Film producer, biologist and wildlife photographer David Moskowitz was shocked to find that old-growth logging is continuing in B.C.’s interior temperate rainforest, despite clear evidence that it threatens fragile herds of endangered mountain caribou and, as he worked on his latest film, he tried to figure out how caribou and ancient trees could be saved, while protecting the local economy.

There is no simple solution, said Moskowitz, but he is hoping his film, “Last Stand: The Vanishing Caribou Rainforest,” which will be playing at the ELEMENTS film festival at Science World in Vancouver this weekend, will make people aware of what is at stake.

Last Stand will play Sunday afternoon as a part of the film festival’s Beautiful B.C. segment, that features short films A Northern Path: Exploring the Nisga’a and Stewart-Cassiar Highways and I Am Salmon as well as Creekwalker, a feature-length film that traces the creeks of the Great Bear Rainforest.

“[Last Stand] is about the last and largest remaining inland temperate rainforest on Planet Earth and these amazing creatures, the mountain caribou, that are tied to this ecosystem and how we are continuing to destroy it through logging and resource extraction,” he told DeSmog Canada.

The population of mountain caribou now stands at about 1,500 animals in a dozen herds that roam between the Kootenays and U.S. Pacific Northwest and they are struggling to survive, said Moskowitz, who worked on the film for about two-and-a-half years with director Colin Arisman.

“The whole population is at risk of extinction right now and the key part of this story is that B.C. and Canada have refused to take any substantive action to stop destroying the habitat for these animals,” he said.

“The reason these animals are disappearing is that humans have destroyed their refuge habitat, which is old-growth forest…They are turning old-growth trees into toilet paper.”

As forests are destroyed other species such as deer move in, followed by more predators and produces the conundrum of how to keep the mountain caribou alive while protecting First Nations culture and a forest economy, Moskowitz said.

In addition to the shock of finding B.C. is continuing to harvest timber in unique old-growth ecosystems, Moskowitz was stunned to discover that logging is subsidized by government because it costs companies more to get the trees to market than they get from selling them.

The province also mandates how much companies must cut, stipulating they will lose their licence if they do not harvest enough, he said.

“There is an imperative for them to keep cutting, regardless of the economics,” he said.

Marcus Reynerson inspects the mountain caribou tracks along the banks of a lake in the Canadian Rockies. Photo: David Moskowitz

There is little old-growth logging on the U.S. side of the border, but that does not necessarily mean the U.S. has done a better job, Moskowitz said.

“We had a few decades head-start, so there’s a lot less to cut. The opportunities to salvage this ecosystem is north of the border, but it is slated to be logged over the next four decades…Where the rubber meets the road is Canada and B.C.,” he said.

Moskowitz does not pretend he has solutions, but the film looks at topics such as community forestry and value-added forestry, where, rather than exporting pulp, jobs are created in local paper mills.

“Conservation initiatives that don’t work for local people just don’t work. Period. Some of the changes that need to take place in forestry would have a huge impact on the local economy,” he said.

“But we could cut a whole lot less trees and employ just as many people, if not more, if we looked at a value-added economy.”

Moskowitz hopes that one message that will resonate with audiences is that human beings cannot not turn away from the mess they have created.

“Climate change is going to change this ecosystem which is going to set in motion cascading ecological issues where we have increased some species numbers, which affects predators, which affects endangered species. We can’t take our fingers out of this pie,” he said.

“We have made a mess of things and we can’t just stay out of it. We must stay engaged and make really difficult choices.”

Last Stand (Trailer) – The Vanishing Caribou Rainforest from Wild Confluence on Vimeo.

The ELEMENTS film festival will feature nature, wildlife and conservation films from 11 countries April 14-15 at the Telus World of Science in Vancouver.

See more of Moskowitz’s photography on Instagram: @moskowitz_david

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.

From the historic agreement that created the Great Bear Rainforest to B.C.’s Dasiqox Tribal Park to uniquely co-managed forest resources in Labrador, Indigenous-led conservation efforts are transforming the way Canadians understand and practice conservation.

Far from the colonial idea of preserving natural landscapes from human incursion, Indigenous land use plans put sustainable human-nature relationships that seek to revitalize traditional cultural practices at the centre.

It’s a vision of conservation and land use planning that can help Canada deliver on its promise of reconciliation and a renewed nation to nation relationship, according to Valérie Courtois, director of Indigenous Leadership Initiative.

In the recent federal budget, the Trudeau government committed $1.3 billion towards the creation of protected areas in Canada and some of those dollars are specially earmarked to support Indigenous participation.

We asked Courtois to speak with DeSmog Canada about Indigenous-led conservation, why it’s important and how it could transform Canada from the ground up.

This interview has been condensed and edited for brevity and clarity.

In the federal government’s most recent budget there was a big emphasis on support for Indigenous participation in conservation. Does this represent a changing tide when it comes to the way we view the creation of protected areas in Canada?

Yes.

Certainly the courts have been pretty clear on these things and — to government’s credit — it feels like they’re not just doing the bare minimum of what the courts have asked them to do in this reconciliation process.

This is really about resetting and renewing the relationship between crown governments and Indigenous peoples.

At the same time as that’s happening there’s also a real nationhood movement within Indigenous peoples — we have a population that is more educated, getting more sophisticated in terms of its political strategies and voices and certainly has never had more capacity to manage lands within a modern land management context.

I’m not dismissing exciting governance systems of lands that were there for thousands of years, but this movement towards nationhood and the seriousness of being nations is happening at this same time as this recognition is happening.

We not only have the ability to fill that space but be very creative and provide leaders in that space because of this movement that’s happening in our communities too.

The Lutsel K’e First Nations and Crown governments are co-creating the proposed Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve along the eastern shores of Great Slave Lake. Photo: Pat Kane

Do you see conservation as pathway to nationhood and community revitalization?

For me it’s hard to talk about Indigenous nations outside the context of my own but when we think about nationhood it’s all about who you are where you are — who you are within the land that is your home.

And conservation is one of the tools that allows us to fulfill a responsibility to our land within the reality of it being the central core of who we are as nations.

Much of our nationhood over time has been undermined because of the impacts on that relationship, whether that’s residential schools that took us away from the land or crazy development projects.

So, for example, if you’re a member of West Moberly First Nation in northeastern B.C., it’s very tough to be who you are on that landscape, especially if you consider the community’s historic relationship with caribou.

You can now count the remaining number of caribou there on two hands.

That free-for-all mentality of ‘the land is open,’ has really had a huge impact on the cultural survival on our nations.

So any tool that allows us to protect that land we need to be who we are and to be a part of decision-making on scale, pace and scope of development — especially if that develop is done to our benefit — then that will create some good scenarios.

I’m Innu. We’re caribou people. Our whole lifestyle revolves around following migratory and woodland caribou herds, which means we need a lot of space to be who are as a people.

When we talk about protecting lands in the east we’re not just talking about the forest, we’re talking about huge caribou landscapes.

Our elders say all the time: for us as Innu, if the caribou disappear we won’t be Innu anymore.

It’s a fundamental thing and the caribou situation right across this country is very worrisome.

Most non-indigenous Canadians don’t have a meaningful relationship with caribou. And yet caribou are so significant for conservation in Canada. Someone recently said to me if we lose the caribou we lose all the protections that have come in the fight for their survival. Do you see caribou as a sort of conservation gateway?

Absolutely.

Also a gateway in terms of getting people to see beyond the evident value that touches them.

So, for example, I used to do this all the time, when I would host meetings in the community. When I’d tell people it’s about the forest management plan, we’d get two people.

If we said it was about caribou, the whole community was there. They’re the same issue — it’s all about habitat management and the amount of forest that is available.

But that species and that relationship compels people more and that’s something we use to improve our community based processes as well.

Right now if you’re in central Manitoba and your First Nations I can guarantee you’re worried about moose.

There’s a decline generally with moose there and you’ve got a declining forest industry.

To me that would be a great opportunity to think about, ‘okay shouldn’t we take this opportunity to think about other values forest has to save the moose and perhaps eventually create a context for a more sustainable forestry industry?’

Indigenous Guardians from Lutsel K’e will help manage the proposed Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve, monitoring water quality, wildlife and cultural sites. Photo: Pat Kane

What kinds of conversations are happening in Indigenous conservation circles about the non-Indigenous community and non-Indigenous conservation efforts?

There’s always this effort of finding ways of a parallel recognition of Indigenous science and western science in what we do.

When we were leading the Innu Nation our Elders said, it’s important to know Innu science but your job is to use the best information you have to make decisions — no matter where that comes from.

We hear that more and more with from communities who are looking at science not so much as a barrier anymore but as a body of knowledge in itself that is separate than their own but to be acknowledged and to be valued.

In terms of  the conservation community generally, it has been and can be another form of colonialism, another way for other people to put a value on your land that isn’t your own.

There is a risk for conservation organizations if they push things based on their own values.

A field medic at the standing rock protest of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Photo: Avery White | Oceti Sakowin Camp via Flickr

And that’s why a lot of conservation organizations have had trouble in the past working with First Nations. You see this in the media every once in a while — this idea of conservation being a new colonial frontier.

But there are ways to avoid that and ways for First Nations to make sure they choose the right partners. Some are developing partnership protocols which state what they look for in partners, state what they are looking for in organizations that want to work on their land and what the processes should be.

