An Anarchistic
Understanding of the Social Order
Environmental Degradation, Indigenous Resistance, and a Place for the Sciences
By Andrew Gavin Marshall
Environmental Degradation, Indigenous Resistance, and a Place for the Sciences
By Andrew Gavin Marshall
July 29, 2013 "Information
Clearing House
- FOR ROUGHLY FIVE HUNDRED
YEARS, INDIGENOUS peoples have been struggling against the dominant institutions
of society, against imperialism, colonialism, exploitation, impoverishment,
segregation, racism, and genocide. The struggle continues today under the
present world social order and against the dominant institutions of
‘neoliberalism’ and globalization: the state, corporations, financial
institutions and international organizations. Indigenous communities continue to
struggle to preserve their cultural identities, languages, histories, and the
continuing theft and exploitation of their land. Indigenous resistance against
environmental degradation and resource extraction represents the most direct
source of resistance against a global environmental crisis which threatens to
lead the species to extinction. It is here that many in the scientific community
have also taken up the cause of resistance against the destruction of the global
environment. While Indigenous and scientific activism share similar objectives
in relation to environmental issues, there is a serious lack of convergence
between the two groups in terms of sharing knowledge, organization, and
activism.
Indigenous groups are often on
the front lines of the global environmental crisis – at the point of interaction
(or extraction) – they resist against the immediate process of resource
extraction and the environmental devastation it causes to their communities and
society as a whole. The continued repression, exploitation and discrimination
against Indigenous peoples have made the struggle – and the potential
consequences of failure – significantly more problematic. This struggle has been
ongoing for centuries, and as the species heads toward extinction – as it is
along our current trajectory – Indigenous peoples will be on the front lines of
that process. Many in the scientific community have been struggling for decades
to address major environmental issues. Here, the focus is largely on the issue
of climate change, and the approach has largely been to work through
institutions in order to create enough pressure to reform. Yet, after decades of
organizing through academic and environmental organizations, lobbying
governments, corporations and international organizations, progress has been
slow and often ineffectual, with major international conferences being hyped up
but with little concrete results. Indigenous peoples continue to struggle
against the dominant institutions while many in the scientific community
continue to struggle within the dominant institutions, though their objectives
remain similar.
A major problem and disparity
becomes clear: Indigenous peoples – among the most repressed and exploited in
the world – are left to struggle directly against the most powerful institutions
in the world (states and transnational corporations), while many in the sciences
– an area of knowledge which has and continues to hold enormous potential to
advance the species – attempt to convince those powerful institutions to profit
less at exactly the point in history when they have never profited more.
Indigenous communities remain largely impoverished, and the scientific community
remains largely dependent for funding upon the very institutions which are
destroying the environment: states, corporations and international
organizations. Major barriers to scientific inquiry and research can thus be
established if the institutions feel threatened, if they choose to steer the
sciences into areas exclusively designed to produce ‘profitable’ forms of
knowledge and technology. As humanity enters a critical stage – perhaps the most
critical we have ever faced as a species – it is important to begin to
acknowledge, question, and change the institutional contradictions and
constraints of our society.
It seems only logical that a
convergence between Indigenous and scientific activism, organization, and the
sharing of knowledge should be encouraged and facilitated. Indeed, the future of
the species may depend upon it. This paper aims to encourage such a convergence
by applying an anarchistic analysis of the social order as it relates to
environmental degradation, specifically at the point of interaction with the
environment (the source of extraction). In classifying this as an anarchistic
analysis, I simply mean that it employs a highly critical perspective of
hierarchically organized institutions. This paper does not intend to discuss in
any detail the issue of climate change, since that issue is largely a symptom of
the problem, which at its source is how the human social order interacts
directly with the environment: extraction, pollution, degradation, exploitation
and destruction at the point of interaction.
This analysis will seek to
critically assess the actions and functions of states, corporations,
international organizations, financial institutions, trade agreements and
markets in how they affect the environment, primarily at the point of
interaction. It is also at this point where Indigenous peoples are taking up the
struggle against environmental degradation and human extinction. Through an
anarchistic analysis of Indigenous repression and resistance at the point of
interaction between the modern social order and the environment (focusing
primarily on examples from Canada), this paper hopes to provide encouragement to
those in the scientific community seeking to address environmental issues to
increase their efforts in working with and for the direct benefit of Indigenous
peoples. There exists a historical injustice which can and must be rectified:
the most oppressed and exploited peoples over the past five hundred years of a
Western-dominated world are on the front lines of struggling for the survival of
the species as a whole.
Modern science – which has done so much to advance
Western ‘civilization’ – can and should make Indigenous issues a priority, not
only for their sake, but for the species as a whole. Indeed, it is a matter of
survival for the sciences themselves, for they will perish with the species. An
anarchistic analysis of the social order hopes to encourage a convergence
between Indigenous and scientific knowledge and activism as it relates to
resolving the global environmental crisis we now face.
GLOBAL CORPORATE
POWER
Corporations are among the
most powerful institutions in the world. Of the top 150 economies in 2010, 58%
were corporations, with companies like Wal-Mart, Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil,
and BP topping the charts[1]. According to Fortune’s Global 500 list published
in 2012, the top ten corporations in the world were: Royal Dutch Shell,
ExxonMobil, Wal-Mart, BP, Sinopec Group, China National Petroleum, State Grid,
Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Toyota Motor[2]. The Global 500 corporations posted
record revenues for 2011 at USD 29.5 trillion, up 13.2% from the previous year.
Eight of the top ten conglomerates were in the energy sector, with the oil
industry alone generating USD 5 trillion in sales, approximately 17% of the
total sales of the Global 500. The second largest sector represented in the
Global 500 was commercial banks, followed by the auto
industry[3].
A scientific study conducted
by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich analyzed the ‘network of
control’ wielded through 43,000 transnational corporations (TNCs), identifying
“a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate
power over the global economy.” The researchers identified a ‘core’ of 1,318
companies which owned roughly 80% of the global revenues for the entire network
of 43,000 TNCs. Above the core, the researchers identified a ‘super-entity’ of
147 tightly-knit corporations – primarily banks and financial institutions –
collectively owning each other’s shares and 40% of the wealth in the total
network. One researcher commented, “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the
companies were able to control 40 percent of the entire network[4].”
