This article originally appeared on Alternatives Journal.

“What is it about activists that they can’t even be optimistic for one day after a whole decade?” 

The disgust and disappointment on my 16 year olds face is somewhat heartbreaking as he pours cereal the morning after the Canadian election and surfs the comments on my Facebook page. I can only shake my head sadly and agree with him. 

Wouldn’t it be great to be fueled by hope instead of fear as the late Jack Layton urged us in his letter to the nation? For just a minute could we not take a deep breath and focus on all the things that we know will now change?

My sons have never known a Canada that was not under Stephen Harper's thumb. For the last decade they have listened to their parents shock and outrage over the weakening of our environmental laws, the lack of transparency, the erosion of democracy, the muzzling of scientists, the attack on environmental groups, the disregard for Canada’s constitution.

Along the way we tried to keep hope alive. We painted a picture for them of a Canada that valued evidence based policy. A Canada that led on the world stage to create critical international agreements like the Montreal Protocol. We talked about how lucky we are to live in a democracy and how important it was for us to participate, to organize and to vote. 

Together we watched the election results come in from coast to coast and I watched the hope and optimism on my sons face as he listened to Justin Trudeau’s acceptance speech. “Sunny ways!” We all yelled, half-hysterical and grinning ear to ear. “To the end of the Harper Era!” We cheered as we raised a glass in jubilant toast. 

Our exuberance made the next mornings conversation all that more painful. “Is he really no different?” “Why can’t people ever be hopeful?”

Why not indeed. 

Optimism is a particularly hard place for the activist community. It is by nature a community that draws from the margins: those that question the status quo are often the same people that the status quo doesn’t benefit. There are also those that are simply hard wired to question authority and then there are those who have immersed themselves in climate science and for whom incremental progress or half measures are simply seen as disastrous and even immoral.

In the case of this election and the thorough trouncing of the New Democratic Party there are also those in the activist community who were deeply invested in seeing an NDP or at least a Liberal minority that would give more space for an NDP agenda and with it the potential to strengthen the Liberals position on climate change. 

Let’s be clear — the Liberal Party Platform on climate change currently lacks strong emissions reductions targets at a critical moment in history when it is clear that the United Nations Climate Change Conference discussions are undergoing a dramatic cultural shift. For the first time in over a decade we are seeing a race to the top on climate policy. Countries are committing to aggressive targets and, like China with the announcement of their cap and trade system, they are putting in place real policies to meet those targets.

Canada will have to scramble to catch up after a decade of federal action and there is a considerable amount of fear and cynicism in the activist and scientific community about how our new Liberal government will rise to that challenge. Prime Minster-designate Justin Trudeau’s support for the Keystone pipeline and the cosy relationship between the Liberal campaign chair and Transcanada has not helped create optimism on the climate file. 

Of course, there is also the experience of our colleagues south of the border who remind us that without strong public campaigns the Obama administration would never have considered pulling permits for Arctic drilling and certainly would have approved the Keystone pipeline by now. The pull of the oil and gas industry is strong and while we now have the technology to build a cleaner, safer energy system, it is not easy for any elected leader to forego significant short term financial benefits from fossil fuel exploration let alone tell their constituents that the price of electricity and gas needs to go up.

The Liberal campaign slogan during this Federal election was ‘hope and hard work.’  In the coming months we will need a lot of both. Not just from our new government but also from ourselves. 

Let’s allow ourselves to hope. For our children and our health and the health of our communities. Over the past week I have forced myself not to fall into the pit of cynicism and to take a moment everyday to think of one thing that I care about that will change under this new government. It has had the effect of weights being lifted off my shoulders leaving me feel more spacious, more creative and free. 

A decade of attacks on our democracy, on those who can afford it the least and on our environment has left considerable baggage and scars. It will take a while to unpack it all and to trust my own government again. For my children I will try. If we allow ourselves to hope, Prime Minister-designate Justin Trudeau is making it easy for us. 

