Native Voice One

Native American Radio Network

Navajo Tribe rips support for Navajo-owned coal company

By

The Navajo Nation recently pulled its financial guarantee for the tribe’s coal enterprise, the Navajo Transitional Energy Company, saying the company had purchased three coal mines in Wyoming and Montana without informing the tribe.

This is Trahant Reports.

The tribe said that’s not all.  It said the company is not providing adequate information about the business or even its finances.

So the Navajo Nation used its power as a government (and owner). It told the tribe it terminated the provisions of “general indemnity.” This means the company cannot use its ownership, and therefore tribal sovereignty, to gain an edge in the marketplace.

This is not a good time to be in the coal business. That’s why so many people wondered why Navajo Transitional Energy Company was expanding by purchasing mines far away from the Navajo Nation.

Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez said in a news release: “Many experts question the viability of expanding our interests in a coal market that appears to be dwindling.

The Navajo Transitional Energy Company has been investing in coal at a time when the industry is collapsing. Just last month Murray Energy was the latest coal company to file for bankruptcy, the eighth coal company to do so this year.

Another of those bankrupt companies was Cloud Peak Energy — and assets that were acquired by Navajo Transitional Energy. That made it the third largest coal company in the country.

The business case for the Navajo Transitional Energy is in dispute.

One study prepared for the company said it was “purchasing these mines at a low cost. The purchased assets include almost 1 billion tons of leased coal reserve, almost 100,000 acres of owned surface lands, and a huge fleet of mining equipment (draglines, shovels, trucks and dozers).”

“Cloud Peak is a Prudent Investment for Navajo Transitional Energy Company and the Navajo Nation,” the report said.

The study did say it expected domestic coal demand to continue to  decrease, but that demand would still exceed 250 million tons a year.

Clark Williams-Derry, writing for Sightline.Org in Seattle, said “anyone who buys Cloud Peak’s mines will take on significant financial risks. We here at Sightline have documented Cloud Peak’s financial struggles for years, including the tremendous losses on Asian exports, the operational challenges at Cloud Peak’s mines, plummeting demand for Cloud Peak coal, narrowing profit margins, and massive, value-destroying write-downs of the company’s assets.”

Why?

“It has become awfully difficult to make money mining coal,” Williams-Derry wrote. And if the venture fails … it will be the Navajo Nation with a “dismal investment return.”

I am Mark Trahant.

Sharp President

By

The National Congress of American Indians has a new president, Fawn Sharp.

This is Trahant Reports.

Fawn Sharp, the president of the Quinault Nation, was elected last week as NCAI’s ’s 23rd president. She is only the third woman to lead the intertribal congress. She succeeds Jefferson Keel who did not run for re-election.

Sharp was surrounded by friends and family after the election results were announced. She earned nearly 62 percent of the vote in a field of four candidates. The other candidates were Shaun Chapoose from Ute Indian Tribe, Chairman Harold Frazier from Cheyenne River Sioux, and Chairman Marshall Pierite from the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana.

Sharp has called this office the Indigenous president because it’s a platform that can reach out across the country.

She said the task at hand is to bring people together.

‘This is not just a debate for the National Congress of American Indians president. This isn’t just a debate for the president, the Indigenous president of the United States because we have been here for thousands of years, they have been here for 400.”

One issue that is sure to be front and center, climate change.  At the recent Indian Country Today debate she said this:

“At Quinault we have 200 and just over 200,000 acres, 31 miles of pristine coastline. We’re having to relocate to villages to higher ground. The glaciers that feed the mighty Quinaults are disappearing. We had millions of Sockeye salmon run through our rivers in the 1950s and sixties last year we only had 3000. This is very real to us. I’ve stood on the shores and I’ve had to declare multiple States of emergencies as I’ve seen our coastline littered with dead marine life. This is very real. This is the greatest existential threat facing our generation and probably the next generation.”

As president of the congress, Sharp will be called upon in a variety of ways, ranging from representation before the Trump administration to the Congress. She will be the voice that’s heard by companies and foundations.

Tina Marie Osceola, Seminole from Florida, said she has watched Sharp in action as a member of NCAI. She sees a dedicated Native woman who’s ready to take this country, Indian country, to where we need to be in the dialogue. “We’ve been so irrelevant for this past administration and I think that with her voice and her vision, that we’ll finally be able to reclaim our relevance on the global stage,” Osceola said.

The new Indigenous president assumed office last week.

 

I am Mark Trahant

Indigenous knowledge is essential

By

There are two things you need to know from the recent report on climate change from the United Nations.

First: Governments around the world need to move quicker to limit the damage.

And second: Indigenous knowledge is essential.

This is Trahant Reports.

A report from the United Nations, Climate Change and Land, says food security has already been impacted by changing precipitation patterns and a greater frequency of extreme weather.

This report, for the first time, was led by authors from developing countries.

Think of that. It’s the first time an international report writes about the destruction of habitat from the point of view of the people who will be impacted first.

The UN report found that agriculture, food production, and deforestation are major drivers of climate change.

Climate change has already affected food security due to warming, changing precipitation patterns, and greater frequency of some extreme events, the report said. “Based on Indigenous and local knowledge, climate change is affecting food security in drylands, particularly those in Africa, and high mountain regions of Asia and South America.”

The report said better land management is essential and it could contribute to tackling climate change, but that alone is not a solution.

The report says: “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors is essential if global warming is to be kept to well below 2 degrees Celsius, if not 1.5 degrees.”

Indigenous communities will be in the path from these dramatic forces. The report cites significant permafrost degradation and food system instability, even at the lower levels of 1.5 degrees warming.

Sooner rather than later people will need to rethink diets and the use of land in order to slow the growth of warming.

The report also links the relationship between poverty and land use, something that’s found in the Green New Deal.

“Reducing inequalities, improving incomes, and ensuring equitable access to food so that some regions (where land cannot provide adequate food) are not disadvantaged. The report said. “An overall focus on sustainability coupled with early action offers the best chances to tackle climate change.”

What kind of changes: lower population growth, improved nutrition, and less food waste.

One of the authors, Eduardo Calvo, co-chair of the task force on national greenhouse gas inventories, said “policies that support sustainable land management, ensure the supply of food for vulnerable populations, and keep carbon in the ground while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

The take-away: Acting early is the most cost-effective way to avoid calamity. The UN panel says that means scaling up efforts by governments to better manage land and water for sustainability.

I am Mark Trahant.

Greenland: Not for Sale

By

Greenland’s ice is melting faster because of warming oceans. The ice sheets on the island hold enough water to raise sea levels by 25 feet. (NASA photo)

Sometimes a headline makes you go, “huh.” Then you think about it, and it’s even worse. The story: President Donald J. Trump is interested in purchasing Greenland.

This is Trahant Reports.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the president listened intently when advisers discussed the island’s resources and geopolitical importance and that he asked his White House counsel to look into the prospect of a purchase.

The Greenland Ministry of Foreign Affairs fired back saying it is “not for sale.”

Denmark, the colonial power in Greenland, instituted home rule after a 1979 vote. The people of Greenland, Indigenous people, the Kalaallit, voted overwhelmingly for the provision including the eventual outcome of an independent state.

So living under another colonial regime is probably not in the cards.

But the president could learn a lot by finding out more about Greenland and the challenges in the Arctic.

Scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, are finding that Greenland is experiencing climate change faster than the rest of the planet. This is a big deal because Greenland’s melting ice affects the whole world. The ice sheets on the island hold enough water to raise sea levels by 25 feet. NASA found that warmer air is melting Greenland’s ice. But so are warmer oceans.

As NASA puts it: “Humans are changing the climate by burning fossil fuels for energy. These add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, which trap extra heat from the sun and warm the air and oceans. But the oceans get most of the extra heat. In fact, more than 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases warms the oceans, not the air.”

One scientist, Josh Willis, is trying to find out which is causing the most warming, air or water. And he thinks it might be water. In the long run, he said, the oceans are warming.” And seeing the oceans have such a huge impact on the glaciers is bad news for Greenland’s ice sheet.” That could mean that Greenland’s ice sheets are melting more quickly than previously thought and sea levels will rise faster with more coastal communities in a flood zone.

Perhaps a few trips to Greenland would change the president’s mind about global warming and what should be done next.

In the meantime the government of Greenland tweeted:

#Greenland is rich in valuable resources such as minerals, the purest water and ice, fish stocks, seafood, renewable energy and is a new frontier for adventure tourism. We’re open for business, not for sale.”

I suppose at least the island is getting global attention. But it would be better if the president’s interest included learning about what global warming is doing to that island — and to our future.

