We must do
everything possible to capture and grow this renewable source of energy all the way up the supply chain."
AWEA expects about 600 attendees, making the workshop the trade group’s largest ever as well as the first
aimed at expanding the industry’s “supply chain,” or range of component suppliers. “The U.S. wind power
industry is a bright spot in our economy,” said AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher. “Every megawatt of
installed wind power creates employment in manufacturing, construction and operations as well as jobs in
advertising, office support, environmental assessment and other related professions. America’s vast wind
resources have barely been tapped, and we have only just begun to see wind’s potential to generate broad
economic growth.”Encouraged by the stability of the federal production tax credit (PTC), U.S. wind industry
manufacturing has surged from a very small base in 2005 to more than 100 facilities in 2007
PTCs are key to expansion of the U.S. economy.

AWEA, National Trade Association of the U.S wind energy industry,April 28, 2k8,accessed July 9, 2008,
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/Supply_Chain_Workshop_29Apr08.html
America’s vast wind resources have barely been tapped, and we have only just begun to see wind’s potential
to generate broad economic growth.”Encouraged by the stability of the federal production tax credit (PTC),
U.S. wind industry manufacturing has surged from a very small base in 2005 to more than 100 facilities in
2007. In 2005, the average wind turbine contained less than 30% American-made components. Today,
domestically manufactured content is approaching 50%. (A wind turbine is composed of some 8,000
components, ranging from towers and blades to gearboxes, generators, castings, ball bearings, and electronic
components.) New facilities were opened or announced last year in Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, North
Carolina, New York, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin. These facilities are expected to create
more than 6,000 permanent, well-paying jobs. Many of the fastest-growing wind industry suppliers in the U.S.
are slated to attend the workshop this week.“While the wind industry’s strong growth is encouraging, the PTC
is in danger of lapsing at the end of this year,” said Swisher. “It is vitally important for Congress and the
President to quickly extend the PTC—the primary U.S. incentive for wind power—as part of a long-term policy
for renewable energy to foster investment in wind installations, manufacturing capacity and thousands of new
jobs.”
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Acid Rain Add On

Coal-burning creates acid rain, creating positive feedback loops, and massive species
loss.
Patricia Glick, National Wildlife Association, 2001 (21: 482, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, "The
Toll From Coal”, http://bst.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/21/6/482)
Burning coal to generate electricity is the primary source of acid rain (and snow, sleet, and hail), which
continues to contaminate our waters, denude our forests, and eat away at our building sand monuments. Coal-fired
power plants emit nearly two thirds of all U.S. emissions of sulfur dioxide and are second only to motor vehicles as a source of
nitrogen oxides. Once in the atmosphere, these two pollutants react with other chemicals to acidify our precipitation. Ironically, the deep South and Midwest, home to the largest
number of coal-fired power plants, may escape some of the worst acid rain damage. Because emissions drift eastward on prevailing winds, much of the pollution falls in the eastern
Particularly vulnerable to acidification are aquatic
United States and Canada, taking a severe toll on ecosystems throughout the region.
ecosystem sand the many species that depend on them, including insects, amphibians, fish, birds, and mammals. In general, the higher the
level of acidity, the greater the number and type of species harmed. Crustaceans (such as clams and crayfish) and some insects (such as the may fly) tend to be the most sensitive to
acidified water (MinisterofEnvironment,1998). Scientists in eastern Canada, for example, have found that the invertebrate food webs of acidic lakes are considerably less diverse than
those with a normal pH and tend to be dominated by just a few species of insects. According to one study, several groups of flies—including may flies, caddis flies, damsel flies, and
dragon flies, which are favored as food by waterfowl in Ontario—virtually disappear when lake waters reach a pH of 5.5 or below (McNichol, Bendell, & McAuley, 1987).
Acidification has also affected important fisheries throughout North America, particularly in waters where the
pH has dropped below 6.0. In1980, in one of the broadest studies of the consequences of acidification, scientists
identified some 200 lakes in the Adirondack sand 200 in Ontario where all fish, including lake trout, wall eye, and
small mouth bass, had vanished as a result of acidification of these habitats (Harvey, 1980). There has since
been little recovery. Lake acidity levels in the region remain high and a few lakes have even become more acidified than they were in
the early1980s, despite recent progress in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions (National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, 1998). Many lakes in these regions are still devoid of
fish life. In parts of New England, spikes in acidity during spring snow melts have caused fish kills of brook trout and rainbow trout, as well as Atlantic salmon, a species that is
particularly sensitive to low pH. In fact, acid-related fish kills are believed to have had a significant and lasting effect on Atlantic salmon stocks in several rivers (Brodeur, Ytrestoyl,
Finstad, &McKinley, 1999; Irving, 1991; Shofield & Trojnar, 1980). Acid rain has also resulted in the destruction of key fish habitats. Only
half of Virginia’s mountain streams now support brook trout, down from 82% a century ago(Environmental Network News, 1999). Further to the south, Florida has the distinction of
having the greatest number of acidic lakes of any U.S. region due in part to acid rain (although many of the fish species commonly found in these lakes are relatively tolerant of high
acidity) (Schreiber, 1995). Although the East generally feels the brunt of acid precipitation, other regions have been affected as well. In Ontario, Minnesota, Michigan, and
acid rain has affected the quality of small lakes and tributaries that feed into the Great Lakes. A
Wisconsin,
number of species that depend on the seaquatic ecosystems are highly sensitive to acidification. In
Minnesota, for example, even mildly acidic waters have been shown to prevent small mouth bass from
successfully reproducing (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1999). Scientists have also found that
temporary pools created by acidified spring runoff can be highly toxic to many amphibians. These spring
ponds are favored breeding grounds for half of all North American frog species, especially toads and tree frogs, and
about 30% of all salamander species (Pough&Wilson, 1977). Spotted and Jefferson salamanders are particularly sensitive to
acidity and cannot breed in waters with a pH below 4.5, according to several studies (Freda, Sadinski, &Dunson, 1991).
Amphibians play an important role in many ecosystems, and a decline in the numbers can have serious
consequences for other species—including humans. For example, adult amphibians eat thousands of insects at
night; without them, insect populations may explode. In addition, a decline in amphibians affects other wildlife that
depends on the masa source of food. For people, the amphibians can provide a source of medicines to combat viral
and bacterial infections. They can also provide an important signal of environmental problems, given their permeable skin, soft
eggs, and exposure to stresses on both land and water (Blaustein&Belden, 1998). Unfortunately, when insects, fish, and
other species disappear, so do the animals that rely on them for food. For example, a decline in the quantity and quality of food
supplies as a result of acidification has hindered reproduction among a number of water fowl by reducing the number of off spring born and limiting their growth and survival
(Graveland,1998). Populations of such species as black ducks and ring-necked ducks have dropped substantially in the northeastern United States and eastern Canada—important
breeding areas hard hit by acid rain. And, studies have found that off- spring production among common mergansers on acidic lakes in Ontariois 88%lower than onless affected
lakes in the region (McNichol et al., 1987). Common loon chicks are also known to starve to death if the nesting lake lacks enough fish, partly because their parents will not bring
them fish from other lakes (Alvo,1988).Song birds are also affected by acid rain. Some warbler, swallow, fly catcher, and black bird species that feed on insects that begin their life
Changes in aquatic
cycles in water have experienced a decline in nesting success when acidification has limited their food supply (Blancher & McNichol, 1988).
ecosystems as a result of acid rain can affect mammals as well, particularly those that depend on aquatic
species for food. For example, river otters in North America and Europe have been shown to avoid acidic habitats or have reduced reproduction in such habitats because
they are less able to find adequate supplies of fish, amphibians, and other sources of food (Mason & MacDonald, 1989; New York’s Wildlife Resources, 1984). In addition to
acid precipitation creates a number of problems for forest
harming lakes and streams, and the wild life that depends on them,
ecosystems. It affects trees directly, through their foliage, and indirectly, by altering the chemistry of the soil in
which they grow. One of the most serious threats to foliage occurs when acid fog or mist blankets mountain top forests for a
period of time. Sulfuric acid, which is a component of acid precipitation, can interfere with photosynthesis and
therefore increase trees’ vulnerability to climate fluctuations and other stresses. In one study, researchers found
that increased sulfur content in the foliage of red spruce due to exposure to acid mist significantly increases the trees’ vulnerability to
frost damage (Sheppard,1994). Acidic compounds can also disrupt reproduction among wind-pollinated trees such as white birch and
mountain paper birch by inhibiting the germination of pollen (Minister of Environment, 1998). As serious as the effects on
foliage maybe, the impact of acid rain on soil chemistry is particularly devastating, and far more persistent
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
than once believed. Initial policies to address acid rain were based on the assumption that there were
enough natural buffers such as calcium, magnesium, and potassium in soil to neutralize the acids (much as an antacid calms a
queasy stomach). As a result, scientists believed that most forests and other ecosystems would quickly recover
with relatively moderate reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions (which have generally been considered the primary agent
of acid rain, for reasons described below). But, scientists have discovered that over time, acid rain has actually
been causing these buffering agents to leach out of the soil (Hubbard Brook Research Foundation, 1999). This
new evidence has led scientists to conclude that significantly greater reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions
are necessary. Scientists are also finding that nitrogen oxides are playing a growing role in the acid rain
problem because many ecosystems have become nitrogen “saturated.” A certain amount of nitrogen
provides a source of nutrients for plants and plays an important role in nature—this is why nitrogen oxides
have historically received less attention as a precursor to acid rain. Too much nitrogen, however, can be
harmful. When an ecosystem receives a greater influx of nitrogen compounds than it can use, the surplus
can contribute to acidification and subsequent mineral depletion much in the same way that sulfur
compounds do (Minister of Environment, 1998). Worse yet, it appears that acid-caused mineral depletion
may last for years, preventing ecosystems from recovering long after acid rain has diminished. At t h e H u b b a r d B
r o o k E x p e r i m e n t a l F o r e s t i n Woodstock, New Hampshire, researchers have found that calcium levels in
the soil are less than half what they were in the 1950s. Deprived of sufficient calcium and other nutrients, trees grow slower, their roots are
weaker, and they are less resistant to disease and pests soil (Hubbard Brook Research Foundation, 1999). The calcium deficiency affects species throughout the food chain, from
insects that feed on trees, to birds that eat those insects. For some birds, such as the tree swallow, lack of calcium in their food supply can impede development of their eggs’ shells
and lead to embryo death (Drent & Wildendorp, 1989).
AT: Agent Counterplans

Perm – do both. All areas of the government are necessary for indigenous shifts to be
successful.
Suagee 1992
Part IV presents some observations on critical needs that must be addressed if the vision of a soft-energy
future is to become a reality; to meet these needs will require action at all levels of government, as well as
action by international and nongovernmental organizations. As will be explained in the Article, American
Indian governments in the United States are uniquely situated to help bring about the transition to a soft-
energy future. Part IV suggests a few of the ways in which Indian tribes could use their governmental powers
to help realize such a future.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: States Counterplan

States can’t solve-poor relations with Tribal nations, no jurisdiction, and lack of cohesive
policy.
Erich Steinman, Asst. Prof @ University of Washington, 2004 (Spring, Publius Oxford Journal, "American
Federalism and Intergovernmental Innovation in State-Tribal Relations",
http://publius.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/34/2/95.pdf)
American Indian tribes and state governments have long been engaged in conflict over the control of Indian
reservation land and residents. Most commonly, tribes have struggled to maintain the exclusive control they
originally enjoyed at the time of each reservation's creation by the federal government. As one group of legal
scholars observes, "One of the clearest and most persistent themes involving Indian sovereignty has been the
continuous struggle by the states to assert greater control over Indian reservations, either at the expense of
the federal or tribal governments."1 Similarly, others note: "Exercises of state power have continually come
into conflict with tribal self-government. ... In case after case, states and municipal governments as
subdivisions of the states, have stretched to assert their governmental authority over Indians and their
territory."2 Because of state encroachments, states have been understood as the "deadliest enemies" of
tribes, as famously noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1886. Conflict between tribes and states reflects the
federalist division of powers regarding Indian affairs as declared in the United States Constitution. Since
beginning treaty relations with the tribal nations of North America in the earliest years of the republic, the
federal government has retained exclusive control over Indian affairs.4 It also declared reservations as
beyond the jurisdiction of states, thus formally limiting state-government intrusions into Indian Country even
as tribal governments exercised less functional power over time. State-tribal animosity also reflects the
anomalous place of tribes in relation to contemporary American governance. The status of tribes is not
prescribed in the United States Constitution because tribes were originally conceptualized as outside the
nation.5 As the country expanded geographically to include Indian reserves, federal policymakers have
grappled with whether and how to incorporate tribes into American society and governance, even as they
increasingly undercut tribal powers.6 Federal policies vacillating between poles of assimilation and
separatism generated frequent confusion and left the nature of tribal status and authority on reservations
muddled and contested throughout much of the twentieth century.7 Aided by the supportive federal policy of
Indian self-determination announced in 1970, tribes subsequently asserted inherent sovereignty. Tribes
initiated a growing range of governmental functions and actively claimed control over reservation lands as
well as tribal members. Such actions challenged the "creeping jurisdiction" states had been exercising over
reservation land and residents, and elicited considerable legal and political resistance from state officials.
States have no jurisdiction to work with Tribal nations-only federal action solves.
Federal Register 2000 (November 9, Federal Register Environmental Documents, "Executive Order
13175-Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments",
http://www.epa.gov/fedreg/eo/eo13175.htm)
In formulating or implementing policies that have tribal implications, agencies shall be guided by the
following fundamental principles: (a) The United States has a unique legal relationship with Indian tribal
governments as set forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and
court decisions. Since the formation of the Union, the United States has recognized Indian tribes as domestic
dependent nations under its protection. The Federal Government has enacted numerous statutes and
promulgated numerous regulations that establish and define a trust relationship with Indian tribes. (b) Our
Nation, under the law of the United States, in accordance with treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and
judicial decisions, has recognized the right of Indian tribes to self-government. As domestic dependent
nations, Indian tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members and territory. The United States
continues to work with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning
Indian tribal self-government, tribal trust resources, and Indian tribal treaty and other rights. (c) The United
States recognizes the right of Indian tribes to self-government and supports tribal sovereignty and self-
determination.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: PICs
The PIC operates by placing the concerns of human dignity below that of some nit-picky
whine that pales in comparison – this mindset makes colonial oppression inevitable.
Churchill 2003
(Ward, Prof. of Ethnic Studies @ U. of Colorado, Boulder BA and MA in Comm @ Sangamon State, “On Justice
of Roosting Chickens”, p. 8, accessed online Net Library) DMZ
Turning to America’s vaunted “opposition,” we find record of not a single significant demonstration protesting
the wholesale destruction of Iraqi children. On balance, U.S., “progressives” have devoted far more time and
energy over the past decade to combating the imaginary health effects of “environmental tobacco smoke”
and demanding installation of speed bumps in suburban neighborhoods—that is, to increasing their own
comfort level—than to anything akin to a coherent response to the U.S. genocide in Iraq. The underlying
mentality is symbolized quite well in the fact that, since they were released in the mid-1990s, Jean
Baudrillard’s allegedly “radical” screed. The Gulf War Did Not Take Place, has outsold Ramsey Clark’s The
Impact of Sanctions on Iraq, prominently subtitled The Children are Dying, by a margin of almost three to one.
The theoretical trajectory entered into by much of the American left over the past quarter-century exhibits a
marked tendency to try and justify such evasion and squalid self-indulgence through the expedient of
rejecting “hierarchy, in all its forms.” Since “hierarchy” may be taken to include “anything resembling an
order of priorities,” we are faced thereby with the absurd contention that all issues are of equal importance
(as in the mindless slogan, “There is no hierarchy to oppression”). From there, it becomes axiomatic that the
“privileging” of any issue over another-genocide, say, over fanny-pinching in the workplace—becomes not
only evidence of “elitism,” but of “sexism,” and often “homophobia” to boot (as in the popular formulation
holding that Third World antiimperialism is inherently nationalistic, and nationalism is inherently damaging to
the rights of women and gays). Having thus foreclosed upon all options for concrete engagement as mere
“reproductions of the relations of oppression,” the left has largely neutralized itself, a matter reflected most
conspicuously in the applause it bestowed upon Homi K. Bhabha’s preposterous 1994 contention that
writing,which he likens to “warfare,” should be considered the only valid revolutionary act. One might easily
conclude that had the “opposition” not conjured up such “postmodernist discourse” on its own initiative, it
would have been necessary for the status quo to have invented it. As it is, postmodernist theorists and their
post-colonialist counterparts are finding berths at elite universities at a truly astounding rate. To be fair, it
must be admitted that there remain appreciable segments of the left which do not subscribe to the
sophistries imbedded in postmodernism’s “failure of nerve.” Those who continue to assert the value of direct
action, however, have for the most part so thoroughly constrained themselves to the realm of symbolic/ritual
protest as to render themselves self-nullifying. One is again hard-pressed to decipher whether this has been
by default or design. While such comportment is all but invariably couched in the lofty—or sanctiomonious—
terms of “principled pacifism,” the practice of proponents often suggests something far less noble.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: PIC Out of “Permanent”

Inconsistencies in U.S. wind incentive policy from year to year are forcing companies to
shift to Europe
International Herald Tribune 2007 [November 8, U.S. winds morph into a European power play; EU
firms are attracted to open space and generous subsidies for green energy, Peter Maloney, staff]
All the biggest players in wind power are focused on the United States. This year, Acciona bought the wind
farm development rights of EcoEnergy of Elgin, Illinois, and Iberdrola bought CPV Wind Ventures of Silver
Spring, Maryland. Iberdrola also added the wind development company PPM Energy of Portland, Oregon, to its
business through its acquisition of a British company, ScottishPower, in April, and in 2006 it bought
Community Energy of Radnor, Pennsylvania. BP, based in Britain, also added to its green portfolio in 2006,
buying two U.S. wind developers, Greenlight Energy and Orion Energy. In October, the German company E.On
bought the North American wind farms of Airtricity of Dublin for $1.4 billion. ''In America you can put up a
200- or 300-megawatt wind park,'' Mexia said. ''You can't do that in Europe'' because of the lack of open
space for such large wind farms. There is also more potential for growth in the United States, where wind
farms account for barely 1 percent of installed generating capacity. In some EU countries, that figure is as
high as 10 percent. The biggest incentive, however, is not the strength and speed of the wind blowing across
some states, but a number of laws put in place in about half of the states to encourage the development of
renewable energy. At the national level, energy legislation calls for subsidies for wind power producers, in the
form of a tax credit. Meanwhile, 25 states now have laws that require utilities to obtain a certain amount of
power from renewable resources. This puts the United States at the top of a ranking of countries by Ernst &
Young on the best renewable energy markets. For many U.S. companies, however, the patchwork of laws and
regulations adds up to a headache. Things are much simpler in Europe. Spain, for instance, sets electric rates
once a year, and many European Union countries have simple ''feed-in tariffs,'' under which producers are
paid at fixed rates for electricity generated from renewable resources. But in the United States, ''regulation is
a daily event,'' said Edward Tirello, a senior strategist at Berenson, a consulting firm. Until recently, Tirello
said, many European energy companies were state-owned, and they still enjoy the legacy of their monopoly
positions, including rich cash flows.
This lack of PTC permanence causes companies to jump ship, trashing U.S.
competitiveness
Brown and Escobar 2007 [Britt, energy industry lawyer, JD, MBA, Benjamin Escobar, MIT-trained
chemical engineer and patent lawyer, 28 Energy L. J. 489, ARTICLE: WIND POWER: GENERATING ELECTRICITY
AND LAWSUITS, lexis]
This predictability has created a business environment in which technological development has excelled. With
respect to wind energy technology, however, the United States has lagged largely because until relatively
recently there has been little demand, compared to other parts of the world. This is starting to change as
domestic demand for wind energy increases. While domestic demand is growing, U.S. companies still need to
secure foreign demand for their products and technology not only to expand their market and profits, but also
to hedge against reduced domestic demand in the future, e.g., in the event Production Tax Credits are not
renewed.
Competitiveness key to hege

Zalmay Khalilzad, fellow at RAND, Spring 1995 [Washington Quarterly, “Losing the Moment? The United
States and the World After the Cold War”]
The United States is unlikely to preserve its military and technological dominance if the U.S. economy
declines seriously. In such an environment, the domestic economic and political base for global leadership
would diminish and the United States would probably incrementally withdraw from the world, become inward-
looking, and abandon more and more of its external interests. As the United States weakened, others would
try to fill the Vacuum. To sustain and improve its economic strength, the United States must maintain its
technological lead in the economic realm. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. In the past,
developments such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions produced fundamental changes positively
affecting the relative position of those who were able to take advantage of them and negatively affecting
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
those who did not. Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such transformation, which
will shift the sources of wealth and the relative position of classes and nations. If the United States fails to
recognize the change and adapt its institutions, its relative position will necessarily worsen. To remain the
preponderant world power, U.S. economic strength must be enhanced by further improvements in
productivity, thus increasing real per capita income; by strengthening education and training; and by
generating and using superior science and technology.
Nuclear War
Khalilzad, RAND Corporation, 1995 [Zalmay, “Losing the Moment?” The Washington Quarterly, Spring, l/n]
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a
global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding
principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United
States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more
open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a
world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear
proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S.
leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the
world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear
exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a
multipolar balance of power system.
AT: Consult Tribal Nations Counterplan
Consultation is normal means.
Mel Martinez, Secretary of Indian Housing U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 2001 (June 28,
U.S. Dept. of HUD, "Government-to-Government Tribal Consultation Policy",
http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/ih/regs/govtogov_tcp.cfm)
On April 29, 1994, a Presidential Memorandum was issued reaffirming the federal government's commitment
to operate within a government-to-government relationship with federally recognized American Indian and
Alaska Native tribes, and to advance self-governance for such tribes. The Presidential Memorandum directs
each executive department and agency, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by
law, to consult with tribal governments prior to taking actions that have substantial direct effects on federally
recognized tribal governments. In order to ensure that the rights of sovereign tribal governments are fully
respected, all such consultations are to be open and candid so that tribal governments may evaluate for
themselves the potential impact of relevant proposals. On May 14, 1998, the President issued Executive Order
13084, "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments," which was revoked and superseded
on November 6, 2000, by the identically titled Executive Order 13175, which sets forth guidelines for all
federal agencies to (1) establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal
officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications; (2) strengthen the United States
government-to-government relationships with Indian tribes; and (3) reduce the imposition of unfunded
mandates upon Indian tribes.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Give Back the Land Counterplan

The negative can’t articulate why our envisioning of perfect self-sufficiency isn’t the
type of impossible realism that Churchill says is key to US off the rock. By embracing
the notion that absolute self-sufficiency could happen with work, we can break the
confluence between the state and native peoples, ultimately leading to a dissolution of
this colonial state. Just because our starting point is government action doesn’t mean
we’re a false hope – tons of states have fallen behalf of their own actions before – we’re
just following in kind.
Churchill 96
(Ward, Prof. of Ethnic Studies @ U. of Colorado, Boulder BA and MA in Communications from Sangamon State,
“From a Native Son”, p. 520-530, p. NetLibrary) DMZ
The question which inevitably arises with regard to indigenous land claims, especially in the United States, is
whether they are “realistic.” The answer, of course is, “No, they aren’t.” Further, no form of decolonization
has ever been realistic when viewed within the construct of a colonialist paradigm. It wasn’t realistic at the
time to expect George Washington’s rag-tag militia to defeat the British military during the American
Revolution. Just ask the British. It wasn’t realistic, as the French could tell you, that the Vietnamese should be
able to defeat U.S.-backed France in 1954, or that the Algerians would shortly be able to follow in their
footsteps. Surely, it wasn’t reasonable to predict that Fidel Castro’s pitiful handful of guerillas would overcome
Batista’s regime in Cuba, another U.S. client, after only a few years in the mountains. And the Sandinistas, to
be sure, had no prayer of attaining victory over Somoza 20 years later. Henry Kissinger, among others, knew
that for a fact. The point is that in each case, in order to begin their struggles at all, anti-colonial fighters
around the world have had to abandon orthodox realism in favor of what they knew to be right. To paraphrase
Bendit, they accepted as their agenda, a redefinition of reality in terms deemed quite impossible within the
conventional wisdom of their oppressors. And in each case, they succeeded in their immediate quest for
liberation. The fact that all but one (Cuba) of the examples used subsequently turned out to hold colonizing
pretensions of its own does not alter the truth of this—or alter the appropriateness of their efforts to
decolonize themselves—in the least. It simply means that decolonization has yet to run its course, that much
remains to be done. The battles waged by native nations in North America to free themselves, and the lands
upon which they depend for ongoing existence as discernible peoples, from the grip of U.S. (and Canadian)
internal colonialism are plainly part of this process of liberation. Given that their very survival depends upon
their perseverance in the face of all apparent odds, American Indians have no real alternative but to carry on.
They must struggle, and where there is struggle here is always hope. Moreover, the unrealistic or “romantic”
dimensions of our aspiration to quite literally dismantle the territorial corpus of the U.S. state begin to erode
when one considers that federal domination of Native North America is utterly contingent upon maintenance
of a perceived confluence of interests between prevailing governmental/corporate elites and common non-
Indian citizens. Herein lies the prospect of long-term success. It is entirely possibly that the consensus of
opinion concerning non-Indian “rights” to exploit the land and resources of indigenous nations can be eroded,
and that large numbers of non-Indians will join in the struggle to decolonize Native North America. Few non-
Indians wish to identify with or defend the naziesque characteristics of US history. To the contrary most seek
to deny it in rather vociferous fashion. All things being equal, they are uncomfortable with many of the
resulting attributes of federal postures and actively oppose one or more of these, so long as such politics do
not intrude into a certain range of closely guarded selfinterests. This is where the crunch comes in the realm
of Indian rights issues. Most non-Indians (of all races and ethnicities, and both genders) have been
indoctrinated to believe the officially contrived notion that, in the event “the Indians get their land back,” or
even if the extent of present federal domination is relaxed, native people will do unto their occupiers exactly
as has been done to them; mass dispossession and eviction of non-Indians, especially Euro-Americans is
expected to ensue. Hence even progressives who are most eloquently inclined to condemn US imperialism
abroad and/or the functions of racism and sexism at home tend to deliver a blank stare or profess open
“disinterest” when indigenous land rights are mentioned. Instead of attempting to come to grips with this
most fundamental of all issues the more sophisticated among them seek to divert discussions into “higher
priority” or “more important” topics like “issues of class and gender equality” in which “justice” becomes
synonymous with a redistribution of power and loot deriving from the occupation of Native North America
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
even while occupation continues. Sometimes, Indians are even slated to receive “their fair share” in the
division of spoils accruing from expropriation of their resources. Always, such things are couched in terms of
some “greater good” than decolonizing the .6 percent of the U.S. population which is indigenous. Some
Marxist and environmentalist groups have taken the argument so far as to deny that Indians possess any
rights distinguishable from those of their conquerors. AIM leader Russell Means snapped the picture into sharp
focus when he observed n 1987 that: so-called progressives in the United States claiming that Indians are
obligated to give up their rights because a much larger group of non-Indians “need” their resources is exactly
the same as Ronald Reagan and Elliot Abrams asserting that the rights of 250 million North Americans
outweigh the rights of a couple million Nicaraguans (continues). Leaving aside the pronounced and pervasive
hypocrisy permeating these positions, which add up to a phenomenon elsewhere described as “settler state
colonialism,” the fact is that the specter driving even most radical non-Indians into lockstep with the federal
government on questions of native land rights is largely illusory. The alternative reality posed by native
liberation struggles is actually much different: While government propagandists are wont to trumpet—as they
did during the Maine and Black Hills land disputes of the 1970s—that an Indian win would mean individual
non-Indian property owners losing everything, the native position has always been the exact opposite.
Overwhelmingly, the lands sought for actual recovery have been governmentally and corporately held.
Eviction of small land owners has been pursued only in instances where they have banded together—as they
have during certain of the Iroquois claims cases—to prevent Indians from recovering any land at all, and to
otherwise deny native rights. Official sources contend this is inconsistent with the fact that all non-Indian title
to any portion of North America could be called into question. Once “the dike is breached,” they argue, it’s
just a matter of time before “everybody has to start swimming back to Europe, or Africa or wherever.”
Although there is considerable technical accuracy to admissions that all non-Indian title to North America is
illegitimate, Indians have by and large indicated they would be content to honor the cession agreements
entered into by their ancestors, even though the United States has long since defaulted. This would leave
somewhere close to two-thirds of the continental United States in non-Indian hands, with the real rather than
pretended
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Give Back the Land Counterplan

