abstract: Societies seeking sustainability are transitioning from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy sources to mitigate dangerous climate change. Energy transitions involve ethically controversial decisions that affect current and future generations’ well-being. As energy systems in the United States transition towards renewable energy, American Indian reservations with abundant energy sources are some of the most significantly impacted communities. Strikingly, energy ethicists have not yet developed a systematic approach for prescribing ethical action within the context of energy decisions. This dissertation reinvents energy ethics as a distinct sub-discipline of applied ethics, integrating virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism with Sioux, Navajo, and Hopi ethical perspectives. On this new account, applied energy ethics is the analysis of questions of right and wrong using a framework for prescribing action and proper policies within private and public energy decisions. To demonstrate the usefulness of applied energy ethics, this dissertation analyzes two case studies situated on American Indian reservations: the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Navajo Generating Station. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Sustainability 2019

Settler colonial history underlies much of contemporary industry, including the extraction and transportation of crude oil. It presents itself in a variety of contexts; however, this disquisition applies a traditional Marxist perspective to examine how settler colonialism is present in news media representation of American Indian activists during the Dakota Access Pipeline protest. Rather than focus on the benefit of using colonized labor for financial gain, this disquisition pushes Marxism into settler colonialism in which the goal is to eliminate the Indigenous and continue to widen the gap between social classes. This research is important for two reasons. First, the media are powerful, making it the perfect vehicle to disseminate inaccurate representations of American Indians. These incorrect representations come in the form of media frames that created an altered reality for news audiences. Second, the term settler colonialism, in particular its relationship with American Indian protest, has been little studied in the American field of communication. A comparative qualitative content analysis was applied to media artifacts from the protest that occurred in North Dakota. Artifacts were discovered using a constructed week approach of two online versions of print publications—the Bismarck (ND) Tribune and the New York Times—and one digital only news site, Indian Country Today. One hundred twenty four artifacts were examined in total. Five dominant frames emerged from the analysis: blame, cultural value, water, American Indian stereotypes, and confrontation. These frames were considered dominant due to the number of coded excerpts that appeared in at least 20% of the artifacts. The frames either contribute to or resist settler colonialism based on the publication in which it appears. The Bismarck Tribune contributed the most to settler colonialism; the New York Times neither rejected nor acknowledged it while Indian Country Today resisted through recognition of America’s settler colonial past, sovereignty, and government-directed violence. The implication of this research is that elimination of the American Indian is ubiquitous in American news media. The mainstream media contributes to widening the gap between social classes, ensuring the dominant class stays in power and Indigenous issues are ignored.

In 2016, An estimated 15,000 people representing 400 Indigenous Nations and non-indigenous allies gathered at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in solidarity against the Dakota Access Pipeline to protect Mni Sose, the Missouri River. They became known as the Water Protectors. This dissertation analyzes the response in environmental philosophy journals to the #noDAPL protest at Standing Rock. Even though the Stand at Standing Rock became one of the most important and monumental environmental protests of the last decade, neither Standing Rock nor the Water Protectors appear in environmental philosophy journals at all--not once. Why? I suggest a possible answer by exploring the Stand of the Water Protectors as a moment in a much longer continuous history of resistance to settler colonialism. Settler colonialism attempts to facilitate the erasure of Indigenous populations by colonial ones, in order to gain access to territory—to land. The omission of Standing Rock from environmental philosophy journals represents the ease with which environmental philosophy can become complicit in the project of settler colonial erasure and replacement through absence. Drawing on Indigenous land-based philosophies of kinship, Latin American decolonial philosophy, settler colonial theory, and frameworks of Indigenous environmental justice, I show how the geo-politics of colonialism have come to produce environmental injustice and planetary ruin. I work to break the silence on Standing Rock in environmental philosophy and allow the Water Protectors example to guide the project toward an environmental philosophy which centers colonialism and Indigenous resurgence as core concerns.

It has been 15 years since the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognized the Free, Prior and Informed consent Principle, yet it has not been able to function to its fullest potential. This Thesis aims to carry out a Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the following three countries of Australia, Canada, and the United States. With the hypothesis, that the underlying factors behind this failure can be attributed to Settler-Colonialism and Global Capitalism. To carry out this study Theoretical Frameworks based on Settler-Colonial studies and a critique of the Stakeholder theory named Critical Stakeholder Analysis (CSA) will be employed. Using the existing body of research in this area of inquiry as a point of departure, this thesis attributes the failure to implement the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent principle to its fullest potential on asymmetrical power dynamics, settler-colonial structures, and profitability.