Wind Farms Devastating Saepmie

Saepmie.
Land of the Saami people.

The Sami people have been inhabiting northern Scandinavia since prehistoric times . . .

placesjournal.org...



www.researchgate.net...

. . . the governments of Sweden, Finland and Russia have also promoted energy and resource extraction projects that make it impossible for the Saami to continue their traditional ways of life.
. . .
Earlier in June, the Frostating Court of Appeal recognised that a third of the community's winter pastures were destroyed by the construction and ordered 89 million krones ($9.4m) to be paid as compensation.
. . .
By awarding the community compensation for their losses, rather than stopping the operations of the wind plant, the court has put a monetary value on the Saami way of life. In other words, it reinforced the tendency of the Norwegian government and the industry to "sell" indigenous rights in the name of development and resource extraction.

www.aljazeera.com...

Historically.

Lundmark also points out that in the 16th century the State’s Sami policy was characterised by an increased interest in the riches of the Lappmark (Samiland). The levy was substantially increased and lists were drawn up of the lakes and land areas that different Sami families used. These areas became known as the Sami tax lands, and in Jämtland and Härjedalen as the tax mountains.

This levy was increased still further during the 17th century and the State strengthened its control of the Sami and the Lappmark in other ways as well. In the 1630s the State “discovered” the first silver deposit in Nasafjäll, northwest of Arjeplog. Lundmark describes how Sami were forcibly recruited to transport the ore to Piteå since reindeer were indispensable to its transportation. Since the wages paid were not sufficient to live on, the Sami found themselves facing a crisis. Some were forced to turn to begging, others fled to Norway or further north in Sweden. The Sami that owned reindeer were forced to enlarge their herds to be able tosurvive under the heavy tax burden.

In the latter half of the 17th century the State began to colonise Sami land more actively. Lundmark describes how the State tried to attract settlers from the south and the coast by introducing a 15-year exemption from taxes. However, because of the wars this tax exemption did not have the desired effect.

During the 18th century the settlers gradually forced the Sami out. At this time the State also began to build churches in the Lappmark and so-called Lappmark priests were appointed. The priests were an extension of the State in the Lappmark and just like the rest of the population the Sami were obliged to attend church and were summoned to parish catechetical meetings. Religious non-conformity was not tolerated and as the Sami religion was considered heathen, it was forbidden.

According to Lundmark the State’s dealings with the Sami were lucrative since the taxes and trade in animal skins, meat and fish gave the State excellent income. Since the State had understood the economic value of Sami activities, they had been allowed to retain relatively extensive rights to their tax lands and the Sami tax lands despite the colonisation. In the 18th century, as the settlers increased colonisation of the Sami land, other activities such as mining and farming grew in importance to the State. The courts had earlier taken the Sami rights to their tax lands and Sami tax lands into consideration, but now they began to disallow them in favour of the settlers

www2.ohchr.org...


And a little further south.

The ecological impact of fake green energy is horrendous. Indigenous and settlers alike are swept aside for short term profit and long term destruction.

Ah yes, progress!

All shal bow before the mighty progressive god!
How dare you disagree with our plan?
It's for the greater good?

Why are you so selfish?
All you have to do is change your way of life and abandon everything you know so we can continue our way of life and everything we know.
Why cant you be kinder and more giving like us?


When I first heard people on ATS calling progressive ideals a mental disorder, and even a disease, I thought that was going a little too far.
As I grow older and wiser, and as I see it expand and destroy everything in its path, while its followers are somehow completely blind to the destruction they cause... I agree more and more with each passing day.
It makes me weep for what I did not know- and since they destroy history as they go, I wonder what they destroyed before I ever saw it.

a reply to: Kester

This levy was increased still further during the 17th century and the State strengthened its control of the Sami and the Lappmark in other ways as well. In the 1630s the State “discovered” the first silver deposit in Nasafjäll, northwest of Arjeplog. Lundmark describes how Sami were forcibly recruited to transport the ore to Piteå since reindeer were indispensable to its transportation. Since the wages paid were not sufficient to live on, the Sami found themselves facing a crisis. Some were forced to turn to begging, others fled to Norway or further north in Sweden. The Sami that owned reindeer were forced to enlarge their herds to be able tosurvive under the heavy tax burden.

In the latter half of the 17th century the State began to colonise Sami land more actively. Lundmark describes how the State tried to attract settlers from the south and the coast by introducing a 15-year exemption from taxes. However, because of the wars this tax exemption did not have the desired effect.

During the 18th century the settlers gradually forced the Sami out. At this time the State also began to build churches in the Lappmark and so-called Lappmark priests were appointed. The priests were an extension of the State in the Lappmark and just like the rest of the population the Sami were obliged to attend church and were summoned to parish catechetical meetings. Religious non-conformity was not tolerated and as the Sami religion was considered heathen, it was forbidden.

