Category Archives: Environment

In the northern Great Plains, a search for ways to protect drinking water from fossil fuel industry pollution

North Dakota’s water supplies are at risk from contaminants from fracking wastewater, but residents are fighting back

December 1, 2020 — Editor’s note: This story is part of a nine-month investigation of drinking water contamination across the U.S. The series is supported by funding from the Park Foundation and Water Foundation. Read the launch story, “Thirsting for Solutions,” here.

Lisa Finley-DeVille started drinking bottled water around the same time her friend’s horses began to get sick and die. A half decade ago on the Fort Berthold Reservation in western North Dakota, Deville drove up to see her friend in the New Town area. The horses looked dehydrated and brittle, just skin and bones. They’re eating, but it’s like they’re not eating, her friend told her.

It was down the hill, at the pond the horses drank from, where the answer lurked. She believes wastewater from nearby oil and gas production leaked there, where the horses drank it up, poisoned. “I’m always worried,” Finley-Deville says. “This is why we don’t drink the water.”

Finley-DeVille is a member of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation, known as the Three Affiliated Tribes in Fort Berthold. Just a half mile (800 meters) from her house, in the town of Mandaree, oil and gas are produced by hydraulic fracturing (fracking), an increasingly popular approach to fossil fuel extraction that involves injecting pressurized water, sand, and chemicals into the Earth to release the gas or oil within.

Legal loopholes that exempt fracking from elements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and EPA hazardous waste laws are endangering surrounding communities, and putting drinking water at risk of contamination. Now, national, state, and local grassroots efforts, some led by Finley-DeVille, are calling for change.

The Problem

The Fort Berthold Reservation, along with the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation to the south, blister with oil underneath. The two areas sit within the prolific Williston Basin, a large rock unit stretched across North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and regions of Canada. From the first discovery of a natural gas well in the state in 1892 to today, western North Dakota has been home to the fossil fuel industry for more than a century. As of 2020, the state is the second largest crude oil producer in the United States (after Texas) and accounts for 2% of the nation’s natural gas reserves.

Thanks largely to fracking technology, oil production in North Dakota increased fourfold since 2010, with the state producing an unprecedented 45 million barrels in 2019. Although a collapse in oil demand in 2020 curbed the boom, fracking has left its mark.

Wastewater — a combination of “flowback,” a portion of the water used to fracture the rock to release fossil fuels that flows back to the surface, and naturally occurring “produced” water that the fracking process forces to the surface — is still ever present.

According to a report published by the nonprofit environmental organization Earthworks, fracking produced 19 billion gallons of wastewater in North Dakota in 2018 alone.

The risk to drinking water comes in two major ways. First, water used in the hydraulic drilling process can leak into aquifers and other groundwater supplies. Second, the wastewater that fracking produces can contaminate supplies when waste leaks from landfills that accept oil remains, when waste spill from trucks or pipelines moving it, when equipment fails, or when it leaks from unlined disposal pits.

Both flowback and produced water may contain heavy metals such as barium and lead, hydrocarbons, naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM), and incredibly high levels of salinity. Flowback and produced wastewater can also include chemical additive formulas, with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like benzene, ethylene glycol, methanol, and toluene. Between 2005 and 2013, the EPA identified 1,084 different chemicals reported in fracking formulas.

In North Dakota, wastewater is normally disposed of in storage pits or underground disposal wells, taken to treating plants that process the waste, or in some cases spread on roads as a de-icer. But sometimes, whether in transportation or equipment malfunction, the wastewater can spill into the environment, contaminating the land and water around and beneath it.

A pipeline rupture in 2014 spilled a million gallons of wastewater on the Fort Berthold Reservation and contaminated Bear Den Bay in Lake Sakakawea, a quarter mile from where the town of Mandaree draws its drinking water. Bill Suess, the program manager for spill investigation at the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality, says his team checked the intake system and didn’t find any elevated levels of contaminants, likely due to the amount of freshwater in the lake.

Avner Vengosh, a professor of earth and ocean sciences at Duke University, led a study in 2016 that found elevated levels of fracking-related contaminants in North Dakota at sites including Bear Den Bay. The researchers detected high levels of salts, ammonium, selenium, lead, and other toxics as well as radium, a naturally occurring radioactive element found in wastewater as many as four years after original spills. The team checked the Mandaree water intake as well, says Vengosh, but did not find any elevated levels.