consent of native people. The remaining one-third, the areas delineated in Map II to which the United States
never acquired title at all would be recovered by its rightful owners. The government holds that even at that
there is no longer sufficient land available for unceded lands, or their equivalent, to be returned. In fact, the
government itself still directly controls more than one-third of the total U.S. land area, about 770 million
acres. Each of the states also “owns” large tracts, totaling about 78 million acres. It is thus quite possible—
and always has been—for all native claims to be met in full without the loss to non-Indians of a single acre of
privately held land. When it is considered that 250 million-odd acres of the “privately” held total are now in
the hands of major corporate entities, the real dimension of the “threat” to small land holders (or more
accurately, lack of it) stands revealed. Government spokespersons have pointed out that the disposition of
public lands does not always conform to treaty areas. While this is true, it in no way precludes some process
of negotiated land exchange wherein the boundaries of indigenous nations are redrawn by mutual consent to
an exact, or at least a much closer conformity. All that is needed is an honest, open, and binding forum—such
as a new bilateral treaty process—with which to proceed. In fact, numerous native peoples have, for a long
time, repeatedly and in a variety of ways, expressed a desire to participate in just such a process.
Nonetheless, it is argued, there will still be at least some non-Indians “trapped” within such restored areas.
Actually, they would not be trapped at all. The federally imposed genetic criteria of “Indian –ness” discussed
elsewhere in this book notwithstanding, indigenous nations have the same rights as any other to define
citizenry by allegiance (naturalization) rather than by race. Non-Indians could apply for citizenship, or for
some form of landed alien status which would allow them to retain their property until they die. In the event
they could not reconcile themselves to living under any jurisdiction other than that of the United States, they
would obviously have the right to leace, and they should have the right to compensation from their own
government (which got them into the mess in the first place). Finally, and one suspects this is the real crux of
things from the government/corporate perspective, any such restoration of land and attendant sovereign
prerogatives to native nations would result in a truly massive loss of “domestic” resources to the United
States, thereby impairing the country’s economic and military capacities (see “Radioactive Colonialism” essay
for details). For everyone who queued up to wave flags and tie on yellow ribbons during the United States’
recent imperial adventure in the Persian Gulf, this prospect may induce a certain psychic trauma. But, for
progressives at least, it should be precisely the point. When you think about these issues in this way, the
great mass of non-Indians in North America really have much to gain and almost nothing to lose, from the
success of native people in struggles to reclaim the land which is rightfully ours. The tangible diminishment of
US material power which is integral to our victories in this sphere stands to pave the way for realization of
most other agendas from anti-imperialism to environmentalism, from African American liberation to feminism,
from gay rights to the ending of class privilege – pursued by progressive on this continent. Conversely,
succeeding with any or even all of these other agendas would still represent an inherently oppressive
situation in their realization is contingent upon an ongoing occupation of Native North America without the
consent of Indian people. Any North American revolution which failed to free indigenous territory from non-
Indian domination would be simply a continuation of colonialism in another form. Regardless of the angle
from which you view the matter, the liberation of Native North America, liberation of the land first and
foremost, is the key to fundamental and positive social changes of many other sorts. One thing they say,
leads to another. The question has always been, of course, which “thing” is to the first in the sequence. A
preliminary formulation for those serious about achieving radical change in the United States might be “First
Priority to First Americans” Put another way this would mean, “US out of Indian Country.” Inevitably, the logic
leads to what we’ve all been so desperately seeking: The United States – at least what we’ve come to know it
– out of North America altogether. From there it can be permanently banished from the planet. In its stead,
surely we can join hands to create something new and infinitely better. That’s our vision of “impossible
realism.” Isn’t it time we all worked on attaining it?
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Nuclear War Impacts

Representations of nuclear war as a distinct, future event mask the reality of ongoing
violence toward the periphery, reconstructing political space as homogenous.
Kato 1993
(Masahide, Prof. of Polisci @ U. of Hawaii, “Nuclear Globalism: Traversing Rockets, Satellites, and Nuclear War
via the Strategic Gaze”, Alterantives, accessed online p. NetLibrary) DMZ
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Nuclear Extinction Impacts

By presenting nuclear extinction as the single most important impact, the aff
naturalizes and legitimizes the on-going colonization of the indigenous periphery.
Kato 1993
(Masahide, Prof. of Polisci @ U. of Hawaii, “Nuclear Globalism: Traversing Rockets, Satellites, and Nuclear War
via the Strategic Gaze”, Alterantives, accessed online p. NetLibrary) DMZ
By representing the possible extinction as the single most important problematic of nuclear catastrophe
(posing it as either a threat or a symbolic void), nuclear criticism disqualifies the entire history of nuclear
violence, the "real" of nuclear catastrophe as a continuous and repetitive process. The "real" of nuclear war is
designated by nuclear critics as a "rehearsal" (Derrik De Kerkbove) or "preparation" (Firth) for what they
reserve as the authentic catastrophe. The history of nuclear violence offers, at best, a reality effect to the
imagery of "extinction." Schell summarized the discursive position of nuclear critics very succinctly, by stating
that nuclear catastrophe should not be conceptualized "in the context of direct slaughter of hundreds of
millions people by the local effects." Thus the elimination of the history of nuclear violence by nuclear critics
stems from the process of discursive "delocalization" of nuclear violence. Their primary focus is not local
catastrophe, but delocalized, unlocatable, "global" catastrophe. The elevation of the discursive vantage point
deployed in nuclear criticism through which extinction is conceptualized parallels that of the point of the
strategic gaze: nuclear criticism raises the notion of nuclear catastrophe to the "absolute" point from which
the fiction of "extinction" is configured. Herein, the configuration of the globe and the conceptualization of
"extinction" reveal their interconnection via the "absolutization" of the strategic gaze. In the same way as the
fiction of the totality of the earth is constructed, the fiction of extinction is derived from the figure perceived
through the strategic gaze. In other words, the image of the globe, in the final instance, is nothing more than
a figure on which the notion of extinction is being constructed. Schell, for instance, repeatedly encountered
difficulty in locating the subject involved in the conceptualization of extinction, which in turn testifies to its
figural origin: "who will suffer this loss, which we somehow regard as supreme? We, the living, will not suffer
it; we will be dead. Nor will the unborn shed any tears over their lost chance to exist; to do so they would
have to exist already."
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Elections-Indigenous Vote Key

Indigenous vote key to swing states – proven by 2004 election and population booms.
MacPherson 2004
(Karen, Post-Gazette National Bureau, “American Indians Flex Political Muscle”, 2-1, accessed online July 10,
2008, p. L/N) DMZ
The estimated 1.5 million American Indian voters nationwide is a tiny fraction of the more than 100 million
U.S. registered voters, but the concentration of American Indians in three states with Democratic presidential
contests on Tuesday -- Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma -- gives them a chance to demonstrate their
growing political clout. Recognizing the opportunity to both showcase and boost their political strength this
year, tribal leaders recently launched "Native Vote 2004'' in an effort to persuade more American Indians to
vote while keeping them apprised of the latest campaign developments. The National Congress of American
Indians has pledged to mobilize one million American Indian voters this fall in eight states with significant
American Indian populations: Alaska, Arizona, California, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oklahoma and
South Dakota. While American Indians traditionally have tended to vote for Democratic candidates, that is
changing. Support for candidates generally tends to be more "issue based'' than partisan, said national
congress Executive Director Jacqueline Johnson. "Although we still have a strong Democratic voice in Indian
Country, there is a growing Republican constituency." Politicians of both parties have readily responded to the
burgeoning political power of American Indian voters, as well as the increasingly large campaign contributions
from tribes newly enriched by casino and gaming receipts.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Elections-AT: Indigenous Vote Key

Native election clout checked by reservation ID problems.
MacPherson 2004
2008, p. L/N) DMZ
Even today, however, American Indians face obstacles in voting, Johnson said. National congress officials are
working to ensure that voters can use tribal membership cards, as opposed to a driver's license, as proof of
residency. That can be problematic because some tribal cards don't have picture IDs. In addition, some
addresses on tribal cards aren't precise because accurate addresses are not needed many reservations,
Johnson said. "Everybody knows that Aunt Sally lives in the blue house around the corner. But that can
become an issue for voting. We're trying to work these things out.''
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Elections-Sovereignty Key Issue for Indigenous

Vote
Support of internal sovereignty rights is a hot button issue for Indigenous groups.
MacPherson 2004
2008, p. L/N) DMZ
American Indians flexed their political muscle again in 2002, when incumbent Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., beat
back a tough Republican challenger. Johnson won by 524 votes, and many political experts believe his
support from American Indian voters made the difference. In this year's election, American Indians again are
aiming to make a political difference, said national congress President Tex Hall, chairman of the Mandan,
Hidatsa and Arikara Nation of North Dakota. Among the key issues are a push to solidify tribal sovereignty,
better funding for Indian health care and education, and an equitable solution to the decade-old fight over
tribal funds held in trust by the federal government. "In November, we will stand up in force to support those
Republican, Democratic and Independent leaders who have honored this nation's commitments to tribes, and
to send home those leaders who have disregarded us,'' Hall said.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Elections-Obama Supports Plan

Obama supports wind development energy-McCain voted against a critical wind energy
bill
Rob Capriccioso, May 23, 2008.
Indian Country Today. “Comparing the candidates on wind energy”. July, 9, 2008.
WASHINGTON - For once, American Indians want to hear more hot air from politicians. Or, rather, any air at all
- when it comes to political support for wind and other alternative forms of energy. Tribal leaders in South
Dakota - which will hold both its Democratic and Republican presidential primaries June 3 - are paying
especially close attention. Research from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that South
Dakota alone is capable of producing 566 gigawatts of electrical power from wind: the equivalent of 52
percent of the nation's electricity demand. Officials with NREL also say that many of the windiest areas in
the U.S. are located close to and on reservations. The laboratory has estimated that the total tribal wind
generation potential is about 535 billion kilowatt-hours per year, or 14 percent of the total U.S. electric
generation in 2004. At the same time, a new Energy Department report released in May indicates that wind
energy could generate 20 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030 - about the same share now produced by
nuclear reactors. Wind energy currently accounts for only about 1 percent of the nation's electricity, although
the industry has been growing steadily. Energy experts say that as many as 75,000 new wind turbines will
need to be built on U.S. grounds to meet the 20 percent goal. Some tribes are already beginning to use
their lands to harness wind energy and, in turn, are making some money by selling their energy credits to
power companies. For tribes that wish to trade carbon credits for the energy they harness, no federally
supported system is currently in place. Indian Country Today now takes a look at renewable energy and
cap-and-trade platforms of each of the three presidential candidates in an effort to help tribes compare and
contrast their views. Sen. Hillary Clinton, Democrat -- ''What I want to do is not only look at existent,
known forms of renewable energy and how we can move more quickly to commercial application and
distribution for solar, wind, and geothermal, but also look at other forms of biofuel and biodiesel,'' Clinton said
in a statement May 16. ''You know, let's take a look at the internal combustion engine. Let's figure out if there
are some new ideas out there that would play to America's strengths as we move toward less of a
dependence on foreign oil and more homegrown energy.'' -- Calls for obtaining 25 percent of U.S. electricity
from renewable energy by 2025. Proposes a $50 billion, 10-year fund that would invest in renewables and
other alternative energy sources. -- Supports a cap-and-trade system to cut U.S. emissions 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050. Would auction off 100 percent of emission credits, making polluters pay for the
right to emit greenhouse gases. Is a co-sponsor of the strongest climate bill in the Senate, the Boxer-Sanders
Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act. For more specifics, visit www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy.
Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat -- ''As president, I'll work to solve this energy crisis once and for all,'' Obama
said in a statement released May 11. ''We'll invest $150 billion over the next 10 years in establishing a green
energy sector that will create up to 5 million new jobs - and those are jobs that pay well and can't be
outsourced. We'll invest in clean energies like solar, wind and biodiesel.'' -- Calls for getting 25 percent of
U.S. electricity from renewable energy by 2025. Calls for 30 percent of the federal government's electricity to
come from renewables by 2020. -- Supports a cap-and-trade system to cut U.S. emissions 80 percent below
1990 levels by 2050. Would auction off 100 percent of emission credits, making polluters pay for the right to
emit greenhouse gases. Is a co-sponsor of the strongest climate bill in the Senate, the Boxer-Sanders Global
Warming Pollution Reduction Act. For more specifics, visit www.barackobama.com/issues/energy. Sen.
John McCain, Republican -- ''Wind power is one of many alternative energy sources that are changing our
economy for the better,'' McCain said at a press conference May 12. ''And one day they will change our
economy forever.'' -- Supports renewable energy development, but has not offered specific targets. --
Didn't vote for a 2005 bill that would have included the largest expansion of financial incentives to produce
clean wind energy. -- Supports a cap-and-trade system to cut U.S. emissions 60 percent below 1990 levels
by 2050. Would give away many emission credits at the start of his plan instead of making polluting entities
pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases; although, down the line he would phase in auctions of such
credits. Would allow domestic and international offsets as a form of compliance.
Obama favors investment into alternative energy sources including wind.

WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Koffler 7/8 2008 (Daniel Koffler is a Clarendon scholar and graduate student in philosophy at the University
of Oxford. Accessed online July 9, 2008, The case for nuclear power, Guardian Unlimited
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/nuclearpower.energy
In keeping with the frenetic, rhetorical ping-pong that has marked virtually every moment of this young
general election, Barack Obama gave a big energy policy speech in Las Vegas last month to counter the big
energy speech John McCain gave just prior to it. Obama proposed a substantial federal investment in
alternative energy sources, including wind power, solar power and biofuels, and he promised to hike fuel
efficiency standards for cars and trucks (though he didn't say by how much). He has already proposed a cap-
and-trade scheme with auctions for emissions permits, which are key to making any such scheme work. (John
McCain's version of cap-and-trade does not include auctions.)
McCain is a liar, although he may say he likes alternative energy, but his voting record
could not disagree more
Market Watch, 7/9 2008 (DNC -- McCain Watch: John McCain's Strategy on Jobs and Energy: Say One
Thing, Do Another, 07/09/08, Accessed online July 10, 2008 http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/dnc----
mccain-watch-john/story.aspx?guid=%7BC46FEE7C-D54F-44C4-A8E1-CC45AFD81AD6%7D&dist=hppr)
When McCain visits an energy company today in Pittsburgh, the doubletalk will no doubt continue. Though he
has been talking about supporting alternative energy on the campaign trail, no amount of campaign rhetoric
can bury McCain's voting record on the issue. McCain has opposed incentives for renewable energy and green
jobs repeatedly during his time in Congress, in favor of giveaways for big oil. From jobs to the economy to
alternative energy, John McCain's say one thing do another approach to campaigning is not the kind of real
solutions the American people are looking for.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Elections-McCain Supports the Plan

McCain Favors an increase in alternative energies, including wind power
Roth, 7/17 2008 END OFFSHORE DRILLING BAN, McCAIN URGES / GOP candidate in Houston today to mend
fences with oil industry; BENNETT ROTH. RICHARD S. DUNHAM; WASHINGTON BUREAU STAFF, ASSOCIATED
PRESS
Houston Chronicle 06-17-2008 accessed online Via ELibrary July 10, 2008)
"We must embark on a national mission to end our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gases
through the development of alternate energy sources," the Arizona senator said in Arlington, Va., before
departing for Texas. McCain will provide details of his proposal in a major energy- policy address today at the
Hilton Americas Hotel in downtown Houston. The Houston Chronicle has learned that his speech will describe
a goal of energy self-sufficiency through a combination of aggressive domestic production and increased use
of alternative energy sources. The presumed GOP presidential nominee will try to appeal to oil- state interests
by pushing for more offshore drilling in states that approve such production. But he also will portray himself
as an environmentally friendly Republican favoring significant increases in the development of such
alternative energy sources as wind and nuclear power.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Elections-Public Supports the Plan

The public overwhelmingly supports the plan
AWEA 2008 [American Wind Energy Association, Americans Overwhelmingly Support Federal Incentives for
Renewable Energy: Zogby Poll, January 22,
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/poll_renewable_energy_012208.html]
By a 7-1 margin, Americans agree that the federal government should extend incentives that encourage
greater use of renewable energy technologies, according to a national poll released today by the American
Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2007 was a record-breaking year for renewable electricity generation in
the United States, with almost 6,000 megawatts (MW) of new renewable energy coming on line, infusing
some $20 billion in new investment into the economy. But the federal production tax credit (PTC) and tax
incentives for other renewable energy sources are now in danger of lapsing at the end of this year. The
survey research firm Zogby International surveyed Americans on existing federal incentives for renewable
energy, in a poll commissioned by AWEA. The survey found that 85% of Americans agree with the statement,
“The federal government should continue existing incentives to encourage greater use of renewable energy
technologies such as wind and solar power.” Just 12% disagree. “The results confirm that Americans, by an
overwhelming majority, want their government to support renewable energy,” said AWEA Executive Director
Randall Swisher. “In 2007, tax incentives for renewable energy created tens of thousands of jobs for
Americans. We call upon Congress to help sustain this remarkable growth by extending these incentives.”
The public loves the plan

Earth Times 2008 [April 25, Eight of 10 Americans Support Federal Incentives to Spur Growth of Carbon-
Free Energy Technology, http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/eight-of-10-americans-
support,367788.shtml]
Nearly 80 percent of Americans endorse the use of federal financial incentives to help promote
development of carbon-free energy technologies, including new nuclear power plants, according to a new
national survey of 1,000 adults. The survey shows that 79 percent of Americans approve of providing tax
credits "as an incentive to companies to build solar, wind and advanced-design nuclear power plants." Only
20 percent do not approve. The number of Americans "strongly approving" of tax credits exceeded the
number of Americans "strongly disapproving" by the same four-to-one margin (37 percent vs. 9 percent).
Support was nearly identical when Americans were asked about providing federal loan guarantees to
companies that build solar, wind, advanced-design nuclear power plants "or other energy technology that
reduces greenhouse gases to jump-start investment in these critical energy facilities." Seventy-seven percent
of those surveyed approve, while only 22 percent do not approve.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Bush Good-Turn Bipartisanship

PTCs for wind have bipartisan support in the Senate
Energy Bulletin 2008 (May 7, "Bipartisan effort to continue renewable energy tax credits",
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/43856)
“That was the impetus behind this effort to get things moving on the House side. The Senate has led on this
issue with a bipartisan bill and an overwhelming bipartisan vote in support of extending these important
incentives for clean, domestic renewable energy production. I hope the House will agree to quickly follow suit.
I am glad to be so quickly joined in this bipartisan effort with 34 colleagues.”
The Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008 would provide for the limited continuation of clean energy
production incentives and incentives to improve energy efficiency that would otherwise lapse under current
tax law.
The continuation will prevent a downturn in clean and renewable energy sectors, create jobs, save people and
businesses money, and over time reduce energy costs. It is estimated that consumers could save up to $500
on their taxes if they install energy efficient products in their homes that can also help them reduce their
heating and cooling costs by 20 percent.
Specifically, the bill would extend critical tax incentives such as, the production tax credit for electricity
produced from renewable sources like wind, biomass, hydropower, and geothermal; and the 30 percent
investment credit for businesses that install solar or fuel cell equipment.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Bush Good-Turn Democrats

Democrats support wind power
Democratic National Committee, 2005
(Idaho Taking the Lead in Wind Energy, accessed on 7/10/2008,
http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/10/idaho_taking_th.php)
Democrats have been on the forefront in pushing for energy independence. In Idaho, Americans want clean
and safe energy. Wind and other renewable sources meet what appears to be a growing desire among
Idahoans for green energy. A public outcry over emissions was a factor in the defeat of Sempra Corp.'s
proposed coal-fired plant in the Magic Valley this spring, and wind was the energy source of choice in a 2005
Boise State University study of energy policy issues. Idaho has taken a leading role in the power of the wind.
Wind power is an emerging technology that doesn't burn a single fuel. Wind farms are built primarily in rural
areas, bringing jobs and tax revenues with them. Wind can also be a source of income for local ranchers and
farmers on whose land wind turbines are erected. Depending on the amount of power produced, they
typically receive $4,000 to $7,000 per year per turbine. The turbines' effect on crops and livestock is minimal.
Wind power is one of many technologies that Democrats want to invest in to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil. From more fuel efficient cars to wind power to cleaner gas, Democrats have taken the lead in
cutting our addiction to oil. Idahoans have shown that they are ready to take a lead in energy independence
by their support for wind power and can be taken as a model for other states in the use of this emerging
technology.
Democrats support Indigenous programs
Democratic National Committee, 2008

(Native Americans and the Democratic Party , accessed on 7/10/2008
http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/08/native_american.php)
Over the past six years, Americans have witnessed a systematic deterioration and near dismantling of Native
American programs by the Republican Congress and the Bush Administration. From Head Start to healthcare,
from law enforcement to small business; funding for key Native American programs has not kept up with the
needs of Indian Country or fulfilled the trust responsibility of the federal government to tribal governments
and urban Indians. Tribal governments are working hard to find creative ways to maintain programs that are
key to the well-being and growth of their communities, but they need help. The present Republican
Administration and Congress have created an environment that undermines Indian Country’s forward
progress. Democrats promote economic self-sufficiency for Indian tribes and work to ensure that Native
Americans have access to the best schools, health care and housing. The Democratic Party supports tribal
sovereignty and wants to work with Native Americans to empower their communities to take action. The
Democratic Party has worked to establish a place at the table for Native Americans and now wishes to secure
for them a place on the ticket. We are working with Native people to expand the roles they play in the state
and national party organizations, and we fully support Native participation in the electoral process, not just as
voters but as candidates. The Democratic Party fully supports Native Americans participation in the electoral
process. Native American values are those of the Democratic Party: taking care of those who need a helping
hand and giving a voice to those who have not had representation. In this regard, the Party is mindful of the
disproportionate number of Native men and women who have answered our nation's call to arms in times of
conflict and how their service and sacrifice supported the common good. The Party remains committed to
giving voice to those who have so clearly earned it and to giving a helping hand to those who wish to speak
to the future of their children and of our Nation. It is only right! Politically, Native Americans are an
increasingly important swing vote in many states. The Democratic Party recognizes the power of the Native
vote. The DNC has hired Native American coordinators in key states and held several campaign worker
training sessions for Native Americans. Now is the time for Native Americans to say “Enough is Enough.” Elect
Democrats to office who care about Native American issues and who support tribal sovereignty. Native
Americans have the power to influence the outcome of key races this November. The Democratic Party and
Native Americans will work together to register new Native American voters and get those voters to the polls
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
on Election Day. A Democratic Congress will fully fund Native American programs, support tribal sovereignty
and fulfill the federal government’s responsibility to provide equal access to education, healthcare, jobs,
housing and economic development.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Bush Good-Turn Public Popularity

The public overwhelmingly supports the plan
AWEA 2008 [American Wind Energy Association, Americans Overwhelmingly Support Federal Incentives for
Renewable Energy: Zogby Poll, January 22,
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/poll_renewable_energy_012208.html]
By a 7-1 margin, Americans agree that the federal government should extend incentives that encourage
greater use of renewable energy technologies, according to a national poll released today by the American
Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2007 was a record-breaking year for renewable electricity generation in
the United States, with almost 6,000 megawatts (MW) of new renewable energy coming on line, infusing
some $20 billion in new investment into the economy. But the federal production tax credit (PTC) and tax
incentives for other renewable energy sources are now in danger of lapsing at the end of this year. The
survey research firm Zogby International surveyed Americans on existing federal incentives for renewable
energy, in a poll commissioned by AWEA. The survey found that 85% of Americans agree with the statement,
“The federal government should continue existing incentives to encourage greater use of renewable energy
technologies such as wind and solar power.” Just 12% disagree. “The results confirm that Americans, by an
overwhelming majority, want their government to support renewable energy,” said AWEA Executive Director
Randall Swisher. “In 2007, tax incentives for renewable energy created tens of thousands of jobs for
Americans. We call upon Congress to help sustain this remarkable growth by extending these incentives.”
The public loves the plan

