14.8.04

Money's Not Enough

Indigenous Tribe Takes On Big Oil This community of 2,000 Quichua Indians is mounting a groundbreaking and -- so far -- successful campaign to prevent oil exploitation on their ancestral lands in the southern Amazon region of Ecuador. Unlike most other indigenous groups, Sarayacu has been able to keep an Argentine oil firm called Compania General de Combustibles, or CGC, from drilling on their land even though the company has had a government contract since 1996. Offers of money haven't swayed them. Sarayacu leaders say CGC officials have offered them cash payments. When that didn't work, they say, the company went to the village's governing council with a proposal of $60,000, which was also rejected. ... But Sarayacu is also unusual for its organizational savvy. It has developed its own system of education, ranging from preschool to university coursework, and has developed a micro-loan program to help women begin small development projects. The community is also looking at ways to commercialize ecotourism and medicinal plants. -- via Howling At A Waning Moon

That the company is offering more and more money shows they don't really understand what's going on here. When governments and corporations think about local environmental decisions, they tend to look at it through the lens of economic considerations. The oil is only worth drilling for because it can be converted into money. So they assume that people who are opposing the project are doing their own cost-benefit calculation and deciding it doesn't add up for them. The solution, then, is to sweeten the deal by offering money.

But what's really at stake for Sarayacu is not the typically-alluded-to spiritual or "intrinsic" values that can't be commodified. It's about trust and autonomy. Given what has happened to so many other indigenous communities living near oil wells, Sarayacu has good reason to be suspicious of the company's commitment to doing things right. So all the environmental impact statements in the world won't assuage them. And money can't buy trust -- indeed, offers of payment erode trust.

Having pulled itself up by its own bootstraps, Sarayacu is acutely aware of the value of autonomy. Oil drilling, however, represents a severe loss of autonomy -- an imposition on them by the external powers of the state and the company. The payments being offered can't fix that, because they're being paid specifically to renounce having a say, to acquiesce to the government's decision that the oil under their land, and the right-of-way necessary to access it, are out of their hands.

It's quite possible that there are no circumstances under which the Sarayacu would allow drilling (aside from falling so deeply into poverty that that $60,000 looks good). But if there's any way they would, it would start by giving them a say in how it's to be done, a shift from "let us work" to "we'll work with you."
Stentor Danielson, 11:51,

13.8.04

Interesting Factoid

Interesting to me, at any rate. It seems that northeastern PA is the state's hotbed of Naderism. Last time around, people in what are now congressional districts 10 (northeastern corner), 11 (the Poconos -- my district), and 15 (the Lehigh valley) had the highest percentages of people voting for Ralph. They're relatively small percentages (I imagine being a swing state suppresses third-party voting) and they take the lead by just a little bit, but still.
Stentor Danielson, 19:11,

Nature's Blank Slate

Reading this article on transhumanism, I began to wonder whether the role of the "natural" in moral reasoning may be in for a major shift. The "natural" is opposed to the "social" or "artificial." In pre-modern thought, the natural provided a basis for morality. What inescapably is was taken as a blueprint for what humans ought to do, modeling contingent human choice after the necessities laid down by God. Modern thought established a boundary between ought and is, so that to describe the world no longer dictated human choices within it. Yet it still established constraints, captured in the maxim that ought implies can -- moral rules that go against what nature allows are invalid. On the other hand, to declare something to be social is to imply it can be changed. These ideas have been frequently used to make the case for ethical or policy choices -- gender roles are just social constructions, homosexuals can't help being that way, etc.

There's reason to doubt how much social factors are open to (deliberate) change. Viewed as a technological project parallel to the natural sciences, the social sciences have largely failed. There are reasons to continue to doubt the malleability of natural conditions as well, as the environmental movement has made clear. Yet in many respects, such as the medical advances touted by the transhumanists, natural technology has left social technology in the dust. It may not be too long before we'll say of some aspect of the world "oh, that's just natural, so we can fix it in a jiffy if you want."
Stentor Danielson, 16:07,

All He Knows Is: Don't Put It At Yucca Mountain

Bush accuses Kerry of changing stance on nuclear waste repository But Bush said Kerry's opposition to Yucca Mountain is less ironclad than it might appear because he cast several votes favoring it in the past. "Now, my opponent's trying to turn Yucca Mountain into a political poker chip," Bush said to a hand-picked audience at a union hall of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. "He says he's strongly against Yucca here in Nevada, but he voted for it several times. And so did his running mate." The Kerry campaign said any such votes were procedural, but could be interpreted as support for the site. In fact, on the key Senate procedural vote to move toward approval of Bush's Feb. 15, 2002, decision to make Yucca Mountain the nation's permanent nuclear-waste repository, Kerry voted no, according to Congressional Quarterly. ... "My point to you is that, if they're going to change one day, they may change again," Bush said. "I think you need straight talk on this issue. I think you need somebody who's going to do what he says he's going to do."

The Kerry campaign has answered the "flip-flopping" side of the charge, by pointing out that Kerry's votes for Yucca Mountain were votes on procedural measures and multi-part bills that happened to include provisions on Yucca Mountain, and that he's been consistently opposed when given a clear chance to make an up-or-down vote on the site. Yet none of that answers the "political poker chip" charge. Given how consistently environmentalists have opposed Yucca Mountain*, and given that environmentalists are a key part of Kerry's base whereas the nuclear industry (which is struggling to figure out where to put all its spent fuel) is not, it's a no-brainer for Kerry to oppose the repository.