Regulatory Issues

“There’s a large amount of the waste from the different parts of the oil and gas cycle,” says Amy Mall, a senior advocate at NRDC and consultant on the Earthworks report. “The waste can be very toxic and it also can leak or spill or otherwise get into the environment. So there are concerns about how the waste is regulated, whether it’s being regulated in a way that is adequately protective to human health.”

One concern is an exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act, known as the Halliburton loophole, that exempts industry from having to disclose the chemicals it uses in fracking and prevented the EPA from regulating fracking fluids. The loophole was established in an energy bill passed by the Bush/Cheney administration in 2005 and has been in effect ever since.

“The purpose of the [Safe Drinking Water Act] is to protect our drinking water, and the industry that is pumping toxic chemicals, carcinogenic chemicals, underground doesn’t even have to tell us what those are,” says Melissa Troutman, research and policy analyst for Earthworks.

The oil and gas industry is also exempt from federal EPA hazardous waste regulations and Superfund regulations, which exclude waste associated with the exploration, development, and production of crude oil and natural gas. Drilling fluids, produced water, and other waste are not disposed of as hazardous and are exempt from the hazardous cleanup process when it comes to spills or leaks. The industry has been exempt from these regulations since the 1970s, when the EPA temporarily proposed that oil and gas waste was not hazardous. This ruling became permanent in 1988 when the EPA determined the cost of treating the waste would slow production.

Several portions of North Dakota’s sandstone aquifers are exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act. The organization FracTracker Alliance calculated hundreds of brine and crude oil spills throughout the region. More recently, a 34,000-gallon wastewater pipeline spilled north of New Town in June this year and two pipeline spills deposited 21,000 gallons of wastewater into a Missouri River tributary in 2019. According to the North Dakota government’s spill database, more than 400 wastewater spills were reported in 2018.

Several portions of North Dakota’s sandstone aquifers are exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA has determined the portions do not currently serve as a source of water and will not serve as one in the future, allowing the oil and gas industry to use the aquifer for extraction and disposal of waste. There are three aquifer exceptions in the Fort Berthold Reservation, according to the EPA Underground Injection Control Program, all used for produced water disposal. Once used, that portion of the aquifer can never be used for drinking water in the future if needed.

Citizen Action

For Finley-DeVille, solving fracking and wastewater comes down to these regulations. She is co-founder and treasurer of the Fort Berthold Protectors of Water and Earth Rights, or POWER— an organization formed in 2015 to reduce the impacts of the oil boom in her community. Since its start, she and her husband, Walter DeVille, have worked with the nonprofit environmental organization Dakota Resource Council and Earthworks, among others, to campaign for more regulations and more information on what contaminants are involved in fracking.

“There’s a right way to do this,” Finley-DeVille says. “It’s creating those laws and environmental justice and enforcing it … making sure [industry] is held accountable and responsible.”

Fort Berthold POWER sued the Bureau of Land Management in 2018 after the agency rolled back the methane waste prevention rule, which is meant to reduce venting, flaring, and leaking from oil and gas operations. Members of the Fort Berthold POWER also went to speak in Washington D.C., where they presented infrared images of harmful methane emissions from well pads – a spot where multiple wells are drilled – within their community. This rollback was struck down in 2020.

Currently, the organization is fighting the recent rollbacks of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a 50-year-old law requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of their actions, such as permit applications or land and water management. The new rollbacks limit this review and community input. President-elect Joe Biden has vowed to reverse these rollbacks.

This past summer, New York became the first state to close the hazardous-waste loophole, meaning that oil and gas waste will now be treated as other hazards.“NEPA is very important and significant,” Finley-DeVille says. “Everything that’s under NEPA protects us as [Indigenous and Native] peoples, that protects our gravesites, our historical and traditional cultural sites, it protects our water … all that’s in danger now.”

Troutman of Earthworks says the regulatory loopholes must be closed to prevent further spilling, clean up current spills, and address drinking water contamination. This past summer, New York became the first state to close the hazardous-waste loophole, meaning that oil and gas waste will now be treated as other hazards. Pennsylvania and New Mexico are looking to do the same.

While North Dakota has not closed these regulatory gaps, local efforts such as DeVille’s work have picked up steam. Just this month, Williams County, northwest of the Fort Berthold Reservation, extended a yearlong moratorium on a proposed landfill for radioactive oilfield waste by six months, with the county board of commissioners citing a desire to consider options for regulations and restrictions first.

Finley-DeVille, for her part, recently took an bigger step toward change as well, running for state senate in November. Though she didn’t win, she is working with the Native American Caucus now to get specific representation for the reservation at the North Dakota senate and the house. The quest for clean land, air, and water is far from over. “That’s the reason I do what I do,” she says.

Water for Coal Developments: Where Will It Come From?

Leave a reply

Photo by Phil Whitehouse (CC BY 2.0)

The Government of Alberta (GoA) is hell-bent on facilitating the development of new coal mines in the Province. To that end, it purported to rescind the long-standing Coal Development Policy (CDP) of 1976 effective June 1, 2020. The CDP prevented development of coal resources in Category I lands on the eastern slopes of the Rockies and only permitted the development of new underground mines (rather than open-pit mines) in Category II lands (see Figure 1, below, also available here).

An application for judicial review of the decision to rescind the CDP is pending: Blades et al v Alberta.

Meanwhile, several new coal mining projects are at various stages of review. These projects include Riversdale/Benga’s Grassy Mountain Project currently under review by a joint review panel of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), Montem’s Tent Mountain Mine, Atrum’s Elan and Isolation Mines, and the Cabin Ridge Coal Project Ltd. (for further details see Oldman Watershed Council, Coal Mining in the Oldman Watershed, July 30, 2020).

These mines will all require approvals under the Coal Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c C-17 and other regulatory statutes, but they will also require something else – water. And water in the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB) – and especially within the Oldman River Basin – is in short supply. Indeed, the SSRB (with the exception of the Red Deer Basin) has long been considered to be over-allocated in terms of licensed appropriations and accordingly it (outside the Red Deer Basin) has been closed to new licence applications since 2007 (with some exceptions discussed below). In closing the basin, the GoA was giving effect to the terms of the approved Water Management Plan for the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB WMP).

Source: Water for Coal Developments: Where Will It Come From? |

Proposed coal mine will ‘decapitate’ Grassy Mountain in southern Alberta
Historic Alberta coal community wrestles with plans for new mining
Grassy Mountain Coal Project Public Hearings to begin on October 27, 2020
Saying no to a coal comeback: The Vista coal mine
Selenium’s coal mining impact on the environment
Mountaintop coal mine hearings to begin amidst fears of pollution, development rush

COVID-19 recovery is an opportunity to tackle worsening climate crisis: New report

Leave a reply

Smoke from wildfires blankets downtown Calgary.
(Shutterstock)

Courtney Howard, University of Calgary

We are at a moment of overlapping planetary health emergencies: COVID-19 and climate change. Both have their origins at the intersection of humanity and the rest of the natural world, both exacerbate pre-existing health inequities and both have the ability to bring health systems and economies to their knees.

The health impacts of COVID-19 are well-known — those of climate change less so. A new report by the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change, an international collaboration among 38 leading academic institutions and U.N. agencies, shows that as the globe warms humans are experiencing increasing heat emergencies, wildfires, severe weather, trouble with food yields and potential for novel infectious diseases.

We need to “multisolve” — manage COVID-19 and climate change at the same time, looking for the sweet spots where a single measure can deliver the triple-win of improving public health, contributing to a sustainable economy and reducing the drivers of future crises.

The Canadian policy brief associated with the Lancet report has suggestions for doing just that.

Protect our homes

The report shows a record 2,700 heat-related deaths occurred among people over the age of 65 in Canada in 2018. Globally, the last two decades have seen a 59 per cent increase in heat-related mortality in older people.

The economic costs are also growing: work hours lost due to extreme heat exposure were 81 per cent higher in 2015-19 compared to 1990-94. Immediate action is required.

Many Canadians have had their living circumstances made precarious through COVID-19. In its fall budget update, the federal government announced $1 billion in funding, through the Rapid Housing Initiative, to be used for the construction of modular housing and affordable housing units.

