Top Story Archives - Page 126 of 157

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz relies on dubious coal tech for Obama climate strategy

The key takeaway from President Obama’s major climate change announcement this week was his intent to batten down on coal. But if history is any indication, the man Mr. Obama selected to run the Department of Energy may have different plans.

Ernest J. Moniz has a long history of supporting coal-powered electricity, staking his arguments in favor of coal on a technology that remains entirely unproven: carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

Mr. Moniz will be in a uniquely influential position when it comes to confronting these problems. President Obama announced that he would rely on executive agencies instead of Congress, so Mr. Moniz’s Energy Department will play a crucial role in determining precisely how Obama’s strategy is administered.

The day after Obama’s speech, Moniz told Congress “the President advocates an all-of-the-above energy strategy and I am very much in tune with this.”

What’s wrong with an all-of-the-above strategy? It extends reliance on fossil fuels, at a time when scientists warn that we can only burn twenty percent of current reserves before the world tips past the crucial 2 degree Celsius point. Beyond two degrees, some of the most devastating impacts of global warming will be felt. Keep in mind that, if all of the world’s coal is burned, global temperatures could rise by a jaw-dropping 15 degrees Celsius, a study published in the prestigious journal Nature last year concluded.

The stakes, when it comes to controlling American greenhouse gas emissions, are huge.

In May, carbon dioxide levels in the Earth’s atmosphere reached 400 parts per million – the highest level of carbon dioxide ever recorded in human history. Last year, the continental U.S. experienced its hottest year on record, and the NRDC estimates that climate-related disasters like crop loss, wildfires and floods cost the nation roughly $140 billion last year alone, with much of the tab picked up by taxpayers.

Power plants are the single largest source of American carbon dioxide emissions, accounting for a third of the nation’s total greenhouse gasses. So focusing on power plants is key if emissions are to be reduced.

Coal currently supplies about 40 percent of American electricity, according to EIA statistics, down from fifty percent in 2005. Coal’s decline comes as natural gas from fracking (which has its own worrisome climate impacts, measured in methane rather than carbon dioxide), wind and solar, have risen in their share of the U.S. electric portfolio. Since the beginning of 2010, 145 coal-fired power plantsannounced plans to retire.

But the Department of Energy is focused not on retiring more of these plants, pinning its hopes instead on developing new technologies to make coal cleaner. The plan in rough form, involves collecting carbon dioxide emitted by power plants and burying it, forever, underground.

If that sounds like a heck of a challenge, that’s because it is.

There’s not a single large commercially-operating carbon sequestration plantanywhere in the world.

That’s despite over $25 billion in government subsidies worldwide from 2008 to 2012.

Nevertheless, Mr. Moniz told Congress that “the Administration has already committed about $6 billion to [carbon capture and sequestration] demonstrations, and success of the forthcoming projects will be a critical step toward meeting the President’s climate goals.”

The $8 billion in total subsidies adds up to more than the wind and solar industries combined receive – and those are industries that have proven themselves to be commercially viable.

Undaunted, Moniz told The New York Times on Thursday that carbon capture and sequestration was a vital part of the country’s climate change strategy. He called for CCS to be commercialized first for coal-fired power plants. He added that natural gas’ carbon emissions, though half those of coal, are still too high to meet Obama’s long-term goal of slashing emissions 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050 — so he called for the same speculative technology to resolve that problem as well.

The transition to an electric industry that captures its greenhouse gasses instead of releasing them into the atmosphere makes the challenges associated with developing renewables like wind and solar look easy in comparison.

Professor Vaclav Smil, author of the “Energy Myths and Realities: Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate” – See more at: http://www.ecopedia.com/environment/will-carbon-sequestration-solve-clim…

Professor Vaclav Smil, author of “Energy Myths and Realities: Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate” has calculated that to sequester just a fifth of current carbon dioxide emissions:

“… we would have to create an entirely new worldwide absorption-gathering-compression-transportation- storage industry whose annual throughput would have to be about 70 percent larger than the annual volume now handled by the global crude oil industry whose immense infrastructure of wells, pipelines, compressor stations and storages took generations to build.”

Carbon capture is also grossly inefficient. “By some estimates, 40 percent of the energy generated has to go to the carbon capture and sequestration process,” Josh Galperin, associate director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy,said after the climate strategy was released. DeSmog’s Kevin Grandia describessome further technical hurdles that carbon sequestration has yet to overcome.

In a key indication of how shaky the science is behind carbon sequestration, not even the World Bank will fund it. Concerns about climate change led the Bank to restrict its financial support for coal projects except in “rare circumstances,” a draft strategy leaked to the press earlier this week indicates. In a glaring omission, the strategy says nothing about carbon capture and sequestration as an alternative.

None of this seems to matter to Mr. Moniz, whose support of the coal industry and faith in sequestration has been longstanding.

A 2009 report he helped produce focused on how to reduce CO2 from coal plants, touting the potential for so-called “clean coal.”

“It’s cheap,” he told Scientific American when the report was released, “there’s lots of it and there’s lots of it in places with high demand, namely the U.S., China and India.”

In 2007, Moniz co-authored an MIT report titled “The Future of Coal” that aimed to examine “how the world can continue to use coal, an abundant and inexpensive fuel, in a way that mitigates, instead of worsens, the global warming crisis.”

Moniz’s faith in carbon sequestration has remained unshaken up to the present day.

“It’s not going to happen tomorrow, but I believe in this decade we will have demonstrated the viability of large-scale storage” of carbon-dioxide from industrial operations, he told the Associated Press on Thursday. “The president made clear that we anticipate that coal and other fossil fuels are going to play a significant role for quite some time on the way to a very low carbon economy,” he added.

Meanwhile, broader concerns about the President’s climate plans remain.

“We’re happy to see the president finally addressing climate change” said Bill Snape, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity, “but the plain truth is that what he’s proposing isn’t big enough, and doesn’t move fast enough, to match the terrifying magnitude of the climate crisis.”

And if the clean coal technology Mr. Moniz is counting on doesn’t pan out, prospects may be even dimmer.

Overdue White House Native Council Lacking Budget Control and Natives

Rob Capriccioso, Indian Country Today Media Network

President Barack Obama, following the lead of at least three presidents before him, established a White House Council on Native American Affairs on June 26.

The council is expected to oversee and coordinate the progress of federal agencies on tribal programs and consultation with tribes across the federal government.

“This policy is established as a means of promoting and sustaining prosperous and resilient tribal communities,” Obama said in his executive order announcing the Council. “Greater engagement and meaningful consultation with tribes is of paramount importance in developing any policies affecting tribal nations.” (Related story: Obama Establishes White House Council on Native American Affairs)

Jodi Gillette, Senior Policy Advisor for Native American Affairs with the White House Domestic Policy Council, was direct in describing the need for the Council during a press conference call on June 27. “We need to do more, and we need to do it better,” she said. “Tribal leaders have told us we aren’t talking to each other enough.”

The Council will have no financial powers—those still belong to the Office of Management and Budget, which will continue to control how much money is spent on Native programs throughout the federal government.

Secretary of the Department of the Interior Sally Jewell, who is designated chair of the Council by the president, told attendees of a meeting of the National Congress of American Indians in Nevada on June 27 that she would like to have the ability to curb cuts to Indian programs. During a speech there, she called sequestration “stupid,” and she noted that it has targeted tribal programs that are supposed to be protected under the federal-tribal trust relationship. She also wiped tears from her eyes when she said she realized the depth of her commitment to Indian issues over Memorial Day Weekend.

Despite this budgetary limitation, the president’s move is being applauded by tribal officials, including some involved with NCAI, who say that such a development is overdue under the Obama administration to better organize its response to Indian issues.

At the same time, some are concerned that this new Council is not currently scheduled to have tribal seats, although the administration has promised to consult with tribal leaders on issues the Council addresses.

Tex Hall, chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes, has been pressing for the creation of a Native American White House council based on the model established under President Lyndon B. Johnson that would make tribes actual members of the council and give the council stronger powers (including OMB and budget powers).

Hall would especially like to see that model in place because OMB, earlier this year, decided to sequester Native programs, despite the federal trust responsibility to tribes. If the White House Native council had more budgetary power, this problem could have been averted.

Officials involved in past presidential Native American councils have also questioned why it took so long into Obama’s tenure to establish the Council since similar to ones that have proven to be useful under past administrations, including those of Presidents Johnson, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton.

Mike Anderson, an Indian affairs lawyers and past leader with the Clinton Native-focused council, said that he suggested to White House officials and to Indian affairs officials with the Department of the Interior during Obama’s first term that a similar council be created as the one he successfully worked on during the Clinton administration.

“[I’m] glad they are finally doing it,” Anderson said, adding that this group could have pushed for the federal agencies complete tribal consultation policies in compliance with the president’s request from 2009 that went unheeded by some for years after his request.

Anderson said it would have also been helpful for the Treasury Department, in particular, to hear perspectives on Indians during the president’s first term, since that Department has had some recent tax dealings with tribes that continue to perplex tribal leaders and citizens.

Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), chair of the subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs in the House, is expressing concern that the creation of the council is symbolic, and he fears it does not focus enough on helping poverty-stricken tribes.

“This announced council is symbolic and a gesture rather than concrete action,” said Young spokesman Michael Anderson (no relation to Indian affairs lawyer Mike Anderson). “This is the phenomenon of government people creating a ‘blue ribbon panel’ to buy time so they can figure out how…to improve Indian reservation economies.

“Indian country’s unemployment situation, from all appearances, has not improved since Obama took office,” Anderson added. “If it has, we wouldn’t know it because the Secretary of the Interior has failed to produce annually required tribal labor reports. There are precious few job-producing non-government projects the Obama administration has approved in Indian country.”

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, is much less critical of the Council and the president’s efforts. “This council recognizes the unique government-to-government relationship that exists between tribal governments and the federal government, and can help federal agencies work more effectively with tribes all across the nation,” she told Indian Country Today Media Network. “I look forward to working with Interior Secretary Sally Jewell on innovative ways to strengthen tribal self-governance and self-determination.”

Some Obama administration officials say the creation of the Council is the next step in the evolution of the president’s strong commitment to Indian country.

