Inuit communities torn over emissions reductions

Saving the north from climate change is essential—so long as it’s not at the expense of oil and gas operations

by Tom Henheffer on Thursday, December 17, 2009 6:18pm - 13 Comments

The ice is receding, coastlines eroding and permafrost melting, but Arctic Inuit leaders are divided over the ongoing environmental negotiations at the COP15 conference in Copenhagen.

Jimmy Stotts, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), an organization representing Inuit from Canada, Russia, the U.S. and Greenland, says a fair, enforceable and balanced agreement is needed to save the north from climate change. But he also emphasizes that the Inuit have only recently started to realize the economic advantages of oil, gas and mineral reserves on their land. Proposed emissions targets could undercut his people just as they begin to get on their feet, he argues, and he wants any treaty to contain provisions allowing Inuit communities to utilize their natural resources. “This is our way to improve our lives,” he says. “There really is nothing to replace those revenues.”

But Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a Canadian Inuit environmental activist, says there is no justification for further eroding the northern climate by excavating for natural resources. “Economic gain must not override the existence and well-being of a whole people whose way of life is already being severely taxed.”

Meanwhile, Greenland—a country primarily populated by Inuit—plans to start aggressively tapping its oil, gas and mineral deposits and build an aluminum smelter that could greatly increase national emissions—by up to 75 per cent, some environmentalists say. The country’s position has put a rift between Inuit groups and is making international talks difficult. It refuses to abide by restrictions on its industries, claiming emissions targets will make resource development impossible.

Unfortunately, Stotts says, those disagreements among the Inuit are only one part of the general disarray in Copenhagen, and he thinks the talks will bring little help to the north. “It’s crazy what’s going on here . . . I’d be real surprised if something strong and meaningful came out of this.”

Bookmark and Share
  • Jeremy

    …..they already have tax exempt what the heck else do they want…….

    sorry that your culture is years behind….

    • l Ruttan

      Racims and ignorance has no part in this discussion.

    • Duder

      Yep. Classic spoiled jerk sentiment. But on another note:

      People are too stupid to put their personal interests aside and focus on the common good. I think climate change is a bigger problem than our self-restraint can handle. At least humanity will get another chance after the next ice age. Things will be a lot roomier when we're back to 1 billion.

  • Flying_Jim

    The oil, the gas and the aluminum are going to be produced somewhere. The question is where? The idea of an emissions cap is based upon the philosophy of leaving it to the market to decide how to meet it. In theory, at any rate, the emissions will be reduced where it has the lowest cost. Assuming that the 'market is reasonably efficient, total world wide emission will be at or near the cap. Thus the extra world wide emissions would be zero, if the caps actually work as planned.

    Like any theory it will have to be demonstrated that it actually works as planned.

  • Nunavummiut

    Jeremy, I think you have us confused with on reserve, First Nations… no tax exemptions for Inuit pal… we pay taxes just like you. Although, with the cost of living up here, it might be nice to have tax emeption status, want to get on that for me? I am continually surprised and a little disappointed at the level of understanding the average Canadian has about the North. Maybe if it didn't cost so much to get here, more people would come and explore the lifestyle and landscape we enjoy on a daily basis.

    • Nick

      Maybe you should get some understanding of the Canadian Legal system. As long as you are a Status Indian, which you must apply for to the Federal Government, you receive at least three pretty hefty benefits. Money for Ammo and Hunting Supplies, FREE Post-secondary education (as long as you are 1/4 first nations) and of course No Tax.

      This is a benefit you are entitled to under the Indian Act, which covers Metis, First Nations and INNUITS.

      • loggie

        Nick, you appear have little if any understanding of the legal system and the status question, thyus you should learn some basic facts about it vis-a-vis aboriginal peoples. a good place to start would be to spell Inuit correctly. Taes are oaid by Inuit, Metis at the same rates as all other Canadians. First Nations pay income tax at a simlar rate for all work undertaken Off-Reserve. There are numerous books, classes and other sources where you could learn some basics about aboriginal issues in a balanced manner.
        Cheer.
        grasshopper

  • Nunawhat

    “Economic gain must not override the existence and well-being of a whole people whose way of life is already being severely taxed.”

    Inuit pay ZERO taxes effectively. Because they receive Northern Allowance (aka,. Northern Welfare For All). They also have foodmail and numerous other programs. Life in the Arctic is paid for on the backs of hardworking Canadians like me. I've been to Nunavut, shopped in the North Mart and seen it first hand.

  • Nick

    Sorry, correction, 1/4 Aboriginal not First Nations

  • wayne moores

    Funny how aborigionals are always portrayed as sooo much wiser than the "evil white man" and are the great protector of "mudder erth". That is until they get their hands on a chain saw and a tree skidder, or in this case oil and gas leases. Then it's screw the environment and show me the money…and get me the biggest SUV you can find. Now go ahead, everyone call me a bigot, if the truth hurts, suck it up buttercup. Cheers.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    Never mind industry….wouldn't the Inuit be far better off if the North warmed to the point where the land was arable, the climate temperate, and the seas available for warm-water shipping? I'm failing to see the trade-off between industry and "climate change" here.

  • OnTheJob

    "Saving the north from climate change is essential"

    Of course it is. Heaven forbid that temperatures rise to a level that actually might sustain life. The horrors of arable land and lack of exposed flesh warning levels of cold…gosh, it's enough to make me bawwwwwww.

    A turning point in my thinking on AGW was a story in the Canadian media about how the residents of Inuvik are concerned that it doesn't get to minus forty anymore. You've basically abdicated reason when you make an argument *that* absurd and expect people to buy it, and you've essentially admitted that AGW is a hoax when you resort to a story that preposterous, and you've lost people like me who otherwise might've fallen for the scam had you not resorted to such shameless flapdoodle.

  • pogomutt

    Emissions caps? The US Enviromental Protection Agency determined last year that 44% of carbon emissions over North America's West Coast cities, is coming from China. How we gonna cap that?

    Meanwhile, the religion of global warming (excuse me: "climate change") is falling apart at the seams before scrutiny of the Science and Technology committee in the British House of Commons:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254660/C…

From Macleans