To my Shuar brothers and sisters, to the indigenous peoples of the Amazon and Andes, to the men and women of Ecuador and the World.

As many of you know, recent days have been very dangerous for our people. These days have not yet ended and are, indeed, probably only the beginning of a great territorial dispute initiated by the National Government against the Shuar Arutam People.

Our jungle has been stained with tears, anguish and blood. The paths and trails that we used to travel in peace have now become unsafe and dangerous. Almost 30 years have passed since Ecuadorians spoke of us as the Warriors of Cenepa, the defenders of Ecuador, the country to which we belong.

But now it is necessary for people to know us through our own voice. No one has asked us but many have spoken on our behalf, including the Government and social and political leaders, some with good and some with bad intentions.

Taking control of our ancestral forests!

We were born here in this immense jungle of the Cordillera del Cóndor and on the banks of the Zamora and Santiago rivers. We did not know barbed wire or private property. The State declared that these were uncultivated lands and organized the colonization of our territory with the same conviction and self-legitimacy of any colonizer.

When the settlers came to this land we received them well, because we knew that these were poor and hardworking people looking for an opportunity in their lives. From one day to another, large tracts of land no longer belonged to us because they had been sold to people we had never even met.

In the 1960s, we had to create the Interprovincial Federation of Shuar Centers (FICSH), which even today we refer to as our Mother, so that the State would recognize what has always been ours: the territory, our living spaces and our culture. It was only in the 1980s that we began to legalize our lands with community deeds. We began to be recognized, not only for the Cenepa war, but because we have taken care of these immense millennial forests in peace, protecting the borders.

In 2000, a group of Shuar leaders toured these lands and founded the Shuar Arutam Territorial Area, as provided for in the Constitution. This was not a simple process; there were hundreds of meetings and discussions that allowed six associations to unite their 48 centers (communities) and establish a continuous territory of 230,000 hectares in the Province of Morona Santiago on the border with Peru.

FICSH declared us its pilot plan, to test a new form of indigenous government within the Ecuadorian State, like a special regime government in a Shuar territory. In 2003 we wrote our Life Plan, which forms the axis of our organization. This is the guide which tells us which areas we can pass through, for we must navigate rivers, and the areas where we should not even walk.

Our Life Plan addresses fundamental issues such as health, education, the economy, conservation and the good management and control of the forest and its resources. We are almost the only group in the country to organize our territory in categories of sustainable use and we leave more than 120,000 hectares under strict conservation, for the benefit of all Ecuadorians.

In 2006 we were legalized by the Development Council of the Nationalities & Peoples of Ecuador (CODENPE) as Shuar Arutam People. Two years later we signed an agreement with the Government to maintain the forest in perfect condition for 20 years and receive contributions that allow us to develop and implement our Life Plan. This agreement is called Socio Bosque (Forest Partner).

Nankints conflict: mining on our lands is not ‘development’

In 2014 we updated our Life Plan. Once again our Ordinary General Assembly pronounced against medium-scale and mega-mining within our territory. As we said to President Correa, do not tell us that you undertake mining projects to get us out of poverty because we, with our way of life, do not feel poor. Instead, tell us how you will protect us as a people and our culture.

In the context of this history comes the conflict in Nankints. Since 2008 we have been requesting an institutionalized dialogue with the national Government but, despite our efforts, we have been unable to establish a serious, sincere, honest and equal conversation within the framework of the Plurinational State. This is the reason for the lack of interpretation and understanding of the requirements of the Shuar people.

In the name of ‘national interest’ and by describing the situation in Nankints as an isolated case, the Government ignores other rights and issues that are also of national interest and enshrined within the Constitution: multiculturalism and conservation. In Nankints the ‘revolutionary’ Government acts like any colonizing government, forgetting even the international agreements it has signed.

The problem is not the piece of land in Nankints that we share with settlers; people think that this never belonged to the Shuar. We never imagined that a mining company would buy our ancestral heritage land from the State and a few settlers. The Government forgets and, with its many methods of making itself heard, imposes its own truth. Our territory is not only Nankints.

In fact, more than 38% of our territory has been concessioned to large-scale mining. All the riverbanks of the Zamora and Santiago basins have been concessioned to small-scale mining. A gigantic hydroelectric dam is about to be built. So our question is: where do they want us to live?

Living under terrorist Government occupation

That is why, nine years ago, we told the company to leave and we reclaimed Nankints. Nine years later, someone manipulates the President and convinces him to forcibly evict us before the end of his term. We did not leave, so violence came.

We have been blamed for the tragedy of our murdered comrade, the police officer, but we have not given any orders to kill anyone. Instead of dialogue, the Government puts thousands of policemen and soldiers into our homes, on our land, to terrorize and threaten our children.

As far as I know, no inhabitant of our land is a sniper, nor does anyone possess weapons that can pierce a police helmet. Why not investigate thoroughly before persecuting us and issuing orders to capture the heads of our families? Instead of talking to us to investigate and prevent violence, why condemn us to live in a State of Exception? It is reminiscent of the terrible dictatorships of Operation Condor which, according to the President, is being planned again.

Why do they enter our homes? Why do they not let us live in peace? And the answer we have is that, in the name of the ‘national interest’, we have become a handful of folkloric Indians and terrorists who do not understand what good living is, neither Sumak Kawsay [1] nor, even worse, the project of the Citizen Revolution. [2]

We demand only peace and justice

I do not want to dwell on the details of the President’s weekly public addresses. Instead, let us try to look at the big picture in which we find ourselves, avoiding provocation and primitive discussions that lead nowhere.

With this first communiqué from the forests of the Cordillera del Cóndor, we say to the thousand families that we will not, under any circumstance, allow the violence and force of the Government to destroy our house, your house, the World’s house.

President Rafael Correa must create a climate of peace, withdraw his troops, suspend the State of Exception in our province and cancel the arrest warrants of our leaders and relatives. The only true way to end this path of destruction – which provokes Shuar inhabitants into acts of individual resistance to reclaim their territory – is through conversation, respect and mutual understanding.

All inhabitants of Ecuador and Morona Santiago must join our demand for peace, the end of violence and a serious dialogue with the Government that respects our life as an original people.

This article is an Open Letter published by the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon (CONFENIAE) on behalf of the Governing Council of the Shuar Arutam People, 4th January 2017, from somewhere in the Cordillera del Cóndor. This translation is by Chakana Chronicles (18th January) and was previously published by Intercontinental Cry.

Este artículo está disponible en español aquí.

Also on The Ecologist today: ‘Blood and fire: mining and militarization in the Ecuadorian Amazon‘.

Notes

[1] Translating literally as ‘good living’, the Quechua term ‘Sumak Kawsay’ refers to the indigenous cosmovision of living in harmony with our communities, ourselves, and most importantly, our natural environment.

[2] The so-called ‘Citizen Revolution’ is the political and socioeconomic project of Alianza Pais, Ecuador’s current ruling party

The GMO labeling issue has quietened down some but there is still plenty to discuss.

Just this week the USDA proposed its definition of a GMO for labeling purposes – and it includes loopholes for gene editing.

However, it is also possible for reasonable people to imagine that GMO labeling is a sideshow to the real business of the food movement.

After all, most GMO foods and GMO crops are visually indistinguishable from non-GMOs, and tiny non-GMO labels can look pretty irrelevant on the side of a soda bottle containing whole cupfuls of sugar.

Last week, Michael Pollan, Olivier de Schutter, Mark Bittman and Ricardo Salvador made that error, calling GMO labeling “parochial“. Granted, they wrote “important but parochial”, but qualifying the significance of GMO labeling in any way was a mistake.

The first issue is that GMOs are legally distinct from non-GMO crop varieties. They possess an enhanced legal status that has enabled GMOs to become a gushing profit centre for agribusiness.

Special protection for GMO / biotech corporations

These rights not only allow their owners to steer farmers’ herbicide use, which also increases profits; they can also legally prevent independent research which would otherwise show up their advertising claims. The share price of Monsanto reached $142 in 2008, reflecting the enormous profitability of massively increasing seed prices on the back of GMO introductions.

Those profits have in turn fuelled a set of key agribusiness activities. One was the acquisition of almost the entire independent global seed business, which now resides in very few hands. The second was a cluster of enhanced PR and lobbying activities that were necessary to defend GMOs.

