By Discourse Media with additional reporting from Carol Linnitt.

Members of the Lax Kw’alaams First Nation in northwest B.C. were given an extremely short amount of time to respond to an opinion poll that asked if they support energy development in their territory.

The polling followed a series of four information sessions held by the band council in June, focused on plans for liquified natural gas (LNG) development. At the information sessions, band members were presented with a proposed package of benefits that hinge on them voicing their support for the contentious Pacific NorthWest LNG (PNW LNG) project at the mouth of the Skeena River.

Community members are concerned because the polling question did not explicitly reference the PNW LNG proposal, which includes plans to develop the company’s LNG terminal on Lelu Island, near Prince Rupert. Other concerns about the poll that have been flagged by band members include missing forms in packages mailed to them and misinformation included in the proposed agreements package.

Biased Process

The poll question was framed and composed in a way that was likely to push respondents toward answering a particular way, says David Moscrop, a political scientist and PhD candidate at the University of British Columbia. “The implication is, ‘Don’t worry about the environmental impact; assume it will be fine . . . Are you okay with [development]?”

Moscrop says the structure of the question makes him suspicious of the intent behind the poll. “If you’re not going to do it properly, why are you doing it? Is it because you want to legitimize something you intend to do either way?” he asks.

The question itself, the timeline of the poll and location of the polling stations were all decided by the band council, according to Lawrence Lewis, an independent electoral officer hired by the Lax Kw’alaams band to oversee the process.

Ballots were mailed to all community members both within Lax Kw’alaams and living outside of the village, says Lewis. Members also had the chance to vote in person at polling stations in Lax Kw’alaams and Prince Rupert.

On August 25, The Lax Kw’alaams band council said they received 812 responses (1 spoiled) with 65.5 per cent (or 532 people) voting YES and 279 voting NO.

The mayor of Lax Kw’alaams, John Helin, wrote a message that said: “This is just another step in a process that could lead to the proposed Petronas project becoming a reality. We will have meetings with the appropriate parties (Petronas, Province, Federal Government) to see what the next steps are for this proposed project.”

Helin’s comments have led some to wonder if the poll, which didn’t mention PNW LNG by name, may be used as a de facto referendum for the project despite not being presented to the community as a binding vote.

Which may be how the B.C. government views the poll’s results.

The province released a statement thanking the community for the “positive vote” and Rich Coleman, B.C.’s Minister of Natural Gas Development, congratulated the community for voting to continue talks with government.  

Lax Kw’alaams Pacific Northwest #LNG Poll Raises Questions About #FirstNations Consultation https://t.co/Io16H27zAT #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 1, 2016

Misleading Information

Discourse Media obtained the proposed benefits package that was presented at four community information sessions in June. It includes misinformation about the nature of an infrastructure project granted to the community last year, as previously reported.

The $22-million paving of Tuck Inlet Road, the only road into Lax Kw’alaams, is presented as an incentive for the community to support LNG on Lelu Island. But the project was negotiated by the band’s previous mayor, Garry Reece, who says paving Tuck Inlet Road was never tied to any LNG proposal. In the proposed benefits package it is referred to as “work started by Provincial Government as an inducement for good faith negotiations on LNG.”

While Moscrop calls into question the intent of the poll, community member and activist Christine Smith-Martin says the question is too vague and should simply ask members to say yes or no to development on Lelu Island. “It’s like writing a blank cheque. They want us to sign a blank cheque that allows them to do whatever it is they want to do,” she said.

Smith-Martin also raised concerns about the execution of the poll. She said members of her family received their ballots without the necessary First Nation Declaration Form.

In order for a ballot to be counted, they had to be  returned with a signed First Nation Declaration Form which stated: “I solemnly affirm that I am an eligible Elector of the Lax Kw’alaams Nation at the address listed below and that I am at least 18 years of age.”

Lewis acknowledges the initial mistake but says all members have now received the declaration form. When asked about concerns regarding the short timeframe of the poll, the framing of the question and the lack of polling stations in Vancouver or Terrace — where many Lax Kw’alaams members reside — Lewis deferred to the band council, saying he could only speak to the process, not how these decisions were made by the Lax Kw’alaams band.