We aren’t getting platitudes and framing devoid of real promises and content. Within minutes we were getting renewed commitments to a new voting system, an inquiry into the missing and murdered Aboriginal women and an invitation to Green Party leader Elizabeth May and every Premier to attend the Paris Climate Summit as part of a team. We even got a day after press conference where our Prime Minister-designate…answered questions. 

The coming months will not be easy as we begin to establish a new relationship with our government and the international community but I am hopeful that we now have a government that will govern for all of Canadians best interests and not simply for one sector. I am hopeful that we now have a government that will choose science over politics, clean, safe energy systems over business as usual and perhaps even a government that will choose people over polluters. 

Tzeporah Berman BA MES LLD (honoris causa) is an environmental activist, an Adjunct Professor of Environmental Studies at York University, author of This Crazy Time: Living Our Environmental Challenge, published by Knopf Canada and the mother of two boys. 

Image: Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

How did the green movement start and where is it headed? DeSmog UK previewed the new documentary How To Change The World, which depicts a group of idealistic hippies ready to take on the world. In this long-read we speak with Emily Hunter,  environmental activist and daughter of 'eco-hero' Robert Hunter, about today's environmental activism.

As Richard Nixon announced plans to test nuclear bombs in Alaskan waters in the midst of the Vietnam War, Bob Hunter stood on the steps of his high school, burning his college acceptance letter and choosing, instead, to “set off to change the world”.

So begins the film How To Change The World, which tells the story of the young activists who set sail from Vancouver, Canada in 1971 in an old fishing boat to stop the atomic bomb tests, and who would quickly evolve into a passionate and courageous group devoted to saving the whales.

This was the start of the modern environmental movement and the formation of a now global organisation known as Greenpeace.

Written and directed by Jerry Rothwell, the documentary is based on the late Bob Hunter’s writings and chronicles his journey as the leading force behind the group. Kodachrome footage from the time features throughout the film, interspersed with interviews with Greenpeace’s founding members, capturing the highs and lows of their early eco-activism: the struggles and rewards that come with creating a global movement.

Bob Hunter aboard the Greenpeace ship in the 1970s. Photo: Greenpeace

The group of young activists. Photo: Greenpeace

Hunter, who began as a journalist, understood the importance of images in awakening people’s consciousness to the issues facing our world. What we would now call ‘going viral’ Hunter coined as ‘mind bombs’ – messages that resonate around the world.

From Russian whaling harpoons flying over the activists floating in inflatable zodiacs to seal pups being clubbed to death in Newfoundland, the startling and sometimes graphic images give the audience a sense of what it means to ‘bear witness’.

Today, Greenpeace has returned to Alaska in an effort to stop Shell drilling for Arctic oil. Saving the whales is also on the agenda as the NGO seeks to raise awareness of the impacts of seismic testing for oil reserves on Arctic marine mammals.

Surely, though, we can't be right back where we began? Just as the group questioned how best to make a difference, as viewers, we’re left asking how the green movement has evolved since the 1970s and what difference it has made.

To answer these questions and more, DeSmog UK spoke with Emily Hunter, Bob’s daughter and environmental media activist, about the film and today’s modern environmental movement.

KM: As viewers watching the film, or young people trying to get involved, how do you hope this film speaks to them as we move towards the Paris climate conference which, many people are hoping, will put us on the path to ‘changing the world’?

EH: I feel this film is as relevant in the ‘60s and ‘70s as it is today and even more important because our generation needs an inspiring story of ordinary people doing extraordinary things for our planet, now more than ever.

We are facing multiple, multiple crises left, right, and centre. We are facing a political system that is, quite frankly, failing us, failing our generation and our climate future that, now, more than ever we need to be able to see inspiring examples of other young people… who went out there and did change the world. And, in my view, the story isn’t that different because it really just shows our human capacity for trying to effect change and that story is not unique to my father, it’s not unique to Greenpeace, it’s not unique to the ‘70s, it is happening repeatedly again and again today.