Writing in the Financial
Times, a former US Treasury Department official, Robert Altman, referred to
financial markets as “a global supra-government,” explaining:
They oust entrenched regimes where normal political processes could not do so. They force austerity, banking bail-outs and other major policy changes. Their influence dwarfs multilateral institutions such as the International Monetary Fund. Indeed, leaving aside unusable nuclear weapons, they have become the most powerful force on earth[5].
The “global supra-government”
of financial markets push countries around the world into imposing austerity
measures and structural reforms, which have the result of benefiting the
“super-entity” of global corporate power. The power and wealth of these
institutions have rapidly accelerated in the past three decades of neoliberal
‘reforms’ promoting austerity, liberalization, deregulation, privatization and
financialization. Neoliberal ideology was politically championed by Ronald
Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain, but was
largely imposed upon the so-called ‘Third World’ (Latin America, Asia, and
Africa) through major international organizations like the World Bank and the
IMF. The results of this massive transfer of wealth and power to an increasingly
connected and small fraction of the world’s population have been devastating for
humanity and the world as a whole. This process guided by neoliberal dogma has
been most often referred to as ‘globalization.’
As the 1980s debt crisis
gripped the ‘Third World,’ the IMF and World Bank came to the ‘rescue’ with
newly designed loan agreements called ‘Structural Adjustment Programs’ (SAPs).
In return for a loan from these institutions, countries would have to adhere to
a set of rigid conditions and reforms, including austerity measures (cutting
public spending), the liberalization of trade, privatization, deregulation, and
currency devaluation[6]. The United States controls the majority shares of both
the World Bank and IMF, while the US Treasury Department and Federal Reserve
work very closely with the IMF and its staff[7]. If countries did not adhere to
IMF and World Bank ‘conditions,’ they would be cut off from international
markets, since this process was facilitated by “unprecedented co-operation
between banks from various countries under the aegis of the IMF[8].” The
conditions essentially opened up the borrowing countries to economic imperialism
by the IMF, World Bank, and transnational corporations and financial
institutions, which were able to gain access and control over the resources and
labour markets of poor countries. Thus, the 1980s has been known as the “lost
decade of development,” as many ‘Third World’ countries became poorer between
1980 and 1990[9]. Joseph Stiglitz, a former chief economist at the World Bank,
wrote that, “such conditions were seen as the intrusion by the new colonial
power on the country’s own sovereignty[10].”
The structural adjustment
programs imposed upon the Third World devastated the poor and middle classes of
the borrowing countries, often resulting in mass protests against austerity[11].
In fact, between 1976 and 1992, there were 146 protests against IMF- sponsored
austerity measures in 39 different countries, including demonstrations, strikes
and riots. The governments, in response, would often violently repress
protests[12]. The government elites were often more integrated with and allied
to the powerful institutions of the global economy, and would often act as
domestic enforcers for the demands of international banks and corporations. For
many countries imposing structural adjustment programs around the world,
authoritarian governments were common[13]. The IMF and World Bank structural
adjustment programs also led to the massive growth of slums around the world, to
the point where there are now over a billion people living in urban slums
(approximately one out of every seven people on earth)[14].
Further, the nations of the
Third World became increasingly indebted to the powerful financial institutions
and states of the industrial world with the more loans they took. The wealthy
elites within the Third World plunder the domestic wealth of their countries in
cooperation with global elites, and send their money into Western banking
institutions (as ‘capital flight’) as their domestic populations suffer in
poverty. The IMF and World Bank programs helped facilitate capital flight
through the deregulation and ‘liberalization’ of markets, as well as through the
opening up of the economies to unhindered exploitation. Some researchers
recently compared the amount of money in the form of aid and loans going into
Africa compared to that coming leaving Africa in the form of capital flight, and
found that “sub-Saharan Africa is a net creditor to the rest of the world by a
substantial margin.” The external debt owed by 33 sub-Saharan African countries
to the rest of the world in 2008 stood at USD 177 billion. Between 1970 and
2008, capital flight from those same 33 African countries amounted to USD 944
billion. Thus, “the rest of the world owes more to these African countries than
they owe to the rest of the world[15].”
The neoliberal ideology of
‘profit before people’ – enforced by the dominant states, corporations, banks
and international organizations – has led to a world of extreme inequality,
previously established by centuries of empire and colonialism, and rapidly
accelerated in the past three decades. As of 2004, one in every three human
deaths was due to poverty-related causes. In the twenty years following the end
of the Cold War, there were approximately 360 million preventable deaths caused
by poverty-related issues. Billions of people go hungry, lack access to safe
drinking water, adequate shelter, medicine, and electricity. Nearly half of
humanity – approximately 3.1 billion people as of 2010 – live below the USD
2.50/day poverty line. It would take roughly USD 500 billion – approximately
1.13% of world income (or two-thirds of the US military budget) – to lift these
3.1 billion people out of extreme poverty. The top 1% own 40% of the world’s
wealth, while the bottom 60% hold less than 2% of the world’s wealth. As Thomas
Pogge wrote, “we are now at the point where the world is easily rich enough in
aggregate to abolish all poverty,” but we are “choosing to prioritize other ends
instead.” Roughly 18 million people die from poverty-related causes every year,
half of whom are children under the age of five. Pogge places significant blame
for these circumstances upon the “global institutional arrangements that
foreseeably and avoidably increase the socioeconomic inequalities that cause
poverty to persist [...] [policies which] are designed by the more powerful
governments for the benefit of their most powerful industries, corporations, and
citizens[16].”
In 2013, Oxfam reported that
the fortunes made by the richest 100 people in the world over the course of 2012
(USD 240 billion) would have been enough to lift the world’s poorest people out
of poverty four times over. An Oxfam executive, Barbara Stocking, noted that
this type of extreme wealth – which saw the world’s richest 1% increase their
income by 60% in the previous twenty years – is “economically inefficient,
politically corrosive, socially divisive and environmentally destructive [...]
We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for few will inevitably
benefit the many – too often the reverse is true[17].” A study by the Tax
Justice Network in 2012 found that the world’s superrich had hidden between USD
21 and 32 trillion in offshore tax havens, meaning that inequality was “much,
much worse than official statistic show,” and that “for three decades
extraordinary wealth has been cascading into the offshore accounts of a tiny
number of superrich,” with the top 92,000 of the world’s superrich holding at
least USD 10 trillion in offshore accounts[18].
THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT OF INEQUALITY
The human social order –
dominated by states, corporations, banks and international organizations – has
facilitated and maintained enormous inequality and poverty around the world,
allowing so few to control so much, while the many are left with little. This
global social and economic crisis is exacerbated by the global environmental
crisis, in which the same institutions that dominate the global social order are
simultaneously devastating the global environment to the point where the future
of the species hangs in the balance.
Just as the dominant
institutions put ‘profit before people,’ so too do they put profit before the
environment, predicating human social interaction with the environment on the
ideology of ‘markets’: that what is good for corporations will ultimately be
good for the environment. Thus, the pursuit of ‘economic growth’ can continue
unhindered – and in fact, should be accelerated – even though it results in
massive environmental degradation through the processes of resource extraction,
transportation, production and consumption[19].
Trading arrangements between
the powerful rich nations and the ‘periphery’ poor nations allow for the
dominant institutions to exploit their economic and political influence over
weaker states, taking much more than they give[20]. These trading relationships
effectively allow the rich countries to offshore (or export) their environmental
degradation to poor countries, treating them as exploitable resource extraction
sources. As the resources of poor nations are extracted and exported to the rich
nations, the countries are kept in poverty (with the exception of their elites
who collude with the powerful countries and corporations), and the environmental
costs associated with the high consumption societies of the industrial world are
ultimately off-shored to the poor countries, at the point of interaction[21].
Thus, international trade separates the societies of consumption from the
effects of extraction and production, while the poor nations are dependent upon
exports and exploiting their cheap labour forces[22]. This process has been
termed ecological unequal exchange[23].
Between the mid-1970s and
mid-1990s, the majority of the world’s non-renewable resources were transferred
from poor to rich nations, accelerating in volume over time (due to
technological advancements), while decreasing in costs (to the powerful
nations).
Thus, between 1980 and 2002, the costs of resource extraction declined
by 25% while the volume of resource extraction increased by more than 30%.
Environmentally destructive processes of resource extraction in mining and
energy sectors have rapidly accelerated over the past few decades, resulting in
increased contamination of soils, watersheds and the atmosphere. Negative health
effects for local populations accelerate, primarily affecting Indigenous, poor
and/or migrant populations, who are subjected to excessive pollutants and
industrial waste at nearly every part of the process of extraction, production
and transportation of resources and goods[24].
In an examination of 65
countries between 1960 and 2003, researchers found that the rich countries
“externalized” the environmentally destructive consequences of resource over-use
to poor, periphery nations and populations, thus “assimilating” the environments
of the less-developed nations into the economies of the powerful states,
disempowering local populations from having a say in how their resources and
environments are treated[25].
Rich societies consume more than can be sustained
from their own internal resource wealth, and thus, they must “appropriate”
resource wealth from abroad by ‘withdrawing’ the resources in environmentally
destructive (and thus, more economically ‘efficient’) ways. Apart from
ecologically destructive ‘withdrawals,’ the rich nations also facilitate
ecologically destructive ‘additions,’ in the form of pollution and waste which
cause environmental and health hazards for the poor societies. This is
facilitated through various trading arrangements (such as the development of
Export Processing Zones), consisting of minimal to no environmental regulations,
cheap labour and minimal restrictions on corporate activities[26].
While Japan and Western Europe
were able to reduce the amount of pollutants and ‘environmental additions’ they
made within their own societies between 1976 and 1994, they accelerated their
‘additions’ in waste and pollutants to the poor countries with which they
traded, “suggesting a progressive off-shoring over the period onto those
peripheral countries” not only of labour exploitation, but of environmental
degradation[27]. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) by transnational corporations
has been linked to extensive environmental hazards within the countries in which
they are ‘investing,’ including growth in water pollution, infant mortality,
pesticide use, and the use of chemicals which are often banned in the rich
nations due to high toxicity levels and dangers to health and the environment,
and greater levels of carbon dioxide emissions. Indeed, between 1980 and 2000,
the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the rich countries increased by 21%,
while over the same period of time in the poor countries it more than doubled.
While forested areas in the rich nations increased by less than 1% between 1990
and 2005, they declined by 6% over the same period of time in poor countries,
contributing to soil erosion, desertification, climate change and the
destruction of local and regional ecosystems[28].
According to an analysis of
268 case studies of tropical forest change between 1970 and 2000, researchers
found that deforestation had shifted from being directed by states to being
directed and implemented by corporations and ‘economic’ interests across much of
Latin America, Africa, and Asia. This was largely facilitated by the IMF and
World Bank agreements which forced countries to reduce their public spending,
and allowed for private economic interests to obtain unprecedented access to
resources and markets. The rate of deforestation continued, it simply shifted
from being state-led to “enterprise driven[29].”
Using a sample of some sixty
nations, researchers found that IMF and World Bank Structural Adjustment
Programs (SAPs) were associated with higher levels of deforestation than in
countries which did not sign the SAP agreements, as they allowed rich nations
and corporations to “externalize their forest loss” to poor nations. Further,
“economic growth” as defined by the World Bank and IMF was related to increased
levels of deforestation, leading the researchers to acknowledge that, “economic
growth adversely impacts the natural environment[30].” World Bank development
loans to countries (as separate from structural adjustment loans) have also been
linked to increased rates of deforestation in poor nations, notably higher rates
than those which exist in countries not receiving World Bank
loans[31].
Military institutions and
armed warfare also have significant environmental impacts, not simply by
engaging in wars, but simply by the energy and resources required for the
maintenance of large military structures. As one US military official stated in
the early 1990s, “We are in the business of protecting the nation, not the
environment[32].” While the United States is the largest consumer of energy
among nations in the world, the Pentagon is “the world’s largest [institutional]
consumer of energy[33].” The combination of US tanks, planes and ships consume
roughly 340,000 barrels of oil per day (as of 2007)[34]. Most of the oil is
consumed by the Air Force, as jet fuel accounted for roughly 71% of the entire
military’s oil consumption[35].
