by Elstun Lauesen
It is difficult for us to grasp the monumental change that this storm-of-a-century has wrought to Alaska. It is a cataclysmic geomorphological event that alters space, land-use and occupancy. It is the kind of thing that anthropologists a thousand years from now might note as they sift through fossilized muck and midden.
The fact that we are creatures with satellites and cell phones who can observe the event in real time masks the profound long-term impact of this storm.
Shaktoolik no longer has a sea wall separating it from the effects of the relentless sea, that held back the erosion of their narrow shore. The Nome-Council road is simply gone.
Many of these communities have been locked into a war against the ocean for decades, made worse by climate change and the rising sea levels.
Kivalina has documented its struggles in this regard, made worse by climate change, in a well-known lawsuit, “Kivalina v Exxon”. (2008-2009)
In the lawsuit, Kivalina sought to establish a tortious liability among major carbon polluters for contributing to climate change that now endangers Kivalina. The lawsuit was set aside by the District Court of Northern California because it was determined to be “non-judicial”; administrative remedies through the Clean Air Act had not been exhausted and “political” solutions should be sought through the administration and Congress.
So now, Kivalina and dozens of other Western Alaska Villages are on the precipice of destruction under this altered geomorphology.
I have followed this issue for many years, as a statewide rural development specialist for the State, who worked with Western Alaska communities, and as an observer and writer on Alaskan Affairs for over three Decades.
I believe that this cataclysmic storm, tragic as it is, offers an opportunity for the next Governor, legislature, and the Western Alaska stakeholders to offer transformational leadership on sustainable redevelopment of Western Alaska.
This transformational redevelopment must be guided by local experts along with engineers and scientists and consider all technologies including green hydrogen and fuels cell to power next-in-class sustainable solutions.
It is critical to ensure that the billions of dollars allocated for planning and reconstruction be directed toward relocation design in partnership with those vulnerable communities. Those funds should not be used for the haphazard patch and repair of existing endangered locations but should leverage the design and relocation of new, sustainable Villages in Alaska.
If Alaska commits to this transformational effort, it would be joined by global parters whose own search for solutions would be aided by our work. The United Nations and European experts in resilient community engagement could direct both expertise and financial resources to the effort. The fact that indigenous communities are endangered makes Western Alaska recovery and resilience a global policy priority.
There would be a role for everyone. The ANCSA Corporations could invest in transferable technological platforms that would open for them global markets seeking best-in-class solutions; the University of Alaska would benefit from a flow of research funds to address the initiative; the non-profit sector serving those communities would be directly engaged; and the local Tribes and Village Governments would the focus experts shaping the design.
If this devastation can be used as an inflection point for building a sustainable future for Western Alaska, then some good might be rendered from this tragedy.
