In May of 2024, after watching the Dried Up documentary, I reached out to Harley Bastien of the Piikani First Nation. I asked Harley to tell me what I am missing in my thinking and he delivered. Reviewing this conversation today, I notice that I open with reference to Dixon Hammond and the Beaver Creek Watershed Crew, as well as giving power to landowners, not First Nations—yikes! A couple weeks ago at the Chiefs Steering Committee’s Think Tank on Water in Edmonton that the term “stakeholder” refers to taking a stake. Makes me wonder if it was not a coincident that I worked in the “Stakeholder Relations” department for the oil and gas industry rather than the Indigenous Relations department.

The conversation begins with me situating the dialogue in the context of watershed protection and headwaters stewardship in Southern Alberta, describing how a local council brought together Indigenous representatives, residents, experts, and council members to ensure landowners lead decisions about their river system. I explain that despite 20 years of local work to care for the river, the broader headwaters remain vulnerable, emphasizing that logging, coal mining, and road building damage water sources and calling for restoration of the eastern slopes as protected “taps” for regional water.

Harley introduces himself through his Blackfoot identity, explaining that he comes from the Ani people and sees himself as part of a lineage stretching back perhaps 10,000 generations, with a way of life “etched” into his being. He describes being taught that humans are not above other creation, that everything—including plants, animals, air, and even beings beyond Earth—has a spirit, and that Blackfoot teachings acknowledge “star people” or star beings who have visited Earth. Alongside this traditional upbringing, he recounts his “Canadian” education, brief work in oil and gas that he left because of its destructive impacts, and his subsequent decades in environmental consulting, where he deliberately avoided government employment and instead built private-sector initiatives like Harmony Walkers and Buffalo Rock Tipi Camp to blend Indigenous and Western science. He also serves on Alberta’s Indigenous Wisdom Advisory Panel but criticizes its focus on making oil sands appear acceptable, calling this misaligned with his values.

As the discussion deepens, Harley contrasts Indigenous land-based learning with Western education, arguing that many scientists and professionals learn about land from computers and brief field visits rather than living on the land, which he sees as “missing the whole boat.” He recounts a vision quest that led him to “save the land” as a way of saving his culture and all those generations, and he critiques how perspectives are shaped by greed, arrogance, and narrow upbringing. He is sharply critical of Western schooling and religion, calling education “one of the roots of all evil” when it transmits lies, such as teaching that Columbus “discovered” a land already inhabited, or presenting sanitized histories that erase Indigenous presence and contributions. He denounces churches as often functioning like financial institutions and “torture chambers,” rejects mythologized religious narratives, and insists that children are being failed when they are not taught the truth about history, land, and humanity’s dependence on the rest of creation.

Harley then links these critiques directly to environmental crisis and intergenerational responsibility, stressing that trees, animals, air, and water do not need humans, but humans absolutely need them. He condemns short-term, self-centered thinking focused on personal wealth, three-year returns, and material legacies while ignoring breathable air, clean water, and the broader web of life, arguing that most people are “me and ours” oriented and unwilling to look 100–200 years ahead. He describes “giving back” as a total life commitment—every day his “boots hit the floor” he is working for Mother Earth and all his relatives, not just human descendants, and he criticizes performative or minimal efforts, unpaid though his own work often is. Using stories from his childhood berry-picking in the mountains, he illustrates teachings about leaving enough for other beings, staying quiet to respect mountain spirits, and the warning that if those spirits leave, the mountains and all dependent life will suffer—contrasting this with today’s “three ring circus” of industrial activity and recreation in the headwaters that threatens to dry rivers and spark future “water wars.”

In closing, Harley asserts that Mother Earth will survive and reorganize without humans, as she has before, and warns that if humanity continues on its current path, nature will eventually “flush the toilet of man,” a force no wealth, science, or military can stop. He expresses that he personally has no hope under present conditions but invites others to prove him wrong by changing, emphasizing that the first step is truth—especially in education—through revising curricula to correct myths about figures like Columbus and Cortez and acknowledging that colonial powers had no legitimate right to claim Indigenous lands.

Follow and Support: Harley’s legacy lives on in his son, Trevor Bastien

The Surest Way to Block Open-Pit Coal Mining

Join our Piikani Partners in asserting their constitutional aboriginal right to healthfully consume fish from their traditional waters of the Crowsnest and Oldman Rivers.

This episode previously aired in February of 2024, Colin Smith of Land Lovers Network joined Alex MacGillivray (my former co-host) and I. Colin and I connected through anti–clear‑cut logging advocacy with the Calgary Climate Hub in Southern Alberta. Colin introduces himself as a lifelong Southern Albertan with a background as an electrician, small business owner, and caregiver, now extending his caregiving to land and ecosystems; he describes how caring for his grandmother during the pandemic led him to deep engagement with soil microbiology, the soil food web, and high‑quality composting, culminating in Compost Club meetups at an urban farm hub in Calgary.

A major portion of this discussion unpacks the “nine planetary boundaries” popularized by Joe Brewer’s work on regenerating Cascadia, which I frame as “laws of the land” as literal earth system limits and a way to define the polycrisis humanity faces. Colin walks through boundaries including climate change, biosphere integrity, land‑system change, freshwater change, biogeochemical flows (nitrogen and phosphorus), ocean acidification, atmospheric aerosol loading, stratospheric ozone depletion, and novel entities like microplastics and PFAS chemicals, emphasizing that most thresholds have already been crossed and that nitrogen/phosphorus flows are “most off the chart.” Colin adds detailed examples such as Lake Winnipeg’s blue‑green algae and microcystin issues linked to phosphates and dams, and notes Geological Survey of Canada findings that such formations are associated with several major past extinctions, while Colin and Alex highlight the ubiquity of microplastics and PFAS, including tire‑derived microplastics reaching even remote mountain lakes. They stress that these interacting boundaries create feedbacks—such as aerosols temporarily masking warming—and that recent removal of Sulphur from marine fuels may have accelerated atmospheric warming, illustrating how different boundaries can counteract or amplify each other.

In response to this crisis, our conversation shifts to bioregions and ecological‑based economies, drawing on Indigenous territorial perspectives and watershed‑based governance. Colin explains bioregions as nested, fractal landscape units defined by watersheds, flora, fauna, and climate, using Southern Alberta’s Bow River Basin and its tributaries (Ghost, Jumping Pound, Elbow, Highwood, Sheep, Oldman) as examples, and contrasts this with nation‑state borders and modern capitalism’s pull toward resource extraction and urban concentration. Alex and Colin discuss territorial self‑governance and local food systems, citing Redcliff, Alberta’s large greenhouse complex as a model for year‑round vegetable production that reduces transport emissions, and proposing co‑locating greenhouses with existing gas wells to use natural gas and captured carbon for food production. Colin and I then highlight social design principles from Joe Brewer’s work: defining shared identity and purpose, equitable allocation of contributions and benefits, fair and inclusive decision‑making, fast conflict resolution, and “stability projects” as a starting point before deeper regeneration, all aimed at moving from a wasteful, ever‑growth economy toward collective, outcomes‑based systems.

Throughout, we grapple with the emotional and political dimensions of ecological collapse. Colin argues that recent spikes in wildfires, floods, drought, and other anomalies suggest we are “outside of the realm of survivability” for current lifestyles, and criticizes short‑term political thinking and promises of unlimited growth, calling instead for grassroots, mycelium‑like community organizing, unexpected alliances across political divides, and a redefinition of wealth away from material growth toward regeneration of natural abundance. He and I emphasize the need to face grief and fear together, avoid tribalism, and use nature itself—through initiatives like Land Lovers and Compost Club—as a healing, community‑building context that mirrors the diversity and interdependence of healthy ecosystems. The episode closes with me reiterating that the crisis is not just “climate change” but a nine‑facet planetary problem driven by a wasteful growth economy, and expressing hope that conversations like this, and potential collaboration with Joe Brewer, can help “pull the tapestry together” among many people already doing ecological work in Alberta and beyond.

For more information on Joe Brewer’s work, check out this YouTube playlist on bioregional organizing I made:

This conversation centers on plug-in or “balcony” solar systems and how to make them safe, legal, and accessible in Canada, particularly Alberta. Chris Cashen, CEO and co‑founder of Volta Home, explains that his Vancouver-based startup is building what they describe as the first compliant plug‑in solar solution for North America, having spent about a year on the project and recently completing lab validation with a utility partner and Powertech Labs in BC. A simple connection is meant to make rooftop or patio solar accessible to many types of occupants, including renters.

Dr. Joe Vipond from the Calgary Climate Hub describes their charity’s role in empowering Calgarians to participate in climate solutions, including through an electricity working group that became interested in European “balcony solar” as a way for renters, condo owners, and people without suitable roofs to join the energy transition. He notes that plug‑in solar can offset about a third of a household’s electricity use, which is significant in the current context of energy costs. I mention that jurisdictions like England are pushing such legislation in response to energy shortages linked to the war in Iran, framing this as a timely discussion. Joe and the host also highlight that current microgeneration regulations were written for larger rooftop systems, not small 800–1200 W plug‑in units, so the law simply hasn’t caught up yet.

Chris outlines the complex stakeholder landscape—safety and compliance bodies, utilities, authorities having jurisdiction, municipalities, and even fire departments—and explains that Volta Home began by working with Underwriters Laboratories and engaging CSA to create and harmonize UL 3700 across North America so manufacturers can build to a single standard and reduce costs. He describes how they then engaged their local utility to validate grid export and compensation for homeowners, noting that in Europe millions of such systems have been deployed, adding near utility-scale capacity in a short time and offering utilities a potential advantage if they support rather than block the technology. Looking ahead, Chris expects a UL 3700 technical committee to form around late fall to early winter, with a possible official standard by mid‑next year, after which “nano generation” policies—similar to Germany’s simple online registration for sub‑600/800 W systems—would be needed to unlock widespread adoption.

Joe explains that while anyone can technically assemble a panel and microinverter and plug it in today, doing so is illegal because current legislation requires an interconnection permit and a licensed electrician, making small systems uneconomical: systems might cost $800–$1,600, but the interconnection permit in Alberta is at least $4,000 plus roughly $1,000 in electrician costs. The Calgary Climate Hub is therefore pushing legislative changes to remove the interconnection requirement for these small systems, mandate compliance with standards like UL 3700, establish a “right to install” despite landlords or condo boards, and provide liability releases for utilities and other entities. Joe cites Europe’s more than four million installed systems and the absence of solar-related safety incidents (with only one fire tied to a battery system, which is not what they’re currently discussing) as evidence of safety. He calls plug‑in solar a “no‑brainer” for homeowners, utilities, and governments, and urges citizens to support the campaign via pluginsolarpower.ca by sending letters and signing petitions, while Chris recommends using that site as a central “single source of truth” and notes that federal policy, modeled on Germany or the UK, is needed to align standards, legislation, and market adoption across Canada.

Join the Calgary Climate Hub MONDAY, June 29 at the Sunalta Community Hall from 6-8:30 pm.

Please note: I am taking a break over the summer and will be running water conversation reruns from the past 3 season.

Reach out should you wish to discuss something urgent!

The conversation begins with two updates from me before Brad Lafortune of Public Interest Alberta announces a new campaign called “Together—NO!” aiming to oppose Premier Smith’s treasonous October 19, 2026 Alberta referendum which— beyond the illegal separation question—includes nine questions on immigration and constitutional issues handpicked, leading, and designed to secure “yes” votes aligned with a US agenda regardless of separation. Brad and I argue these questions scapegoat immigrants, attempt to rewrite the Constitution without public demand, and distract from real concerns like affordability, healthcare, education, and cost of living, framing the campaign as a collective, positive “no” to division, chaos, and rights erosion while affirming a desire to remain in Canada and protect democratic processes.

