An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United
States National Security By Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall,
For more info on climate see http://www.heatisonline.org
It would be criminal to ignore these warnings and continue contributing
to this threat to our security by burning more coal as if there's no
tomorrow.
When there is an imbalance in supply and demand, why is it that
the only choices presented are between which options to increase supply,
and no choices for reducing demand are considered?
Why are efficiency-increasing technologies and demand reduction
never allowed to compete fairly with jacking up supply, even on a
free market basis? Could it be because they are typically more cost-effective
and lots of supply options would fail to stand up to the competition?
US electric consumption in 2000 was over 9 times that of 1950, 5
times as much per person.
We're not 5 times better off now than we were then, and we were not
backward deprived people when we were using 1/5 what we're using now.
Thus eliminating all coal consumption by reducing electric consumption
by half (the portion currently generated via coal) is a reasonable option,
especially given that we have more energy-efficient technologies available
now and there was plenty of waste in 1950.
Smart retrofits have saved as much as 90% of lighting electric consumption
with no reduction in service or comfort [Climate: Making Sense and Making
Money, Rocky Mountain Institute
Under no circumstances should Peabody be allowed operate using Black
Mesa water. The people of Black Mesa have suffered more than enough
from the expropriation of their resources by outsiders. This is desert
country, where water is life, so taking water is taking life. The Southwest
has been under a severe drought so water is more precious now than ever.
Peabody must also not be allowed to consume drinking-quality water from
any other places such as the Coconino Aquifer.
It is insane to use pure high-quality water to ship coal in the desert.
Peabody can use alternative transportation methods as every other coal
mine in the country has been able to. Coal-washing and other purported
"needs" for water must only be approved using reclaimed water, and only
after an investigation of non-water alternatives and steady-state recirculating
technologies to reuse the same water many times on-site.
Pumping of the Navajo Aquifer must stop immediately and no pumping
or mining must be allowed until Peabody has (1) fully compensated everyone
adversely affected by past disruption of the waters and (2) posted a
bond sufficient in size to compensate everyone for future adverse effects
arising from the consequences of past disruption and (3) fully restored
the groundwaters to their naturally functioning order so no more disruption
occurs in the future.
The substantial adverse impacts of additional mining on the watersheds,
groundwaters, landscapes, flora, fauna, societies, and cultures of Black
Mesa, and the illegitimacy of the means by which Peabody obtained its
prior permit, require that Peabody's request must be handled as a new
permit application, not a revision.
Peabody's application is unacceptably inadequate. A complete Environmental
Impact Statement and Endangered Species Act review are required.
No mining shall be allowed until Peabody proves its application is
in compliance with all federal, state, tribal, and local regulations
at its sole expense and liability. A condition of the permit must be
that if any breach is discovered then mining must stop until the problem
is corrected.
Certain traditional Hopi and Navajo ceremonies consist of visiting
a sequence of sacred sites to give offerings and prayers. Some of these
ceremonies can no longer be conducted since the sites have been strip-mined
out of existence. By what authority is it right to deny one group of
people the ability to practice their religion in order that another
group may enjoy a few additional physical comforts and save a bit of
money?
The Navajo at Big Mountain were subject to the biggest forced removal
(ie ethnic cleansing) of Indian people since the Cherokee Trail of Tears
of 1838 and the Navajo Long Walk of 1864, in order to clear the land
for mining.
"The forcible relocation of over 10,000 Navajo people is a tragedy
of genocide and injustice that will be a blot on the conscience of this
country for many generations." -- Leon Berger, who resigned as Executive
Director of the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Commission
"I feel that in relocating these elderly people, we are as bad as
the Nazis that ran the concentration camps in World War II." -- Roger
Lewis, federally appointed Relocation Commissioner who resigned
John Boyden, a white lawyer instrumental in setting up the forced
relocation program, and instrumental in setting up the Hopi Tribal Council
itself against the wishes of the majority of the Hopi people, made more
than $2 million working for both the Tribal Council and Peabody Coal,
as a sweetheart stripmine lease was "negotiated".
Thus the existing coal and water contracts are illegitimate, and the
subject of your proceeding should not be how to extract more electricity,
coal, and water from indigenous lands but how to pay reparations to
the tribes.
Some Navajo can trace their ancestry at Big Mountain on Black Mesa
for 25 generations. That's longer than the USA has been in existence.
The Hopi have been documented to live at Black Mesa for at least 800
years, That's many times longer than Arizona or the OSM have been in
existence. Depriving them of water threatens to destroy their ability
to survive in their homeland. That would be a violation of international
law. Their human rights and land rights take precedence over the right
of people to pay a low fee to flip on switches to live a life of comparative
luxury, or the right of corporations to make any profit.
For details see:
Dark Days on Black Mesa by John Dougherty, Phoenix New Times April 24
1997
A People Betrayed by John Dougherty, Phoenix New Times May 1 1997
The Black Mesa Syndrome by Judith Nies
Geopolitics of the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute by John Redhouse