“This announcement today is the next evolution of what is already a wonderful approach toward Indian tribes,” Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn said in a press conference call on June 27. “I am confident that this will make the administration even more effective at working with tribes in the future.”

Administration officials have not addressed why tribal officials were not invited to hold positions on the Council, as has happened with past presidential councils, nor why one wasn’t created sooner.

ABC News on Tohono O’odham Nation’s Harrowing Mexican-Border War

Indian Country Today Media Network

As the immigration debate heats up in Congress, the Tohono O’odham Nation in Arizona is caught in the crossfire. The tribe’s reservation borders Mexico but has one of the least-policed barriers on the entire imaginary line that separates Mexico from its northern neighbor.

With newer measures to keep out undocumented immigrants being augmented along other parts of the border, the attention of drug smugglers, human traffickers and would-be immigrants themselves is becoming more focused on this relatively unprotected stretch. ABC’s Nightline edition at 12:35 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Friday June 28 profiles the border that “has made life a daily hell for a tribe of Native Americans,” as ABC News reports. The

“While border-crossing apprehensions in Arizona are down 43 percent from two years ago, it is a different, more complicated story on the Tohono O’odham Nation,” ABC News says. “Drug seizures on the reservation are steadily climbing—nearly 500,000 pounds of marijuana was seized last year, a number that has nearly doubled since 2010. Recently, Tohono O’odham police seized copy million worth of marijuana in just one week.”

Watch the full report on ABC, or catch it online.

Read In Efforts to Secure US-Mexico Border, Ariz. Native Americans Feel Caught in the Middle at ABC News.com.

Lummi Nation harvests hatchery fish, releases natural origin chinook

Lummi Natural Resources staffers Tony George, left, and Ralph Phair collect a hatchery chinook salmon from a tangle net in the Nooksack River.

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

The Lummi Nation Natural Resources Department is conducting a pilot tangle net fishery for hatchery chinook salmon that allows natural origin fish to be released without harm.

Nooksack River early chinook are part of a major population group that must be recovering before the Puget Sound chinook listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) can be delisted.

“We’re trying to conserve all the natural origin fish by using a smaller mesh net,” said Alan Chapman, ESA coordinator for the tribe. “The fish tangle by the snout, rather than the gills or body, so they can be safely released.”

Fish from the state Department of Fish and Wildlife’s North Fork Nooksack early chinook hatchery program are marked with a clipped adipose fin and/or coded-wire tag. When a tangle net is used, tribal fishermen can harvest those fish, while releasing the wild ones.

The Lummi Nation contracted with tribal fishermen Rab Washington and Johnny Olsen to fish the small mesh net, with the assistance of natural resources staff who sort the fish, take tissue and scale samples from natural origin fish before releasing them, and take scale samples and coded-wire tag information from the retained hatchery salmon.

“We hope this pilot program will lead to a closely supervised tribal fishery so we can get back to the days our elder fishers reminisce about,” said Merle Jefferson, director of Lummi Natural Resources. “Eventually, we could use the tangle net to harvest pink salmon that haven’t been available to tribal fishermen because of chinook bycatch concerns. This will also increase fishing opportunities during the spring and summer months, and help protect the fall chinook fishery from bycatch concerns.”

The decline in salmon runs has come at a great cost to Lummi fishermen, who make up one of the largest tribal fishing fleets in the country. Increasing fishing opportunities is crucial to supporting their Schelangen, or way of life, and retaining their tribal identity.

“We need to get our kids out fishing so they can understand the way it used to be and why we do what we do,” said Randy Kinley, fisherman and Lummi policy representative. “Future leaders need to remember where we came from, as it was taught to us.”

The tangle net fishery helped the tribe get one step closer to that goal by providing all of the salmon served at the Lummi Nation’s First Salmon Ceremony in May.

“Everyone in our community had an opportunity to feast on the salmon and celebrate our culture and connection to our fishing heritage at our First Salmon Ceremony,” Jefferson said.

Paul Frank Native American-designed collection an apology for powwow party?

Paul Frank parent company Saban Brands President Elie Dekel surrounded by products featuring Paul Frank icon Julius the Monkey. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times / June 19, 2013)

By Booth Moore, Los Angeles Times, June 19, 2003

On Tuesday, I wrote a post about the new “Paul Frank Presents” collection of accessories designed in collaboration with Native American artists.

After so many egregious misappropriations of Native American culture by fashion brands (“Navajo” T-shirts at Urban Outfitters and feather headdresses on the runway at Victoria’s Secret), I wrote that it was heartening to learn that Los Angeles-based Paul Frank, the brand that turned a sock monkey into a fashion statement, announced it is collaborating with four tribes in regions across the country in what seemed to be an authentic way, giving artists the opportunity to design accessories for a special collection launching in August on PaulFrank.com.

(The artists include Louie Gong from the Nooksack tribe; Candace Halcro from the Cree/Metis tribe; Dustin Martin from the Navajo tribe; and Autumn Dawn Gomez from the Comanche/Taos tribe.)