All of the projects funded through this and other federal construction and retrofit programs should be evaluated for their location relative to flood-prone areas, their ability to ensure adequate ventilation and air filtration to cope with heat emergencies and wildfire smoke, and their alignment with our goal of living in a net-zero nation by 2050.

Clean the air

We must also clear the air of the pollution we can control. The Lancet report shows that in 2018 there were 7,200 premature deaths in Canada related to fine particulate air pollution from human-caused sources. This is four times higher than the number of deaths from transport accidents.

The largest portion, found by the Lancet to be over 30 per cent, was due to emissions from households, such as burning fuel for heating. That means that energy efficient retrofits can save lives!

Pollution from cars, trucks and other transport was shown in the report to be responsible for 17 per cent of deaths due to fine particulates in 2018. It is also responsible for 30 per cent of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. Investments in zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and collective transport, such as electric vehicle charging stations and electric buses are huge wins for health.

Cyclists riding down a tree-lined path in a city. — Cyclists commute in London, U.K., in July 2020.
(Shutterstock)

Active transport investments have the added benefit of increasing physical activity, which reduces chronic disease. A recent study showed that compared to those who commute by private motorized vehicles, all-cause mortality was reduced by 20 per cent in those who cycle, and 10 per cent in rail commuters, with walk commuting associated with a seven per cent lower incidence of cancer. In the United Kingdom, investments in cycling infrastructure have been found to deliver about five British pounds of health and social benefits for every pound invested

Build resilience

Finally, we need to increase the resilience of health systems. In addition to ensuring health-care structures are prepared for floods and fires in terms of siting, adequate ventilation systems, and more, we must take another look at supply chains.

We learned through the pandemic that producing personal protective equipment (PPE) at home helps to ensure its availability in the face of supply chain disruption. We’ve also seen the disadvantages of not having the ability to produce the leading COVID-19 vaccines at home.

With climate set to drive further health-related emergencies as well as economic crises a shift from a culture of efficiency to one of resiliency is required. We could decrease our healthcare-related footprint and reduce the risk of supply disruption by switching to reusable medical supplies such as gowns and blood pressure cuffs.

The proposed national formulary, a good first step towards a pharmacare system, can also serve as a list of essential medicines considered for domestic production. Co-ordinated work between the public and the private sector, potentially including the creation of new crown corporations, could help ensure supply of critical items, as it did during the Second World War.

A hinge moment

Canada is now full of armchair epidemiologists, but few of us could draw an approximation of the country’s projected warming curve. A leap in understanding is required: this forecast must inform planning in all sectors.

Canada is warming at about double the global rate. Under all feasible emission scenarios it will be about 1.8C warmer than a 1986-2005 baseline by the time today’s newborns are in their twenties, rising to 6C by the time they are in their 60s if we do not urgently decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

As the Lancet report says, unless immediate action is taken this will threaten not only lives and livelihoods, but also compromise the hospitals and clinics we depend on.

COVID-19 is a hinge moment in human society — a time to pause, to reset. Although health workers have been appropriately lauded through this pandemic for the care they are providing, it is becoming clear that from wearing masks to retrofitting our homes, we all share the responsibility, and the honour, of saving lives.

Courtney Howard, Clinical associate professor, Department of Family Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Mounties may have broken law during N.B. anti-fracking protests, says watchdog

Leave a reply

Amanda Polchies of Elsipogtog First Nation

Some RCMP tactics during the 2013 anti-shale gas protests in New Brunswick may have broken the law, while other practices raise concerns about how Mounties conduct surveillance on protesters, according to an investigation by the force’s watchdog.

The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission released its final report this morning on how the RCMP responded to anti-fracking protests that erupted into a riot in the fall of 2013 near Elsipogtog First Nation in Kent County, N.B.

While the 200-plus-page report notes many officers acted reasonably, it flags deep-seated concerns with the way Mounties gather intelligence, restrict individuals’ movement during protests and approach Indigenous culture.

Source: Mounties may have broken law during N.B. anti-fracking protests, says watchdog | CBC News

Amanda Polchies of Elsipogtog First Nation

I would like to introduce myself first. Hello my name is Amanda Polchies I am a Lakota Sioux and Mikmaq woman and I live in Elsipogtog First Nation.