When those protocols exist relationships tend to be much more fulsome.

There’s a risk in that but there are things organizations can do to create the right space.

The thing I worry about with conservation organizations is this idea that Indigenous people cannot be a means to the conservation organizations’ ends. So if they’re looking at this budget and saying ‘we need to protect areas by 17 per cent’ and they look at a map and say it needs to be areas A, B, and C, then they’re going to say we need to talk to First Nations Area A.

That’s a problem. That is not the right place to start a relationship.

The relationship needs to start with the goal of having Indigenous leadership and nations make decision on their lands. That needs to be the end goal itself as opposed to a means to an end.

On that note there’s an interesting difference in worldviews when it comes to land use planning. From a white, Western perspective we have this idea of creating protected areas that are so-called pristine preservations. What I’ve heard from some Indigenous communities is they want to live on the land, they want their hands in the ground, they want to hunt the animals that live there and gather medicines. They see themselves as part of that landscape. Can you talk about how an emphasis on Indigenous-led conservation is maybe inviting white communities to re-envision what conservation means?

I can’t think of one landscape in Canada that hasn’t been affected in some way by humans.

It’s a false premise to think that landscapes are at their best without us.

It’s not the natural state in much of North America. And we’ve seen that whether it’s the use of fire to create berry areas or to manage large wildlife species.

When I was working on the forestry plan out here in the east and talking with the elders about fires, I was looking on a map where the fires were and elders were saying, ‘yeah, I lit that because I wanted a berry area 10 years later.”

This idea of absence is totally artificial. We’ve been living with that balance or with that relationship as humans in nature for 10,000 plus years — in some places on the coast 13,000 plus years.

Obviously that’s a sustainable model!

To me, this deep ecology where people have to be separate from nature is completely artificial.

If I could use an expression from Trudeau: ‘that’s so 1970.’ We’re so far beyond that.

The other thing is that ecosystems, they’re not just for nature, they’re for us, they are our habitat. As Indigenous peoples we are a part of that biodiversity.

Article 8(j) on the Convention on Biological Diversity actually says that: Indigenous peoples are part of biodiversity of nature.

It’s false to think you can separate those things. Conservation and any management of land is the way we’re going to preserve cultures and have them flourish and really achieve their aspiration as a society.

We have that responsibility as a nation, we’ve affected over 50 different cultures through colonialism. It’s the right thing to do —to encourage that link.

Na-Cho Nyak Dun elder Walter Peters leads the fire ceremony during the Protect the Peel victory celebration at the Kwanlin Dün Cultural Centre, February 2nd, 2018. Photo: Matt Jacques

When it comes to Indigenous rights in Canada, do you see conservation as a way of Indigenous peoples asserting those rights?

Yes, for sure.

I guess the best way for me to answer that question is to speak about an example here in Labrador.

Innus have been in negotiations for a treaty for over 30 years. In that 30 years there’s been one of the world’s largest hydro projects and a second one is in development now.

We’ve seen the world’s largest nickel mine and the expansion of the world’s largest iron facilities. Development has really progressed at quite a pace.

If you’re the Innu Nation and you’re looking at your lands 30 years ago when you started negotiations and looking at them now you have less opportunity as a nation to think about sustainable revenue streams, to think about what you’re going to do on your land base and how you’re going to draw your revenue sources out of your land base.

Those opportunities diminish as things get taken off the land whether that’s trees, minerals or water or whatever.

So conservation in the Innu Nation case as they were negotiating the treaty, they’re said look we’ve got this forestry issue where we can really test out what co-management and our relationship over the long term could look like on these forest resources.

So the Innu Nation and the province signed a unique co-management agreement that doesn’t involve a third party.

Do you see Indigenous land use leadership as a benefit to all Canadians?

This is another interesting thing about Indigenous leadership: it can also help out with non-Indigenous communities.

Here in Goose Bay, when the government first started talking about doing forestry, the community didn’t want anything to do with it. There was a settler group here in town who didn’t trust government at all.

They created a group that was essentially a protest group to the forest process.

When the Innu came on, they cooled their jets. They were like, ‘oh, the Innu Nation cares about the environment. We know because they blocked NATO, blocked Inco, they intervened on these processes that could have been devastating to the environment.’

The fact that we were there brought them enough comfort that they were no longer going to protest the process.

It was fascinating. We could really see it.

I was there for the consultation process and I witnessed that shift from going from ‘we don’t trust anyone in government’ and a very aggressive approach to seeing Innu guys there in their guardian uniforms talking about their values saying ‘we trust this plan.’

Fort McPherson elder, Agnes Neyando, hanging whitefish taken from the Peel River. Agnes and her husband spent their summers living in a wall tent along the river, into their 90s. Photo: Peter Mather

Looking forward, when it comes to Indigenous participation in conservation in Canada, what are you looking forward to? Or even beyond that, what are your hopes for what you’re seeing taking place in Canada right now?

I’m a generally optimistic person, generally hopeful person. I think there’s never been a moment in time like we’re in now for a) the Indigenous empowerment movement to be where it is and b) of our awareness of environmental risk and the importance to conservation.

That’s the key moment in time and it’s important for us who work on these issues to think about that moment in time and advance things as much as possible.

The reconciliation movement in this country will only become truly real when we figure out the land jurisdiction question. When we think about respecting Indigenous peoples on their lands while balancing the reality that we are a federation and the settler population is here.

So what does that look like? What does our shared future look like?

It this that shared future is one where nations are strengthened and jurisdiction is figured out.

When that happens, when Indigenous people have their relationship with land fully restored and cultures are strengthened and that responsibility and sense of stewardship is re-fostered I think we’re going to have the best managed ecosystems in the world, we’re going to be global leaders in that reality.

We’re going to have Indigenous peoples that are coming into who they’re supposed to be, which are strong nations who care for the land.

I feel like it’s essentially the fulfillment of the eighth fire prophecy.

The prophecy tells about how Indigenous people are going to rise up from the ashes of colonialism and this dark period we were in over the last 200 plus years and really rise up to finally become who we are meant to be: these leading land carers that others look to for inspiration and leadership on those issues.

I very much feel like we’re in the moment of that happening.

Valérie Courtois. Supplied

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 stand-off between Alberta and British Columbia over the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline seems to grow in intensity by the minute.

On Tuesday the B.C. NDP announced a proposal to restrict the flow of diluted bitumen from the oilsands through the province until further scientific study is conducted on its behaviour in water.

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley fired back on Twitter, arguing B.C. “does not have the right to re-write our constitution & assume powers for itself that it does not have.”

Since then, Alberta has suspended talks over $500 million in annual electricity imports from B.C. and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has hopped into the ring suggesting that national carbon pricing and ocean protection plan may not go ahead without the pipeline getting built.

Oh, and let’s not forget an Italian restaurant in Fort McMurray is no longer serving wine from B.C. in retaliation. It looks like a trade war is brewing between the provinces.

Amongst all of the politicking, it’s easy for the substance of the debate to be lost. The B.C. government is responding to a very real concern about the risk of a spill of diluted bitumen in water. In 2015 the Royal Society of Canada identified seven major knowledge gaps when it comes to the risk of a diluted bitumen spill in water. And B.C. has the responsibility to regulate hazardous substances under the B.C. Environmental Management Act.

It’s worth recalling that the National Energy Board review of the Trans Mountain project never even considered the impacts of oil tankers on the marine environment, so when Trudeau says his government made a “science based” decision, you’ve got to take it with a mega grain of salt.

At the same time, Notley also has very real concerns about the pipeline not going ahead, with the cost differential for Alberta’s oil widening, an industry that’s been hurting from the crash in the price of oil and an election around the corner.

DeSmog Canada chatted with David Moscrop — a political theorist, postdoctoral fellow at Simon Fraser University and regular contributor to Maclean’s magazine — about the unfolding situation.

“It’s really hard to say. Nobody wins from a trade war. Somebody might lose more than someone else. But nobody wins.” https://t.co/sAsdn5HzfL

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) February 2, 2018

The B.C. government seems to have been framed as being somewhat unreasonable in their approach to Trans Mountain. What do you make of that?

It depends on which lens you use.

If your lens is that John Horgan needs this in order to win the next election, or to continue to be propped up by Andrew Weaver because the Green Party’s demanding that he opposes the pipeline, then I think it’s fair enough to say that he’s playing chicken with the federation because you want to win — although any of them would do the same damn thing.

Everyone’s a hypocrite, everyone’s full of shit. Everyone’s playing politics.

But on the actual substantive side of it, there are a number of people in the province and party who see pipelines as an existential threat insofar as they contribute to climate change. They look and say “we want an aggressive, radical agenda for addressing the greatest threat to humankind in at least the last 10,000 years.” Is that being unreasonable? They’re interested in the survival of the species. I would say in some sense, in the long run the folks who are being unreasonable are those who refuse to commit to an aggressive climate change agenda.

What do you make of Premier Rachel Notley’s response, bringing up how this is an attack on Confederation and all the rest?

Oh my god, are you kidding me? It’s all so stupid. Crack open any Canadian politics textbook, even the bad ones, and it’s a history of the federation fighting from even before day one. This is what we do.

I wrote about this a little while ago for Maclean’s. We’re always smacking each other and always fighting with each other and with the federal government. We’re always playing one another off this province or that province or the feds. It’s hyperbole.

