The True face of Nils Huseby and SN Power

On the 31st of January, 2008, I witnessed an intense and well-organized meeting with members of the mapuche (indigenous) communities of Panguipulli, Chile and executives of Norwegian energy company SN Power, and their Chilean counterpart, Trayenko, S.A. The purpose of the meeting was for the companies to open a dialogue with the communities about SN Power´s proposed project to build hydroelectric plants in the area. This meeting was agreed upon by the director for the Latin American region of SN Power, Nils Huseby, and Pedro Antimilla, representative of the communities, who had gone all the way to Oslo in December. There, on December 11th, 2007, they had signed an agreement according to Nordic and international laws which respect the rights of indigneous communities, such as land and water rights. The agreement stated that SN Power would not continue their project without entering into dialogue with the communities. The proposed dialogue, intended to start on the 31st of january, was meant to offer a platform for the communities to express their concerns about the project and for the company to take these concerns into consideration in their plans. At this meeting, in the fields of Carirriñe, Mapuche territory, about an hour`s drive on unpaved roads from Coñaripe, over 500 local people were present, including 14 lonkos (chiefs) of the mapuche communities, members of local tourist organizations, and the mayor of the municipality of Panguipulli, Alejandro Kohler. These fields are symbolic land where Mapuche and Non-Mapuche historically meet. The lonkos, other representatives of the communities and the mayor spoke eloquently and clearly for over an hour in the plain sun and scorching heat of the afternoon, articulating their concerns about the proposed hydroelectric projects and how these would affect the communities. It was made absolutely clear that the Mapuche communities, the mayor, and several local (eco)tourism operators and small farmers, representing over 3000 local citizens, are unanimously opposed to the plans being performed in any way, shape or form. However, they also emphasized that they do not wish a violent conflict as those taking place between mapuche communities and forestry companies in the northwest of Chile.

Nils Huseby arrived in his suit and tie, he and his collegues refused to sit on the traditional seats offered by the communities, and stood under the hot sun, listening to each of the lonkos and werken (spokespeople) make their appeals. They appealed to international agreements such as the ILO 169 and the UN`s declaration of indigenous peoples. The Mapuche communities wish to recuperate their ancestral rights to water, which were sold to SN Power by the Chilean state. The rights to water and the rights to land were divided by the Pinochet regime in 1981, allowing for the state to sell and alot land and water seperately. As the territory which the communities occupy is recognized as indigenous land, the water is seen as a distinct resource. The land is, however, useless without water. The rivers running through the land are subject to being rerouted by subterranean aquaducts, to feed the hydroelectric plants SN Power has planned. Furthermore, a large part of the land will be inundated, rendering it useless and possibly entailing the relocation of communities. Local farmers and hotsprings enterpreneurs will lose their water sources as well, which will mean they will no longer be able to survive as such. The region of the rivers and lakes is the most well-developped ecotourism destination in Chile. Tourism is the sole industry in the area, and the transformation of this area will not only mean a great loss to the Mapuche communities, but a great loss to all Chileans.

Finally, when it was Nils Huseby`s turn to respond, he simply said “I`ve heard your concerns and appeals, but we are not prepared to discontinue the project, we will proceed as planned”. An all around shocked reaction and booeing surged spontaneously from the crowd. The Werken Maria Eugenia Calfuñanco responded that this was not in accordance with the agreements made in Oslo, where Mr. Huseby agreed to negotiate with the communities, and then revise the plans. Obviously the decision had already been made prior to the meeting that the plans would proceed regardless of the opinion of the communities, for it was made clear at the meeting that all present were not in favour of the plans: no studies, no plants, no dams. A big “NO” all around. And so Nils Huseby gave them a big “NO” in return. Some dialogue. Why did he even bother coming? He seemed only to laugh cynically at the serious appeals of the Lonkos. Was it just a media stunt? To fulfill his “participation” barometer in the Corporate Social Responsibility charts? Some participation. He even tried to make excuses, saying that he could not do anything about the gap in the Chilean laws, that allows for a company such as SN Power to buy all the rights to water in the area, leaving the locals powerless, and if the company proceeds with the plans, leaving them without a source of life, and some even landless. He said that he was not in the position, due to Chilean law, to return their water rights. He said that they have to take up this problem with the Chilean state, not with him. Meanwhile SN Power is taking advantage of this “gap” in the law. Taking advantage in order to turn a profit, not taking any responsibility for the consequences for the local environment and people in Chile, something which the company would not be able to do in Norway itself. This echoes the long tradition of colonialism and imperialism, exploiting the national resources of latin america to increase the wealth of western nations. The new form of “globalization” is possible due to the tremendous neoliberalism installed by the Pinochet regime which is allowing foreign and transnational companies to transform Chile`s natural resources into capitalist profit, creating enormous impacts for the Chilean people for an unforseen amount of time.

