Everyday is Earth Day to the Haudenosaunee
Haudenosaunee Environmental
News Report
April Vol.1
#7 2001
Prepared by Kanatiiosh (B.
Gray), HETF Law Researcher
We are not
the owners of the soil or the Earth,
but we are dependent upon the Earth for our survival
It is our responsibility for its protection so that successive generations of
our People and the other Nations of Creation will continue to receive sustenance
from the
Earth in the same way that we have. It
is our duty to take into account our actions and impacts upon the next seven
generations.
Each successive generation has that responsibility. It
goes on in perpetuity.
The responsibility never ends.
(Salli
Benedict)
While the anti-Indian movement is not a new phenomena, recently the proponents of this movement are writing better to mask their true intentions of undermining Native American rights and traditions. I have a lot to say about this issue, but will merely lay a foundation on which the reader can come to their own conclusions. I will do so by posing some questions and hope that you will take the analysis to the next level.
The Anti-Indian movement began when the first non-Indians came to Turtle Island with the intent to colonize the native inhabitants. The roots of the anti-Indian movement are steeped in racism, and their goal is to exterminate Indians.
Today the goal is denial and extinguishment of Indian status, rights, land claims, traditions, and voices. These goals are accomplished through lobbying, enacting policies and laws, the courts, and through the media. Policies were enacted to relocate, to assimilate, to terminate tribal status, to assimilate, to destroy tribally owned land, and to destroy traditional forms of governments.
For example, in the1850's, Indians living in present day California were hunted like dogs and killed because they occupied land that was needed for White settlement and gold mining. Later in time, in the 1950's, many Indian nations found themselves no-longer federally or state recognized. With a flick of the pen their status and rights were exterminated. In the process, they lost land and many lost their language and other aspects of their cultures. The anti-Indian movement is still in full force as they lobby against the many nations who are fighting to regain their federal or state recognition.
Today, the anti-Indian movement continues to assault Indian voices and traditional teachings. One of their main arguments is that Indian people were never ecologically or environmentally minded, which they then try to prove by claiming that the land was not pristine when the Europeans arrived because Indians exploited the environment.
One should ask: What purpose is served by proving the environment was not in pristine condition prior to European contact? One goal it would serve, would be to legitimize the Ship’s continued destruction and exploitation of the environment. Another possible goal it would serve is to further oppress the voices of Indian people. The anti-Indians would simply say, "If Indian people exploited the land, then why can’t we?"
I am reminded of what Oren Lyons, ( Turtle Clan Faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation) said during a gathering of spiritual leaders at Hopi, in 1969. He said, "We talked about these young people who were sitting on our doorsteps every day when we got up and they were coming from all over the country they were coming to learn from us." Oren Lyons shared how the Hopi leaders told of their prophecy that said - one day the Whiteman’s young people would seek our knowledge on how to maintain peace and live in balance with the environment. He said, "The spiritual leaders, after much discussion, agreed that they would become more responsive to answering these young peoples’ questions and help them understand how to live in harmony with the Natural World."
Perhaps the anti-Indian movement people fear having their young people seeking peace and harmony with Mother Earth, for it might be a threat to their capitalistic society, which is dependent on exploiting Mother Earth’s bounty for self, greed, and dollar. If so, this could explain the anti-Indian movement’s continued attack on our Indian traditions and spiritual relationship with the environment.
While it is true that Indians felled trees for building homes, used fire and stone axes to clear fields for cultivating corns, beans, and squash, and so on, these methods were done for subsistence survival, and they were done in strict adherence to the traditional teachings. Not more than what was needed was taken, and what could be replanted, was replanted etc.. These traditions teach that humans are not only interconnected, but interdependent on each other for survival. It would be suicidal to throw off Nature’s balance, for Native peoples’ existence depends solely on Nature’s bounty.
The Creator gave each being in nature unique instructions on how to maintain balance. This brings me too my next question concerning how the anti-Indian people define pristine. The beaver has unique instructions that include shaping the land to suit his needs. If pristine means unspoiled, then this seems an impossible definition for the environment is constantly changing. Is what the beaver does, by reshaping the environment, exploitation? Or does exploitation have to have a mal (bad) intent? Or are only human animals capable of exploitation and spoiling the "pristine" environment? How does one define a pristine environment, especially, when one takes into account that the environment is naturally changing?
Does it matter what the land was like when the Europeans arrived in North America? It may not have been the "pristine wilderness" that proponents of the anti-Indian movement espouse it should have been because like the beaver, wind and water, Indian people changed the environment in natural ways consistent with their responsibilities to the rest of Creation. Not all change spoils, especially, when it is done in accordance with the philosophy of living in peace and harmony with the natural world.
In comparison to what an Euro-American society has done to the earth, air, water, and animal life over the past few centuries, one has to acknowledge that when they first arrived in North America, what they found was surely much closer to "pristine" then what one sees today!
Below I have included further readings from different sides of the issue.
Cook-Lynn, E. (2001). Anti-Indianism in modern America : a voice from Tatekeya's Earth. Urbana, Ill., University of Illinois Press.
