The conversation then shifts to the broader economic and social conditions driving apathy and disengagement. Trisha argues that society over-invests in pension accumulation and fossil fuel extraction at the expense of youth, citing a report showing roughly 30% of Canada’s GDP is spent on programs for people 45 and older compared to only around 7% for those under 40. She also highlights the disappearance of entry-level “sidewalk jobs” due to automation and AI, which strips people of purpose and meaning and leads to substance use and community breakdown in places where labour markets have collapsed. This sense of purposelessness is compounded by the hollowness of high-salary work that harms communities, with Gallup reporting that 80% of employees are disengaged at work.

We reflect personally on the cost of prioritizing financial accumulation over meaningful work. Trisha describes leaving a government career where she was writing policy that undermined people like herself as a single mother, and later withdrawing her pension to build a company aligned with her values, finding her life richer despite having less money. I similarly recount realizing that myopic expertise in the oil and gas industry was being used to help industry actors close loopholes rather than address harm. We agree that true fulfilment comes not from financial accumulation but from community-oriented work, and a punk rock spirit of resistance, calling on peers in our generation to redirect their energy toward building a better future.

The conversation closes with Trisha describing her five-week indigenous systems thinking and design course, running Thursdays from November 5th to December 3rd, which is designed to offer participants an alternative worldview centered on building community and hope rather than extraction. The course is rooted in the indigenous principle that the individual creates community, community creates culture, and culture creates the individual, forming a cycle that cannot exist without each part. Trisha emphasizes that even beginning to consider an alternative is a hopeful step, and that change does not need to happen overnight, encouraging listeners to explore what it means to live in the world differently. A 20% discount code “JENNY20” is available for those wishing to register here:

Indigenous Systems Thinking Crash Course

https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/indigenous-systems-thinking-crash-course-morning-edition-tickets-2002223486346.

In place of the earlier holistic screener system, the government introduced mandatory literacy and numeracy screeners that both teachers argue are developmentally inappropriate, anxiety-inducing, and produce no meaningful data or corresponding support. Lindsay describes the current screeners as something no teacher asked for, and notes that even the expert credited with designing them bases his university courses on “screening and intervention,” not screening alone. Weber Academy, a high-tuition private school, publicly stated the government screeners were “far too basic” and provided “no meaningful or valuable feedback,” and that administering them would come at the school’s own expense. Administering the screeners requires one-on-one time, substitute teacher coverage, and additional planning burdens that fall entirely on already overstretched teachers, with any resulting intervention also placed on teachers’ shoulders rather than dedicated support staff.

The conversation also explores the political and ideological influences shaping these education policies. Tania identifies a Christian think tank called Cardus that has sent policy memos directly to Minister Nicolaides, with at least three policy directions being implemented by the government in near-verbatim alignment with those memos. One such memo, sent before the teacher strike, outlined strategies for the government to manage a prolonged strike, including paying parents directly from savings on teacher salaries and encouraging movement into charter, independent, or homeschool settings. Both teachers emphasize that the government locked teachers out three days after the strike began rather than using the notwithstanding clause immediately, which they argue was a deliberate strategy to deplete the Alberta Teachers Association’s financial resources and weaken its ability to advocate for teachers.

In closing, both advocates urge parents and Albertans to stay informed, attend school council meetings, and continue supporting public education. Lindsay warns that schools are already in crisis before October, with insufficient resources, growing class complexity, and a widening gap between government rhetoric and classroom reality. Tania notes that Nicolaides has now expanded the screeners into grades four and five, even while schools lack enough hired teachers to manage their existing workloads. Both teachers stress that the future of Alberta depends on properly funded and supported public classrooms, and that the “more is more” framing used by the minister is empty without meaningful, evidence-based action.

Want to take action?

Email your Education Minister at: education.minister@gov.ab.ca. Request that he RETURN Program Unit Funding (PUF) to public school kindergarten students and CANCEL the meaningless and harmful—void of adequate intervention—pre-screening practices.

The guests emphasize that the event is relevant to anyone concerned about environmental impacts, health, property values, water, and agricultural land. Jasona stresses the importance of learning the facts and understanding how to act at the municipal level, noting that project approvals involve four separate regulatory streams. Carol urges people of all skill sets to get involved and participate on the front lines, while Kayla highlights the importance of everyday conversations and sharing information to raise awareness.

The October 1st event will be held at the local legion hall in Olds, Alberta, doors open at 5 pm, with plenty of parking! Jasona notes that people from around the world are already anticipating the live stream! The event is volunteer-run and funded, with a donation option planned for attendees. I express hope that the model developed in Olds to fight data centres can be replicated elsewhere across the province.

Want to learn more?

BIG TECH, BIGGER QUESTIONS IN ALBERTA

CJSW radio in Edmonton covered the St. Alberta data centre town hall hosted by Give Voice: a grassroots organization of mostly retired women. Keepers of the Water Director, Jesse Cardinal, Olds Resident and retired Simon Fraser University Professor, Carol Edwards, and I spoke.

BRAINS PODCAST EPISODE

DATA CENTRES: Who benefits? Who pays?

Plans for new data centres in Alberta threaten water resources and energy prices, I sat down with The Climate Lens’ Steve Bentley to discuss.

The Climate Lens Episode

1. Premier Smith’s first action in office was an attempt to exert Alberta sovereignty, over Canada, but most importantly, ahead of First Nations who proceeded all of us, and have fought for their sovereign rights since time immemorial.

2. After two court ruling, a hurdle-smashing Forever Canadian petition, we are still facing a 10-question referenda most of us do not want.

3. The US has declared war against us, yet Alberta’s Premier won’t cut them off. Despite all other provinces agreeing to fight, Canada continues to capitulate to Smith.

4. Both Smith and Carney are throwing out environmental protections, climate targets, and International law in the name of AI surveillance technology and threats to national security.

5. Developers, like Sam Altman of OpenAI, are sounding the alarm that deregulation seems to be leading to self-destruction, by way of uncontrollable AI algorithm agents.

6. Fueled by and for the fossil fuel industry who is destroying itself, and our way of life with it, with our money through illegal, unprovoked wars and genocide. Blocking renewable and restoration alternatives whilst they destroy the global trade system, which feeds us, for all the world to see.

7. The referenda agenda is already underway: students are being cut off from public school and families from healthcare. Jobs are drying up, along with our freshwater table, and any logical reason to let this agenda continue.

A rebellion is urgently needed, what are you waiting for?

The conversation opens with a focus on the ongoing situation in Gaza and Palestine. Wesam Cooley, a regular on The Gravity Well, describes the conflict as a genocide now approaching its three-year mark, continuing despite a ceasefire that Israel has not respected. Recent incidents include a building collapse where a child was found alive among dead family members, and a quadcopter drone strike that killed both a paramedic and a 15-year-old boy who had gone to help him. We note that Israeli political opinion polls show near-unanimous support for the military campaign among Israelis, and that upcoming Israeli elections are unlikely to change the direction of the genocide, as no candidate campaigns on ending it.

The discussion then expands to the broader regional war, including Lebanon, the West Bank, and Iran. Wesam explains that the US launched a war against Iran in February, and that Iran has responded by using its geographical control over the Strait of Hormuz to restrict oil flows to any nation supporting the US military action. Brent Crude has surpassed one hundred dollars per barrel, and the economic damage is described as irreversible, with rationing expected in the coming months and years. Yemen’s Ansar Allah has also seized the western coast of Yemen and is positioned to besiege the Bab al-Mandeb strait, while also attacking Saudi oil infrastructure, resulting in Saudi Arabia temporarily exporting zero oil. I add that oil and gas infrastructure damaged through bombing cannot simply be restored, with replacement timelines stretching years or decades, and that the CEO of Chevron has publicly acknowledged coming shortages of diesel, jet fuel, and fertilizer.

The conversation shifts to the geopolitical position of Canada, the Alberta separatism referendum, and the US imperial decline. Wesam argues that the US, facing the collapse of its West Asian presence, is now looking to expand control over weaker targets, with Canada being especially vulnerable. The Alberta referendum is described as dangerous not because the separatism question itself may pass, but because any yes vote on the nine constitutional questions could trigger a constitutional crisis that would be used to legitimize US intervention in the province. I note there is no defined threshold for success in the referendum act, meaning the organizing faction can declare victory on any outcome. Both speakers call for mass public action, with Speaker 2 suggesting that blocking key intersections in Calgary and demanding Danielle Smith’s resignation before October could be decisive.

In closing, the speakers reflect on the Ukraine war and the broader failure of Western institutions. Wesam states that the war in Ukraine has been lost, that a peace agreement was sabotaged by Britain in 2022, and that Ukraine is now forcibly conscripting men off the streets while running short of military age men. Russia is described as warning that continued Western drone supplies being used to attack Russian civilians may make those supplying nations legitimate military targets. Both speakers argue that the root cause of these interlocking crises is a billionaire class that makes decisions insulated from their consequences, and that meaningful change requires collective organization and the removal of that class from power. China is held up as a counterexample of a society providing affordable goods and a collectivist future, with Wesam arguing Canada should be seeking deeper ties with Beijing rather than Europe or Washington.

I prefer a future for the collective than a military state, may the force be with you if you agree.

The discussion then broadens to the role of big tech in serving state interests, including Google Maps renaming Lake Ontario to “Lake America” at Trump’s informal request and Zuckerberg gutting Meta’s fact-checking apparatus upon Trump’s return to office. Appel connects this to the Alberta referendum, arguing that the immigration questions underpinning it are built on fiction and that the broader separatist movement is fundamentally about liberating the oil and gas industry from federal constraints. He traces this narrative back to Jason Kenney, who amplified Alberta grievance politics around equalization payments and pension contributions, framing federal structures as conspiring against the province despite Alberta being among the wealthiest provinces per capita. Appel argues that Danielle Smith has taken this further, fusing state power with corporate interests in a manner he describes as more authoritarian than the neoliberalism practiced by Kenney.

Our conversation turns to the political landscape ahead of the referendum, with both speakers expressing frustration at the Alberta NDP’s strategic approach of targeting an imagined suburban Calgary swing voter rather than articulating a bold alternative vision. The host shares her own experience running as an independent candidate after Notley refused to discuss a just transition before the election, and argues that the NDP cannot win by trying to out-promise the UCP on oil and gas. Appel notes that Smith is skilled at framing hard-right positions, including restrictions on immigrant access to healthcare and schooling, as reasonable compromises, while the underlying claims are based on misinformation. He also raises concerns that gerrymandering of Calgary ridings may render electoral strategy discussions largely moot.

In the final portion of the conversation, Appel outlines his upcoming work, including a piece for The Walrus on the AI data centre revolt, an excerpt from his book in The Walrus, a piece in Maclean’s on Smith’s new authoritarianism, and a Globe and Mail op-ed arguing that Smith is not a separatist but that the truth is actually worse. The host reflects on the broader stakes facing Alberta, arguing that the province is being distracted by the referendum spectacle while facing genuine existential challenges around water, ecological collapse, and economic transition away from fossil fuels. Both speakers express admiration for federal NDP leader Avi Lewis as a rare political figure willing to speak honestly about these issues. The conversation closes with Appel plugging his book launch in Edmonton on October 13th and a planned event in Calgary in early November.

If you’re in the Edmonton area, get tickets for Jeremy’s book launch event here.

Early vote between September 8-12.

Calgary-Shaw Communities

• Shawnessey

• Somerset

• Yorkville

• Belmont

• Pine Creek

• Chaparral

• Walden

• Wolf Willow

• Legacy

Tell your Calgary-Shaw friends this is an option to send Premier Smith and the United Conservative Party (UCP) of Alberta a strong message.

Become a member. Volunteer. Donate. Vote.

Kyle Campbell, the Alberta NDP candidate for the Calgary-Shaw by-election, introduces himself as a longtime South Calgary resident who coaches his kids in basketball and baseball and works in insurance. He states clearly that he supports remaining in Canada, noting that the overwhelming majority of people in Calgary-Shaw share that view and do not understand the need for a separation referendum, particularly given its enormous cost. On the broader referendum questions, he argues that the immigration-related questions unfairly blame newcomers for the UCP government’s own financial mismanagement, and that he would not trust the UCP with any attempt to alter the Canadian constitution. He also criticizes Premier Danielle Smith for travelling to the United States during tariff negotiations and urging Canada to accept whatever terms the Trump administration offers, arguing that Canada is stronger when all provinces stand united.

VOLUNTEER WITH KYLE CAMPBELL

On the issue of AI data centres, Campbell supports the Alberta NDP’s position of pausing all new data centre implementations until proper consultation is completed, a framework is established, and clear benchmarks are set to measure whether projects are meeting Albertans’ needs. He notes that Alberta already has deep expertise in energy-intensive infrastructure and should apply that knowledge to this new sector. Regarding healthcare, Campbell shares his personal experience of being diagnosed with cancer in 2023, during which he faced a six-week wait for a basic blood draw due to the province’s privatization of blood work, and his physician had to call him from personal holidays because no one was covering her practice. He argues that meaningful healthcare improvement is achievable by consulting frontline workers, collecting their incremental suggestions, and implementing them, describing it as a listening and doing problem rather than an insurmountable one.

On public education, Campbell points out that the Calgary Board of Education has identified ten schools that need to be built within the Calgary-Shaw riding alone, and that parents returning to school found classroom conditions deeply troubling. Rising busing costs, now at $500 per child per year, are forcing families to send children out of their own communities, undermining the very reason many families move to the suburbs. He recounts conversations with parents who are homeschooling or paying for private school not out of preference but because the public system fails to support children with special needs, including those with autism. Campbell calls on the government to simply build the needed schools, hire the necessary staff, and listen to education experts, arguing the solution is straightforward.

In closing, Campbell frames the Calgary-Shaw by-election as being focused on education, healthcare, affordability, and the question of remaining in Canada. He emphasizes his belief that politicians should do what they say they will do and urges voters to participate in advanced polls running September 8 through 12, with election day on September 14. He presents the Alberta NDP as the only party with a genuine commitment to making progress on these issues and hearing everyday Albertans.

VOLUNTEER WITH KYLE HERE

Early vote between September 8-12

Monday, September 14 is the official Calgary-Shaw By-Election voting day.

We then discuss two confrontational events Mikayla attended. At a pancake breakfast, Mikayla planned to confront Danielle Smith about AISH and ADAP policy changes, and also noted the presence of Chief Warren Driechel, whom she had been seeking accountability from regarding a trip to occupied Palestine. After her friend raised issues including trans rights and AI data centres, Smith deflected with a question about social media use, prompting Mikayla to loudly challenge her for platforming separatists, resulting in the now-known “fuck your fascist pancakes” moment. Following this event, Mikayla received, and is still receiving, serious threats and was followed by separatists. At the Alberta Independence rally at the legislature, a speaker named Leyton Grey, described as an indigenous lawyer, made statements defending residential schools, and a preacher called for bringing God into the separatist movement. Mikayla interrupted the rally, called attendees traitors, and was subsequently given a 90-day ban from the legislature by provincial sheriffs, while her friend was physically roughed up and briefly handcuffed.

The discussion broadens to cover US demands on Canada, with me listing 13 proposed conditions (https://finance.biggo.com/news/934d7490-f69f-4fa3-8cec-ccecd7485b62#:~:text=According%20to%20Canadian%20media%20reports) including veto power over Canadian infrastructure decisions, right of first refusal on critical minerals at a preferred price, elimination of cultural and language protections, and the ability to sue the Canadian government. I also make reference to the Alberta Prosperity Projects “Foundation of Freedom” surrender document, which Thomas Lucaszuk suggests should be mandatory reading here:

We criticize Smith for continuing to push for an Alberta separation referendum while Canada faces these external threats, contrasting her with Quebec’s premier who refused to discuss any referendum while Canada is under such pressure. Mikayla states that Smith has collaborated with separatists, knowingly allowed them to infiltrate her party, and appears to be acting as an agent for US interests rather than representing Albertans.

Our final segment focuses on grassroots resistance and the AI data centre issue. Mikayla visited Olds, Alberta, where residents are fighting a proposed data centre that would sit across from a local home, with no adequate plan for water or noise, and where the CEO of Synapse admitted he came to Alberta for its natural resources. I raise concerns about old natural gas wells being repurposed to power data centres instead of being cleaned up through the Orphan Fund, and questions the unnecessary use of freshwater when glycol could be used instead. Both hosts conclude on a note of cautious optimism, urging Albertans to vote no in the upcoming referendum, praising growing cross-divide cooperation, and committing to door knocking and canvassing efforts through Public Interest Alberta. Mikayla closes by challenging separatists to consider what they will do when they lose the referendum, noting she has yet to receive an answer.

Become a “Together NO” volunteer with Mikayla and me: albertareferendum2026.org/volunteer/!

TAKE ACTION: meet at the Hyatt Regency (8th Avenue & Centre Street) on Wed, Sep 9 at noon.

LEARN MORE & RSVP

LEARN MORE: BIG TECH, BIGGER QUESTIONS

BRAINS PODCAST EPISODE

The Climate Lens Episode

Regarding US trade negotiations, Kyle criticizes the premier for abandoning a Team Canada approach and giving up leverage with both Ottawa and Washington. He draws a pointed contrast between the premier’s willingness to use Alberta’s resources as leverage against BC but not against the Americans, questioning where her loyalties lie. He illustrated the importance of cooperation with a story about his own grade six students, noting that fighting against others rather than negotiating guarantees no one will want to help you.

On data centres, Kyle raises concerns about the provincial government pushing the initiative through without proper community consultation or environmental review. He notes that public feedback, including at AI data centre town halls, has been overwhelmingly negative, yet the government has proceeded regardless. On education and healthcare, Kyle argues that per-student funding has fallen far behind the rest of Canada, that there are not enough schools, teachers, or education assistants, and that the healthcare system faces similar pressures. His party’s approach centres on a strategy of recruit, retain, and collaborate with frontline workers such as teachers, nurses, and doctors, emphasizing that simply hiring large numbers of new workers is ineffective if burnout drives hundreds to leave the profession shortly after.

In closing, Kyle expresses pride in having run a positive campaign and frames the Tory Party as a return to common sense, moderation, and governing for Albertans rather than for political self-interest. I express my gratitude for his participation under Pete Guthrie’s leadership, noting that the by-election and the broader issues at stake represent one of the most significant moments in Alberta’s recent history. Both Kyle and I acknowledge the courage of those willing to challenge the current UCP government, including those facing personal legal consequences for doing so.

If Calgary-Shaw votes UCP does it affirm a separatist agenda?

If you live in or near Calgary-Shaw volunteer to support Kyle and the Progressive Tories here:

Volunteer with the Tories

Tricia outlines a “modelling chain” of distinct but linked tools: climate models provide temperature and precipitation inputs, which feed land‑surface or hydrology models that estimate bulk water supply from rain and snow before human use. Groundwater and groundwater–surface water interactions are often modelled separately because of their complexity and long timescales, while hydraulic models simulate how water moves through rivers, enabling flood forecasting and floodplain mapping that influence insurance rates. At the end of the chain, water resource management models (“worms”) incorporate human interventions such as licences, irrigation withdrawals, reservoirs, and releases to estimate post‑use water supply. These models are usually run sequentially rather than fully coupled, with each step increasing in resolution to translate global climate signals into local hydrologic and hydraulic predictions.

The discussion then turns to specific processes and uncertainties, including glaciers, groundwater, and land‑use change. Tricia notes that the contribution of glacier melt to systems like the Bow and South Saskatchewan Rivers is complex and only recently being studied in detail, with earlier climate models underestimating glacier loss because they missed feedbacks such as wildfire ash darkening ice and accelerating melt. She explains that glaciers are crucial for headwater supply and that their melt feeds both rivers and groundwater, affecting late‑summer baseflows and water temperature, which are vital for aquatic ecosystems. Land‑use changes such as logging are incorporated by dynamically updating land‑cover data from satellite imagery so hydrology models can adjust runoff responses, while other cumulative effects (like fish health) are handled by separate ecological models that use hydrologic outputs such as flow and temperature. Throughout, Tricia stresses that model choice and complexity must be “fit for purpose,” balancing computational limits and the need for timely decisions, especially for operational tasks like flood forecasting.

A major theme is the shift from traditional “standards‑based” engineering (e.g., designing for a single “1‑in‑100‑year” event) toward adaptive, risk‑based management that embraces uncertainty envelopes and integrates environmental, economic, social, and cultural risk. Tricia argues that decision‑makers must choose where within a range of possible flows to design, based on their tolerance for being wrong and the consequences for communities and infrastructure, and that this inherently political and social process cannot be automated away by AI. She calls for a federal water policy framework that centers water in governance and economic planning, asking what the “resiliency threshold” of Canada’s water supply is rather than aiming merely for “sustainability,” given that basins like the South Saskatchewan are already oversubscribed and in deficit. This includes scrutinizing new industrial developments (from oil and gas to data centres) through a water‑availability lens and recognizing water as the limiting factor in many sectors.

The conversation also highlights serious data and governance gaps. Tricia explains that many social and local water uses are poorly captured: licences are modelled at their full legal volume because actual consumptive use is not monitored, return flows from irrigation are often unmeasured, and tributary and small‑stream uses can be invisible to models.

If your body were as sliced and diced as our water system is—how do you think you would fare?

Now consider, you are ~60% water.

Seems timely to revisit Bob Morrison and I’s interview from last September with Dr. Brad Stelfox (who also appeared in The Harms of Coal Mining), a zoologist and land-use scientist who has spent over 35 years developing cumulative effects models that integrate overlapping land uses—such as roads, agriculture, oil and gas, and forestry—to show how they reshape landscapes in Alberta and beyond. His work focuses on linking social, economic, and environmental dimensions, quantifying benefits like jobs and royalties alongside impacts on natural capital, including biodiversity, soil carbon, and water quality and quantity. Stelfox argues that most models used by industry and government chase “win‑win‑win” scenarios and fail to honestly represent trade‑offs, leading to a narrative that Alberta can expand all land uses without compromising water or biodiversity—something he says has never been achieved anywhere. He points to evidence of profound losses in natural capital since Alberta became a province, with rapid ongoing degradation of water, biodiversity, and soil carbon.

In other words, Alberta and Canada need to adopt a “Less i$ more” economic model: where more land (water, air, and biodiversity) is restored rather than developed.

Brad, Bob, and I discuss how Alberta’s growing population and sharply increased per‑capita resource use have driven extensive externalization of natural capital, meaning environmental costs are left out of economic and political decision‑making.He explains that humans and land use inevitably consume water, carbon, and biodiversity, and that Alberta is no longer just drawing on “interest” from these systems but is cutting deeply into the ecological “capital.” Using native mammals as an example, he estimates that pre‑European times they made up about 99.2% of biomass, whereas today Alberta has perhaps only 4% of its pre‑European native mammal biodiversity, with most biomass now in humans, livestock, and pets. Water quality and quantity have also deteriorated, with many prairie creeks ploughed over or converted to irrigation canals and parents reluctant to let children play in creeks due to health risks, especially in southern Alberta. He characterizes Alberta’s prevailing mindset as “me here now,” focused on short‑term economic growth and local interests rather than long‑term landscape health or the well‑being of future generations.

The discussion then zooms in on southern Alberta’s landscapes and water. Stelfox describes a west‑to‑east gradient where eastern lowlands have already lost most of their biodiversity and water quality, leaving little remaining natural capital to lose, while foothills and mountains—especially the eastern slopes—are now at greatest risk. These high‑elevation areas function as “water towers,” accumulating snow and releasing critical spring flows that support fish, wildlife, and all downstream land uses, including logging, agriculture, mining, oil and gas, transportation, and residential development. He estimates that Alberta receives roughly 700–800 billion cubic meters of precipitation annually, with about three‑quarters evaporating and 130–150 billion cubic meters flowing through rivers and aquifers, forming the basis of all land uses. Yet these headwaters are being incrementally eroded by expanding acreages, roads, recreation, cattle, and especially intensive logging, which alters hydrology, increases sediment, reduces soil organics, and undermines aquifer recharge. He argues that current forestry practices diverge from best management practices on paper and are not adequately enforced, and he questions why mining, off‑highway vehicles, and riparian residential development are allowed in such critical headwater zones.

Finally, the conversation turns to policy, economics, and the difficulty of change. Stelfox notes that the Alberta Land Stewardship Act was intended to sit above other legislation and force explicit trade‑off discussions about limits on water withdrawals, timber harvests, fossil fuel extraction, livestock numbers, and even population growth, but these ideas became politically unpalatable once industry and government realized they implied constraints on economic expansion. He observes that all major land‑use sectors—forestry, energy, agriculture, transportation, residential, recreation—have experienced exponential growth yet still see their current scale as “unacceptably too small,” planning for further expansion under a growth‑driven economic model that systematically depletes natural capital. I connect biodiversity loss to Indigenous community impacts and Species At Risk (such as caribou and trout), arguing that these are indicators of ecological and ultimately human risk, and I highlight how extensive piped‑water systems around Lethbridge and Edmonton show that society is already overdrawing its “water bank account.”

A Less i$ more economy is needed, where industrial sites and access ways no longer serving us are re-naturalized for ecosystem function at scale across so-called Alberta and Canada.

You need to help Brad, Bob, and me create the political will for the polluter to finally pay.

