4 ms·

Except you're forgetting about the issue of how to incorporate indigenous decision making on their traditional land. This law doesn't require any consent or per

Except you're forgetting about the issue of how to incorporate indigenous decision making on their traditional land. This law doesn't require any consent or permission with local indigenous peoples.

oh_sigh 3y ago
Would that entail the entirety of the United States? Indigenous people would have had a say, if the claims were located in the nearby Bears Ears National Monument. But it was just next to it, so why would they get a say?
- landemva 3y ago
  In the States where I have experience, nearby property owners due comment about new/changed permits. And they can and do sue the permitting agencies to stop mine development. It's NIMBY when people stop local sand and gravel pits which forces those buildng materials to be trucked in. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/aggregate-sand-and-gravel https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/aggregate-sand-...
keepamovin 3y ago
I was forgetting that, I'm sorry for my oversight. You bring up an excellent point! Considering the original owners of the land is absolutely fundamental, and their genuine input into the environmental assessment process is crucial to creating a sustainable use of the environment.
- mizzao 3y ago
  /s ?
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    Is that how you see it, Andrew, as a bad idea? What makes you say that? As in, what makes you believe that considering original owners would be considered a bad idea and therefore likely to be delivered sarcastically?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - patrick451 3y ago
      The original owners don't exist anymore. We probably don't even know who they were. Control of land in America was never an unbroken line of custody by a single tribe. You could consider the most recent non-white owners, but that's a pointless distinction.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - mizzao 3y ago
      Aside from patrick451's comment, what makes you think the original owners can make effective decisions for environmental sustainability today? Their descendants probably can't.
paul_funyun 3y ago
I'm not the first person to own my hatchback, but I'm not going to consult the previous owner if I want to repaint it. Not incorporating indigenous decision making is a valid answer to the question of how to incorporate it.
- defrost 3y ago
  In the case where the previous owner is still the current owner and they have a treaty with the government to that effect which is being violated by "giving you" the right to strip the car of the engine mirrors and tyres, what then? We all like a good analogy .. but "previous owner" doesn't hit the mark in many cases of mining in the US, Canada, and Australia (for example) not to mention globally.
  - Kamq 3y ago
    > have a treaty with the government to that effect which is being violated by "giving you" The treaty was violated, but it isn't currently still being violated, is it? My understanding of international law is that treaties are considered terminated once either party violates them. Does that apply to internal treaties like this too? These usually work within the framework of sovereign nations. I might be getting way too pedantic with this, but I don't know if that's how it works.
    - defrost 3y ago
      My understanding is that there isn't really any international body that steps in to rule on (say) treaties made by the USofA and various Indian nations. History.com states (correctly or not) that "From 1778 to 1871, the United States signed some 368 treaties with various Indigenous people across the North American continent." https://www.history.com/news/native-american-broken-treaties https://www.history.com/news/native-american-broken-treaties Given the article that sourced this thread is about uranium mining in Utah, it might be of interest to recap how that has been handled in the past eighty years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_and_the_Navajo_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_and_the_Navajo_... The dot point summary would be "not great" (understatement), although the Navajo Nation did get saddled with 521 abandoned uranium mine areas most of which require a great deal of clean up and for which (IIRC) they have yet to receive any paper towels.

Except you're forgetting about the issue of how to incorporate indigenous decision making on their traditional land. This law doesn't require any consent or permission with local indigenous peoples.

oh_sigh 3y ago

Would that entail the entirety of the United States? Indigenous people would have had a say, if the claims were located in the nearby Bears Ears National Monument. But it was just next to it, so why would they get a say?

landemva 3y ago
In the States where I have experience, nearby property owners due comment about new/changed permits. And they can and do sue the permitting agencies to stop mine development. It's NIMBY when people stop local sand and gravel pits which forces those buildng materials to be trucked in. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/aggregate-sand-and-gravel https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/aggregate-sand-...

keepamovin 3y ago

I was forgetting that, I'm sorry for my oversight. You bring up an excellent point! Considering the original owners of the land is absolutely fundamental, and their genuine input into the environmental assessment process is crucial to creating a sustainable use of the environment.

mizzao 3y ago
/s ?
- keepamovin 3y ago
  Is that how you see it, Andrew, as a bad idea? What makes you say that? As in, what makes you believe that considering original owners would be considered a bad idea and therefore likely to be delivered sarcastically?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - patrick451 3y ago
    The original owners don't exist anymore. We probably don't even know who they were. Control of land in America was never an unbroken line of custody by a single tribe. You could consider the most recent non-white owners, but that's a pointless distinction.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - mizzao 3y ago
    Aside from patrick451's comment, what makes you think the original owners can make effective decisions for environmental sustainability today? Their descendants probably can't.

paul_funyun 3y ago

I'm not the first person to own my hatchback, but I'm not going to consult the previous owner if I want to repaint it. Not incorporating indigenous decision making is a valid answer to the question of how to incorporate it.

defrost 3y ago
In the case where the previous owner is still the current owner and they have a treaty with the government to that effect which is being violated by "giving you" the right to strip the car of the engine mirrors and tyres, what then? We all like a good analogy .. but "previous owner" doesn't hit the mark in many cases of mining in the US, Canada, and Australia (for example) not to mention globally.
- Kamq 3y ago
  > have a treaty with the government to that effect which is being violated by "giving you" The treaty was violated, but it isn't currently still being violated, is it? My understanding of international law is that treaties are considered terminated once either party violates them. Does that apply to internal treaties like this too? These usually work within the framework of sovereign nations. I might be getting way too pedantic with this, but I don't know if that's how it works.
  - defrost 3y ago
    My understanding is that there isn't really any international body that steps in to rule on (say) treaties made by the USofA and various Indian nations. History.com states (correctly or not) that "From 1778 to 1871, the United States signed some 368 treaties with various Indigenous people across the North American continent." https://www.history.com/news/native-american-broken-treaties https://www.history.com/news/native-american-broken-treaties Given the article that sourced this thread is about uranium mining in Utah, it might be of interest to recap how that has been handled in the past eighty years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_and_the_Navajo_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_and_the_Navajo_... The dot point summary would be "not great" (understatement), although the Navajo Nation did get saddled with 521 abandoned uranium mine areas most of which require a great deal of clean up and for which (IIRC) they have yet to receive any paper towels.