Harel
##################################################################
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 14:05:52 PST
From: NativeNet@gnosys.svle.ma.us
>From: peace@web.apc.org
Subject: Reply to Resource: James Bay Facts; for activists mailing list
>From peace Mon Nov 11 16:21 EST 1991
Subject: RESOURCE: James Bay Facts
Regarding James Bay/Great Whale. It's amazing that so much
energy is being expended in opposing Quebec's hydroelectric
project at a time when the critical issue in Canada is the
national rights of the people of Quebec. It is widely thought
in Quebec that English Canada is attempting to maintain its'
domination of Quebec, and to thwart the movement for self-
determination by using Native and environmental issues against
Quebec.
To be clear, there are many large hydroelectric projects in
Canada, not least in Manitoba where many more Natives were displaced
than will be displaced by James Bay 2. Of course, Manitoba's record
on Native rights is 100 times worse than Quebec's. It is not true
that "thousands" of Natives will be displaced by James Bay 2. A
maximum of 1000 will be affected in the flooding of 600 (out of
1,000,000) square miles of territory. And hydro power is by
far cleaner than fossil fuel or nuclear.
So what gives? Many English Canadian spokespeople are crowing
about using the Native question to batter the Quebecois. They
are saying that IF Quebec separates, English Canada will take
more than 66% of Quebec's territory in the name of the Crees.
This is a recipe for disaster - civil war and violence in
a typical divide-and-rule strategy.
Quebec has been struggling for its' rights for decades. Thereis
no reason to believe that a sovereign Quebec will respect Native
rights less than English Canada - the opposite is in fact true.
It is disturbing to see US progressives attempting to assist in
the drive to crush Quebec again - through the "best" of motives,
no doubt.
David J., Toronto
##################################################################
Dear David,
Thanks for your letter. I would like to disagree on some issues, and
that includes disputing some of your facts, but in my experience
arguments about facts (even "details" which are important) all too
easily obscure the underlying issues, so I will defer that to the
later part of my letter.
Basicly, I feel that there are two issues: Quebec's rights, where you
may well find lots of support from myself and others; and the issue of
the proposed James Bay II, which includes Native rights,
environmental, and other issues which have led myself and others to
oppose that project-- and it seems that you are making these two
issues into one.
Although you may few specific references to what type of oppression
you feel Quebec is being subject to, it is fair to say that probably
most progressives will support Quebec against such oppression. On the
other hand human rights and environmental destruction, and waste, are
another issue, and opposing a project which would violate the former
and involve the later two is in no way "attempting to assist in the
drive to crush Quebec" any more than arresting a black criminal (my
qualms about the present "justice" system aside) is the same as
helping to crush the aspirations of the black civil rights movement
and of blacks as a whole.
Perhaps more disturbingly, I detect a "siege mentality" of the "Defend
X at all cost" variety. I am well aware of this tendency, having been
born into that camp in the case of Israel. Now it is clear that those
who most loudly proclaim their "pro-Israel" stance inside and outside
it are its worst enemies.
It is a siege-mentality reflex to respond to charges of mistreatment
of Natives by alleging equal of worse treatment of Natives by the rest
of Canada -- "Manitoba's record on Native rights is 100 times worse
than Quebec's". It is also counterproductive, not to mention a
position from which the support of the progressive community would be
lost.
So for example you say "a maximum of 1000 (Native people) will be
affected" In fact, according to the sources cited below, the figure is
some 16,000. But that is not the best, more importantly, not the
principled answer; namely, WHAT IF "only" a thousand people's human
and legal rights were violated? Would that not be wrong? Would that
not be enough to half the project -- assuming zero other reasons
against the projects, far from the case for James Bay -- until this
has been addressed. Instead your defensive reflex, and I would not
assume this to be advertently, has meant a position justifying the
project, going further to (incorrectly) state "hydro-power is by far
cleaner than fossil fuel or nuclear" to push a project which would be
*highly* immoral on the Native Rights grounds *alone* (barring a
settlement on this issue).
Again, I would be glad to suppose Quebec against oppressive and unfair
measures by the rest of Canada, but this issue is separate from
struggling also against injustices committed by Quebec (and New York
State et al). While you do not cite who exactly is making the threat,
if indeed it is threatened that "if Quebec separates, English Canada
will take more than 66% of Quebec's territory in the name of the
Crees" then I hope you will agree this is a separate issue. Whatever
territorial settlements are (under the hypothetical situation) made,
they should be fair and just for Quebec as well as English Canada. I
hope you will agree that, as a matter of logic, is some people are
using slimy tactics of (real of pretended) concern for the Cree in
order to gain territory from Quebec, that does not mean that opposing
such tactic necessitates siding with Quebec when Native rights are
indeed violated.
In fact, that would not just be "merely" immoral but against Quebec's
interest; in light of these tactics you mention, if one "supports
Quebec" (whatever the definition of that), one would, aside from the
moral reasons, want Quebec to have a completely clean record on Native
rights so that no such slimy tactics with ulterior motives could be
used against Quebec (Israel again comes to mind).
In conclusion, before returning to James Bay II itself, when you state
that "There is no reason to believe that a sovereign Quebec will
respect Native rights less than English Canada - the opposite is in
fact true" I am willing to accept the first assertion for the time
being (and the later is backed by documentation in ACTIV-L) but that
is, again, as a matter of logic, hardly justification for supporting a
project violating Native rights by Quebec. A fortiori as a matter or morals.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Returning to James Bay, the other main factual correction I must make
concerns the area to be flooded; not 600 square miles but nearly 2,000
square miles, or the area of the state of Delaware. And the "out of
1,000,000" is very misleading, this being over a 1/4 the total land
area of Canada; we're talking about *flooding* square miles and it
makes little sense to note what a small fraction this is relative the
flooding of the entire state of Canada or a quarter thereof.
The issue of Native rights I have already mentioned, noting that that
*alone* is enough to oppose James Bay, although for a fuller
understanding of the present situation and history some of the
excerpts below may be useful, regarding illegally destroyed hunting
and fishing grounds, mercury poisoning, etc.
I am CCing NativeNet's Gary Trujillo in case he has any additions of
corrections to make on those issues.
There are also convincing arguments on the issues of environmental
destruction via flooding, alluded to below and elsewhere.
Also below see the refutation that HydroQuebec waterpower is/will be
cleaner.
But perhaps the second most powerful reason to oppose the project
(besides human rights and Native legal rights) is that it is
unnecessary.
I quoted figures
"...the Party says 7,000 megawatts of electricity could be saved
through cogeneration alone (a process which uses steam from
conventional power stations) This compares with a total of only
1,800 megawatts contracted for from James Bay..."
showing that even if a hypothetical HydroQuebec was 100%
environmentally clean, unharmful to the Native people, unharmful to
the environmental and wildlife, it would still be unnecessary.
And energy conservation methods are preferable even to the cleanest,
next cheapest alternative in any case. Amory Lovin's figures (see
below) are powerful as well.
In consideration of any *one* of these reasons alone, progressives
everywhere should oppose the project (did I also mention it will
apparently be a financial loss to NY state? :-), let alone all of them
combined.
The rights of Quebec not to be bullied by the rest of Canada I and
other progressives will support, and would would be happy to have
discussed in activ-l (or articles and facts to MAP) in the future, as
a separate issue.
Harel Barzilai
##################################################################
Excerpts from articles follow
##################################################################
"Opponents...feel that the project is a shameful waste and a stragic
displacement of two Indian peoples in northern Quebec -- 10,000 Crees
and 6,000 Inuits [..]" Grapevine, Oct 2-8 '91
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Where construction on James Bay I began in 1972, withouth the consent
of the Cree or the Inuit, the Cree had to enter into an agreement with
the governments of Canada and Quebec. Additional agreement
recorgnizing the sovereignty of the Cree were signed, but the
agreements were empty. Not only did the natives lose valuable hunting
an dfishing ground to the massive flooding, but mercury got into the
water and land, and into the food chain. This is just one of the
negatifve environmental impacts of the project.
[same source]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hydro-Quebec started a project in 1973 that flooded 10,000 square
kilometers near James Bay in Northern Quebec This prject displaced the
Cree Indians from much of the land they claim as their own. If the
contracdt is finalized, it will give Hydro=-Quebec the financing to
begin another dam on the Great Whale River that will flood another
5,000 square kilometers and displace thee Unuit nation, antoher
indigenous population.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 mile = 1,609.34 meters
5000 sq-km = (70.71)^2 = (43.937mi)^2 = 1930.5 or just under
2000 square miles.
Delaware = 2K sq-mi; Rhode ISland = 1.2K sq-mi.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Oct 10-16, '91, Ithaca Times]
VS Fossil fuels:
A key problem with burning fossil fuels is that they release gases
into the atmosphere that contribut to global warning. But Stephen
Hazell, Executive Director of the Canadian Arctic Resources
Committee, refuted NYPA's (NY Power Authority) claims that the
hydropower will solve this problem by saying that the flooding will
cause all the plant life it covers to decay and emit greenhouse gases.
He cited a study being done on the reseroir in Manitoba that
discovered the gases being formed are equal to those formed by
coal-fired generating plantes. Another problem with burning fossil
fuels is that they are a nonrenewable resoruce[...but] Hazell pointed
out that his had not held true for other Hydro-Quebec projects; the
current dams on the La Grande River have revered the normal flow
patterns, causing the water to be low in the spring and hight in the
winter. In winter, the water melts the permafrost which then slides
into the river and causes sedimentation at rates much highter than
normal. When enough sediment builds up, the water will stop flowing
over the dam.
[re supply-side soln's to energy aren't the way to go] ..Energy
economist Ian Goodman of the The Goodman Group in Boston]...Energy
expert Amory Lovings supported Goodman's analysis with concrete
figures. "We're veen doing so well that since 1989, the United States
has got at least seven times as much energy from nsaving as from all
net increases in energy supply" [The savings amounting to $15 billion
worth of energy]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Assemblyman William Hoyt from Buffalo said current figures show that
the contract will represent a $1 million loss to New York Statse. Hoyt
said the State Energy Office incorrectly predicted savings of
$3 million when the contract was signed in 1989.
[Re jobs:]"If we just by raw power from Hydro-Quebec we would create
six jobs per million dollars spent; if we spet it here for energy
efficienty increases, a broad array of jobs would be created -- 24
jobs per million dollars" [Note: $1M is a lot, but this is money
worthwhile spending (efficienty) even with no jobs considerations HB]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
When the first project went through in the early 70s the Cree Indians
signed an aggreement that gave them a say in any future development as
well as the right to hunt, fish and trap on the land that was left.
The Indians marked out boundaries for their trap lines in accordance
with this agreements with this agreement, but the forests within have
been clearcut without their consent. The still water created by the
dams allows microbes to convert inert mercury in the rocks to a form
tha tcontaminates the fish that are the mainsttay of the Cree diet.
Stephen Hazell quoted a Hydro-Quebec official as saying "If there were
no Indians, there would be no mercury problem."[..]The bottom line was
that people should write their Assemblymen[..]Assemblyman Hoyt said
that if the legislature will show that the numbers stack up against
hte contract, Cuomo will back out. Local Assemblyman Marky Luster
(D-125th) added, "A lot of our colleagues are not terribly
knowledgeable about this issue. It's up to you to educate them."
[Ithaca Times -- same--]