Grinde, D. A. and B. E. Johansen (1995). Ecocide of Native America : environmental destruction of Indian lands and peoples. Sante Fe, N.M., Clear Light.
David R. Lewis, "Essay on Native American Environmental Issues."
Charles C. Mann, "1492."
Robert Remington and Larry Macdougal, "Research Shows Native Fires Shaped Banff Shatters popular views: Studies reveal wildlife habitats, vegetation altered."
Zoltan Grossman, "Treaty Rights and Responding to Anti-Indian Activity."
by Barbara Gray (Kanatiiosh)
On April 11, 2002, the Environmental Bureau of Investigation (EBI) published a comprehensive report on the activities at the Montreal Technoparc in Quebec, Canada. The EBI report provides evidence that the Montreal Technoparc has been releasing toxic chemicals into the St. Lawrence River at levels that exceed Provincial, Federal, and International guidelines. The types of the chemicals being released include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs,) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH,) and petroleum hydrocarbons.
After the EBI investigation team noticed a 400 meter long oil slick discharging from the the Montreal Technoparc site, they called in Environment Canada to report the contamination. As a result, on February 20, 2002, a Mr Dillenbeck, who is an Ontario MOE Regional Biologist for over 20 years, was called in to further investigate.
Mr Dillenbeck concluded that:
. . . it is my opinion that numerous hazardous substances, including PCBs, PAHs and petroleum hydrocarbons, are being discharged to the St. Lawrence River adjacent to the Montreal Technoparc (a former landfill site), which is water that is frequented by fish. These hazardous substances are present in the water and sediments of the St. Lawrence River at concentrations that are well in excess of established Provincial, Federal and International guidelines. These hazardous substances are deleterious to fish and other aquatic biota and will cause or are likely to cause the impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it. Remedial measures must be taken to eliminate this discharge and to protect and upgrade the water quality of the St. Lawrence River.
Under the Canada Fisheries Act it is illegal to discharge PCBs and PAH into waterways. Hopefully this report and the subsequent investigations will spark the Canadian government to criminally prosecute and end Montreal Technoparc’s illegal activities.
To read more see:
Environmental Bureau of Investigation: Montreal Technoparc Report
See also a news report written by the Environmental news Service:
Environment Canada Police Handed Evidence of Montreal Toxics
I previously wrote about the problems of acid rain on the environment, and the folly of the federal program that allows power plants to sell/trade pollution credits. In effect, what happens is States that put in new technology to limit sulfur dioxide can then take their allotted credits and sell them to other power plants. In essence, a cost/benefit analysis is done and older polluting plants find it cheaper to buy the right to pollute, rather than to install new pollution controls that would reduce their emissions. Unfortunately, the cost/benefit analysis does not take into consideration the costs to the Natural World.
It is repugnant to sell the right to pollute! And, it is also not within the spirit of the Clean Air Act to provide cleaner air for the health of humans and the environment.
Sulfur dioxide migrates in the air and comes back down to earth in the form of acid rain. The Midwest and Southern States are responsible for most of the acid rain that falls within New York State. As a result, New York State enacted the 2000 Air Pollution Mitigation law to prevent State utilities from selling their pollution credits to states in the Midwest and Southern States. While this seems like the logical action to take to reduce acid rain in state, the New York Law was found to be unconstitutional, for it was found to impede free trade and interfered with a federal regulatory scheme.
This situation is a good example of how environmental laws and the United States Constitution needs to be reexamined and fixed to reflect less concern for the "right" to make dollars and more concern for rights of humans and the Natural World to live in a safe and healthy environment.
Please read the following article, which speaks in-depth about the U.S. District Court’s ruling on New York State’s 2000 Air Pollution Mitigation law. The following article by Dina Cappiello is reprinted with permission from the Albany Times Union
Ban on pollution credit swaps voided: Ruling deals a blow to state's efforts to reduce acid rain in Adirondacks
By DINA CAPPIELLO, Staff writer
First published: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 A state law that penalized New York power plants for trading pollution credits to 14 other states was voided by a federal judge on Tuesday, removing a key part of the state's strategy to reduce acid rain in the Adirondacks.
U.S. District Court Judge David N. Hurd in Utica ruled that the 2000 Air Pollution Mitigation Law was unconstitutional and conflicted with the federal Clean Air Act by restructuring the nationwide trading system whereby tons of sulfur dioxide emissions, or credits, are swapped freely between states.
New York's law placed a 100 percent penalty on utilities that traded credits of the acid rain-forming gas to Midwestern and Southern states, which are responsible for roughly 70 percent of the pollution that falls as acid rain over New York.
In his decision, Hurd sided with the Clean Air Markets Group, a consortium of electricity generators and emissions traders, including NRG Energy Inc., a company that owns five power plants in the state. The parties claimed that the restrictions on trading by New York utilities decreased the market value of credits from the state. The group filed the suit against the state in November 2000, six months after Gov. George Pataki signed the law. The judge's ruling makes the law null and void and bars the state from enforcing it.