Rather than hide in the shadows agribusiness corporations needed to come out swinging in defence of the indefensible, which necessitated, among other things, a much higher degree of control than previously over teaching content and research at public universities.

Thus their special legal status enabled an unprecedented ability to control both the present and the future of agriculture.

GMOs are also conflated with science and thus progress. They have the intellectual role of presenting agribusiness as the innovative and dynamic frontier of agriculture, in contrast to those people who base their efforts on ecological diversity, local expertise, or deep knowledge. This cutting edge image is key to the agribusiness business model of reaping tax breaks and subsidies (Lima, 2015).

All around the world, taxpayer money supports and subsidises agribusiness without which benefits it would not exist (Capellesso et al., 2016). In the final analysis, however, the GMOs-as-progress argument is circular. Agribusiness is innovative because it uses GMOs – and GMOs show how innovative they are. Smoke and mirrors, but politicians fall for it every day, delivering massive transfers of wealth every year from the public to the private sector (Lima, 2015).

It’s the biology, stupid!

The biological truth of GMOs is equally disturbing. At one end of the food chain are the crops in the field. Many people have noticed the virtual disappearance of Monarch butterflies. There are three leading explanations of this disappearance.

The loss from farmland of their larval host plants, milkweeds, is one possibility; poisoning of their caterpillar larvae after consuming insecticide-filled pollen from Bt insect-resistant GMOs is a second; and toxicity from the neonicotinoid pesticides used to treat GMO seeds is the third.

The first two both stem directly or indirectly from GMO use in agricultural fields since before GMOs, milkweeds could not be eradicated and now they can. Most likely is that all three causes are true and that along with milkweeds GMO agriculture also decimated, or eradicated entirely, many other species too.

Monarchs are lovely, but they are not otherwise special. Their significance is as sentinels. Planting milkweeds and pollinator way stations to specially preserve a sentinel species does not rescue an agricultural ecosystem, but it will mask the symptoms. Agribusiness is right now hoping that no one will notice the difference, and that by bringing back monarchs it can obscure the facts of their killing fields.

Internationally too, GMOs threaten to transform agriculture in places like India where millions of people who make a living by labouring in fields could be displaced by herbicide-tolerant crops such as mustard.

Who’s protecting people?

At the human consumption end of the food chain, if you live in the US, no one is protecting you from potential health hazards due to GMOs. Makers of GMO crop varieties don’t even have to notify the FDA of a new product. And if the maker deems the product is not a pesticide they don’t have to notify the EPA either. Trump won’t make it worse because it can’t be worse. It is non-partisan contempt for public health.

What are those potential health hazards? One important example is the famous (or infamous) rat study of NK603 corn by the French research group of professor Gilles-Eric Séralini. It is the only longterm study of the effects of GMOs on a mammal.

If you ignore the tumours that most people focused on, the study found major kidney and liver dysfunction in the treated animals (Séralini et al., 2014). This dysfunction was evident from biochemical measurements and was also visually apparent under the microscope. These results are of no interest to US regulators, even in principle, since they fall between jurisdictions.

From this we can conclude that GMOs are often harmful, directly and indirectly, and further, that they are the leading edge of the business model of agribusiness.

The question, however, was labeling. Imagine that organic food was not allowed to be labeled. Would there be such an organised and powerful challenge to industrial food? What labeling does for the agriculture and food system is to allow the public to express its dismay and disagreement with the direction of corporate agriculture and assert their democratic rights to protect themselves.

Labeling allows the public to engage with specific policies and products within the vast complexity of the food system and push back in a focused way against corruption and dishonesty, in real time.

There aren’t too many chances to do that in America today. 

Dr Jonathan R. Latham is editor of Independent Science News.

This article was originally published by Independent Science News (CC BY-NC-ND). Its creation was supported by The Bioscience Resource Project.

References

• Capellesso AJ, Ademir Antonio Cazella, Abdon Luiz Schmitt Filho, Joshua Farley, and Diego Albino Martins (2016) Economic and environmental impacts of production intensification in agriculture: comparing transgenic, conventional, and agroecological maize crops. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 40: 215-236.
• Lima T. (2015) Agricultural Subsidies for Non-farm Interests: An Analysis of the US Agro-industrial Complex. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy 4(1) 54-84o-industrial Complex.
• Séralini G-E, Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnage, Steeve Gress, Nicolas Defarge, Manuela Malatesta, Didier Hennequin and Joël Spiroux de Vendômois (2014) Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerantgenetically modified maize. Environmental Sciences Europe 26:14 DOI: 10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5.

To my Shuar brothers and sisters, to the indigenous peoples of the Amazon and Andes, to the men and women of Ecuador and the World.

As many of you know, recent days have been very dangerous for our people. These days have not yet ended and are, indeed, probably only the beginning of a great territorial dispute initiated by the National Government against the Shuar Arutam People.

Our jungle has been stained with tears, anguish and blood. The paths and trails that we used to travel in peace have now become unsafe and dangerous. Almost 30 years have passed since Ecuadorians spoke of us as the Warriors of Cenepa, the defenders of Ecuador, the country to which we belong.

But now it is necessary for people to know us through our own voice. No one has asked us but many have spoken on our behalf, including the Government and social and political leaders, some with good and some with bad intentions.

Taking control of our ancestral forests!

We were born here in this immense jungle of the Cordillera del Cóndor and on the banks of the Zamora and Santiago rivers. We did not know barbed wire or private property. The State declared that these were uncultivated lands and organized the colonization of our territory with the same conviction and self-legitimacy of any colonizer.

When the settlers came to this land we received them well, because we knew that these were poor and hardworking people looking for an opportunity in their lives. From one day to another, large tracts of land no longer belonged to us because they had been sold to people we had never even met.

In the 1960s, we had to create the Interprovincial Federation of Shuar Centers (FICSH), which even today we refer to as our Mother, so that the State would recognize what has always been ours: the territory, our living spaces and our culture. It was only in the 1980s that we began to legalize our lands with community deeds. We began to be recognized, not only for the Cenepa war, but because we have taken care of these immense millennial forests in peace, protecting the borders.

In 2000, a group of Shuar leaders toured these lands and founded the Shuar Arutam Territorial Area, as provided for in the Constitution. This was not a simple process; there were hundreds of meetings and discussions that allowed six associations to unite their 48 centers (communities) and establish a continuous territory of 230,000 hectares in the Province of Morona Santiago on the border with Peru.

FICSH declared us its pilot plan, to test a new form of indigenous government within the Ecuadorian State, like a special regime government in a Shuar territory. In 2003 we wrote our Life Plan, which forms the axis of our organization. This is the guide which tells us which areas we can pass through, for we must navigate rivers, and the areas where we should not even walk.

Our Life Plan addresses fundamental issues such as health, education, the economy, conservation and the good management and control of the forest and its resources. We are almost the only group in the country to organize our territory in categories of sustainable use and we leave more than 120,000 hectares under strict conservation, for the benefit of all Ecuadorians.

In 2006 we were legalized by the Development Council of the Nationalities & Peoples of Ecuador (CODENPE) as Shuar Arutam People. Two years later we signed an agreement with the Government to maintain the forest in perfect condition for 20 years and receive contributions that allow us to develop and implement our Life Plan. This agreement is called Socio Bosque (Forest Partner).

Nankints conflict: mining on our lands is not ‘development’

In 2014 we updated our Life Plan. Once again our Ordinary General Assembly pronounced against medium-scale and mega-mining within our territory. As we said to President Correa, do not tell us that you undertake mining projects to get us out of poverty because we, with our way of life, do not feel poor. Instead, tell us how you will protect us as a people and our culture.

In the context of this history comes the conflict in Nankints. Since 2008 we have been requesting an institutionalized dialogue with the national Government but, despite our efforts, we have been unable to establish a serious, sincere, honest and equal conversation within the framework of the Plurinational State. This is the reason for the lack of interpretation and understanding of the requirements of the Shuar people.

In the name of ‘national interest’ and by describing the situation in Nankints as an isolated case, the Government ignores other rights and issues that are also of national interest and enshrined within the Constitution: multiculturalism and conservation. In Nankints the ‘revolutionary’ Government acts like any colonizing government, forgetting even the international agreements it has signed.

The problem is not the piece of land in Nankints that we share with settlers; people think that this never belonged to the Shuar. We never imagined that a mining company would buy our ancestral heritage land from the State and a few settlers. The Government forgets and, with its many methods of making itself heard, imposes its own truth. Our territory is not only Nankints.

In fact, more than 38% of our territory has been concessioned to large-scale mining. All the riverbanks of the Zamora and Santiago basins have been concessioned to small-scale mining. A gigantic hydroelectric dam is about to be built. So our question is: where do they want us to live?

Living under terrorist Government occupation

That is why, nine years ago, we told the company to leave and we reclaimed Nankints. Nine years later, someone manipulates the President and convinces him to forcibly evict us before the end of his term. We did not leave, so violence came.

We have been blamed for the tragedy of our murdered comrade, the police officer, but we have not given any orders to kill anyone. Instead of dialogue, the Government puts thousands of policemen and soldiers into our homes, on our land, to terrorize and threaten our children.

As far as I know, no inhabitant of our land is a sniper, nor does anyone possess weapons that can pierce a police helmet. Why not investigate thoroughly before persecuting us and issuing orders to capture the heads of our families? Instead of talking to us to investigate and prevent violence, why condemn us to live in a State of Exception? It is reminiscent of the terrible dictatorships of Operation Condor which, according to the President, is being planned again.

Why do they enter our homes? Why do they not let us live in peace? And the answer we have is that, in the name of the ‘national interest’, we have become a handful of folkloric Indians and terrorists who do not understand what good living is, neither Sumak Kawsay [1] nor, even worse, the project of the Citizen Revolution. [2]

We demand only peace and justice

I do not want to dwell on the details of the President’s weekly public addresses. Instead, let us try to look at the big picture in which we find ourselves, avoiding provocation and primitive discussions that lead nowhere.

With this first communiqué from the forests of the Cordillera del Cóndor, we say to the thousand families that we will not, under any circumstance, allow the violence and force of the Government to destroy our house, your house, the World’s house.

President Rafael Correa must create a climate of peace, withdraw his troops, suspend the State of Exception in our province and cancel the arrest warrants of our leaders and relatives. The only true way to end this path of destruction – which provokes Shuar inhabitants into acts of individual resistance to reclaim their territory – is through conversation, respect and mutual understanding.

All inhabitants of Ecuador and Morona Santiago must join our demand for peace, the end of violence and a serious dialogue with the Government that respects our life as an original people.

This article is an Open Letter published by the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon (CONFENIAE) on behalf of the Governing Council of the Shuar Arutam People, 4th January 2017, from somewhere in the Cordillera del Cóndor. This translation is by Chakana Chronicles (18th January) and was previously published by Intercontinental Cry.

Este artículo está disponible en español aquí.

Also on The Ecologist today: ‘Blood and fire: mining and militarization in the Ecuadorian Amazon‘.

Notes

[1] Translating literally as ‘good living’, the Quechua term ‘Sumak Kawsay’ refers to the indigenous cosmovision of living in harmony with our communities, ourselves, and most importantly, our natural environment.

[2] The so-called ‘Citizen Revolution’ is the political and socioeconomic project of Alianza Pais, Ecuador’s current ruling party

Before dawn on the 21st December 2016, dozens of police raided the headquarters of the Shuar Federation (FISCH) in the Ecuadorian Amazon and arbitrarily detained its president, Agustin Wachapá.

The indigenous leader was thrown to the ground and repeatedly stamped on and ridiculed beneath the boots of police in front of his wife. The police then razed the Shuar Federation’s office-turning over furniture and carrying away computers.

According to the indigenous leader’s wife, her husband was taken away without any kind of explanation. An arrest warrant for Wachapá was never presented.

Agustin Wachapá has since been accused of publicly calling for the mobilization and violent resistance of the Shuar communities against state security forces in San Juan Bosco, where the indigenous community in Nankints was evicted and had their homes demolished against their will to make way for the Chinese Explorcobres SA (EXSA) open-cast copper mine.

In the two months since the forced eviction, members of the communities surrounding Nankints have twice attempted to retake the land that was confiscated from them. On 14th December, the second attempt to storm the mine resulted in the death of a policeman and wounded seven other members of the state security forces.

The Ecuadorian government also declared a State of Emergency suspending basic rights such as freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, and due process under law, as well as granting the military the exceptional power to enter private residences and arbitrarily detain people without warrants or evidence.

Under a massive military occupation

An overwhelming military presence was then deployed across the Amazonian province to bolster security around the Chinese mine and quell all dissent. That prompted Domingo Ankuash, the historical leader of the Shuar to call upon the United Nations and other international human rights organizations to monitor the militarization of his people’s ancestral lands.

Those lands, he estimates, are now under occupation by 8,000 high-ranking members of the military – marine, air and land troops – equipped with four war-tanks, surveillance drones, aerostatic balloons, mobile satellites and helicopter gunships.

The region – known as the Cordillera of the Condor – is where the cloud forests on the eastern slopes of the Andes drops off into the vast rainforests of the Amazon basin. It contains some of the most richly biodiverse ecosystems in the world.

Once operational, the Explorcobres S.A. (EXSA) mine-a joint venture of Tongling and China Railway Construction-will be the second largest copper mine on the planet. It will make an estimated $1.2bn in annual royalties for the Ecuadorian government. It will also consume 41,769 hectares of rainforest and rural agricultural land, much of it belonging to the Shuar Peoples.

Now, almost a month after his arbitrary detention, Agustin Wachupá is being kept in a maximum security prison on the other side of the country near the capital Quito, despite a call from Amnesty International to respect his judicial rights.

“The Ecuadorian government must protect the Shuar people from attacks on their community, and not impose states of emergency or arrest Indigenous leaders”, said María José Veramendi, AI’s South America researcher. “These acts of intimidation only serve to increase tension and put the lives of more people at risk.”

The State of Emergency within Morona Santiago was extended for another 30 days, and a media blackout was been imposed, forcing 15 community radio stations to broadcast the state-run Radio Publico.

‘These military forces are acting for foreign corporations’

Meanwhile, the government stepped up its manhunt for the “illegal armed group” involved in the violent incursions onto Explorcobres SA. Community leaders are claiming a witch-hunt has begun in order to capture and detain people of influence such as teachers or leaders who belong to local committees opposed to the mine, as well as the heads of households whose homes were bulldozed in Nankints.

All of these people have one thing in common: they are predominantly indigenous males of military age.

“The government of Rafael Correa is pushing the Armed Forces to play a role that we have never seen before, not even in times of dictatorship”, said Jorge Herrera, an indigenous leader of the Kichwa Peoples from the neighbouring Andes highlands. As president of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE).

Herrera has expressed his increasing alarm at the military buildup inside of the Condor Cordillera on behalf of the 14 other indigenous nations of Ecuador that belong to the confederation: “The military is not defending the security of the population, but rather the transnational corporations that have purchased licenses [to exploit] large hectares of Ecuadorian territory as private property.”

From Dayuma to Sarayuku, President Correa’s government has deployed its overwhelming military might against rural and indigenous communities that oppose the nation’s booming mining industry before; but the current mobilization of state security forces inside Morona Santiago is unprecedented in terms of scale and scope in the country’s modern history.

Not since 1995, during the Cenepa War between Ecuador and Peru, has their been such a massive build-up of armed forces along the Peruvian border on the western ridges of the Condor Cordillera, but back in 1995, in a complete reversal of roles, former president Sixto Duran commended the Shuar for working with the military to defend the Ecuadorian homeland from an invading foreign army.

‘We will not yield a millimeter more’

The War of the Cenepa was the third military confrontation between Ecuador and Peru since 1941, and Ecuador had already suffered two embarrassing military defeats in both its previous battles with Peru along with the annexation of almost a third of the country’s former territory – hundreds of thousands of kilometres of oil and mineral rich land in the Amazon rainforest.

Until its resolution in 1998, the border dispute between the two nation states had become the longest-running international armed conflict in the Western Hemisphere. And back in 1995, when the Amazon rainforest had turned into a theatre of modern warfare, this ancient people known as the Shuar were joining the Ecuadorian military en-masse.

