Universally recognized as an environmental concern and non-traditional international security issue via the United Nations Federation on Climate Change treaty, carbon dioxide emissions have drastically climbed, altered the atmosphere, acidified oceans, and driven the rising average global temperature. State governments, with the financial resources and the capital to enact and enforce far-reaching policies and programs, are well posed to address the causes and to mitigate the deleterious effects of climate change. So, how has the United States government taken that responsibility and reflected the will of many of its civilians?

          The US Department of Energy, a cabinet-level agency, exercises jurisdiction over not only safety and handling nuclear material, and nuclear reactor production but also energy safety, policy, research and production. Underneath the Department of Energy’s oversight exists the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), a project that was conceived in 2007 after the National Academies issued a critical report: the United States was becoming less competitive in the science and technology surrounding energy. It is through ARPA-E that several programs have been created to increase the reliability, accessibility and production of cleaner energy; three exemplary programs include FOCUS, MOSAIC, and GENI.

1. FOCUS
        Bridging the science of photovoltaics and concentrated solar power, the Full Spectrum Optimized Conversion and Utilization of Sunlight program, otherwise known as FOCUS, has been largely driven by research conducted at Arizona State University, where new solar cell designs produce both electricity and heat for immediate and sustained use. The current challenge behind photovoltaics (PV) is the limited utilization of solar energy since only direct, not diffuse, sunlight can be converted into electricity. A hybrid approach, through a silicon based solar cell coated with a dichoric optical film, improves the use of solar energy and enhances the output of the solar cell. While the solar cells transform solar energy, reflected light is concentrated at a thermal absorber, generating heat which is carried via flowing oil to a steam turbine.

2. MOSAIC
       The Micro-scale Optimized Solar-cell Arrays with Integrated Concentration program, or MOSAIC, also addresses the limitations imposed on PVs and also on CSPs in that they both require direct sunlight to operate. Therefore, they are well suited to be installed in the United States’ southwest but are not effective in other regions. Further, incorporating these solar cells onto existing structures is often difficult given the size demands of these solar cells to be operational. The rooftops of buildings, if not sturdy enough, will not sustain the weight and bulk of large solar cells. Here, MOSAIC seeks to expand the application of solar cells by developing micro-scale cells that can be utilized by a larger community.

3. GENI
       Lastly, the Green Electricity Network Integration initiative recognizes the backend of the renewable energy production and consumption, the transfer of electricity from facilities to businesses and residences. Consider the following: nearly one-tenth of electrical energy is lost in transmission while electricity contributed to 27.5% of the United States’ CO2 emissions. The electrical grids which currently supply energy demands in the United States require immediate attention, especially with 30% of the hardware near expiration. An out-dated electrical network is not only vulnerable to power outages and foreign attacks but also it also limited in the renewable energy it can supply, despite the fact that solar energy has no associated emissions. With improved hardware, computing and communications, the electrical network can achieve greater efficiency, reliability, power flow control and significantly greater integration of renewable energy.

Free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) is a standard of indigenous land rights policy that requires just what it implies, informed consent by indigenous peoples for development projects or government policies that could impact their territories or peoples. FPIC is considered a global “best practice” that most countries, including the U.S., have not yet implemented. FPIC is the difference between simply a requirement to consult with indigenous peoples over outside actions that can affect them and giving those communities a final say on whether those actions can be taken out at all, essentially giving the communities a “veto” power in the strictest interpretation. Current international law requires the standard of consultation, and in 2007 the United Nations passed the legally non-binding UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), recognizing the need for FPIC as a standard. Since then, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru have all legally codified consent requirements when consulting with indigenous peoples, and even some international non-governmental entities have created their own FPIC policies. As of 2011 for example, the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank requires FPIC from potentially affected indigenous peoples for grants and loans on projects that raise environmental and social sustainability issues. The international community has slowly begun to transition FPIC from a “best practice" in theory to a public policy reality.

Though FPIC is only now making its way into proposals by candidates in the U.S., it has been discussed as a standard by international groups and indigenous representatives for decades. Scholars argue that the right to FPIC stems from the right to self-determination articulated in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The UNDRIP mentioned earlier also relates FPIC to self-determination and sovereignty, suggesting FPIC in matters related to relocation of communities, legislative action or administrative measures, disposal of hazardous waste, and “any project affecting their land or territories.” In addition to its legally nonbinding nature, the drawback for UNDRIP has been that its vague language defining “consent” has allowed for varying interpretation of whether indigenous communities have an absolute veto on these issues. In analysis of the implementation of UNDRIP, the Northwestern Journal of International and Human Rights determined four conditions needed for FPIC to be effectively implemented:

• Special attention should be paid to the political, economic, and social context of negotiations to avoid coercion.
• Technically accurate data should be equally shared to all stakeholders in negotiation regarding environmental impact of issue being discussed.
• Consultation process should be culturally appropriate according to indigenous stakeholder group norms.
• Stakeholders affected by final decision who have opposition and concern should be able to impact the final decision, if not have full veto power over it.