Nations with large militaries
also use their violent capabilities “to gain disproportionate access to natural
resources[36].” Thus, while the US military may be the largest single purchaser
and consumer of energy in the world, one of its primary functions is to secure
access to and control over energy resources. In an interview with two McKinsey
& Company consultants, the Pentagon’s first-ever assistant secretary of
defense for operational energy and programs, Sharon E. Burke, stated bluntly
that, “My role is to promote the energy security of our military operations,”
including by increasing the “security of supply[37].”
In a study of natural resource
extraction and armed violence, researchers found that, “armed violence is
associated with the extraction of many critical and noncritical natural
resources, suggesting quite strongly that the natural resource base upon which
industrial societies stand is constructed in large part through the use and
threatened use of armed violence.” Further, when such armed violence is used in
relation to gaining access to and control over natural resources, “it is often
employed in response to popular protest or rebellion against these activities.”
Most of this violence is carried out by the governments of poor nations, or by
mercenaries or rebels, which allows for distancing between the rich nations and
corporations which profit from the plundering of resources from the violent
means of gaining access to them. After all, the researcher noted, “other key
drivers of natural resource exploitation, such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and
global marketplace, cannot, on their own, guarantee core nation access to and
control over vital natural resources[38].” Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, the
United States – and other powerful nations – and the major arms companies within
them are the largest arms dealers in the world[39].
It is clear that for
scientists – and anyone else – interested in addressing major environmental
issues, the source of the problem lies in the very structure and function of our
dominant modern institutions, at the point of interaction. In short: through
states, armed violence, banks and corporations, international organizations,
trade agreements and global ‘markets,’ the environment has become a primary
target of exploitation and destruction. Resources fuel the wealth and power of
the very institutions that dominate the world, and to maintain that power, they
engage in incredibly destructive activities with negative consequences for the
environment and the human species as a whole. The global environmental crisis is
intimately related to the global social and economic crises of wealth inequality
and poverty, labour exploitation, and ‘economic growth.’ To address the
environmental crisis in a meaningful way, this reality must first be
acknowledged. This is how an anarchistic understanding of the environmental
crisis facing the world and humanity can contribute to advancing how we deal
with these profound issues. For the sciences, the implications are grave: their
sources of funding and direction for research are dependent upon the very
institutions which are destroying the environment and leading humanity to
inevitable extinction (if we do not change course). Advancing an anarchistic
approach to understanding issues related to Indigenous repression and resistance
to environmental degradation can help provide a framework through which those in
the scientific community – and elsewhere – can find new avenues for achieving
similar goals: the preservation of the environment and the species.
INDIGENOUS REPRESSION
AND RESISTANCE
Indigenous peoples in the
Americas have been struggling against colonialism, exploitation, segregation,
repression and even genocide for over 500 years. While the age of formal
colonial empires has passed, the struggle has not. Today, Indigenous peoples
struggle against far more powerful states than ever before existed,
transnational corporations and financial institutions, international
organizations, so-called “free trade” agreements and the global ‘marketplace.’
In an increasingly interconnected and globalized world, the struggle for
Indigenous peoples to maintain their identity and indeed, even their existence
itself, has been increasingly globalizing, but has also been driven by localized
actions and movements.
Focusing upon Indigenous
peoples in Canada, I hope to briefly analyze how Indigenous groups are
repressed, segregated and exploited by the dominant institutions of an
incredibly wealthy, developed, resource-rich and ‘democratic’ nation with a
comparably ‘good’ international reputation. Further, by examining Indigenous
resistance within Canada to the destruction of the natural environment, I hope
to encourage scientists and other activists and segments of society who are
interested in environmental protection to reach out to Indigenous communities,
to share knowledge, organizing, activism, and objectives.
A LEGACY OF
COLONIALISM
Historically, the Canadian
government pursued a policy of ‘assimilation’ of Indigenous peoples for over a
century through ‘Indian residential schools,’ in what ultimately amounted to an
effective policy of “cultural genocide.” In 1920, Canada’s Deputy Minister of
Indian Affairs Duncan Campbell Scott bluntly explained: “I want to get rid of
the Indian problem [...] Our object is to continue until there is not a single
Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politics and there is
no Indian question, and no Indian Department[40].”
The segregation, repression
and exploitation of Indigenous communities within Canada is not a mere
historical reality, it continues to present day. Part of the institutional
repression of Indigenous peoples is the prevalence of what could be described as
‘Third World’ conditions within a ‘First World’ nation. Indigenous communities
within Canada lack access to safe drinking water at a much higher rate than the
general population[41]. Indigenous people and communities in Canada also face
much higher levels of food insecurity, poverty, unemployment, poor housing and
infant mortality than the rest of the population[42]. Accounting for roughly 4%
of the population of Canada (approximately 1.2 million people as of 2006),
Indigenous peoples also face higher rates of substance abuse, addiction, and
suicide[43].
Indigenous people – and
especially women – make up a disproportionate percentage of the prison
population[44]. Further, as Amnesty International noted, “Indigenous women [in
Canada] are five to seven times more likely than other women to die as a result
of violence[45].” The Native Women’s Association of Canada has documented
roughly 600 cases of missing or murdered indigenous women in Canada, more than
half of which have occurred since 2000, while Human Rights Watch reported that
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in northern British Columbia had
“failed to properly investigate the disappearance and apparent murders of
[indigenous] women and girls in their jurisdiction[46].”
RESOURCE EXTRACTION,
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION, AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Industries seeking to develop
land and extract resources are increasingly turning to Indigenous territories to
develop and seek profits on the land and environment upon which such communities
are so often dependent for survival. At the point of interaction with the
environment, Indigenous peoples are left to struggle with the damaging
environmental and health consequences caused by state and corporate interests
extracting resources and wealth from the land and environment.
The Alberta tar sands (or oil
sands) is a primary example of this process. Many environmental, indigenous and
human rights organizations consider the tar sands development as perhaps “the
most destructive industrial project on earth.” The United Nations Environmental
Programme identified the project as “one of the world’s top 100 hotspots of
environmental degradation.” The dense oil in the tar sands (diluted bitumen) has
to be extracted through strip mining, and requires enormous amounts of resources
and energy simply to extract the reserves. It has been documented that for every
one barrel of oil processed, three barrels of water are used, resulting in the
creation of small lakes (called ‘tailing ponds’), where “over 480 million
gallons of contaminated toxic waste water are dumped daily.” These lakes
collectively “cover more than 50 square kilometres (12,000 acres) and are so
extensive that they can be seen from space.” The processing of the oil sands
creates 37% more greenhouse gas emissions than the extraction and processing of
conventional oil[47].
While the United States
consumes more oil than anywhere else on earth, Canada is the main supplier of
foreign oil to the United States, exporting roughly 1.5 million barrels per day
to the US (in 2005), approximately 7% of the daily consumption of oil in the US.
The crude bitumen contained in the tar sands has been estimated at 1.7 trillion
barrels, lying underneath an area within Alberta which is larger than the entire
state of Florida and contains over 140,000 square km of boreal forest. In 2003,
the United States Department of Energy officially acknowledged the reserves of
crude bitumen in the Alberta tar sands, and elevated Canada’s standing in world
oil markets from the 21st most oil-rich nation on earth to the 2nd, with only
Saudi Arabia surpassing[48].
Alberta’s tar sands have
attracted the largest oil companies on earth, including Royal Dutch Shell,
ExxonMobil, BP, and Total S.A. Local indigenous communities thus not only have
to struggle against the devastating environmental, health and social
consequences caused by the tar sands development, but they also have to struggle
against the federal and provincial governments, and the largest corporations on
earth. The Athabasca River (located near the tar sands development) has been
depleted and polluted to significant degrees, transforming the region “from a
pristine environment rich in cultural and biological diversity to a landscape
resembling a war zone marked with 200-foot-deep pits and thousands of acres of
destroyed boreal forests.” Indigenous peoples have been raising concerns over
this project for years[49].
Disproportionate levels of
cancers and other deadly diseases have been discovered among a local Indigenous
band, the Fort Chipewyan in Athabasca. These high levels of cancers and diseases
are largely the result of the enormous amounts of land, air, and water pollution
caused by the tar sands mining[50]. One Indigenous leader in Fort Chipewyan has
referred to the tar sands development as a “slow industrial genocide[51].” As
pipelines are planned to be expanded across Canada and the United States to
carry tar sands oil, this will have devastating impacts for “indigenous
communities not only in Canada, but across the continent[52].”
Between 2002 and 2010, the
pipeline network through Alberta experienced a rate of oil spills roughly
sixteen times higher than in the United States, likely the result of
transporting diluted bitumen (DilBit), which has not been commonly transported
through the pipelines until recent years. In spite of the greater risks
associated with transporting DilBit, the US agency responsible for overseeing
the country’s pipelines decided – in October of 2009 – to relax safety
regulations regarding the strength of pipelines. In July of 2010, a ruptured
Enbridge pipeline in Michigan spilled 800,000 gallons of DilBit, devastating the
local communities in what the government referred to as the “worst oil spill in
Midwestern history.” In July of 2011, an Exxon pipeline spilled 42,000 gallons
of DilBit into the Yellowstone River in Montana[53].
IDLE NO MORE: THE RISE
OF INDIGENOUS RESISTANCE
In 2009, the Canadian Ministry
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development announced the Federal Framework for
Aboriginal Economic Development which sought to “improve the participation” of
Indigenous people “in the Canadian economy,” primarily by seeking “to unlock the
full economic potential of Aboriginal Canadians, their communities, and their
businesses[54].” An updated report on the Framework in 2012 reaffirmed
the intent “to modernize the lands and resource management regimes on reserve
land in order to increase and unlock the value of Aboriginal assets[55].” As
John Ibbitson wrote in the Globe and Mail, “businesses that want to
unlock the potential of reserves, from real estate development to forestry and
mining, need the legal certainty that a property regime makes
possible[56].”
In late 2012, Canadian Prime
Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party introduced an omnibus Budget Bill
(C-45) which amended several aspects of the Indian Act (without proper
consultations with Indigenous groups). Bill C-45 also moved forward to “unlock”
barriers to resource extraction, environmental degradation, and corporate
profits with an amendment to the Navigable Waters Act, which dramatically
reduced the number of protected lakes and rivers in Canada from 40,000 to 97
lakes, and from 2.5 million to 63 rivers[57].
Following the introduction of
Bill C-45 to the Canadian Parliament, a group of four Indigenous women in the
province of Saskatchewan held a “teach-in” to help increase awareness about the
Bill, quickly followed by a series of rallies, protests and flash mobs where
Indigenous activists and supporters engaged in ‘round dances’ in shopping malls,
organized through social media networks like Twitter and Facebook. This sparked
what became known as the ‘Idle No More’ movement, and on December 10, 2012, a
National Day of Action took place, holding multiple rallies across the country.
The immediate objectives of the Idle No More movement were to have the
government “repeal all legislation that violates treaties [with Indigenous
peoples], including those that affect environmental regulations,” such as Bill
C-45 and the previous omnibus Bill C-38. The longer-term objectives of the
movement were to “educate and revitalize aboriginal peoples, empower them and
regain sovereignty and independence[58].”
Pamela Palmater, a
spokesperson for Idle No More and a Ryerson University professor noted that
Indigenous people in Canada were opposing Bill C-45 “not just because it impacts
their rights, but also because we know that it impacts the future generations of
both treaty partners,” referring to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous
Canadians. “The question,” she added, “really should be whether Canadians will
rise to protect their children’s futures alongside First
Nations[59].”
Theresa Spence, an Indigenous
chief from a northern Ontario community (Attawapiskat) went on a hunger strike
for 44 days to support Idle No More and raise awareness about a serious housing
crisis in her community. Spence only ended her hunger strike upon being
hospitalized and placed on an IV drip[60]. Her community of Attawapiskat had
been experiencing a major housing crisis for a number of years, and in 2011, a
state of emergency was declared in response to the fact that for over two years,
many of the community’s 1,800 residents were “living in makeshift tents and
shacks without heat, electricity or indoor plumbing.” James Anaya, a United
Nations human rights expert expressed his “deep concern about the dire social
and economic condition” of the Attawapiskat community to the Canadian
government, which reflected a situation “akin to third world conditions[61].”
