Connecting People, Knowledge, and the Environment in Remote Canada

tree with climate knowledge

The Torngat Mountains are gorgeous and after reading this article I now have another place on this beautiful planet that I want to see in person. The article isn’t just about the landscape, it’s about the land and water. There’s currently an effort underway to catalog all the knowledge of locals who have historical wisdom about where they live and combine that with current scientific measurements. This collaboration will help us understand this unique area and repair institutional relationships.

It will also form a part of a 15-chapter research document Laing, Saunders and about 60 other people are putting together as part of the feasibility study for the Inuit-led national marine conservation area — currently dubbed the Torngats Area of Interest. The purpose is to gather all of the information both from western and Inuit Knowledge systems, and to identify any gaps in that understanding of the marine ecosystem beyond the coast of the Torngat Mountains. The two knowledge systems are considered equal. If, for example, western research shows a certain habitat map for char and the Inuit Knowledge study shows an additional area, the feasibility assessment will include both, Laing explains. And climate change is a consideration in every chapter, he adds: what they know now and what the potential implications of climate change could be. “Which is really important because that allows for some forward thinking and planning on that,” he says.

Read more.
Thanks to Trevor!

A New Guide to Science Advocacy

Scientists used to think that sharing the facts and evidence of an issue was enough to sway policy makers and the general public. Unfortunately, with many issues facing us today there are vested interests looking to derail civil discourse around topics like climate change and vaccines. Today Evidence for Democracy launched a toolkit for scientists to better advocate for evidence based policy decisions. The idea now is to provide scientists with guides on how to share facts and evidence so that the general public can benefit from their research and not be manipulated by lobbying campaigns and the like.

Whether you want to dip your toes into advocacy for the first time, or are looking to fine-tune your skills, this guide will help you expand your toolbox of advocacy strategies, and build and nurture relationships with decision-makers.

Fostering a better relationship between scientists and policy-makers is not just about enabling ground-breaking discoveries or strengthening the economy. It’s also about how science can serve the collective good — for a healthier, more prosperous, and just society.

Within the guide, you will also find firsthand experiences from parliamentarians reflecting on their experiences interacting with the science community. Personally, I’m still thinking about this quote:

“Conversations around science are frequently centered around funding. They are less often about how [the] government can make better evidence informed decisions using the research that is being produced by the stakeholders I meet with.” — Member of Parliament

Read more.

Rethinking Assets can Alter Our Political Equation of Climate Change


They emphasis the need to address asset revaluation concerns in the context of climate politics and suggests that a focus on domestic politics is crucial. They also discusses the role of obstructionist interest groups (like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers) and their influence on climate policy, pointing out that their opposition is often driven by concerns related to asset revaluation. If we put the concerns of asset holders who are losing their land and investments to climate change we can alter the conversation about what assets deserve our protection and which ones don’t.

Climate change is a clear threat to the LIO in either of two probable scenarios. One possibility is that the members of the LIO will do nothing much to mitigate climate change. That would represent a major substantive failure and a blow to the LIO’s legitimacy.Footnote 69 Alternatively, states might adopt pro-climate policies, but do so unevenly, with some implementing stronger and costlier policies than others. That unevenness would threaten the economic openness of the LIO, as jurisdictions with costlier pro-climate policies face competitive pressures to adopt measures such as border adjustment tariffs. In either scenario, climate politics is important for understanding the LIO’s future. The distributional consequences of climate change and decarbonization—and the obstructionist reactions that they generate—will be central.

Read more.

Canada Starts to Reduce Oil & Gas Subsidies

A country that loves extracting fossil fuels has begun to clean up its tax rebates for the destructive oil and gas industry. Canada spent over $15 BILLION on subsidies for the oil and gas sector in 2021 alone, which isn’t just bad it’s literally funding the destruction of the planet. Thankfully the government has figured out that destroying the land for short term profit isn’t a good idea when the industry profiting kills everything it touches.

Starting this year the Canadian government will begin the long process of cutting tax loopholes and subsidies for oil and gas, which generate billions in profits. Why fund an industry that is insanely profitable that harms people and the planet?

Burning fossil fuels is one of the main drivers of climate change, so ending public spending that supports the industry is crucial. Ending fossil fuel subsidies frees up those funds to support things like renewable energy and electrification. Clean energy is of paramount importance as the world is under pressure to slash greenhouse gas emissions more than 40 per cent by the end of the decade.

“Moving forward, every subsidy that the government would want to grant to the oil and gas sector would have to go through this filter — any department of the federal government, whether it’s finance, international trade, natural resources — to ensure that we do not give federal dollars to support the production of oil and gas or coal,” said Guilbeault. “This is a fundamental shift from what we’ve done in this country for decades.”

Read more.

Taxing the Rich Will Save the Planet

Luxury taxes can save us from climate collapse and we should start raising taxes now. You, the reader, will not have your taxes increased and nor are you likely to be impacted by a luxury tax; however, the benefits you will gain from a luxury tax are immense.

We already know that lifestyles of the rich and famous kill the environment faster than average lifestyles. It’s hard to compare the carbon footprint of the wealthy to people living in developing economies since the difference is so vast.

Researchers have concluded that the most ethical way to get to a carbon neutral economy is to tax the people what are over consuming.

Not only was the luxury tax “fairer” based on household income—affecting low-income households less and high-income households more—it also was slightly better at reducing yearly household emissions in the very short-term. The researchers note that this might be because it is more feasible to forgo luxury purchases than an essential purchase if the price increases.

While the luxury tax proved fairer in all countries studied, the researchers found that, in low-income countries, a uniform tax could also be fair. In South Africa, for example, low-income households already spend much less on fuel or heating than high-income households. Thus, a uniform carbon tax is already targeting high-income groups by design. In contrast, the luxury carbon tax is most beneficial in terms of fairness when applied to high-income countries. This tax can better account for flexible, nonessential purchases in countries like the United States, where it is difficult to avoid carbon-emitting activities like driving a car in a low-income lifestyle.

Read more.

Scroll To Top