I am the woman who knelt in the road with my feather and prayed in front of a line of armed RCMP officers. They were hired by SWN Resources to raid our peaceful camp on highway 134, just outside of Rexton New Brunswick.

October 17, 2013 started off with a call out on Facebook for help. The 134 highway camp had been raided and our Warriors had been arrested. The call out for help was clear. Everyone who could get to the camp should.

Videos emerged of armed RCMP and tactical armed force units pointing guns at women, our children and our elders with footage of attack dogs barking viciously wanting to be let lose on my people. I couldn’t watch anymore and knew I had to be there with my people. I heard the call out and I was going to answer. I didn’t know how I was going to help but I knew I needed to be there.

My head was pounding and I had a fever of 101 but I couldn’t just stand by and do nothing. I kissed my baby son. Told him I loved him and gave him a hug. He looked at me and smiled. I gave him to my sister in law and left. I jumped in my car with 3 others and we headed out.[Read more]

Elispogtog anti-fracking blockade had ‘violent Aboriginal extremists’ according to former RCMP intelligence analyst

Angel Moore
Dec 02, 2020

Tim O’Neil was also the administrator an RCMP Facebook group that contained racist comments.

Watch the video

A former criminal intelligence analyst for the RCMP who reported that an energy project in New Brunswick was up against “violent Aboriginal extremists” was also the administrator of a Facebook group which featured current and former Mounties, at times, making racist and disparaging remarks about Indigenous Peoples.

For six years Tim O’Neil’s duties included putting together reports for the top brass at the RCMP on issues including threats to energy projects in Canada by Indigenous groups or environmental organizations.

One of these reports, Criminal Threats to the Canadian Petroleum Industry, which is available publicly, is a criminal intelligence assessment report about the 2013 anti-fracking protests led by people in Elsipogtog First Nation near Rexton, New Brunswick.

Along with using the phrase “violent Aboriginal extremists,” O’Neil’s 2014 report also uses wording that includes “criminal intentions of the eco-extremists and violent rhetoric.

“Analysis of existing intelligence and open source reporting indicates that violent Aboriginal extremists are using the internet to recruit and incite violence and are actively engaging in direct physical confrontation with private company officials” says the report under the “Aboriginal Opposition” heading. [Read more]

What Joe Biden’s climate plan means for Canada

Leave a reply

Joe Biden speaks about climate change and wildfires affecting western states on Sept. 14, 2020, in Wilmington, Del.
(AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Robert O’Brien, McMaster University

The crucial words came during the second United States presidential debate on Oct. 22. In a discussion about climate change and energy, Democratic candidate Joe Biden declared that he would lead a transition to renewable energy:

“I would transition from the oil industry, yes.”

He also promised to eliminate federal subsidies to the oil industry and move to net-zero emissions by 2050. President Donald Trump, sensing a major blunder by his opponent, called on voters in Pennsylvania, Texas, Oklahoma and Ohio to vote against Biden’s energy plans.

The moment was noteworthy because it highlighted the new political importance of climate change and energy policy in U.S. politics. The Democratic candidate, now the president-elect, enthusiastically committed to taking action on climate change and energy transition. What’s equally significant is that Biden’s strong climate change position doesn’t appear to have hurt him in the key swing state of Pennsylvania or in the general election more broadly.

Serious climate plan

Although Biden’s climate plan is not as ambitious as the Green New Deal advocated by the left of the Democratic Party, his plans are serious.

He has called for a “Clean Energy Revolution” that includes mandatory emission cuts from electric utilities and support for electric vehicles. An interesting aspect of his overall plan is a commitment to spend at least 40 per cent of funds in historically disadvantaged areas.

Biden’s energy revolution will be limited by several factors, however.

His efforts will be constrained by the Democrats’ failure so far to win the Senate — two runoff elections in Georgia in early January will determine what party controls the chamber — combined with continued opposition from the fossil fuel industry and communities dependent upon fossil fuels.

Implications for Canada

Nevertheless, Biden can be expected to move ahead in response to climate science and pressure by some of his key constituencies, such as young people and progressives. This has significant implications for Canada and Canadians.

Any Canadians hoping for U.S. government support for the ongoing expansion of Canada’s fossil fuel infrastructure are likely going to be disappointed.