The Conservative government of Stephen Harper (which came to power in 2006)
blamed the crisis on the internal handling of funds within Attawapiskat,
claiming that the government provided CAD 90 million in funding for the
community since 2006. However, analysis of the funds revealed that only CAD 5.8
million in funding had gone toward housing over the course of five years.
Meanwhile, estimates put the necessary funds to resolve the housing crisis alone
at CAD 84 million[62]. The former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs acknowledged
that the government had known about the housing crisis for years, saying that it
“has been a slow-moving train wreck for a long time[63].”
In 2005, the community of
Attawapiskat had signed a contract with the international mining conglomerate De
Beers to develop a diamond mine 90 km near their community.
The mine officially
opened in 2008, projecting a 12-year contribution to the Ontario economy of CAD
6.7 billion[64]. In 2005, De Beers dumped its sewage sludge into the
Attawapiskat community’s lift station, causing a sewage backup which flooded
many homes and exacerbated an already-developing housing crisis, followed by
another sewage backup potentially caused by De Beers in 2008[65]. Afterward, the
company donated trailers to the community to serve as “short-term emergency
shelters,” yet they remained in place even four years later[66].
As the Idle No More movement
took off in late 2012 and early 2013, members of the Attawapiskat community
undertook road blockades leading to the De Beers mine. The company sought a
legal injunction against the protesters, and the blockade was ended just as a
large number of police were headed to the community to “remove the barricades.”
After successfully blocking the mine from properly functioning for nearly twenty
days, the company announced that it was considering taking legal action against
the protesters[67].
The Idle No More mission
statement called “on all people to join in a revolution which honors and
fulfills Indigenous sovereignty which protects the land and water [...]
Colonization continues through attacks to Indigenous rights and damage to the
land and water. We must repair these violations, live the spirit and intent of
the treaty relationship, work towards justice in action, and protect Mother
Earth.” The movement’s manifesto further declared that, “the state of Canada has
become one of the wealthiest countries in the world by using the land and
resources. Canadian mining, logging, oil and fishing companies are the most
powerful in the world due to land and resources. Some of the poorest First
Nations communities (such as Attawapiskat) have mines or other developments on
their land but do not get a share of the profit[68].” As Pamela Palmater noted,
Idle No More was unique, “because it is purposefully distances from political
and corporate influence. There is no elected leader, no paid Executive Director,
and no bureaucracy or hierarchy which determines what any person or First Nation
can and can’t do [...] This movement is inclusive of all our
peoples[69].”
The Athabasca Chipewyan
Indigenous band which had been struggling for years against the tar sands
development were further mobilized with the eruption of Idle No More onto the
national scene, including by establishing a blockade on Highway 63 leading to
the tar sands development[70]. As Chipewyan chief Allan Adam noted, “The way I
look at it, the First Nations people are going to cripple this country if things
don’t turn out [...] Industry is going to be the target.” He also added: “We
know for a fact that industry was the one that lobbied government to make this
regulatory reform[71].” Indeed, this was no hyperbole.
THE STATE IN SERVICE
TO CORPORATIONS
Greenpeace obtained – through
access to information laws – a letter sent to the Canadian government’s
Environment minister and Natural Resources minister dated December of 2011,
written by a group called the Energy Framework Initiative (EFI), representing
the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Energy Pipeline
Association, the Canadian Fuels Association, and the Canadian Gas Association.
The letter sought “to address regulatory reform for major energy industries in
Canada” in order to advance “both economic growth and environmental
performance.” It specifically referenced six laws that it wanted amended,
including the National Energy Board Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act, the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, Migratory Birds Convention Act,
and the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Referring to many of these laws as
“outdated,” the letter criticized environmental legislation as “almost entirely
focused on preventing bad things from happening rather than enabling responsible
outcomes[72].”
Less than a month after
receiving the letter, the Canadian Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver lashed
out at activists opposing the construction of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway
pipeline shipping oil from Alberta’s tar sands to the B.C. coast for shipment to
Asia, stating, “Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups
that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade… Their goal is
to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost
jobs and economic growth. No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more
hydro-electric dams.” Oliver went on, saying that such “radical groups” were
threatening “to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical
ideological agenda,” and accused them of using funding from “foreign special
interest groups[73].”
Documents from the energy
industry revealed that big corporations advised the Harper government not to
amend the many environmentally related acts separately, but to employ “a more
strategic omnibus legislative approach,” which resulted in the two omnibus bills
over 2012, Bills C-38 and C-45, which included “hundreds of pages of changes to
environmental protection laws [...] weakening rules that protect water and
species at risk, introducing new tools to authorize water pollution, as well as
restricting public participation in environmental hearings and eliminating
thousands of reviews to examine and mitigate environmental impacts of industrial
projects[74].” The energy industry got virtually everything it asked for in the
two omnibus bills, including – as their letter to the Harper government
suggested – reforming “issues associated with Aboriginal
consultation[75].”
Documents from Environment
Canada showed how the minister informed a group of energy industry
representatives that the development of pipelines were “top-of-mind” as the
government pursued “the modernization of our regulatory system.” When the new
legislation passed, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency announced that
it has cancelled roughly 3,000 environmental assessments, including 250 reviews
related to pipeline projects[76]. Other documents showed that at the same time
the minister was informing energy corporations that he was serving their
interests, he was to inform Indigenous leaders that any “changes to the
government’s environmental assessment or project approvals regime” were
“speculative at this point” and that they would “respect our duties toward
Aboriginal peoples[77].”
As the Harper government
became the primary lobbyist for the Alberta tar sands, documents showed how the
government compiled a list of “allies” and “adversaries” in its public relations
campaign, referring to energy companies, Environment Canada and the National
Energy Board as “allies,” and the media, environmental and Indigenous groups as
“adversaries[78].” The Canadian government even ran an “outreach program” where
diplomats would attempt to secure support among American journalists for the
Keystone XL pipeline project – taking oil from the Alberta tar sands to the Gulf
Coast in the United States[79].