Public Interest Alberta is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, grassroots advocacy organization with about a thousand volunteers across the province, supported by unions such as Health Sciences and UNA, focused on public services and democracy and refusing government funding. They see themselves as a suitable vehicle to coordinate a large, four‑month, province‑wide campaign involving hundreds of volunteers and many partner organizations, including existing networks like Forever Canadian, Water Not Coal, Recall Nicoladies, and groups such as Alberta Voice and the Calgary Alliance for the Common Good, as well as faith communities and newcomer‑serving agencies. The campaign is explicitly framed as a “David and Goliath” effort against a well‑funded government communications push, with the speakers emphasizing the need for people‑powered organizing, financial donations, and broad civil‑society collaboration to send a clear message that “Alberta’s better than this referendum.”

A major component of the strategy is a robust, data‑driven approach: Together—NO! is working with an experienced Canadian polling firm to test assumptions, measure baseline attitudes, evaluate which messages are most and least effective, and see how government framing holds up when contrasted with fact‑ and values‑based counter‑arguments. We highlight how prior polling on issues like the polluter‑pay principle showed high support “when prompted,” revealing that awareness, not agreement, was the main gap—an insight we want to replicate here to tailor outreach, raise awareness of misleading question framing, and continually refine messaging through both polling and feedback from real conversations on the ground. This research will guide whether the campaign will address the referendum as a whole or focus on specific questions, and help them “meet people where they’re at” while keeping the core goal of securing “no” votes on the agenda.

Operationally, the campaign is built around a mix of digital infrastructure, regional organizing, and direct outreach. The website albertareferendum2026.org hosts a pledge form where people can commit to voting, volunteering, or donating, and serves as the central hub for staying in touch. We are developing regional campaigns in Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge, and likely other cities such as Grande Prairie and Fort McMurray, with plans for extensive canvassing, event tabling, literature drops for those uncomfortable with door‑knocking, and a “road show” in August and September across about 15 locations featuring campaign launches and town halls. Training is structured in two main tracks: “train‑the‑trainer” programs to build local leadership capable of running canvassing operations and regional campaigns, and canvassing workshops (including deep canvassing techniques) to prepare volunteers for hard conversations, equip them with facts about immigrants’ contributions and taxation, and build confidence for door‑to‑door engagement.

Throughout, Brad and I stress values of fairness, neighbourliness, and solidarity, arguing that most Albertans do not want to “punish” newcomers who work, pay taxes, and support communities, and that the government is trying to manufacture scapegoats and a “firewall” narrative that doesn’t reflect real Alberta values. We frame the campaign as an opportunity to build long‑term organizing capacity, empower local leaders, and create space for constructive, respectful conversations that both “agitate” their base and help people reach their own understanding, with the ultimate aim of emerging from the referendum with stronger democratic engagement and renewed focus on strengthening public services rather than pursuing divisive, racially charged constitutional experiments.

Take Action Saturday, June 27 from 11-4 pm.

A rally for Unity from 11 am to 1:45 pm at the McDougall Centre, then an Anti-AI Rally from 2-4 pm!

I am taking a hiatus from the podcast over the summer, I will be rerunning the conversations focused on water to highlight the people doing this work. Should something come up which needs to be discussed, in your opinion, please let me know.

I am speaking at both events tomorrow, I hope to see you there!

The conversation is with Jay White, a professional biologist in Alberta, who recounts his long involvement with the Alberta Water Council and its origins in the early 2000s under the province’s Water for Life strategy. He explains how the Council was conceived as part of a “nested” governance model: the Alberta Water Council at the provincial policy level, watershed planning and advisory councils (WPACs) at the basin level, and local watershed stewardship groups doing on‑the‑ground work. White describes the Council’s multi‑stakeholder composition—environmental NGOs, industry sectors, governments at all levels, and First Nations—emphasizing that participants left sectoral identities at the door to work collaboratively on water issues in a non‑adversarial, confidential setting. Over 22–23 years, he moved from representing the Alberta Lake Management Society to chairing the NGO caucus and serving as vice president, and he still meets with former NGO colleagues despite the Council’s dissolution.

White outlines the “Water for Life” strategy’s three pillars:

* safe, secure drinking water,

* healthy aquatic ecosystems, and

* reliable water supplies for a sustainable economy.

In its early years, the Council quickly tackled drinking water by reviewing 525 major facilities to ensure licensed operators and compliance. Subsequent work focused on water supply for the economy and attempted, with difficulty, to define and operationalize “healthy aquatic ecosystems,” including a failed attempt to define riparian areas that was rejected by government lawyers. Major outputs included a draft provincial wetland policy delivered in 2008, which the government only translated into the current policy in 2013, and a voluntary initiative where all water‑using sectors reduced water use by 30% within two years, a target the chair had chosen somewhat arbitrarily. White notes the Council also produced numerous documents on drought, floods, drinking water, and source water protection, largely through volunteer project teams supported by a small staff, arguing the province received exceptional value for minimal funding.

The turning point of the conversation is the Alberta government’s abrupt decision to terminate the Alberta Water Council. White recounts receiving a January 26 letter giving the Council 90 days to wind down, despite a grant that was supposed to run until late 2026, and being asked to chair the final full board meeting. He reads his “Jerry Maguire moment” statement, in which he condemns the decision as deeply disappointing and the process as a three‑month “erasure” of 23 years of collaborative governance, trust, and capacity. He stresses that the Council was not ineffective or obsolete but “patient” and “inconvenient to haste,” and warns that the loss of its advisory role will be felt later as policy gaps and fractured relationships. Afterward, colleagues reacted with stunned silence and later messages of support; White and others believe the 90‑day cutoff was designed to prevent the Council from securing new operational funding, which typically takes years to obtain. The host connects this to a broader pattern of “erasure,” including reports of documents being removed from government offices after the 2019 election and the rapid dismantling or absorption of major entities in the oil and gas sector.