But I failed to include the backstory. Dr. Jessica R. Metcalfe, a Turtle Mountain Chippewa from North Dakota, who writes about Native American art, fashion and design, as well as owning and operating the site BeyondBuckskin.com, where many of the artists tapped by Paul Frank sell their designs, elaborates on the collaboration in an illuminating post here.

“While I am undeniably thrilled about the announcement and all that it represents, the press release failed to mention the various factors that led to this collaboration,” Metcalfe writes. “Last September, the lifestyle brand Paul Frank hosted a “powwow”-inspired fashion event that featured some questionable party favors and activities.”

“After a sizable backlash from people from Native American communities and our allies, the brand removed over a thousand images of the event from their Facebook page, and the president of the company, Elie Dekel, reached out to myself and Adrienne Keene of Native Appropriations. He reached out to the two of us, I think, because we had been the loudest in pointing out the obvious racism behind this event … and so it began — the gesturing to apologize for this major slip-up,” Metcalfe writes.

Although Paul Frank’s collaboration with Native American artists will undoubtedly help bring the work of these talented young people to a wider audience, the company should have been forthcoming in press materials about the journey it took to get here. Because what is corporate responsibility without full disclosure?

Big News from the White House

Source: Quinault Nation

TAHOLAH, WA (6/26/13)–“This is an exciting development in advancing a new era of U.S.-Tribal relations,” exclaimed Fawn Sharp, President of the Quinault Indian Nation and the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians regarding today’s establishment of the White House Council on Native American Affairs by President Barack Obama.

President Obama established the council in an executive order with the stated objective of promoting and sustaining “prosperous and resilient Native American tribal governments” and in recognition of a government-to-government relationship with tribes throughout the country. “This relationship is set forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, administrative rules and regulations, and judicial decisions. Honoring these relationships and respecting the sovereignty of tribal nations is critical to advancing tribal self-determination and prosperity,” says the executive order.

“This executive order comes from a President who has taken the time to listen to the American Indian people. It is a document that recognizes our history and struggles and acknowledges our interests and objectives. On behalf of the Native people and the tribes I represent in my elected capacities, I thank him for his foresight and the intent of this very important decision,” said Sharp. The White House Council on Native American Affairs is primarily coordination. But it could benefit Tribes by addressing the chronic problem of tribal government and tribal program underfunding which had ranged from 50 to 80 percent, said Sharp.

Sharp pointed out that the council is to coordinate its policy development through the Domestic Policy Council which tends to create yet another layer of a federal policy process and was more direct through inter-agency collaboration. There does not appear to be a mechanism for direct tribal government engagement with the Council on “tribal specific” policy and the establishment of effective inter-governmental negotiation mechanisms. The new Council appears to be solely concerned with federal funds, but may not address the conveyance of funds through states to Indian governments. Finally, President Sharp pointed out that the new council does not appear to be concerned with urban and rural Indians and Alaskan Natives and Hawaiian natives now constituting more than half of the total native population in the United States.

The Executive Order goes on to say, “As we work together to forge a brighter future for all Americans, we cannot ignore a history of mistreatment and destructive policies that have hurt tribal communities. The United States seeks to continue restoring and healing relations with Native Americans and to strengthen its partnership with tribal governments. Our more recent history demonstrates that tribal self-determination — the ability of tribal governments to determine how to build and sustain their own communities — is necessary for successful and prospering communities. We further recognize that restoring tribal lands through appropriate means helps foster tribal self-determination.”

The Executive Order establishes a national policy to ensure that the Federal Government engages in a true and lasting government-to-government relationship with federally recognized tribes in a more coordinated and effective manner, including by better carrying out its trust responsibilities. This policy is established as a means of promoting and sustaining prosperous and resilient tribal communities. “Greater engagement and meaningful consultation with tribes is of paramount importance in developing any policies affecting tribal nations,” it reads.

Among other policy direction, the order asserts that it is the policy of the United States to promote the development of prosperous and resilient tribal communities by promoting sustainable economic development, greater access to health care, improvement of tribal justice systems, greater educational opportunities and improved protection of tribal lands, natural resources and culture.

The chair of the new council will be the Secretary of Interior and members will include the heads of numerous federal executive departments, agencies and offices. The order lays out funding sources, meeting frequency, processes for making recommendations to the President and various other objectives. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell has stated she will announce further details related to council as soon as tomorrow.

The formation of a White House Council on Native American Affairs recalls the Johnson and Nixon Administrations’ Council on Indian Opportunity (1968-1974) which was chaired by the Vice President of the United States, said Sharp. Like the Johnson and Nixon Council the new White House Council is intended to coordinate federal programs and the use of resources to be delivered to tribal communities. Unlike the earlier Council, the new 31 member Council does not have representatives of tribal governments. Unlike the earlier National Council, the White House Council does not have actual broader policy powers since the earlier body actually conducted meetings around the country, had the Vice President as the Chair and included officials from both the US government and tribal governments.

“It is true that the tribes have struggled tremendously through the decades in this country. But from generation to generation we have also proved our resiliency. We have endured much, and even today there are many who fail to understand us. We do appreciate President Obama’s intents and actions. But as we proceed in the improvement of the federal/tribal government-to-government relationship, it is important that tribal leadership be included in the planning and implementation process at every opportunity,” said Sharp.

