initiating the newest and most intensive round of extractive pressure on the state, and forcing the resolution of conflicting land claims in order to allow the construction of the TransAlaskan pipeline. Increasingly, the feds ~ad to assume that position of defending the constitutional rights of native Alaskans and the natural environment, while at the same time encouraging the further exploitation of Alaskan resources. Today that oil-needed or not- is flowing. Royalties and land settlements aside, the historically exploitive patterns persist. Alaska, alas, doesn't have an economy to call its own. Economic development-as opposed to exploitation-has become the key Alaskan issue. It is one ripe with real possibilities and rotten apples. The pressures to develop are enormous; yet the way Alaska proceeds could have a profound impact on the use of rand and resources, on bush lifestyles, and the structure of the state's entire,economic future. Just as important, it will also determine whetheJ" Alaska succumbs to further rounds of economic exploitation in the guise of progress-or if Alaska can actually reclaim its long lost sense of identity and self-reliance, and perhaps push beyond into something totally new and exemplary. To date most of the development debate has centered around the issue of wilderness, and how much of federal lands secured under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 should be preserved as such. The battle between developers and environmentalists is clear cut, with preservationists scoring major victories of late. B\.lt anti-preservationists have frequently made half a good point: that Alaska, not outside interests, should be determining what happens to Alaska. Good for starte,s, but they've been swimming upstream in their own rhetoric. Former Governor Walter Hickel's appeals for economic freedom and Alaskan self-sufficiency, for instance, are nothing less than thinly disguised arguments for full-tilt development of coal, oil, minerals and what have you. Such development in Alaska's "self-interest" has very little to do with renewable resources, and nothing with economic self-reliance. The full-tilt scenario is a scam. Native Alaskans, the indigenous people who have long known about locally self-reliant economies, are, ironically, those who have suffered the most at the hands of such devel- May 1979 RAIN Page 5 opment. In addition to large-scale hind-intensive projects, their traditional lifestyles have been severely affected by both the federal \\\Clfare doles and technological colonizarion of the: bush that follows. The Nalive Alaskan village- typically a blend of public service expenditures in housing and related services along with traditional food subsistence activities-has been invaded by the "other village"-a capital- and encrgy-intensive form of urban reconstruction, artificially supported by eXlernal fu nds and know-how- wh ich undermines local cooperation and creates chronic dependencies where self-sufficicncy once exisred. Horror stories abound of inappropriatc housing developments, gadget-filled educational facilities and extensive waste water treatment planLS which have swollcn local energy consumption and created exchange economies that can't be sustained. The native experience, in short, points to the fact that full-tilt development, even in the name of Alaska, destroys p re~i sel y what Alaskans need most: sustainable economics that they can control. One wonders if the Alaskan state government, which under Governor Jay Hammond is trying to straddle the development v. preservl!tion schism, is listening. Hammond talks about moderate development- paying as you go. He's well aware that Alaska receives a windfall in oil and mineral development royalties-more tha.n 80 percent of state government expenditures are paid this way- but also interested in building up Alaska's development possibilitics through its indigenous, renewable resources. Of course, renewable sounds great, but it's not the whole picture. So while state policy seeks to develop resource for Alaskan self-sufficiency, many strategies involve export markets rather thlln building local economies. While attention is given to small-scale technologie.s and the auctioning off of state land for small-scale, diversified farming, the government goes courting foreign trade partners and sets aside 60,000 acres to grow barley for export. One good sign of some kind of commitment has been the creation of au Offi ce of Northern Technology, not unlike California's OAT, to promote through policy planning an obligation to consider regionally appropriate technologies in any venr:ure undertaken by any State agency. In an economy like Alaska's, that could be Significant. ONT is seen in its staff person, Bill Luria, as an advocate's office, catalyzing in other of 100-200 people then can provide a near-perfect milieu for communitybased energy systems which utilize local control. " Tribal Non-Profit Corporations There are 100 million acres of land deeded to Native Alaskans as a result of the settlement act of 1971. This land is divided into 12 geographic areas, each area corresponding to a 'for-profit tribal corporation, which in turn has one or more affiliate non-profit corporations. Tanana Chiefs is one of three non-profits associated with the Doyon Tribal Corporation. Morris Morgan works with 43 villages in the Tanana Chiefs area on home gardening, emphasizing education and community acceptance of growing food. Morris says there is too much done to and for native Alaskans, which has excluded them. In light of true selfdetermination, a garden is okay. He plans to work with those villages ready and eager to construct a village center for food preservation and a solar greenhouse. To Morris', the native village'S carrying capacity and indigenous resources are the most important design factor. Patience is a prime consideration. ENERGY Contrary to popular belief, the northern latitudes receive more possible hours of sunlight in a year than do the tropics. Yet as ofJanuary 1978, there were no solar structures located in Alaska. .. . Among the most pressillg reasons to push for solar and other forms of decentralized, renewable energy systems are the rapidly escalating costs of conventional fuels and Alaska's sparsely settled population. III some villages fuel oil costs $2.20 per gallon, and 20(/ per kilowatt-hour of electricity . Solar Energy Resource Potential in Alaska, Richard D. Seifert and John P. Zarling, 79 pp., from: Institute of Water Resources University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK 99701 Rich Seifert is one of the most active people in the state working to develop greater solar energy usage. This study oneentrates on the application of solar energy to domestic hot water heating needs in Alaska with an economic analysis using the f-chart computer program. Good insolation data and recommendations. "The economic appeal of solar energy becomes more apparent the farther north in thc state one travels. . .. In Barrow, a solar-heated hot water system, when compared with an e\cclric one. looks quite appealing." Rich also talks of modular design with c.limate specific options; he is involved in a solar design study and demonstration project for a rural school and performing energy cnd-use analyses of various energy flows.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz