Download the original attachment
Politics—obama good—is in generic.


PBS 2K "MISSILE DEFENSE POLITICS" july-dec00/nmd_8-24.html__ [JWU]
And overseas, there has been a growing drumbeat of opposition. Many foreign leaders argue that a U.S. missile defense system would provoke an arms race and challenge historic understandings built on deterrence and international treaties. French President Jacques Chirac said building the system would "retrigger a proliferation of weapons, notably nuclear missiles." German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said, "Everything that goes in the direction of proliferation is a bad direction. I'm skeptical." And the chief of foreign policy for the European Union, the former head of NATO, Javier Solana, said recently, "If the decision on deployment is taken without agreement with Russia and without help from European leaders, it will be very badly taken." They, along with the Russians and Chinese, worry that an American missile defense system would give the U.S. global military dominance. But if it's to be built, allied concurrence is essential, because radars will have to be stationed in Greenland and Great Britain, as Secretary of Defense William Cohen explained recently.
WILLIAM COHEN: In order to have a technologically effective system, we need to have the support of our allies. If we don't have the support of our allies with respect to forward-deployed x-band radars, you will not have an effective technologically reliable system.

__http://www.washingtontimes. com/news/2008/may/26/us- pressed-for-emissions-cuts-by- 20/[JWu__]
____Japan____ (AP) — European and developing countries urged the United States and Japan yesterday to commit to deep cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020 — a step they say is needed to defuse a coming ecological disaster caused by global warming. The calls at a meeting of environment ministers from the ____Group of Eight____ industrialized nations in Japan coincided with rising concern that momentum is draining from ____U.N.____-led efforts to force a new climate-change agreement by a December 2009 deadline.

Vladimir Volkov International Editorial Board member of WSWS 18 July 2008 **//__ 2008/jul2008/miss-j18.shtml__//** [JWU]

The US and the Czech Republic signed an agreement July 8 in Prague for the deployment of radar and anti-missile systems on the territory of this Eastern European country. The pact has become one more step in sharpening geopolitical tensions between the United States and Russia. It evoked a stormy response from Moscow.
Signed by American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Czech Minister of Foreign Affairs Karel Schwarzenberg, the agreement is opposed by about 70 percent of Czech citizens. Its defenders justify the agreement by pointing to the need to defend Europe from possible Iranian missile attacks. However, the Russian side insists that the true target of creating an infrastructure of anti-missile defense in Eastern Europe is not Iran, but Russia. If the plan is realized, then the military and political positions of Russia would be weakened.
A statement by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs published on the next day said that "the Russian side in such a situation will take adequate measures to compensate for potential threats to its national security." This statement referred not to "diplomatic, but military-technological methods."
Speaking on July 15 in the Kremlin at a meeting with representatives of the diplomatic corps, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said: "Placing elements of a global anti-missile system by the US in Eastern Europe only deepens the situation, and we will be forced to react to this adequately."
He declared that Russia's national security could not be maintained simply by the good word of its partners, and he accused Washington of "gradually undermining... the strategic stability in relations between our countries."

D. IMPACT: US-Russian relations key to preventing nuclear terror

David Kramer, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, July 12, 2006, "The Future Obit of US Russian Relations", Speech: US State Depart . David, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, "The Future Orbit of US Russian Relations", Speech: US State Department, July 2. [T-Jacob]

Our cooperation will include the physical protection of nuclear materials, suppressing illicit trafficking of those materials, responding and mitigating the consequences of any acts of nuclear terrorism, and cooperating on the development of the technical means to combat nuclear terrorism, denying safe haven to terrorists, and strengthening our national legal frameworks to ensure the prosecution of such terrorists and their supporters. This initiative serves U.S. national security interests. We have invited partner nations to meet in the fall to elaborate on and endorse a statement of principles for this initiative. It's one we hope to expand.

