Just how did 'Indigenous Knowledge' inform the U.S. government's decision to ban Alaskan drilling?

It could have been a win-win situation

Americans need more gas and oil. Alaskans need jobs and community investment. And Alaska has gas and oil. It made a lot of sense, then, when the Trump administration gave the go-ahead to new oil and gas drilling plans in Alaska. Then the Biden administration cancelled the plans.

The reasons they gave were two: “the best available science” and “recognition of the Indigenous Knowledge of the original stewards of this area.”

The “original stewards” aren’t happy about the move; in fact, they say they weren’t even consulted. 

The entire United States Arctic Ocean is now ‘off-limits’

Those who are delighted are the environmental groups who were furious when new plans to drill in Alaska were announced and who seemed bemused when it appeared that the Biden administration might actually approve some of them.

In fact, Biden’s Department of the Interior (DOI) was simultaneously planning to permanently block oil and gas exploration on almost 16 million acres of land and water, but this wasn’t apparently enough to satisfy the progressive-left wing of Biden's party, despite the fact that the U.S. petroleum reserves are close to an all-time low. By September, 2023, the DOI announced that the remaining seven Alaskan oil and gas leases would be cancelled.

These bold actions to protect the Arctic region build on President Biden’s historic conservation and climate agenda ... ensuring the entire United States Arctic Ocean is off-limits to new oil and gas leasing...

With climate change warming the Arctic more than twice as fast as the rest of the planet, we must do everything within our control to meet the highest standards of care to protect this fragile ecosystem ... based on the best available science...

Let them eat caribou, waterbirds and fish

Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland insisted, at the time of the drilling ban, that the government would be “supporting subsistence activities for Alaska Native communities,” but no reference was made to the massive loss of revenue expected to result from the lease cancellations. 

Over the years, tens of thousands of Alaskans, many of them Natives, have come to depend on work in the energy field and the revenues have funded local infrastructure, including health services and schools. Over $1 billion in dividends has been paid out to shareholders in the various energy companies since the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was passed in 1971—and according to that Act, shareholders must be people with Alaska Native heritage.

However, the administration’s official perception of Alaska Natives remains one of tribes continuing to live much as they did centuries ago, subsisting on caribou, waterbirds and fish:

Tribal Nations have occupied lands now within the NPR-A [National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska] since time immemorial, and over 40 Indigenous communities continue to rely on subsistence activities in the reserve, harvesting caribou, shore and waterbirds, and many other fish and wildlife species, with many communities subsisting primarily from food harvested from the NPR-A.

Government “exploring” idea of working with Native Alaskans

The DOI also claimed that they were committed to “exploring” the idea of working together with the Native Alaskans:

[Our plan] also advances the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to strengthening the role of Tribal governments in the management of public lands by encouraging the BLM to explore co-stewardship opportunities with Tribes for the Special Areas.

Just “exploring”

The government never apparently got beyond “exploring” the idea of consulting with Native Alaskans. According to Doreen Leavitt, Tribal Council Secretary for the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, the decision to cancel the leases threatened the economic security of thousands, and she stressed that the views of her tribe had at no point been sought. 

The tribe would have shared these comments with the Biden administration had they ever been consulted.

Biden's White House has been guided by ‘Indigenous Knowledge’ for years already

But the Department of the Interior did not, apparently, rely only on “the science” when making its decision to keep Alaska as pristine as possible. They also took into account “Indigenous Knowledge”:

In developing the draft, [we] engaged with a wide variety of stakeholders and used the best available data and science, including Indigenous Knowledge.

Using “Indigenous Knowledge” to guide decision-making isn't something the Biden administration is even trying to keep secret. A White House memo dating back to 2022—46 pages' worth of instruction—focuses on making sure that government departments take this “Indigenous Knowledge” into consideration in the areas of research, policies, and decision-making:

The Federal Government recognizes the valuable contributions of the Indigenous Knowledge that Tribal Nations and Indigenous Peoples have gained and passed down from generation to generation and the critical importance of ensuring that Federal departments and agencies' consideration and inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge is guided by respect…

Indigenous Knowledge, as interpreted by the government, means no development

This may sound nice, but the decision of the administration to justify its cancellation of oil and gas leases based on “indigenous knowledge” could be setting a dangerous precedent, given that there is no firm definition of what that knowledge may actually be. 

The “Protect the Public’s Trust” watchdog group has now filed a “scientific integrity” complaint against the Biden administration for employing “Indigenous knowledge” as justification for its decision to cancel the leases. In their filing, they stress the potential for “manipulation” in using such open-ended terminology:

… the Biden administration’s decision making, through the use of Indigenous Knowledge, is susceptible to manipulation without even the pretense of adhering to scientific principles…