Extractive Economy Jobs Are Not the Good Jobs Tribes Were Promised
A couple of years ago a tribal leader showed me an abandoned lumber mill near the village of Tyonek, Alaska. The company promised jobs. And, for a time, for a couple of decades, there were those jobs. But after the resource was consumed, the mill closed, the company disappeared, and the shell of the enterprise remains today.
This same story could be told in tribal communities across North America. Sometimes the resource was timber. Other times gas and oil. Or coal.
The lucky communities were left with a small toxic dump site. More often there was major cleanup work required after (plus a few more jobs). And in the worst case scenario, a Superfund site was left behind requiring government supervision and a major cleanup.
But all along, and in each case, the accompanying idea was that jobs would be a part of the deal.
There would be construction jobs to build the mine, pipeline, or processing plant. Then there would be truck-driving jobs moving materials, a few executive jobs (especially in public and community relations), and, of course, the eventual supervision of the cleanup, especially if the tribal government had its own environmental protection agency.
That was the old deal.
But that’s no longer how it works. Now the resource is extracted, pipelines are built, and toxic waste is left behind—and the promised jobs are limited to the initial construction jobs.
Resource-extraction infrastructure does not create as many jobs.
The renewed effort to build the Keystone XL pipeline is an example of this shift. When President Donald Trump signed the executive order to approve the project, he promised “thousands of jobs.” That’s true enough for the construction phase, but only 35 employees would be needed to operate the pipeline, according to the State Department report.
Keystone, at least, is prospective jobs. New ones. But here’s the bigger challenge for the Navajo Nation, the Crow Nation, and some 30 tribes with coal reserves or power plants: This new deal for resource-extraction infrastructure does not create as many jobs.
The numbers are stark.
The U.S. Energy and Employment Outlook 2017 shows that electricity from coal declined 53 percent between 2006 and 2016. Over that same period, electricity from natural gas increased by 33 percent and from solar by 5,000 percent.
Coal is still a major source of energy, but it’s in decline. Coal and natural gas add up to two-thirds of all electricity generation in the U.S. That’s expected to remain the case until at least 2040, when the market share projection declines to a little more than half.
But because the market is in decline, tribes that develop coal will not share in the rewards of either major profits or in a spike in jobs. The only hope for this shrinking industry is to export the coal to other countries (something that will be extremely difficult because so many other nations have already agreed to the Paris climate targets). As Clark Williams-Derry has reported for the Sightline Institute:
Robust, sustainable Asian coal markets were never a realistic hope for U.S. coal exporters: the transportation costs were too high, the competition too fierce, and the demand too unstable. So the coal industry’s PR flacks may continue to spin tales about endless riches in the Asian coal market, the financials are telling a much more sobering story: that the coal export pipe dream continues to fade away, leaving a bad hangover on the coal industry’s balance sheets and a lingering bad taste in the mouths of coal investors and executives alike.
On top of all that, Derry-Williams points out that China’s coal consumption has fallen for three consecutive years.
And the international context is that coal is the most polluting of the three types of fossil fuels. More than 80 percent of the world’s known coal reserves need to stay in the ground to meet global warming targets.
There are jobs in the energy field, but as the Department of Energy report puts it: “Employment in electric power generation now totals 860,869 … [and] the number of jobs is projected to grow by another 7 percent, but the majority will be in construction to build and install new renewable energy capacity.”
The green economy is taking over, Trump or no Trump.
The extractive economy (like the farm economy a generation ago) reached its peak, probably back in 2014. Oil and gas employed 514,000 people a year. Today it’s 388,000. Coal and extraction-related jobs peaked at 90,000, and that number has dropped to about 53,000.
Indian Country’s development of coal—or not—has been the story so far in the Trump era.
Last month, new Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lifted restrictions on federal coal leasing. He said the “war on coal is over.” Then he quoted Crow Tribal Chairman Darrin Old Coyote saying, “There are no jobs like coal jobs.”
More than 80 percent of the world’s known coal reserves need to stay in the ground to meet global warming targets.
A day later the Northern Cheyenne tribe filed suit. The tribe said the Interior Department did not consult the tribe prior to lifting the restrictions. “It is alarming and unacceptable for the United States, which has a solemn obligation as the Northern Cheyenne’s trustee, to sign up for many decades of harmful coal mining near and around our homeland without first consulting with our Nation or evaluating the impacts to our Reservation and our residents,” Northern Cheyenne tribe President L. Jace Killsback said in a news release. There are 426 million tons of coal located near the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation at the Decker and Spring Creek mines.
Meanwhile in Alaska, another coal project was put to rest in a tribal community. The village of Tyonek has been opposed to the Chuitna Coal Project. After a decade of planning, PacRim Coal suspended the project last month because an investor backed out. Although the project could be brought back to life, that’s not likely because coal is a losing bet for any investor.
According to Alaska Public Media, that meant a joyful celebration in Tyonek.
The president of the village Native Council, Arthur Stanifer said, “What it means for us is our fish will continue to be here for future generations. Also our wildlife, like the bears and the moose and the other animals, will be secure, and they’ll be here. They’ll have a safe place to be.”
And what of the jobs?
That’s the hard part. The prospects for extraction-related jobs are about to be hit by even more disruptive forces. For example, in the oil fields of North Dakota, one of the great paying jobs is truck driving—moving material back and forth. But already in Europe companies are experimenting and will soon begin the shift to self-driving vehicles. It’s only a matter of time before that trend takes jobs, because it fits the model of efficient capitalism. Self-driving trucks don’t need rest breaks. They consume less fuel and have fewer accidents.
That same automation disruption is occurring across the employment spectrum. Jobs that can be done by machines will be done by machines.
So if jobs are no longer part of the equation, how does natural resource extraction benefit tribal communities?
The answer ought to include a plan where the United States government and tribes work together to replace these jobs: Retrain workers and invest in the energy sector that is growing—renewable fuels.
But that’s not likely to happen in the Trump Era.
This article was originally published at Trahant Reports. It has been edited for YES! Magazine.
Mark Trahant is editor-at-large for Indian Country Today. Trahant leads the Indigenous Economics Project, a comprehensive look at Indigenous economics, including market-based initiatives. Trahant is a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and has written about American Indian and Alaska Native issues for more than three decades. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has held endowed chairs at the University of North Dakota and University of Alaska Anchorage, and has worked as a journalist since 1976. Trahant is a YES! contributing editor.