"Hi there Danny,
First of all, thank you for adding me to your Faceboook page on climate, it's good to have someone I
can have an important, and realistic discussion about Climate change
with. I have many questions, and many things I want to discuss.
Like
you, I have a quite pessimistic view about where the world is heading
in the next few decades, which is reinforced by the speed at which
global warming is happening.
For few years, this made me quite
depressed, because it made me realize how I would have to give up some
my lifetime goals and dreams to deal with the realities of climate
change, as well as have to start my adult life at a time when
catastrophic global events will likely unfold.
I always wanted to
direct superhero movies in a big budget studio, but that dream seems
quite unrealistic now. Starting a family is gonna be out of the
question by the time I'm 35, because there is no way I would put a
child in a world which entire continents become deserts, and billions
of people scramble for arable land.
Sorry for all the depressiveness right off the bat, but that aside,
I'm glad to be able engage in a healthy discussion with you about the
reality of the biggest issue in the world. I would love to also hear
your story about polar cities as well, and hear your perspective on things.
There's alot of things I would like to discuss such as: how you think
the climate might shift in the near future, the role of renewable
energy in climate change migitation, the prospect of geoengineering,
and the long term prospect of polar cities.
I would love to discuss them with you soon."
Signed,
A college student
Friday, December 4, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Toward North Corps: Nurturing the Spirit of Inuit Independence while Pre-empting a Movement for Inuit Secession -- by Barry Zellen
Toward North Corps: Nurturing the Spirit of Inuit Independence while Pre-empting a Movement for Inuit Secession
It's time for a circumpolar North Corps program, modeled on the Peace Corps, to help the Arctic to achieve its full potential
says Barry S. Zellen
Securing the Northern Front
In the years since the nail-biter of a referendum on Québec separation from the rest of Canada held in 1995, Québec and Anglo-Canada have worked hard to patch up their differences, and on November 22, 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper preempted a renewed effort by Québec separatists to assert their enduring nationhood in yet another referendum that would unravel the Canadian confederation, and "surprised the House of Commons . . . by announcing his party wants to recognize Québec as nation within a united Canada," as recalled by CanWest News' Carly Weeks. (See: "Harper Wants to Recognize Québec as Nation within a United Canada," CanWest News Service, November 22, 2006.)
For the moment, the issue of Québec's distinctiveness, and its yearning for independence, seems to have been alleviated, but the perennial nature of this issue, across so many generations, suggests it will inevitably resurface again, and when it does, the role of the Arctic as a potential strategic counter-balance to an independent Québec will have to be assessed, as will its role as part of what Ken Coates et al. have recently described as the re-emerging "Arctic front" as the world community races to exploit the strategic and economic opportunities of a polar thaw. (Ken S. Coates, P. Whitney Lackenbauer, William R. Morrison, and Greg Poelzer, Arctic Front: Defending Canada in the Far North. Toronto: Thomas Allen, 2008.)
In anticipation of a future secessionist threat from Québec or an external challenge to Canada's Arctic sovereignty, a tighter integration of the Inuit homeland with the rest of Anglo-Canada would go far to enhance the bond that unites Canada, north and south, fostering greater loyalty to Canada among the people of the Arctic. This can be achieved by a closer collaboration between Ottawa and Nunavut in their land claims implementation and co-management efforts, and through continued recruitment, training, and deployment of Canadian Rangers that patrol the Arctic coast, engage in surveillance, and assist in search and rescue in partnership with the crown.
But just as the aspiration of Québec to become independent will likely never entirely be extinguished, it is possible that a genuine desire by the Inuit for independence might also emerge. In Greenland, which is one of the world's largest, remotest, and poorest islands, and which within the context of long-term global warming shows many potential attributes of sovereign independence—with its own language, a distinct culture, vast offshore and potential onshore resources—the case for independence, and to end its colonial dependency on Denmark, is indeed compelling.
Between Inuit Dependency and Independence
For the Inuit of North America, who inhabit the coastal strip along the continent's northern shore as well as the islands further north, the issue is more complicated—owing to their habitation of the North American mainland where the United States and Canada have asserted formal sovereignty, and to the resolved nature of their land claims, through which the Inuit and the national governments have mutually recognized one another, and agreed to subordinate tribal sovereignty to that of the state with whom they have partnered through a lengthy series of negotiations and the formal implementation of their final accords, which include "cede and surrender" clauses legally extinguishing Aboriginal title to their homelands.
But just because the Inuit have entered into these binding, constitutional arrangements does not mean that they will always accept their legitimacy, particularly in light of the passionate reaction against the extinguishment clause, and what has been perceived by many Natives land claims "beneficiaries" to be a less than candid, or at least less than clear, explanation by their leadership of the full extent and implications of their surrender of Aboriginal rights and title. In the effort to sell the land claims as negotiated to the beneficiaries who must ratify the accords, Aboriginal leaders have tended to understate the risks inherent in the surrender and to emphasize the benefits.
As time passes, and in particular as the climate warms and the Arctic basin opens up to all manner of new external influences, challenges, and opportunities, the yearnings for more formal Inuit independence could begin to be felt here in North America. Especially if the bold and ambitious Nunavut experiment continues to disappoint the Inuit, and if the Inuit continue to perceive indifference and at times bad faith from Ottawa when it comes to implementation of their land claim accord.
As recalled by Andrea Mandel-Campbell in her January 2005 Walrus magazine article, "Who Controls Canada's Arctic?" during the middle of the twentieth century, "Ottawa largely neglected the region's sparse aboriginal population, which suffered from rampant tuberculosis, lack of housing, and even starvation. The dire situation facing the Inuit forced St. Laurent to admit at the time that Ottawa had ‘administered these vast territories of the north in an almost continuing state of absence of mind.'" (See: Andrea Mandel-Campbell, "Who Controls Canada's Arctic?" The Walrus, January 2005.) After Prime Minister John Diefenbaker launched "what became known as a golden age in Arctic science and research during the 1960s and 1970s," she adds that a general decline set in and since the 1980s, "Canada's underfunded programs in Arctic research have lagged behind most other northern nations." (Mandel-Campbell, "Who Controls Canada's Arctic?") Part of the problem, Mandel-Campbell writes, is that while Canada is an Arctic state, "most Canadians do live within one hundred miles of the border, and are more obsessed with U.S. trade and culture than a dwindling scientific and military presence in the North," and as a consequence, "the Arctic remains an imagined place far from their daily realities." (Mandel-Campbell, "Who Controls Canada's Arctic?")
The continuing perception of neglect—when combined with the historical grievance from broken promises, mistreatment, and cultural insensitivity during the 1950s relocation of the "High Arctic Exile" families, and further compounded by the despair experienced in the communities where shockingly high youth suicide rates remain a deep social wound—could become politically potent, and boil over to rage, and that rage, if no longer directed inward but instead becomes directed outward, toward the government and its continuing neglect, could result in a bona fide independence movement.
This is partly why Ottawa is now so intent on jump-starting the economic development of Nunavut, having lately recognized the strategic risk of continued northern underdevelopment and committing last spring to the establishment of the Northern Economic Development Agency based in Iqaluit, reiterated in its newly repackaged Northern Strategy unveiled this past summer.
Aspirations for Arctic Sovereignty
But the seeds of an Inuit independence movement are already planted, as reflected in the past spring's Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Arctic Sovereignty, which stopped short of declaring independence but established a compelling legal, historical, and political context for such a declaration to later emerge—should the modern state fail to assert Arctic sovereignty in a manner that is respectful of Inuit values and inclusive of Inuit participation. When communism collapsed in Europe, many sovereign political entities that did not adequately or justly address the aspirations of their underlying nations, tribes, or social groups—which had until then been content with increased autonomy within the modern state—quickly broke apart, fracturing into their constituent parts as they found sovereign expression in a smaller form. Many long-standing, internationally recognized constitutional frameworks and formal sovereign structures of governance evaporated between 1989 and 1991—as if works of fiction.