1NC Shell 1/4

Capital-intensive, state directed alternative energy co-opts alternative lifestyles and counterculture possibilities into the corporate mainstream
Leigh Glover, PhD, Assistant Professor and CEEP Policy Fellow; 2006, "From love-ins to logos: charting the demise of renewable energy as a social movement", pp249-270.
__ publications/2006_es_love-ins_ to_logos.pdf__ [JWu]
Contemporary renewable energy technologies were researched and developed effectively beginning in that era. Much of the early experimentation with sustainable energy was outside the state and corporate spheres, conducted in personal, communal, and academic contexts. A small amount of post-war experimentation was greatly supplemented by an explosion of activity in the later 1960s. The business sector became involved in the development and manufacture of commercial products toward the latter part of this period, most notably where this involved discrete machinery or components (wind turbines, solar cells, and solar thermal heaters). Renewable energy companies were usually small and independent of conventional energy corporations and utilities. Applications of the technology were isolated, small, privately or communally owned, usually domestic or agricultural, and often "hobbyist" in character. Alternative technologies of greatest interest at the time were amenable to investigation and application with low levels of investment: PV, small wind, small hydro, and bio-digestion. On the other hand, technologies such as tidal power and geothermal energy were in the inaccessible "big science" league.
Alternative energy was effectively a subculture in this period, much of it independent of government and corporate involvement. There was widespread information on these technologies through various outlets, including
magazines (for example, in the U.S., Organic Gardening and Farming, Environment Action Bulletin, and Home Power) and importantly, through the social network of the counter culture. Much individual experimentation
took place and there was great innovation. As with many nascent technologies, amateur curiosity was an initial motivation, and little capital was involved. With the OPEC oil embargo of the 1970s, renewable energy garnered
wider attention, and the interest of governments and the scientific establishment validated the potential of this technology as a "solution to the energy crisis." And this same decade essentially marked the end of renewable energy's first phase.
If we allow that technology has social roots (Winner, 1977, 1986; Bijker et al., 1987; McGinn, 1990), and that renewable energy expanded outside obvious corporate and state sponsorship (Butti, 1980), then what social forces and social goals shaped this technology? Renewable energy received its first widespread applications and use in the industrial economies through the followers of alternative lifestyles. Today this phrase invites derision and has
been co-opted to serve a number of political interests, but at the time it meant those wanting to live outside the mainstream. Rejecting the confines of conventional life in the developed world, individuals and groups experi-
mented with a variety of alternative social choices in living arrangements, property ownership, farming, material consumption, entertainment, drugs, marriage, education, transport, health, religion, and a plethora of other dimensions of social life. It was always loose, as social movements are want to be, and difficult to fix in any absolute sense.

1NC Shell 2/4

This massively consumerist alternative energy divides environmentalists, slows environmental gains, and props up exploitative capitalism
Leigh Glover, PhD, Assistant Professor and CEEP Policy Fellow; 2006, "From love-ins to logos: charting the demise of renewable energy as a social movement", pp249-270.
__ publications/2006_es_love-ins_ to_logos.pdf__ [JWu]
Environmentalists divided over this development according to their ideologies. Pragmatists, for example, welcome the support that the renewablesbased economy would receive from giant energy corporations, taking these
developments as proof of the efficacy of the renewable energy cause (Flavin and Lenssen, 1994; Brown et al, 1991; Brown, 2004). On the other hand, skeptics have doubted that corporations will genuinely promote a renewablesbased economy, and speculate that the corporate elite may even use their influence to slow its arrival (Scheer, 2002). All environmentalists accept that corporations are responding to the profit motive in their industry investments. Caution by both parties may be necessary at this stage, for although the energy giants have made considerable expenditures on renewable energy, these amounts are minor in their overall budgets and operations.7
More than the actual scale of corporate investment, at stake is what to make of a renewable energy future steered by corporate strategy and state policy. It is offered here that this development represents the "ecological modernization" of renewable energy.8 While the state has dabbled in renewable technologies for quite some time, these efforts have been highly publicized and generally of little significance. Almost no national energy system in the developed world has managed to get beyond a couple of percent of its energy supplies or meet any significant portion of its major energy service needs from renewable sources. Yet, with the entry of large energy corporations into the field, the responsibility of the state is changed and its provider role for the interests of "capital-in-general" is evoked. Now the state will work more assiduously to provide the regulatory, policy, and political settings that will assist the development of the renewables-based economy. Doubtless the state's task of easing the way for renewable energy is made politically gentler if the conventional energy corporations also own the renewable energy enterprises.