​
Current U.S. policies regarding tribal consultation either does not call for or does not specifically require most of these best practice guidelines. The Clinton Administration passed Executive Order 13175 in 2000 requiring “consultation and coordination” with tribal governments on a broad array of issues ranging from legislative instruments to development projects that can directly affect tribal communities. Then in 2006, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) released their own “best practice” standards when consulting with tribal nations. These standards include:

• Conducting consultations with tribal nations on an equal government to government basis, recognizing their sovereignty as independent nations.
• Respectfully considering tribal nations input.
• Consulting early and frequently in the planning process.
• Providing full information on policy or development, full impact assessment, and ample notice of information and meetings for tribal consideration.
• Conduct consultation meetings at both agency or developer and tribal locations
• Provide tribes financial compensation for consultation.
• Acknowledge the legal confidentiality of tribal communications and statements.

Despite these standards, many tribal nations still hold negative views of the U.S.’s current consultation process. Many have a perspective that, despite a vast number of governmental and private entities overwhelming tribal nations with requests for consultation for a variety of issues ranging in importance, consultation is meaningless because tribes don’t ultimately have a final say. They still lack consent in these decisions, whether they are approached for consultation or not. The requirement of gaining tribal nation consent would create incentive for governments to adhere to those NCAI best practice standards more closely. It would force developers to engage in consultation earlier on in the planning process and consider tribal input more seriously. Consultation requirements in the U.S. would also reinforce tribal sovereignty and improve the attitudes of tribal communities on the effectiveness and meaningfulness of consultation with government entities, because they would have that final say.
​
In terms of the future of FPIC policies in the U.S., a number of 2020 Democratic primary hopefuls have released their own proposals with various degrees of specificity. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s proposal is by far the most lengthy and detailed platform for indigenous issues. Warren calls for the revocation of Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipeline permits on the basis that they did not receive the consent of the indigenous communities that they affect. The proposal also states “respect for tribal sovereignty means that no project, development, or federal decision that will have a significant impact on a tribal community… should proceed without the free, prior, and informed consent of Tribal Nations concerned. Secretary Julian Castro’s proposal addresses a need to “modify and codify tribal consultation requirements,” ensuring tribes have judicial recourse if their input is not considered during consultation. He goes on to call for the end of “leasing of lands for fossil fuel exploration and extraction,” and requiring “free, prior, and informed consent” of tribal communities on infrastructure projects that affect them. Senator Bernie Sanders’ tribal policy platform has a bullet point calling for a Green New Deal to undo damage inflicted on indigenous peoples and to “stand with Native Americans in the struggle to protect their treaty and sovereign rights.” In addition to these campaign proposals, U.S. Representative Ocasio-Cortez’s 2019 H.Res.109 Green New Deal Resolution called for “obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories… and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples” as a standard to achieve the stated goals of the proposed Green New Deal mobilization.

Much of the world’s biodiversity and lands threatened by climate change are kept by and belong to indigenous peoples. The issue of FPIC is not only a sovereignty issue, but in many ways, it is also an environmental justice issue. The policy challenge of climate migration and community displacement is becoming a growing subject of contention on all levels of government, and many indigenous communities and tribal lands are in areas threatened by sea level rise. For U.S. tribes specifically, the way state and federal governments handle this issue, either by adaptation or relocation, could have massive repercussions on the future of their community. The University of Colorado Law Review States “[their] right to environmental self determination is necessary for survival."

“We’re about protecting our water. We’re about protecting our sacred places. We’re about protecting our sovereignty,” said Dabe Archambault II, Chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe during interview with ABC news in 2016 on the Dakota Access Pipeline. The issues the Sioux Tribe have faced with the Dakota Access Pipeline permitting are not new to U.S. tribes and will only be echoed by future environmental development tensions as climate change and sea level rise exacerbate flash points of conflict. Only time will tell if the proposals set forth by these Democratic primary challengers will ever translate into real policy, but it shows that the permitting and development has started a new conversation in tribal sovereignty and land use in the U.S. as it relates to environmental self-determination.