Should Nunavut fail, and other Inuit regions—whether governed by municipal, territorial, or tribal systems of governance—continue to stagnate and to endure the festering persistence of despair, their failure could turn Canada's bold experiment in Aboriginal self-governance into a catalyst of a secession struggle, much as the original structures of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act—in particular the twenty-year window when exclusive Native title to lands and shareholder equity was at risk, and newborns were excluded from the claim—left many Alaska Natives with the perception that their land claim was designed either to fail, or worse, to eradicate Native culture, as chronicled by Thomas Berger in Village Journey.
This fueled a Native sovereignty movement that swept like a prairie fire across village Alaska during the 1980s, culminating in an Inupiat secession threat in 1992, Alaska's very own Balkanization crisis. So far, however, Inuit aspirations for independence have been largely episodic, ebbing and flowing without a sustained build-up of momentum, enabling decisive government action to preempt a formal independence movement—thus far at least. And with the exception of Greenland, there is currently no active movement to form an independent Inuit nation, at least none that commands a significant political following. But that does not mean this always will be the case. In Canada, as in Alaska, movements for secession have been thus far contained within the broader sovereign and constitutional framework of their countries. In Alaska, when Balkanization appeared to be a clear and present danger to the unity of the state, the Inupiat leadership called for a fifty-first state, but not their own country.
And in Canada, during the formation of Nunavut, the Inuit seceded from the Northwest Territories to form their very own territory, while remaining a part of Canada—indeed helping Canada to more credibly assert sovereignty in the Arctic in the process. And with the formation of the North Slope Borough in Alaska, the Inupiat remained part of both the United States, and part of Alaska, with their own municipal authority but without their own state-level government.
Until now, the Greenlandic Inuit have remained part of Denmark, albeit with their own autonomous Home Rule government, with substantial authority on domestic issues and an increasing say in diplomatic and strategic affairs—with an eye to eventually gaining formal independence once they achieve economic self-sufficiency, made by possible in large measure by the effects of global warming, as evident in their decisive "Yes" vote in the November 26, 2008, non-binding referendum on Greenlandic independence.
But it remains to be seen if the Inuit aspiration for sovereignty and that of the modern state can remain integrated in a mutually reinforcing and balanced fashion, especially if the Arctic demographic balance begins to shift as greatly and as rapidly as seen in the Yukon during the Klondike Gold Rush, or like Alaska experienced during World War II and in the years preceding statehood, when a non-Native influx forever altered the political balance in favor of non-Native interests—or even more recently, as seen in Yellowknife during the Diamond Rush of the 1990s, with its indigenous Native majority becoming a minority in less than a single decade, making an indigenous assertion of sovereignty that much harder to implement.
Even along the Arctic coast, where the Inuit maintain their demographic predominance, the larger administrative centers such as Barrow, Inuvik, Iqaluit, and Nuuk have seen a dramatic influx of non-Inuit, helping to fulfill the need for skilled workers to staff the positions in the new governments and land claims corporations—as what Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard recently described as the "Aboriginal Industry" sets up shop, purportedly to help Natives achieve self-government, but then becomes a permanent drain on the Arctic economy, siphoning off resources meant for the Inuit and desperately needed in the villages into the coffers of consultancies and the pockets of high-paid, non-Native professionals that ultimately contribute to a continued economic stagnation that persists at the village level, where jobs remain scarce, and opportunities continue to elude local residents who long to participate as equals in the new, northern economy. (See Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard, Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry: The Deception Behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation: How Aboriginal Deprivation Is Maintained by a Self-serving "Industry" of Lawyers and Consultants. Toronto: McGill-Queens University Press, 2008.)
New Thinking Required
Even a decade after Nunavut was formed, a crisis persists, with hope in retreat and despair on the rise—requiring the attention of the highest levels of the Government of Canada, and the return of the famed retired B.C. Supreme Court Justice, Thomas Berger, to facilitate a solution. At a constitutional conference in Yellowknife in 1995, one Dene chief noted in his remarks to the delegates that behind every chief, behind every tribal leader, stood a non-Native consultant. He meant no harm, and his observation was greeted with chuckles from the crowd, which was largely a mix of Native leaders and non-Native consultants. Fifteen years later, this situation remains largely unchanged—though a much-needed public discussion has at last begun, as awareness of the depths of this problem leapt into Canada's national consciousness last year with the publication of Widdowson's and Howard's Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry.
This controversial work was selected as one of five books in Canada as a finalist for the prestigious 2009 Donner Prize, though it was not the eventual winner. Nonetheless, their work has transformed the debate in Canada on how best to address the issue of indigenous sovereignty, and shined a much-needed light on the problem of the inherent corrupting influence of what they effectively dub the "Aboriginal industry." In a review of their book in the National Post, Kevin Libin wrote that the authors "identify the main culprits as the primarily non-native agents such as lawyers, consultants and anthropologists who thrive on our segregated policy approach to First Nations people. The tens of billions of dollars a year channeled to reserves and Canada's North from governments and industrialists, they argue, attracts mercenaries in swarms, manipulating Natives to inflate land claim grievances, demand industry payoffs and pressure politicians for more funding with few strings attached. . . . ‘When you break down the romantic mythology, you find yourself immediately being accused of being anti-native people. But this whole thing came out of the fact that we looked at this and we said Native people are getting screwed over here,' Mr. Howard says." (Kevin Libin, "Leftist Couple's Stance on Aboriginals Leaves Them in the Cold," National Post, October 31, 2008.)
Ironically, the movement for greater Inuit self-governance has unwittingly contributed to the declining demographic prominence of the Inuit in their own homeland, as a new class of government administrators migrate north to fill the many positions left vacant owing to the continued lack of fully credentialed locals with the required degrees and accreditations. It could be a generation before this situation changes if the current model is not replaced by a new model, one more innovative and outside the box. Rather than revolutionize all the new job descriptions to reflect the cultural, political, and educational realities of the Arctic, and commit to a massive on-the-job training program on the scale of the U.S. Peace Corps—a veritable Marshall Plan of northern development to enable the creation of a truly Inuit government—Nunavut has instead become as dependent upon non-indigenous experts as the old territorial government the Inuit worked so hard to separate from. Thomas Berger has proposed a recommitment to the preservation of Inuit language and culture as the backbone of the new government, but his program requires a substantial commitment of new educational funds to be viable. In the meantime, Nunavut continues to be pulled in two directions, as the dueling assertions of state and Inuit sovereignty continue to collide.
Berger delivered the seventeenth annual John Holmes Memorial Lecture at the Glendon Campus of York University in Toronto on March 31, 2009, on the topic of "From the Mackenzie Valley to Nunavut: Northern Challenges," in which he noted "30,000 people live in Nunavut on a land the size of India," and "while 85 percent of its population is Inuit, only about 50 percent of government employees come from that background, doing mostly lesser-paying jobs. The problem lies in education, because there are not enough qualified Inuit to fill the jobs requiring higher skills." (Marika Kemeny, "Thomas Berger Discusses Northern Challenges at Glendon's Annual John Holmes Lecture," Glendon News, April 3, 2009, http://monglendon.yorku.ca/monglendon.nsf/.) Berger reaffirmed his belief that "Canada has an obligation to help the Inuit improve their situation and take their place in running their own affairs," adding that "societies find strength in diversity," and concluding that "we have an obligation to keep our promise to help them succeed." (Kemeny, "Thomas Berger Discusses Northern Challenges.")