An example of this is the Keystone XL pipeline. Designed to bring Canadian oilsands bitumen to American refineries, its approvals were halted by former president Barack Obama in 2015 and renewed by Trump.

Although the Alberta and Canadian governments continue to champion the project, Biden has said he will cancel regulatory authorization, declaring that the U.S. has no need for oilsands crude.

People hold signs against the Keystone XL pipeline. — Opponents of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada are seen demonstrating in sub-freezing temperatures on in October 2019 in Billings, Mont.
(AP Photo/Matthew Brown)

Politically, this is a relatively painless action for Biden to burnish his climate change credentials. Canadian government and industry arguments about the need for more pipelines face an uphill battle.

More competition

A second implication is that Canadian industry can expect to see more competition from U.S. firms climbing on the climate change bandwagon. American companies will ramp up clean energy technologies and products. The question is whether Canadian-based industry will be up to the challenge and receive adequate government support.

There is some indication that even some of the most anti-environmental politicians are slowly starting to recognize the urgency to take climate action. Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford has vigorously campaigned against any form of a carbon tax and rolled back measures supporting renewable energy.

Justin Trudeau speaks at a news conference while Doug Ford appears on a screen beside him. — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau takes part in a news conference at the Ford Connectivity and Innovation Centre in Ottawa in October 2020, joined virtually from Oakville by Ontario Premier Doug Ford.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

Yet he also recently committed $295 million to the Ford car company for its plans to build electric vehicles in Ontario.

This realization of the significant economic opportunities offered by green technologies opens up the door to a more evidence-based discussion of how public policy can support both a green economy and economic growth.

Managing the energy transition

A third implication is that Canada needs to have a serious discussion about how we can manage an energy transition to renewable fuels just as Biden is pledging to do south of the border.

The transition is coming. The question is whether Canada will turn it into an opportunity to clean our air and environment, or make the transition more difficult by delaying action and spending vast sums to maintain fossil fuel production and employment.

The energy transition is a challenge facing all countries, but it will be particularly difficult for Canada because so much of our economy and large regions of our country are heavily dependent on the exploitation of fossil fuels.

Assistance for affected communities and industries is vital, but at the moment, many politicians are more comfortable denying the necessity and inevitability of the changes that are coming.

Emulate Biden plan

A final implication is that programs designed to help Canadians transition to clean energy should take a leaf out of the Biden plan and target assistance to communities that have been historically disadvantaged by industrialization and fossil fuel development.

Indigenous communities that have been marginalized and harmed by other people’s exploitation of natural resources, as well as racialized and poor communities exposed to dangerous environmental risks, need to be integrated into clean energy spending.

People walk through a forest. — People pause in a forested area along the Brunette River where trees are to be felled as part of Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, during a guided tour in Burnaby, B.C., in August 2020, led by Indigenous leaders and environmental groups.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck

The president-elect is committed to moving on the issue of climate change. Important parts of his electoral coalition are also adamant that he oversee a transition to renewable energy. Equally important, his policies reflect the overwhelming scientific evidence that aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is required to avoid serious economic and social consequences.

Can Canada respond similarly?

There is a discussion forum topic with a similar theme that’s titled, “How the U.S. election outcome could affect Canada’s environment and energy future” if anyone wants to discuss this topic.

>Robert O’Brien, Professor of Political Science, McMaster University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Steve MacLellan

Ramble On

Category Archives: Environment

In the northern Great Plains, a search for ways to protect drinking water from fossil fuel industry pollution

Water for Coal Developments: Where Will It Come From?

COVID-19 recovery is an opportunity to tackle worsening climate crisis: New report

Mounties may have broken law during N.B. anti-fracking protests, says watchdog

What Joe Biden’s climate plan means for Canada

Related Content

Related articles

Related Discussion Group Posts

Protect our homes

Clean the air

Build resilience

A hinge moment

Amanda Polchies of Elsipogtog First Nation

Elispogtog anti-fracking blockade had ‘violent Aboriginal extremists’ according to former RCMP intelligence analyst

Angel Moore Dec 02, 2020

Tim O’Neil was also the administrator an RCMP Facebook group that contained racist comments.

Watch the video

Serious climate plan

Implications for Canada

More competition

Managing the energy transition

Emulate Biden plan

Angel Moore
Dec 02, 2020