Board Colleagues,

We then examine the broader dismantling of Alberta’s water governance architecture. Jay explains that WPACs are mandated to produce regular state‑of‑the‑watershed reports and integrated watershed management plans, but these plans are explicitly voluntary and lack regulatory hooks, leading some industry representatives to disengage once they realize there is no binding requirement. He notes that watershed stewardship groups, which implement on‑the‑ground projects like riparian fencing and off‑site watering, have lost a key funding conduit with the disappearance of the Land Stewardship Centre, creating competition for “paltry” remaining funds. With the Alberta Water Council gone at the top and stewardship funding cut at the bottom, only the WPACs remain, and their own funding agreements expire at the end of 2026, making 2027 a critical and uncertain year. I underscore that these structures were about ensuring clean, sufficient drinking water and functioning ecosystems that underpin the entire economy, and expresses alarm that advisory capacity is being casually removed.

In the latter part of the conversation, we connect Alberta’s situation to national and global biodiversity and climate commitments. White describes the federal “Force of Nature” policy, tied to Kunming biodiversity commitments and the goal of protecting 30% of land and waters by 2030, backed by $2.8 billion in funding. As a biologist working on wetland restoration projects, Jay was eager to see this funding support restoration and reclamation, especially given severe biodiversity losses—about 70% of aquatic species in North America and 40–50% of global biodiversity in the last 50 years—and the current “sixth major extinction” driven by humans. However, Alberta was skipped in the first funding round; White notes the provincial government claimed it did not need the money because 64% of Alberta (the green area) is Crown‑managed and supposedly “essentially undisturbed,” a claim he disputes by pointing to Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute data showing extensive human footprint and fragmentation.

Take Action: Write the ECCC and Alberta Environment Ministers

Subject: Enforce the “Force of Nature” Strategy in Alberta

To: [email protected]

Cc: [email protected] (Grant Hunter); your MLA, the Premier

Dear Hon. Julie Dabrusin,

It has come to my attention that Alberta did not receive any Federal grant money related to the Federal Nature Strategy. As a province with the largest ongoing environmental catastrophe underway—where interbasin transfers are being contemplated to sustain an outrageous level of steam injection and extraction, with growing groundwater contamination concerns, coupled with more than 275,000 conventional oil and gas sites to be restored—I am shocked our province did not seek or receive funding in this program.

Restoring nature is required for Alberta and Canada to regain ecological stability. Each province should receive funds and measure success through biodiversity and water monitoring and mitigation efforts.

Considering the energy and ecological cliff this province and country is facing (due to the war on Iran and the unchecked climate crisis), it is time to ensure this work aligns with Species at Risk and Land Stewardship Laws before it is too late. There is no question we face water bankruptcy if we do not take nature restoration work seriously.

Please advise how Environment and Climate Change Canada and Alberta Environment are working together to ensure the province takes its role seriously in these efforts. The federal government needs to cease oil and gas development, pipelines, tolls, or carbon capture and storage subsidies but rather co-invest in nature and water restoration with industries.

Sincerely,

Jenny Yeremiy, P. Geoph

This episode opens with the me sharing this as my fifth episode with Wesam Cooley and turning quickly to a discussion on the current war in West Asia, a continuation of long‑running Western imperialism in the region. We describe a major turning point on February 28, arguing that Iran is “rising” as a real world power and has reframed the regional “problem” as resistance to Western imperialism and settler colonialism. I I stress a Chinese‑inspired idea of an “inevitability of peace,” even as events on the ground feel the opposite, and asks how Iran’s approach connects to Lebanon, Gaza, and a new memorandum of understanding (MOU).

Wesam explains that the new MOU, pushed by the United States, has not been signed by Iran and is already being violated by Israel, which refuses to recognize that it applies to them and continues bombing Lebanon, including Beirut. He argues that Iran is in a position of military strength, confident it could “end this once and for all” if forced into an all‑out war, though at enormous human cost. We both emphasize that US‑Israeli strategy relies on deliberate attacks on civilians as a core military tactic, citing the bombing of a girls’ school and the broader pattern in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran. We criticize Western media as actively misleading on West Asia, praising Iran’s English‑language PressTV.ir as more accurate about on‑the‑ground realities than corporate Western outlets.

We then connect the war to global economic and energy dynamics, arguing that the US is masking crisis by draining oil reserves and manipulating markets, while Iran leverages its position in a broader struggle over fossil fuels. I describe US oil infrastructure like Cushing as “arteries” now running low, warning that restarting flows will be difficult and that the US is only a few weeks away from feeling severe impacts. I link this to Alberta’s role as a supplier and to the idea that investing in the “most expensive” military has not produced the most effective one, especially when facing a confident Iran willing to prolong the energy squeeze. Wesam notes that Western governments, including Canada, now largely support the deal with Iran to avoid “falling off a cliff,” while Israel alone vetoes peace through continued bombing, revealing its outsized leverage even over the Trump administration.

The discussion shifts to Zionism and settler colonialism, distinguishing between Christian Zionists, who see Israel as part of an apocalyptic prophecy, and Jewish Zionists, who view the land as divinely promised and expandable beyond Palestine into neighbouring states. I highlight the “Greater Israel” project and note that even as Israel loses militarily, it is still grabbing land in Lebanon, aided by a US president with a real‑estate mindset. Wesam explicitly labels Israel a settler‑colonial project akin to Canada, built on racist expansion, genocide, and the confinement of Indigenous peoples into “bantustans,” and argues that Iran, Palestine, and regional resistance movements have concluded they can no longer coexist with this settler colony. He warns that Israel’s deep push into Lebanon may be overextension, likening it to the board game Risk where an army stretches too thin and becomes vulnerable to counterattack.