In many ways I think the circumstances are similar as what’s shown in the film. It was a young generation then, the youth culture of the ‘70s, that were up against huge, huge political, economic and military interests, for having a pro-arms race, for having nuclear arms in different countries, and facing the huge oppressive policies that were also [creating] this apocalyptic-like scenario for that generation; it seemed impossible, it seemed like an impossible feat to do anything about, but young people didn’t give up and they kept building a movement – and they built a movement, I think, more than just around protesting, it was about having these ‘mind-bomb moments’ as my father would say. Creating these moments that shifted people’s perspectives, that we weren’t just human dominators of the planet but we were human stewards of the planet, and that was the switch in people’s minds.

And today, we face similar circumstances with our climate crisis and again, quite frankly, oppressive policies that are continuing our fossil fuel regime. And again, we feel powerless against it, but I do think we are collectively building our movement, our generation’s movement and now more than ever we need our own mind-bombs to tell us we can still do it, and this is one of those mind-bombs.

KM: So we need more big and powerful mind-bombs to catalyse action?

EH: Absolutely, we need those, but I think those are happening. I think those stories are being told. We have a different medium of course, we’re telling them through digital media, but the stories are getting out there. For example, the 13 activists in Portland on St John’s bridge who hung off the bridge [in August] and were able to push back Shell’s ship [which] is part of their sensitive equipment needed for Arctic oil drilling. That was a mind-bomb moment to me, and that news went around the world.

This film is another mind-bomb moment. I think Paris could potentially be a mind-bomb moment, but even more of a mind-bomb moment if we don’t just make it Paris alone. It has to be beyond Paris. It has to be a moment that continues to fuel our movement and build the transitions we need, not just one that is a make-it-or-break-it moment. We can’t put everything on just Paris alone.

KM: How has the environmental movement changed or stayed the same since it began in the ‘70s with your father?

EH: I think the movement has evolved quite a bit and it’s taken some hard hits, it’s had a couple identity crises along the way. Back in the day, you could galvanise on these singular issues, you could galvanise the populous and effect policy change. Today, I think the traditional tactics of lobbying, focusing on sound science, and some of these traditional tactics that won us the Montreal Protocol, and so forth, aren’t winning us the same fights.

When it comes to climate change we are at a cross-roads in our movement. This requires systemic change and systemic solutions. We can no longer continue on with the fossil fuel-based economy and think that we’re going to shift anything on this issue. So that really requires a massive overhaul, and one that frankly doesn’t benefit short-term politicians or the economic elite, and so that’s really where we need a ground-swell of people who are being the most affected, who are facing the greatest impacts, and actually rise up and start making some of these transitions.

I’m not asking for some massive anarchism. It may sound very leftist but I’m not talking about communism, I’m not talking about any of these things, I’m talking about the economic policies in place and that right now these economies are fundamentally insane and are only benefiting a few, trashing our future – so I do think there are switches that can be made in the short term and long term, such as getting off of dirty fossil fuels, such as switching on to renewables, but also starting to have an economy that isn’t based on fossil fuels and not having political leaders that are very much backing these fossil fuel industries like [Canada’s Prime Minister] Stephen Harper.

Greenpeace zodiac and whaling ships. Photo: Greenpeace

KM: What are the biggest challenges for today’s green movement when it comes to creating this systemic change?

EH: For one, we’re starting to see more and more economies that are going towards more co-operative models, we call that the sharing economy, you can look at it as sustainable growth rather than the infinite growth model. We’re seeing that in terms of, not just car sharing and Airbnb, those are the ones that get all the [attention] for sure, I’m talking about more co-operative living… you see food co-ops, you see housing co-ops, you see places where communities are sharing resources, reducing our impact on the planet and it’s not based on an infinite growth model. Those are part of the short-term [solutions] I see to get us off of fossil fuels and gets our economy running on people.