The representatives of the mapuche communities had made a typed statement entailing all that was said during the meeting, and asked all the speakers to sign it, as is traditional in these types of meetings. Nils Huseby, however, also refused to sign this. He was then asked “what is his word worth?” and “why should we ever believe it again?” He does not seem to be complying to any of his promises. He was then asked to leave the territory. The representatives said: “Unfortunately this is our first conversation and also our last.You are no longer welcome in this territory”. All those present, shouted “They must leave!” Other comments made by those locals present and at the end of the meeting proved that this would be the beginning of a long battle, and if any of the workers of SN Power or Trayenko were found working in the territory, they would be sent away again, as they had been in october 2007, when they had begun their “studies” with immense machinery to drill holes into the earth of Mapuche territory, without their permission or even their previous knowledge, because the ministry of economics had signed a contract with SN Power allowing them to conduct subterranean studies of the area for the next two years. It is clear that SN Power will continue to do so regardless of the desires of the local communities, and to this effect, Nils Huseby and his collegues are not taking any responsibility in the so-called “dialogue” with the communities, nor do they respect indigenous and human rights, such as the collective rights to land and water, resources which are invaluable to the people, yet receive a very cheap pricetag in the competitive capitalist market.

See also:

http://pellaifanewen.blogspot.com/

http://pellaifanewen.blogspot.com/2008/03/comunidades-mapuche-y-grupos-locales.html

http://www.australvaldivia.cl/prontus4_nots/site/extra/pdp/pdp.html?sec=2&ts=20080201000636&fp=20080201&pag=4

http://www.termasvergara.cl/todos-contra-las-represas/

http://www.coñaripe.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=28

http://www.travesiaweb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65&Itemid=7

http://www.mapuche.info/

http://www.patagoniasinrepresas.cl/

http://www.mapuexpress.net/?act=news&id=2096

www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press1111.htm

www.mapuche.nl/english/natives_rights120507.html

http://www.ecoterritorios.blogspot.com/

http://www.ecosistemas.cl/1776/propertyvalue-29643.html

Energy: At What Cost?

The correlation between climate change and the burning of fossil fuels has been acknowledged widely for decades. The concern about global warming has led to heated debates about the use of fossil fuels to provide energy, and whether there are feasible alternatives. Renewable energy sources, efficiency and nuclear energy are all presented as low-carbon possibilities, yet agreement on their implementation varies and remains contested. The thirst for oil brings about geopolitical, socio-economic and environmental repercussions. Nuclear energy with all its risks cannot possibly be the best alternative. The political will to implement environmentally friendly, sustainable and renewable forms of energy is presently insufficient, despite the IPCC and the Uppsala Protocol. What remains largely uncontested, yet lurks beneath the surface of these debates is the need for energy itself. The claim that the demand for energy will continue to rise with economic growth and population growth therefore seems indisputable. Do we really need so much energy? The current negative effects of energy use in its different forms must force us to reconsider whether it is desirable to use energy at all for the future. If our need were in demise, our main energy problems would accordingly be solved. The socio-economic, geopolitical, health and environmental costs of energy far exceed our need for energy, and it is our need for energy that needs to be curtailed in order to solve our energy problems and ultimately, achieve sustainability for the future.