Earth Times 2008 [April 25, Eight of 10 Americans Support Federal Incentives to Spur Growth of Carbon-
Free Energy Technology, http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/eight-of-10-americans-
support,367788.shtml]
Nearly 80 percent of Americans endorse the use of federal financial incentives to help promote
development of carbon-free energy technologies, including new nuclear power plants, according to a new
national survey of 1,000 adults. The survey shows that 79 percent of Americans approve of providing tax
credits "as an incentive to companies to build solar, wind and advanced-design nuclear power plants." Only
20 percent do not approve. The number of Americans "strongly approving" of tax credits exceeded the
number of Americans "strongly disapproving" by the same four-to-one margin (37 percent vs. 9 percent).
Support was nearly identical when Americans were asked about providing federal loan guarantees to
companies that build solar, wind, advanced-design nuclear power plants "or other energy technology that
reduces greenhouse gases to jump-start investment in these critical energy facilities." Seventy-seven percent
of those surveyed approve, while only 22 percent do not approve.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Bush Good-Farming Lobby Turn

Wind energy is becoming incerasingly popular in the farming lobby
Farmer’s Guardian 2007 (“Wind Power picking up in the US”, The Farmer’s Guardian, Lexis-Nexis,
August 31, 2007)
MORE American farmers are saying yes to energy companies that want to install new wind turbines on their
land. More than an estimated $65 billion will be invested in added wind capacity in the US from 2007 to 2015,
according to a study by Emerging Energy Research, a consulting firm. It expects the US to rank number one
in the world in cumulative installed wind capacity, with a 19per cent share of the global wind market by the
end of 2015. In 2005, the United States installed more new wind energy capacity than any other country in
the world.
The farming lobby wields an enormous amount of political clout in Congress, controlling
key Senators’ votes
Mike Dorning and Andrew Martin, staff writers, 2006
(6/4, Chicago Tribune, "Farm lobby's power has deep roots",

http://www.floridafarmers.org/news/articles/Farmlobby'spowerhasdeeproots.htm)
So Washington sends subsidy payments to farmers. Farmers reward the politicians with votes and money.
Farm groups and agribusinesses lubricate the system with campaign contributions and lobbying jobs.With
elections less than six months away, the 20 members of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
Committee already have collected more than $7.1 million in campaign contributions from the farm sector
while their 46 House counterparts have received $2.9 million, according to the nonpartisan Center for
Responsive Politics.Combest is far from the only person to pass through the capital's revolving farm door. The
House Agriculture Committee's former top-ranking Democrat, Charles Stenholm of Texas, lobbies on behalf of
agriculture interests too. In all, at least 19 congressional aides who worked on the 2002 farm bill have taken
jobs as agriculture lobbyists or with commodity groups or farm organizations.What's more, members of
Congress and staff can count on being treated to junkets: Big Sugar plays host at mountain resorts, and the
cotton industry in Las Vegas and New Orleans.Although the health-care industry and trial lawyers spend far
more than Big Farm to influence Washington, the farm lobby is distinguished by a well-organized grass-roots
network of organizations that extends throughout rural America. In the capital, farmers are represented by a
core group of long-serving lobbyists who regularly band together, setting aside divergent interests to keep the
dollars flowing to farm programs.And this lobby can draw on public sympathy for a stereotype of a quaint
family farm.The political structure also works in its favor. The Senate's equal representation gives voters in
sparsely populated rural states extra political weight.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Bush Good-NCAI Lobby Turn

NCAI has an interest in Indigenous Energy – plan popular
Hall 2004
As the oldest and longest-standing Indian organization, NCAI plays an important role in helping to shape
national executive and legislative policies that promote the interests of American Indians and Alaskan
Natives. We bring an important voice with regard to the concerns and aspirations of native peoples from
across the country.
NIGA supports the plan too
NIGA, Updated 2008 (National Indian Gaming Association, "All About NIGA",
http://www.indiangaming.org/info/about.shtml)
The National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA), established in 1985, is a non-profit organization of 184 Indian
Nations with other non-voting associate members representing organizations, tribes and businesses engaged
in tribal gaming enterprises from around the country. The common committment and purpose of NIGA is to
advance the lives of Indian peoples economically, socially and politically. NIGA operates as a clearinghouse
and educational, legislative and public policy resource for tribes, policymakers and the public on Indian
gaming issues and tribal community development.
Indian gaming interests guarantee that native have immense clout with politicians.
MacPherson 2004
2008, p. L/N) DMZ
American Indian political clout grew further after Congress passed the 1988 federal law that allows tribes to
operate casinos and other gaming operations on their lands. More than 200 tribes now operate 321 casinos,
and Indian gaming has become a nearly $13 billion annual business, according to the National Indian Gaming
Commission. A few tribes have become fabulously wealthy through their gaming operations. Recognizing the
power of money in the American campaign system, those tribes and others have steadily increased their
contributions to candidates who support Indian causes. Political contributions to federal campaigns from
American Indian gaming interests have risen from $1,750 in the 1990 election to $1.8 million in the first nine
months of 2003, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission figures by the Center for Responsive
Politics. "Clearly, Indian gaming interests have increased their contributions in recent years in an effort to
wield more influence,'' said Steven Weiss, a spokesman for the center. David Wilkins, a professor of American
Indian studies at the University of Minnesota, agreed that Indian gaming has "provided some tribes, and I
emphasize 'some,' with serious cash that gives them an opportunity to play a role in state and national
politics... State and national political leaders also want to tap into that money for their own political purposes
so they are finally listening to tribal nations.''
The influence of these lobbies extends well into other political issues
The Hill 2006 (2/15, The Hill, "Lobby League: Indian Affairs", http://hill6.thehill.com/business--lobby/lobby-
league-indian-affairs-2006-02-15.html)
NIGA has represented Indian tribes and businesses engaged in the gaming industry for the past 20 years. Its
influence “extends to a lot of issues not related to gaming,” a tribal lobbyist said. National Congress of
American Indians (NCAI): Joe Garcia, Jacqueline JohnsonFounded in 1944, the NCAI is the oldest and largest
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
Indian group in the United States, representing more than 250 tribal governments and many individual
American Indians.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Bush Good-AT: Plan is a Flip Flop

Bush supports wind energy
UPI 5/8 [2008, Analysis: U.S. wind market's mixed signals, http://www.upi.com/International_Security
/Energy/Analysis/2008/05/06/analysis_us_wind_markets_mixed_signals/3295/]
The AWEA aims to have 20 percent of the nation's electricity supplied from wind by 2030. Statements by
President Bush and Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman in the past two years have echoed this goal,
Stephen Miner, AWEA's director of conference and education, told UPI.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Bush Bad-Turn Political Capital

The plan causes a partisan firestorm, trashing Bush’s capital
Friedman 2008 [Thomas, Pulitzer prize columnist for the New York Times, Dumb as We Wanna Be,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?hp, April 30]
Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to
renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to
encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the
2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and
gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not
making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are
squabbling over pennies.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Bush Bad-Turn GOP Base

Wind energy legislation is unpopular with the republicans in the senate
Cash and Chemnick 2008 (“Tax credits for renewable energy pass Senate, but House fight looms”,
Inside Energy with Federal Lands, Lexis-Nexis, April 14, 2008)
In February, the House passed a bill that would extend a variety of credits for wind, solar, efficiency and other
technologies that are set to expire by the end of 2008. The measure (H.R. 5351) would authorize $18 billion
for the credits, and pay for them with rollbacks to oil and natural gas tax breaks. Similar packages have
failed twice in the Senate, because pro-fossil fuels Republicans have used Senate rules to block them. Last
week, the Senate voted 88-8 for a renewable tax credit extension bill sponsored by Senators Maria Cantwell,
a Washington Democrat, and John Ensign, a Nevada Republican. It was added to a housing bill (H.R. 3221),
which later passed by a vote of 84-12.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Bush Bad-Turn Flip Flop

Plan is a flip flop for Bush-he just vetoed the affirmative
Daniel Weiss and Nick Kong, Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at American Progress,
2008 (3/4, Center for American Progress, "Renewable Energy Subterfuge: Bush's Sleight of Hand",
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/03/sleight_of_hand.html)
The routine has varied little since Bush first took office. President Bush pays lip service to clean energy
technologies while opposing many voluntary incentives and other efforts to promote these very same
technologies. Often, these events occur only days apart. Another attempt at sleight of hand will occur
tomorrow, when President Bush addresses the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference on
Wednesday, March 5. This speech comes just seven days after the administration opposed House passage of
the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act, H.R. 5351. This bill would extend tax credits to
encourage producers and homeowners to employ wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable energy
technologies. Without an extension, an estimated 116,000 construction workers and other employees will lose
their jobs. President Bush will no doubt use his speech to extol the virtues of clean energy technology
incentives even while he prepares to wield his veto pen to stop legislation that would do just that. This will
only be one event in a long string of Bush rhetoric that doesn’t match reality.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Bush Bad-AT: Plan Bipartisan

The bipartisan nature of plan is reversed due to funding concerns in the Congress
Zachary Coile, Washington Bureau staff writer, 6/18 (2008, San Francisco Chronicle, "Congressional
Stalemate over Renewable Energy", http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/18/MNVE11ALRM.DTL)
Even as lawmakers of both parties talk about the need to shift the country toward clean, renewable energy,
Congress is in danger of letting key tax credits that have fueled the growth of wind and solar power expire at
the end of the year.
The Senate failed for the second time in a week Tuesday to pass a bill to help businesses and homeowners
switch to renewable energy. The tax incentives have strong bipartisan support, but they have been caught up
in a fight between Democrats and Republicans over how to pay for them.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Spending Disadvantage

Wind PTCs lead to increased tax revenues
Triple Pundit 6/18
6/18/8. http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/wind-energy-ptc-more-than-pays-003254.php.
Moreover, tax revenues from wind energy project, vendor and individual workers’ income more than pays for
the federal tax incentive, which is due to expire Dec. 31, according to a study GEFS released today at the
American Council on Renewable Energy’s (ACORE) Renewable Energy Finance Forum, which took place at the
Waldorf Astoria in New York City. “Congress’s repeated failure to act could derail the wind energy industry at
the worst possible time for the economy, placing 76,000 jobs and more than $11.5 billion in investment at
risk,” commented Randall Swisher, the American Wind Energy Association’s executive director.
Plan is key to federal tax revenues

Triple Pundit 6/18
Last year’s crop of wind projects that came on-line generate federal income tax revenues, as do income taxes
on individual workers wages, vendors’ profits and land leases, according to the GEEFS study. They also
provide federal tax revenue after 10 years, when the PTCs expire. On top of federal tax revenues, wind
projects generate an estimated $6 million a year in local property taxes, $15 million annually in state income
taxes on wages and profits during construction, and $1.5 million per year in taxes while operating.
Wind farms pay for themselves

Triple Pundit 6/18
“Congress is debating how to pay for the wind tax credits perhaps without realizing that, over time, wind
farms pump more money into the US Treasury and state and local coffers than they take out,” Kevin Walsh,
managing director of renewable energy at GE Energy Financial Services, said at the conference today. “Our
study shows that the wind farms more than pay for themselves through existing tax revenues, so it’s time to
renew the incentives immediately.”
Plan generates more tax revenue than it spends

Barron 8
Rachel. 6/18/8. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/ge-dont-blow-wind-incentives-away-1022.html.
Last year, wind farms built with the help of a production tax credit will deliver federal tax revenue that
exceeds the cost of the incentive program by $250 million, according to the study, which included taxes from
workers’ wages, company profits and land leases. That number doesn’t include state or local taxes.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Tourism Disadvantage

