Energy transitions at remote mines: The implications of transitioning to low-carbon electricity generation for Indigenous rights in northern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Across Canada and internationally, mining companies are exploring options to transition away from fossil fuel-based electricity generation at remote mine sites. • In northern Canada, Indigenous organizations and communities are supportive of the mining industry's efforts to transition to low-carbon electricity generation, so long as energy transitions do not come at the expense of their Indigenous rights. • Thus far, Nunavut Inuit have been successful in using the territory's co-management institutions to stop unwanted proposals for electricity generation that pose unacceptable risks to Indigenous harvesting rights. • However, their ability to stop unwanted electricity generation moving forward is far from clear. This article contributes to scholarly literature about energy transitions, extraction, and social justice with case studies of proposed low-carbon electricity generation for remote mines in Nunavut, Canada. It considers the implications of energy transitions at remote mines for the Indigenous rights of Inuit and Dene. On the one hand, low-carbon electricity generation can disturb wildlife habitat, negatively affecting the ability of Inuit and Dene to exercise their rights to harvest wildlife. On the other hand, Indigenous community and institutional opposition to some forms of low-carbon electricity generation raises questions about the ability of Indigenous peoples to provide or withhold their consent to land uses that may negatively affect their rights. In some cases, compromises between Indigenous communities and extractive industries will be possible. Compromise solutions are more likely to emerge when proponents and regulators consider ecological and Indigenous values when siting energy infrastructure, avoid siting infrastructure in critical wildlife habitat, consult Indigenous communities regarding the type of low carbon electricity generation, and agree to conservative and precautionary measures to mitigate the effects of electricity generation on wildlife.
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 | 0.000 | 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".