Community Left Feeling Confused, Angry

Other concerns include the information sessions that preceded the polling. The main point of contention relayed by people who attended those meetings was the highly technical nature of the presentation, which many saw as one-sided and biased in favour of supporting Pacific Northwest LNG.

Community member Sandra Dudoward says the current poll was not handled as well as a previous canvassing of community views about the project. Dudoward was referring to a series of votes that drew international headlines in May 2015. Lax Kw’alaams voted against supporting PNW LNG in exchange for a $1.2-billion benefits agreement offered by Petronas, the Malaysian-based energy company behind the project.

Dudoward says she was given a month’s notice to prepare for that vote. This time around, she was given about a week. She found out about the vote on Aug. 16, and had to call to request an emailed ballot. The poll required that all ballots be received by mail before Aug. 24 or delivered in person at one of the polling stations in Lax Kw’alaams or Prince Rupert.

Dudoward worries that the timeframe of the poll was too short and might have affected voter turnout. She also wondered why the band hired an electoral officer to oversee the process given that the polling seemed informal and the question vague.

Despite the question not being explicitly about PNW LNG, the local Prince Rupert newspaper, The Northern View,  seemed to confirm suspicions that the poll be seen as just that. “Lax Kw'alaams members vote 'Yes' to ongoing talks with PNW LNG,” said The Northern View’s August 25 on-line headline.

Against Autonomy

For political scientist David Moscrop, the issue is bigger than just the poll and its outcome. He sees it as a larger affront to the democratic process that works against the movement towards Indigenous autonomy.

“If we’re saying that there is a legacy of colonialism and exploitation and stripping people of their power and their right to self-determination, then we should be even more sensitive that there are groups that might be doing that again,” he said.

Image: Ash Kelly

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.

British Columbians share the concerns of Alaskans about risks to the environment from mining operations and most want to see tougher mining laws and regulations in B.C., according to two polls released Thursday.

The Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research polls, commissioned by SkeenaWild in B.C. and Salmon Beyond Borders in Alaska, found 75 per cent of more than 800 British Columbians polled were concerned about a tailings dam break and 54 per cent felt, that under current rules, B.C. mining poses risks to health, the environment, fishing and tourism.

“These results show that the people of B.C. are not willing to give mining companies social licence to proceed with projects if they feel salmon, water and wildlife are at risk,” Greg Knox, SkeenaWild executive director, said.

The support for rule reforms was driven by concerns that existing land use rules, such as the Mineral Tenure Act, are pro-mining and threaten the province’s natural beauty.

More than 85 per cent said they would like to see the Mineral Tenure Act changed to give other uses the same priority as mining.

Thirty-nine per cent said the jobs and economic benefits of mining outweigh those risks, but many of those agreed that reforming B.C.’s mining laws would protect jobs by ensuring other key industries were not affected by a mining spill. Only 17 per cent said reforming mining laws would cost jobs and provincial revenues, meaning taxes would increase.

When asked about Northwest B.C., where a mining boom is underway, 68 per cent said conservation should be a higher priority than development because of the importance of salmon-bearing rivers and populations of animals such as grizzly bears.

Less than half approved of how the provincial government is regulating and monitoring mines. Suggested changes include ensuring mining companies have fully-funded plans for cleanup, closure and long-term management of tailings before approval is granted, a mandatory, industry-funded clean-up fund for projects in watersheds shared by Alaska and B.C. and mining no-go zones in sensitive areas such as key salmon watersheds.

The 2014 Mount Polley tailings pond dam collapse, which sent 24-million cubic metres of waste surging into lakes and waterways from the mine owned by Imperial Metals, has focused attention on the need for reforms, Knox said.

“Greater financial assurance from mining companies, stronger government oversight and monitoring and establishing certain areas, like key salmon habitat, off-limits to mining will go a long way to avoid opposition from First Nations and local communities,” he said.