Ontological damnation; extinction
Michael Zimmerman Prof Philosophy at University of Tulane 93 Contesting Earth's Future: Radical Ecology and Postmodernity, Pg. 119-120

Heidegger asserted that human self assertion, combined with the eclipse of being, threatens the relation between being and human Dasein. Loss of this relation would be even more dangerous than a nuclear war that might "bring about the complete annihilation of humanity and the destruction of the earth." This controversial claim is comparable to the Christian teaching that it is better to forfeit the world than to lose one's soul by losing ones relation to God. Heidegger apparently thought along these lines: it is possible that after a nuclear war, life might once again emerge, but it is far less likely that there will ever again occur in an ontological clearing through which life could manifest itself. Further, since modernity's one dimensional disclosure to entities virtually denies that any "being" at all, the loss of humanity's openness for being is already occurring. Modernity's background mood is horror in the face of nihilism, which is consistent with the aim of providing material happiness" for everyone by reducing nature into pure energy. The unleashing of vast quantities of energy in a nuclear war would be equivalent to modernity's slow destruction of nature: unbounded destruction would equal limitless consumption. If humanity avoided a nuclear war only to survive as contended clever animals, Heidegger believed we would exist in a state of ontological damnation: hell on earth, masquerading as material paradise. Deep ecologists might agree that a world of material human comfort purchased at the price of everything wild would not be a world worth living in, for in killing wild nature, people would be as good as dead.

1NC Shell 3/4

The aff's framing of new technologies as clean and renewable alternatives overwhelms the basic question of consumption. Rather than basing our plan on support for alternative energy, we advocate alternatives to energy.
Michael Maniates, Professor Poli Sci, Environ Sci; B.S. Conservation and Resource Studies, M.A. & PhD Energy and Resources, Director of Allegheny Energy and Society prgrm, Inst. for Study of World Politics Fellow, Aug 2001 "Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?" Global Environmental Politics; Vol. 1 Issue 3, p31-52 [JWu]
But then the tone changes. Having introduced ideas of "consumption limits" and "manufactured needs," Speth dispenses with them. It is better to reflect upon the patterns of consumption, he says—that is, the mix of products made in environmentally destructive ways compared to those that are manufactured in environmentally "sustainable" waysthan on absolute levels of consumption itself. For those troubled by consumption, he argues, the best mix of policies are those that expand the economic production of the poor and maintain it for the rich while reducing overall environmental impact through the dissemination of environmentally benign technologies. One solves the consumption problem, in other words, by getting rich consumers and poor alike to demand eco-technologies. Remarkably, after promising to help forge "consumption patterns that are more environmentally friendly," it takes the Human Development Report just five paragraphs to establish its disdain for any discussion of overall limits to consumption, paths to more fulfilling, lower-consuming lifestyles, or the insidious dynamics of consumerism and manufactured needs. Indeed, the critical importance of challenging consumerism, which Speth alludes to in his forward, is never again broached in the remaining 228 pages of the document. The Human Development Report can be a splendid resource for those wrestling with the complexities of international economic development. I criticize it to show how inquiry into consumption quickly bumps up against tough issues: consumerism, "manufactured needs," limits, global inequity, the specter of coercion, competing and sometimes conflicting understandings of human happiness. Dealing with these topics demands a practiced capacity to talk about power, privilege, prosperity, and larger possibilities. IPAT, despite it usefulness, at best fails to foster this ability; at worst, it actively undermines it. When accomplished anthropologist Clifford Geertz remarked that we are still "far more comfortable talking about technology than talking about power,"33 he likely had conceptual frameworks like IPAT squarely in mind. Proponents of a consumption angle on environmental degradation must cultivate alternatives to IPAT and conventional development models that focus on, rather than divert attention from, politically charged elements of commercial relations. Formulas like IPAT are handy in that they focus attention on key elements of a problem. In that spirit, then, I propose a variation: "IWAC," which is environmental Impact = quality of Work X meaningful consumption Alternatives X political Creativity. If ideas have power, and if acronyms package ideas, then alternative formulations like IWAC could prove useful in shaking the environmentally- inclined out of their slumber of individualization. And this could only be good for those who worry about consumption. Take "work" for example. IPAT systematically ignores work while IWAC embraces it. As The Atlantic Monthly senior editor Jack Beatty notes, "radical talk" about work—questions about job security, worker satisfaction, downsizing, overtime, and corporate responsibility—is coming back strong into public discourse. 34 People who might otherwise imagine themselves as apolitical care about the state of work, and they do talk about it. IWAC taps into this concern, linking it to larger concerns about environmental degradation by suggesting that consumeristic impulses are linked to the routinization of work and, more generally, to the degree of worker powerlessness within the workplace. The more powerless one feels at work, the more one is inclined to assert power as a consumer. The "W" in IWAC provides a conceptual space for asking difficult questions about consumption and affluence. It holds out the possibility of going beyond a critique of the "cultivation of needs" by advertisers to ask about social forces (like the deadening quality of the workplace) that make citizens so susceptible to this "cultivation."35 Tying together two issues that matter to mass publics—the nature of work and the quality of the environment—via something like IWAC could help revitalize public debate and challenge the political timidity of mainstream environmentalism. Likewise, the "A" in IWAC, "alternatives," expands IPAT's "T" in new directions by suggesting that the public's failure to embrace sustainable technologies has more to do with institutional structures that restrict the aggressive development and wide dissemination of sustainable technologies than with errant consumer choice. The marketplace, for instance, presents us with red cars and blue ones, and calls this consumer choice, when what sustainability truly demands is a choice between automobiles and mass transit systems that enjoy a level of government support and subsidy that is presently showered upon the automotive industry.36 With "alternatives," spirited conversation can coalesce around questions like: Do consumers confront real, or merely cosmetic choice? Is absence of choice the consequence of an autonomous and distant set of market mechanisms? Or is the self-interested exercise of political and economic power at work? And how would one begin to find out? In raising these

1NC Shell 4/4
(Continued from above)
uncomfortable questions, IWAC focuses attention on claims that the direction and pace of technological development is far from autonomous and is almost always political.37 Breaking down the widely held belief (which is reinforced by IPAT) that technical choice is "neutral" and "autonomous" could open the floodgates to full and vigorous debate over the nature and design of technological choice. Once the veil of neutrality is lifted, rich local discourse can, and sometimes does, follow.38 And then there is the issue of public imagination and collective creativity, represented by the "C" in IWAC. "Imagination" is not a word one often sees in reflections on environmental politics; it lies among such terms as love, caring, kindness, and meaning that raise eyebrows when introduced into political discourse and policy analysis.39 This despite the work of scholars like political scientist Karen Litfin that readily shows how ideas, images, categories, phrases and examples structure our collective imagination about what is proper and what is possible. Ideas and images, in other words, and those who package and broker them, wield considerable power.40 Susan Griffin, an environmental philosopher, argues the same point from a different disciplinary vantage point when she writes that: Like artistic and literary movements, social movements are driven by imagination. . . . Every important social movement reconfigures the world in the imagination. What was obscure comes forward, lies are revealed, memory shaken, new delineations drawn over the old maps: it is from this new way of seeing the present that hope emerges for the future . . . Let us begin to imagine the worlds we would like to inhabit, the long lives we will share, and the many futures in our hands.41 Griffin is no new-age spiritualist. She is closer to rough-and-tumble neighborhood activist Saul Alinsky than ecopsychologists like Roszak, Gomes, and Kanner.42 She is concerned with the political implications of our collective sense of limited possibility and daunting complexity. She dismissed claims so prevalent in the environmental movement that a "healed mind" and "individual ecological living" will spawn an ecological revolution. Her argument, like Litfin's, bears restating: ideas and the images that convey them have power; and though subtle, such can and is exercised to channel ideas into separate tracks labeled "realistic" and "idealistic." Once labeled, what is taken to be impossible or impractical—" idealistic," in other words—can no longer serve as a staging ground for struggle. Conclusion IWAC is more illustrative than prescriptive. It draws into sharp relief the fact that prevailing conceptualizations of the "environmental crisis" drive us towards an individualization of responsibility that legitimizes existing dynamics of consumption and production. The recent globalization of environmental problems— dominated by natural-science diagnoses of global environmental threats that ignore critical elements of power and institutions—accelerates this individualization, which has deep roots in American political culture. To the extent that common-place language and handy conceptual frameworks have power, in that they shape our view of the world and tag some policy measures as proper and others as far-fetched, IWAC stands as an example of how one might go about propagating an alternative understanding of why we have environmental ills, and what we ought to be doing about them. A proverbial fork in the road looms large for those who would seek to cement consumption into the environmental agenda. One path of easy walking leads to a future where "consumption" in its environmentally undesirable forms—"overconsumption," "commodification," and "consumerism"—has found a place in environmental debates. Environmental groups will work hard to "educate" the citizenry about the need to buy green and consume less and, by accident or design, the pronounced asymmetry of responsibility for and power over environmental problems will remain obscure. Consumption, ironically, could continue to expand as the privatization of the environmental crisis encourages upwardly spiraling consumption, so long as this consumption is "green."43 This is the path of business-as-usual. The other road, a rocky one, winds towards a future where environmentally concerned citizens come to understand, by virtue of spirited debate and animated conversation, the "consumption problem." They would see that their individual consumption choices are environmentally important, but that their control over these choices is constrained, shaped, and framed by institutions and political forces that can be remade only through collective citizen action, as opposed to individual consumer behavior. This future world will not be easy to reach. Getting there means challenging the dominant view—the production, technological, efficiency-oriented perspective that infuses contemporary definitions of progress—and requires linking explorations of consumption to politically charged issues that challenge the political imagination. Walking this path means becoming attentive to the underlying forces that narrow our understanding of the possible.