Wind power won’t reduce tourism – surveys and statistics prove opposite results
AWEA 2008
http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html.
American Wind Energy Association. Accessed 6/25/8.
There is no evidence that wind farms reduce tourism, and considerable evidence to the contrary. For example,
in late 2002, a survey of 300 tourists in the Argyll region of Scotland, noted for its scenic beauty, found that
91% said the presence of new wind farms "would make no difference in whether they would return." Similar
surveys of tourists in Vermont and Australia have produced similar results. Many rural areas in the U.S. have
noted increases in tourism after wind farms have been installed, as have scenic areas in Denmark, the world's
leader in percentage of national electricity supplied by wind. Other telling indicators: local governments
frequently decide to install information stands and signs near wind farms for tourists; wind farms are regularly
featured on post cards, magazine covers, and Web pages.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Kritiks-General
Although law has silenced indigenous voices, we should not abandon it, but reengage it
with a subversive mindset. The 1AC acts as a counter-hegemonic narrative that
engages oppressive law from the bottom up by revealing atrocities committed against
native Americans. As an audience to our act, you have an obligation to affirm our
methodology as a means to break down the colonized vs. colonizer mindset against
Native Americans.
Feldman 2000
(Alice, PhD and Lecturer of Sociology @ UC Davis, “Knowledge and Unknowing Law: Oppositional Narratives
in the Struggle for American Indian Religious Freedom”, accessed online July 9, 2008, p.
http://sls.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/9/4/557) DMZ
RECENT SOCIOLEGAL scholarship has demonstrated that, despite its inherent power to oppress peoples and
silence alternative voices, law also has transformative capacities. Many argue that engaging the legal process
provides opportunities to reframe exclusionary principles and practices subsequently transforming the social
discourses, relations and institutions they help to shape (Mather and Yngvesson, 1980; Merry, 1990; Trubek
and Esser, 1989). Interpretive and critical race scholarship in particular have explored the crucial roles in the
process of social change played by personal narratives and oppositional storytelling conveyed in legal
settings (Crenshaw et al., 1995; Delgado, 1995; Williams, 1991). This work is based upon an appreciation of
the integral function of narratives in constructing meanings, identities and communities, and serving as the
means through which they are negotiated and debated within and through the social relations and institutions
they animate (Ewick & Silbey, 1995; French, 1996; Mertz, 1992). As Robert Cover famously observed, no law
or legal institution ‘exists apart from the narratives that locate it and give it meaning’ (cited in Ball, 1989:
2280). Thus, although law serves predominantly as an arbiter of coercive and hegemonic power, its narrative
foundations make it subject to the same challenges as all other discursive formations. Because it is
embedded within larger processes of social and cultural production, law ultimately functions as an ‘extended
conversation’ (Merry, 1990) that can reshape public discourse. As such, an increasing body of work has come
to focus on the ways in which the telling of Other narratives in legal settings can provide ways to subvert
oppressive mindsets, legitimate subjugated knowledges, histories and identities, and create relationship-
building opportunities which may then serve as means for expanding sociolegal imaginations and practices
(Cover, 1995; Lawrence, 1995; Williams Jr, 1986, 1990a, 1994a). The presentation of counter hegemonic
narratives in legal settings constitutes a ‘reconstructive jurisprudence’ (Harris, 1994) that evolves from ‘the
bottom’ up, grounded in the experiences and wisdom of those most oppressed. In this fashion, Ball observes:
In contrast to the [law’s] language of command . . . narrative is inherently communal. A story is shared. It
establishes a relation of mutuality between narrator and hearer. When it works, the audience becomes a
participant in the performance . . . embark[ing] on a joint venture. To tell and to hear the story of it is also to
engage in a joint enterprise. To this extent, the story does what it says. (1989: 2288) The Word – as a
‘tradition of teaching, preaching, and healing . . . an articulation and validation of our common experience . . .
a vocation of struggle against dehumanization’ – ultimately constitutes a praxis, a critical, cultural pedagogy
(Lawrence, 1995: 336). Like other forms of critical pedagogy, the sociolegal deployment of counterhegemonic
narratives has the power to engender a process which strives toward the ‘emergence of consciousness and
critical intervention in reality’ (Freire, 1967/1993: 62, original emphasis). Yet, according to Ewick and Silbey
(1995: 222), because narratives are determined by ‘the contextual features of their elicitation . . . [they] have
no necessary political valence’. They are not inherently transformative, regenerating, transcendent, or
redemptive (Ball, 1989 2281). Stories alone are not enough, for effective stories need ‘already willing
listeners’ (Ball, 1989: 2315; Lawrence, 1995). Subversive storytelling ultimately relies upon a willingness on
the part of the audience to participate, to be changed, or at least to acquiesce to the telling – the opposite of
the silencing that makes oppression possible. The success of such strategies, moreover, depends upon the
latent dialogic elements of law – an institution well known for its propensity for ‘systematic non-
communication’ (Goodrich, 1986) – to facilitate the legitimation and diffusion of marginalized perspectives
that contest the existing order. Using law in a transformative manner proves especially challenging for
colonized peoples. In many ways, law has served as colonialism’s ‘handmaiden’ (Merry, 1991: 917),
legitimating conquest, normalizing racism and subjugating indigenous peoples (Anghie, 1996; Williams Jr,
1986; Williams, 1991).1 The denigrating cultural stereotypes and images cultivated during contact to justify
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
conquest (perpetuated by a constellation of orientalizing knowledge-producing institutions) formed the

grounds for diminishing native peoples’ inherent sovereignty, appropriating their lands and annihilating their
cultures under early international law (Williams Jr, 1990b; Green and Dickason, 1989). Codified in law, the
sociolegal fabrications and redefinitions of indigenous peoples as wards, incompetents and conquered
peoples subsequently formed the basis for vast bureaucracies of colonial administration commissioned to
maintain the occupation and dependence of indigenous peoples, especially in the USA (Berkhofer, 1978;
Dippie, 1982; Pearce, 1967). Emerging postcolonial approaches to legal analysis have begun to map the
colonial foundations that shape and mediate the articulation, mobilization and success of claims made by
colonized peoples (Darian-Smith and Fitzpatrick, 1999). They highlight the ways in which colonial processes
have engendered state systems whose legitimacy relies upon contradictory, ‘schizophrenic’ colonialist
constructions (Anghie, 1996) with a propensity for the ‘hysterical repression’ of (in this case) Indian peoples in
response to what is ultimately an ‘infinitely disproportionate sense of threat’ (Fitzpatrick, 1994: 211). The
subsequent need to maintain the volatile discursive and material structures of the underlying
colonizer/colonized dichotomy demands the ongoing silencing and exclusion of indigenous peoples in order to
ensure the hegemony, if not survival, of the nation-state and various dominating interests. Therefore, when
indigenous peoples approach law as a context in which to be heard, they must contend with legal practices
and ‘majority’ interests inherently antithetical to their liberation (and even their well-being), and which are ill-
equipped to empower their anticolonial efforts. They often face legal and social audiences that have little
capacity for or interest in receiving what they have to say as anything other than irrelevant, false or
threatening. Indigenous and other colonized peoples therefore stand at the nexus of the infinite potential to
exploit the ‘anxiety’ inherent in colonial formations (Perrin, 1995) in order to disrupt and transform them, and
perpetual silence because they cannot be heard through the din of its dysfunction. Drawing upon critical race
and postcolonial tools, analysis of the use of oppositional narratives in legal settings thus provides crucial
insights into the conditions under which the subaltern can speak (and be heard), and how what is said can be
empowered to succeed in reconstructing legal resources and relations.
AT: Kritiks-General
Rejecting dominate discourses isn’t enough, as they have inherently altered and shape
the reality of our knowledge. Instead, we must reconstitute both oppressive discourses
and ourselves – the permutation is the only way to create a true ethical encounter with
oppression.
Feldman 2000
(Alice, PhD and Lecturer of Sociology @ UC Davis, “Knowledge and Unknowing Law: Oppositional Narratives
in the Struggle for American Indian Religious Freedom”, accessed online July 9, 2008, p.
http://sls.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/9/4/557) DMZ
Subverting hegemonic discourses and practices, then, proves not only a matter of challenging or exposing, or
a matter solely of critique. It demands more than the displacement or replacement of one discourse with
another, and cannot be achieved merely through presencing or considering voice, or providing information.
The transformative moments of the communication process lay in the positive engagement with the Other; in
moments of re-cognition, in acts which meet the challenges of telling a different story. It is this potential
which ultimately renders the use of existing hegemonic and colonialist legal systems a viable strategy (if not
necessary evil) by those they oppress. Yet, the subversion that ultimately lies at the heart of transformation
obtains through a co-creation by both oppressed and oppressors, colonizers and colonized, who are engaged
equitably in a rebuilding process of reconciliation and rehabilitation (Freire, 1967/1993; McLaren, 1995;
Nandy, 1983). Dialogue is a crucial tool of change, but it must be a form of dialogue that goes beyond that
which is used increasingly and casually in a plethora of literatures, and that has come to represent only the
transfer of information (which Freire [1967/1993] refers to as the ‘banking’ form of education). Pervasive
social change necessitates dialogue which, in the Freirean sense, is based upon structures of interaction in
which all parties meet, in cooperation, to change the world by resolving problems posed as mutual
challenges, solved for the benefit of all through a process of re-cognition (what he calls ‘problem-posing’
education). Identifying the conditions under which narratives are, in fact, subversive requires the
development of more comprehensive conceptual frameworks and the expansion of approaches like critical
race and some postcolonial scholarship which seek to advance reconstructive agendas. This is a project to
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
which the philosophies and methods of critical pedagogy, with their focus on the relationships between
knowledge and power and their commitment to elaborating egalitarian forms of engagement and social
relations, have much to offer (Luke, 1996; McLaren, 1995; Roman and Eyre, 1997). Adapting these methods
to sociolegal scholarship would strengthen it in two central ways.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Capitalism Kritik

Turn – political decentralization makes economic decentralization inevitable.
Preston 2003
(Keith, Essayist @ American Revolutionary Vangaurd, “Philosophical Anarchism and the Death of Empire”,
accessed online July 8, 2008, p. L/N) DMZ
Conventional theories of political economy typically portray "Big Business" and "Big Government" as natural
antagonists of one another. The "left" champions the state as the protector of the little guy from the
predatory corporation while the "right" champions the corporation as the hapless victim of predatory
government bureaucrats.(41) However, the present corporate system could not exist without the favors
granted to corporations by the state in the form of subsidies, infrastructure, central banking, the state
monopoly over the production of currency, tariffs, monopoly privilege, contracts, bailouts, guarantees,
military intervention, patents, the suppression of labor, regulatory favors, protectionist trade legistlation,
limited liability and corporate personhood laws and much else. Similarly, the state's legistlative process and
executive hierarchy is beholden to the corporate interests who fund the electoral system and provide the
bureaucratic elite among the military, foreign policy and "international trade" establishments. Condoleeza
Rice's migration from Chevron to the National Security Council is no mere coincidence. The amalgam of Big
Business and Big Government, consolidated on an international scale, represents a centralization of wealth
and power of so great a degree as to jeopardize the future of humanity. What sort of economic order would
accompany the political victory of anarchism? Economic decentralization would naturally follow political
decentralization. As the massive, bureaucratic nationstates currently being incorporated into the New World
Order collapsed and disappeared, the corporate entities propped up and protected by these states would also
vanish. Just as the dissolution of centralized political power would result in the sovereignty and self-
determination of communities and associations, so would these entities be able to develop their own unique
economic identities. Economic resources of all types, from land to industrial facilities to infrastructure to high
technology, would fall into the hands of particular communities and popular organizations. Such entities
would likely organize themselves into a myriad of economic institutions. It can be expected that workers
would play a much greater leadership role in the formation of future economies as workers access to
resources and bargaining power, both individually and collectively, would likely be greatly enhanced. The
result would likely be an economic order where the worker-oriented enterprise replaces the capitalist
corporation as the dominant mode of economic organization.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Leftist Kritiks (1/2)

Their typical leftist response to our inquiry perpetuates a silence to the on-going
colonization of Native America, serving as a mask for the state to appear benevolent
even as its existence is contingent upon a legacy of colonization.
Churchill 96
I’ll debunk some of this nonsense in a moment, but first I want to take up the posture of self-proclaimed leftist
radicals in the same connection. And I’ll do so on the basis of principle, because justice is supposed to matter
more to progressives than to rightwing hacks. Let me say that the pervasive and near-total silence of the Left
in this connection has been quite illuminating. Non-Indian activists, with only a handful of exceptions,
persistently plead that they can’t really take a coherent position on the matter of Indian land rights because
“unfortunately,” they’re “not really conversant with the issues” (as if these were tremendously complex).
Meanwhile, they do virtually nothing, generation after generation, to inform themselves on the topic of who
actually owns the ground they’re standing on. The record can be played only so many times before it wears
out and becomes just another variation of “hear no evil, see no evil.” At this point, it doesn’t take Albert
Einstein to figure out that the Left doesn’t know much about such things because it’s never wanted to know,
or that this is so because it’s always had its own plans for utilizing land it has no more right to than does the
status quo it claims to oppose. The usual technique for explaining this away has always been a sort of pro
forma acknowledgement that Indian land rights are of course “really important stuff” (yawn), but that one”
really doesn’t have a lot of time to get into it (I’ll buy your book, though, and keep it on my shelf, even if I
never read it). Reason? Well, one is just “overwhelmingly preoccupied” with working on “other important
issues” (meaning, what they consider to be more important issues). Typically enumerated are sexism, racism,
homophobia, class inequities, militarism, the environment, or some combination of these. It’s a pretty good
evasion, all in all. Certainly, there’s no denying any of these issues their due; they are all important, obviously
so. But more important than the question of land rights? There are some serious problems of primacy and
priority imbedded in the orthodox script. To frame things clearly in this regard, lets hypothesize for a moment
that all of the various non-Indian movements concentrating on each of these issues were suddenly successful
in accomplishing their objectives . Lets imagine that the United States as a whole were somehow transformed
into an entity defined by the parity of its race, class, and gender relations, its embrace of unrestricted sexual
preference, its rejection of militarism in all forms, and its abiding concern with environmental protection (I
know, I know, this is a sheer impossibility, but that’s my point). When all is said and done, the society
resulting from this scenario is still, first and foremost, a colonialist society, an imperialist society in the most
fundamental sense possible with all that this implies. This is true because the scenario does nothing at all to
address the fact that whatever is happening happens on someone else’s land, not only without their consent,
but through an adamant disregard for their rights to the land. Hence, all it means is that the immigrant or
invading population has rearranged its affairs in such a way as to make itself more comfortable at the
continuing expense of indigenous people. The colonial equation remains intact and may even be reinforced
by a greater degree of participation, and vested interest in maintenance of the colonial order among the
settler population at large. The dynamic here is not very different from that evident in the American
Revolution of the late 18th century, is it? And we all know very well where that led, don’t we? Should we
therefore begin to refer to socialist imperialism, feminist imperialism, gay and lesbian imperialism,
environmental imperialism, African American, and la Raza imperialism? I would hope not. I would hope this is
all just a matter of confusion, of muddled priorities among people who really do mean well and who’d like to
do better. If so, then all that is necessary to correct the situation is a basic rethinking of what must be done.,
and in what order. Here, I’d advance the straightforward premise that the land rights of “First Americans”
should serve as a first priority for everyone seriously committed to accomplishing positive change in North
America. But before I suggest everyone jump off and adopt this priority, I suppose it’s only fair that I
interrogate the converse of the proposition: if making things like class inequity and sexism the preeminent
focus of progressive action in North America inevitably perpetuates the internal colonial structure of the
United States, does the reverse hold true? I’ll state unequivocally that it does not. There is no indication
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
whatsoever that a restoration of indigenous sovereignty in Indian Country would foster class stratification
anywhere, least of all in Indian Country. In fact, all indications are that when left to their own devices,
indigenous peoples have consistently organized their societies in the most class-free manners. Look to the
example of the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy). Look to the Muscogee (Creek)
Confederacy. Look to the confederations of the Yaqui and the Lakota, and those pursued and nearly perfected
by Pontiac and Tecumseh. They represent the very essence of enlightened egalitarianism and democracy.
Every imagined example to the contrary brought forth by even the most arcane anthropologist can be readily
offset by a couple of dozen other illustrations along the lines of those I just mentioned. Would sexism be
perpetuated? Ask one of the Haudenosaunee clan mothers, who continue to assert political leadership in their
societies through the present day. Ask Wilma Mankiller, current head of the Cherokee nation , a people that
traditionally led by what were called “Beloved Women.” Ask a Lakota woman—or man, for that matter—about
who it was that owned all real property in traditional society, and what that meant in terms of parity in gender
relations. Ask a traditional Navajo grandmother about her social and political role among her people. Women
in most traditional native societies not only enjoyed political, social, and economic parity with men, they often
held a preponderance of power in one or more of these spheres. Homophobia? Homosexuals of both genders
were (and in many settings still are) deeply revered as special or extraordinary, and therefore spiritually
significant, within most indigenous North American cultures. The extent to which these realities do not now
pertain in native societies is exactly the extent to which Indians have been subordinated to the mores of the
invading, dominating culture. Insofar as restoration of Indian land rights is tied directly to the reconstitution of
traditional indigenous social, political, and economic modes, you can see where this leads: the relations of sex
and sexuality accord rather well with the aspirations of feminist and gay rights activism. How about a
restoration of native land rights precipitating some sort of “environmental holocaust”? Let’s get at least a
little bit real here. If you’re not addicted to the fabrications of Smithsonian anthropologists about how Indians
lived, or George Weurthner’s Eurosupremacist Earth First! Fantasies about how we beat all the wooly
mammoths and mastodons and saber-toothed cats to death with sticks, then this question isn’t even on the
board. I know it’s become
AT: Leftist Kritiks (2/2)
fashionable among Washington Post editorialists to make snide references to native people “strewing refuse
in their wake” as they “wandered nomadically about the “prehistoric” North American landscape. What is that
supposed to imply? That we, who were mostly “sedentary agriculturalists” in any event. Were dropping plastic
and aluminum cans as we went? Like I said, lets get real. Read the accounts of early European arrival, despite
the fact that it had been occupied by 15 or 20 million people enjoying a remarkably high standard of living for
nobody knows how long: 40,000 years? 50,000 years? Longer? Now contrast that reality to what’s been done
to this continent over the past couple of hundred years by the culture Weurthner, the Smithsonian, and the
Post represent, and you tell me about environmental devastation. That leaves militarism and racism. Taking
the last first, there really is no indication of racism in traditional Indian societies. To the contrary, the record
reveals that Indians habitually intermarried between groups, and frequently adopted both children and adults
from other groups. This occurred in precontact times between Indians, and the practice was broadened to
include those of both African and European origin—and ultimately Asian origin as well—once contact
occurred. Those who were naturalized by marriage or adoption were considered members of the group, pure
and simple. This was always the Indian view. The Europeans and subsequent Euroamerican settlers viewed
things rather differently, however, and foisted off the notion that Indian identity should be determined
primarily by “blood quantum,” an outright eugenics code similar to those developed in places like Nazi
Germany and apartheid South Africa. Now that’s a racist construction if there ever was one. Unfortunately, a
lot of Indians have been conned into buying into this anti- Indian absurdity, and that’s something to be
overcome. But there’s also solid indication that quite a number of native people continue to strongly resist
such things as the quantum system. As to militarism, no one will deny that Indians fought wars among
themselves both before and after the European invasion began. Probably half of all indigenous peoples in
North America maintained permanent warrior societies. This could perhaps be reasonably construed as
“militarism,” but not, I think, with the sense the term conveys within the European/Euro-American tradition.
There were never, so far as anyone can demonstrate,, wars of annihilation fought in this hemisphere prior to
the Columbian arrival, none. In fact, it seems that it was a more or less firm principle of indigenous warfare
not to kill, the object being to demonstrate personal bravery, something that could be done only against a
live opponent. There’s no honor to be had in killing another person, because a dead person can’t hurt you.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
There’s no risk. This is not to say that nobody ever died or was seriously injured in the fighting. They were,
just as they are in full contact contemporary sports like football and boxing. Actually, these kinds of Euro-
American games are what I would take to be the closest modern parallels to traditional inter-Indian warfare.
For Indians, it was a way of burning excess testosterone out of young males, and not much more. So,
militarism in the way the term is used today is as alien to native tradition as smallpox and atomic bombs. Not
only is it perfectly reasonable to assert that a restoration of Indian control over unceded lands within the
United States would do nothing to perpetuate such problems as sexism and classism, but the reconstitution of
indigenous societies this would entail stands to free the affected portions of North America from such
maladies altogether. Moreover, it can be said that the process should have a tangible impact in terms of
diminishing such oppressions elsewhere. The principles is this: sexism, racism, and all the rest arose here as a
concomitant to the emergence and consolidation of the Eurocentric nation-state form of sociopolitical and
economic organization. Everything the state does, everything it can do, is entirely contingent on its
maintaining its internal cohesion, a cohesion signified above all by its pretended territorial integrity, its
ongoing domination of Indian Country. Given this, it seems obvious that the literal dismemberment of the
nation-state inherent to Indian land recovery correspondingly reduces the ability of the state to sustain the
imposition of objectionable relations within itself. It follows that realization of indigenous land rights serves to
undermine or destroy the ability of the status quo to continue imposing a racist, sexist, classist, homophobic,
militaristic order on non-Indians.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Realism (1/2)

1 – Non-responsive – we are realist, we’re just not knuckle heads about it. Our warming
advantage indicates that it’s in the interests of US energy supremacy and survival to
allow wind farms to expand.
2 – Even if Realism is inevitable with Western governments, their evidence isn’t

comparative to how tribal states act. We’d contend that realist international relations
theory is a purely Western construct – in reality, tribal governments are as anti-realist
as you could get.
Churchill 96
But before I suggest everyone jump off and adopt this priority, I suppose it’s only fair that I interrogate the
converse of the proposition: if making things like class inequity and sexism the preeminent focus of
progressive action in North America inevitably perpetuates the internal colonial structure of the United States,
does the reverse hold true? I’ll state unequivocally that it does not. There is no indication whatsoever that a
restoration of indigenous sovereignty in Indian Country would foster class stratification anywhere, least of all
in Indian Country. In fact, all indications are that when left to their own devices, indigenous peoples have
consistently organized their societies in the most class-free manners. Look to the example of the
Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy). Look to the Muscogee (Creek) Confederacy. Look to the
confederations of the Yaqui and the Lakota, and those pursued and nearly perfected by Pontiac and
Tecumseh. They represent the very essence of enlightened egalitarianism and democracy. Every imagined
example to the contrary brought forth by even the most arcane anthropologist can be readily offset by a
couple of dozen other illustrations along the lines of those I just mentioned. Would sexism be perpetuated?
Ask one of the Haudenosaunee clan mothers, who continue to assert political leadership in their societies
through the present day. Ask Wilma Mankiller, current head of the Cherokee nation , a people that
traditionally led by what were called “Beloved Women.” Ask a Lakota woman—or man, for that matter—about
who it was that owned all real property in traditional society, and what that meant in terms of parity in gender
relations. Ask a traditional Navajo grandmother about her social and political role among her people. Women
in most traditional native societies not only enjoyed political, social, and economic parity with men, they often
held a preponderance of power in one or more of these spheres. Homophobia? Homosexuals of both genders
were (and in many settings still are) deeply revered as special or extraordinary, and therefore spiritually
significant, within most indigenous North American cultures. The extent to which these realities do not now
pertain in native societies is exactly the extent to which Indians have been subordinated to the mores of the
invading, dominating culture. Insofar as restoration of Indian land rights is tied directly to the reconstitution of
traditional indigenous social, political, and economic modes, you can see where this leads: the relations of sex
and sexuality accord rather well with the aspirations of feminist and gay rights activism. How about a
restoration of native land rights precipitating some sort of “environmental holocaust”? Let’s get at least a
little bit real here. If you’re not addicted to the fabrications of Smithsonian anthropologists about how Indians
lived, or George Weurthner’s Eurosupremacist Earth First! Fantasies about how we beat all the wooly
mammoths and mastodons and saber-toothed cats to death with sticks, then this question isn’t even on the
board. I know it’s become fashionable among Washington Post editorialists to make snide references to native
people “strewing refuse in their wake” as they “wandered nomadically about the “prehistoric” North American
landscape. What is that supposed to imply? That we, who were mostly “sedentary agriculturalists” in any
event. Were dropping plastic and aluminum cans as we went? Like I said, lets get real. Read the accounts of
early European arrival, despite the fact that it had been occupied by 15 or 20 million people enjoying a
remarkably high standard of living for nobody knows how long: 40,000 years? 50,000 years? Longer? Now
contrast that reality to what’s been done to this continent over the past couple of hundred years by the
culture Weurthner, the Smithsonian, and the Post represent, and you tell me about environmental
devastation. That leaves militarism and racism. Taking the last first, there really is no indication of racism in
traditional Indian societies. To the contrary, the record reveals that Indians habitually intermarried between
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
groups, and frequently adopted both children and adults from other groups. This occurred in precontact times
between Indians, and the practice was broadened to include those of both African and European origin—and
ultimately Asian origin as well—once contact occurred. Those who were naturalized by marriage or adoption
were considered members of the group, pure and simple. This was always the Indian view. The Europeans and
subsequent Euroamerican settlers viewed things rather differently, however, and foisted off the notion that
Indian identity should be determined primarily by “blood quantum,” an outright eugenics code similar to
those developed in places like Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. Now that’s a racist construction if
there ever was one. Unfortunately, a lot of Indians have been conned into buying into this anti- Indian
absurdity, and that’s something to be overcome. But there’s also solid indication that quite a number of
native people continue to strongly resist such things as the quantum system. As to militarism, no one will
deny that Indians fought wars among themselves both before and after the European invasion began.
Probably half of all indigenous peoples in North America maintained permanent warrior societies. This could
perhaps be reasonably construed as “militarism,” but not, I think, with the sense the term conveys within the
European/Euro-American tradition. There were never, so far as anyone can demonstrate,, wars of annihilation
fought in this hemisphere prior to the Columbian arrival, none. In fact, it seems that it was a more or less firm
principle of indigenous warfare not to kill, the object being to demonstrate personal bravery, something that
could be done only against a live opponent. There’s no honor to be had in killing another person, because a
dead person can’t hurt you. There’s no risk. This is not to say that nobody ever died or was seriously injured
in the fighting. They were, just as they are in full contact contemporary sports like football and boxing.
Actually, these kinds of Euro-American games are what I would take to be the closest modern parallels to
traditional inter-Indian warfare. For Indians, it was a way of burning excess testosterone out of young males,
and not much more. So, militarism in the way the term is used today is as alien to native tradition as smallpox
and atomic bombs.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Realism (2/2)

3 – Their inevitability and good claims only hold true because we presume to be true
beforehand – we’re bred to believe that realism is inevitable only because we’ve never
lived in a different system – that different system, however, has been shown to work by
tribal governments.
Hall 1999
(Anthony J., Dept. of NA Studies @ U. of Lethbridge, “Ethnic cleansing of Native North American People”, April
15, accessed online July 8, 2008, p. L/N) DMZ
To now read all these years later Mr. McKayís dismissive comments about Bruce Clark as the infamous loser in
Temagami and countless and other cases, raises the question of strange argumentative concoctions youíd
need to win before a judge with the deep prejudices and sparce historical knowledge of a Mr. Justice Steele.
While I thought he was the last word in judicial ethnocentrism, Mr. Justice Allan McEachern managed to outdo
his Ontario counterpart in the ruling of the lower court on the Delgamuukw case. Mr. McEachern, who doubles
as chair of the judgeís own self regulating body, pronounced that Indians have almost nothing of worth to
retain for either themselves or the world from their own Indigenous cultures. To make this point, the BC jurist
actually quoted Thomas Hobbes, who used imaginary North American Indians in 1651, to argue that life
without a dictatorial ruler is “nasty, brutish and short.” Accordingly, to properly understand the genesis of Dr.
Clarkís legal interpretation, you need to know someting of the nature of his formative experiences with judges
that, in my view, were unusually extreme in their ethnocentric hostility to Indian peoples and Indian cultures.
What emerged for him from this experience, was a dawning recognition that the stakes of the contentions
over Aboriginal and treaty rights are so big, and the legacy of legal impropriety so old and so well protected
by layer upon layer of dubious and overtly racist legal precedent, that it is almost unimaginable that any
judge would take the responsibility of overturning this status quo-- of overturning this institutionalized
complicity in genocide that is so deeply ingrained in the framework of North American experience that it is
made to seem normal and natural and simply a fact of life.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Topicality-Incentives
PTCs are federal incentives
Union of Concerned Scientists 2007 (2/14, "Renewable Energy Tax Credit Extended Again, but Risk of
Boom-Bust Cycle in Wind Industry Continues",
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/production-tax-credit-for-renewable-energy.html)
In one of the last measures taken by the 109th Congress, an important federal policy for promoting the
development of renewable energy received a one-year extension. The production tax credit (PTC) provides a
1.9-cent per kilowatt-hour (kWh) benefit for the first ten years of a renewable energy facility's operation. The
PTC was set to expire on December 31, 2007, but due to the efforts of a coalition of clean energy supporters
—including UCS—it was extended for one year as part of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (H.R.
6408). Strong growth in U.S. wind installations is now projected through 2008.
Tax credits are incentives

US Department of Energy, Feb 29, 2008
(Tax Incentives, accessed on 7/9/2008, http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/tax_incentives.cfm)
Tax incentives are widely used to help purchasers overcome the relatively high front-end costs of energy
efficiency equipment. These programs serve to reduce the investment costs of acquiring and installing energy efficiency
products and reward investors with tax credits, deductions, and allowances for their support of these products.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Topicality-Alternative Energy

Wind energy is alternative energy
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006
(accessed on 7/9/2008, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alternative%20energy)
alternative energy –noun energy, as solar, wind, or nuclear energy, that can replace or supplement traditional
fossil-fuel sources, as coal, oil, and natural gas.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Topicality-‘in the United States’

1 – W/M – plan provides incentives for alternative energy developed by Native
Americans. Our __________ evidence says that native power is transferred to the federal
power grid for US consumers to use.
2 – W/M – Regarding energy policy, Tribal nations are treated as states and receive
federal grants
Suagee 1992
This Article challenges readers to help make the principle of self-determination for indigenous peoples a
reality. Part I presents an overview of the emerging international law of the rights of indigenous peoples and
discusses the threat of cultural genocide. Part II presents a comparative law example of the status of
indigenous peoples under the domestic law of the United States, where American Indian tribes n5 retain a
[*675] substantial measure of their original sovereignty. Although the status of Indian tribes in the United
States is less than ideal, a large number do continue to exist as politically distinct communities, and each
tribe is intent on being treated as a permanent feature of our federal system. This continued and distinct
existence teaches many lessons that are applicable in the international arena. In particular, Part II notes the
recent trend in United States environmental law of authorizing Indian tribal governments to be treated as
states and offers some comments on one federal grant program which is designed for the express purpose of
helping Indian tribes to preserve their cultural heritage.
3 – C/I – ‘in’ means in control of.

Dictionary.com Unabridged 2008
(‘”In”, accessed online July 10, 2008, p. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/in) DMZ
being in power, authority, control, etc.: a member of the in party.
4 – We meet out C/I – our 1AC outlines in numerous times why tribal nations are under
the authority of the USfg – here’s some contextual evidence
Suagee 1998
(Dean B., Director of First National Environmental Law Program, Vermont Law School, South Royalton,
Vermont, “Tribal Self-Determination and Environmental Federalism: Cultural Values as a Force for
Sustainability”, 3 Wid. L. Symp. J. 229, Fall, accessed online July 10, 2008, p. L/N) DMZ
Anaya has explained, however, the right of self-determination does not necessarily include the right to
become an independent country. n52 In his opinion, self- determination has both substantive aspects and
remedial aspects. The substantive aspects can be further broken down into two component parts: First, in
what may be called its constitutive aspect, self-determination requires that the governing institutional order
be substantially the creation of processes guided by the will of the people, or peoples, governed. Second, in
what may be called its ongoing aspect, self-determination requires that the governing institutional order,
independently of the processes leading to its creation or alteration, be one under which people may
live and develop freely on a continuous basis. n53 When a people has been deprived of the substantive aspects
of self- determination, deprivation establishes the need for a remedy. In the context of decolonization, the
remedy provided by the international community has generally included the right to become an independent
country. In the context of indigenous peoples, however, this may not be the most appropriate remedy. Rather,
an indigenous people might choose from a variety of [*239] arrangements other than independent
statehood and, if the ongoing aspects of the arrangement work, it would be meaningful self-determination.
There may well be cases in which independent statehood would be an appropriate remedy, but because this
remedy is not a generally available right, n54 it would be far more productive for the states of the world to
focus on the substantive aspects of self- determination for indigenous peoples than to take a hardline position
opposing any regognition of the right at all.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Topicality-‘in the United States’

5 – Their interpretation is bad:
A – Overlimits – the only difference between a ‘nation’ and ‘country’ is that native
nations aren’t required to follow every federal law – this deduces affs dealing with US
territories, provinces untopical. Such a brightline would even make affs dealing with
the state of Nebraska untopical as it doesn’t follow key federal guidelines such as No
Child Left Behind,
B – This burden is unreasonable – it’s impossible to find a state that follows every
federal mandate, and at best, ensures there are only a few topical affs. This ensures
affs lose every round as only so much can be done substantially in the few states that
meet that criteria,
C – Contradictory – the term “united states” is inclusive of all state and territories. It
makes no sense for ‘in’ to require full participation in laws if states can be exempt – this
is a reason why the interpretation is arbitrary and an independent reason to reject it as
it lacks any coherence – no aff could ever meet it.
D – Underlimits are always better than overlimits – generics and counterplan ground
means there’s always a neg side bias – give the aff a break if we’re a reasonable
approach to the topic.
5 – Competing interpretations encourages minor distinctions which are swamped by the

opportunity cost of the substantive tradeoff and thus are insufficient to reject a
reasonable aff interpretation. Potential abuse is never a voter because they can’t link
our plan to the world of debate they describe – if anything, our aff disproves the
intrinsicness of their limits story.
WDW 2008
Wild Lab
Indigenous Energy
AT: Topicality-‘in the United States’ We Meet Evidence

Indigenous Tribes are “domestic dependent tribes” within the United States.
Peggy B. Hu and Jeffrey Thomas, Washington File Staff Writers, 2006.
America.gov, “United States Respects Indian Tribes' Right to Self-Determination: Indian tribes retain unique
sovereign status as "domestic dependent nations"”. July 10, 2008. http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-
english/2006/November/20061103120126cjsamoht0.4840967.html.
Washington -- Many people are puzzled when they hear the U.S. president use such phrases as “government-
to-government basis with tribal governments,” “tribal sovereignty” or “self-determination” for American
Indians. Isn’t the United States “one nation ... indivisible," as the Pledge of Allegiance says? The answer is
more interesting than a simple “yes” or “no.” According to the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Tribal
Justice, American Indian tribes are considered "domestic dependent nations" within the United States. As
such, they retain sovereign powers over their members and territory except where such powers specifically
have been modified by U.S. law. American Indians are more than members of a racial minority group in the
United States; they are indigenous people of the Americas with a status akin to dual citizenship. In his November
1 proclamation marking National American Indian Heritage Month, 2006, President Bush reaffirmed his administration's adherence to a
national policy of self-determination for Indian tribes, a policy that began under President Richard Nixon. The United States “will continue
to work on a government-to-government basis with tribal governments, honor the principles of tribal sovereignty and the right to self-
determination,” Bush said, “and help ensure America remains a land of promise for American Indians, Alaska Natives, and all our
citizens.” (See text of proclamation.) During a February meeting of governmental and indigenous delegates to draft an "Inter-American
Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People," U.S. Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States John Maisto said the
United States "is proud of its longstanding commitment to tribal sovereignty [and] self-determination, and government-to-government
relationships with federally recognized tribes.” (See related article.) “A policy of self-determination for American Indians is one of the
most positive aspects of the U.S. experience, and may potentially serve as a model for better relations between other countries and
indigenous peoples and populations," he said. President Bush, surrounded by American Indian dignataries, Mrs. Laura Bush and Interior
Secretary Gayle Norton, signs the Executive Memorandum on Tribal Sovereignty and Consultation in honor of the opening of the National
Museum of the American Indian, September 23, 2004, in Washington. President Bush signs the Executive Memorandum on Tribal
Sovereignty and Consultation, September 23, 2004.) The U.S. federal government currently recognizes 561 Indian nations. The Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) within the U.S. Department of the Interior manages 55.7 million acres of land held in trust by the United States for
American Indians. The BIA also is responsible for maintaining tribal schools serving nearly 48,000 American Indian primary, secondary
and university students. TRIBAL MEMBERSHIP Each tribe determines who qualifies as a member, and an individual can qualify as a
member of more than one tribe. As a result, many of the 4.5 million U.S. citizens -- or 1.5 percent of the total population -- identified as
full- or part-American Indians or Alaska Natives in the most recent U.S. Census Bureau estimate (July 1, 2005), might claim membership
in more than one Indian nation. In general, tribes use the blood-quantum system, the descent system or a combination of the two to
determine membership. Tribes also might have residency or other requirements for those who seek membership. In the blood-quantum
system, a prospective member must prove he or she has inherited a certain percentage of “Indian blood” from the tribe he or she wishes
to join. The Nez Perce Nation, for example, will grant membership only to those who are "at least one fourth (1/4) degree Nez Perce
Indian ancestry born to a member of the Nez Perce Tribe.” The descent system does not set a minimum blood requirement. Instead,
prospective members must demonstrate that they are directly descended from a tribal member from a particular time period. The
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, for example, requires that prospective members trace their lineage to at least one person listed on the
Dawes Rolls of 1899-1907, the official list of people accepted by the Dawes Commission as members of the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw,
Chickasaw and Seminole Indian tribes. American Indians are active participants in all aspects of American life. Among the more famous
American Indians are former senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Northern Cheyenne); National Museum of the American Indian founding
director W. Richard West, Jr. (Southern Cheyenne, Cheyenne and Arapaho); physicist Fred Begay (Navajo and Ute); Olympic medalist Billy
Mills (Lakota); composer Louis Ballard (Quapaw and Cherokee); ballerina Maria Tallchief (Osage); poet Simon Ortiz (Acoma); singer Felipe
Rose (Lakota) of the Village People; actor Floyd Red Crow Westerman (Dakota branch of Sioux People); actress Irene Bedard (Inupiat
Eskimo and Cree); author Leslie Marmon Silko (Laguna Pueblo); author N. Scott Momaday (Kiowa); and activist and writer Winona LaDuke
(Ojibwa). For a timeline of key legal developments affecting the status of the American Indian in the United States, see fact sheet. For
more information on U.S. society, see Population and Diversity. (The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International
Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Final Wild Lab Aff 1

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

Final Wild Lab Aff 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WDW 2008

Indigenous 1AC...................................................................................................................... ............................3

Water Advantage-Nuclear Power Pollutes Tribal Water ....................................................... ............................84

And, Food shortages lead to World War III

Also, Species loss risks extinction

And, Climate induced water conflicts go nuclear

Unfortunately, coal-fired power plants use tremendous amounts of water, contributing

The impact is extinction

Inherency-No Tribal PTCs

Inherency-Energy Relationship Destructive

Inherency-Energy Relationship Destructive

Solvency-Federal Action Key

Solvency-PTC Access Key

PTCs are critical to ensure the development of wind energy.

PTCs are necessary for the continuation of wind power.

Solvency-PTC Access Key

The production tax credit is the most effective incentive

Tribes want wind development for five reasons.

Solvency-Technical Assistance Key

Solvency-Financial Incentives Key

Solvency-AT: Native wind not that huge

Solvency-AT: Natives don’t have resources

Your claims that development won’t happen are wrong.

Your empirical claims are false

Indigenous Advantage-Wind Leads to Self-

Only energy independence can establish cultural and political sovereignty.

Wind power can allow tribal sustainability and sovereignty

Indigenous Advantage-Wind Leads to Self-

Indigenous Advantage-Wind Leads to Economic

Greater economic prosperity leads to tribal self-determination

Energy development key to economic development

Wind Energy leads to economic development

Energy independence would allow indigenous populations to remove their population

Indigenous Advantage-Wind Leads to Economic

Indigenous Advantage-Wind Sustains Tribal Culture

Wind allows for the preservation of indigenous culture

Indigenous Advantage-AT: Business Abuses

Wind Advantage-Tribal Wind Solves Energy Crisis

Wind Advantage-Wind Eases Dependence on Coal

The US could decrease dependence on fossil fuels with wind power.

Wind Advantage-Wind Cleaner Than Fossil Fuels

Wind is the best clean alternative to fossil fuels.

Wind Advantage-AT: No Demand for Wind Power

Wind is an economically feasible option

Wind Advantage-Tribal Involvement Solves Global

Wind Advantage-Coal Bad for the Environment

The natural landscape is destroyed by coal mining

Coal pollution uniquely affects minorities

Coal plants produce mercury pollution

Wind Advantage-Coal Bad for the Environment

Wind Advantage-Shift to Alternative Energy

Increased oil prices make the shift to alternative energy inevitable.

Wind Advantage-AT: Wind Turbines Kill Birds

Birds dieing is non-unique-they crash into telecommunications towers.

Non-unique—cats kill more birds than wind turbines.

Wind Advantage-AT: Wind Turbines Kill Bats

Non-Unique-Bats crash into lighthouses tall buildings and towers.

You can’t even fake an impact—there is no risk of population implications.

Water Advantage-Nuclear Power Depletes Water

Water Advantage-Coal Power Pollutes Tribal Water

Coal mining pollutes water

Water Advantage-Nuclear Power Pollutes Tribal Water

Water Advantage-Nuclear Power Pollutes Tribal Water