 

I am Mark Trahant.

 

 

Food Insecurity and Global Warming

By

There are two things you need to know from last week’s report on climate change from the United Nations.

First: Governments around the world need to move quicker to limit the damage.

And second: Indigenous knowledge is essential.

This is Trahant Reports.

A report from the United Nations, Climate Change and Land, says food security has already been impacted by changing precipitation patterns and a greater frequency of extreme weather.

This report, for the first time, was led by authors from developing countries.

Think of that. It’s the first time an international report writes about the destruction of habitat from the point of view of the people who will be impacted first.

The UN report found that agriculture, food production, and deforestation are major drivers of climate change.

Climate change has already affected food security due to warming, changing precipitation patterns, and greater frequency of some extreme events, the report said. “Based on Indigenous and local knowledge, climate change is affecting food security in drylands, particularly those in Africa, and high mountain regions of Asia and South America.”

The report said better land management is essential and it could contribute to tackling climate change, but that alone is not a solution.

The report says: “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors is essential if global warming is to be kept to well below 2 degrees Celsius, if not 1.5 degrees.”

Indigenous communities will be in the path from these dramatic forces. The report cites significant permafrost degradation and food system instability, even at the lower levels of 1.5 degrees warming.

Sooner rather than later people will need to rethink diets and the use of land in order to slow the growth of warming.

The report also links the relationship between poverty and land use, something that’s found in the Green New Deal.

“Reducing inequalities, improving incomes, and ensuring equitable access to food so that some regions (where land cannot provide adequate food) are not disadvantaged. The report said. “An overall focus on sustainability coupled with early action offers the best chances to tackle climate change.”

What kind of changes: lower population growth, improved nutrition, and less food waste.

One of the authors, Eduardo Calvo, co-chair of the task force on national greenhouse gas inventories, said “policies that support sustainable land management, ensure the supply of food for vulnerable populations, and keep carbon in the ground while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

The take-away: Acting early is the most cost-effective way to avoid calamity. The UN panel says that means scaling up efforts by governments to better manage land and water for sustainability.

I am Mark Trahant.

Climate change by any other word

By

At an international meeting on Arctic policy last week the Trump administration trashed consensus over the words “climate change.”

This is Trahant Reports.

At the ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council in Finland, US Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo refused to use the words “climate change” in a joint statement.

Pompeo defined the challenges in the Arctic in largely military and economic terms. “This is America’s moment to stand up, “the Arctic is at the forefront of opportunity and abundance. It houses 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil, 30 percent of its undiscovered gas, and an abundance of uranium, rare earth minerals, gold, diamonds, and millions of square miles of untapped resources. Fisheries galore.”

And the challenges of climate change? “Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade,” Pompeo said. “This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and the West by as much as 20 days.

Dalee Sambo Dorough called that refusal by the United States a “moral failure.” She is the International Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council which represents 165,000 Inuit in Greenland, Canada, Alaska and Russia. She said: “This is the first time the Arctic Council has failed to issue a declaration at the end of a two-year chairmanship, and it’s a serious blow to the future of what is supposed to be a consensus based body.”

The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet, showing temperature increases twice as large as global averages.

Climate change causes rapidly changing living conditions for 4 million Arctic inhabitants, according to research by the Arctic Council. Hunting, fishing and herding activities are threatened by changes in snow and ice conditions. Traditional livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic are at risk.

So Arctic governments, including Indigenous representatives, have been using the tool of consensus in order to meet the challenges.

“Combating climate change is an urgent common challenge for the international community and requires immediate global action,” the Arctic Council members said in unified statement of one kind or another for more than a decade.

Climate change is not the only issue Indigenous people face in the Arctic. During the Arctic Council ministerial meeting, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference called on governments to “address some of the issues important to us: wildlife management and food security; the infrastructure and social services deficit; physical and environmental health issues, including the horror of suicide; and culture and language protection.”

James Stotts said the Arctic’s Indigenous people should be listened to, both to address the problems facing the region and people as well as potential solutions. “Now is the time, he said, “for a unified response to the threat posed by climate change.”

I am Mark Trahant

New Green Deal

By

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey unveil the ‘Green New Deal’ with goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. (Photo: Sen. Ed Markey’s office via YouTube.)

A story from the Quinault Nation is chilling. “Have we eaten our last blueback? Let’s hope not. This salmon season is closed …and“we are now the first generation to begin to feel the effects of a changing climate.”
This is Trahant Reports.

Last week at a Capitol Hill news conference Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York, and Senator Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, unveiled “the Green New Deal.” It’s comprehensive legislation that would set the goal of “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions” in a decade.

On Saturday President Donald J. Trump tweeted that Democrats should press forward. “It would be great for the so-called “Carbon Footprint” to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military – even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!”

The Green New Deal raises three big issues: Is the United States finally ready to address climate change? And if so, how? And what would be the impacts on Indian Country?
At some point, sooner rather than later, there is really only one question to address. How much does the country (and the planet) spend on mitigation versus adaptation? Mitigation means trying to slow the impact of humans on the climate by reducing the heat-trapping gases (or removing them). Adaptation means everything else, from relocating people, including cities, to managing climate emergencies, ranging from hurricanes and fires to diseases.

Just this week the Quinault Nation had to close its commercial blueback, or sockeye, salmon fishing for the season.

A tribal news release said that warmer ocean temperatures driven by fossil fuels “are creating lean times for salmon.” “It’s time to hold oil companies accountable for their past record of denying climate change and their current obstruction of policies to reduce climate pollution,” said President Fawn Sharp. “The devastation of our iconic blueback salmon has struck at the core of what it means to be Quinault.”

The politics are complicated. There are essentially three camps in Washington. The first wants action, the position that’s found in the Green New Deal. Another group says climate change is important, but preventing a major disruption in the economy is a priority. Go slow. And, a third group, led by the White House, dismisses the science and any policy that would slow the rush for American “energy dominance.”

The Green New Deal will not be the final word. Even if the legislation makes its way through the House of Representatives (and many Democrats are skeptical) the legislation then must then get through a much more centrist Senate.

Then even the sponsors get that the specifics of the Green New Deal are not as important as movement.
I am Mark Trahant.

The Great Dying

By

Documenting colonialism: Millions killed, a changed climate & Europe gets rich

A  new study documents the global cost of colonialism.

This is Trahant Reports.

Why does it matter? Because the invasion of the Americas changed everything on the planet. There was a death rate of more than 90 percent of the people, now labeled “depopulation” in a scientific report. At that time, the Indigenous population of the Americas was 10 percent of the world’s population and home to the largest and most complex cities.

The study also raises new questions, the impact of humans on nature? And what that might mean for climate change policy in the decades ahead?

The paper: “Earth system impacts of the European arrival and Great Dying in the Americas after 1492,” was written by four geographers from University College London.

The globe went through climate change — a tiny shift in temperatures of 15/100th of a degree — but that was enough to lead to colder temperatures worldwide that resulted in crop failures and colder summers.

The paper explores a big question: Did the invasion and depopulation of the Americas in the 16th and 17th century result in those decline in temperatures, the Little Ice Age? And was that a result of “natural forces” or because the “large-scale depopulation of the Americas after European arrival, subsequent land use change and secondary succession?”

The evidence is complicated. The Indigenous Americas went through a rapid and dramatic shift; a before contact and after contact story. Looking at all of the evidence available today, the University College London team came to the conclusion that the Indigenous population had reached more than 60 million people before contact. That would have been about 10 percent of the world’s population, and the cities in the Americas would have been among the most populous on the planet. In less than a hundred years that Indigenous America population was reduced to 5 or 6 million people; a population decline that exceeded 90 percent, the Great Dying.

The scientists calculated how such a rapid population decline changed agriculture (think of what it took to feed 60 million people) and then what would happen when that farmland became forest and jungle. The scale of “regrowth” was huge, roughly a land mass twice the size of Colorado.

And the scale is significant because Indigenous land use was so widespread before European arrival, particularly in Mexico, Central America, Bolivia and the Andes where terraced fields and irrigated agriculture” were common. “

Indeed it’s the scale of this report, of this history, is daunting. But like any important study, this one by University College London opens up more questions than answers.

I am Mark Trahant.

U.S. Climate Change report says Indigenous communities will face disproportionate impacts

By

A new climate report released last week by the Trump administration predicts significant — and expensive — impacts on the planet as a result of climate change. The threats from weather-related catastrophes are already clear: Stronger and moreover frequent hurricanes, deadly heat waves, and more intense destructive wildfires.