TEXT: The states and municipal governments of the United States should offer Tribal Joint Ventures in the United States tradable permanent Production Tax Credits for non-hydroelectric power renewable energy. We'll clarify.


Our interpretation of the debate is negation theory—the negative has to prove the 1AC is a bad idea in order to negate the resolution.
Group 1 and 2, plan focus
  1. if we win our links, discourse is inevitably tied to policy—it's part of the plan
  2. resolution is stable advocacy—solves all offense—if they're topical they must affirm the resolution
  3. if we turn case, plan is a BAD idea—this turns plan focus good

3 is middle ground:
1. no warrant why decision-making key to good education—we can debate self sufficiency and consumerism and still learn a lot
  1. kritiks of framing allows most middle ground—their interpretation moots out most kritiks of framing and ontology, which is MOST if not ALL kritiks.
  2. Our interpretation still allows policy proposal, solves all offense

4 isn't explained, no warrant, prefer our analysis
It's what you justify not what you do, if we weren't at a camp tournament with full disclosure we'd never be able to predict, we'd have no ground
5 aff choice bad
1. Neg choice key, aff has infinite prep, aff has first and last speech, neg versatility key to a solid strat, and clash in a good round
  1. Negation theory -- aff must defend all parts of 1AC to see if plan is good idea
  2. link of commission--they chose the cards and words in the 1AC, they could have framed in different ways, solves all offense

Violence is legitimated at the discursive level, to challenge the inherent violence of the affirmatives policy proposal, we must challenge the framing of social conflict at all levels. Their attempt to exclude our argument, by relying on arguments the the judge which institutions are legitimate to present our argument, is a legitimation of the status quo

Dale Bagshaw (director, conflict management research group, univ. of south Australia) 2001 “challenging discourses on violence”p. flagship/abstracts/bagshaw.pdf


A. Incentives must be financial
Energy Information Administration, 01 (US Department of Energy, “Renewable Energy 2000: Issues and Trends”, February, ftproot/renewables/06282000. pdf)
The term “incentive” is used instead of “subsidy.” Incentives include subsidies in addition to other Government actions where the Government’s financial assistance is indirect. A subsidy is, generally, financial assistance granted by the Government to firms and individuals.

