A region can cut carbon emissions 40% by building nuclear plants on land sacred to an indigenous community. Who decides?

Why this dilemma matters

These choices are rarely between good and bad — they are between different distributions of harm. Choosing “The broader population votes — climate stakes outweigh any single community's objection” prioritises rules that hold everyone the same; choosing “The indigenous community holds veto power — sovereignty over sacred land is non-negotiable” gives more weight to choices that account for difference.

Worth asking yourself

• What does this say about what we collectively value?
• Whose interests should count more here, and why?