From there, we pivot to Alberta and Canada, framing Alberta as a “minor front” of US empire where inter‑imperialist competition between the US and Europe plays out over pipelines, resources, and political alignment. Wesam describes competing pipeline visions—one east‑west to feed European markets and another southward backed by Premier Danielle Smith—alongside talk of Canada potentially joining the EU, which the US would oppose in favour of absorbing Canada itself. We connect this to a massive planned build‑out of AI data centres in Alberta, driven by natural gas and championed by figures like Kevin O’Leary, and warn that this expansion threatens water, ecosystems, and Indigenous rights while enriching external investors who can “take the money and run.” I describe the provincial referendum with nine “unconstitutional” questions that she believes are designed to deepen racial divisions, undermine rights, and invite US‑style enforcement (e.g., ICE‑like agencies), and she outlines her work with Public Interest Alberta’s “Together No” campaign to oppose these measures and broader separatist agendas.

In the final stretch, we centre Indigenous nations and Palestinian solidarity as crucial to any meaningful anti‑separatist or anti‑imperialist project. Wesam notes that treaty nations have become the strongest defenders of the land, in part because of long experience resisting Canadian and RCMP abuses, and mentions that chiefs are seeking to have Danielle Smith tried for treason. He argues that if Alberta ever gains a right to secede, every treaty nation must first have the right to secede from Alberta, and that white Canadians must commit to “absolute uncontested sovereignty” for Indigenous peoples and to ending projects like pipelines imposed over Indigenous opposition. He also points to a scandal around the suppression of a Gaza encampment at the University of Calgary, allegedly involving Mike Ellis and possibly Danielle Smith, as a potential lever to weaken the Smith government and its separatist ambitions, but insists this can only be used by an anti‑separatist movement that openly and fully supports Gaza and Palestinian liberation. The episode closes with both speakers stressing reciprocity and solidarity—between settlers, Indigenous nations, and West Asian communities—and inviting anti‑separatist leaders to an upcoming July 5 anti‑imperialist forum in Alberta to discuss how struggles in Palestine, West Asia, and the Americas are interconnected.

Post show media sources

* https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/pm-carney-says-hes-seen-tentative-us-iran-peace-deal-calls-conflict-worth-it/

* https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-war-united-states-israel-lebanon-deal-9.7237094

* Post Media Graphic & Post

* https://nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/details-of-us-iran-deal-revealed

* https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/12/business/cushing-oil-inventory

* https://fortune.com/2026/06/10/us-strategic-petroleum-reserve-depleted-lowest-level-since-reagan/

* Bonus market turmoil discussion courtesy of Kpler who offers global trade intelligence:

Meet Kpler at Stampede

I am attending the Kpler stampede party to get the scoop from this oil and gas market flows analyst directly.

The episode of The Gravity Well podcast features Jessica Chung from the Council of Canadians, focusing on AI data centres, their environmental and social impacts, and emerging cross‑Canada resistance movements.

Jessica introduces herself as a water and climate campaigner, formerly a Line 5 pipeline organizer with Sierra Club Canada, living in Guelph with her family. She shares a story about activist Kim Bradshaw lending her a car so Kim could travel by train to glue her hands to an airport tarmac in an anti–big oil action, illustrating “community in action.”

Jessica describes her unusual path into activism: she left law school after being diagnosed with fibromyalgia, then became a yoga teacher, which shaped her ability to “hold space” in movements. This conversation came after I watched a pro‑pipeline “Build Ontario Strong” ad promoting gas for AI infrastructure and wanted an Ontario perspective. Jessica recounts a recent two‑day Civil Society Summit on the AI industry, with 270 attendees and panels on Indigenous data sovereignty, environmental harms, gender‑based violence, labour, war, food systems, corporate accountability, and AI in media and arts. She stresses the summit was not about shaming everyday AI use (like email summarization) but about how AI is being used as a “front person” for oil and gas, justifying continued fossil fuel expansion under nationalist competition narratives.

Jessica frames AI as a neutral tool—like a hammer—whose impact depends on who controls it, what rules exist, and how power is exercised. I echo this, arguing AI can be used for “pro‑social” purposes such as organising toward a water‑centred economy, minimizing energy use, and keeping systems local rather than controlled by foreign entities. I link AI expansion to abandonment of international law and corporate accountability, warning of ecological collapse and citing examples of water contamination and freshwater loss in places like Texas and Louisiana.

Jessica explains that civil society is trying to reclaim the AI narrative from “tech bros” who have captured political attention, and to invite everyday people into the conversation. She notes that youth, highly adept with digital tools, are at the forefront of resisting AI data centres and can mobilise quickly even within short public‑input windows and confirms summit recordings are available at AICivilsociety.ca. I highlight @Alberta_Anti_AI, an Instagram group with over 3,000 members in under a month, and describes coordinated rallies in Alberta and Ontario, including a Unity rally and anti‑AI rally in Calgary, and a previous provincial‑wide day of action with thousands in Edmonton, Calgary, and [21] other locations. Check out @Solstice’s video from the main event in Calgary here.

Jessica cites Hamilton and Burks Falls (Ontario) as recent examples of local resistance, noting that some victories—like projects stopped before shovels hit the ground—are under‑reported but real. In Burks Falls, two 20‑year‑old women organized opposition that led the city to take a data centre proposal off the table. She emphasizes that activism often slows rather than fully stops projects, buying time for alternative paths to emerge. I agree, it’s a David‑and‑Goliath struggle where our wins are measured in delays and vigilance.

I describe Alberta communities organizing against massive data centres, including one 1.4‑gigawatt project (equivalent to 1.4 million homes’ energy use) that drew over 1,100 statements of concern. I criticize incomplete accounting that ignores upstream gas extraction and frac’ing, pointing out that water used in fracking is permanently lost. She mentions strong pushback in Grande Prairie and multiple sites near Calgary, with communities sharing strategies and resources like the airesistlist.org website.

Jessica tells me municipalities are key battlegrounds because AI data centres intersect with zoning, real estate, and venture capital. She describes efforts to support youth organizers who want June 27 to become a national day of action, prompted by BC Greens leader Emily Lowen. With only 16 days’ lead time, they are building a decentralized toolkit tailored to the Canadian context and engaging about 200 people across sectors to define what civil society should be in this moment. She argues AI threatens the entire political spectrum and cites Mark Carney’s “AI for All” strategy as essentially focused on ensuring adoption, not democratic consent.