“The bottom line is that it is no small thing that the president is doing here, just as it is no small thing that he has embraced Indian Country*. Again, I thank him for his wisdom, his heart and his foresight,” said Sharp.

*In May 2008, Barack Obama became the first American presidential candidate to visit the reservation of the Crow Nation. During his trip he was adopted by Hartford (now deceased) and Mary Black Eagle as a member of the nation. Hartford chose the name “Awe Kooda Bilaxpak Kuxshish,” or ”One Who Helps People Throughout This Land” to formally give to Obama, and the President has had the wisdom and sensitivity to embrace his adopted name and family with dignity and respect.

White House Council on Native American Affairs Executive Order in full:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/26/executive-order-establishing-white-house-council-native-american-affairs

Greed, Corruption and Indian Country’s New Welfare States

Leland McGee, Indian Country Today Media Network

Indian country’s pecuniary advancements created by Indian gaming are well documented. Many tribes have taken full advantage of expanding and diversifying business ventures that now represent a sustainable economic base far greater than their initial casino enterprise. Such planning and financial discipline is commendable. Strong tribal leadership and the willingness to do what is in the best interest of the citizenry of those governments is usually the common thread of success for those tribes. Many times, however, decisions made by tribal councils to obtain such successful economic diversity come at a political price: risking their leadership positions by standing up to their constituents and saying no to either initiating per capita payments, or increasing them beyond sensible levels.

Unfortunately, many tribes today have lost that astute fiscal resolve. In its stead, per capita has become something so adverse amongst so many of our people that it now serves to hinder, disrupt and in some instances, even dismantle tribal governments. Disenrollment, political turmoil, government breakdowns, corruption, financial dependency and absolute greed has become the new “norm” for too many gaming tribes. I’ve witnessed more times than I care to admit, general councils literally holding tribal councils political hostage over per capita distributions. Chants of: “either pay us more per capita, or we’ll vote you out and replace you with someone who will” has become commonplace within many tribal communities. Sound familiar?

The truth of the matter is that per capita payments do little to improve our tribal communities, much less peoples’ lives. Yes, we have a sovereign right to establish per capita for our citizens, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s “the right thing to do.” Some of our most formidable leaders during the early years of Indian gaming argued against per capita. They understood that the net gaming profits from our casino operations were the financial gifts born from the struggles to evolve and develop this industry. Gaming was viewed as an important tool to address generational socio-economic disparity throughout Indian country. Gaming revenues were our way of lessening our dependency on federal funding sources, as well as our opportunity to strengthen and improve tribal government operations, which is a true exercise in sovereignty.

Many tribal governments realized that creating a system of per capita payouts to tribal citizens established nothing short of a tribally funded “welfare state.” Tribes that opposed and rejected per capita payments to their citizens early on were, by and large, the ones setting the standard for quality of life improvements within their communities. As a tribal citizen, enjoying this new influx of casino revenue meant that your basic needs in life were provided for, so long as you earned and/or qualified for such assistance. This included housing, education, health care, child care, elder assistance, business start-up assistance and a slew of other programs and services that casino revenues provided.

Today’s trend though seems to be growing more and more negative in regards to per capita outlays. We have families pitted against families fighting over who is and who is not a rightful citizen of their tribal government. Issues that were never in dispute before per capita payments were declared, now grow in volume and intensity. Disenrollment was extremely rare and when exercised, was for actual cause (no Indian blood quantum, dual enrollment, et cetera), not because of greed and corruption over per capita outlays. Such actions only serve to kill our native culture. We lose respect, credibility and support throughout the United States, especially within the federal government, and look absolutely ridiculous in the eyes of the world. A proud people we are not when we allow an infiltration of bad acts and bad actors to operate and control tribal governments, spurred on by overwhelming dictate from tribal citizens demanding more and more “free” money from their tribes.

So, what can be done to reverse this trend? Maybe we begin by nurturing and empowering stronger leadership within our tribal governments. Tribal councils willing to stand in unison against per capita payments, or increases thereto, is a good starting point. Regaining control of tribal finances and putting those dollars to work in other areas are also key goals. Tribes that utilize gaming proceeds to diversify economic portfolios, generate new business ventures, create jobs and grow tribal wealth beyond casino operations, better control per capita greed. Also, lest not forget that in most states, our monopoly over casino-style gaming enterprises is a very fragile one. At any time we can see changes to state gaming laws that allow expansion of casino-style gaming to non-Indian entities in and around population centers, as a way of increasing state tax revenues and thereby devastating a large percentage of Indian gaming as we know it.

Many of us have and will continue to dedicate our lives to prevent such circumstances from occurring. However, we need to do a much better job of perpetuating positive views and opinions in the public domain on how we utilize our gaming revenues. It’s a lot easier arguing protectionism of Indian gaming’s status quo in states around the country struggling to raise more revenues, if we are not constantly lambasted in the press over tribal infighting based on nothing more than greed. Better educating our people as to the pitfalls of per capita dependency is also critical. It’s a tough challenge for any tribal council to face, but in the end such efforts may save a tribal government and the communities it serves. Our fights to secure Indian gaming was to improve government operations, tribal business ventures and overall quality of life for our citizens; not to politically cannibalize ourselves through acts of voracity, corruption and the spread of destructive per capita dependency among our own people.