But add to this the new uncertainties and challenges of climate change, which could usher forth a new wave of migration of non-Inuit into the Arctic, and the situation promises to become even more complex—and finding a balance that reconciles the interests and sovereign aspirations of the Inuit and the modern state will become even harder to strike. Mandel-Campbell considers a solution proffered by Canadian Arctic sovereignty expert, and author of Politics of the Northwest Passage, Franklyn Griffiths, to overcome what he calls Canada's "two-faced approach to sovereignty." (Mandel-Campbell, "Who Controls Canada's Arctic?") As she describes it, Griffiths "advocates the establishment of a consultative committee for the archipelago similar in design to the Arctic Council, a Canadian-inspired international body, which brings together the world's eight circumpolar countries and aboriginal groups. The committee would serve as a forum for government departments to consult with the Inuit on such issues as shipping and seabed mapping. ‘We should be taking the lead from the Inuit,' says Griffiths." (Mandel-Campbell, "Who Controls Canada's Arctic?")
Such an approach is precisely what the Inuit have called for in their Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Arctic Sovereignty at Tromsø, Norway, on April 28, 2009—where they reaffirmed their desire to achieve a synthesis of these two competing perspectives on sovereignty, and thereby find a balance in the sovereign aspirations of the Inuit and the modern state throughout the Arctic. Section 4.3 of the declaration observes, "Issues of sovereignty and sovereign rights in the Arctic have become inextricably linked to issues of self-determination in the Arctic. Inuit and Arctic states must, therefore, work together closely and constructively to chart the future of the Arctic." (Inuit Circumpolar Council, "Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Sovereignty in the Arctic," Section 4.3, April 28, 2009.) As ICC chair Patricia Cochran explained, "We have lived here for thousands and thousands of years and by making this declaration, we are saying to those who want to use Inuit Nunaat for their own purposes, you must talk to us and respect our rights." (Inuit Circumpolar Council Press Release, "Circumpolar Inuit Launch Declaration on Arctic Sovereignty," Tromsø, Norway, April 28, 2009.) ICC vice-chair Duane Smith added that the declaration's provisions "make it clear that it is in the interests of states, industry, and others to include us partners in the new Arctic, and to respect our land claims and self-government agreements." (Inuit Circumpolar Council Press Release, "Circumpolar Inuit Launch Declaration on Arctic Sovereignty.")
Beyond the Nunavut Project: Time for North Corps
To help align the interests of the Inuit and the modern states with whom their destinies are intertwined, and to ensure that the opportunities and not just the challenges of Arctic sovereignty are maximized, a program even more ambitious than that called for by Thomas Berger with his proposed Nunavut Project is required, and on a grander scale than that called for by Griffiths for Canada's Arctic archipelago. Think "Marshall Plan" in scale and "Peace Corps" in institutional endurance. In short, what is needed is the formation of circumpolar North Corps, a global program to catalyze the full economic and social development of the Arctic, and help unite the two solitudes of north and south in a manner that is both enduring and uplifting.
North Corps would require the investment and commitment of all the Arctic states, and like the Peace Corps would rely on the voluntarism of our best and brightest students, our mid-career professionals, even our active retirees, who would venture north for a year or two, and whose knowledge and skills will help stimulate a wave of growth and development much as we have seen in the "Far South" ever since President Kennedy proudly unveiled this innovative army of educators in 1961. Like the Peace Corps, North Corps would not need expensive salaries and benefits packages as demanded by the growing civil services of the northern territories, whose unions are adept at padding wage and benefits packages, straining the capacity of northern governments to remain self-governing.
North Corps would not rely on antiquated job descriptions from the failed bureaucracies of yesterday, but instead would infuse the North with new talent, new skills, new insights, a spirit of innovation, not bureaucratization. It would preempt the pernicious malignancy of the morally bankrupt and self-aggrandizing Aboriginal Industry and instead foster a spirit of true self-reliance, and dare say even a spirit of independence.
But this independent spirit would be one that could and would readily co-exist with the generosity of the Arctic nations whose youth donated their time and freely shared their skills to help the North achieve its full potential, thereby strengthening the bond that unites north and south. With the formation of the North Corps program, we will be able to shatter the constraints of the old mold, and help transform the North, harnessing the spirit of independence while healing the very sources of despair.
In this way, the spirit of Inuit independence can be rekindled, but without the risks or dangers of a true movement for secession – making Canada that much stronger along the way.
Barry Zellen is author of Arctic Doom, Arctic Boom: The Geopolitics of Climate Change in the Arctic (Praeger Books, October, 2009) and On Thin Ice: The Inuit, the State, and the Challenge of Arctic Sovereignty (Lexington Books, November 2009).
It's time for a circumpolar North Corps program, modeled on the Peace Corps, to help the Arctic to achieve its full potential
says Barry S. Zellen
Securing the Northern Front
In the years since the nail-biter of a referendum on Québec separation from the rest of Canada held in 1995, Québec and Anglo-Canada have worked hard to patch up their differences, and on November 22, 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper preempted a renewed effort by Québec separatists to assert their enduring nationhood in yet another referendum that would unravel the Canadian confederation, and "surprised the House of Commons . . . by announcing his party wants to recognize Québec as nation within a united Canada," as recalled by CanWest News' Carly Weeks. (See: "Harper Wants to Recognize Québec as Nation within a United Canada," CanWest News Service, November 22, 2006.)
For the moment, the issue of Québec's distinctiveness, and its yearning for independence, seems to have been alleviated, but the perennial nature of this issue, across so many generations, suggests it will inevitably resurface again, and when it does, the role of the Arctic as a potential strategic counter-balance to an independent Québec will have to be assessed, as will its role as part of what Ken Coates et al. have recently described as the re-emerging "Arctic front" as the world community races to exploit the strategic and economic opportunities of a polar thaw. (Ken S. Coates, P. Whitney Lackenbauer, William R. Morrison, and Greg Poelzer, Arctic Front: Defending Canada in the Far North. Toronto: Thomas Allen, 2008.)
In anticipation of a future secessionist threat from Québec or an external challenge to Canada's Arctic sovereignty, a tighter integration of the Inuit homeland with the rest of Anglo-Canada would go far to enhance the bond that unites Canada, north and south, fostering greater loyalty to Canada among the people of the Arctic. This can be achieved by a closer collaboration between Ottawa and Nunavut in their land claims implementation and co-management efforts, and through continued recruitment, training, and deployment of Canadian Rangers that patrol the Arctic coast, engage in surveillance, and assist in search and rescue in partnership with the crown.
But just as the aspiration of Québec to become independent will likely never entirely be extinguished, it is possible that a genuine desire by the Inuit for independence might also emerge. In Greenland, which is one of the world's largest, remotest, and poorest islands, and which within the context of long-term global warming shows many potential attributes of sovereign independence—with its own language, a distinct culture, vast offshore and potential onshore resources—the case for independence, and to end its colonial dependency on Denmark, is indeed compelling.
Between Inuit Dependency and Independence
For the Inuit of North America, who inhabit the coastal strip along the continent's northern shore as well as the islands further north, the issue is more complicated—owing to their habitation of the North American mainland where the United States and Canada have asserted formal sovereignty, and to the resolved nature of their land claims, through which the Inuit and the national governments have mutually recognized one another, and agreed to subordinate tribal sovereignty to that of the state with whom they have partnered through a lengthy series of negotiations and the formal implementation of their final accords, which include "cede and surrender" clauses legally extinguishing Aboriginal title to their homelands.
But just because the Inuit have entered into these binding, constitutional arrangements does not mean that they will always accept their legitimacy, particularly in light of the passionate reaction against the extinguishment clause, and what has been perceived by many Natives land claims "beneficiaries" to be a less than candid, or at least less than clear, explanation by their leadership of the full extent and implications of their surrender of Aboriginal rights and title. In the effort to sell the land claims as negotiated to the beneficiaries who must ratify the accords, Aboriginal leaders have tended to understate the risks inherent in the surrender and to emphasize the benefits.
As time passes, and in particular as the climate warms and the Arctic basin opens up to all manner of new external influences, challenges, and opportunities, the yearnings for more formal Inuit independence could begin to be felt here in North America. Especially if the bold and ambitious Nunavut experiment continues to disappoint the Inuit, and if the Inuit continue to perceive indifference and at times bad faith from Ottawa when it comes to implementation of their land claim accord.
