Wind power! Marketing renewable energy on tribal lands and the struggle for just sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a case study approach and employing the critical framework of just sustainability, this article examines the ambivalent intersections of marketing and social/environmental justice as articulated through the public rhetoric of corporate entities that promote renewable energy generated on American Indian tribal lands. Because of its critical interest in the empowerment of disenfranchised communities through a shift away from traditional ways of valuing environmental sustainability and economic activity, just sustainability provides a valuable frame through which to interrogate not only articulations of economic development but also the use of popular American Indian archetypes like “the Ecological Indian” in the marketing of sustainable energy. We suggest that both our corporate case studies, NativeEnergy, which markets carbon offsets to clients, and the public utility company San Diego Gas and Electric, demonstrate efforts to advance many of the goals of just sustainability, and are successful in some respects, but fall short in others. We argue that shifts towards just sustainability in renewable energy projects on tribal lands, from management to the ways in which they are communicated to the public, will lead to more equitable economic, representational, and environmental conditions for participants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".