A military anthem called ‘We will not yield a millimetre more‘ was being broadcast into television sets across the country to recruit men in their prime to join the Ecuadorian army and defend the nation’s borders against the Peruvians.

The televised anthem featured clips of patriotic crowds waving Ecuadorian flags, coffins of the fallen being carried from army helicopters, as well as soldiers in motorized canoes with mounted machine guns, scanning the thick vegetation on the river banks for Peruvian invaders.

The speech of former-President Sixto Durán invokes patriotic fervour, uniting the Ecuadorian people to defend the motherland against a common enemy. The chorus, ‘Heroes of the Cenepa, we are all heroes’ is chanted as an indigenous leader speaks to the Ecuadorian media, his traditional feather-headress proudly flashed across the screen.

The Shuar have always been a proud and fierce nation of warriors – long-feared for their practice of shrinking and mummifying the heads of enemies killed in combat in the days before contact – and they were respected and admired by their military comrades.

In the Cenepa War, they were charged with transporting food and munitions over inhospitable jungle terrain, running reconnaissance missions around enemy camps and fighting on the Amazonian frontline – a mineral-rich basin by the river Cenepa within the mountainous Condor Cordillera.

‘Once the Shuar were national heroes!’

While the ancient tradition of head-hunting is no longer practiced by the Shuar, the feats on the Amazonian battlefield of an elite unit of Special Forces made up indigenous Shuar, and their ethnic cousins the Achuar, had captured the imagination of the Ecuadorian people. They were known as the Arútam Brigade, or the Iwia – the ‘Demons of the Jungle’ – and they had become the pride of the nation. They were the ‘Heroes of the Cenepa’.

As night fell over the Condor Cordillera, legend goes that when possessed by the sacred spirit of Arútam, these indigenous commandos could enter the enemy camp with the stealth of the jaguar and the cunning of the anaconda, and then, disappear into the night as silently as they came without alerting the lookouts.

When the Peruvian military woke at dawn the next day they discovered evidence of the incursion when members of their regiment would not move – they were still sleeping, lifeless without heads.

These mythical war-stories of the Arútam Brigade on the Amazonian battlefield not only canonized the Shuar as defenders of the motherland at a time when the Ecuadorian people’s confidence in their own military had been shaken by their two previous military defeats – they struck fear into the heart of the invading Peruvian army.

The Shuar Peoples helped the Ecuadorian government and its military win the War of the Cenepa. Ecuador did not yield a millimeter more of its territory to its much larger neighbor Peru – and the Shuar were proud to have served for their military and for their country in a time of need.

Ecuador’s presidential elections and backlash to the mining boom

The conflict in Nankints could not have come at a worse time for President Correa and his ruling party Alianza Pais. As the incumbent government closes ranks around Correa’s anointed successor – former Vice-President Lenin Moreno – in the upcoming February presidential elections, the Shuar uprising in the Condor Cordillera has again illuminated the dark underbelly of President Correa’s so-called socialist ‘Citizens Revolution’.

The outgoing president has spent unprecedented sums of money on infrastructure projects and social programs on his ambitious socialist agenda, but a perfect storm of plummeting oil prices, economic mismanagement, and numerous corruption scandals, have almost bankrupted the country.

It took multiple billion-dollar loans from China to artificially prop up the Ecuadorian economy – and with it President Correa’s popularity. It will take generations for Ecuador to pay back this debt, and in the last few years the cash-strapped administration of President Correa has sold mining concessions to the Chinese that span a third of the country’s vast Amazon rainforest, as well as opened up large sections of pristine Andes wetlands and cloud-forests for mining in fragile ecosystems such as Intag and Quimsacocha.

These mines have become even more invasive and destructive to Ecuador’s richly biodiverse ecosystems and rural communities, exposing President Correa’s brand of socialism for what it is: militarized neoliberalism where anyone who is unfortunate enough to live above an oil or mineral deposit is stripped of their rights at the point of a gun.

As the leader of the Shuar Federation Agustin Wachupa sits in prison, his thoughts have no doubt called upon the memory of Jose Isidro Tendetza Antun – another Shuar leader who fought against another open-cut copper mine along the Condor Cordillera.

El Mirador was the first open-cut mine in the country and was widely viewed as establishing a precedent for the nation’s booming mining industry. For years, Tendetza had organized community opposition to the mine, protesting the contamination of the region’s rivers as well as the eviction of rural and indigenous people who lived on the lands now being consumed by El Mirador.

Now three Shuar leaders have been murdered for opposing mining

For his opposition against the mine, the late Shuar leader received constant harassment and death threats against him – including in 2012, when his house and crops were set on fire by men his family claimed were employees of the Chinese mine. Tendetza filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

In 2014, as the Shuar leader prepared to leave for Lima, Peru, to give a speech at the 2014 Climate Change Conference, he went missing. After a tip-off, Tendetza’s son found his father in a grave marked ‘no name’. There were strangulation marks around his father’s throat, as well as broken bones and other signs of torture that marked the Shuar leaders body. His arms and legs were trussed with a blue rope.

Tendetza was the third Shuar leader to be violently murdered for opposing the mining industry since Bosco Wisum in 2009 and Freddy Taish in 2013.

As is the case with many other large scale mining projects across Ecuador, a process of Free and Informed Prior Consent and Consultation was not carried out with the Shuar community over the exploration and exploitation of the minerals beneath the land in Nankints.

This means Explorcobres SA (EXSA) is now in direct violation of Section 7 Article 57 of the Ecuadorian Constitution, as well as the rights enshrined in Articles 6 and 15.2 of Convention 169 of the ILO, and Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Mining companies – accomplices to genocide?

“Our territory is not only Nankints”, the Shuar Peoples stated in a letter (also published today on The Ecologist). “In fact, more than 38% of our territory has been concessioned to large-scale mining. All the riverbanks of the Zamora and Santiago basins have been concessioned to small-scale mining. A gigantic hydroelectric dam is about to be built. So our question is: where do they want us to live?”

“The invasion of oil and mining companies, now Chinese and Canadian and others, are accomplices with this regime and their military police and followers”, said Domingo Ankuash, the historic leader of the Shuar.

“The constitution, conventions and international declarations of human rights as well as the United Nations are worthless with no coercive power to stop this aggression. The Shuar Peoples are suffering at this time.”

Jake Ling writes for Intercontinental Cry and tweets at @chekhovdispatch. See more articles by Jake Ling on IC here.

This article was originally published on Intercontinental Cry.

In the closing days of President Obama’s second term, he and leaders in the Executive Branch worked feverishly to articulate their views of the administration’s legacy – and to cement that legacy as much as possible.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the areas of energy, climate and environment, where, as EPA Administrator Gina McCarty had said since well before the election, the plan was to “run through the tape“ at the end of this administration.

Ordinarily, one might examine how an incoming administration and Congress could set new priorities or undo the actions of the previous administration. But this is no ordinary transition.

Not only are we confronted by Donald Trump’s less-than-consistent pattern of sound bites and tweets, but also the transition period has seen a daily stream of Cabinet nominees disagreeing with Trump, the dismissal of political norms and constitutional limitations regarding presidential conflict of interest, and even questions about the ability of an unfriendly foreign power to influence US policy. From the miasma, little is certain except that the Trump administration will seek a rapid reversal of course.

Ultimately, we must judge the legacy of the Obama administration by the tides of change set in motion by its actions. The Supreme Court may gut the Voting Rights Act, but the enduring impacts of its expansion of voting rights are not so easily erased. The 115th Congress may repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but it is difficult to see some of the linchpins of Obamacare, such as coverage for pre-existing conditions, disappearing from the expectations of the American people.

What then about clean energy? What can survive a worst-case policy, legal and legislative onslaught? What if the Clean Power Plan, the tougher fuel economy standards for our cars and trucks, the Paris climate accords, and other environmental achievements touted by the Obama administration go out the window?

The answer, from my perspective as the director of the University of Michigan’s Energy Institute, lies largely outside of Washington. It lies in the economic globalization from which Trump has profited as a businessman, yet railed against as a candidate. It lies in the ability of our states to act as the ‘laboratories of democracy’ in ways that states-rights advocates have long extolled. Ironies abound.

EPA in the crosshairs

In his recent article ‘The irreversible momentum of clean energy’, Obama notes that over the past eight years, CO₂ emissions from the energy sector fell by 9.5%. While the growth of renewable energy from wind and solar has played a part, the dominant contributor to this trend has been the displacement of coal by natural gas as the single largest fuel source for electricity production in the US.

That shift has been enabled by the dramatic increase in US oil and gas production from shale and other ‘tight’ geologic formations. It’s resulted in cheap and abundant natural gas, made cheap gasoline the norm for the past two years and vaulted the US to become the world’s top energy producer.

It’s still not clear whether the EPA Clean Power Plan – regulations designed to curb CO₂ emissions from power generators now held up in the courts – will survive legal challenges or what the Trump administration will do with it. Regardless, the continuing reduction of emissions from the power sector is here to stay for the foreseeable future. The demise of coal is a matter of economics, not policy or regulation.

But if the goals of the Clean Power Plan are sailing with the favorable wind of domestic energy supplies, the Jan. 13 action of the EPA to lock in vehicle fuel efficiency standards through 2025 might be seen to be sailing against the same wind.

Automakers, not surprisingly, complained and have already appealed to President-elect Trump to undo these. Consumers, enjoying cheap gasoline for the past two years, have continued to buy larger and less fuel-efficient vehicles. Why should we expect higher fuel economy standards to survive?

The reasons are threefold. The EPA’s determination, after a lengthy evaluation of technical and economic feasibility and appropriateness, is legally binding. Reversal by the next administration would require a similarly lengthy process to establish a different finding and appropriate regulatory response.

While dazzling electronic capabilities and more self-driving features capture most of the attention at auto and consumer electronics shows, there also has been a relentless advance in fuel-saving technologies and, most importantly, investment in their large-scale manufacture. Advances such as engine stop-start and higher efficiency internal combustion engines are now standard.

Ford introduced the lighter-weight, aluminum body F-150 for the 2015 model year. GM has begun to deliver the electric Chevy Bolt. The progressive increases in fuel economy standards that have just been locked down to 2025 may stretch automakers, but there is no reason to expect the pace of technological innovation in more efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles to abate.

The reason for that is the global marketplace. The US market represents about 20% of the global car market, and that share will likely decline as populations and economies grow elsewhere. Increasing urbanization will increase the need for ever-cleaner transportation, a trend automakers have recognized.

On 3rd January, Ford rolled out its plans for seven of the 13 new electrified vehicles it plans to introduce in the next five years. Today, more electric cars are being sold in China than in the rest of the world combined.

Automakers complain that US consumers are not willing to pay for better efficiency if it adds significant cost. However, consumer response to low energy prices suggests that vehicle size, not cost, has driven recent trends toward gas-guzzlers.

So meeting US efficiency and emissions standards by developing new technologies and products will continue to improve the global competitiveness of the auto industry. That isn’t going to change, no matter who occupies the White House. Unless, of course, that individual starts a trade war.

Economic clout of renewables

What about renewables for electricity generation? Can a Trump administration set back clean energy for a generation, as the Reagan administration did? The answer is simply no.

They may slow it down a bit by removal of tax incentives and disinvestment in federally funded R&D (both of which will attract significant opposition from many Republicans in Congress in wind-friendly states, for instance), but here the Obama legacy will not be uprooted. The reason is that we are at a much different place on the experience curve, both technologically and societally.

While wind and solar combined accounted for only 5.3% of US electricity generated in 2015, costs for these renewable sources of electricity have been cut roughly in half since 2008; installed solar capacity has increased 17-fold and wind capacity has increased three-fold.

Whether or not people install solar panels on their houses or support wind turbines in their own or somebody else’s backyard, these are no longer seen as exotic sources of energy. Just last month the nation’s first off-shore wind farm became operational, and given the proximity of 70% of America’s population to its coasts, this too may soon seem less exotic.

However, the real action on renewable power generation will likely be outside of Washington during the next administration. Twenty-nine states have Renewable Portfolio Standards, or mandates, for electricity generation in effect, with California’s ’50 percent by 2050′ being the most ambitious.

While the number of states with these renewable energy mandates has not changed much in the past eight years, the requirements in many of these have continued to be ratcheted up, with demonstrable economic benefit. Most notably in 2016, Michigan and Ohio successfully resisted attempts by Republican-controlled legislatures to eliminate their standards.

Part of the reason is that clean power is emerging as an important tool for economic development at the state level. The Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance includes some of the country’s largest and most respected corporations, and states that wish to attract or retain these employers are moving to ensure their clean energy supply needs can be met. While failure by states to ensure access to clean energy supplies may not yet have the same negative impact on recruitment and retention of businesses as passing ‘bathroom bills’, the future direction is clear.

In the end, the enduring clean energy legacy of the Obama administration may be that it got us ‘over the hump’ of thinking in terms of the false dichotomy of clean versus affordable energy.

While the revolution in domestic production of gas and oil relieved many of the economic pressures, the strong emphasis on clean energy development and deployment from the very beginning, including US$90 billion in clean energy investments and tax credits made under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, have ensured a cleaner energy trajectory for the nation.

The pace may change, but the ultimate direction will not.

Mark Barteau is Director, University of Michigan Energy Institute, University of Michigan.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

In the closing days of President Obama’s second term, he and leaders in the Executive Branch worked feverishly to articulate their views of the administration’s legacy – and to cement that legacy as much as possible.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the areas of energy, climate and environment, where, as EPA Administrator Gina McCarty had said since well before the election, the plan was to “run through the tape“ at the end of this administration.

Ordinarily, one might examine how an incoming administration and Congress could set new priorities or undo the actions of the previous administration. But this is no ordinary transition.

Not only are we confronted by Donald Trump’s less-than-consistent pattern of sound bites and tweets, but also the transition period has seen a daily stream of Cabinet nominees disagreeing with Trump, the dismissal of political norms and constitutional limitations regarding presidential conflict of interest, and even questions about the ability of an unfriendly foreign power to influence US policy. From the miasma, little is certain except that the Trump administration will seek a rapid reversal of course.

Ultimately, we must judge the legacy of the Obama administration by the tides of change set in motion by its actions. The Supreme Court may gut the Voting Rights Act, but the enduring impacts of its expansion of voting rights are not so easily erased. The 115th Congress may repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but it is difficult to see some of the linchpins of Obamacare, such as coverage for pre-existing conditions, disappearing from the expectations of the American people.

What then about clean energy? What can survive a worst-case policy, legal and legislative onslaught? What if the Clean Power Plan, the tougher fuel economy standards for our cars and trucks, the Paris climate accords, and other environmental achievements touted by the Obama administration go out the window?

The answer, from my perspective as the director of the University of Michigan’s Energy Institute, lies largely outside of Washington. It lies in the economic globalization from which Trump has profited as a businessman, yet railed against as a candidate. It lies in the ability of our states to act as the ‘laboratories of democracy’ in ways that states-rights advocates have long extolled. Ironies abound.

EPA in the crosshairs

In his recent article ‘The irreversible momentum of clean energy’, Obama notes that over the past eight years, CO₂ emissions from the energy sector fell by 9.5%. While the growth of renewable energy from wind and solar has played a part, the dominant contributor to this trend has been the displacement of coal by natural gas as the single largest fuel source for electricity production in the US.

That shift has been enabled by the dramatic increase in US oil and gas production from shale and other ‘tight’ geologic formations. It’s resulted in cheap and abundant natural gas, made cheap gasoline the norm for the past two years and vaulted the US to become the world’s top energy producer.

It’s still not clear whether the EPA Clean Power Plan – regulations designed to curb CO₂ emissions from power generators now held up in the courts – will survive legal challenges or what the Trump administration will do with it. Regardless, the continuing reduction of emissions from the power sector is here to stay for the foreseeable future. The demise of coal is a matter of economics, not policy or regulation.

But if the goals of the Clean Power Plan are sailing with the favorable wind of domestic energy supplies, the Jan. 13 action of the EPA to lock in vehicle fuel efficiency standards through 2025 might be seen to be sailing against the same wind.

Automakers, not surprisingly, complained and have already appealed to President-elect Trump to undo these. Consumers, enjoying cheap gasoline for the past two years, have continued to buy larger and less fuel-efficient vehicles. Why should we expect higher fuel economy standards to survive?

The reasons are threefold. The EPA’s determination, after a lengthy evaluation of technical and economic feasibility and appropriateness, is legally binding. Reversal by the next administration would require a similarly lengthy process to establish a different finding and appropriate regulatory response.

While dazzling electronic capabilities and more self-driving features capture most of the attention at auto and consumer electronics shows, there also has been a relentless advance in fuel-saving technologies and, most importantly, investment in their large-scale manufacture. Advances such as engine stop-start and higher efficiency internal combustion engines are now standard.

Ford introduced the lighter-weight, aluminum body F-150 for the 2015 model year. GM has begun to deliver the electric Chevy Bolt. The progressive increases in fuel economy standards that have just been locked down to 2025 may stretch automakers, but there is no reason to expect the pace of technological innovation in more efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles to abate.

The reason for that is the global marketplace. The US market represents about 20% of the global car market, and that share will likely decline as populations and economies grow elsewhere. Increasing urbanization will increase the need for ever-cleaner transportation, a trend automakers have recognized.

On 3rd January, Ford rolled out its plans for seven of the 13 new electrified vehicles it plans to introduce in the next five years. Today, more electric cars are being sold in China than in the rest of the world combined.

Automakers complain that US consumers are not willing to pay for better efficiency if it adds significant cost. However, consumer response to low energy prices suggests that vehicle size, not cost, has driven recent trends toward gas-guzzlers.

So meeting US efficiency and emissions standards by developing new technologies and products will continue to improve the global competitiveness of the auto industry. That isn’t going to change, no matter who occupies the White House. Unless, of course, that individual starts a trade war.

Economic clout of renewables

What about renewables for electricity generation? Can a Trump administration set back clean energy for a generation, as the Reagan administration did? The answer is simply no.

They may slow it down a bit by removal of tax incentives and disinvestment in federally funded R&D (both of which will attract significant opposition from many Republicans in Congress in wind-friendly states, for instance), but here the Obama legacy will not be uprooted. The reason is that we are at a much different place on the experience curve, both technologically and societally.

While wind and solar combined accounted for only 5.3% of US electricity generated in 2015, costs for these renewable sources of electricity have been cut roughly in half since 2008; installed solar capacity has increased 17-fold and wind capacity has increased three-fold.

Whether or not people install solar panels on their houses or support wind turbines in their own or somebody else’s backyard, these are no longer seen as exotic sources of energy. Just last month the nation’s first off-shore wind farm became operational, and given the proximity of 70% of America’s population to its coasts, this too may soon seem less exotic.

However, the real action on renewable power generation will likely be outside of Washington during the next administration. Twenty-nine states have Renewable Portfolio Standards, or mandates, for electricity generation in effect, with California’s ’50 percent by 2050′ being the most ambitious.

While the number of states with these renewable energy mandates has not changed much in the past eight years, the requirements in many of these have continued to be ratcheted up, with demonstrable economic benefit. Most notably in 2016, Michigan and Ohio successfully resisted attempts by Republican-controlled legislatures to eliminate their standards.

Part of the reason is that clean power is emerging as an important tool for economic development at the state level. The Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance includes some of the country’s largest and most respected corporations, and states that wish to attract or retain these employers are moving to ensure their clean energy supply needs can be met. While failure by states to ensure access to clean energy supplies may not yet have the same negative impact on recruitment and retention of businesses as passing ‘bathroom bills’, the future direction is clear.

In the end, the enduring clean energy legacy of the Obama administration may be that it got us ‘over the hump’ of thinking in terms of the false dichotomy of clean versus affordable energy.

While the revolution in domestic production of gas and oil relieved many of the economic pressures, the strong emphasis on clean energy development and deployment from the very beginning, including US$90 billion in clean energy investments and tax credits made under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, have ensured a cleaner energy trajectory for the nation.

The pace may change, but the ultimate direction will not.

Mark Barteau is Director, University of Michigan Energy Institute, University of Michigan.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

In the closing days of President Obama’s second term, he and leaders in the Executive Branch worked feverishly to articulate their views of the administration’s legacy – and to cement that legacy as much as possible.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the areas of energy, climate and environment, where, as EPA Administrator Gina McCarty had said since well before the election, the plan was to “run through the tape“ at the end of this administration.

Ordinarily, one might examine how an incoming administration and Congress could set new priorities or undo the actions of the previous administration. But this is no ordinary transition.

Not only are we confronted by Donald Trump’s less-than-consistent pattern of sound bites and tweets, but also the transition period has seen a daily stream of Cabinet nominees disagreeing with Trump, the dismissal of political norms and constitutional limitations regarding presidential conflict of interest, and even questions about the ability of an unfriendly foreign power to influence US policy. From the miasma, little is certain except that the Trump administration will seek a rapid reversal of course.

Ultimately, we must judge the legacy of the Obama administration by the tides of change set in motion by its actions. The Supreme Court may gut the Voting Rights Act, but the enduring impacts of its expansion of voting rights are not so easily erased. The 115th Congress may repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but it is difficult to see some of the linchpins of Obamacare, such as coverage for pre-existing conditions, disappearing from the expectations of the American people.

What then about clean energy? What can survive a worst-case policy, legal and legislative onslaught? What if the Clean Power Plan, the tougher fuel economy standards for our cars and trucks, the Paris climate accords, and other environmental achievements touted by the Obama administration go out the window?

The answer, from my perspective as the director of the University of Michigan’s Energy Institute, lies largely outside of Washington. It lies in the economic globalization from which Trump has profited as a businessman, yet railed against as a candidate. It lies in the ability of our states to act as the ‘laboratories of democracy’ in ways that states-rights advocates have long extolled. Ironies abound.

EPA in the crosshairs

In his recent article ‘The irreversible momentum of clean energy’, Obama notes that over the past eight years, CO₂ emissions from the energy sector fell by 9.5%. While the growth of renewable energy from wind and solar has played a part, the dominant contributor to this trend has been the displacement of coal by natural gas as the single largest fuel source for electricity production in the US.

That shift has been enabled by the dramatic increase in US oil and gas production from shale and other ‘tight’ geologic formations. It’s resulted in cheap and abundant natural gas, made cheap gasoline the norm for the past two years and vaulted the US to become the world’s top energy producer.

It’s still not clear whether the EPA Clean Power Plan – regulations designed to curb CO₂ emissions from power generators now held up in the courts – will survive legal challenges or what the Trump administration will do with it. Regardless, the continuing reduction of emissions from the power sector is here to stay for the foreseeable future. The demise of coal is a matter of economics, not policy or regulation.

But if the goals of the Clean Power Plan are sailing with the favorable wind of domestic energy supplies, the Jan. 13 action of the EPA to lock in vehicle fuel efficiency standards through 2025 might be seen to be sailing against the same wind.

Automakers, not surprisingly, complained and have already appealed to President-elect Trump to undo these. Consumers, enjoying cheap gasoline for the past two years, have continued to buy larger and less fuel-efficient vehicles. Why should we expect higher fuel economy standards to survive?

The reasons are threefold. The EPA’s determination, after a lengthy evaluation of technical and economic feasibility and appropriateness, is legally binding. Reversal by the next administration would require a similarly lengthy process to establish a different finding and appropriate regulatory response.

While dazzling electronic capabilities and more self-driving features capture most of the attention at auto and consumer electronics shows, there also has been a relentless advance in fuel-saving technologies and, most importantly, investment in their large-scale manufacture. Advances such as engine stop-start and higher efficiency internal combustion engines are now standard.

Ford introduced the lighter-weight, aluminum body F-150 for the 2015 model year. GM has begun to deliver the electric Chevy Bolt. The progressive increases in fuel economy standards that have just been locked down to 2025 may stretch automakers, but there is no reason to expect the pace of technological innovation in more efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles to abate.

The reason for that is the global marketplace. The US market represents about 20% of the global car market, and that share will likely decline as populations and economies grow elsewhere. Increasing urbanization will increase the need for ever-cleaner transportation, a trend automakers have recognized.

On 3rd January, Ford rolled out its plans for seven of the 13 new electrified vehicles it plans to introduce in the next five years. Today, more electric cars are being sold in China than in the rest of the world combined.

Automakers complain that US consumers are not willing to pay for better efficiency if it adds significant cost. However, consumer response to low energy prices suggests that vehicle size, not cost, has driven recent trends toward gas-guzzlers.

So meeting US efficiency and emissions standards by developing new technologies and products will continue to improve the global competitiveness of the auto industry. That isn’t going to change, no matter who occupies the White House. Unless, of course, that individual starts a trade war.

Economic clout of renewables

What about renewables for electricity generation? Can a Trump administration set back clean energy for a generation, as the Reagan administration did? The answer is simply no.

They may slow it down a bit by removal of tax incentives and disinvestment in federally funded R&D (both of which will attract significant opposition from many Republicans in Congress in wind-friendly states, for instance), but here the Obama legacy will not be uprooted. The reason is that we are at a much different place on the experience curve, both technologically and societally.

While wind and solar combined accounted for only 5.3% of US electricity generated in 2015, costs for these renewable sources of electricity have been cut roughly in half since 2008; installed solar capacity has increased 17-fold and wind capacity has increased three-fold.

Whether or not people install solar panels on their houses or support wind turbines in their own or somebody else’s backyard, these are no longer seen as exotic sources of energy. Just last month the nation’s first off-shore wind farm became operational, and given the proximity of 70% of America’s population to its coasts, this too may soon seem less exotic.

However, the real action on renewable power generation will likely be outside of Washington during the next administration. Twenty-nine states have Renewable Portfolio Standards, or mandates, for electricity generation in effect, with California’s ’50 percent by 2050′ being the most ambitious.

While the number of states with these renewable energy mandates has not changed much in the past eight years, the requirements in many of these have continued to be ratcheted up, with demonstrable economic benefit. Most notably in 2016, Michigan and Ohio successfully resisted attempts by Republican-controlled legislatures to eliminate their standards.

Part of the reason is that clean power is emerging as an important tool for economic development at the state level. The Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance includes some of the country’s largest and most respected corporations, and states that wish to attract or retain these employers are moving to ensure their clean energy supply needs can be met. While failure by states to ensure access to clean energy supplies may not yet have the same negative impact on recruitment and retention of businesses as passing ‘bathroom bills’, the future direction is clear.

In the end, the enduring clean energy legacy of the Obama administration may be that it got us ‘over the hump’ of thinking in terms of the false dichotomy of clean versus affordable energy.

While the revolution in domestic production of gas and oil relieved many of the economic pressures, the strong emphasis on clean energy development and deployment from the very beginning, including US$90 billion in clean energy investments and tax credits made under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, have ensured a cleaner energy trajectory for the nation.

The pace may change, but the ultimate direction will not.

Mark Barteau is Director, University of Michigan Energy Institute, University of Michigan.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

In the closing days of President Obama’s second term, he and leaders in the Executive Branch worked feverishly to articulate their views of the administration’s legacy – and to cement that legacy as much as possible.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the areas of energy, climate and environment, where, as EPA Administrator Gina McCarty had said since well before the election, the plan was to “run through the tape“ at the end of this administration.

Ordinarily, one might examine how an incoming administration and Congress could set new priorities or undo the actions of the previous administration. But this is no ordinary transition.

Not only are we confronted by Donald Trump’s less-than-consistent pattern of sound bites and tweets, but also the transition period has seen a daily stream of Cabinet nominees disagreeing with Trump, the dismissal of political norms and constitutional limitations regarding presidential conflict of interest, and even questions about the ability of an unfriendly foreign power to influence US policy. From the miasma, little is certain except that the Trump administration will seek a rapid reversal of course.

Ultimately, we must judge the legacy of the Obama administration by the tides of change set in motion by its actions. The Supreme Court may gut the Voting Rights Act, but the enduring impacts of its expansion of voting rights are not so easily erased. The 115th Congress may repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but it is difficult to see some of the linchpins of Obamacare, such as coverage for pre-existing conditions, disappearing from the expectations of the American people.

What then about clean energy? What can survive a worst-case policy, legal and legislative onslaught? What if the Clean Power Plan, the tougher fuel economy standards for our cars and trucks, the Paris climate accords, and other environmental achievements touted by the Obama administration go out the window?

The answer, from my perspective as the director of the University of Michigan’s Energy Institute, lies largely outside of Washington. It lies in the economic globalization from which Trump has profited as a businessman, yet railed against as a candidate. It lies in the ability of our states to act as the ‘laboratories of democracy’ in ways that states-rights advocates have long extolled. Ironies abound.

EPA in the crosshairs

In his recent article ‘The irreversible momentum of clean energy’, Obama notes that over the past eight years, CO₂ emissions from the energy sector fell by 9.5%. While the growth of renewable energy from wind and solar has played a part, the dominant contributor to this trend has been the displacement of coal by natural gas as the single largest fuel source for electricity production in the US.

That shift has been enabled by the dramatic increase in US oil and gas production from shale and other ‘tight’ geologic formations. It’s resulted in cheap and abundant natural gas, made cheap gasoline the norm for the past two years and vaulted the US to become the world’s top energy producer.

It’s still not clear whether the EPA Clean Power Plan – regulations designed to curb CO₂ emissions from power generators now held up in the courts – will survive legal challenges or what the Trump administration will do with it. Regardless, the continuing reduction of emissions from the power sector is here to stay for the foreseeable future. The demise of coal is a matter of economics, not policy or regulation.

But if the goals of the Clean Power Plan are sailing with the favorable wind of domestic energy supplies, the Jan. 13 action of the EPA to lock in vehicle fuel efficiency standards through 2025 might be seen to be sailing against the same wind.

Automakers, not surprisingly, complained and have already appealed to President-elect Trump to undo these. Consumers, enjoying cheap gasoline for the past two years, have continued to buy larger and less fuel-efficient vehicles. Why should we expect higher fuel economy standards to survive?

The reasons are threefold. The EPA’s determination, after a lengthy evaluation of technical and economic feasibility and appropriateness, is legally binding. Reversal by the next administration would require a similarly lengthy process to establish a different finding and appropriate regulatory response.

While dazzling electronic capabilities and more self-driving features capture most of the attention at auto and consumer electronics shows, there also has been a relentless advance in fuel-saving technologies and, most importantly, investment in their large-scale manufacture. Advances such as engine stop-start and higher efficiency internal combustion engines are now standard.

Ford introduced the lighter-weight, aluminum body F-150 for the 2015 model year. GM has begun to deliver the electric Chevy Bolt. The progressive increases in fuel economy standards that have just been locked down to 2025 may stretch automakers, but there is no reason to expect the pace of technological innovation in more efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles to abate.

The reason for that is the global marketplace. The US market represents about 20% of the global car market, and that share will likely decline as populations and economies grow elsewhere. Increasing urbanization will increase the need for ever-cleaner transportation, a trend automakers have recognized.

On 3rd January, Ford rolled out its plans for seven of the 13 new electrified vehicles it plans to introduce in the next five years. Today, more electric cars are being sold in China than in the rest of the world combined.

Automakers complain that US consumers are not willing to pay for better efficiency if it adds significant cost. However, consumer response to low energy prices suggests that vehicle size, not cost, has driven recent trends toward gas-guzzlers.

So meeting US efficiency and emissions standards by developing new technologies and products will continue to improve the global competitiveness of the auto industry. That isn’t going to change, no matter who occupies the White House. Unless, of course, that individual starts a trade war.

Economic clout of renewables

What about renewables for electricity generation? Can a Trump administration set back clean energy for a generation, as the Reagan administration did? The answer is simply no.

They may slow it down a bit by removal of tax incentives and disinvestment in federally funded R&D (both of which will attract significant opposition from many Republicans in Congress in wind-friendly states, for instance), but here the Obama legacy will not be uprooted. The reason is that we are at a much different place on the experience curve, both technologically and societally.

While wind and solar combined accounted for only 5.3% of US electricity generated in 2015, costs for these renewable sources of electricity have been cut roughly in half since 2008; installed solar capacity has increased 17-fold and wind capacity has increased three-fold.

Whether or not people install solar panels on their houses or support wind turbines in their own or somebody else’s backyard, these are no longer seen as exotic sources of energy. Just last month the nation’s first off-shore wind farm became operational, and given the proximity of 70% of America’s population to its coasts, this too may soon seem less exotic.

However, the real action on renewable power generation will likely be outside of Washington during the next administration. Twenty-nine states have Renewable Portfolio Standards, or mandates, for electricity generation in effect, with California’s ’50 percent by 2050′ being the most ambitious.

While the number of states with these renewable energy mandates has not changed much in the past eight years, the requirements in many of these have continued to be ratcheted up, with demonstrable economic benefit. Most notably in 2016, Michigan and Ohio successfully resisted attempts by Republican-controlled legislatures to eliminate their standards.

Part of the reason is that clean power is emerging as an important tool for economic development at the state level. The Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance includes some of the country’s largest and most respected corporations, and states that wish to attract or retain these employers are moving to ensure their clean energy supply needs can be met. While failure by states to ensure access to clean energy supplies may not yet have the same negative impact on recruitment and retention of businesses as passing ‘bathroom bills’, the future direction is clear.

In the end, the enduring clean energy legacy of the Obama administration may be that it got us ‘over the hump’ of thinking in terms of the false dichotomy of clean versus affordable energy.

While the revolution in domestic production of gas and oil relieved many of the economic pressures, the strong emphasis on clean energy development and deployment from the very beginning, including US$90 billion in clean energy investments and tax credits made under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, have ensured a cleaner energy trajectory for the nation.

The pace may change, but the ultimate direction will not.

Mark Barteau is Director, University of Michigan Energy Institute, University of Michigan.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

In the closing days of President Obama’s second term, he and leaders in the Executive Branch worked feverishly to articulate their views of the administration’s legacy – and to cement that legacy as much as possible.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the areas of energy, climate and environment, where, as EPA Administrator Gina McCarty had said since well before the election, the plan was to “run through the tape“ at the end of this administration.

Ordinarily, one might examine how an incoming administration and Congress could set new priorities or undo the actions of the previous administration. But this is no ordinary transition.

Not only are we confronted by Donald Trump’s less-than-consistent pattern of sound bites and tweets, but also the transition period has seen a daily stream of Cabinet nominees disagreeing with Trump, the dismissal of political norms and constitutional limitations regarding presidential conflict of interest, and even questions about the ability of an unfriendly foreign power to influence US policy. From the miasma, little is certain except that the Trump administration will seek a rapid reversal of course.

Ultimately, we must judge the legacy of the Obama administration by the tides of change set in motion by its actions. The Supreme Court may gut the Voting Rights Act, but the enduring impacts of its expansion of voting rights are not so easily erased. The 115th Congress may repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but it is difficult to see some of the linchpins of Obamacare, such as coverage for pre-existing conditions, disappearing from the expectations of the American people.

What then about clean energy? What can survive a worst-case policy, legal and legislative onslaught? What if the Clean Power Plan, the tougher fuel economy standards for our cars and trucks, the Paris climate accords, and other environmental achievements touted by the Obama administration go out the window?

The answer, from my perspective as the director of the University of Michigan’s Energy Institute, lies largely outside of Washington. It lies in the economic globalization from which Trump has profited as a businessman, yet railed against as a candidate. It lies in the ability of our states to act as the ‘laboratories of democracy’ in ways that states-rights advocates have long extolled. Ironies abound.

EPA in the crosshairs

In his recent article ‘The irreversible momentum of clean energy’, Obama notes that over the past eight years, CO₂ emissions from the energy sector fell by 9.5%. While the growth of renewable energy from wind and solar has played a part, the dominant contributor to this trend has been the displacement of coal by natural gas as the single largest fuel source for electricity production in the US.

That shift has been enabled by the dramatic increase in US oil and gas production from shale and other ‘tight’ geologic formations. It’s resulted in cheap and abundant natural gas, made cheap gasoline the norm for the past two years and vaulted the US to become the world’s top energy producer.

It’s still not clear whether the EPA Clean Power Plan – regulations designed to curb CO₂ emissions from power generators now held up in the courts – will survive legal challenges or what the Trump administration will do with it. Regardless, the continuing reduction of emissions from the power sector is here to stay for the foreseeable future. The demise of coal is a matter of economics, not policy or regulation.

But if the goals of the Clean Power Plan are sailing with the favorable wind of domestic energy supplies, the Jan. 13 action of the EPA to lock in vehicle fuel efficiency standards through 2025 might be seen to be sailing against the same wind.

Automakers, not surprisingly, complained and have already appealed to President-elect Trump to undo these. Consumers, enjoying cheap gasoline for the past two years, have continued to buy larger and less fuel-efficient vehicles. Why should we expect higher fuel economy standards to survive?

The reasons are threefold. The EPA’s determination, after a lengthy evaluation of technical and economic feasibility and appropriateness, is legally binding. Reversal by the next administration would require a similarly lengthy process to establish a different finding and appropriate regulatory response.

While dazzling electronic capabilities and more self-driving features capture most of the attention at auto and consumer electronics shows, there also has been a relentless advance in fuel-saving technologies and, most importantly, investment in their large-scale manufacture. Advances such as engine stop-start and higher efficiency internal combustion engines are now standard.

Ford introduced the lighter-weight, aluminum body F-150 for the 2015 model year. GM has begun to deliver the electric Chevy Bolt. The progressive increases in fuel economy standards that have just been locked down to 2025 may stretch automakers, but there is no reason to expect the pace of technological innovation in more efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles to abate.

The reason for that is the global marketplace. The US market represents about 20% of the global car market, and that share will likely decline as populations and economies grow elsewhere. Increasing urbanization will increase the need for ever-cleaner transportation, a trend automakers have recognized.

On 3rd January, Ford rolled out its plans for seven of the 13 new electrified vehicles it plans to introduce in the next five years. Today, more electric cars are being sold in China than in the rest of the world combined.

Automakers complain that US consumers are not willing to pay for better efficiency if it adds significant cost. However, consumer response to low energy prices suggests that vehicle size, not cost, has driven recent trends toward gas-guzzlers.

So meeting US efficiency and emissions standards by developing new technologies and products will continue to improve the global competitiveness of the auto industry. That isn’t going to change, no matter who occupies the White House. Unless, of course, that individual starts a trade war.

Economic clout of renewables

What about renewables for electricity generation? Can a Trump administration set back clean energy for a generation, as the Reagan administration did? The answer is simply no.

They may slow it down a bit by removal of tax incentives and disinvestment in federally funded R&D (both of which will attract significant opposition from many Republicans in Congress in wind-friendly states, for instance), but here the Obama legacy will not be uprooted. The reason is that we are at a much different place on the experience curve, both technologically and societally.

While wind and solar combined accounted for only 5.3% of US electricity generated in 2015, costs for these renewable sources of electricity have been cut roughly in half since 2008; installed solar capacity has increased 17-fold and wind capacity has increased three-fold.

Whether or not people install solar panels on their houses or support wind turbines in their own or somebody else’s backyard, these are no longer seen as exotic sources of energy. Just last month the nation’s first off-shore wind farm became operational, and given the proximity of 70% of America’s population to its coasts, this too may soon seem less exotic.

However, the real action on renewable power generation will likely be outside of Washington during the next administration. Twenty-nine states have Renewable Portfolio Standards, or mandates, for electricity generation in effect, with California’s ’50 percent by 2050′ being the most ambitious.

While the number of states with these renewable energy mandates has not changed much in the past eight years, the requirements in many of these have continued to be ratcheted up, with demonstrable economic benefit. Most notably in 2016, Michigan and Ohio successfully resisted attempts by Republican-controlled legislatures to eliminate their standards.

Part of the reason is that clean power is emerging as an important tool for economic development at the state level. The Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance includes some of the country’s largest and most respected corporations, and states that wish to attract or retain these employers are moving to ensure their clean energy supply needs can be met. While failure by states to ensure access to clean energy supplies may not yet have the same negative impact on recruitment and retention of businesses as passing ‘bathroom bills’, the future direction is clear.

In the end, the enduring clean energy legacy of the Obama administration may be that it got us ‘over the hump’ of thinking in terms of the false dichotomy of clean versus affordable energy.

While the revolution in domestic production of gas and oil relieved many of the economic pressures, the strong emphasis on clean energy development and deployment from the very beginning, including US$90 billion in clean energy investments and tax credits made under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, have ensured a cleaner energy trajectory for the nation.

The pace may change, but the ultimate direction will not.

Mark Barteau is Director, University of Michigan Energy Institute, University of Michigan.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.