Leland McGee, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, is a principal of the Sequoyah Group, LLC, a native-owned national Indian economic, energy and gaming development consulting firm. He has served in Indian Affairs under both Clinton and Bush Administrations, served under the National Congress of American Indians, directed government affairs for a national Indian law firm, and has served as executive director and tribal administrator for federally recognized tribal governments.

Victory! Oneida Nation and Green Bay ban the burning of waste

How grassroots organizing is stopping waste incinerators in Wisconsin

Kristen A. Johnson and Ananda Lee Tan, GAIA

Last month, members of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin hammered the final nail in the coffin for waste incinerator proposals on the Oneida lands, including parts of Brown and Outagamie Counties.

On May 5, more than 1800 Oneida General Tribal Council members overwhelmingly voted to reject the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation’s bid to build a pyrolysis gasification incinerator . Despite millions of dollars of subsidies offered by the U.S. Department of Energy, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, the Green Bay City Council and now the Oneida Nation have sent a clear message to all extreme energy and waste corporations that burners are not welcome in their backyards, or those of their neighbors.

This facility fight has been at the center of public debate for more than two years, and numerous environmental groups, health experts and advocates from around the state and across the U.S. provided support for this protracted community battle. However, the most inspiring, and instructive stories are those of grassroots, community organizing that led these victories. The following are reflections from parallel organizing efforts in the communities of Oneida and Green Bay.

Incinerator Free Brown County: Persistent and Adaptive Organizing

Incinerator Free Brown County came together in the fall of 2010, when an article appeared in the Green Bay newspaper announcing that a waste-to-energy plant would be built by the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC). The proposed site was near a residential area in the Village of Hobart. Alarmed by the potential health, economic, and environmental hazards posed by this plant, residents banded together, posting flyers door-to-door, in an effort to galvanize awareness and concern. They formed the Biomass Opposition Committee (BOC), and after the site was relocated to the city of Green Bay, they changed their name to Incinerator Free Brown County (IFBC) to promote a countywide campaign.

Everyone within a 2-mile radius of the incinerator site was made aware of the proposal and community members joined meetings to discuss organizing plans. At each meeting core members volunteered to raise funds to cover organizing expenses. These funds were used to share information about waste incineration through local signature petitions, fact sheets and media.

IFBC reached out to groups such as GAIA, Indigenous Environmental Network, Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, Waukesha Environmental Action League, Clean Water Action, and the Wisconsin Sierra Club for support. A number of health professionals also responded, experts who testify in support of communities opposing polluting industries. In March 2013, Dr. Paul Connett and Bradley Angel of Greenaction gave public presentations on the danger of incinerators and the benefits of zero waste. DVD recordings of their presentations were used to deepen community awareness.

Opposition to the incinerator grew in the spring of 2011 when Clean Water Action financed and—with community input—designed 4 billboards and numerous yard signs that broadcast their message to the general public, attracting the attention of the Mayor, local media, and the OSGC.

However, the fight was not without its challenges. For months, the Mayor, City Council and elected officials of the Oneida Nation avoided meeting with organizers.

IFBC kept detailed records of all documents produced by the OSGC and used these to strategically expose contradictions in the company’s technology claims. Organizers met with local officials, educating Green Bay’s elected leaders on the environmental, health, and economic impacts of the incinerator. Local residents were encouraged to contact officials to ensure that public opposition remained on the agenda.

Finally, in October 2012, after a legal challenge highlighting misleading claims by the incinerator company, IFBC and allies convinced the Green Bay Council to revoke the incinerator’s conditional use permit. After the Mayor decided not to veto the council’s vote, the City Attorney officiated revoking of the permit.

Organizers with IFBC have shared their insights in their Incinerator Resistance Guide—so that other grassroots groups can learn from their lessons, mistakes, and successes as well as ways to maintain good humor during such protracted battles, where persistence and perseverance win.

Organizing the Oneida Nation with Traditional Ecological Knowledge

Leah Sue Dodge is a member of the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, one of six Indigenous Nations that make up the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy. Leah first learned of the waste burner from an opinion piece in the Oneida Tribal newspaper. Her community was already wary of the toxic threats posed by this facility, as well as the prospect of thousands of diesel trucks transporting garbage through the community on route to the incinerator.

With the emerging debate in neighboring Green Bay, and news that the incinerator company had made claims there would be no harmful emissions, not even smokestacks, associated with this untested waste gasification technology, members of Leah’s community grew increasingly concerned.

After the Green Bay City Council revoked the incinerator permit, OSGC followed with legal action. On January 9^th, 2013 a Brown County circuit court judge decided to uphold the Green Bay decision, finding that the company had indeed misrepresented the facts: “(OSGC) indicated that there are no smoke stacks, no oxygen, and no ash. I am satisfied that is a misstatement.”