KM: When it comes to environmental issues, yes you have climate change, but there are many others which Greenpeace and other NGOs are working on, from the Arctic, oceans and forests to pesticides and wildlife. Does the green movement suffer from the fact there are so many things to address? Does it need more unity?

EH: Yeah, previously you could focus on these single issues and policy changes on them and that would effect change. Today, like climate change, I do think we have to have a more interconnected movement because if you look at it from a more macro, birds-eye view, it’s not just all these single issues… if you look at it from a larger perspective it’s the fact that people aren’t happy with where the world has gone, the fact that we do see all these costs, or externalities, of the economy that animals, forests, the air, people, are suffering…

We see all these issues and we’re concerned about all these issues, we’re aware, we’re working on them, we’re trying to find solutions but at the end of the day it is the system change [that’s needed] and we need to start working towards it and transitioning ourselves off of this system that isn’t working for us.

And for young people especially who have a lack of jobs, who are seeing a climate-doomed scenario approaching, who don’t believe in our political system, this system really is not working for us anymore. So I do think those kinds of transitions can be made, but they can be made in small ways. It doesn’t need to be taking on the entire system I’m talking about, it can be taking on smaller community projects.

KM: In the movie, it describes how they wanted to create a movement on the scale of the civil rights movement. Do you think the green movement has become that in itself or is it entirely different?

EH: I do think the environmental movement has become as big as the civil rights or feminism movements, and in some ways I’d say even bigger because it’s integrated into all of our lives, in many, many ways. It’s integrated in terms of our health, it’s integrated in terms of behaviour choices, how much energy we’re using, it’s on all of our minds one way or another, whether people think of themselves as environmentalists or activists or not, the reality is that it has affected almost every sector of society, whether people realise that or not.

We’ve still got a long way to go. As one of my dad’s quotes says ‘it’s a 200-year mop-up operation’, there’s still certainly a long clean-up to go but I think even in the last one or two generations, depending how you look at it, from my parents’ time to my time there’s already been a huge shift in terms of it being on our minds, on our consciousness and [on] some of our behaviours.

Whereas before, in their time, the word 'ecology' didn’t even mean anything, nobody even understood what that meant, so that’s a huge shift. You first have to work at the consciousness shift and behaviour shift before we start to get to the larger things. But I do think we’re in a real period of transitioning. I may be idealistic, but I do think we’re at the beginning of a transition and we need to start working to reset consciousness.

KM: What’s the best way to deal with those opposing the movement, be it fossil fuel companies or climate deniers?

EH: In terms of climate denial, it has brought up a whole other level of psychology that I don’t think we’ve fully faced yet. Climate denial is, at its core, you’re really trying to shift people’s entire world-views, and that’s really not easy work to do. And I do think film and storytelling is a window into which we can start to do some of that work and shift people’s world views and consciousness. And it’s where it’s so essential because in the fight against climate change there are still so many, I mean, some of the politicians in the US are known climate deniers and for a country that still holds a lot of weight in these climate negotiations, that’s really, really dangerous for the rest of us.

That’s where I think there’s still a lot of work to be done, I don’t know if we’ve done all the work in shifting people’s world views as much as we have worked on policy and protesting, we haven’t done the piece of consciousness shifting, at least to our opponents. And that’s really hard work and something we’re struggling with and it’s about psychology.

KM: Greenpeace began in Canada, and as a Canadian you’re aware of the country’s climate track record. Canada is doing very little to tackle climate change, yet it can feel as though this isn't talked about as much as it maybe should be. Do you agree?

EH: Canada, and Australia, are huge pieces of the climate puzzle that are being ignored or given less attention to. When we talk about keeping fossil fuels in the ground, a big portion of that includes not just American coal but includes Australian coal… and most of the Canadian tar sands need to be kept in the ground if we have any chance of facing two degrees Celsius [of global warming].