As the Canadian government
revised its anti-terrorism strategy in early 2012, it listed “eco-extremists”
alongside white supremacists as a threat to national security[80]. A review of
Canadian security documents from the national police force (RCMP) and the
Canadian intelligence agency (CSIS) revealed that the government saw
environmental activism such as blockades of roads or buildings as “forms of
attack” and “national security threats.” Greenpeace was identified as
“potentially violent,” as it had become “the new normal now for Canada’s
security agencies to watch the activities of environmental organizations,” noted
one analyst[81].
IDLE NO MORE AND OIL
PIPELINES
The government of Canada
acknowledged in early 2013 that it expected – over the following decade – that
there would be “a huge boom in Canadian natural resource projects,” potentially
worth CAD 600 billion, which is foreseen to be taking place “on or near”
Indigenous lands. One Indigenous chief in Manitoba warned that the Idle No More
movement “can stop Prime Minister Harper’s resource development plan and his
billion-dollar plan to develop resources on our ancestral territory. We have the
warriors that are standing up now, that are willing to go that
far[82].”
In an official meeting between
the Harper government and the Assembly of First Nations in January of 2013,
Indigenous ‘leaders’ presented a list of demands which included ensuring there
was a school in every indigenous community, a public inquiry into the missing
and murdered Indigenous women, as well as several other very ‘moderate’ reforms.
For the government, the objectives were much more specific, as internal
documents revealed, written in preparation for Harper’s meeting with Indigenous
leaders. As one briefing memo stated, the government was working towards
“removing obstacles to major economic development opportunities[83].”
For the Idle No More movement,
which does not consider itself to be ‘represented’ by the Assembly of First
Nations leaders, the objective is largely “to put more obstacles up,” as Martin
Lukacs wrote in the Guardian. Indigenous peoples, he noted, “are the best and
last defense against this fossil fuel scramble,” specifically in mobilizing
opposition to “the three-fold expansion of one of the world’s most
carbon-intensive projects, the Alberta tar
sands[84].”
In March of 2013, an alliance
of Indigenous leaders from across Canada and the United States announced that
they were “preparing to fight proposed new pipelines in the courts and through
unspecified direct action,” specifically referring to the Northern Gateway,
Keystone XL and Kinder Morgan pipeline projects. One Indigenous leader at the
formation of the alliance warned, “We’re going to stop these pipelines one way
or another.” Another Indigenous leader commented: “We, as a nation, have to wake
up [...] We have to wake up to the crazy decision that this government’s making
to change the world in a negative way[85].”
The territories of the ten
allied Indigenous groups “are either in the crude-rich tar sands or on the
proposed pipeline routes.” One Indigenous leader from northern British Columbia
referred to the Canadian government, stating, “They’ve been stealing from us for
the last 200 years [...] now they’re going to destroy our land? We’re not going
to let that happen [...] If we have to go to court, if we have to stand in front
of any of their machines that are going to take the oil through, we are going to
do that. We’re up against a wall here. We have nowhere else to
go[86].”
Roughly one week after the
Indigenous alliance was formed, an ExxonMobil pipeline carrying Alberta tar
sands oil through the United States ruptured in the town of Mayflower, Arkansas,
spilling thousands of barrels of oil into residential neighbourhoods and the
surrounding environment. Exxon quickly moved in with roughly 600 workers to
manage the cleanup and sign checks “to try to win over the townsfolk and seek to
limit the fallout[87].” The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
put in place a “no fly zone” over Mayflower, Arkansas, within days following the
oil spill. The ‘no fly zone’ was being overseen by ExxonMobil itself, thus, as
Steven Horn commented, “any media or independent observers who want to witness
the tar sands spill disaster have to ask Exxon’s
permission[88].”
Between March 11 and April 9
of 2013 (in a span of roughly thirty days), there were 13 reported oil spills on
three separate continents, with more than a million gallons of oil and other
toxic chemicals spilled in North and South America alone. The oil spills
included an Enbridge pipeline leak in the Northwest Territories in Canada (March
19), a tar sands ‘tailing pond’ belonging to Suncor leaking into the Athabasca
River in Alberta (March 25), a Canadian Pacific Railway train derailment
spilling tar sands oil in Minnesota (March 27), the Exxon spill in Mayflower
(March 29), oil-based hydraulic fluid spilling into the Grand River from a power
plant in Michigan (March 31), a CN Rail train derailment in Ontario (April 3), a
drilling leak in Newfoundland (April 3), the Shell pipeline leak in Texas (April
3), a condensate spill at an Exxon refinery in Louisiana (April 4), and a pump
station ‘error’ in Alaska (April 9)[89]. Another spill took place in June on
Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline in British Columbia, one of the pipeline
extensions being opposed by Indigenous groups[90].
Meanwhile, Stephen Harper was
in New York in May, speaking to the highly influential US think tank, the
Council on Foreign Relations, where he explained that the proposed Keystone XL
pipeline “absolutely needs to go ahead,” adding that it was “an enormous benefit
to the US in terms of long-term energy security[91].” TransCanada, the company
aiming to build the Keystone XL pipeline, along with the government of Alberta,
hired a team of lobbyists with connections to the Obama administration and
Secretary of State John Kerry in particular to pressure the US government to
approve the pipeline[92]. In late April, the president of the American Petroleum
Institute confidently declared, “When it’s all said and done, the president will
approve the pipeline[93].” In late May, the CEO of TransCanada said, “I remain
extremely confident that we’ll get the green light to build this
pipeline[94].”
Leaders from 11 different
Indigenous bands in the United States “stormed out” of a meeting in May being
held with federal government officials in South Dakota in protest against the
Keystone XL pipeline. The leaders criticized both the project and the Obama
administration, with one leader commenting, “We find ourselves victims of
another form of genocide, and it’s environmental genocide, and it’s caused by
extractive industries.” Another Indigenous leader who walked out of the meeting
warned, “What the State Department, what President Obama needs to hear from us,
is that we are going to be taking direct action[95].” TransCanada has even been
supplying US police agencies with information about environmental activists and
recommendations to pursue charges of “terrorism” against them, noting that the
company feared such “potential security concerns” as protests, blockades, court
challenges, and even “public meetings[96].”
While Indigenous communities
in Canada and elsewhere are among the most repressed and exploited within our
society, they are also on the front lines of resistance against environmentally
destructive practices undertaken by the most powerful institutions in the world.