The decision prompted OSGC to look at siting a smaller “plastics-to-fuel” incinerator on tribal lands—as a stepping-stone towards a “full size” facility. Learning this news Leah decided to get more involved. As an Oneida member, Leah felt a responsibility to warn her community about Oneida money being invested in this project, and that her Tribe’s reputation was at stake, despite personal concerns about how her actions could affect her Tribal employment due to the powerful and moneyed interests involved. However, in her words, “The risk of my home being poisoned was greater than these fears.”

To start her inquiry, Leah decided to meet with key Oneida decision-makers: Oneida Business Committee Chair Ed Delgado and Yvonne Metivier, Oneida Elder Advisor to the Chairperson. Metivier suggested Leah draft a petition to demonstrate broad community opposition, and bring the matter before the General Tribal Council for a vote. She advised Dodge to keep the petition focused, and achievable in scope: a) aimed at stopping the incinerator from being approved for all Oneida lands, and, b) worded in a manner that did not require extensive legislative or financial analysis.

Leah promptly went to work, drafting and seeking signatures for the petition, which read: The General Tribal Council directs the Oneida Business Committee to stop Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC) from building any “gasification” or “waste-to-energy” or “plastics recycling” plant at N7239 Water Circle Place, Oneida, WI or any other location on the Oneida Reservation.

Over the next 10 days, Leah gathered names on the petition, ensuring they were all Oneida members of voting age. Signatures of Oneida members of all ages, as well as members of other tribes were also presented to the Oneida Land Commission in opposition to a land-use permit for the facility. Despite the proposed site being in ecologically sensitive wetlands, and less than a mile from the Turtle Elementary School, the high school and Oneida legislative offices, the Commission decided in favor of the facility.

At this stage, Leah decided to seek broader community engagement. Leading into the May 2013 general assembly of the Oneida Tribal Council, Leah purchased ads in the Tribal newspaper, distributed information for concerned Oneidas to share via social networks. Leah worked with others to develop a community action for two days at an intersection near the incinerator site. Deliberately choosing not to label the action a “protest”, they called it a Fun Action of Conscience & Teaching (FACT). “This was about supporting what we are for, rather than focusing solely on what we are against.”

Oneida artist Scott Hill recommended using visuals emphasizing traditional Oneida beliefs about the teaching spirits of animals, including the guiding stories of the clan animals, Turtle, Bear and Wolf:

The Turtle symbolizes Mother Earth, turtle island – the caretakers of the land
The Bear is a symbol of the Earth’s natural medicines and plants, healers
The Wolf clans are the peacekeepers, pathfinders – guarding and guiding communities against harm. I am of the wolf clan….

In sharing the principles embedded in these stories with community members, families and friends driving and walking by; stopping, listening, and engaging in discussion—dozens of new community members resolved to oppose the toxic threat to their lands, their families and their community.

Visually communicating these stories was a key element of the FACT action, with artistry by Hill helping illustrate the philosophy of caring for earth’s precious resources—because the Great Law of Peace teaches that in all actions we must consider how we affect the next seven generations. Leah noted this philosophy was clearly at odds with the business model of any company planning to waste and burn earth’s resources, despite their attempts at green branding.

Hill also painted posters combining tribal icons with gas masks because, “everybody understands poison”. Scott’s grandson, Talyn Metoxen, enjoyed taking part as well, wearing a gas mask and holding his grandfather’s artwork.

The FACT action coupled with strong presentations to the Oneida General Tribal Council served to unite the Oneida community against the burners, going to show how community-led organizing can be irresistible when coupled with place-based culture and ecosystems knowledge.

Leah Sue Dodge acknowledges the support received from the Clean Water Action Council of Northeast Wisconsin, IFBC and their neighbors of the Mather Heights Neighborhood Association, who all valiantly and victoriously fought the incinerator proposal outside the Oneida Reservation. She hopes that, moving forward, Tribal leadership will work with these organizations to challenge environmental and health threats for the benefit of everyone.

Senate leaders say Wash. budget deal reached

Mike Baker and Rachel La Corte, Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Leaders in the Washington state Senate said Wednesday that lawmakers have agreed to the framework of a new budget to avert a government shutdown, but counterparts in the House cautioned that no final accord had been reached.

Republican Sen. Linda Evans Parlette told her colleagues in an email that the Senate and House had “reached an agreement” on the budget. Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom backed away from that language a bit, saying that negotiators have settled on the major components of the budget, allowing staff to go through the process of officially writing it.

Tom expects lawmakers will be able to vote on the spending plan Thursday or early Friday.

Democratic Rep. Reuven Carlyle agreed that a budget framework had been reached but that there was work to do.

“We have some remaining issues to address,” the Seattle Democrat said. “And they’re legitimate. But they’re solvable.”

Tom acknowledged that all the details of the budget had not been finalized, but he said the lingering issues would not hold up the process.

David Postman, spokesman for Gov. Jay Inslee, said the governor has not been told of any agreement.

“We believe we are close, but as of now there is more work to be done. I’ll take it as a good sign that the Senate is anxious to make an announcement, but it is premature for anyone to say at this point that a deal has been struck,” Postman said in a statement.

Negotiators have been squabbling for weeks over the budget in hopes of reaching a final compromise.