So, as we keep negotiating these two degrees, the reality is we’re not putting force on these countries to ensure that that happens by keeping their fossil fuel reserves in the ground. They play such instrumental pieces of our climate future and the pressure needs to be put on at an international level right now; [these] two countries are acting like two climate enemies of humanity rather than the nature lovers that we still project them to be. I do live in Canada and we have a 10-year-old reputation as though we’re protecting the environment when we do anything but that. The world needs to know that.

KM: Canada’s federal election is coming up in October. What would you say to Canadians looking for change?

EH: A very easy step to take when it comes to our climate future is this next Canadian election in October. We have a real chance now, an opportunity to get one of the biggest enemies of the climate future, the Harper regime, out of politics. He has not only done huge damage to our environment, forced us into becoming a fossil fuel based economy, but he’s also done tremendous harm to our democracy and our civil liberties to even being an activist anymore and having certain freedoms of speech, having certain internet access. If he had his full way, it would look more like a dictatorship than it would a democracy, I know that sounds drastic but it’s true.

Honestly, we have a chance here. I don’t think voting is everything and all of our democratic participation, I do think we need to be involved much more than that, but we have a real shot here and it’s a very simple step to take as Canadians to actually be involved in this next election, if we care anything about our future.

KM: Finally, where do you see the green movement heading now, what’s the way forward?

EH: The way I see forward is, I see that the movement is becoming much more interconnected, we are connecting with the justice movement, we’re connecting the dots with the First Nations movement. And I think we are becoming a stronger force in the world and connecting our issues and seeing it’s much more systemic.

To me though, the missing piece that we’re still not feeling comfortable addressing is that economic piece. The reality is that these negotiations are not just politically driven, they’re economically driven. Until we really start tackling the economic system, that is the core issue to me in all of our fights, and frankly capitalism is at the core of a lot of this, and I know we’re beginning to talk about that more with Naomi Klein’s book and others, but we’re not really doing it in terms of our activism, even Occupy, most people talk about it very dismissively, and to me there was a core there of addressing our economic centre of all of our issues that I think we need to do more of. That, to me, is where we need to connect our movements to and begin to unravel and transition ourselves off of a capitalist state which frankly isn’t supporting us or the climate anymore.

How To Change The World premiered on September 9 and is currently playing in cinemas in the UK and US.

All photos credited to Greenpeace  

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The government defines a threat completely differently than a citizen does.

We think of threats as violence, things that could physically hurt us. But to a government that also includes anything that could reduce its power.

So currently the definition of threats in the CSIS Act includes ‘foreign influenced activities detrimental to the interests of Canada.’

That doesn’t sound violent. That could describe a Red Hot Chili Peppers cover band in Hamilton.

Watch me break it down in this video:

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is the first installment of a three-part series. Read Part 2, Is the German Energy Transition Everything It’s Cracked Up to Be? and Part 3, Building a Popular Front Against Climate Change.

Last Sunday, German voters handed Chancellor Merkel a comfortable mandate for a third term in office in elections billed as “the most boring federal elections ever.” 

The victory of Merkel’s ruling Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) was nearly a foregone conclusion. With Merkel’s hardline policies on the Euro safeguarding the German economy in the midst of a Europe wracked by crisis, and her main rivals the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) failing to offer any serious alternative, German voters saw no reason to try any new experiments.   

But behind the bland façade of German prosperity major changes are afoot. What the predictable election results don’t show is the ongoing long-term transformation of the German energy sector, referred to as the Energiewende or energy transition. Building on the support of an unlikely coalition ranging from radical environmentalists to conservative CDU/CSU voters, the Energiewende aims at the kind of progress on energy and climate that most western governments argue is both politically and economically unfeasible.