As recalled by Andrea Mandel-Campbell in her January 2005 Walrus magazine article, "Who Controls Canada's Arctic?" during the middle of the twentieth century, "Ottawa largely neglected the region's sparse aboriginal population, which suffered from rampant tuberculosis, lack of housing, and even starvation. The dire situation facing the Inuit forced St. Laurent to admit at the time that Ottawa had ‘administered these vast territories of the north in an almost continuing state of absence of mind.'" (See: Andrea Mandel-Campbell, "Who Controls Canada's Arctic?" The Walrus, January 2005.) After Prime Minister John Diefenbaker launched "what became known as a golden age in Arctic science and research during the 1960s and 1970s," she adds that a general decline set in and since the 1980s, "Canada's underfunded programs in Arctic research have lagged behind most other northern nations." (Mandel-Campbell, "Who Controls Canada's Arctic?") Part of the problem, Mandel-Campbell writes, is that while Canada is an Arctic state, "most Canadians do live within one hundred miles of the border, and are more obsessed with U.S. trade and culture than a dwindling scientific and military presence in the North," and as a consequence, "the Arctic remains an imagined place far from their daily realities." (Mandel-Campbell, "Who Controls Canada's Arctic?")
The continuing perception of neglect—when combined with the historical grievance from broken promises, mistreatment, and cultural insensitivity during the 1950s relocation of the "High Arctic Exile" families, and further compounded by the despair experienced in the communities where shockingly high youth suicide rates remain a deep social wound—could become politically potent, and boil over to rage, and that rage, if no longer directed inward but instead becomes directed outward, toward the government and its continuing neglect, could result in a bona fide independence movement.
This is partly why Ottawa is now so intent on jump-starting the economic development of Nunavut, having lately recognized the strategic risk of continued northern underdevelopment and committing last spring to the establishment of the Northern Economic Development Agency based in Iqaluit, reiterated in its newly repackaged Northern Strategy unveiled this past summer.
Aspirations for Arctic Sovereignty
But the seeds of an Inuit independence movement are already planted, as reflected in the past spring's Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Arctic Sovereignty, which stopped short of declaring independence but established a compelling legal, historical, and political context for such a declaration to later emerge—should the modern state fail to assert Arctic sovereignty in a manner that is respectful of Inuit values and inclusive of Inuit participation. When communism collapsed in Europe, many sovereign political entities that did not adequately or justly address the aspirations of their underlying nations, tribes, or social groups—which had until then been content with increased autonomy within the modern state—quickly broke apart, fracturing into their constituent parts as they found sovereign expression in a smaller form. Many long-standing, internationally recognized constitutional frameworks and formal sovereign structures of governance evaporated between 1989 and 1991—as if works of fiction.
Should Nunavut fail, and other Inuit regions—whether governed by municipal, territorial, or tribal systems of governance—continue to stagnate and to endure the festering persistence of despair, their failure could turn Canada's bold experiment in Aboriginal self-governance into a catalyst of a secession struggle, much as the original structures of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act—in particular the twenty-year window when exclusive Native title to lands and shareholder equity was at risk, and newborns were excluded from the claim—left many Alaska Natives with the perception that their land claim was designed either to fail, or worse, to eradicate Native culture, as chronicled by Thomas Berger in Village Journey.
This fueled a Native sovereignty movement that swept like a prairie fire across village Alaska during the 1980s, culminating in an Inupiat secession threat in 1992, Alaska's very own Balkanization crisis. So far, however, Inuit aspirations for independence have been largely episodic, ebbing and flowing without a sustained build-up of momentum, enabling decisive government action to preempt a formal independence movement—thus far at least. And with the exception of Greenland, there is currently no active movement to form an independent Inuit nation, at least none that commands a significant political following. But that does not mean this always will be the case. In Canada, as in Alaska, movements for secession have been thus far contained within the broader sovereign and constitutional framework of their countries. In Alaska, when Balkanization appeared to be a clear and present danger to the unity of the state, the Inupiat leadership called for a fifty-first state, but not their own country.
And in Canada, during the formation of Nunavut, the Inuit seceded from the Northwest Territories to form their very own territory, while remaining a part of Canada—indeed helping Canada to more credibly assert sovereignty in the Arctic in the process. And with the formation of the North Slope Borough in Alaska, the Inupiat remained part of both the United States, and part of Alaska, with their own municipal authority but without their own state-level government.
Until now, the Greenlandic Inuit have remained part of Denmark, albeit with their own autonomous Home Rule government, with substantial authority on domestic issues and an increasing say in diplomatic and strategic affairs—with an eye to eventually gaining formal independence once they achieve economic self-sufficiency, made by possible in large measure by the effects of global warming, as evident in their decisive "Yes" vote in the November 26, 2008, non-binding referendum on Greenlandic independence.
But it remains to be seen if the Inuit aspiration for sovereignty and that of the modern state can remain integrated in a mutually reinforcing and balanced fashion, especially if the Arctic demographic balance begins to shift as greatly and as rapidly as seen in the Yukon during the Klondike Gold Rush, or like Alaska experienced during World War II and in the years preceding statehood, when a non-Native influx forever altered the political balance in favor of non-Native interests—or even more recently, as seen in Yellowknife during the Diamond Rush of the 1990s, with its indigenous Native majority becoming a minority in less than a single decade, making an indigenous assertion of sovereignty that much harder to implement.
Even along the Arctic coast, where the Inuit maintain their demographic predominance, the larger administrative centers such as Barrow, Inuvik, Iqaluit, and Nuuk have seen a dramatic influx of non-Inuit, helping to fulfill the need for skilled workers to staff the positions in the new governments and land claims corporations—as what Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard recently described as the "Aboriginal Industry" sets up shop, purportedly to help Natives achieve self-government, but then becomes a permanent drain on the Arctic economy, siphoning off resources meant for the Inuit and desperately needed in the villages into the coffers of consultancies and the pockets of high-paid, non-Native professionals that ultimately contribute to a continued economic stagnation that persists at the village level, where jobs remain scarce, and opportunities continue to elude local residents who long to participate as equals in the new, northern economy. (See Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard, Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry: The Deception Behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation: How Aboriginal Deprivation Is Maintained by a Self-serving "Industry" of Lawyers and Consultants. Toronto: McGill-Queens University Press, 2008.)
New Thinking Required
Even a decade after Nunavut was formed, a crisis persists, with hope in retreat and despair on the rise—requiring the attention of the highest levels of the Government of Canada, and the return of the famed retired B.C. Supreme Court Justice, Thomas Berger, to facilitate a solution. At a constitutional conference in Yellowknife in 1995, one Dene chief noted in his remarks to the delegates that behind every chief, behind every tribal leader, stood a non-Native consultant. He meant no harm, and his observation was greeted with chuckles from the crowd, which was largely a mix of Native leaders and non-Native consultants. Fifteen years later, this situation remains largely unchanged—though a much-needed public discussion has at last begun, as awareness of the depths of this problem leapt into Canada's national consciousness last year with the publication of Widdowson's and Howard's Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry.
This controversial work was selected as one of five books in Canada as a finalist for the prestigious 2009 Donner Prize, though it was not the eventual winner. Nonetheless, their work has transformed the debate in Canada on how best to address the issue of indigenous sovereignty, and shined a much-needed light on the problem of the inherent corrupting influence of what they effectively dub the "Aboriginal industry." In a review of their book in the National Post, Kevin Libin wrote that the authors "identify the main culprits as the primarily non-native agents such as lawyers, consultants and anthropologists who thrive on our segregated policy approach to First Nations people. The tens of billions of dollars a year channeled to reserves and Canada's North from governments and industrialists, they argue, attracts mercenaries in swarms, manipulating Natives to inflate land claim grievances, demand industry payoffs and pressure politicians for more funding with few strings attached. . . . ‘When you break down the romantic mythology, you find yourself immediately being accused of being anti-native people. But this whole thing came out of the fact that we looked at this and we said Native people are getting screwed over here,' Mr. Howard says." (Kevin Libin, "Leftist Couple's Stance on Aboriginals Leaves Them in the Cold," National Post, October 31, 2008.)