She’s in a tough spot. I don’t begrudge her the politics of it. She’s in the same spot in some ways that Horgan is in British Columbia. They want to win the next election. That’s politically reasonable, it’s just the nature of having a federation. But that doesn’t mean that the New Democrats in British Columbia shouldn’t be fighting this tooth and nail for both political and substantive reasons.

Were you surprised to see Alberta announce that it’s suspending discussions about electricity purchases over this?

No. The only thing that would have surprised me is if they got a posse together and marched across the border. That would a little bit surprising. I think we could take them. Anything short of that isn’t surprising to me because Premier Notley has to be seen as being tough on British Columbians by standing up for Alberta in the same way that Horgan has to be seen as being tough on Albertans and standing up for B.C. To give the Prime Minister some credit, he has to be seen as standing up for the federation. And he thinks that means he has to support the pipeline.

It’s one of those cases where it’s short-term gain, long-term pain. To oversimplify it, but here’s the essence of the problem: our political and economic cycles are too short. They’re thinking the next election, or the next 10 years — not the next 100 years.

How do you think Trudeau has responded?

He’s hitched to the Alberta wagon now, I think, like it or not … He can’t go back on it now. The political hit on going back on that would be devastating, especially given that people are still talking about electoral reform and he seems a bit of a duplicitous hypocrite.

He’s stuck with it. Alberta’s stuck with it. B.C.’s stuck with it. It’s a standoff, and I don’t think anybody knows how it’s going to end.

If I had to guess, I’d say it might end with Kinder Morgan saying “oh boy, this project isn’t viable anymore, we’re out.” I would imagine that’s the strategy of those who want to stop the pipeline: wait them out, make it become financially unviable or scare off investors. That would certainly be my strategy.

In some ways, all three political groups — the federal government, Alberta and B.C. — would politically win. That might be the political theodicy outcome, the best of all political worlds. If the construction pushes ahead and British Columbians are opposed to this — and boy, the ones who are opposed are really opposed — think they’re not being taken seriously or listened to, it’s going to get nasty very, very quickly.

I would imagine to the point where we’re going to see a kind of reaction that we haven’t seen seen since Montebello or Oka. We’ve already seen some of it on Burnaby Mountain.

Just a reminder that there’s two dimensions that I think people argue across without ever making explicit.

There’s a political dimension — which is to say an electoral dimension, who wins and who loses based on party support — and there’s the substantive policy dimension of it, like what’s good for the economy and what do you trade off against addressing climate change. There’s a legitimate debate to be had on both. But there’s a lot of bad faith activity on both sides, with people conflating those two things and the population is caught in the middle. That’s politics. That said, it’s the future of the country.

Politics is stupid.

You tweeted recently that politicians have done a bad job at addressing a lot of these causes of anger. What would it look like in your mind if politicians were actually addressing them?

These things need to be addressed structurally, and when I say that I mean that we need to find a way to make sure that cycles of boom and bust, continued environmental degradation, continuous growing unaffordability — features that are often common with liberal democracies and capitalist systems — are addressed in a way that’s at least semi-permanent if not permanent.

Part of that has to rely on bringing citizens into the decision-making process, making sure that not only are they listened to but they’re engaged in ways that are more meaningful than a town hall. You have citizen juries or citizen assemblies. You have regular meetings where people are given time and resources to sit down and take part in decision-making and be listened to. And then — and this is critical — you listen to them, follow-up and you do what they think you should do. There’s a lot of well-meaning chatter that never translates into action. We call it “democracy-washing.” You get cover because you went and did a town hall but then you go back and it’s life as usual.

What does that mean? It probably means we need to dedicate state funds to making sure that people can afford to live. We probably need to decriminalize drugs, especially in the case of the opioid epidemic. We need to end housing speculation. We need to decide whether we’re all in on climate change or not. A pipeline agenda is inconsistent with that. These are big things, and it takes a lot of political capital and a lot of guts to get it done. But we’re not doing any of them, really.

When do you guess this might be resolved?

It’s really hard to say. Nobody wins from a trade war. Somebody might lose more than someone else. But nobody wins.

I would imagine all the politicians involved will probably take a bit of punishment because people will get frustrated. If it does stretch out for too long, whomever is up for re-election will bear the brunt of it the most.

One hopes that at some point, everyone realizes that by escalating everyone loses. But I’m not convinced anymore that’s going to happen. This might actually get quite nasty. If they push on and continue to develop the project, at some point the government of British Columbia is going to run out of options. I’m sure the courts will be vigorously involved. At some point, it’s going to hit the ground.

And then it’ll be up to the citizens of British Columbia to react however they think is appropriate. That’s where I think it’ll get particularly nasty, because it will no longer become political in the sense of relations between the provinces and the federal government. It’ll be political in the streets. It will stretch on ’til it’s over, one way or the other — whether it gets built or not. It will never not be a political battle. The question is whether it’s a battle in the courts, in the legislatures, in the press or in the streets? We’ll just have to wait and see.

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.

B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver went from being B.C.’s solitary Green MLA in 2013 to holding the balance of power in the province’s current minority government.

While the transition has had its ups and downs for the climate scientist, public scrutiny of Weaver’s position and what he ought to do with his influence in government hit an all-time high recently with government’s decision to forge ahead with the controversial Site C dam.

We caught up with Weaver at his office in the legislature to ask him to reflect on the last seven months of cooperation with the NDP government and what he anticipates 2018 holds for some of B.C.’s most pressing energy and environment concerns.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

1) It’s been seven months since you signed a confidence and supply agreement with the NDP. Has that arrangement unfolded as you expected?

I’ve been very pleasantly surprised. I went into this agreement very skeptical about our ability to work with the NDP…[but] we recognized that what was critical for us was that we wanted to give people change. We put together this agreement that gave British Columbians certainty, articulated some key values both parties shared…When we started our negotiations it was pretty tense. When we ended it we ended up really getting to know each other and it was quite positive.

It wouldn’t have happened if there wasn’t a general willingness of both parties to put the interest of British Columbians first. There are areas where we disagree, like Site C dam — an obvious one. But in the end we agree to disagree and we understand that’s healthy. We can disagree and move on. It doesn’t mean we have to throw a hissy fit and make government fall.

2) It’s been a raucous time environmentally for this province. There have been some notable highs and lows. What are you most proud of?

One of the things I felt was a deal breaker for me in the negotiations [with the NDP] was climate policy and we all know underpinning any climate mitigation policy is increasing carbon pricing. To me it was a big victory that we had an increase in carbon price of $5 a year, starting in the April budget for four years … which will take us ahead of Trudeau’s target. So we have both leadership and certainty. To me that was a high point.

There were some other good things: we had a ban on grizzly hunting. I know it’s a bit populist and I know there were some people who are concerned because it wasn’t science based and we’ve been advocating for a science-based approach to ecosystem management…but dealing with grizzlies was a good thing.

3) What has emerged as a memorable low point?

Site C.

In addition, we still haven’t seen any action on fish farms. That to me is a critical one and we’re hoping to see something in the spring on that as these tenures come to. We’ll be pressuring government to take a hard look at the renewal of those tenures because they’re on the record saying they’re going to get fish [farms] out of the migratory path of sockeye.

The biggest issue that we’re working on right now is restructuring the professional reliance model to get industry out of the business of policing themselves.

We have a model where industry hires professional consultants to provide the underlying evidence that a proponent of a project will send into the environmental assessment process. We have a problem there.

We’re tackling that. We’ve got that public consultation process going on now. We’re hoping to see some movement going forward in that area.

The [example of professional reliance] that is most personal and relevant and local is of course the Shawnigan case.

The Shawnigan residents believed and frankly rightly so that government was abdicating its role to actually look out for the betterment of all people and letting industry in some sense police itself. So in that particular case we know the professional reliance engineering group were actually partners in the project and there was some conflict there and that’s all before the courts now.

Another example is Mount Polley. Again, when government is not there enforcing compliance and ensuring regulations are met and ensuring public oversight of these projects, things happen and the public loses trust.

Two other projects that stand out are Kinder Morgan and the Ajax mine.

4) On the subject of the Ajax mine, government recently announced it would not issue permits for that project but was cautious to say the decision was not the result of Indigenous veto. What do you make of this government’s promise to uphold Indigenous rights in this province?

We campaigned on this. We would introduce a Natural Resources Board and part of that board’s process would be to ensure when you’re doing an environmental assessment the process is actually modified through legislation to include assessments based on Indigenous values.

We know from the Tsilhqot’in case there are substantive issues with ignoring the wishes of First Nations. So our process would have involved changing the environmental assessment process to ensure as part of that process Indigenous input is there. Not in terms of a veto, and Indigenous peoples don’t talk in terms of a veto either, but in terms of ensuring their collective wisdom is looked at. It’s not that difficult to do: you have an environmental assessment process, you just need to expand the mandate of that but you also have to bring the actual collection of information and oversight into government too so you’re not letting industry choose which First Nation to consult. You’d have a Natural Resources Board that would have a broader oversight that would actually ensure any assessment process went through a process that had indigenous involvement as well.

It’s not easy but it’s what we need to do.

5) We recently put together a list of resource projects that got it right in 2017. What would you put on that list?

The Valemount geothermal project.

I spent ages pushing that project from the inside because there was an MOU sitting on the minister’s desk, waiting and waiting and waiting. All it needed was to get signed but BC Hydro didn’t want the power. So now they’ve got the exploration permit to get going … but it’s not only the Borealis project in Valemount, it’s also Glacier Destinations, which is a ski resort that’s going to happen there. It’s the exact opposite of Jumbo: the First Nations and the town went together to the architects of the Jumbo resort and said ‘we want this.’ And you have community support for geothermal.

Everybody wins.

6) Do you think more small-scale, local energy projects are in store for B.C.?

It’s the way of the future. It’s not only the way of the future, it’s the reason I got into politics.

When you build distributed renewable energy resources you’re putting them in small communities all across B.C. in partnership with First Nations, you’re getting these First Nations off diesel, you’re bringing long-term stable jobs into the communities. You’re not just building construction projects with no jobs at the end. There are so many examples whether in Tofino, Port Alberni, Lytton, where there have been very successful small-scale hydro projects done in partnership with First Nations.

We know right now there’s proposals for solar in Cranbrook, hopefully Borealis geothermal, wind projects all over the place and pumped storage. They’re all ready to go but in B.C. there’s only one purchaser of power: BC Hydro.  So none of them can go ahead unless BC Hydro says we will take that power from you but BC Hydro is building Site C and Site C is taking up any increase in demand for the foreseeable future.

7) What impact do you expect the approval of Site C to have on the renewable energy industry in B.C.?

A few days ago I received an e-mail from a CEO of a renewable energy company that is B.C.-based and they’re essentially saying Site C has killed their industry.

It’s not only him — I’ve heard that time and time again, that people have come to B.C. to invest in the renewable energy potential here and now they feel they have been thrown under the bus. There’s a reason the Canadian Wind Energy Association left B.C., went to Alberta and look what we see: 600 MW of power coming in at 3.7 cents per kilowatt hour. That’s the opportunity we lost.

8) You know a lot of people said the Site C decision should have been the moment the Green party used its position to bring down government. Did you consider that decision and why?

Not for a second.

Even before the decision I let people know that we’re not going to make government fall over whatever decision they made.

The question I would ask people is how would that have changed the outcome? If we caused government to fall on a vote … a budget amendment or confidence vote … government would fall, there would be an election probably by May or June and we’d have spent another $1 billion on Site C.

So what’s the possible results we could get? A majority Liberal government — Site C goes forward. Majority NDP government — Site C goes forward. Minority government — we’re back at the negotiating table.

The reason we didn’t put it in the confidence agreement is that’s not how you develop partnerships. You don’t put a gun to someone’s head … we accepted the NDP’s argument that we would send this to the BCUC. We were comfortable with that because we knew what the BCUC would say. We were delighted with that report. They had everything they needed to cancel it.

9) You’ve said before that with the approval of Site C your party will push for a greater electrification of B.C.’s systems. Is that something you’ll be turning your attention toward in 2018?

We’re already pushing for the introduction of an aggressive zero emission vehicle standard. We need BC Hydro to step up and start to bring in the infrastructure for electric. We need to change legislation and regulatory structure in B.C. to allow people to charge for power in charging stations.

Industry wants to invest in charging stations but they can’t sell the power unless they’re a utility. It starts to become bureaucratic. We will push for electrification. What else can we do?

10) Energy and environment issues are quickly evolving from transitions in energy markets to evolving perspectives on Indigenous rights. One industry that has been affected by these changes is the LNG industry. What is your take on LNG for 2018?

If B.C. starts to focus again on trying to land an LNG industry given all that has happened, I can tell you I am voting government down. I am not standing by no matter when it happens. I am not standing by and watching us give away the farm yet again to land an industry we’re not competitive in. That’s my line in the sand.

LNG is gone because we know global markets, China is over supplied in their contracts. For some time there is no supply gap that needs to be filled.

This is the opportunity to capitalize on the new economy. Given our stable democracy in unstable times, given our access to clean energy and businesses around the world that want to label themselves clean, if we go down this LNG path and start to sign sweet deals again then we might as well have the BC Liberals back in power.

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.

On Monday, the British Columbia government introduced new legislation that proposes to ban corporate, union and foreign donations in a move that will dramatically change B.C.’s political landscape and bring the province in line with other Canadian jurisdictions.

“This legislation will make sure 2017 was the last big-money election in our province,” said Attorney General David Eby. “The days of limitless donations, a lack of transparency and foreign and corporate influence over our elections are history.”

Here are your Top 5 questions on the ban answered:

1) What will be different now?

Everything. This is probably the most game-changing moment in B.C. politics in living memory. Up until now, corporations and unions could donate as much money as they wanted to B.C. political parties, even though such donations are banned federally and in most provinces.

Individuals anywhere in the world were also allowed to give unlimited amounts of dough to B.C. politicians, but not any more. Now donations will be limited to B.C. residents, with a limit of $1,200 a year —  the second-lowest limit in Canada behind Quebec.

“Any time you change a system that places no limitations on donations to a system that does, you’re going to see big, big changes,” University of British Columbia political scientists Max Cameron told DeSmog Canada.

“I think this is going to change how parties work, how campaigns work and change our system to make it more attentive to the preference of ordinary voters.”

Political parties will also have to publicly report all fundraisers attended by party leaders, cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries. And those fancy-pants dinners can no longer come at a ticket price of $10,000 (a la Christy Clark). Fundraisers at private residences are still allowed, but tickets can be sold for a max of $100.

2) When will the changes apply?

Well, first the bill needs to pass, but that’s very likely because it’s the product of the agreement between the Green Party and the NDP and together they have enough seats to win a vote in the legislature.

The changes will then apply retroactively to the date of the last election, which means parties won't be able to spend any donations they’ve received from corporations and unions since May 9 during the next election. That’s going to come as a big blow to the BC Liberals who deposited $1 million in donations just three days after the last election.

Seven of the 10 largest donations came from developers. Other donors included Chevron Canada, Encana and Enbridge. Once this bill is passed, those donations will not be allowed to be used in future elections.

3) Why is this such a big deal?

Basically, up until now anyone with deep pockets has been able to buy access to B.C. politicians. The latest example is how a bunch of oil and gas companies re-wrote B.C.’s so-called climate plan in a Calgary boardroom.

Before that there was the case of Imperial Metals, the company responsible for the Mount Polley mine disaster. Imperial was a major donor to the BC Liberal party and was never charged or fined for the disaster.

Many British Columbians have also been concerned that the NDP is too beholden to unions because of large donations to the party. Now that’s all about to come to a stop.

4) So how will political parties fund election campaigns?

Well, first of all, campaign spending limits have been decreased by about 25 per cent, so less money will be spent overall in elections. For instance, candidates used to be able to spend about $78,000 per riding, but that limit is now reduced to $58,000.

Still, elections cost money, so where will that come from? The bill introduced a plan for a per-vote subsidy intended to assist in transitioning to the new rules. The move mirrors a similar temporary transition plan at the federal level but was not expected to form a part of the NDP’s electoral reform plan.

The subsidies are expected to cost B.C. taxpayers an estimated $27.5 million over the next four years.

According to the bill, a special legislative committee will evaluate the annual allowances to parties and determine if changes should be made. If no amendments are made to the bill once it is put into place, it means an expiration of allowances will take place in 2022.

Some reimbursements for election expenses will remain in place permanently.

While the BC Liberals have already stated publicly they will vote against the bill, saying the public should not pay parties directly, UBC political scientist Max Cameron says money for elections has to come from somewhere.

“We’re already publicly funding parties, but because it’s not visible, you don’t hear people being upset about it,” Cameron said. “Tax returns for political donations — that’s coming from the taxpayer, it’s a form of publicly subsidizing political parties.”

“Parties have to be funded from somewhere and I actually think political parties are providing a vital public service,” he said.

5 Things You Need to Know About BC's Ban on Big Money https://t.co/X750XZPxOU @bcndp #banbigmoney @bcliberals @bcgreens #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 20, 2017

5) What about loopholes?

Goooooood question.

The government tried to get out ahead of the game by applying the restrictions to third-party election advertisers, who've taken advantage of campaign finance rules in other jurisdictions. The restrictions aim to prevent external organizations from becoming fundraising proxies, like Super PACS have in the U.S. However, just what constitutes a third-party advertiser has been the subject of some debate and a lack of clarity on this issue remains a controversy at the federal level.

Election fundraising rules are only ever as good as their watchdogs. In the last few decades, politicians have been caught spending beyond campaign limits, misreporting financials and violating conflict of interest rules.

Some people have raised concerns about the $1,200 limit, saying businesses and unions can funnel donations through executives, employees and their relatives.

In September 2016, it was discovered that between 2004 and 2011, executives of SNC Lavalin Group Inc. funnelled $118,000 in donations to the federal Liberals and Conservatives— $110,000 and $8,000, respectively — disguised as donations from individuals who worked at SNC or their family members.

Cameron said the $1,200 limit provides a good protective measure against circumventing the rules.

“With the cap as it is, I think it gets a lot harder to see the bundling of donations that we’ve seen elsewhere.”

Image: Green party leader Andrew Weaver and Premier John Horgan annouce campaign finance reform. Photo: Province of B.C. via 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.

Troy Moth is an artist and photographer living on Vancouver Island. Moth’s iconic images are featured on art gallery walls and trendy t-shirts alike, famed for their stark, smoky portrayals of landscapes and creatures, of both the human and non-human variety.

Moth recently published a provocative photo of a wild bear slouched in the smouldering landfill of a remote Canadian community. We asked him if he’d speak to us about the image, why it elicits such strong reaction in its viewers and what the apocalypse has got to do with it.

This bear image is called “Invisible Horseman — 2017.” That of course immediately conjures the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Is the apocalyptic theme front and centre in this image for you?

The apocalypse theme made sense here. It really felt like that.

I was in such a remote area, with nothing around for miles. I was surrounded only by the waste of humans and the natural world, having to watch the two try and work together, watching how our our systems have made this creature dependent and diminished.

While at the same time I was feeling how invisible all of this is.

How did you end up in the landfill? What brought about the taking of this photo?

I was working on a doc in that community and one of the members took us on a joy ride that included the landfill where there are regularly bears.

There were seven or eight bears there and all of them looked just terrible. They walked with a stagger, they were slow and sluggish. One had a large burn on its face from eating garbage on fire.

The first time I didn’t take any pictures. I just thought “this is fucked.”

I asked to return the next day and I was more prepared to shoot but the state they were in was just so hard to see.

Horses, Osoyoos, B.C. Photo: Troy Moth

In your Facebook post you said you weren’t able to photograph what happened to the bear after you took this image. Is that something you are open to talking about?

Yeah, I can. I just couldn’t believe what I was seeing.

He stood up really slow. I was about 20 feet away. He was in a daze, stumbled to his left and walked down into this flaming pit of fire and disappeared.

He crawled into this hole of fire and smoke and never came out. When I first arrived that pit was a flaming inferno.

I kind of wish I had filmed it, this bear walking into this pit of death. But I just dropped my camera and my jaw dropped.

The whole time he stayed there he never came back out.

I think it’s why he sat there for a while: he was waiting for the flames to die down.

I saw people come down, drop their garbage and light it on fire. I think the bears learn the freshest garbage is on fire, or maybe it’s the smell of it.

Grizzly, Montana. Photo: Troy Moth

You mentioned you hesitated before posting the photo. Is that typical for you?

A large part of that I think is where I took the photo. I don’t want to tell anyone specifically where but I can say it’s from a remote First Nation community in northern Ontario, a community that I really respect.

I sat on this image for about a month, opening and closing it, editing it here and there.

I was actually nervous about it. I was worried the Internet would take this and spit it out and make it into a bad story and that the First Nations would get blamed for something that is not their fault.

This is obviously a problem across Canada, especially in remote areas. This community is very remote. They have no recycling, no compost. Everything that comes in on a plane gets thrown into this landfill.

In my community in Tahsis we used to have the same problem on an even worse scale.

The bears were so bad there they dug a massive pit for garbage but the bears would just fall into the pit and they couldn’t get the bears out.

It got so bad that word was spreading and tourists were showing up just to see this pit of bears so we got rid of the pit.

But anywhere you have landfills and bears you have bears in landfills. This is not unique to this situation.

Now that you have shared the image, what kind of reaction are you seeing?

I’m definitely starting to see some comments that I’m not happy with and I find myself monitoring and responding to comments a lot more than I normally do.

One woman said we have to shame everyone involved in this.

And I just thought, ‘what? You are involved in it. Everybody is involved in it. You can’t shame people into solving this.’

There are also some interesting differences in how people respond.

To people in more remote settings or in the bush it seems like it has way less of an impact. I feel like all the people who live more in urban centres who are maybe disassociated from wildlife and nature are really shocked.

Buffalo, North Dakota. Photo: Troy Moth

There is an interesting tension there with the rural/urban divide but do you think in some ways part of the reason the image is so provocative is because this powerful creature is a symbol of what we like to think of as ‘the wild?’ 

I think you’ve got it right.

Most people see bears on Planet Earth, they don’t see them in real life. They think of them as magical, perfect, beautiful creatures in the wild.

To see them in a flaming trash pile goes against everything you have about bears in your mind.

I talked to some members of the community and they don’t eat bear. I got the sense that the bear is a respected creature. So that made it even more sad.

In terms of how our heartstrings are tugged in the larger narrative of this image, I find myself wondering who or what we should identify with. Are we the human or the bear? Or are we the flaming trash pile?

When you see a larger version of the image you can actually identify bits of trash.

You can see specific pieces of garbage that you can identify. If you look closely you can see there’s a children’s Pampers box.

To me those details are what hits home. You might think, ‘I’ve bought that before and thrown it in the trash.’

For me that really draws in the human element.

I think something that also triggers an emotional response is the image’s colour palette.

It’s nice and happy and bright but then it hits you, what this image is actually of.

Normally I think photographers would be drawn to desaturating an image like this, giving it this gloomy, doomsday sort of look.

But I kept it as it was and it was a sunny, bright and beautiful day. In the end you don’t need to draw out the doomsday elements of the photo — they’re there, situated in those bright, happy colours.

We’ve very liberal in our application of the term apocalypse these days. It’s a running theme in our daily lives, in pop culture, film and television and political discourse. Do you think about the end of the world, or the end of the world as we know it, when you are shooting wildlife and the wilderness?

I definitely think about it.

We joke about this at our property in Tahsis, about why we bought this land so far away with only one access point. And just recently we were joking about needing to build a bunker.

The apocalypse is definitely talked about in my circle.

I don’t get the apocalypse trigger when I’m photographing wildlife normally. If anything I think about an older time, a more peaceful, natural time.

The landfill with the bears was probably the first time I started to feel that way and really think about it in the moment.

Horses, Montana. Photo: Troy Moth

In Canada where we are known for our pristine, wild spaces on the one hand, but we are also a heavily industrialized, wasteful nation that’s known for having some of the highest consumption per capita in the world. Are you going to do more work that showcases that dichotomy?

Absolutely. It’s been going through my mind nonstop. Especially seeing how meaningful and positive the response has been.

I’ve had dozens of people actually thank me for the bear photo. That’s not normally something that happens when I publish my work.

The work artists do feels more narcissistic to me, as in I’m just doing it for myself, for an ego boost. But this image was different.

I do want to work more with the juxtaposition between the beautiful, happy scene and the heart-wrenching reality that lies beneath it.

Image: Invisible Horseman — 2017. Photo: Troy Moth

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 massive “Canada 150” celebrations of July 1 are finally over, leaving little in their wake but hangovers, a multi-million dollar price tag and mountains of trash.

But for some Indigenous peoples in Canada, the festivities remain a visceral reminder of their continued dispossession from ancestral lands and waters. That’s especially true for those on the frontlines of megaprojects — pipelines, hydro dams, oil and gas wells, liquefied natural gas terminals and mines — that infringe on Indigenous land rights.

DeSmog Canada caught up with three Indigenous people directly involved in local struggles to resist such projects.

Beatrice Hunter 

Beatrice Hunter is an Inuk woman living in Labrador. In May, she was arrested and jailed while defending ancestral territories threatened by Nalcor’s Muskrat Falls project. Hunter was released after 10 days in a men’s prison following a decision by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Have you returned to the site since the court ruling?

Yeah, I returned on Canada Day. It was my way of saying that I am not Canadian, I am Inuk. It was my way of saying that what the government is doing is not right.

How was the experience being back there?

It was good to be back there. It was excellent. Ever since I went to the gate last year with other Labradorians, it’s almost felt like a calling. It feels like you’re actually doing something and you’re not just sitting around waiting for stuff to happen. You’re trying to change it yourself. It was excellent to be with other Labrador Land Protectors.

Obviously there’s been a lot of talk about Canada 150. What do you make of it in the context of Muskrat Falls?

It’s very upsetting and heartbreaking when the Canadian government doesn’t listen to you when obviously the natives of this land were the first peoples here. It shows a lack of respect for Indigenous nations across the country and for them to not admit the wrongs that have been done through the years. It’s another slap in the face.

The federal government has also been talking a lot about “reconciliation.” Do you feel there’s been any progress on that in the last few years?

I feel personally that nothing has actually been happening. It’s the same old story: they make promises and then don’t follow through with them.

What outcome do you and other land protectors hope for?

The best outcome will be to shut Muskrat down. And I still feel the same way. Everybody talks about it being too late, but I feel it’s never too late. The damage is already done but we can try and fix the damage. There’s been billions of dollars been done on the project. Why aren’t government officials and leaders and politicians being audited for it? They obviously have something to hide. If they didn’t have anything to hide, they would just come out with all the information.

Do you plan to keep going to the site?

Yes! Of course! I’m not going to stop. We can’t stop. We have to try to change it. We can’t let big corporations and politicians get away with this because it’s always going to happen if we let them.

Any last words?

I just want to let everybody know that I’m going to keep fighting. That’s what I want everyone to know. Myself and the Labrador Land Protectors are going to keep fighting. We can’t give up. It’s the future. We’re fighting for those who can’t fight for themselves. We’re fighting for our children. We’re fighting for our grandchildren. We’re fighting for our ancestors that weren’t strong enough to go up against the big corporations and governments. I feel it’s like white supremacy. That’s what it feels like to me. Everywhere you look: on TV, on radio, you hear white supremacy. Everywhere. It has to change.

