SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
deb haaland
Sioux Tribes Want US to Come Clean on Treaty Deceit
"For centuries, the U.S. government has broken every promise it's made to Native tribes," says Standing Rock Sioux Chair Janet Alkire. "It's time for that to stop."
Nov 22, 2023
Leaders of the Standing Rock and Oglala Sioux said Wednesday that the two Native American tribes are joining forces in an effort to pressure the Biden administration into a reckoning over a dubious 19th-century treaty that—like just about every other one signed between the U.S. and Indigenous peoples—was broken by Washington.
The two tribes are seeking nation-to-nation consultations between U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland and Assistant Indian Affairs Secretary Bryan Newland—both Native Americans—and the remaining signatory tribes to the Fort Laramie Treaty.
"This is about correcting an injustice," Standing Rock Chair Janet Alkire said. "For centuries, the U.S. government has broken every promise it's made to Native tribes. It's time for that to stop."
"Furthermore," she added, "we're calling on the Biden-Harris administration to take active steps to correct the record."
Treaty rights remain a critical point of contention for the Sioux, who in recent years have fought against violations of their land, water, and sovereignty, including the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines—the latter of which was canceled by President Joe Biden.
"We'd like the current government to take an honest look at what happened."
In the 1860s, fierce Indigenous resistance to Euro-American encroachment on the Great Plains and an Army already weakened by the Civil War resulted in a series of U.S. defeats, including a December 1866 ambush led by Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapaho warriors that killed all 81 soldiers under the command of Capt. William Fetterman during the Powder River War. It was the worst defeat of U.S. forces on the Great Plains until Little Bighorn a decade later.
In 1868, the U.S. signed the Fort Laramie Treaty with the Arapaho and the Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota Sioux. The treaty established the Great Sioux Reservation and designated the Black Hills as "unceded Indian territory" to be "set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation" of Indigenous peoples.
However, the tribes claim U.S. officials subsequently—and surreptitiously—added language to the treaty stating that the Indians "relinquish all claims or rights" to lands outside the designated reservation. The U.S. then blatantly abrogated the treaty following the discovery of gold in the Black Hills of South Dakota and, when Indians fought back, unleashed a fresh wave of genocidal violence against them.
"U.S. treaty negotiators snuck the relinquishment language into Article II of the treaty after it was signed by the Sioux chiefs to end the Powder River War," said Oglala Sioux Tribe President Frank Star Comes Out. "We'd like the current government to take an honest look at what happened."
The Indian Claims Commission, a judicial relations arbiter between the U.S. government and Indigenous tribes, concluded in 1976 that the treaty "effectuated a vast cession of land contrary to the understanding and intent of the Sioux."
In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the United States had illegally taken the Black Hills and awarded over $100 million in reparations to the Sioux Nation, which refused the money—now worth over $1 billion—on the grounds that the tribe never wanted to part with its lands in the first place.
"The Black Hills are not for sale," Alkire said Wednesday, "and they never were."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Groups Plan to Appeal as Judge Upholds Biden Approval of Willow Drilling Project
"Beyond the illegality of Willow's approval, Interior's decision to greenlight the project in the first place moved us in the opposite direction of our national climate goals in the face of the worsening climate crisis."
Nov 10, 2023
A federal judge in Anchorage ruled Thursday that ConocoPhillips' $8 billion oil drilling project on Alaska's North Slope can proceed, rejecting a pair of lawsuits arguing that the Biden administration failed to adequately consider the initiative's impact on the climate, local communities, and wildlife before approving it earlier this year.
Willow is the largest proposed oil and gas drilling project on public lands in U.S. history, and it comes at a time when scientists are warning that any new fossil fuel extraction is incompatible with preventing catastrophic planetary warming.
But despite warnings about Willow's potentially devastating impact, U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason—an Obama appointee—deemed the Biden administration's environmental assessments of the project sufficient and in line with federal law. The ruling was handed down a day after a U.N.-backed report cautioned that fossil fuel expansion plans by the world's top producers are "throwing humanity's future into question."
Climate groups voiced strong disagreement and outrage in response to Gleason's decision, which gives ConocoPhillips a green light to resume construction of the massive project next month.
"This decision is bad news not just for our clients, but for anyone who cares about the climate and future generations," said Bridget Psarianos, senior staff attorney with Trustees for Alaska, which sued the Biden Interior Department on behalf of the Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic and others.