I underscore AI is unifying issue across left and right, tied to water, surveillance, safety, jobs, and environmental destruction. I cite the Wonder Valley project, which she says would be the largest heat source in the world, and name large AI data centres “gas guzzling” and resource‑wasting infrastructure serving billionaires, contrasting them with low‑power, everyday AI uses. Jessica clarifies that “AI” is often used as a monolithic term, but the real empire project is the race toward AGI—machines outperforming humans on all tasks—requiring massive power to scrape the entire internet. She notes AI can also be small‑scale and community‑oriented, such as tools for preserving local languages. However, she argues current dominant uses deepen social inequity rather than reduce it.

I give a concrete example of AI‑enabled monetization: vehicles from 2026 onward reportedly requiring subscriptions for features like heated seats and full radio use, effectively taxing people’s own property and widening divides. I support national coordination and cites Taiwan’s Audrey Tang using digital tools to achieve 90% public support for policies before voting, as well as the town of Olds exploring people‑driven economic planning instead of elite committees. I link AI data centres to centralized power generation, arguing that renewables’ strength lies in decentralization and security, especially as wars make large {oil and gas] facilities, including AI centres, potential military targets.

Jessica reflects on a broader shift from “power over” to “power with,” calling solidarity a “miracle” given humanity’s long, often violent history. She notes that people now show solidarity beyond shared language or appearance, citing global concern for Gaza as an example. She argues big‑tent movements should not require full consensus and asks how much agreement is really needed to work together, given our survival is intertwined. She references Maud Barlow’s warning that within about 10 years there could be a 40% global water shortfall, stressing the urgency as billionaires continue extracting both resources and power. She highlights that many US AI data‑centre fights are led by everyday people—barbers, teenagers, young adults—and frames this as a moment where “the box has crumbled,” asking who we want to be.

I agree that anyone who cares can participate and recounts narratives that divide provinces: Alberta stereotypes about Ontario’s “Laurentian elites” and Ontarians allegedly seeing Albertans as backward “bow hunks” needing outside guidance. I warn these stories hinder cooperation even as shared threats like AI data centres and looming “water bankruptcy” (citing UN water expert Bob Sandford’s work) demand unity and ecological restoration. I ask Jessica how these narratives look from Ontario.

Jessica says her view of other provinces is primarily relational, shaped by people she’s worked with rather than media narratives, and she feels “unplugged” from many ads and stereotypes because she doesn’t watch organized sports. She acknowledges that separatist movements and social media algorithms fuel judging and generalizing about entire provinces. She stresses that relational work is “everything” because elites benefit when people are easily controlled by pre‑packaged narratives. She cites reports that first‑year university students struggle to finish full papers due to social media’s impact on attention, warning this undermines future capacity to read complex bills or arguments. She argues that change will come less from perfect arguments and more from thousands of people building relationships and community resilience as crises—especially in the Global South—intensify. She frames “divide and conquer” as a deliberate strategy of those in power and calls for stretching our capacity to see each other freshly, beyond conditioning.

I point to Gaza as both horrifying and inspiring, noting that people there have not turned on each other despite extreme conditions. I see this as a lesson in solidarity. I recall a Chinese government representative describing an “inevitability of peace,” which she finds a hopeful framing for this transition from power over to power with. I believe stopping further system deterioration would itself be a remarkable achievement and feel encouraged by emerging resistance.

In closing, Jessica emphasizes that activism is deeply personal and often happens in quiet, internal moments: noticing when we react to flattening narratives, asking who benefits if we believe them, and cultivating a habit of reflection. She calls this “life finding its own intelligence” and stresses that activism is not only public action but also slowing down with ourselves, questioning anger and manipulation before acting. I connect this to spiritual practice and “micro moments” of discernment—asking who is speaking, for whose benefit, and whether a message is truly for us—suggesting such practices are becoming more common.

Join the AI Civil Society today!

AICivilSociety.ca

I threw a microphone on my spouse Chris last week—you may recognize him from Season 1, Episode 5 or the Leadership Training series in Season 2. Our conversation explores common Alberta narratives about other Canadian regions and the federal government, and then connects these narratives to environmental policy, resource extraction, and changing provincial values.

Albertans often view Quebec as a “taker” province that receives special treatment, keeps its wealth, and benefits from federal transfers while restricting Alberta’s ability to develop oil and gas. Quebec is perceived as having different values—linked mainly to French culture—and as opposing Alberta’s oil and gas interests, especially around pipelines and environmental protection. At the same time, I note that Quebec’s stronger climate stance and bans on practices like frac’ing are seen as positive environmental leadership, even if they clash with Alberta’s extractive priorities.

Chris explains that many Albertans misunderstand equalization, believing Alberta should get back exactly what it pays in federal taxes, when in reality the federal government redistributes funds based on national priorities, meaning Alberta may not see a direct return on every dollar. This feeds a perception that Quebec and Ottawa benefit from Alberta’s wealth and block its development, reinforcing grievances that fuel separatist sentiment.

Comparisons are drawn between Alberta’s oil sands and Quebec’s large-scale hydro, mining, and industrial projects; many Albertans feel Quebec gets easier federal approval and preferential treatment for its projects, while Alberta faces more scrutiny. I question whether this perception is actually true, emphasizing that it is a narrative rather than a proven fact.

The discussion then shifts to Ontario and the idea of “Laurentian elites,” described as longstanding political and industrial power networks in central Canada—families, capitalists, and industrial behemoths concentrated along the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence corridor, historically shaping national decisions. Alberta’s story about Ontario includes a sense that central Canada is the political center that decides national outcomes because of its population, leaving the Prairies feeling numerically and politically sidelined.