Sadie-Phoenix Lavoie 

Sadie-Phoenix Lavoie is an Anishinaabe woman living in Manitoba. She is a student at the University of Winnipeg, co-founder of Red Rising Magazine, previously served as the vice-president of external affairs for the students’ association and has been involved with the campaign to pressure the institution to divest from fossil fuels.

What do you make of Canada 150 in the context of pipelines and ongoing extraction projects in Manitoba?

I definitely think that Canada 150 is trying to instill this pride of ‘who we are?’ and ‘what is the Canadian identity?’ The fact is that part of the Canadian identity is that extraction of natural resources in their economy. Now, they’re instilling this pride where you have to be prideful of being Canadian which also includes being protective of these types of industries. That’s where it gets really convoluted. We need to dismantle that narrative.

What would you say to settlers and settler politicians?

You have to share responsibilities to these communities and respect Indigenous rights. You’ve done a horrible job historically on this. And you can’t just be approving pipelines using the Canadian identity as a justification of infringing on those Indigenous rights, and therefore having to present that to the Canadian public and government. It’s all fine and dandy that you want to celebrate who you are. However, we still have a lot of conflict that needs to get resolved.

What does that look like specifically for you?

Part of that is respecting Indigenous rights to the land and UNDRIP: free, prior and informed consent in terms of any development on our traditional territories. Even though Justin Trudeau is saying ‘yes,’ there’s no ‘yes’ from the actual majority of Indigenous communities that are going to be directly affected. I’m not going to say that there is 100 per cent consensus within the Indigenous communities on pipelines.

But part of the fiduciary duty to the best interests of Indigenous peoples is you actually having to see there’s a huge demographic of Indigenous peoples that are saying ‘no.’ We have a right to say ‘no’ and a consultation with us isn’t about getting to a ‘yes.’ It’s about meaningful dialogue and respecting the fact that we can say ‘no’ and that doesn’t change with consultation and engagement.

There are other procedures and other things that need to be in place to ensure that pipeline is able to go through. And they haven’t met those. They haven’t met Indigenous rights or the court challenge that’s going on. To assume this pipeline’s going to be jammed down our throats is highly disrespectful on the part of a government that says they want to reconcile with Indigenous communities.

Any final thoughts?

Canada 150 isn’t a celebration for me, as an Indigenous woman. I see it as a celebration for them, to instill pride in their identities. But part of their identity is still being a colonizer, and colonizing me. The historical understanding of taking pride in Canada for all the “good” things it’s done does not erase the actual history of genocide in this country. I think that’s a big thing that Canadians need to accept.

Caleb Behn 

Caleb Behn is an Eh-Cho Dene and Dunne Za/Cree man living in British Columbia. He was the focus of the 2015 documentary “Fractured Land” and previously worked as a lawyer. Behn has frequently criticized the Site C dam — which, if built, would greatly impact the West Moberly First Nation, where his mother is from.

What do you make of Canada 150?

People have to recognize — and it should be quite obvious — that Canada 150 is a brand. Behind the superficial and contrived nature of Canada 150, you see something darker and more painful for Indigenous people.

It’s like from Calvin and Hobbes: they throw down the transmogrifier on colonization and genocide and missing and murdered Indigenous women and rape of the land and chronic representation of Indigenous people in the justice system and massive dispossession of lands and resources. And that becomes — through this magic rebranding exercise — some series of images and motifs and memes that sanitize and normalize what is abuse of relationships and law and land and people.

How does this tie in with the struggles over Site C?

From my perspective in northeast B.C. looking at Site C: behind this sanitized, non-abusive narrative that brands Canada and this 150 year grand experiment of colonization, you have actual tangible violations of good accounting principles, representation in the political process, systemically problematic and dangerous developments.

This urgency that Indigenous people are feeling is an urgency that the dominant colonial society should have felt from its very inception 150 years ago because it was grounded in the deployment of extractive technology and the violation of appropriate relations with human and non-human beings and environments.

That is hyper-relevant for the 21st century. That’s why Site C, Muskrat Falls, Line 3, fossil fuels, violation of law, disrespect of treaties, abuse is all interconnected.

There’s a lot of talk about acknowledging Indigenous rights to land. What do you think this looks like?

Land is such a weak word. It’s the violation of something truly sacred. But then to dress that up as something to be celebrated or unquestionably adopted and marketed within this decaying, decrepit, spiritually and physically contaminated time: that should be the clarion call for all human beings, especially in Canada.

Any final thoughts?

I hope your readers appreciate that as you celebrate the nation-state of Canada and somehow ignore the genocide and the rape and the violation of peoples, principles and land: even if you can get that far internally colonized and simplistically adopting a mindset and model, it’s in your best interest individually and collectively to still question what it is that’s being sold to you and what it is you’re witnessing.

I know what the red stands for in that flag. And I know what the white stands for in that flag. You see so many people unquestionably celebrating. It was really sad. And to see how many Indigenous people and other solid settler allies with their head firmly extracted from their ass are criticizing and engaging that — to me, that was the only real hope in that.

It’s a sad time.

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.

Roland Willson is a practical man. As chief of the West Moberly First Nation in northeastern B.C., he’s got to be.

“The natural gas industry is the main source of employment,” Willson said over coffee in Victoria this week, before heading into meetings with the B.C. NDP and B.C. Green parties. “It’s a natural resource economy up there.”

Of all the industrial activity happening on his traditional territory — ranging from fracking to forestry to coal mining — one development takes the cake: the Site C dam.

With B.C.’s new NDP-Green alliance, and its promise to send the $9 billion Site C for an independent review by the B.C. Utilities Commission (BCUC), there’s reason for Willson to be hopeful.

“We are hopeful that this stupid project is going to get stopped. They’ve done nothing that can’t be undone so far. The trees will grow back. The animals will come back,” Willson. "I'm pretty confident that if it goes to the BCUC, it'll be deemed non-viable."

Still, Willson isn’t holding his breath.

First Nations Chief Hopeful For Stop to #SiteC, More Balanced Approach to Resource Extraction https://t.co/FMk2NB0eLr #bcpoli #geothermal

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) June 15, 2017

“Politicians are politicians. We saw that when Trudeau came in. He made all these promises and then those promises just went up in a big puff of smoke.”

Last July the Trudeau government quietly issued permits for work on the Site C dam, despite promises of a new relationship with indigenous peoples. At that time, the West Moberly First Nation and Prophet River First Nation were still waiting for their day in court.

“It’s a dysfunctional relationship and we’re forced to live it over and over,” Willson said of dealings with government and BC Hydro, comparing it to the treatment of indigenous people in residential schools.

“They’re not taking our children away but they’re taking our land away. It is a continuation of their cultural genocide.”

As for the raging debate about job losses if Site C is delayed or stopped altogether, Willson said there are other ways to create jobs.

“I think we should immediately go into geothermal discussions,” he said.

“If Saskatchewan can build a geothermal plant, why the hell isn’t B.C.? Especially when they know there’s geothermal potential here. We’ve asked to partner with them on it.”

The Canadian Geothermal Association has said that B.C. is home to enough geothermal energy to power the entire province. The federal-provincial panel that reviewed the Site C dam found the province’s efforts to investigate geothermal to be sorely lacking.

“The low level of effort is surprising, especially if it results in a plan that involves large and possibly avoidable environmental and social costs,” the panel concluded.

In his meetings in Victoria, Willson intended to raise the issue of BC Hydro’s chosen route for the new highway through the Peace Valley, which cuts straight through a sacred area for the Dunne-za.

“There’s absolutely no reason for them to have realigned the road to put it where it is,” Willson said. “It’s within 50 metres of the sweat lodge and right through the grave site.”

“That’s one of the last spots in the Peace Valley that we have left to lose.”

The alternative highway route would run further away from the reservoir and avoid the houses in the valley and the First Nations sacred sites, but BC Hydro has said it’s less preferred due to less room for passing lanes and geotechnical conditions.

Willson also planned to invite NDP Leader John Horgan and Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver to attend this year’s Paddle for the Peace on July 8. An added benefit of having the leaders in the north would be to show them the impacts of shale gas development.

“The rapid pace of development is mind-blowing. The fracking. The use of water,” Willson said.

“The problem with the extraction industry is that B.C. loses their mind with it.”

Instead of slowing down to study the impacts of fracking, like Quebec and New York State did, “B.C. was full bore,” Willson said.

“They started the industry before they did the groundwater studies, before they understood what was going on.”

“We’re supportive of development, but there’s got to be a balanced approach.”

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 an excerpt from DeSmog founder Jim Hoggan’s latest book, I’m Right and You’re an Idiot: The Toxic State of Public Discourse, published by New Society Publishers.

I first began reading the works of linguist and cognitive scientist George Lakoff about 15 years ago and I was struck by the Berkeley professor’s now famous ideas about what he calls frames. In public relations our stock in trade is messaging, because our role is to create understanding by combining maximum clarity with supreme brevity. We work in the world of sound bites and elevator pitches that are designed to be short and pithy, and we rarely have the time or budget to delve into frames or deeply moving narratives.

When I started writing I’m Right and You’re an Idiot I wanted to better understand the difference between messages and frames, so I would know how frames work and be able to explain how to manage them. I wanted to better understand how they relate to the mechanics of public debate, and especially how frames impact facts and scientific evidence in public discourse, or when shaping opinion.

When we met, Lakoff described frames as metaphors and conceptual frameworks that we use to interpret and understand the world. They give meaning to the words we hear more than the other way around, because words don’t have objective meanings independent of these metaphors. Frames are structures of thought that we all use every day to determine meaning in our lives; frames govern how we act. They are ultimately a blend of feelings, values and data related to how we see the world.

We can’t think without frames, Lakoff explained. “Every thought you have, every word is defined in terms of a frame. You can’t say any word that’s meaningful without it activating a frame.” Frames permeate everything we think and say, so the people who control language and set its frames have an inordinate amount of power.

Lakoff stressed that if you do a bad job of framing your story, someone else will likely do it for you and his comments reminded me of something my mentor in the PR business, Mike Sullivan, once said: “If you don’t tell them, someone else will—and it will be bad.” What Mike meant was if you are an unwilling or ineffective communicator, you leave yourself wide open to someone else doing serious damage.

A frame is a way of looking at the world that is value laden, and like a metaphor it conjures up all kinds of thoughts and emotions. Jackie Kennedy used a frame when she referred to her life as Camelot. “Ethical oil” and “tax relief ” are also frames. Such words evoke subconscious images and meanings, as opposed to factual statements such as “10 million scallops are dead,” a headline that appeared in February 2014 in a Vancouver Island newspaper.

What came to be called Climategate was an international campaign to discredit scientists on both sides of the Atlantic just before the 2009 Copenhagen summit on climate change. It took the momentum to set targets out of the conference. I was astonished to see how a group of legitimate climate scientists, with stacks of peer-reviewed evidence on their side, could lose debates to a group of people who had none — all because of a lens created by mischief-makers. Clearly, Climategate was a battle of frames versus facts, and the frames won.

The truth is, facts alone don’t change minds, said Lakoff, who wrote a book called Don’t Think of an Elephant, which explains how to frame political debates in terms of values not facts.

He believes that the progressive community contributes to confusion in the public square because of an outdated understanding of reason and consequent lack of persuasive communication. During our interview, he told me that progressives need a mental model that goes beyond cold, logical messaging that’s directly correlated to reality — a model which should embrace metaphors, a marriage of emotion and logic.

[block:block=110]

Liberals have an unemotional view of reason that dates back to French philosopher Descartes. Lakoff explained that when conservatives want to go into politics they study business, marketing and what makes people tick, whereas progressives study political science, law and public policy. Progressives don’t study cognitive science, neurology or how the brain works. “They learn a false view of reason that goes back to the 1600s…that says reason is conscious, logical and unemotional.”

It wasn’t long ago that risk communications experts, who study the power of facts, also assumed that giving people more information and evidence would ensure they made better decisions. But research shows facts don’t change minds, at least not in the way we think they do.

Lakoff said cognitive and brain science research has shown that reason is not rational without emotion, without an over-lay of values to make sense of facts. Simply put: frames trump facts.

“We have thousands of metaphors structuring our brains,” he told me. “We think in terms of them all the time and they’re not random, they’re not mythical, they’re things that allow us to get around in the world. We have to use them. Words aren’t neutral.”

They are the structure we use to think.

We should all have a commitment to the truth, he continued, but not let an understanding of facts overwhelm our job, which is to change the brains of people out there. “Every time you argue, you change your brain. Every time you tell somebody something else, you’re changing brains, because everything you think is physical; it’s all in the circuitry of your brain.”

But just speaking the truth isn’t enough to convince people of new ideas. If facts are to make sense and be perceived as urgent, they must be framed in terms of deep, deep values.

George Lakoff ’s advice is short and sweet: To be an effective communicator get clear on your values and start using the language of values. Drop the language of policy. “People do not necessarily vote their self-interest. They vote their identity. They vote their values.” He believes so-called inaction and apathy should warn progressives that the conservatives are winning the communications battle between moral imperatives: “It’s time to decide, either we are all in this together or it’s every man for himself.”

Progressive morality says citizens act responsibly to provide infrastructure, education, health care, transportation and basic research for one another. Progressives constrain stock markets and protect bank accounts. They believe that private profit depends upon public provision. Conservatism is all about personal responsibility. The importance of public services is minimal when compared with the benefits of private enterprise. Conservatives promote stock markets and regulate banks. They believe that human effort creates wealth.

Of course some people are conservative about some things and progressive about others. Lakoff calls this bi-conceptualism. It means you can have both moral systems operating in your brain at the same time, each inhibiting the other from time to time. The more active one is, the stronger it gets, and that’s where language and communication come in. It’s also why media in influences matter so much, as do the ways we communicate.

In politics and social issues, frames are hierarchically structured and at the top of that hierarchy are the moral frames. So the question often is: Is this a frame where citizens care about each other, act responsibly and where there is a robust sense of what’s good for all? Or is the frame telling us that someone believes they have the freedom to access their own self-interest but need not care about the interests of others?

When it comes to environmental issues, Lakoff explained that these conflicting moralities are tied to two very different ideas of our relationship with nature. For progressives: We are a part of nature and dependent on the environment. Nature has inherent value. For conservatives: We are separate from and dominant over nature. Nature’s value is determined by its direct utility to people. Lakoff was quick to note that this is a simplification because most people aren’t ideologues, and bi-conceptuals are generally open to persuasion in either direction. The moderate has no ideology.

Every word is defined by an individual frame. A frame is a neural circuit. A neural circuit is made up of connections of neurons joined together by synapses. When a circuit is activated the synapses get stronger. If that circuit inhibits another circuit, then that other circuit’s synapses get weaker. When the synapses are stronger, it is easier to activate an idea in someone’s mind and therefore easier for it to spread to other issues. “So, repetition is what strengthens synapses. And it doesn’t matter if it is accurate.”

Suppose you’re a conservative, he said, and you want to create a frame that fits your moral system, but let’s suppose it has nothing to do with truth. You may be saying, for example, that cutting corporate taxes will create jobs. We know that’s false. Corporations are making more profits than ever before, are not hiring people because they’re outsourcing work, reaping the benefits of cheap labor in other countries or using more technology. They’re not “creating jobs.” So this is a false statement. But if conservatives call themselves job creators and repeat it over and over, people will think that cutting corporate taxes will create more jobs. The words are like a recurring jingle, stimulating a synapse and creating a thought pattern. That frame is activated over and over, and every time it is reactivated it grows stronger.

I asked Lakoff if it’s possible to set the record straight. Every time we say, “those are not job creators,” do we step into the job creator frame and imprint it again? By outlining facts, even in a logical statement of contradiction, do we always help reinforce the other side’s point of view?

Yes, he said. You lose the persuasion battle when you consistently step into your opponent’s frame; it reinforces their morality and their argument in the minds of your audience. The way to respond is to not mention the other frame. Only mention yours. Always start with your frame and stay in it. Always be on the offensive; never act defensively.

Framing is a system that has evolved because it works for every-day life, said Lakoff. “Free will is not totally free. It is radically constrained by the frames and metaphors shaping your brain and limiting how you see the world. Those frames and metaphors get there, to a remarkable extent, through repetition in the media.”

Everything you have learned is stored physically in your brain, he stressed. Every frame is in a brain circuit, every metaphor is in a brain circuit, every image is in a brain circuit. Your whole moral system is in your brain. If you hear something that doesn’t fit with what’s in your brain, it will go in one ear and out the other unless you are the type of person who remembers things that don’t quite fit and worries about them. But most people don’t.

Progressives must realize that their old-fashioned view of reason is false — that Descartes and the information injection theory of communication have not panned out.

More information about Jim Hoggan on I’m Right and You’re an Idiot.

Image: George Lakoff/George Lakoff

[block:block=110]

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.

I’m not a scientist. And chances are, neither are you.   That likely means we both find ourselves deferring to the opinion of others, of experts who know more about complex matters — like health or nuclear safety or vaccinations or climate change — than we do.   But heck, even scientists have to rely on the expertise of others (unless they’re some sort of super scientist with infinite knowledge of all things. Ahem, Neil deGrasse Tyson).   But for the rest of us intellectual Joes, we rely heavily on what we think the experts think. As it happens, figuring out what the experts think isn’t so easy, not even in those instances where the majority of experts agree on a subject.   Take for example, the issue of climate change, which is just what cognitive scientist Derek J. Koehler had in mind when he launched a recent pair of experiments designed to investigate what factors might contribute to our collective failure to grasp expert consensus.

The Problem of False Balance 

“There’s this well-documented gap between public perceptions on [climate change] and expert perceptions,” Koehler, professor of psychology at the University of Waterloo, told DeSmog Canada. “I became interested in this as an observer of the news and I guess it was probably climate change more than anything else that was a motivating example for me.”   Koehler, a professor at the University of Waterloo, said when it comes to climate change there has been a lot of discussion by media critics on the possible role that false balance in news coverage may play in confusing the public about where actual expert consensus lies.   “Even though I had climate change in mind when I started this work, the actual studies I ended up running were about economic issues on the one hand and movies on the other which involved looking at the perception of consensus among film critics.”   Koehler’s research, published in a recent online article in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied (print version forthcoming), suggests the practice of giving voice to experts on both sides of an issue may distort public perception about the level of agreement among experts.   Koehler entered into the study with a simple question in mind: what factors influence our ability to comprehend where expert opinion lies?   As Koehler found, even when individuals are told exactly what experts think (even shown what they think using graphs), it was difficult for those people to digest and then rearticulate that information.