"This clears the way for in-state power plants to sell their pollution credits to any power plant who cares to buy them,'' said Marc Violette, a spokesman for Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who represented the governor in the litigation. "There is a multi-pronged effort that we are engaged in to stop the flow of out-of-state pollution into New York state. This law was one of the prongs.''
For the Adirondacks, a region where federal reductions in air pollution have yet to result in improvements in lakes and soils, the decision is an unwelcome blow, especially with the Bush administration considering unraveling another part of the state's acid rain arsenal, the lawsuits New York has waged against Midwestern plants that have upgraded their facilities without coming into compliance with the Clean Air Act.
Tuesday's decision could also limit the effectiveness of a 50 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide required by in-state power plants announced by the governor in February because the cuts were based in part on the partial ban on trading pollution credits.
A Pataki spokeswoman said that the administration would be reviewing its legal options. "Obviously we are very disappointed with the decision. It has been part of the governor's acid rain strategy,'' said spokeswoman Jennifer Farina.
The emissions-credit system was designed to offer utilities flexibility in complying with federal air pollution regulations. It sets a cap on the number of tons of sulfur dioxide that can be released into the environment by the nation's power plants but allows the utilities to trade the credits among them. A plant that emits less than it is allotted can hold onto or sell unused pollution credits to other plants. Plants buying credits can then use them to exceed the limits on pollution set by the government. New York has been one of the biggest exporters of sulfur dioxide credits, something that state legislators predicted when they pressured Congress in the early 1990s to make trading regulations more regional.
A 2000 General Accounting Office report that analyzed the emissions trading system nationwide between 1993 and 1998 found that New York utilities traded more than 200,000 of the 866,000 tons of sulfur dioxide they were allotted under the federal acid rain program. But nearly 10 percent of what was traded -- or 70,000 tons -- was sold to upwind states whose power plant emissions generate acid rain over New York.
The Air Pollution Mitigation Law was seen as a way to renew pressure on the federal government. The law attempted to steer the sale of credits from New York utilities away from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Kentucky, Indiana and Wisconsin.
"The root of our enthusiasm for the law was to send a message to Washington that the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, while a good start, were insufficient to stop acid rain,'' said John Sheehan, a spokesman for the Adirondack Council. "New York was essentially prepared to interfere with the program if the federal government wasn't going to protect us.'' The companies that brought the suit argued that the solution to New York's acid rain problem should be left up to Congress.
Judge Hurd went further in his decision, by challenging the law's effectiveness at the intent of rerouting the pollution. He pointed out that out-of-state plants polluted less in 2000 than they were allotted and that the law does not prohibit trading between New York utilities, which are responsible for between 13 and 38 percent of the pollution generating acid rain within the state. Thirdly, Hurd stated that most of the credits -- equal to a ton of sulfur dioxide, and sold for roughly $150 each -- imported by upwind states are from states other than New York. "I don't think the judge left much room for the state to enforce the law,'' said Norman Fichthorn, the attorney for the Clean Air Markets Group. "As a result of this decision, the law has no legal effect anymore.''
Over the past five days, a mysterious oil spill has been sited in the Rouge River near Detroit Michigan. Officials are stumped. More than 10,000 gallons of oil has found its way into the river and officials, so far, have not found the source.
The Associated Press reports that:
"The spill is the largest on a Great Lakes waterway in more than a decade. Wine said the last major spill that affected Great Lakes waters was a 1991 gasoline spill in the Bay City area. The source of that spill was an explosion on the tanker Jupiter."
The slick is believed to be industrial-grade waste oil. Unfortunately, numerous birds have been found with oil-coated feathers. Once a bird’s feathers become coated, they can die from exposure–if the toxicity of the oil does not kill them first.
To view the AP article, please see: 10,000 Gallons on Oil Spill in Michigan
MY Comment:
The following article is extremely technical but very interesting. They are talking about using a new technology to detect pollution on a greater spectrum and to be able to "finger print" the chemicals, which might be helpful in determining where sources of pollution come from. This will be very helpful in providing evidence in lawsuits.
EXCERPT:
Researchers at Cardiff University’s School of Engineering have developed an electronic ‘tongue’ that can be dipped into water or effluent to check for pollution.
The research, funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and headed by micro-component specialist Professor David Barrow, has proved that the part of the system that ‘tastes’ the sample can be made from very small components, so it should be easy and inexpensive to mass-produce.
The scientists hope to link the tongue to a computer so that the signals that it generates can be analyzed. The tongue’s ability to taste is based on the principles of chromatography, where a chemical sample, contained within a liquid or gas, is passed over a solid matrix with a large surface area, a glass cylinder filled with silica beads, for example. Various chemicals that react to components within the mixture can be coated onto the beads so that as the sample passes down the column a reaction will take place, enabling the components of the mix to be identified and analyzed. The Cardiff tongue works on a similar principle but on a considerably smaller scale.
To read the full article please see: Electronic tongue can taste pollution
If you have any questions, concerns, or comments, please contact Kanatiiosh
Return to the Main page by Clicking on the Home Icon Below
|
|
Counter provided by www.digits.com