B. Increase means increasing pre-existing
Jeremiah Buckley et al, Attorney, Amicus Curiae Brief, Safeco Ins. Co. of America et al v. Charles Burr et al,06 supreme_court/briefs/06-84/06- 84.mer.ami.mica.pdf)
First, the court said that the ordinary meaning of the word “increase” is “to make something greater,” which it believed should not “be limited to cases in which a company raises the rate that an individual has previously been charged.” 435 F.3d at 1091. Yet the definition offered by the Ninth Circuit compels the opposite conclusion. Because “increase” means “to make something greater,” there must necessarily have been an existing premium, to which Edo’s actual premium may be compared, to determine whether an “increase” occurred. Congress could have provided that “adverse action” in the insurance context means charging an amount greater than the optimal premium, but instead chose to define adverse action in terms of an “increase.” That definitional choice must be respected, not ignored. See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392-93 n.10 (1979) (“[a] definition which declares what a term ‘means’ . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated”). Next, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that because the Insurance Prong includes the words “existing or applied for,” Congress intended that an “increase in any charge” for insurance must “apply to all insurance transactions – from an initial policy of insurance to a renewal of a long-held policy.” 435 F.3d at 1091. This interpretation reads the words “existing or applied for” in isolation. Other types of adverse action described in the Insurance Prong apply only to situations where a consumer had an existing policy of insurance, such as a “cancellation,” “reduction,” or “change” in insurance. Each of these forms of adverse action presupposes an already-existing policy, and under usual canons of statutory construction the term “increase” also should be construed to apply to increases of an already-existing policy. See Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 101 (2004) (“a phrase gathers meaning from the words around it”) (citation omitted).
B. Violations—plan gives non-financial incentives, and offers new forms of it

Incentives for wind and solar energy make Native Americans vulnerable to business exploitation
Suzanne Lindgren, writer for Utne Reader, 11-16-06, “Native Power Struggles,” 01/NativePowerStruggles.aspx [JJH]
None of us seem to know where our energy fix will come from after the oil wells run dry. Solar, wind, and hydroelectric power are all options, and the government and energy industry have cast an eye on Native American soil as ground to experiment with alternative energy. But these lands are also flush with oil, coal, and natural gas, causing some to wonder if space for turbines is all they want. According to a piece by Brenda Norrell in Indian Country Today, the 2005 Energy Policy Act encourages investment in renewable energy on reservations through 'incentives' and looser federal restrictions on tribe's lands. And though supporters say business investments will increase Native American sovereignty, economic development, and the expansion of renewable energy sources, critics point out that the energy bill also withdraws important government protections on the land, which could enable big business to exploit native territories. In LiP Magazine, Brian Awehali writes that the US government and energy industry may not mind erecting a few wind turbines on tribal territory if it means they also get access to the other fuel sources locked up in those lands. As Awehali notes, one section in Title V of the 2005 Energy Policy Act gives the government 'power to grant rights of way through Indian lands without permission from Indian tribes, if deemed to be in the strategic interests of an energy-related project.' And Clayton Thomas-Muller, organizer of the Indigenous Environment Network's Native Energy Campaign, claims that in addition to eliminating the protections of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, the new act promotes sending nuclear waste to Indian lands and mining more uranium from them. ''As usual,' a former tribal chairman tells Indian Country Today, 'energy companies will kill our pig, skin it, take the meat - mostly at government expense - and leave us with bones and hooves.''

Promises of tribal and economic sovereignty are just excuses for the government and energy industry to take advantage of Native American energy supplies
Brian Awehali, Lip Magazine Founder and Editor-in-Chief, 6-5-06, articles/featawehali_ nativefutures.htm [JJH]
The bill did not ultimately pass, but the idea that “America’s energy future” should be linked to having “more reliable home-grown energy supplies” can be found in other native energy-specific legislation that has passed into law. What this line of thinking fails to take into consideration is that Native America is not actually USAmerica, and that the “supplies” in question belong to sovereign nations, not to the United States or its energy sector.
Rosier’s statement conveys quite a lot about how the government and the energy sector intend to market the growing shift away from dependence on foreign energy, and how they plan to deregulate (by using “efficiency” as a selling point) and step up their exploitation (“development”) of “domestic” native energy resources: by spinning it as a way to produce clean energy while helping Native Americans gain greater economic and tribal sovereignty.