Ironically, the movement for greater Inuit self-governance has unwittingly contributed to the declining demographic prominence of the Inuit in their own homeland, as a new class of government administrators migrate north to fill the many positions left vacant owing to the continued lack of fully credentialed locals with the required degrees and accreditations. It could be a generation before this situation changes if the current model is not replaced by a new model, one more innovative and outside the box. Rather than revolutionize all the new job descriptions to reflect the cultural, political, and educational realities of the Arctic, and commit to a massive on-the-job training program on the scale of the U.S. Peace Corps—a veritable Marshall Plan of northern development to enable the creation of a truly Inuit government—Nunavut has instead become as dependent upon non-indigenous experts as the old territorial government the Inuit worked so hard to separate from. Thomas Berger has proposed a recommitment to the preservation of Inuit language and culture as the backbone of the new government, but his program requires a substantial commitment of new educational funds to be viable. In the meantime, Nunavut continues to be pulled in two directions, as the dueling assertions of state and Inuit sovereignty continue to collide.
Berger delivered the seventeenth annual John Holmes Memorial Lecture at the Glendon Campus of York University in Toronto on March 31, 2009, on the topic of "From the Mackenzie Valley to Nunavut: Northern Challenges," in which he noted "30,000 people live in Nunavut on a land the size of India," and "while 85 percent of its population is Inuit, only about 50 percent of government employees come from that background, doing mostly lesser-paying jobs. The problem lies in education, because there are not enough qualified Inuit to fill the jobs requiring higher skills." (Marika Kemeny, "Thomas Berger Discusses Northern Challenges at Glendon's Annual John Holmes Lecture," Glendon News, April 3, 2009, http://monglendon.yorku.ca/monglendon.nsf/.) Berger reaffirmed his belief that "Canada has an obligation to help the Inuit improve their situation and take their place in running their own affairs," adding that "societies find strength in diversity," and concluding that "we have an obligation to keep our promise to help them succeed." (Kemeny, "Thomas Berger Discusses Northern Challenges.")
But add to this the new uncertainties and challenges of climate change, which could usher forth a new wave of migration of non-Inuit into the Arctic, and the situation promises to become even more complex—and finding a balance that reconciles the interests and sovereign aspirations of the Inuit and the modern state will become even harder to strike. Mandel-Campbell considers a solution proffered by Canadian Arctic sovereignty expert, and author of Politics of the Northwest Passage, Franklyn Griffiths, to overcome what he calls Canada's "two-faced approach to sovereignty." (Mandel-Campbell, "Who Controls Canada's Arctic?") As she describes it, Griffiths "advocates the establishment of a consultative committee for the archipelago similar in design to the Arctic Council, a Canadian-inspired international body, which brings together the world's eight circumpolar countries and aboriginal groups. The committee would serve as a forum for government departments to consult with the Inuit on such issues as shipping and seabed mapping. ‘We should be taking the lead from the Inuit,' says Griffiths." (Mandel-Campbell, "Who Controls Canada's Arctic?")
Such an approach is precisely what the Inuit have called for in their Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Arctic Sovereignty at Tromsø, Norway, on April 28, 2009—where they reaffirmed their desire to achieve a synthesis of these two competing perspectives on sovereignty, and thereby find a balance in the sovereign aspirations of the Inuit and the modern state throughout the Arctic. Section 4.3 of the declaration observes, "Issues of sovereignty and sovereign rights in the Arctic have become inextricably linked to issues of self-determination in the Arctic. Inuit and Arctic states must, therefore, work together closely and constructively to chart the future of the Arctic." (Inuit Circumpolar Council, "Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Sovereignty in the Arctic," Section 4.3, April 28, 2009.) As ICC chair Patricia Cochran explained, "We have lived here for thousands and thousands of years and by making this declaration, we are saying to those who want to use Inuit Nunaat for their own purposes, you must talk to us and respect our rights." (Inuit Circumpolar Council Press Release, "Circumpolar Inuit Launch Declaration on Arctic Sovereignty," Tromsø, Norway, April 28, 2009.) ICC vice-chair Duane Smith added that the declaration's provisions "make it clear that it is in the interests of states, industry, and others to include us partners in the new Arctic, and to respect our land claims and self-government agreements." (Inuit Circumpolar Council Press Release, "Circumpolar Inuit Launch Declaration on Arctic Sovereignty.")
Beyond the Nunavut Project: Time for North Corps
To help align the interests of the Inuit and the modern states with whom their destinies are intertwined, and to ensure that the opportunities and not just the challenges of Arctic sovereignty are maximized, a program even more ambitious than that called for by Thomas Berger with his proposed Nunavut Project is required, and on a grander scale than that called for by Griffiths for Canada's Arctic archipelago. Think "Marshall Plan" in scale and "Peace Corps" in institutional endurance. In short, what is needed is the formation of circumpolar North Corps, a global program to catalyze the full economic and social development of the Arctic, and help unite the two solitudes of north and south in a manner that is both enduring and uplifting.
North Corps would require the investment and commitment of all the Arctic states, and like the Peace Corps would rely on the voluntarism of our best and brightest students, our mid-career professionals, even our active retirees, who would venture north for a year or two, and whose knowledge and skills will help stimulate a wave of growth and development much as we have seen in the "Far South" ever since President Kennedy proudly unveiled this innovative army of educators in 1961. Like the Peace Corps, North Corps would not need expensive salaries and benefits packages as demanded by the growing civil services of the northern territories, whose unions are adept at padding wage and benefits packages, straining the capacity of northern governments to remain self-governing.
North Corps would not rely on antiquated job descriptions from the failed bureaucracies of yesterday, but instead would infuse the North with new talent, new skills, new insights, a spirit of innovation, not bureaucratization. It would preempt the pernicious malignancy of the morally bankrupt and self-aggrandizing Aboriginal Industry and instead foster a spirit of true self-reliance, and dare say even a spirit of independence.
But this independent spirit would be one that could and would readily co-exist with the generosity of the Arctic nations whose youth donated their time and freely shared their skills to help the North achieve its full potential, thereby strengthening the bond that unites north and south. With the formation of the North Corps program, we will be able to shatter the constraints of the old mold, and help transform the North, harnessing the spirit of independence while healing the very sources of despair.
In this way, the spirit of Inuit independence can be rekindled, but without the risks or dangers of a true movement for secession – making Canada that much stronger along the way.
Barry Zellen is author of Arctic Doom, Arctic Boom: The Geopolitics of Climate Change in the Arctic (Praeger Books, October, 2009) and On Thin Ice: The Inuit, the State, and the Challenge of Arctic Sovereignty (Lexington Books, November 2009).
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
On Thin Ice: The Inuit, the State, and the Challenge of Arctic Sovereignty -- by Barry Zellen
Announcing The Publication of
On Thin Ice: The Inuit, the State, and the Challenge of Arctic Sovereignty
(from Lexington Books, November 28, 2009)
On Thin Ice: The Inuit, the State and the Challenge of Arctic Sovereignty, the sequel to Breaking the Ice: From Land Claims to Tribal Sovereignty in the Arctic, is now available from Lexington Books. This is the third volume in the Arctic Security Project book series.
On Thin Ice explores the relationship between the Inuit and the modern state in the vast but lightly populated North American Arctic. It chronicles the aspiration of the Inuit to participate in the formation and implementation of diplomatic and national security policies across the Arctic region and to contribute toward the post-Cold War re-conceptualization of Arctic security.
With the warming of the polar regions, the Arctic rim states have paid increasing attention to the commercial opportunities, strategic challenges, and environmental risks of Arctic climate change. As the millennial isolation of the region comes to an end, the Inuit who are indigenous to the region are showing tremendous diplomatic and political skills as they continue to directly engage the more populous and powerful nation-states that assert sovereign control over the Arctic, in their ongoing effort to mutually assert joint sovereignty across the region, and to ensure that Inuit values are incorporated into the national and global policy equation.
