I wonder what this means in terms of renewable energy, I have full solidarity in this case with the Six Nations.  Renewable energy is about conserving energy, unlike large scale power production, decentralized energy curbs consumption and puts the power back in the people's hands.  NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) is often invoked to disuade people from engaging with LULUs (locally-unwanted-land-uses), and in doing so environmental justice is undermined, the point is that if it is not suitable for someone's backyard, it isn't suitable for anyone's backyard, and in this case of Six Nations, it is in total disrespect to renewable energy to use it as another justification to disrespect indiegnous sovereignty.

-Zach Ruiter, Anti-Nuclear Pro-renewable energy activist with SAGE (Safe and Green Energy Petebrorough)

thanks for the piece Tim!

to the enviros:

the HDI is demanding recognition and consultation, they are not necessarily  against the project, they are against the process.    the nature of their opposition is among other thigns the lack of Free, prior, and informed consent of the traditional people of the band, (as opposed to the imposed band council elected by 10% of the community).

industrial sized energy wind/solar projects are not the solution to the woes of this society/civilisation, and building a "sustainable future" by following the same forms of dispossession, through not consulting the Haudenosaunee and disrespecting treaty obligations is a sure way to rebuild and equally oppressive and destructive society.

we can't be green capitalists and survive, we dont have to allow industry to bully people.  if you want small scale solar, go out and pay for it (as doing the right thing is not cheap), samsung is not kick starting anything, they are just a corporation looking to profit of of technology.  do not put so called environmental concerns over the rights of the Haudenosaunee to sovereignty.

if you want to stop the coal plants, other than teaming up with a capitalist corporate giant, just go SHUT THEM DOWN with DA, or as Zach said, work on conservation - the industrial age needs to end now and fast before too many more tipping points are reached and we start to experience more of the catastrophic system transformations which we are now seeing in unpredicatable weather patterns and shifts in climate zones.

settler-led "environmental justice" does not supersede indigenous rights, and pushing for a massive industrial scale project is certainly not the best ecological solution, it is a stop gap and a continuation of the same system.  you gotta get off the fence - i thought the enviros were serious when they chanted "system change not climate change" at cop 15.

To be clear: I value indiginous rights. But that's not all I value. I also value environmental sustainability.

We ARE shutting down the coal plants (in ON and the US). That was done by strategic political organizing and public pressure. And now we're going after the nuke expansion the province is planning. And yes, that means conservation first and foremost. But we'll still have to get electricity from somewhere, and I'm gunning for renewable energy. Yes, small scale distributed generation is best, but that will take a lot longer than larger industrial-size projects, so I understand we'll need both (large and small) to radically shift the tragectory away from imminent nuke (locally), and coal and gas plants (globally).

Of course I don't support overriding First Nations landrights. But I would hope there is opportunity for negotiation. That's why I asked what exactly they are opposed to as it's not clear in the article. Thanks Dan - you added some clarity to that question.

The experience in Germany is that where a community benefits from a RE project, there is no opposition. I'm interested in knowing more about this project - what is being offered by Samsung and what is being taken away, and what the community is asking for. Thanks for drawing it to my attn. Tim.

To answer Angela's question about why HDI would oppose renewable energy - I don't think that is the point from their perspective.  They are attempting to establish themselves as an approving authority, in effect a level of government not subject to the Canadian constitution.  While this may be a valid stance from an aboriginal perspective, it is quite problematic from a non-aboriginal perspective because it goes beyond the Duty to Consult by potentially setting HDI up as gate-keepers with veto-wielding power.  At stake here is precedent - HDI wants a precedent set - it could potentially be a real game-changer - that's what I believe this is about.