I recount past experiences of Ontarians viewing Alberta as backward or insignificant (e.g., being asked if Edmonton had paved roads), contributing to a feeling that Ontarians see Albertans as beneath them. Today, Chris notes that Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government is more moderate than Alberta’s United Conservative Party, and that Alberta Conservatives may not see Ontario Conservatives as truly conservative. I highlight that Ontario’s premier has recently adopted more Alberta-like rhetoric on pipelines and natural gas, suggesting some current alignment around resource development.

Despite these political dynamics, many Albertans still believe people in Ontario don’t understand or care about life in Alberta. I challenge the assumption that Ontarians broadly look down on Albertans, suggesting many Ontarians may share similar distrust of government and Ottawa, and that the “they think less of us” story may be overstated.

Narratives about Ottawa in Alberta center on the belief that the federal government is “handcuffing” Alberta, imposing rules that don’t make sense locally and preventing the province from thriving. Chris uses the example of federal restrictions on strychnine for prairie dog control, explaining how the poison moves up the food chain and harms predators and other animals, and how federal scientists pushed for restrictions to protect biodiversity. Political pressure from farmers led Ottawa to loosen these rules, illustrating tensions between private property rights, environmental science, and federal regulation.

We argue that private land use must respect “natural law,” especially in sensitive areas like riparian zones and creeks, where leaving buffer strips and protecting vegetation can benefit both farms and ecosystems. We frame riparian areas as critical infrastructure that reduce flood risk and protect surrounding lands, and suggest that better protection of such areas could have solved many environmental problems.

I advocate for nation-building projects focused on ecological restoration—re-willowing riparian zones, restoring wetlands, and headwater forests—as nature-based solutions that reduce long-term costs from climate-related disasters like severe hailstorms in Calgary, which cause billions in damages and higher insurance costs. Chris notes that current infrastructure spending tends to favour hard engineering (rocks, culverts, road works) because that’s where the money is, while the benefits of ecological approaches are poorly quantified.

Turning to the Maritimes, Albertan narratives often claim that Atlantic provinces have too many federal seats relative to their populations and that residents work just enough to qualify for employment insurance, reinforcing another “taker” stereotype. I recall the older concept of “have-not” provinces and the idea that wealthier regions should help those with fewer opportunities, and wonders if this solidarity has eroded.

Chris explains how the collapse of Atlantic cod fisheries transformed the region: scientific warnings about declining stocks led to calls for quota cuts, but political backlash weakened restrictions, and combined with technological advances and corporate consolidation, this drove overfishing and ultimately a catastrophic stock collapse that has not recovered. This history is used as an analogy for Alberta’s oil industry: I suggest Alberta could face a similar collapse if it over-extracts, especially given constraints like water transfers between basins, risks of over-pressurized formations, and evidence of freshwater contamination near Cold Lake. We argue that while private capital may sees Alberta oil and gas as a good short-term investment, environmental limits and potential catastrophes could force a rapid shift.

Our conversation concludes by tying these regional narratives back to Alberta’s internal identity. Chris says some Albertans behave like a family member who insists on having their way all the time and refuses criticism, even though Canada’s strength lies in its diversity. As a lifelong Albertan, we feel the province has changed: where Alberta once invested in campgrounds, forest rangers, wildlife protection, and a sense of balance, economic development and in-migration have shifted priorities toward making as much money as possible, often at the expense of natural infrastructure that will eventually need repair. This reinforces the broader point that many Alberta narratives about other regions and Ottawa are shaped by political messaging and economic anxiety, and that rebalancing toward environmental stewardship and interprovincial solidarity may be necessary.

Do you agree? What did we miss or where did we go wrong?

This episode focuses on water, cumulative impacts, and long‑term consequences of AI data centres, rather than just short‑term economic promises. Olds resident, concerned citizen turned leader of a local resistance around water sovereignty and now AI data centers, Janey Olson, joins me to explain.

From my perspective—as a geophysicist and oil and gas environmental liability expert—what’s happening in Olds is both shocking and emblematic of a wider pattern: residents are blindsided by huge, high‑impact projects—Synapse and Data District—framed as “done deals” by local and provincial economic arms before people have real information or a meaningful say. Janey highlights that Synapse is a 1.4‑gigawatt project—equivalent to adding about one million homes’ worth of power demand—and that there are two data centres proposed in her small town. I note more proposals appearing near Calgary, in Bonnyville and Fox Creek, and Wonder Valley in Grande Prairie.

A 1.4 gigawatt facility is like adding 1.4 million homes to Alberta’s grid “suddenly” and will affect everyone’s power costs and the province’s competitiveness, and it risks turning Alberta into a “sacrificial lamb” for a federal AI and data‑centre agenda. I explicitly connect this to a push to monetise natural gas and build massive fossil‑fuel‑driven power infrastructure—hundreds of diesel generators, turbines, and chillers running 24/7—just to feed these centres.

I outline who stands to gain from these AI data centers in this conversation with Charlie Angus on Meidas Canada.

Note: Wonder Valley is backed by UAE (https://www.theenergymix.com/70b-wonder-valley-project-still-a-mirage-as-olearys-ai-dream-stalls-in-alberta/) while Kuwait and Qatar are partnered with Brookfield’s Investment partners for Synapse.

Water is at the heart of our concerns. We stress that rural residents are already facing “very scary stuff” around water access and control, and that these data centres are “high draw water users” arriving in a context of growing scarcity. I explicitly thank Janey for “following the water” and say that water is “central to everything we want to have in this world,” making it unacceptable to hand it over to AI data centres “to compete with China” for something that doesn’t add value to the common good. I bring in the warning from UN water advisor Bob Sandford about us being on the “cusp of water bankruptcy,” and argue that this is precisely why cumulative water‑impact safeguards are being stripped away—because honest assessment would stop “this obscenity.”

The removal of environmental impact assessments is, to me, one of the most alarming pieces. I echo Janey’s point that environmental impact assessments—which check cumulative impacts of water and power—have been removed for both Wonder Valley and Synapse, leaving the AUC to look only at project‑specific issues rather than the bigger picture. I call this “critical” at a “critical point in time” and say it’s “quite obvious” that these safeguards have been “thrown out the window” precisely because they would block such “obscene” developments.

Janey notes a deep contradiction between years of carbon‑tax pressure on ordinary people and the sudden willingness of governments to green‑light massive, round‑the‑clock fossil‑fuel power plants for data centres, without robust cumulative environmental review. Janey describes how, after years of being “plagued with carbon taxes,” governments are now “throw[ing] the doors open” to polluting projects in order to “beat China” and make Alberta the “sacrificial province,” and I explicitly underscore that framing for listeners. I emphasise that this is “very big stuff and not something to be taken lightly.”

At the same time, I’m inspired by the scale and quality of local resistance. Janey explains how a small kitchen‑table group in Olds has grown into a record‑setting intervention at the Alberta Utilities Commission, with over 1,100 people stepping up to participate in proceeding 30732. I stress that the AUC staff themselves seem to be trying to do their jobs well and help residents navigate the process, even as higher‑level political decisions strip away environmental safeguards.

Take Action: use Little Town Big Data’s Guide to submitting a Statement of Intent to Become an Intervenor

To amplify these local efforts, clarify timelines and tools for public action, and connect the dots for my audience between Olds, other proposed data‑centre sites, and broader provincial and federal policy directions, Janey walks listeners through the significance of the 1.4‑gigawatt load, the AUC proceeding number (30732), and the steps for filing a Statement of Intent to Participate, and I commit to following up so the public can “jump in when it’s most helpful.” Janey also encourage people to contact the province and the premier directly to demand a moratorium or slowdown so Alberta doesn’t become a “data‑centric guinea pig.”

Here’s the Premier’s Email: [email protected].

Olds fight as part of a larger pattern Alberta has seen before—like the coal‑mining battles—and standing up for water is critical for everyone, not just Olds. I call Janey and her neighbours “heroes for Alberta” and emphasize that these projects are deliberately sited in smaller communities where there are “fewer voices to be heard,” which is why broader provincial support from you and me is essential.

CBC Reporter, Eagle Andersen called me to hear my thoughts about the updated information provided by Kevin’s “O’Leary Digital” team in advance of their open house slated from tomorrow, June 4 from 4-7 pm at Grovedale Community Hall in Grande Prairie.

I criticize the new newsletter about a proposed data centre project for omitting key information about what powers the facility, assuming it will rely on natural gas and arguing that this leaves out major parts of the electricity, water, and contamination story. I highlight that the project is expected to use about six billion liters of water per year (six million cubic meters), which is roughly equivalent to the annual allocation for the Greenview District, effectively doubling municipal water use for a single project and with no guarantee that usage would remain capped at that level. I also note concerns about power demand, citing examples like Lake Tahoe where residents were reportedly told they could no longer get grid power due to a data facility, and emphasize that a seven‑gigawatt facility would be a massive addition, equating five gigawatts to the power needs of five million people.

I argue there is “zero benefit” to Canada and Albertans, claiming the project offers only limited construction and operations jobs and primarily serves U.S. government interests, which they accuse of trying to push Canada toward violating international law, climate obligations, and stability. I add that, especially after the war in Iran and anticipated resource shortages, leaders should make “extreme choices” to limit use of fossil fuels and ensure benefits do not accrue mainly to fossil fuel interests.

When asked what information the company should provide, I say the full scope of the project must be disclosed, including how power will be generated and the associated infrastructure, pointing to the example of Olds where oil and gas workers understand the gas turbines, roadways, and infrastructure needed for such projects. Drawing on personal experience working near Grande Prairie, I speculate that a large gas cap over an oil field might be used to extend the life of a field instead of addressing environmental cleanup obligations, calling this a likely costly error. I also reference the prime minister’s recent statement that the U.S. is misleading and argue Canada should not follow a “mega pipeline drill, baby drill” agenda.

On public engagement, I describe significant opposition in Olds, describing “major outcry” and strong grassroots organizing, including people handing out posters and flyers and encouraging Albertans to file statements of concern against the project. I mention an upcoming open house in Olds on June 24, to be attended by the premier and local MLA Sawyer, and question whether Grande Prairie has been given a similar opportunity. For the upcoming open house in the Grande Prairie region, they say they hope the project is “shut down immediately,” arguing Greenview County should prioritize supporting farmers and the agricultural economy and focus on water restoration and cleanup operations instead. I suggest stopping the project now to limit any damages O’Leary’s business could claim, referencing the Grassy Mountain coal project as a precedent where the answer was to “settle.”

I explain my participation a recent webinar through Public Interest Alberta was to inform the public about environmental liabilities and the impacts of data centres on water use, cybersecurity, and water security, describing these facilities as “non‑starters” and noting similar projects have been stopped elsewhere. I see data centres as another face of fossil fuel expansion and argue that carbon capture and storage is not a genuine climate solution, based on their industry experience. I insist fossil fuel expansion for hydrogen, LNG export, or data facilities—especially those they say could benefit “nefarious actors”—must not proceed, and that public opposition and on‑the‑ground action are the only ways to stop such projects.

Regarding the webinar’s reception, I report that hundreds attended and feedback was “really good, really strong,” and they mention a planned follow‑up interview on their platform “The Gravity Well” and further efforts by environmental organizations to keep sharing information. I warn that data centres should not be appealing to Albertans because they bring in large corporate and billionaire interests that do not help the province through challenging times.

When asked why I care, I explain how this is about “our present and our future,” citing their two children and Alberta’s role as a headwater province that should focus on restoring water rather than extracting more fossil fuels. They reference the “keep it in the ground” philosophy and carbon pricing as concepts originating in the oil and gas industry, arguing that remaining resources are not worth extracting and would cause irreparable harm, which motivates them to do this work even without pay.

Here’s the link to Eagle Andersen’s article, please follow him as he will be attending the open house tomorrow and hopes to gain a statement from the Sturgeon Lake Chief. Jody MacPherson of The Missive is following the Wonder Valley story closely: https://www.theenergymix.com/hidden-wonder-valley/.