One of the lingering places of disagreement surrounded questions about how much fish Washington residents consume – and the subsequent impact on water quality standards. The state has been exploring new water quality rules that are influenced by how much fish Washington residents eat, but the Senate has proposed a larger study that could put the rulemaking process on hold.

Tom said he wants the study to pass, since Boeing is concerned about the impact of the fish consumption numbers. But he said the Senate would still pass the budget even if the study wasn’t funded.

Much of Washington state government will be shut down Monday if the state doesn’t have a new spending plan by then. More than 25,000 workers would be temporarily laid off and some 34 agencies would completely cease operations.

Inslee met with cabinet members Wednesday afternoon to discuss contingency plans in the case of a government shutdown. Inslee’s chief of staff, Mary Alice Heuschel, said the process has been challenging for agency leaders and that the process is intensifying as the possible shutdown gets closer.

“There’s a tremendous concern that this will occur,” Heuschel said.

The state is beginning to send out notifications to tens of thousands of people who use state services, including 26,000 people who are state-funded recipients of Medicaid, about 7,000 people who made reservations at state parks during the first week of July and about 1,400 contractors working with the Department of Enterprise Services who would have their contracts suspended.

Lawmakers have been squabbling over the proposed two-year, $33 billion operating budget for weeks. They were unable to complete the budget during their allotted session that ended in April, and they were also unable to do the job during a 30-day special legislative session that ended earlier this month.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/06/26/2654146/fish-study-sidetracks-wash-budget.html?storylink=mrc#storylink=cpy

Supreme Court Reverses, Remands Baby Veronica Case Back to South Carolina

Dusten Brown with daughter Baby Veronica in their Nowata, Oklahoma home (Cherokee Nation)

Suzette Brewer, Indian Country Today Media Network

In a move that ensured the protracted continuance of the four-year custody battle over Veronica Brown, the Supreme Court today reversed and remanded Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl back to the South Carolina courts for further review. In a narrow 5-4 ruling that revealed the philosophical fracture among the justices, the nation’s highest Court held that sections of the Indian Child Welfare Act “did not bar the termination of parental rights” under state law.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, rested the majority argument on the hair-splitting phrase “continued custody,” holding that “showing that serious harm to the Indian child is likely to result from the parent’s ‘continued custody’ of the child—does not apply when, as here, the relevant parent never had custody of the child.” Further, the majority ruled that existing Indian family placement preference do not apply when “no alternative party has formally sought to adopt the child.”

Though the Court did not terminate the parental rights of Dusten Brown or transfer custody of Veronica back to the Capobiancos, the justices left intact the remainder of the Indian Child Welfare Act and remanded the case back to South Carolina. Now, Brown and the Capobiancos will square off yet again in what has become one of the longest, most bitter, contentious and expensive custody fights in U.S. History. In his ominous concurrence with the majority ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas raised the stakes by included a voluminous appraisal of the Indian Commerce Clause and its rhetorical application in the difference between “tribes” and “Indian persons.”

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made clear that simply because the majority disagreed with the Congressional policies outlined in ICWA, it was not a valid reason to “distort the provisions of the Act.”

“The majority does not and cannot reasonably dispute that ICWA grants biological fathers, as “parent[s],” the right to be present at a termination of parental rights proceeding and to have their views and claims heard there.” wrote Justice Sotomayor. “But the majority gives with one hand and takes away with the other. Having assumed a uniform federal definition of “parent” that confers certain procedural rights, the majority then illogically concludes that ICWA’ substantive protections are available only to a subset of “parent[s]”: those who have previously had physical or state-recognized legal custody of his or her child. The statute does not support this departure.”

Court watchers in this case have now shifted the focus from the stricken provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act to the broader, more widely interpreted standard of “best interest analysis” in determining custodial placement of Veronica between Matt and Melanie Capobianco and Dusten and Robin Brown.

“What this Court said is that going forward, unwed birth fathers who do not take the steps required to acquire parental rights will not benefit from the provisions in ICWA,” said Martin Guggenheim, Professor of Law at New York University. “By remanding back to the lower courts, ‘best interest’ is now a new question before the courts, and that she may suffer a second disruption in her life. But Sotomayor did remind the reader in her dissent that the Cherokee Nation could put forward other options in jurisdiction and adoptive preference. Either way, the Supreme Court won’t care what South Carolina does with respect to interest, though the length of time [Veronica] spent with the father is now a factor in his favor.”

While the Court did strike certain sections of the law, it left intact the rest of the act, which is still applicable under federal mandate.

“We’re relieved that the Court upheld Congressional authority to protect Indian children,” said Terry Cross, executive director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association. “This decision only applies to unwed fathers, but it remains our job to make sure people know that ICWA is still law, it’s still in force and they have to follow it.”

At the Cherokee Nation tribal headquarters in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, Principal Chief Bill John Baker pledged the tribe’s support in assisting Dusten Brown in the duration of this litigation.

“Certainly we’re disappointed with the ruling, namely because Dusten Brown now has a whole litany of legal issues still before him,” said Baker. “But we are hopeful that he will prevail because the facts in this case are on his side. As a father and grandfather, it’s hard to see any parent be told that they can’t raise their own biological child. Regardless of the circumstances, it has been extremely painful to watch.”