And that includes a threat to “Indigenous peoples’ livelihoods and economies, including agriculture, hunting and gathering, fishing, forestry, energy, recreation, and tourism enterprises.”

This is Trahant Reports.

What’s at most at risk is the traditional subsistence economy. Climate change threatens these delicately balanced subsistence networks by, for example, changing the patterns of seasonal timing and availability of culturally important species in traditional hunting, gathering, and fishing areas.”

That’s from Chapter 15 of the federal assessment labeled: “Tribes and Indigenous Peoples.”

One of the case studies focuses on the Yukon Delta in Alaska.

“The Arctic and sub regions are warming faster than anywhere else on Earth. In recent years, residents of the Yukon Delta have noticed unusual conditions. They’ve seen warmer winters with less snow and more unpredictable weather. Ice on the rivers and sea is thinner than in the past, and break-up of ice happens earlier in the year. With reduced snow cover and ice that can’t support the weight of people traveling over it, hunters are restricted to smaller areas, and they can have difficulty harvesting the game upon which they depend,” the case study reports.

The report asks questions that neither Congress nor the Trump administration has answered. Namely: “Especially among young residents, people wonder, ‘Where will we get the resources we need in the future? Will we need to build roads or change some of our traditions to continue thriving?’”

Where, indeed.

Governments only have two choices when it comes to dealing with climate change. First, spend lots of money trying to slow climate change by reducing fossil fuels and other impacts on the environment. Or, two, spend lots of money adapting to a changing environment. Scratch that: The only issue is how much of our resources will be spent on mitigation (door number one) and how much will be spent on adaptation. Both will be expensive — and tribes will be spending significant sums with or without help from the federal government.

President Donald J. Trump’s White House continues to downplay climate threats. In a statement Friday, spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said the report began in the Obama administration and that it relies too heavily on the worst-case-scenarios.

The National Climate Assessment is required by law.

While the report is clear about the harsh assessment of the impact of climate change, it also says that Indigenous knowledge is essential because of an understanding of complex natural relationships.

I am Mark Trahant.

$1.5 trillion and counting — Cost of climate change

By

How much does climate change cost taxpayers?

This is Trahant Reports.

The thing is governments really have two choices when it comes to managing the costs of global warming: Spend money on trying to reduce the problem; or spend money on cleaning up the catastrophes.

The Trump administration is on the hook for the catastrophe.

A report released last week by The National Centers for Environmental Information pegged that cost at $1.5 trillion. That includes estimates for Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria.

I witnessed first hand the impact of Hurricane Maria on the island of Dominica last month. We keep hearing stories about the power grid being down (similar to Puerto Rico) and you think, why? It’s been months. Why aren’t the lights on? Then you see nearly every electrical pole on the island sideways. The entire grid needs to be rebuilt (or better, rethought) and that’s decades of infrastructure. So the figure of $1.5 trillion is far short of what will be needed. And that’s just one island. Multiple the effect across the region.

The Centers for Environmental Information says there were sixteen weather and climate disasters with losses exceeding $1 billion each across the United States.

But instead of trying to reduce the costs of weather-related catastrophes, the Trump administration continues to develop more oil and gas. The Interior Department announced new rules that, if enacted, will open up nearly all of the United States coastal waters to more oil and gas development beginning next year.

As Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke put it: “The important thing is we strike the right balance to protect our coasts and people while still powering America and achieving American Energy Dominance.”

Dominance such a funny word. How can any nation be dominant in the face of storms that are ever more powerful and destructive?

A group of elders from the Bering Sea immediately condemned the Interior Department’s offshore drilling plan. They wrote: “The northern Bering Sea is a very fragile ecosystem. The marine mammals that we rely on use it as their highway and they follow specific migration routes. That is how we know when and where to find them. The noise and vibration associated with drilling will interfere with their sonar and disrupt their migrations. Then we the coastal people will lose our primary food source.”

There is a connection between developing oil and gas and paying the high costs to clean up after a storm. One side of the ledger goes to the few; the oil and gas “industry.” The other side of the ledger is the rest of us. The taxpayers who will foot the bill for this continued folly.

And on the Bering Sea? The folks who live there are one storm away from tragedy. As the elders put it: “Our people and our way of life are being exposed to danger and we do not understand why.”

I am Mark Trahant.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use our site, we will assume you have given your consent. Click here to opt-out.