The B.C. government is accepting public submissions on reform of rules dealing with mine tailings until Oct. 16.

In Alaska, where, in the wake of Mount Polley, there has been growing concern about B.C.’s mining regulations because of mines opening close to salmon-bearing rivers running into Southeast Alaska, the poll shows overwhelming support for increased protection.

Almost three-quarters of 500 Alaskans polled were concerned about a mining waste spill affecting shared watersheds. That number jumped to 86 per cent for those living in Southeast Alaska.

More than 75 per cent of respondents want Alaska to have a seat at an international table to address concerns about B.C. mining in transboundary watersheds and 45 per cent said their vote for a member of Congress would hinge on the candidate pushing for a seat at the table.

“This provides a clear mandate for significant action by government and industry to ensure B.C.’s mining development doesn’t harm salmon, water quality, jobs and way of life downstream,” said Heather Hardcastle of Salmon Beyond Borders.

The B.C poll is subject to a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20 and the Alaska poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 per cent 19 times out of 20.

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.

A new Ipsos Reid poll released today shows 76 per cent of Albertans are in favour of stronger greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regulations for industrial facilities.

The federal government has faced scrutiny for failing to release GHG performance regulations for the oil and gas sector for several years. Alberta’s existing rules, the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER), are set to expire on September 1, 2014.

Facing the release of a new climate plan and potential new carbon tax arrangement, Alberta premier Dave Hancock said his government is in talks with industry.

“There are some producers – there are lots of producers – who would say: ‘Don’t do anything, this is already a cost to us, and we can’t afford to pay more because we don’t have any room to innovate, so it’s just a cost to us.’ The more progressive operators would say: ‘If incented appropriately, we can look harder,’” Hancock said.

“How do you actually create a process where big emitters can find a way to meet standards? It’s not a tax, it’s an alternative way of meeting the outcome,” he said.

A Progressive Conservative Party leadership vote is scheduled for September 6, leading some to speculate new emissions regulations will be left off the table until a later date.

“Waiting for consensus means waiting indefinitely,” Simon Dyer, the Pembina Institute’s regional director for Alberta and the North, said. “Albertans clearly want their government to make a decision and move forward with stronger greenhouse gas rules for industry.”

Alberta’s oilsands represent Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 under the Copenhagen Accord. Environment Canada’s most recent emissions report, released in October 2013, shows Canada’s current measures are inadequate for reaching our emissions reductions targets.

Emissions trends reported in Environment Canada's 2013 Emissions Report.

A new study released by Globe International that examined nearly 500 pieces of climate legislation in 66 countries found Canada had “no flagship legislation” for climate despite being in the top 20 worldwide emitters. The report also notes Canada’s decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Accord in 2011.

According to the Pembina Institute, “if Alberta were a country, its per capita greenhouse gas emissions would be higher than any other country in the world.” They also report “7 per cent of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions came from oilsands plants and upgraders in 2010.”

Emissions from the extraction and upgrading of oilsands bitumen is estimated to be 3.2 to 4.5 times as intensive on a per barrel basis than conventional crude produced elsewhere in Canada or the U.S.

Alberta’s favoured “double-double” emissions reduction plan would require companies to pay a $30 per tonne penalty if emissions were not reduced by 24 per cent per unit of production, according to the Pembina Institute.

“Another delay to improving Alberta’s emissions rules represents a liability for an industry that thrives on certainty and is under scrutiny for its climate impacts. Strengthening these rules would send an important signal to Alberta’s customers that taking action on climate change is a priority,” Dyer said.

The new poll shows strengthening emissions standards is strongest among university graduates, 83 per cent of whom support stronger regulations. Just 6 per cent of poll respondents opposed or were strongly opposed to stronger rules, while 18 per cent said they were unsure whether or not they were in support.

Image Credit: Kris Krug 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.

A new poll released Thursday finds that more than three quarters of British Columbia residents want the province to shift away from producing, using and exporting fossil fuels and to embrace cleaner sources of energy.