Deciphering Expert Opinion: The Experiments

In Koehler’s experiment a group of participants were given a numerical summary of where the opinion of experts (convened by the University of Chicago) fell on a selection of economic issues.   For example, on the issue of whether a carbon tax would be effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there was a very high level of agreement; 93 experts agreed, five indicated they were uncertain and two disagreed.   But on the issue of whether raising minimum wage would affect the ability of low-skill workers to find employment, there was widespread disagreement: 38 experts agreed, 27 were uncertain and 36 disagreed.

Koehler presented these opinions to the group and asked them to rank the level of agreement among the experts. Koehler also asked a subset of the group to read comments from experts on either side of the issue.   What Koehler found was participants exposed to commentary from the two experts who disagreed were less able to decipher where expert consensus actually resided. So hearing the argument of the experts, rather than just seeing their position displayed on a chart, made it more difficult for those individuals to distinguish high consensus issues (like the carbon tax) from low consensus ones (minimum wage).   “Two different people can look at apparently the same body of evidence and draw very different conclusions from it,” Koehler said. “We know from past psychological research that that can and does happen.”   But Koehler became more interested in what general factors might lead people to “systematically misperceive where the expert consensus lies across these different domains.”   In these experiments, Koehler explained, the participants’ “task is not to tell us what they personally think about the issue but where the experts’ opinions fall on the topic.”   Individuals tend to hold strong opinions on economic issues like minimum wage or carbon tax so Koehler performed additional experiments with more neutral topics like the ranking of films — left unnamed — among top critics.   “So for instance, with the movie studies participants were making judgments about movies that were not identified, so deciphering the percentage of critics who thought it was good versus bad and reading a couple of comments about the movie from two disagreeing experts,” he said.   Koehler said keeping the movies unidentified “was a deliberate attempt to make it impossible for people to draw on their pre-existing opinions and beliefs in making these kinds of judgments.”   “In these studies I deliberately tried to develop a task where there would be less room for people’s preexisting opinions to play a role,” Koehler said, adding, “part of that was emphasizing the task was one of simply reporting or rating their perceptions of what experts think as opposed to what they personally thought about these issues.”   Koehler said the ability of participants to decipher how film critics ranked movies was influenced by whether or not they heard from experts on both sides.    Koehler’s experiment shows that even before you add in “additional complicating factors” like strong beliefs or preferences surrounding issues like a carbon tax or minimum wage, “the presentation of conflict between specific experts can distort people’s perceptions and lead them to think there’s more disagreement among a population of experts than there really is.”

Reporting Weight of Evidence

The problem of false balance has long been a stumbling block for communicators of climate science. Mainstream media outlets have for years given equal airtime to legitimate climate scientists and climate deniers who often have no scientific background or have direct ties to the fossil fuel industry.   Giving equal play to the opinion of climate scientists and deniers has had significant impact on the public’s perception of climate science.   One study found the public’s lack of certainty around climate science translated directly into a lack of support for smart climate policy.   One remedy that’s been popularly advanced as a solution is ‘weight of evidence’ reporting. Koehler said weight of evidence information would require a reporter to indicate that the opinion of one expert is shared, for example, by 97 per cent of experts while the opinion of the other is only shared by three per cent.   Yet Koehler’s research indicates weight of evidence reporting isn’t enough to combat misperception of expert consensus or the distorting influence of false balance.   “Even when that weight of evidence information is given, people in their perception of expert consensus discriminate or distinguish less sharply between high and low consensus issues when weight of evidence information is accompanied by conflicting comments from specific experts,” he said.   “So even if you know 80 per cent of the experts are on one side and 20 per cent are on the other, when you choose one specific concrete member of each of those disagreeing groups of experts and provide a comment from each there is something in the psychology of doing so that crystallizing the view from either side in the form of a single person.”   “That leads people to see more disagreement than there really is in cases of high consensus,” he said.   Koehler added that in his studies, information was stripped down to its bare form: “Basically a table with some numbers representing expert opinion.” But in the real world information is rarely ever presented in such a schematic fashion and as individuals we’re often left to rely on our memory when it comes to recalling what we think the experts think, he said.   “I think it’s easier to identify a problem like this than it is to suggest a remedy,” Koehler said.   But he added, “I would say probably a general piece of advice for everyone is to try to look beyond, to seek out those sources of information that represent the thinking of a population of experts so you’re not forced to rely on a single perspective or opinion.”   Although it’s unclear exactly why the presentation of dissenting comments skews our perception of consensus (maybe the expert had a convincing argument or our knowledge of disagreement leads to a sense of uncertainty), Koehler says we need to get better at understanding experts.     The distorting influence of false balance triggers a pretty significant “cognitive glitch,” Koehler recently wrote in the opinion pages of the New York Times.   “Whatever the cause, the implications are worrisome,” Koehler wrote.   “Government action is guided in part by public opinion. Public opinion is guided in part by perceptions of what experts think. But public opinion may — and often does — deviate from expert opinion, not simply, it seems, because the public refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of experts, but also because the public may not be able to tell where the majority of expert opinion lies.”

Image: PopTech

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.

No one has a better handle on the effect climate deniers have on the socio-political stage than science historian and author Naomi Oreskes.   Her book Merchants of Doubt charts the path of many of the world’s most notorious deniers, skeptics, shills, PR men and experts-for-hire. Plus, as a trained historian and professor of earth and environmental sciences at Harvard, Oreskes has the ability to take a 10,000-foot view when it comes to climate politics and the turning tide of public opinion.   Oreskes recently visited Vancouver to discuss climate change and climate denial in Canada at a talk organized by the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies.     For Oreskes, understanding how climate denial is active in places like Canada involves acknowledging the expansiveness of climate change as an issue, one that cuts across boundaries between government, society and market power.   We asked Oreskes what she makes of Canada’s current political situation — a situation in which our  prime minister announces impressive climate targets on the world stage but then quietly approves B.C.’s first LNG export terminal on a Friday afternoon.   “Of course there is a long road ahead,” Oreskes said. “[Climate change] is a very big issue that reaches into economics, politics and culture.”

“But that does not mean we should discount the very substantial gains that are now being made, especially here in Canada, with the great breakthrough in Alberta.” 

Although new governments on both the provincial and federal level have reinvigorated the prospect of nationwide climate action, Canada has yet to make substantial headway in limiting carbon pollution, Oreskes admits.   A February report from Environment and Climate Change Canada shows the country is not on track to meet its climate targets. Development of oil and gas in both Alberta and B.C. is expected to prevent Canada from getting back on course.   Oreskes says straight-up climate denial is less visible in Canada than it once was, but that doesn’t mean the interests of the fossil fuel industry have disappeared.   A new form of climate denialism is at work, Oreskes argues, one meant to persuade the public that fossil fuels are necessary and renewables unreliable. Alternatives to fossil fuels, Oreskes recently wrote in The Guardian, “are disparaged by a new generation of myths.”   Those myths include the idea that countries like Canada are dependent on new fossil fuel infrastructure for prosperity.   Canada has been beset by a new collective of industry advocacy groups, like British Columbians for Prosperity, Resource Works, Canada Action and Oil Respect, that advance this kind of thinking.   Asked what Canadians should be on the lookout for, knowing that climate denial groups and pro-industry organizations continue to advance a fossil fuel agenda, Oreske said awareness is the first step.   “A lot of groups now are saying, well, yes, maybe there is a bit of climate change, but we can't afford not to fill in the blank: develop tar sands, frack for gas, build new pipelines, etc.”   “This is not a new argument,” Oreskes added. “We've heard it since the early 1990s. I wrote about it back in the 2000s. But we can expect it to be made more strongly post Paris.”   The myths don’t stop there, Oreskes said.   “We are also seeing a line of argument that goes like this: yes renewables are nice, but they are too intermittent and unreliable to be our primary source of power.”   “There are several important recent studies that show this is not true, especially in North America where we have so much solar, wind and hydro.”   One such study, recently published by The Solutions Project research team at Stanford University, outlines how Canada could achieve 100 per cent renewable energy by the year 2050 with a mixture of solar, wind, existing hydro, wave and geothermal energy.   The idea that renewables aren’t reliable has gained a lot of traction, Oreskes said. She added a particularly “egregious and sexist version” of that argument was on full display in Shell’s highly criticized video campaign that compared renewable energy to a fickle woman.   According to a new report by the UK-based Influence Map, Shell spent USD$22 million in 2015 lobbying against climate legislation.   Despite industry-sponsored attacks on clean energy, renewables have taken off in recent years. Nearly $500 billion was invested in clean energy in 2015.   But that figure is overshadowed by global fossil fuel subsidies. The International Monetary Fund estimates government subsidized the fossil fuel sector to the tune of USD$5.3 trillion in 2015 by failing to charge for the climate, environmental and human health impacts of oil, gas and coal combustion.   Oreskes cautions that “because energy is not a free market” we cannot simply rely on market mechanisms to solve the climate conundrum.   “Fossil fuels are still gigantically subsidized,” she said. “So we need to eliminate those subsidies.”   Oreskes added these combined social and political influences driving fossil fuel interests make it dangerous to think the era of climate denial has come to an end.   “It ain't over till its over.”     Image: Naomi Oreskes/TED

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.