As such, Indigenous groups are not only standing up for environmental issues,
but for the future of the species as a whole. With the rapidly accelerating
‘development’ of the tar sands, and the increasing environmental danger of huge
new pipelines projects, resistance to how our modern society treats the
environment is reaching new heights.
Indigenous organizing – much of which is
done along anarchistic ideas (such as with the Idle No More movement) – is
presenting an unprecedented challenge to institutional power structures. Thus,
there is an increased need for environmentalists, scientists, and others who are
interested in joining forces with Indigenous groups in the struggle against
environmental degradation and the potential extinction of the species. In
Canada, there is an even greater impetus for scientists to join forces with
Indigenous communities, for there is a state-sponsored assault upon
environmental sciences that threaten to devastate the scientific community in
the very near term.
THE CANADIAN
GOVERNMENT’S ATTACK ON ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
Since Stephen Harper’s
Conservative government came to power in 2006, there has been a steady attack
upon the sciences, particularly those related to environmental issues, as the
government cut funding for major programs and implemented layoffs. One major
facet of this attack has been the ‘muzzling’ of Canadian scientists at
international conferences, discussions with the media, and the publication of
research. At one conference hosted in Canada, scientists working for Environment
Canada were forced to direct all media inquiries through the public relations
department in an effort “to intimidate government scientists[97].” Under new
government guidelines, scientists working for the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans (DFO) cannot publish material until it is reviewed by the department “for
any concerns/impacts to DFO policy.” The Canadian Association of University
Teachers (CAUT) expressed in a letter to Stephen Harper their “deep dismay and
anger at your government’s attack on the independence, integrity and academic
freedom of scientific researchers[98].” Hundreds of Canadian scientists marched
on Parliament Hill in July of 2012 in what they called a “funeral procession”
against the government’s “systematic attack on
science[99].”
One of the world’s leading
science journals, Nature, published an editorial in March of 2012 calling on the
Canadian government to stop muzzling and “set its scientists free[100].”
Journalists requesting interviews with Canadian government scientists on issues
related to the Arctic or climate change have had to go through public relations
officials, provide questions in advance, adhere to “boundaries for what subjects
the interview could touch upon,” and have a PR staffer “listen in on the
interviews[101].”
Dozens of government agencies
and programs related to environmental sciences have had their budgets slashed,
scientists fired, or were discontinued altogether[102]. The Environmental Law
Centre at the University of Victoria lodged a formal complaint with Canada’s
Federal Information Commissioner about the muzzling of scientists, outlining
multiple examples “of taxpayer-funded science being suppressed or limited to
prepackaged media lines across six different government departments and
agencies.”
Natural Resources Canada now requires “pre-approval” from the
government before any scientists give interviews on topics such as “climate
change” or the “oilsands[103].”
The attack upon the sciences
is part of the Harper government’s 2007 strategy, Mobilizing Science and
Technology to Canada’s Advantage, which directed “a major shift away from
scientific goals to economic and labour-market priorities,” aiming to focus on
science and research which would be directly useful to industry and for
commercial purposes. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada (NSERC) has been steered by the government “toward industry-related
research and away from environmental science.” The government’s minister of
state for science and technology noted that the focus for research was to be on
“getting those ideas out to our factory floors, if you will, making the product
or process or somehow putting that into the marketplace and creating jobs[104].”
Further, the National Research Council (NRC) was “to focus more on practical,
commercial science and less on fundamental science” which wouldn’t be as
beneficial to corporate interests. The minister of state for science and
technology, Gary Goodyear, announced it as “an exciting, new journey – a
re-direction that will strengthen Canada’s research and innovation ecosystem for
many years to come.” The president of the NRC noted that, “We have shifted the
primary focus of our work at NRC from the traditional emphasis of basic research
and discovery science in favour of a more targeted approach to research and
development[105].”
As Stephen Harper said,
“Science powers commerce,” but apparently to Harper, that is all it should do,
even though many scientists and academics disagree[106]. The implications should
be obvious: just as society’s interaction with the environment is unsustainable,
so too is the dependency of the sciences upon those institutions which are
destroying the environment.
MOVING
FORWARD
Regardless of one’s
position in society – as a member of an Indigenous group, an activist group, or
within the scientific community – all of human society is facing the threat of
extinction, accelerated by our destruction of the environment sourced at the
point of interaction (the location of extraction) between the dominant
institutions of our world and the natural world itself. Roughly half the world’s
population lives in extreme poverty, with billions living in hunger, with poor
access to safe drinking water, medicine and shelter, monumental disparities in
wealth and inequality, the production and maintenance of unprecedented weapons
of death and destruction, we are witnessing an exponentially accelerating
plundering of resources and destruction of the environment upon which all life
on Earth depends. If there has ever been a time in human history to begin asking
big questions about the nature of our society and the legitimacy of the
institutions and ideologies which dominate it, this is
it.
An anarchistic understanding
of the institutions and ideologies which control the world order reveals a
society blinded by apathy as it nears extinction. The institutions which dictate
the political, economic and social direction of our world are the very same ones
destroying the environment to such an extent that the fate of the species is put
at extreme risk. To not only continue – but to accelerate – down this path is no
longer an acceptable course of action for humanity. It is time that socially
segregated populations begin reaching out and working together, to share
knowledge, organizational capacity, and engage in mutual action for shared
objectives. With that in mind, it would appear to be beneficial not only for
those involved – but for humanity as a whole – if Indigenous peoples and
segments of the scientific community pursued the objective of protecting the
environment together. Acknowledging this is easy enough, the hard part is
figuring out the means and methods of turning that acknowledgement into
action.
This is again where anarchist
principles can become useful, emphasizing the creative capacity of many to
contribute new ideas and undertake new initiatives working together as free
individuals in collective organizations to achieve shared objectives. This is
not an easy task, but it is a necessary one. The very future of humanity may
depend upon it.
For notes and
sources, download the paper here.
Andrew Gavin Marshall is a
26-year old researcher and writer based in Montreal, Canada. He is Project
Manager of The People’s Book Project, chair of the Geopolitics Division of The
Hampton Institute, research director for Occupy.com‘s Global Power Pro-ject, and
hosts a weekly podcast show with BoilingFrogsPost. http://andrewgavinmarshall.com
No comments:
Post a Comment