Looking deeper into Kerry's views on the issue seems to support the "political poker chip" analysis. Prominently featured on Kerry's site is "The Truth on Yucca Mountain," dedicated to shifting the "flip-flopper" charge onto Bush. Aside from warning about the dangers of "mobile Chernobyls" (which suggests that he opposes the idea of a centralized waste repository regardless of its location) and a promise to have an international panel of scientists study the issue, specifics on what Kerry would do about nuclear waste are scant. So his condemnation of Yucca Mountain seems to be part of a longstanding strategy of tapping into opposition to that particular plan.

*I personally haven't done enough research to have a strong feeling. On the one hand, there's certainly at least the appearance of impropriety in how politics pushed the science on Yucca Mountain, but on the other hand I'm unconvinced by the "mobile Chernobyls" argument and concerned about the need to find a permanent home for the waste being stored at sites all across the country.
Stentor Danielson, 13:18,

I'm rather late in getting to this, as the question was last month's discussion topic at Coffee Hour, but I figured I ought to get my thoughts down on ... screen. Chris Walton asks: "What is the relationship between a person's Unitarian Universalism and his or her political ideas?"

I can't address the main thrust of Walton's inquiry (or most of the questions at Coffee Hour) because I'm not UU enough. I've described myself as a UU* for the past three or so years, but while I my theological beliefs may fit into UUism, and I've liked the UU congregations I've been to, I'm not part of the UU institution or community. Socially, I'm still pretty Lutheran (or mainline Protestant in general).

So I can't say much about to what degree the UU church can be accommodating of different political philosophies, either doctrinally or institutionally. But I can describe my own experience. In a certain sense my politics led me to the UUs.

One of the most significant things that happened to me in my college career was being encouraged to take up commentary writing. As embarassing as my early efforts were, it played a major part in getting me to think seriously and critically about issues I'd taken for granted or ignored previously. Having grown up in a conservative household, and feeling like my values derived from my Republican parents, the Boy Scouts, and the Lutheran church, I assumed the political opinions I was forming were conservative ones. Much to my surprise, my friends described me as a liberal. There followed a great deal of reflection about how I had managed to follow such conservative inputs to such an unexpected outcome, without ever experiencing any break from my past.

This political development contributed** to a similar rethinking of my religious viewpoint. So I was clearly primed for a seeker-friendly religion when a friend mentioned the UUs and curiosity drew me to the UUA website. But what really struck me about UUism could be described as political.

Perhaps the clearest political belief I've had is support for gay and lesbian rights. That homosexuality and heterosexuality should be treated equally seemed self-evident as soon as I actually considered the issue, and for all the thinking about it I've done since then I've never had reason to seriously question my basic stand. So I was quite excited by UUism's active embrace of homosexuality, and that stand still goes a long way toward making me feel good about associating with that church.

The second thing that struck me was the way that the UUs could remain active in working on social justice issues despite its lack of a unified doctrine -- or perhaps even because of it, as their efforts aren't divided by the need to also work on proselytizing. Even little things, like having fair trade coffee at coffee hour, served to signal what kind of an attitude th church held. As I see it, one of the major functions of a religious organization is to provide the infrastructure for developing and acting on one's values***, including broadly-defined political action (though I'd draw the line at things like electioneering). And it was the "social gospel" elements from my Lutheran background that continued to resonate with me even as I backed off from metaphysical commitments.

*Or as a "Unitarian" -- I'm new enough to this that I haven't got over my habit of thinking that "Unitarian" is an acceptable shorthand for "Unitarian Universalist," rather than referring to a specific doctrinal and historial community.

**Along with some good discussions on the Brunching board with a cast ranging from atheists to one of Jehovah's Witnesses

***Not that I've done a particularly good job of taking advantage of these opportunities through the church.
Stentor Danielson, 00:36,

12.8.04

Paying Your Critics

Max Borders points out that the federal government gives grants to environmental groups, which use that money to attack the administration. Looking at his source, it seems I'm among the guilty parties -- my paycheck comes out of a grant from the EPA, and that money allows me to have internet access in order to maintain this blog, in which I post unfavorable things about the administration. I fail to see why the fact that these groups' message is anti-administration is of particular concern (though to be fair I think Borders opposes any government funding of any politically active group, regardless of the content of its message). I would be concerned if their message was pro-administration, as that could be evidence that they had been coopted. Borders describes the situation as a "vicious, vicious circle," but there seems to be a side missing -- taxpayers give money to the government, which gives it to environmental groups, which make anti-administration statements. Except insofar as anti-administration rhetoric of any sort makes higher taxes somewhat more likely, I don't see the last step reinforcing the first as a vicious cycle.

I can't vouch for all of the funding that Borders refers to (either their justifiability or the extent to which they're really cases of the administration funding its detractors). But I think there are cases in which the government ought to provide money to outside groups specifically in order to help them criticize it. The Technical Assistance Grant program for Superfund sites is a case in point. The idea is that the government can't be trusted to do the right thing. However, given the imbalance in resources and expertise between the EPA and people affected by its actions, the public can become dependent on the government for information. This imabalance creates distrust, as it would be quite easy for the EPA to abuse its position. TAGs give community groups a no-strings-attached source of money with which to improve their position (e.g. by hiring a technical consultant to do parallel studies). To be an effective watchdog, the TAG-funded group must remain critical of the EPA's actions, always looking for the downside and making that known to the rest of the public. Insofar as this process works, it keeps the EPA honest, and when the EPA is known to be honest, the goal of improving the community's wellbeing can be better met.
Stentor Danielson, 23:56,

11.8.04

Silence

Yeah, I haven't been posting much lately. For whatever reason, I've got blogger's block. We'll see if this post jinxes me into having stuff to say.
Stentor Danielson, 23:32,