Modernized technology, such as wind turbines, alienate Natives from nature and increase resource exploitation
Kathy Seton, 1999, Center for World Indigenous Studies, “Fourth World Nations in the Era of Globalisation: An Introductino to Contemporary theorizing Posed by Indigenous Nations” fworld.html [JJH]
In the globalized world, industrialization, capitalism and modernization have increasingly alienated peoples (indigenous and non-indigenous) from land and nature in differing ways. ( note 5) The past few decades have witnessed a massive acceleration in the rate at which indigenous peoples have been deprived of their lands and livelihoods by imposed development programs. Characterized by unchecked resource exploitation, these development programs have increasingly been brought to international attention; especially at a time when it has become apparent that they pose grave and irreversible threats to the earth’s bio-cultural diversity.
Plan just increases exploitation of Natives
Center for World Indigenous Studies, 3-30-1979, “Alternatives to Development: Environmental Values of Indigenous Peoples,” Environment Workshop, bin/library?e=d-00000-00--- off-0ipc--00-0--0-10-0---0--- 0prompt-10---4-------0-1l--11- en-50---20-about---00-0-1-00- 0-0-11-1-0utfZz-8-00&cl=CL1.1& d=HASH8d21de2bd1b09bd6198ea9& x=1 [JJH]
Political states like Brazil, South Africa, United States and Denmark have come into existence and continue to exist because of their exploitation of indigenous natural resources. The cost of such exploitation by all political states has been the lives of in excess of 27,000,000 indigenous peoples world-wide. Since 1850 even greater damage has been done to millions of square miles of land and thousands of miles of rivers and streams. Even the atmosphere around us has been seriously harmed. But the trend toward increased exploitation continues, even though the consequences are increasingly clear. The state of Brazil recently announced that several major companies would be allowed to "defoliate" the jungles and forests of the Amazon Basin to extract the "rich timber resources", while bringing civilization to natives. In the Northwest part of the United States political officials have decided to divert water from the Columbia River through a thing called the Second Bacon Siphon so that what is now a productive dry-farm area will be made into an irrigated farm area, with little possibility of becoming a productive and economically feasible sugar beet production source. In South Africa the indigenous populations have been squeezed into territories much too small for their health, while vast areas are being developed for a small minority. In each of the instances I have briefly mentioned, tribal resources have been the target of exploitation. Indigenous groups are either ignored, pushed aside, or killed so that their resources will become available to political states in need of trade materials or goods for general consumption.

Terminal reliance on state-based sovereignty only opens up Native Americans to have self sufficiency taken away at will
Peter d’Errico, Legal Studies Department, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, 1997, “American Indian Sovereignty: Now You See It, Now You Don’t” nowyouseeit.html [JW]
When we enter into the realm of "federal Indian law," we need to keep in mind that we are traveling in a semantic world created by one group to rule another. The terminology of law is a powerful naming process. In working with this law, we will use the names that it uses, but we will always want to keep in mind that the reality behind the names is what we are struggling over.
According to the theory of sovereignty in federal Indian law, "tribal" peoples have a lesser form of "sovereignty," which is not really sovereignty at all, but dependence. In the words of Chief Justice John Marshall in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), American Indian societies, though they are "nations" in the general sense of the word, are not fully sovereign, but are "domestic, dependent nations." The shell game of American Indian sovereignty -- the "now you see it, now you don't" quality -- started right at the beginning of federal Indian law. The foundation of federal Indian law is the assertion by the United States of a special kind of non-sovereign sovereignty.
In 1973, the federal district court for the district of Montana stated the underlying principle in the case of United States v. Blackfeet Tribe, 364 F.Supp. 192. The facts were simple: The Blackfeet Business Council passed a resolution authorizing gambling on the reservation and the licensing of slot machines. An FBI agent seized four machines. The Blackfeet Tribal Court issued an order restraining all persons from removing the seized articles from the reservation. The FBI agent, after consultation with the United States Attorney, removed the machines from the reservation. A tribal judge then ordered the U.S. Attorney to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt of the tribal court. The U.S. Attorney applied to federal court for an injunction to block the contempt citations. The Blackfeet Tribe argued that it is sovereign and that the jurisdiction of the tribal court flows directly from this sovereignty. The federal court said:
No doubt the Indian tribes were at one time sovereign and even now the tribes are sometimes described as being sovereign. The blunt fact, however, is that an Indian tribe is sovereign to the extent that the United States permits it to be sovereign -- neither more nor less. [364 F.Supp. at 194.]