The online survey, conducted by Strategic Communications Inc., found that 78 per cent of British Columbians agree that B.C. should transition away from using fossil fuels to cleaner sources of energy to prevent climate change from worsening, compared to 17 per cent who disagree.

"As climate science continues to demonstrate, climate change could have devastating impacts on both the environment and the economy," said Kevin Sauve, spokesperson for the Pembina Institute in B.C.

"It's encouraging to see that British Columbians are on the same page. Not only do they understand the need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels but see economic benefits in developing cleaner sources of energy as well."

"British Columbia is largely sitting on the sidelines of a global clean energy bonanza," said Merran Smith, Director of Clean Energy Canada. "Citizens know that the world's energy system is changing. The provincial government needs to strengthen the province's clean energy economy through targeted policy today."

The poll was commissioned by the Pembina Institute, Clean Energy Canada and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions. Eight hundred and two adult B.C. residents were surveyed from April 1 to April 2, 2014, using an established proprietary research panel. The results were statistically weighted according to the most recent education, age, gender and region Census data to provide a representative sample of the B.C. population.

"This poll sends a clear message that British Columbians want steps put in place now to transition this province towards a prosperous low-carbon future," said Tom Pedersen, Executive Director of the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS). "It is encouraging to see such strong support for change across all levels of society, but especially among tomorrow's leaders — 18-34 year olds."

The poll found that 67 per cent of B.C. residents agree that the province should decrease its reliance on fossil fuels for greater economic security while more than 78 per cent suggested a move away from fossil fuels is necessary to avoid worsening climate change. Another 74 per cent agreed the province could benefit from clean sector jobs and growing the alternative energy economy.

Natural gas "out of step with clean energy"

The results of the poll come as B.C. Premier Christy Clark is pushing for the increased development of natural gas fields and liquified natural gas (LNG) plants for export.

On Earth Day, April 22nd, Environment Minister Mark Polak suggested the rush to develop the province's vast gas deposits was a part of B.C.'s climate plan.

“Our proven track record of climate leadership and our unwavering commitment to sustainable economic growth will also guide the development of B.C.’s liquefied natural gas industry. Climate change is a global issue. By exporting our abundant natural gas, B.C. will supply growing markets with the cleanest burning fossil fuel from the world’s cleanest LNG plants," she said.

Yet B.C.'s natural gas and LNG ambitions might not square with its ambitious emissions reductions.

“There are scenarios under which natural gas could potentialy be a transition fuel and that’s certainly the way the government has been positioning it," Sauve told DeSmog Canada. "But there is very little analysis to back that up.”

An increase in natural gas development will pile up on the climate impacts of other fossil fuels, Sauve said.

“Given this poll it looks like [the development of natural gas] is out of step with the expectations of British Columbians. It is out of step with clean energy.”

He added: “The general direction B.C. wants to go in is away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy.”

Image Credit: Sookie / Flickr Figures 1-3: British Columbians' opinions on climate change and clean energy: poll summary

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.

According to a recent poll commissioned by four environmental groups, nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) of residents in British Columbia oppose Enbridge's plan to transport crude oil through B.C. using the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline and oil tankers.

The hybrid telephone-online poll, conducted by Justason Market Intelligence, found that 50 per cent of B.C. residents strongly oppose the Enbridge proposal, compared to 12 per cent who strongly support it.

The poll was commissioned by Dogwood Initiative, ForestEthics Advocacy, Northwest Institute for Bioregional Research and West Coast Environmental Law. Six hundred adult British Columbians were surveyed from January 13 to January 19, 2014 through random telephone sampling and Justason's online panel.

"When British Columbians actually get the facts about oil tanker and pipeline proposals, their opposition is overwhelming," said Will Horter, executive director of Dogwood Initiative. "Other polls in the past few months have only talked about pipelines, with no mention of the crude oil supertankers that would inevitably come with them."