"The Biden administration added a little more window dressing when it rubber-stamped the previous Trump approvals, but Interior handed out permits without even looking at options that would reduce the impact on local people or preclude drilling in sensitive ecosystems," Psarianos added. "It again did not consider the accumulation of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, nor the way those accumulations harm people, animals, habitat, and the planet in deep and tangible ways."
"While today's ruling is disappointing, we are entirely confident in our claims, and plan to appeal to the higher court."
In March, the Biden Interior Department—headed by Deb Haaland, who criticized the proposed Willow project when she was in Congress—approved what it characterized as a scaled-back version of the ConocoPhillips drilling initiative, drawing protests and criticism from environmentalists, Indigenous groups, and the United Nations.
The administration approved the project with three drilling sites instead of the five that ConocoPhillips wanted. But even the smaller version of Willow will be disastrous for the climate, green groups argued.
According to Earthjustice, which sued the administration on behalf of several climate organizations, the approved project "will still add about 260 million metric tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere over the next 30 years, the equivalent of an extra two million cars on the road each year for 30 years."
"While today's ruling is disappointing, we are entirely confident in our claims, and plan to appeal to the higher court," Erik Grafe, deputy managing attorney in Earthjustice's Alaska regional office, said in a statement Thursday. "Beyond the illegality of Willow's approval, Interior's decision to greenlight the project in the first place moved us in the opposite direction of our national climate goals in the face of the worsening climate crisis."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Biden Revives Offshore Safety Rules, Advocates Say Drilling Must End to Prevent Disaster
Even with oil spill prevention measures, said one advocate, "offshore drilling simply will never be safe."
Aug 23, 2023
Environmental advocates on Tuesday said the Biden administration's decision to reinstate offshore drilling safety rules would help undo damage caused by former Republican President Donald Trump's repeal of the regulations, but were clear that the rules would not change the fact that fossil fuel extraction is imperiling ecosystems and the planet.
U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland announced that the rules have once again been finalized and will go into effect in October, governing the use of safety equipment on offshore oil rigs.
The rules were originally put in place by the Obama administration after BP's 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, which sent four million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico and killed 11 people, an estimated one million seabirds, and up to five million fish.
The oil and gas industry strongly supported Trump's repeal of the rules, which Kristen Monsell, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said at the time would "make dirty offshore drilling even more dangerous" by making oil spills more likely.
But Jackie Savitz, chief policy officer for the ocean conservation group Oceana, said new safety regulations for drilling operations are no replacement for halting offshore drilling altogether.
"Offshore drilling simply will never be safe," she said. "When there is a spill like Deepwater Horizon, it's too late, our options are severely limited, so prevention is the only solution and this is a good step in that direction."
The reinstated rules are "a big step in getting us back on track" to ensuring there's no repeat of disasters like Deepwater Horizon, Savitz said, but "there is no way we can do enough to prevent an oil spill."
"It is an inherently risky business and it's not a matter of if, but when we will have another one," she added. "So a big part of prevention has to be to stop selling new leases."
The newly reinstated rules will require:
- Real-time monitoring of drilling operations;
- The third-party certification of emergency devices;
- Increased strength requirements for blowout prevention devices, which stop the uncontrolled flow of oil or gas in the event of an accident;
- The reporting of failure data on blowout preventers to the government; and
- Investigations into failures that start within 90 days of an accident.
Ahead of the announcement, Zero Hour founder and executive director Zanagee Artis and Taproot Earth national policy director Kendall Dix wrote an op-ed in the Miami Herald, calling on U.S. President Joe Biden to "move the country off of its addiction to fossil fuels by barring new leasing on public lands and waters," as he promised to when he campaigned for the presidency in 2020.
With the Interior Department considering a five-year oil and gas leasing program that would allow the fossil fuel industry to conduct extraction operations in even more areas of the nation's oceans—a proposal expected to be finalized this fall as the revived safety regulations go into effect—"the risk of environmental disaster from offshore drilling is not a question of if disaster will strike, but when," wrote Artis and Dix.
They pointed out that in addition to the International Energy Agency's call for an immediate end to fossil fuel extraction in order to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and the United Nations' warning that oil and gas drilling are "incompatible with human survival," offshore operations are simply not necessary "to meet the nation's energy needs."
"An analysis by industry experts found that, even without a single new lease offering, oil production in the United States will remain steady into 2035, at which point the nation's transition to renewable energy will be approaching maturity," Artis and Dix wrote.
"We don't need to sell off more of our ocean to Big Oil," they added. "Every oil spill began with an offshore lease sale."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular