Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 7 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Big Stone II concerns Native Americans
Environmental issues raised at forum discussing South Dakota power plant
Published Thursday, March 6, 2008
Winona LaDuke
Concerns about emissions, water usage and health and environmental effects from the proposed Big Stone II coal-fired generation station in northeastern South Dakota were addressed Wednesday evening during the first of two energy forums at MSCTC, Fergus Falls. The forums are hosted by students enrolled in Dr. Sue Wika’s Sociology Service Learning at MSCTC.
Speaking to about 300 people at Legacy Hall, and later answering questions, were Winona LaDuke, representing the White Earth Reservation of northern Minnesota and Minneapolis-based Honor the Earth, and Myrna Thompson of the Sisseton Wahpeton Community (Lake Traverse Reservation).
LaDuke and Thompson provided a Native American perspective on the future of energy, and Big Stone II in particular.
A second energy forum will be held Tuesday, March 25. The utility perspective about Big Stone II and energy resources for the future will be provided by Fergus Falls-based Otter Tail Power Company.
Otter Tail and its partners maintain that Big Stone II is needed and can meet stringent environmental standards in order to meet the growing energy needs of electric consumers in this area of the nation.
Myrna Thompson
LaDuke and Thompson disagree with the perspective of Otter Tail Power.
“Wind energy is a far better option for the new millennium rather than building a new coal-fired generation plant,” LaDuke said. “We live in an area what many people refer to as the Saudia Arabia of wind. Tribal communities already are planning to install renewable sources such as wind turbines and solar heating panels to meet their energy needs.”
She said that wind and other renewable energy is the better option to provide electricity. At the same time, she emphasized that wind and other renewables don’t harm water, air and health.
“I’m baffled at our nation’s level of (energy) inefficiency,” LaDuke said. “Having a fossil fuel economy is the wrong approach. I’m not trying to deny Otter Tail Power Company and other electric suppliers from making profits. I’m saying they should make decisions for the future and not for the past.”
Thompson expressed concerns about water needs for the current Big Stone Plant and the proposed Big Stone II. An aquifer runs through the Lake Traverse Reservation which is close to Big Stone Plant.
“Water is sacred,” Thompson said. “The proposed Big Stone II expansion also raises concerns about mercury emissions that are carried to our land and to our people.”
She said that Native Americans are concerned about the long-term health effects of building a new coal-fired plant, and also the effects on the environment.
“Our (Native American) culture is impacted due to mercury in the fish,” Thompson said. “Our rights have not been a concern and there’s been a lack of consultation with tribal members. I feel we’re held hostage by an ill-advised energy proposal.”
LaDuke also maintains that wind energy is the better option for economic reasons, compared to coal-fired generation. Wind energy, she said, provides a better boost to local economies and provides more jobs and revenue.
“The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) recognizes the growing effort to control carbon emissions,” LaDuke said. “Wind is the best alternative, at prices we can predict into the future.”
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by OldHippy (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wind energy is great. Once we can all agree that we're OK with not having AC power on days when the wind isn't blowing, or blowing hard enough, then I'm all for it. That means summer and winter. The truth is we need these coal plants as the basis for the bulk of our power use. Wind is a cute additive, but will never be able to supply the bulk of our needs. It has it's place. But it's not a one or the other situation. We have to have the major power plants and it sounds like the new one will be cleaner than most currently are.
Posted by ajohnsonx (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This article lacks supporting facts from LaDuke and Thompson to make any sort of valid point. Sure, anyone can say “Wind energy is a far better option for the new millennium rather than building a new coal-fired generation plant,” but if youre going to make a statement like that, have some numbers to back it up. Also, for the: "Wind energy, she said, provides a better boost to local economies and provides more jobs and revenue."...more jobs and revenue..? come on. The companies that already produce the turbines and towers are going to continue to produce them. Nobody in the area they are going to go will be hired for that work.
Posted by desertrat (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is no such thing as a "clean" coal plant. Relatively clean perhaps. The people in the area of the coal plant, as well as those "down wind" from it have good reason to be concerned. The only reason the coal plants meet EPA standards and are approved is because those standards are 18 years old and are hoplessly outdated. Much of their "scientific evidence" is based on computer models which are notoriuosly flawed. I wish you well in your fight against the coal plant but you're fighting a losing battle. The federal, state, local governments, and in many cases tribal governments are not interested in protecting the environment. Just put a lot of $$$ in front of it and you'll have the answer.
Posted by Hennepin (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is no such thing as a clean reservation in South Dakota either. I am tired of our Native Americans playing holier than all about their love of mother earth when in reality they pollute and litter their own lands. They are no better or worse than us when it comes to the enviroment. IMHO
Posted by desertrat (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
White people, Indians, all of us should be concerned about the environment. We all breathe the same air and need to be concerned about keeping it clean together. Name calling and bashing doesn't help. Maybe instead we should look at the coal industry that wants to foul our air and water for big profits. Air over ALL of us and water we ALL use.
Posted by oldguyfergus (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are issues with both wind and coal. First the sources of coal in the east are mostly from companies than "mountain top" - that is taking the entire top of the mountain off, then leveling it, leaving the remains to flow into streams, watersheds, etc., thus polluting all the downstream sources of water. In the west, coal is mined often open-pit, leaving the ground open and allowing leaching of waste, residue and the like to flow into the groundwater and rivers that supply water for both people and wildlife. On the other hand, wind energy is abundant in both winter and summer, but poses problems for migratory birds being killled (including the waterfowl that we love to hunt), as well as issues with the views and "wildness" that many people move to the west or to undeveloped areas are searching for. What is the answer? Probably a combination of both, but for now, coal is certainly not a "clean" alternative. Like it or not it is the most economical fuel - but at what price? Long term, until coal can be economically and environmentally processed and used to generate energy it's a poor choice. But short term it's our only option until wind power is refined and the cost is reasonable.
Posted by 0bovine (anonymous) on March 22, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Humans can pay the piper now, or later, and as history has proven, paying later is always more expensive. It's time to invest in technology that isn't going to poison creatures and plants for decades to come - not only at the plant site, but at also at the site from which the coal is procured.
I've heard concerns about wind turbines being bad for birds, but it's overrated. Migratory patterns don't change every year, so they can be studied and accounted for in the placement of turbines. If there is concern remaining, there are coatings to put on the blades that birds can see better than standard white paint - their vision goes further into the ultraviolet than does that of humans.
As to the article not containing facts and figures, I don't know if you can lay that at the feet of Winona LaDuke or Myrna Thompson. Reporters choose what to report. LaDuke and Thompson brought a scientist with them that day - I just read that in a blog by LaDuke.
That blog also indicates that the forum was supposed to be give-and-take discussion between them and the advocates of the new coal plant, but the college changed the format. Advocates for the plant will have their own forum at an upcoming date.
Personally, I don't think the format change was conducive to a free and open exchange of ideas. I think it leads to more polarization rather than consensus, but I don't know what factors led to the change.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)