The headline figures on the energy transition thus far are fairly impressive: renewable energy in Germany now accounts for 25% of total electricity production. 65% of the electricity generated by renewables comes from a decentralized network of small-scale producers, ranging from individuals to cooperatives to small communities. The official government target is 80% renewable electricity by 2050, with some expecting that number to be closer to 100%.[view:in_this_series=block_1]

According to German climate justice activist and Rosa Luxemburg Foundation energy researcher Tadzio Müller, these numbers are an important strategic indicator for the global environmental movement. “What the Energiewende shows is that ecologically and socially relevant transformative effects can be achieved at something much smaller than the global scale,” says Müller.

For Müller, the 2009 COP15 conference in Copenhagen was a watershed moment for activists fighting to stop climate change. Despite intense pressure from tens of thousands of activists on the streets and close media scrutiny from around the world, the conference ended in failure. Understanding that failure means rethinking the framing of climate change as an issue that activists can effectively tackle at the international scale.

“Projecting energy issues at the global level, as environmental organizations have done since the Rio Summit in 1992, has turned out to be a dead end,” argues Müller. “We simply won’t get an international climate agreement because economic growth is so strongly tied to fossil fuels. More economic growth means more emissions.”

In spite of his critique of the global framework for climate politics, Müller insists on the importance of a global perspective. Müller is a veteran activist of the anti-globalization movement, more accurately described by its French name, altermondialisme, or the movement for a different globalization: one created in the interests of people rather than profit.

Anti-globalization protests coalesced around international summits such as G8/G20 meetings and WTO negotiations. Müller argues that these summits functioned as global flashpoints where something was truly at stake, such as whether developing countries would be subject to punitive terms in so-called free trade agreements. Choosing these summits as a target for protest meant choosing a frame in which activists could potentially exert real influence on the direction of international development.

By contrast, international climate summits such as this year’s upcoming COP19 in Warsaw, Poland do little more than stage the appearance of meaningful negotiations. With rising emissions hard-wired into the ever-expanding global economy, national representatives have little room for manoeuver at the international level without altering the global economic paradigm of endless growth.

Müller’s point is not that we should accept defeat and resign ourselves to the inevitability of climate change. Instead, he argues that climate activists can be more effective by focusing their efforts where they have the greatest strategic leverage. For now, that means the local, regional and national level.

Germany is a case in point. For years, members of the German environmental movement engaged in local struggles over issues like nuclear waste storage and public control of utilities. While they may not have looked like much on their own, taken together these struggles transformed the broader social consensus on energy issues. As a result, climate denialism is essentially non-existent in Germany, and the massive expansion of renewable energy enjoys the support of all major political parties.

As we will see in the following installments in this series, the Energiewende is no magic bullet for the climate. Victories at the local level are important, but the challenge of scaling up to create a global movement for climate justice remains. As a step in that direction, we can see the energy transition as part of an ongoing process that is changing not only the way Germany produces electricity, but also how social power is distributed across German society.

“The Energiewende can reduce emissions and change the social playing field because it can generate more community power vis-à-vis corporate power,” says Müller. The more utilities are brought under public control and the more electricity is generated by small-scale producers, the less power large corporations will have over the energy sector. Beyond the transition to green energy, it’s this social transformation that should make Canadian climate activists stand up and take notice.

Stay tuned for parts 2 and 3 in this series.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Last month’s PRISM revelations are a disconcerting reminder that even here in Canada, paranoid fantasies about mass government surveillance are more than a work of fiction.

“Security and police agencies have been increasingly conflating terrorism and extremism with peaceful citizens exercising their democratic rights to organise petitions, protest and question government policies,” said Dr. Jeffery Monaghan of the Surveillance Studies Centre at Queen's University. “Canada is at very low risk from foreign terrorists but like the U.S. it has built a large security apparatus following 9/11. The resources and costs are wildly out of proportion to the risk.”

“[Domestic issue-based] extremism,” maintains Canada’s Counter-terrorism Strategy, “tends to be based on grievances—real or perceived—revolving around the promotion of various causes such as animal rights, white supremacy, environmentalism and anti-capitalism.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.