Mark Trahant
ICT
There are two schools of thought when it comes to the transition to clean energy: Move faster because our survival depends on our decisions now … or pledge fealty to fossil fuels.
Two very different futures and Indigenous communities are on the frontlines.
A new report by the World Economic Forum says: “The rapidly accelerating climate crisis warrants an urgent and thorough transformation of global energy systems. Emerging initiatives like the United States’ Inflation Reduction Act and the European Green Deal are already being adopted to accelerate the much-needed deployment of renewable energy projects. It is, however, critical that this transition is not only fast, but also fair.”
And that fairness is challenged by projects such as lithium mining at Thacker Pass in Nevada that are being hurried without a Free, Prior and Informed Consent agreement. Indeed, across the globe the World Economic Forum says there are more than 200 projects that one study cited as “land grabbing” and harmful to Indigenous peoples.
“The case for responsible renewables development isn’t just an altruistic one,” the Forum said. “Businesses, development finance institutions and governments all face real risks when they don’t prioritize community interests and human rights. Companies that fail to adequately address human rights impacts can face legal risks, reputational harm and financial losses.” It cited a 2021 study that showed up to $40 million lost because of delays from the failure to “proactively mitigate social risks.”
This is a debate that has yet to happen. There are so many projects that have to scale over the next 30 years for a new energy framework. But none of those projects can be successful without Indigenous participation, ownership, or consent. As the World Economic Forum warns: “Excluding these communities and peoples from large-scale development decision-making can lead to land-grabbing and harmful forced displacement. Such outcomes can cause widespread harm to Indigenous Peoples and local communities due to the loss of land, livelihoods and cultural integrity.”
Tribes are becoming wary. In the aforementioned Thacker Pass project, a small group of land defenders gathered to block the public road leading to the construction site in northern Nevada on Thursday saying they didn’t want their land destroyed.
READ MORE:Road to Thacker Pass continues to be blocked
Then there was another debate in Washington centered on the “more fossil fuels” equation. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, and chairman of the Senate’s Energy Committee, has been pushing a plan to include permitting reform, limiting the environmental review of energy projects.
He said members of the energy committee “have a wide range of views regarding what the future of American energy should look like, but no matter what you want to build, it takes too long,” Manchin said. He maintains that building new fossil fuel projects gives the United States energy security and “we’re not going to eliminate something before we have something to replace it with. ”
Manchin is packaging this approach – as do House Republicans – in any legislation that would lift the current debt ceiling, a must pass bill that would allow the government to pay its bills.
READ MORE:‘Significant’ disruptions if US defaults
Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, D-Arizona, calls this approach a “give away” to fossil fuel companies. The reforms would limit using climate change as a metric for permit reviews.
“House Democrats know that meeting our nation’s ambitious climate goals requires an expedient transition to a clean and renewable energy future. We also know that an expedient transition can also be a just one, as long as we keep core environmental and public health protections like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) intact and in place,” a letter to the president said. “Efforts to hold must-pass legislation hostage with extreme proposals must be rejected. Gutting our bedrock environmental laws should not be a condition for paying our bills or passing any other mandatory legislation.”
He said the real problem is that Congress has not spent enough money on funding the agencies that do permit reviews, thus slowing down the process.
And if that’s not enough of a difference of opinion, Manchin took it a step further last week when said he would oppose every Biden administration nominee for the Environmental Protection Agency because of new rules that regulate fossil fuels from power plants.
A proposed rule was announced Thursday by EPA Administrator Micheal Regan. The plan would not only “improve air quality nationwide, but it will bring substantial health benefits to communities all across the country, especially our front-line communities … that have unjustly borne the burden of pollution for decades,” Regan said in a speech at the University of Maryland.
The rules set pollution standards for coal and natural gas-fired power plants. EPA says the rules will protect public health, reduce harmful pollutants and deliver up to $85 billion in climate and public health benefits over the next two decades and avoid up to 617 million metric tons of total carbon dioxide (CO2) through 2042.
Manchin calls the proposal “radical” and said it’s the latest attempt to “kill the fossil industry.”
And many critics – on both sides – say this proposed rule could hasten the closure of existing plants. There are 3,400 natural gas and coal plants producing electricity, accounting for about a quarter of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.
This is one of those areas where financial markets are moving faster than regulatory agencies.
“There is the shift away from high emissions fossil fuels due to accelerating climate action and improved viability and accessibility of clean energy technologies,” according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. “Second, there is an increased understanding of climate risk as a source of systemic risk to the global financial system.”
The result is a “growing number” of banks and other financial institutions that are looking to exit coal because of greenhouse gas emissions.
That may impact the last remaining coal-fired power plant on the Navajo Nation. On one hand, the new EPA rules are designed to allow for carbon capture technology that would keep some of the plants operating.
The Department of Energy has proposed supporting five projects for potential funding of carbon capture and storage, including the Four Corners Generating Station in New Mexico. The Navajo Transitional Energy Company is a minority owner – and has proposed a plant retrofit for carbon capture and storage. The Navajo Nation owns the transitional energy company but does not have any operational control.
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis makes the case that the market won’t support a carbon capture storage project for a number of reasons, including a continued source of carbon emissions. Plus “Four Corners is an old facility; Unit 4 is 54 years old and Unit 5 is 53 years old. Any retrofit is unlikely to be completed in less than five years, meaning the new capture equipment would be bolted onto what amounts to a 60-year-old frame. Is it reasonable to assume that the aging frame can continue to operate for the 20 years required to amortize the cost of the CCS equipment? We don’t think so.”
Then again there is more money for tribes engaging in zero-emission technologies. The Inflation Reduction Act includes some $7 billion in grants for states and tribes to carry out greenhouse gas emission reduction activities.
Mark Trahant, Shoshone-Bannock, is editor-at-large for Indian Country Today. Trahant is based in Phoenix. The Indigenous Economics Project is funded with a major grant from the Bay and Paul Foundations.