According to Lundmark the State’s dealings with the Sami were lucrative since the taxes and trade in animal skins, meat and fish gave the State excellent income. Since the State had understood the economic value of Sami activities, they had been allowed to retain relatively extensive rights to their tax lands and the Sami tax lands despite the colonisation. In the 18th century, as the settlers increased colonisation of the Sami land, other activities such as mining and farming grew in importance to the State. The courts had earlier taken the Sami rights to their tax lands and Sami tax lands into consideration, but now they began to disallow them in favour of the settlers

This sounds an awful lot like what the American settlers perpetuated on the Native American tribes here in the US.

It was a terrible thing to do here, and it's a terrible thing to do to the indigenous Sami people now.

By awarding the community compensation for their losses, rather than stopping the operations of the wind plant, the court has put a monetary value on the Saami way of life.

Prove to me why this is wrong or unjust.

To be clear I am agnostic on the question; but I do find that to many people make arrangements decrying an action but never explain why what they oppose is wrong.

How much power should an individual or group of individuals have over the whole of society? If the windfarms are in fact better for society (lets assume so for the sake of argument) what right do the Saepmie have to stand in the way of there construction?

If the Saepmie do in fact have this right do impead progress do all small groups of individuals have this same right? Or is this right only reserved for certain groups of people?

a reply to: DanDanDat

Did Norway not have anywhere else to put these windmills? Places that do not infringe on the rights of indigenous peoples?

The German owners of the Oyfjellet wind project, Aquila Capital, have already made a lucrative deal to supply the power produced by the wind plant to the nearby aluminium smelter by Alcoa. On the project's website, the developers claim to "promote growth, green industry and green employment through long-term investment in renewable energy".

Guess not since the project is designed to help Alcoa and not actually add energy to Norways electrical grid. It can be argued that protecting the Sami's Land and eco-systems benefit's all Norwegians long term. Categorizing the Sami as a small minority and dismissing them is easy, however the land area needed for reindeer is huge, so in effect 50,000 Sami are doing one heck of a job care taking those lands.
Something not so easily dismissed.

originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: DanDanDat

Did Norway not have anywhere else to put these windmills? Places that do not infringe on the rights of indigenous peoples?

I don't know; but that really doesn't answer my question.

a reply to: Kester

The final English words of the video spoken by the narrator were. ''It's not about energy, it's not about saving the Earth. It's about profit''.....

It's about the inexorable march of capitalism and it's Grendel Child, corporations, marching across the landscapes of our world, sucking up any and all resources as it spreads its tentacles into every nook an cranny searching for more and more profit.

a reply to: DanDanDat

Added to my original thought, so sorry!
To answer your question. The Sami aren't holding anyone hostage in developing wind energy. Norway has a big coastal footprint and other less fragile places to park turbines. But since mining has moved in, it's been deemed more important by the Norwegian Government that those industries are a higher priority.

Amazing how this technology is so commonly described as being "clean" and "renewable" despite being neither of those things. They require a massive amount land and non-renewable resources to build, meaning they often produce more CO2 than they prevent as they explain in the video. Solar energy also presents very similar problems.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

By awarding the community compensation for their losses, rather than stopping the operations of the wind plant, the court has put a monetary value on the Saami way of life.

Prove to me why this is wrong or unjust.

To be clear I am agnostic on the question; but I do find that to many people make arrangements decrying an action but never explain why what they oppose is wrong.

How much power should an individual or group of individuals have over the whole of society? If the windfarms are in fact better for society (lets assume so for the sake of argument) what right do the Saepmie have to stand in the way of there construction?

If the Saepmie do in fact have this right do impead progress do all small groups of individuals have this same right? Or is this right only reserved for certain groups of people?

Rights are fictions we invented to make sense of life.

In reality it's irrelevant.
There is no best or better.

The ultimate reality is that the mighty rule the meek.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Ain't that the truth. A lot of people are just too uncomfortable with that truth.

The reality is that if you weren't born into a powerful family and want something you've got to fight for it or be willing to live your life shrouded in secrecy.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Amazing how this technology is so commonly described as being "clean" and "renewable" despite being neither of those things. They require a massive amount land and non-renewable resources to build, meaning they often produce more CO2 than they prevent as they explain in the video. Solar energy also presents very similar problems.

Well anyone with a brain knows corporate propaganda purposely mislead the public with yet another twisted half truth.

The technology - the materials we work with and construct these devices - isn't renewable or clean.

The sun's light rays are renewable and clean tho.

See how they twist it? Lol