Image: Oil Tanker Traffic in B.C.: The B.C. Outlook Omnibus / Justason Market Intelligence

This is the first poll released about Enbridge's oil tanker and pipeline proposal since the National Review Board's controversial joint review panel (JRP) report recommended conditional approval of the project in December.

When asked whether they trust the review process, 51 per cent of B.C. residents said they distrust the process, 32 per cent said they trust it, and 17 per cent were unsure.

"These polling results bring home why the Enbridge tanker and pipeline proposal is going nowhere fast — despite the JRP recommendation," said Jessica Clogg of the West Coast Environmental Law Association. "Residents of B.C. continue to withhold 'social licence' for the project, while multiple First Nations lawsuits threaten to derail it and the government of B.C. formally opposed the Enbridge project."

According to the poll, a significant majority of British Columbians (79 per cent) feel that decisions about projects like the Enbridge Northern Gateway proposal should be made with public participation, while only 13 per cent feel that such decisions should be made solely by government.

"British Columbians simply do not accept closed door decision-making and know they deserve a say. Any politicians thinking of cutting a backroom deal do so at their peril," Horter said.

A March 2012 Justason Market Intelligence poll had nearly identical results with 66 per cent of B.C. residents opposing the Enbridge proposal, and 50 per cent strongly opposed.

"For all the millions of dollars Enbridge has spent in advertising over the past two years, opposition to this proposal hasn't budged," said Sven Biggs of ForestEthics Advocacy.

Image Credit: Travis Blanston / 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.

Canadians are losing confidence that governments will take the lead in battling climate change, all the while becoming more certain that humans are behind global warming, according to a new poll by the Environics Institute, in partnership with the David Suzuki Foundation.

The belief that governments will take a lead role battling changes has dropped to 53 percent from 59 percent in a year, according to the poll, which comes as Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government faces rising criticism at home and abroad for inaction concerning greenhouse gas emissions.

"Canadians have for decades looked to their governments for leadership on addressing climate change and other environmental problems," Keith Neuman, executive director of Environics, said in a statement. "This latest survey shows a noticeable drop in the public's confidence in governments' capacity to play this role, and this may well be because citizens haven't seen any evidence of leadership, especially at the federal level."

The survey found that a majority of Canadians accept that climate change is the result of human activity while the number of people that believe in the conclusiveness of climate science continues to grow. "Most Canadians believe something can be done to address climate change, including shifting energy requirements from fossil fuels to cleaner renewable forms of energy," that survey found.

Some 60 percent of Canadians say that climate change is real and caused by human activity, up marginally over the past year but part of an upward trend dating back to 2010. "Those not yet certain about the science remain divided on whether it is best to take action now or wait until we know more," it said.

The relatively large poll of more than 2,000 adult Canadians was taken in early October, ahead of the new global climate talks underway in Poland this week and also before this month's devastating cyclone in the Philippines. Cyclone Haiyan struck earlier this month, leaving massive destruction and death in its wake, while also raising concern that global warming was behind the world's increasingly erratic weather.

The survey also comes as the Canadian government, which pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2011, delays rules to rein in growing greenhouse gas emissions. The Harper government is strongly backing the development of the Alberta oilsands, considered one of the world's most environmentally destructive fuel sources.

Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq told the Globe and Mail that Canada remains committed to meeting its 2020 target for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, promising the Conservative government will introduce long-delayed regulations to tackle emissions in the oil and gas sector.

“We are committed to achieving Canada’s targets, and our leadership and our actions and our investment demonstrate this,” she told the Globe and Mail before leaving Ottawa for the climate talks. Environment Canada said in a report last month that Canada's emissions will total 734 megatons in 2020, or some 20 per cent higher than committed to at the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009.

The Suzuki foundation said the poll results show Canadians are looking for stronger action from the federal government. "The results underscore the need for the Canadian government to change its past practices and become a constructive global citizen at the UN climate change summit in Warsaw," said Ian Bruce, science and policy manager at the Suzuki Foundation. "Canada's job in Warsaw should be to collaborate with countries around the world to come up with an effective and binding international agreement to reduce global warming emissions."

