What choices do we have—when a corporation wants to do business? by Katie Singer

Nearly every day, I hear about another corporation’s proposal to build a new mine, a new large-scale solar facility, a new wind facility, a new battery storage system, a new data storage system, a new generation of wireless access networks, new transmission lines, a new smart metering system or new electric vehicle charging stations—in order to transition to a greener future.

            During their manufacture and operation, each of these technologies ravage ecosystems and engage the global super factory. Their fossil fuels, extracted ores, smelters and refineries, extraordinary water consumption, toxic waste, radiation emissions and international shipping are mostly invisible. At end-of-life, they do not biodegrade. Most people don’t know about our devices and infrastructure’s cradle-to-grave impacts—whether marketers call it “green” or not.

            Our society prioritizes technology and capitalism. Corporate proposals for new projects create divisions between people who aim to protect the Earth from techno-industrial damage and people who simply aim to survive.

            I wonder what options any of us have.

            Decades ago, the late ecological economist Herman Daly advised, “Don’t take from the Earth faster than it can replenish; and don’t waste faster than it can absorb.” 

Challenges to First Nations

I keep hearing that First Nations are under siege from corporations offering millions of dollars if the tribe does not oppose mining, wind or solar projects. Learning about the tribe’s rights in these cases is not easy. It’s challenging to find and fund staff who can properly handle the paperwork. People are often unaware of mining, wind and solar projects’ far-reaching damages (toxic runoff, extraordinary water use, hazardous waste, wildlife habitat loss, destruction of cultural sites, sexual abuse of Native women by workers, etc.) until after these damages occur.

In a rare case, a judge recently ordered Italy’s Enel Corporation to remove 84 wind turbines from Osage Nation land. The 10^th Circuit ordered Enel to remove the turbines when it determined that excavation involved in constructing the turbines constituted mining. The wind project therefore required a federally-approved mining lease, which Enel failed to obtain.

            Environmental lawyer Will Falk (who explained in my January 25^th Substack how mining and other corporations can ‘take’ endangered species legally) told me, “The Osage Nation case illuminates common First Nations issues. While many tribes struggle for basic necessities like electricity, plumbing, and keeping schools and clinics funded, casinos, leasing mineral rights, or leasing land for solar PV or wind facilities can provide substantial income. First Nations might well perceive that they must choose between their economic survival and permitting a corporation to ravage their homeland. Permitting projects—and taking money from corporations—often appears as the path of least resistance.

            “Enel Corporation lost its case with Osage Nation when it gambled that its project’s excavation requirements (crushing rocks) would not meet the pertinent definition of ‘mining.’ The federal government designated Osage Mineral Council (OMC) authority to exercise ‘tribal sovereignty’ over Osage Nation’s mineral rights. The 10th Circuit judge explained that, ‘In [the original, 2017 case], OMC did not claim that (Enel’s) excavation of solid mineral resources required a federally approved lease under 25 C.F.R § 214.7. Instead, OMC alleged that the planned wind farm would unlawfully deprive OMC's oil-and-gas lessees of reasonable use of the surface estate.’ 

            “Here,” Will continued, “the judge recognizes that over the last century, Osage Nation has earned hundreds of millions of dollars from leasing mineral rights to oil companies. The judge’s comment suggests that Osage Nation opposes Enel’s wind facility because the project prevents oil companies from accessing oil.

            “The case illuminates so many layers of complexity. First, since it depends on the federal government’s discretion for its exercise, tribal sovereignty doesn't actually exist. 2) Tribal sovereignty might be a euphemism for allowing tribes to lease land for economic benefit. 3) If we didn’t use fossil fuels, most people would starve now.”

Options for protecting the Earth

What options does anyone have for protecting the Earth—while surviving economically? People who say, “Keep fossil fuels in the ground” (to limit ecological damage) may not understand how much fossil fuels and mining go into manufacturing and operating computers, vehicles, solar PV hardware, industrial wind turbines, batteries and much of our food.

Organizations like the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance advocate for engaging Indigenous groups before exploration of mining sites begins—which mining corporations have rarely done. Many Indigenous groups support “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” before mining—a right articulated by the United Nations. Galina Angarova, head of Securing Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Green Economy, now works to get car companies like Tesla to respect Indigenous Peoples’ rights.

            Individual households also must contend with increasing pressure to adopt more, new technologies.

To protect the Earth and live sustainably, could we adopt audacious goals…neighborhood by neighborhood? Would every school prohibit cell phones and have students grow 50% of their food? Would one billion volunteers agree to having only one child? Could we phase out individually-owned computers and support libraries with computer access? Would we agree to phase out individually-owned vehicles, redesign communities to make them walkable and support public transportation? Would telecom providers agree to work only with existing data centers and access networks? Would every household reduce its consumption by three percent per month for three years?

What audacious goals can you name to decrease our species’ harmful ecological impacts?

OTHER NEWS

AT&T has requested that the California PUC allow it to discontinue landline phone service. Such a move would especially impact people with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and anyone with only dial-up internet access. Many rural California areas have limited or no mobile reception. Many people stay connected and emergency-ready by landlines. To preserve wired landline/legacy copper service in California, act BEFORE March 19, when the CPUC will make a decision about AT&T's request:
* Submit a comment to the docket. Go to: https://apps.cpuc.ca.gov/apex/f?p=401:56:0::NO:RP,57,RIR:P5_PROCEEDING_SELECT:A2303003 and click on Add Public Comment.
* Contact (weekly or as often as you'd like) the Public Advisor's Office: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/pao/ Email: public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov
Call: 866-849-8390 or 415-703-2074; TTY 866-836-7825
Write: CPUC Public Advisor’s Office, 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102
* Email Commissioner Reynolds (assigned to the case). Remind him briefly and courteously about how essential landline service is to you (and/or a family member, friend): john.reynolds@cpuc.ca.gov

* Sign a petition:

https://www.change.org/p/save-landline-service-in-california

or

https://www.change.org/p/save-landline-service-in-california?redirect=false

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has classified social media as “a public health hazard” and “an environmental toxin.” (Wow!) The mayor claims that TikTok, YouTube and Facebook are “fueling a mental health crisis by designing their platforms with addictive and dangerous features.”

U.S. brain tumor rates are rising (likely because of chronic mobile phone use). Meanwhile, the National Institutes of Health has halted its study of cell phone radiation harms; and no additional RFR research is planned. Read Dr. Devra Davis’ brilliant piece, “Why did NIH abruptly halt research on the harms of cell phone radiation?”