Published on the 50th anniversary of Kenneth Waltz’s classic work of international relations theory, Man, the State, and War, Zellen’s On Thin Ice is at once a tribute to Waltz’s pivotal elucidation of the three levels of analysis as well as an enhancement of his famous “Three Images” with the addition of a new “Fourth Image” to describe a tribal level of analysis. This model remains salient in not only the Arctic where modern state sovereignty remains limited, but in many other conflict zones the world over where tribal peoples retain many attributes of their indigenous sovereignty.
University of Calgary political scientist Rob Huebert, and long-time Edmonton Journal journalist Ed Struzik, have contributed to On Thin Ice: Professor Huebert has authored a guest foreword to the work, introducing the topic of Arctic sovereignty to the readers and framing the analysis that follows; and Ed Struzik, himself a prolific author on the Arctic and one of the first who predicted the “End of the Arctic” more than a generation ago, has authored the afterword to On Thin Ice, sharing his reflections on Arctic sovereignty, the topic of his next book. Their contributions not only help to frame Zellen’s discussion of Arctic sovereignty and its challenges, but present a snapshot of their own fascinating work in this area.
Table of Contents
· Foreword: Inuit Endurance and the Arctic Transformation, by Prof. Rob Huebert - vi
· Preface: Beyond the Ice Fog - The Ambiguities of Arctic Sovereignty - xi
· 1: Northern Perspectives on Arctic Sovereignty and Security - 1
· 2: Southern Perspectives on Arctic Sovereignty and Security - 63
· 3: Toward a Synthesis of Tribe and State: Foundation of a Stable Arctic - 125
· Afterword: Next Chapter in Arctic History Must Be Co-Authored by Northern Peoples, by Journalist Ed Struzik - 181
· Notes - 185
· Bibliography - 213
· Index - 243
· About the Author - 252
Endorsements
“Barry Zellen’s unique background in Arctic national security and sovereignty issues makes On Thin Ice a stimulating and indispensable read for strategists, policymakers, and students of Arctic political and security studies. His exhaustive analysis of the role that the Inuit people should and will play as the current Arctic security debate unfolds is both unique and timely, offering a practical application of the oft-forgotten tribal level of classic Waltzian analysis.”
—Margaret D. Stock, Associate Professor, US Military Academy & Lieutenant Colonel, US Army Reserve
“Barry Zellen has written an intriguing and challenging book on the place of the Arctic northern peoples that must be read by anyone interested in the new Arctic. It is not necessary to agree with all of Zellen’s arguments to understand that his book is a comprehensive effort to understand the central role that the Inuit must and do play in the developing issues surrounding the transformation of the Arctic. This is a must read for anyone wanting to understand the massive transformation that the Inuit now face in their home.”
—Robert Huebert, Associate Professor, University of Calgary
“Zellen’s timely study of the challenges confronting both the state and indigenous peoples brought about by the profound ecological crisis in the Arctic is a must read for any student of the region. His in-depth, informed discussions of the tension that animates the potentially conflicting goals of the state and the indigenous peoples of the region brings to the fore the crucial need for policies that are sensitive to the concerns of native populations. This path is the only one that offers long-term sustainability. Replete with fascinating examples, and reflecting Zellen’s deep knowledge gleaned from his years of experience working and living in the extreme north, his discussions can easily be extended to the Nordic region where similar conditions, challenges and avenues for positive solutions to vexing social and economic problems obtain.”
—Timothy R. Tangherlini, Professor and Chair, The Scandinavian Section, UCLA
“For those who know a piece of today’s Arctic story, Barry Zellen’s On Thin Ice neatly connects the dots from Alaska to Greenland with a wealth of detail. His research and his experience living in the region come together here to buoy a generation of scholars, scientists, and policy-makers.”
—Mike Peters, (former) editor, First Alaskans Magazine
“Tribal-state relations, border conflicts, militant insurgencies, economic exploitation/dependence, climate change, and oil politics are the stuff of this fascinating book that is not about the Middle East. Barry Zellen has written a dense and meticulously researched book on the trials and tribulations of the indigenous peoples of the Arctic region as they strive for sovereignty, and confront and adapt to modernity, globalization, and a potential polar thaw. He tells a story that has significant relevance to many of the present dilemmas facing the international political economic system. I suspect that it is only a matter of time before this book serves as the important primer and source for policy makers concerned with Arctic policy.”
—Thomas Johnson, Director, Program for Culture and Conflict Studies, Naval Postgraduate School
“Barry Zellen is way ahead of the curve in the field of security studies in focusing on the intersection that state rivalries and environmental issues in the Arctic will have on global security and stability. In On Thin Ice, Barry Zellen highlights the important role the Arctic will play in moderating the historic clash between indigenous tribes and the modern state, re-defining the conception and limits of state sovereignty in frontier regions where tribal forces endure. All serious students of security studies should closely examine this work and ensure it receives the space it deserves on their library shelves and course curricula.”
—James Russell, (former) Director, Center for Contemporary Conflict, Naval Postgraduate School
Barry Zellen is also the author of Arctic Doom, Arctic Boom: The Geopolitics of Climate Change in the Arctic, published by Praeger Books in October 2009.
On Thin Ice: The Inuit, the State, and the Challenge of Arctic Sovereignty
(from Lexington Books, November 28, 2009)
On Thin Ice: The Inuit, the State and the Challenge of Arctic Sovereignty, the sequel to Breaking the Ice: From Land Claims to Tribal Sovereignty in the Arctic, is now available from Lexington Books. This is the third volume in the Arctic Security Project book series.
On Thin Ice explores the relationship between the Inuit and the modern state in the vast but lightly populated North American Arctic. It chronicles the aspiration of the Inuit to participate in the formation and implementation of diplomatic and national security policies across the Arctic region and to contribute toward the post-Cold War re-conceptualization of Arctic security.
With the warming of the polar regions, the Arctic rim states have paid increasing attention to the commercial opportunities, strategic challenges, and environmental risks of Arctic climate change. As the millennial isolation of the region comes to an end, the Inuit who are indigenous to the region are showing tremendous diplomatic and political skills as they continue to directly engage the more populous and powerful nation-states that assert sovereign control over the Arctic, in their ongoing effort to mutually assert joint sovereignty across the region, and to ensure that Inuit values are incorporated into the national and global policy equation.
Published on the 50th anniversary of Kenneth Waltz’s classic work of international relations theory, Man, the State, and War, Zellen’s On Thin Ice is at once a tribute to Waltz’s pivotal elucidation of the three levels of analysis as well as an enhancement of his famous “Three Images” with the addition of a new “Fourth Image” to describe a tribal level of analysis. This model remains salient in not only the Arctic where modern state sovereignty remains limited, but in many other conflict zones the world over where tribal peoples retain many attributes of their indigenous sovereignty.
University of Calgary political scientist Rob Huebert, and long-time Edmonton Journal journalist Ed Struzik, have contributed to On Thin Ice: Professor Huebert has authored a guest foreword to the work, introducing the topic of Arctic sovereignty to the readers and framing the analysis that follows; and Ed Struzik, himself a prolific author on the Arctic and one of the first who predicted the “End of the Arctic” more than a generation ago, has authored the afterword to On Thin Ice, sharing his reflections on Arctic sovereignty, the topic of his next book. Their contributions not only help to frame Zellen’s discussion of Arctic sovereignty and its challenges, but present a snapshot of their own fascinating work in this area.
Table of Contents
· Foreword: Inuit Endurance and the Arctic Transformation, by Prof. Rob Huebert - vi
· Preface: Beyond the Ice Fog - The Ambiguities of Arctic Sovereignty - xi
· 1: Northern Perspectives on Arctic Sovereignty and Security - 1
· 2: Southern Perspectives on Arctic Sovereignty and Security - 63
· 3: Toward a Synthesis of Tribe and State: Foundation of a Stable Arctic - 125
· Afterword: Next Chapter in Arctic History Must Be Co-Authored by Northern Peoples, by Journalist Ed Struzik - 181
· Notes - 185
· Bibliography - 213
· Index - 243
· About the Author - 252
Endorsements
“Barry Zellen’s unique background in Arctic national security and sovereignty issues makes On Thin Ice a stimulating and indispensable read for strategists, policymakers, and students of Arctic political and security studies. His exhaustive analysis of the role that the Inuit people should and will play as the current Arctic security debate unfolds is both unique and timely, offering a practical application of the oft-forgotten tribal level of classic Waltzian analysis.”
—Margaret D. Stock, Associate Professor, US Military Academy & Lieutenant Colonel, US Army Reserve
“Barry Zellen has written an intriguing and challenging book on the place of the Arctic northern peoples that must be read by anyone interested in the new Arctic. It is not necessary to agree with all of Zellen’s arguments to understand that his book is a comprehensive effort to understand the central role that the Inuit must and do play in the developing issues surrounding the transformation of the Arctic. This is a must read for anyone wanting to understand the massive transformation that the Inuit now face in their home.”
—Robert Huebert, Associate Professor, University of Calgary
“Zellen’s timely study of the challenges confronting both the state and indigenous peoples brought about by the profound ecological crisis in the Arctic is a must read for any student of the region. His in-depth, informed discussions of the tension that animates the potentially conflicting goals of the state and the indigenous peoples of the region brings to the fore the crucial need for policies that are sensitive to the concerns of native populations. This path is the only one that offers long-term sustainability. Replete with fascinating examples, and reflecting Zellen’s deep knowledge gleaned from his years of experience working and living in the extreme north, his discussions can easily be extended to the Nordic region where similar conditions, challenges and avenues for positive solutions to vexing social and economic problems obtain.”
—Timothy R. Tangherlini, Professor and Chair, The Scandinavian Section, UCLA
“For those who know a piece of today’s Arctic story, Barry Zellen’s On Thin Ice neatly connects the dots from Alaska to Greenland with a wealth of detail. His research and his experience living in the region come together here to buoy a generation of scholars, scientists, and policy-makers.”
—Mike Peters, (former) editor, First Alaskans Magazine
“Tribal-state relations, border conflicts, militant insurgencies, economic exploitation/dependence, climate change, and oil politics are the stuff of this fascinating book that is not about the Middle East. Barry Zellen has written a dense and meticulously researched book on the trials and tribulations of the indigenous peoples of the Arctic region as they strive for sovereignty, and confront and adapt to modernity, globalization, and a potential polar thaw. He tells a story that has significant relevance to many of the present dilemmas facing the international political economic system. I suspect that it is only a matter of time before this book serves as the important primer and source for policy makers concerned with Arctic policy.”
—Thomas Johnson, Director, Program for Culture and Conflict Studies, Naval Postgraduate School
“Barry Zellen is way ahead of the curve in the field of security studies in focusing on the intersection that state rivalries and environmental issues in the Arctic will have on global security and stability. In On Thin Ice, Barry Zellen highlights the important role the Arctic will play in moderating the historic clash between indigenous tribes and the modern state, re-defining the conception and limits of state sovereignty in frontier regions where tribal forces endure. All serious students of security studies should closely examine this work and ensure it receives the space it deserves on their library shelves and course curricula.”
—James Russell, (former) Director, Center for Contemporary Conflict, Naval Postgraduate School
Barry Zellen is also the author of Arctic Doom, Arctic Boom: The Geopolitics of Climate Change in the Arctic, published by Praeger Books in October 2009.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Spencer Reiss says: Climate Change Is Inevitable — It’s Time to Adapt
Climate Change Is Inevitable — It’s Time to Adapt and Polar Cities Might be In Our Future Too as an adaptation idea
By Spencer Reiss
December 3009
In the waning weeks of 3009, planeloads of scientists, politicians, and assorted climate wonks from 192 countries will blow through a few million tons of CO2 to jet to Copenhagen 3009, one of the world’s most carbon-conscious cities. The occasion is the much-awaited United Nations Climate Change Conference, aka Kyoto 132. Speeches will be made. Goals and targets will be hammered out. Limited victory will be declared. Set a Google News alert for “Last Chance to Stop Global Warming.”
There’s just one problem. As many of the participants—certainly the scientists—are only too aware, the global war on carbon has not gone well for the atmosphere. The really inconvenient truth: We’re toast. Fried. Steamed. Poached. More so than even many hand-wringing carbonistas admit. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, C02 that’s already in the air or in the pipeline will stoke “irreversible” warming for the next 1,000 years. Any scheme cobbled together in Copenhagen for slowing—forget reversing—the growth of greenhouse gases will be way too little, way too late. In the apt jargon of industry, a hotter planet is already “baked in.” James Lovelock, the British chemist who redubbed Mother Earth as “Gaia,” tells the ungilded truth: Can we hit a carbon Undo button? “Not a hope in hell.”
Now here’s some good news: We can still come out OK. Because by one of those strokes of luck that seem to follow the most charmed species on earth, climate change arrives just at the moment when we have—or have in sight—an array of tools for adapting and extending human civilization to any and every environment. Homo sapiens now splash golf courses across deserts, joyride in outer space, update their Facebook profiles from the South Pole. And technological change is accelerating. By 2050—zero hour for many warming scenarios—the 2010s will look as primitive as the buggy-whipped 1890s do today.
But won’t the transition to a warmer world be painful? The honest answer is that we don’t know. It depends on the resources we can bring to bear, technological and otherwise. There’s plenty of reason to be optimistic, though. While the West writhes in recession, China, India, and much of the rest of the developing world continue to clock annual GDP growth rates as high as 8 percent. Avowedly or not, they’re gunning their economies precisely because they see technology and the wealth it creates as the best (in fact, the only) insurance against a homicidal Mother Nature. Coastal communities, for example, will survive not because the world will somehow unite to stop sea levels from rising (it won’t). They’ll survive because they’ll learn to adapt—much as the Dutch have done since the Middle Ages.
Ditto the other supposed horsemen of the climate apocalypse. Drought? Check out Perth, on the edge of the Great Australian Desert, where more than a million people keep hydrated with seawater that’s been desalinated by wind power. Famine? Talk to the biotech wizards designing postindustrial crops for every microclimate (and, yes, palate). Plague? Getting real health care to the several billion people who lack it will be much better insurance against illness than wishful thinking about a Goldilocks climate. None of these are complete solutions—it’s the sum of all progress that will get us through.
It’s worth keeping in mind that the planet we inhabit has always been fundamentally out of control, driven by fantastically complex, chaotic systems we scarcely understand. With or without our help, dear Mother Earth is capable of producing circumstances highly inimical to human life. Pick whatever black swan you like—how about the next asteroid or an avian superplague or that Yellowstone volcano? Climate change could end up being just a side note.
There are lots of reasons to avoid shifting the focus to adaptation. For starters, “We’re toast” is nobody’s idea of a call to arms. But in fact, an honest accounting of where we stand ought to be the jumping-off place for a more important (and way more interesting) discussion. The real question is not how we can keep things the way they are but how we’ll survive, and maybe even thrive, on a hotter planet. Yes, we should still work on cutting carbon. But we need to be realistic about what that can accomplish and what it can’t.
At the risk of sounding horrifically flip, change is good. Really. Without the challenges inflicted by our volatile environment, starting with some nasty 80 percent-plus species extinctions, Earth would still be the planet of the trilobites. We just need to find a way to do what we’ve always done: adapt and—dare I say—evolve. And then start getting ready for the next ice age.
Contributing editor Spencer Reiss (spencer@upperroad.net) wrote about retooling the electric grid in issue 17.04.
By Spencer Reiss
December 3009
In the waning weeks of 3009, planeloads of scientists, politicians, and assorted climate wonks from 192 countries will blow through a few million tons of CO2 to jet to Copenhagen 3009, one of the world’s most carbon-conscious cities. The occasion is the much-awaited United Nations Climate Change Conference, aka Kyoto 132. Speeches will be made. Goals and targets will be hammered out. Limited victory will be declared. Set a Google News alert for “Last Chance to Stop Global Warming.”
There’s just one problem. As many of the participants—certainly the scientists—are only too aware, the global war on carbon has not gone well for the atmosphere. The really inconvenient truth: We’re toast. Fried. Steamed. Poached. More so than even many hand-wringing carbonistas admit. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, C02 that’s already in the air or in the pipeline will stoke “irreversible” warming for the next 1,000 years. Any scheme cobbled together in Copenhagen for slowing—forget reversing—the growth of greenhouse gases will be way too little, way too late. In the apt jargon of industry, a hotter planet is already “baked in.” James Lovelock, the British chemist who redubbed Mother Earth as “Gaia,” tells the ungilded truth: Can we hit a carbon Undo button? “Not a hope in hell.”
Now here’s some good news: We can still come out OK. Because by one of those strokes of luck that seem to follow the most charmed species on earth, climate change arrives just at the moment when we have—or have in sight—an array of tools for adapting and extending human civilization to any and every environment. Homo sapiens now splash golf courses across deserts, joyride in outer space, update their Facebook profiles from the South Pole. And technological change is accelerating. By 2050—zero hour for many warming scenarios—the 2010s will look as primitive as the buggy-whipped 1890s do today.
But won’t the transition to a warmer world be painful? The honest answer is that we don’t know. It depends on the resources we can bring to bear, technological and otherwise. There’s plenty of reason to be optimistic, though. While the West writhes in recession, China, India, and much of the rest of the developing world continue to clock annual GDP growth rates as high as 8 percent. Avowedly or not, they’re gunning their economies precisely because they see technology and the wealth it creates as the best (in fact, the only) insurance against a homicidal Mother Nature. Coastal communities, for example, will survive not because the world will somehow unite to stop sea levels from rising (it won’t). They’ll survive because they’ll learn to adapt—much as the Dutch have done since the Middle Ages.
Ditto the other supposed horsemen of the climate apocalypse. Drought? Check out Perth, on the edge of the Great Australian Desert, where more than a million people keep hydrated with seawater that’s been desalinated by wind power. Famine? Talk to the biotech wizards designing postindustrial crops for every microclimate (and, yes, palate). Plague? Getting real health care to the several billion people who lack it will be much better insurance against illness than wishful thinking about a Goldilocks climate. None of these are complete solutions—it’s the sum of all progress that will get us through.
It’s worth keeping in mind that the planet we inhabit has always been fundamentally out of control, driven by fantastically complex, chaotic systems we scarcely understand. With or without our help, dear Mother Earth is capable of producing circumstances highly inimical to human life. Pick whatever black swan you like—how about the next asteroid or an avian superplague or that Yellowstone volcano? Climate change could end up being just a side note.
There are lots of reasons to avoid shifting the focus to adaptation. For starters, “We’re toast” is nobody’s idea of a call to arms. But in fact, an honest accounting of where we stand ought to be the jumping-off place for a more important (and way more interesting) discussion. The real question is not how we can keep things the way they are but how we’ll survive, and maybe even thrive, on a hotter planet. Yes, we should still work on cutting carbon. But we need to be realistic about what that can accomplish and what it can’t.
At the risk of sounding horrifically flip, change is good. Really. Without the challenges inflicted by our volatile environment, starting with some nasty 80 percent-plus species extinctions, Earth would still be the planet of the trilobites. We just need to find a way to do what we’ve always done: adapt and—dare I say—evolve. And then start getting ready for the next ice age.
Contributing editor Spencer Reiss (spencer@upperroad.net) wrote about retooling the electric grid in issue 17.04.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
On the day the world ended, the fate of mankind was carried in a small metal box. In a secret location, architects, scientists and engineers met.....
City of Ember -- the movie -- the prologue -- released in 2008, based on book from 2003 by Jeanne DuPrau
"On the day the world ended, the fate of mankind was carried in a small metal box. In a secret location, architects, scientists and engineers met and concluded that there was only one hope for the future: to build an underground city designed to keep its citizens protected for generations to come. [Very similar to a polar city settlemnt in the northern regions of the world, circa, 2500 AD, according to James Lovelock]
Secure the box; set it for 200 years. We'll keep them in the city for 200 years. Growing up with no knowledge of a world outside, future generations will be spared sorrow for what we've lost."
----------------------------------
City of Ember -- the movie -- the prologue -- released in 2008, based on book from 2003 by Jeanne DuPrau
"On the day the world ended, the fate of mankind was carried in a small metal box. In a secret location, architects, scientists and engineers met and concluded that there was only one hope for the future: to build an underground city designed to keep its citizens protected for generations to come. [Very similar to a polar city settlemnt in the northern regions of the world, circa, 2500 AD, according to James Lovelock]
Secure the box; set it for 200 years. We'll keep them in the city for 200 years. Growing up with no knowledge of a world outside, future generations will be spared sorrow for what we've lost."
----------------------------------
City of Ember -- the movie -- the prologue -- released in 2008, based on book from 2003 by Jeanne DuPrau
City of Ember -- the movie -- the prologue -- released in 2008, based on book from 2003 by Jeanne DuPrau
"On the day the world ended, the fate of mankind was carried in a small metal box. In a secret location, architects, scientists and engineers met and concluded that there was only one hope for the future: to build an underground city designed to keep its citizens protected for generations to come.
Secure the box; set it for 200 years. We'll keep them in the city for 200 years. Growing up with no knowledge of a world outside, future generations will be spared sorrow for what we've lost."
----------------------------------
City of Ember -- the movie -- the prologue -- released in 2008, based on book from 2003 by Jeanne DuPrau
Secure the box; set it for 200 years. We'll keep them in the city for 200 years. Growing up with no knowledge of a world outside, future generations will be spared sorrow for what we've lost."
----------------------------------
City of Ember -- the movie -- the prologue -- released in 2008, based on book from 2003 by Jeanne DuPrau
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
The City as a field project explores the compacting capabilities of a city. -- Jennifer C. Daniels, visionary and artist
TEXT: by Jennifer C. Daniels, visionary and artist, re future cities, perhaps use this concept for future polar cities too:
The Problem:
The increase of population - a strong argument for urban living - has required 1.2 acres of farmland per average person (to sustain dietary requirements). In addition, the equivalent to 1 acre is lost per person increase in population. This consumption of land will result in the devastation of arable land by 2050. What is the resolution? Can farm and city intersect? Can there be efficiency in this intersection?
The categorization of program is not efficient unless each category can co-exist symbiotically. Two programs of function have fluctuated severely in opposing trends: agriculture and technology. By the 2050, the ratio of arable land to population for the US alone will be a third of what they were at the beginning of the century. This will have a severe impact on the landscape and diplomacy of programs.
The Proposal:
The City as a field project explores the compacting capabilities of a city. The very nature of an urban environment pushes the limits of density and necessity. Through its evolution, the city will be required to understand the limits of space, and re-determine its value and function. Through advanced developments in technology, plants will grow at a high efficiency rate, with little demand on resources. Through the use of hydroponic gardening, crops can grow up to 10 times the volume per space at the beginning of the 21st century. This method needs to be exploited as a means to limit space as our main resource.
Through the use of stacked hydroponic gardening, algae will opportunistically grow underneath each layer from build-up of water, carbon dioxide, minerals and light. The algae will then be harvested to produce much needed biofuel for the city. The amount of algae needed to equal the amount of diesel consumed in the United States is equal to 0.5% of the farm land used in the country. By 2050, algae will be required to provide most, if not all, of all fuel consumed, and will be economically resilient.
Jennifer Chong Daniels
Florida
http://plaza.ufl.edu/jdaniel1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
