‘Energy Without Injustice’? Indigenous Ownership of Renewable Energy Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we explore and assess trends toward Indigenous ownership of large-scale 'green’ energy projects as a response to the encroachment, displacement and dispossession wrought by the extractivist orientation of contemporary settler capitalism. Taking the case of the Chinodin Chigumi Nodin Kitagan (Bow Lake Wind Farm), an initiative of the Batchewana First Nation in Ontario Canada, the chapter explores the potential of Indigenous ownership of renewable energy resources to promote a wider distribution of economic, social and political power in society. It identifies opportunities to promote environmental stewardship, the fulfillment of duties to future generations and less hierarchical governance compatible with Indigenous legal orders. Fundamentally, however, we identify a tension between, on one side, the project's crafting with careful attention to equity, environmental and energy justice and as an expression of the Anishinaabe community’s inherent jurisdiction and, on the other, measured questions raised within the community about ecological impacts and the risks associated with operating within the parameters of dominant settler-state economic and legal frameworks. Ultimately, it is our contention that real promise exists in transforming energy generation/power relations through Indigenous ownership of renewable energy projects insofar as Indigenous communities initiate and control those projects, govern them and benefit from them collectively, and operate them, without state interference, according to their own legal and political orders.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".