The war in Iraq is a recurrent example of negative effects that our thirst for oil brings with it. It is the umpteenth war fought in order to secure oil, and this pattern will continue as oil’s scarcity rises. Price volatility and depletion of oil fuel political uncertainty, yet oil itself fuels so many aspects of life and economy, including transportation, airline travel, agriculture, habitat, urban planning, industry which is why its access has had such a high determining factor in world politics for many decades. Not only is war fought to gain access to oil, oil is necessary for war. As fossil fuels are neither politically, nor economically, nor environmentally desirable, nuclear power is presented as a replacement for oil.

As if Chernobyl was not enough warning, nuclear energy is now once again on the table as a recommended alternative to oil as a source of energy, as it is deemed commercially viable, and economically competitive. Not only are such disasters as Chernobyl a warning, it is the epitome of human destruction our species could cause this earth and ourselves. In this case accidental, the same type of energy can be harnessed for purposeful destruction, as we are reminded by Hiroshima. This reminder was present throughout the cold war, and the fear of nuclear warfare caused countless negative effects in the socio-economic and political spheres, throughout the world. In order to look to the future, plan for the future, and involve ‘future generations’ in an ideal of sustainability, we must learn from the past.

Alarmingly, an increasing number of studies conclude that nuclear energy should be an important part of the strategies towards sustainable energy development, which influence policy such as the OECD’s IEA ‘sustainable development vision scenario’. The focus on carbon emission decrease causes the negative environmental impacts of nuclear waste to disappear into a blind spot. The mere fact that nuclear energy is suggested to be a sustainable source of energy clearly negates the multidimensional aspect of sustainability, which considers environmental, social and economic effects. Furthermore, the health risks accompanying nuclear production and radioactive waste are disastrous at worst: infertility, leukaemia, cancers, diseases, native malformations, death etc. The problem with radioactive waste is that it may not actually become a visible problem until centuries into the future. Therefore, the thought of creating more nuclear energy completely disregards future generations, which is an imperative aspect of any discussion concerning sustainable development.

Whether or not we need energy to survive as a human species seems like a moot point, yet it is certainly the magnitude of energy that we ‘need’ that should be questioned. It is argued that energy is one of the basic human needs; however, the majority of energy is employed in the production of mainly luxury goods and services. This luxury is needed due to our concept of comfort. Energy efficiency not only requires technology, but a fair amount of awareness. Awareness that the earth’s resources are finite, and an awareness that we consume much more than we actually need.

Renewable energy sources have been identified for decades, yet their implementation is problematic. First of all, the political will is lacking when it comes to the implementation of solar energy, as PV panels are not economically viable in the short term. When economic considerations are prioritized above environmental considerations, innovation and sustainability are blocked. Furthermore, certain renewables may not be ecologically sound alternatives. Sustainability is therefore not only a question of technological advance and innovation; it is a matter of political will, and transcending ‘Not In My Backyard ' attitudes.

For example, wind energy is a clean, environmentally friendly, renewable and sustainable form of energy, yet for a number of social and economic reasons, actual construction of wind turbines remains very slow. Many people protest the implementation of wind turbines due to their sight and sound, which are predominantly aesthetic and the sound is certainly no more than any urban centre.

Solar PV systems seem to be the most feasible option, despite their initial price, in terms of sustainability as well as implementation. Solar systems are used more and more in development projects, to increase self-sufficiency as well as sustainability, so that using distributed renewable energy resources will foster local independence from world markets, and create economic, social, and political stability.

In agricultural sectors, biofuels can be considered a sustainable option, albeit they are used on a small scale, such as using cattle manure or plant oils that are produced naturally anyway. On a large scale, biofuels are discouraged as an alternative, as it would require a lot of land, significant energy as inputs, and competes with food by diverting land and water resources, and defeats the purpose of environmental sustainability due to soil degradation, biodiversity loss and the fact that it is not carbon-neutral .

Hydro power is also presented as a carbon-neutral alternative, and it is renewable, however it is not an environmentally benign power source. According to new studies, the amount of greenhouse gases generated by hydropower can be greater than the amount of greenhouse gases produced by a fossil fuel power of the same strength, and increases threats such as erosion, landslides, change of sedimentation, loss of fresh water and biodiversity loss, nor is it socially benign! The implementation of dams has led to the displacement of millions of marginalized and indigenous populations worldwide, such as the Three Gorges Dam in China, The Narmada Dam in India, etc.

Therefore, renewable energies (wind, sun, water, biomass) are harmless to air pollution but face severe limits of feasibility for the world-scale development. True alternative energy sources are often unnoticed and certainly not recognized as plausible solutions to global energy problems. This is due to their small scale and locally-based character. Yet it is precise these two characteristics that make them sustainable, as transport is eliminated and self-sufficiency, and thus independence is increased. The smaller the scale, the greater the energy efficiency can be. Self-sufficiency also implies a limitation to energy use levels, so that they fulfil basic human needs but do not exceed sustainable levels for luxury items and superfluous behaviour.

The possibility of using clean, sustainable and environmentally friendly forms of renewable energy has been around for decades, if not centuries. Yet, the political will to resort to locally-based solutions seems to be lacking. Is it because they do not contribute to the national or global economy? Large-scale schemes are often the solution, (such as the quest for oil, hydro-electric dams etc.) as this contributes to industry, trade and political power, or is it just a matter of economics?

As with most sustainability issues, the interrelation between economics and politics forms the main stumbling block to achieving sustainable energy use. The economic dimension is prioritized above the social and environmental dimensions when energy policy is made, albeit a few exceptions.

The environmental and social costs are at present not included in the pricing of fuel or electricity. These costs are often referred to as ‘externalities’, yet have been known for decades, leading me to wonder when these costs will be internalized in energy policies. Inevitably, the negative social and environmental consequences of our energy use far outweigh any economic cost we may impose on energy sources. Therefore, putting a monetary price tag on the earth and on our survival cannot possibly answer to our ethics as a human species. Being confronted with our own behaviour is one of the hardest tasks we have as a species, yet it is not impossible. The ability to see the consequences of our own actions does not require superhuman abilities; it is rather the prerequisite for our survival and that of the planet. War is the most extreme cost that our ‘need’ for energy can bring. Not only is it traumatic for those directly involved, it threatens our global political security and is disastrous for both the local and the regional socio-economic and environmental stability.

Politics are a human creation, as are economics and energy production and use. These inventions have led to large scale changes in the ecology of this planet, and therefore the welfare of our species as well as every other species. Let us not forget that we have the ability to reinvent our social reality if we choose, which will in turn affect our planet, our natural habitat.

A reduction in the world’s population will not necessarily lead to an improvement in the global environment. The world needs to behave sustainably before the numbers can make a difference. If the world is overpopulated with overconsuming capitalists who do not consider the future of their grandchildren, then overpopulation is indeed a problem. Even if the numbers of these people were to decrease, we would still exceed the so-called ‘carrying capacity’. However, if the world was to have the same population, but of people living according to the sustainability concept, overpopulation would no longer be a problem for the environment.

Instead of reducing emissions by using less fossil fuels, the wealthy elite are seeking to replace oil and coal as energy sources with other risky sources such as nuclear power. Furthermore, over-consumption is apparently easy for people to signal as an environmental problem, but for the majority it remains extremely difficult to consequently act accordingly. It is confronting to realize that the only way to make a true difference in the world is if we change our own behaviour, for this has consequences for the environment as well as the poor and oppressed populations worldwide. The importance of environmentally friendly, renewable and sustainable energy use is recognized globally, yet reducing automobile usage or other forms of energy consumption has not been addressed effectively to date. Actions are often only undertaken if there is an economic gain or possibility. This is typical of the economic analysis, using the cost/benefit relationship, wherein social and environmental consequences are not considered.

To achieve the ideal of balance between the three pillars of sustainable development (economic, ecological, social), would require a compromise. A compromise in their values, as one may not be more valuable than the other. Therefore, the actors involved must compromise their own interests on the basis of equality with the other parties involved. In line with Wolfgang Sachs, among others, the present development model itself is unsustainable, and therefore sustainability is not possible in the current system. Sustainability must represent an alternative approach altogether, not one that takes place within the development paradigm.