Native Voice One

Native American Radio Network

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.

High level waste redux

By

When is nuclear waste “high level?” The Trump administration has tossed out the old definition and says a new one that labels more as “low level waste” will be more efficient and yet safe.

But critics are not so sure.

This is Trahant Reports.

This country has not come to grips with how to dispose of nuclear waste. The problem is no community is eager to receive this kind of bonus. And, on top of that, many of the proposed solutions do not wash scientifically.

The rules that had been in place are cumbersome. And that means the waste problem is only getting worse.

So the U.S. Department of Energy last week gave itself the authority to deregulate storage tanks with more than 100 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste in South Carolina, Idaho and Washington.

The new definition, says the Energy Department’s assistant secretary for science, will be based on the radioactivity levels in order to “dispose of it more efficiently to improve public health and safety of our environment.”

Under current law “high level waste” must be buried in deep geologic formations in order to protect public health (as if even that is a guarantee). The new role say that waste is now “low level” and it can be contained in a shallow storage facilities.

It will be cheaper. And more efficient.

Tom Carpenter, executive director of Hanford Challenge in Washington, says there are significant issues in the region involving the Columbia River.

The Columbia River is where tribes have treaty fishing rights to salmon.

Previous administrations have proposed turning Hanford into a permanent storage facility for high level waste, something that the Yakama Nation (working with other regional tribes) successfully blocked in 1982.

But that proposal could be debated again as some of the Hanford waste will not be considered “low level.”

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Fergerson said in a joint statement: “Washington will not be sidelined in our efforts to clean up Hanford and protect the Columbia River and the health and safety of our state and our people.”
It’s a similar problem in Idaho. The reclassification of nuclear waste will make it easier to move out of state. Or, just leave it in place since the Department of Energy no longer considers it dangerous.

As Geoff Fettus, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said last week: “Pretending this waste is not dangerous is irresponsible and outrageous.”

The bigger issue here is there is no consensus about what to do about this lethal nuclear waste, material that will remain dangerous for thousands of years. There is no consensus in the Congress or in the public discourse. Yet every year we keep adding to the toxic pile.

I am Mark Trahant.

The End of Coal

By

Donald J. Trump had a consistent theme during his 2016 election campaign: He dug coal. Coal would create jobs. Coal would launch a new economic bonanza, especially in rural states. And coal would power the United States.

There was a catch: Coal markets have all but collapsed. There are fewer buyers for coal and for even less for coal-powered energy. To be sure coal is not going away, anytime soon. But last year was the lowest consumption of coal in nearly 40 years.

This is Trahant Reports.

Tribes control nearly a third of coal reserves west of the Mississippi. Coal has provided a huge boost to tribal budgets and created high paying jobs for the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation, and the Crow Nation. Some 25 tribes have significant coal reserves either with production or with the potential for additional development.

But coal is a dirty fossil fuel. The production of electricity accounts for more 28.4 percent of the greenhouse gases that trap heat and make the planet warmer. More than two-thirds of that electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, and that’s mostly coal.

A report by the Brookings Institute says the decline of the U.S. coal industry is the result of market forces, not a policy or a ‘war on coal.’ And that’s not likely to change. So the better alternative is to come up with strategies to replace those jobs lost by coal.

Last week the operator of the Navajo Generating Station announced that it had reached an impasse in its negotiations with the Navajo Nation to transfer ownership of a coal-fired electricity plant.

There is one fundamental reason for that impasse: liability. Both the Salt River Project partners and the Navajo Nation are keen to limit cleanup costs which could reach hundreds of millions of dollars.

“There’s no path forward on prolonging coal, period,” said Percy Deal, a Navajo, who is now retired and a former Navajo County and tribal official. “There’s no believable business plan you can write when the market signals that something like coal is simply no longer economically viable. Today, our nation should be talking with SRP, but about renewable energy, not coal.”

Most people understand that renewable energy is the future. And there is growing data to back that up.

The economics of coal and other fossil fuels are not getting any stronger and renewable energy continues to get cheaper.

Still, this is a tough moment for the tribe — and there are no easy choices. How does a government help make a huge economic transition to renewable fuels? And, at the same time, how do you preserve really good paying jobs in a brand new industry?

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.

Environmental Protection Agency’s New Lead

By

Will a change at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency bring about change … or more of the same?

This is Trahant Reports.

Scott Pruitt the controversial agency administrator resigned last week after the White House determined that scandal after scandal was finally too much. The list of allegations and infractions was long, some 14 current investigations ranging from attacks on whistleblowers to special personal favors from the industry he was supposed to regulate.

Pruitt was hostile to climate change science and even the process of government itself.

A columnist for The Guardian newspaper called Pruitt: “The worst. EPA administrator. Ever.”

But will anything change? The acting head of the EPA, Andrew Wheeler is a former lobbyist for the coal industry.

And the acting EPA leader is already involved in a controversy about the cleanup of abandoned uranium mines in the Navajo Nation. Wheeler was once the lobbyist for Energy Fuels International. That Canadian company is now seeking federal contracts to clean up those mines as well as engage in new ones. Energy Fuels was one of the companies pushing to shrink the Bears Ears National Monument.

Energy Fuels chief executive Mark Chalmers was quoted by CNN saying that the 500 abandoned mines – already on the Superfund list – should be cleaned up by his company because the company has the only mill in the area and routinely processes uranium there. “We offer the EPA an established, low-cost option to move material off the Navajo Nation, recycle it into fuel for carbon-free nuclear energy and dispose the remnants in our existing state-of-the-art facilities,” he told CNN.

This contract also fits into a broader scheme for more uranium development in the Four Corners. A blog for The Grand Canyon Trust said:  “Wheeler’s name should ring a bell for those following the Bears Ears National Monument issue, and his ascension to EPA chief could be cause for concern.”

Tribes have opposed the return of uranium mining in the Four Corners. Many communities are still living with a toxic past and the failure of the industry to clean up its mess. The 1979 spill of an uranium tailing wastewater pond near Churchrock, in the Navajo Nation, is considered the single largest release of radioactive material in American history, surpassing the crisis at Three Mile Island. Drinking water in the area remains contaminated.

As acting administrator Wheeler will not be subject to Senate confirmation. Should President Donald J. Trump nominate him for the post permanently he would need to get that nod again. Wheeler was confirmed by a vote of 53 to 45 for the Deputy post back in April.

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.