The Environics survey was based on telephone interviews with 2,003 Canadians between October 1 and 17, 2013 and is considered accurate within plus or minus 2.2 percentage points in 19 out of 20 samples.

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.

Coastal First Nations (CFN) has launched a new website to help educate the public and drum up support for the First Nations ban on bear trophy hunting in BC's Great Bear Rainforest. The website provides easy access to information about the bears, their habitat, and the First Nations ban on hunting them for trophies.

The website is a part of the Bears Forever project, launched on September 4 with the release of the short documentary 'Bear Witness' and the results of a poll documenting the opinions of BC residents on the trophy bear hunting ban.

"This website gives all British Columbians a chance to meet some of our real coastal bears, and speak up on their behalf," said Heiltsuk Coastwatch Director William Housty.

The CFN is an alliance of Wuikinuxv, Heiltsuk, Kitasoo/Xai'xais, Nuxalk, Gitga'at, Metlakatla, Old Massett, Skidegate, and the Council of the Haida Nation, collaborating to create a sustainable economy on BC's North and Central coast and Haida Gwaii.

The ban was announced by the CFN last September, prohibiting trophy hunting for bears within the unceded territories of member nations. The September 2013 telephone poll conducted by McAllister Opinion Research for the CFN Bear Working group shows that 87 percent of British Columbians surveyed agree with the ban, with 71 percent "strongly" in favour.

Angus McAllister, president of McAllister Opinion Research, said that 91 percent of hunters surveyed "agree that their fellow hunters should respect First Nations laws and customs when on First Nations territory. And 95 percent of hunters agree that people should not be hunting if they're not prepared to eat what they kill."

Despite the ban, a young grizzly bear first sighted by field technicians camping in the Kwatna estuary during spring, was killed by trophy hunters in May 2013. The bear, named 'Cheeky' by the technicians for its playful curiosity, was shot three times while he browsed in an open field. His head, paws and skin were cut off for trophies by the hunters, and the rest of his body left to rot in the estuary.

Housty said that the "so-called sport is a violation of First Nations laws and customs," and that the poll "shows people across the province share these values. Trophy hunting for bears is wasteful and unfair."

Steve Thomson, Minister of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations told the Vancouver Sun that he "[doesn't] agree with the approach they've taken to ban the activity within their traditional area." Thompson argued that the province's "policy approach provides the appropriate balance and respects the traditional opportunities and economic contribution that both resident hunting and guide-outfitting provide for B.C."

Current BC provincial regulations permit bear trophy hunting in the Great Bear Rainforest during spring and fall. Hunters are allowed to pursue bears that have just woken from hibernation or are feeding by the banks of salmon streams. Some use planes or SUVs to spot the bears.

The Great Bear Rainforest encompasses the world's largest intact temperate rainforest, stretching along the BC coast from the Discovery islands to the Alaska panhandle. It is home to grizzly bears, black bears, and is the sole habitat of the white Kermode or "spirit bear."

The CFN argues that trophy bear hunting is wasteful, disrespectful to First Nations culture, and gets in the way of ecotourism ventures like wildlife viewing. It could also prove damaging to the ecosystem of the coastal rainforest, as "nobody knows how many bears there are in the Great Bear Rainforest," according to the site.

The Bears Forever project aims to shed more light on the role of bears in the ecosystem, through a science project bringing together the University of Victoria, the Wuikinuxv, Nuxalk, Kitasoo/Xai'xais and Heiltsuk Nations, and Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

"Bears are an essential part of our culture, and the coastal ecosystem," said Nuxalk biologist and elected councillor Megan Moody. "Here in the Great Bear Rainforest, the salmon they carry into the forests is responsible for up to 80% of the nutrients in our huge old-growth coastal trees. Whether we see it or not, all sorts of plants and animals rely on bears, including us as people."

The website encourages visitors to sign a pledge showing support for the First Nations ban on trophy bear hunting. Visitors can also make donations to help get the word out and alert hunters of the ban.

Image Credit: Douglas Neasloss / Bears Forever

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.