The discussion then turns to how climate change is disrupting traditional insurance models and data, with Markham citing industry reports that centuries of actuarial data are being undermined by frequent “once in a thousand year” extreme weather events. Derek confirms that climate change is increasing both the frequency and severity of events, forcing insurers to rework models and reconsider whether and how to continue offering certain coverages. He explains how insurers use loss ratios, expense ratios, and combined ratios to assess profitability, and how catastrophic years push combined ratios above 100%, meaning insurers lose money. Derek outlines different insurance needs, using farmers as an example: they require property coverage, sewer backup, crop hail insurance (sometimes including wildfire), and possibly groundwater coverage, illustrating how water-related risks intersect with agriculture.

Our conversation explores practical impacts on homeowners and commercial clients, including rising premiums and coverage limitations in high-risk areas such as floodplains along Calgary’s Elbow River and hail-prone regions like Medicine Hat and Red Deer. Derek notes that brokers have become more proactive in ensuring clients have sewer backup and at least some overland water coverage, even when full flood insurance is unavailable or unaffordable, while commercial property owners are increasingly attentive to severe weather risks, though not all explicitly link them to climate change. He explains reinsurance as “insurance for insurance companies,” provided by global reinsurers who are highly attuned to climate risk and can pressure domestic insurers to limit coverage in certain geographies, contributing to higher premiums and tighter terms. Markham and Derek discuss an emerging inflection point where rising premiums (e.g., a 50% increase after hail damage) and affordability crises may finally force consumers to connect climate change with personal financial risk, potentially prompting demands for “build back better” approaches and government involvement.

In the latter part of the conversation, we broaden the lens to systemic issues: government backstopping of major events like the 2013 floods, stalled efforts to create a national flood insurance program, and the growing complexity of wildfire and cyber risks. I raise mitigation strategies such as cloud seeding in Alberta’s “hail alley” between Calgary and Red Deer, and Derek explains the use of silver iodide to reduce hail size, while noting scalability limits and possible climate-change-driven storm intensity that outpaces response capacity. They then connect water, pollution, and energy: Markham and I highlight conflicts over water use between oil and gas, agriculture, and cities under worsening drought, and Derek warns about selenium pollution from coal mines in the Oldman River system, stressing that ongoing pollution is typically excluded from commercial insurance under absolute pollution exclusions, leaving taxpayers and communities exposed. I underscore that Alberta’s regulatory framework and reduced inspection capacity mean polluter-pay principles and remediation laws are not adequately enforced, while the province continues to allow the use and pollution of roughly four million barrels of fresh water per day for oil production, raising serious questions about doubling production amid severe drought and cumulative contamination.

Want more?

Listen to Bob Sandford explain the global water bankruptcy we are facing, his report for the UN came out in January 2026.

In response, we explores what should stop and what should replace current practices. We criticize expanding irrigation and building more dams in a context of declining natural flows and climate‑driven aridity, noting that empty reservoirs cannot solve drought and that engineering approaches cannot “outrun” climate change. We call for halting new coal mining in the Eastern Slopes, curbing excessive clear‑cutting, reforming forestry in both working forests and protected areas, and rethinking urban and industrial expansion into wildlife corridors and sensitive groundwater‑dependent ecosystems. I argue that all new fossil fuel development should cease, with industry redirected toward abandonment, decommissioning, and large‑scale restoration, including addressing hundreds of thousands of oil and gas sites and massive oil sands tailings ponds. We also highlight problematic technological “fixes,” from carbon capture and storage to atmospheric chemical injection by insurers, as examples of trying to control rather than work with nature, often creating new risks.

The conversation then turns to solutions and pathways forward, balancing individual and collective responsibility. On the personal side, Alex uses Calgary’s water‑main rupture to illustrate how simple behavioural changes—like skipping one toilet flush—can scale to millions of liters saved, while I contrast this with the vast volumes of water sent daily to oil sands tailings to show the importance of scale. Collectively, we stress the need for courageous land‑use planning that embeds cumulative‑effects science, ecological thresholds, and the value of water, space, and biodiversity, rather than entrenching status quo economic uses like timber, beef, and motorized recreation. We advocate for large‑scale, ecologically meaningful restoration—beyond “postage stamp” projects—across the eastern slopes and South Saskatchewan River basin, including removing roads, restoring beavers and wetlands, and supporting regenerative agriculture, while creating meaningful jobs for youth and reorienting environmental graduates toward repair rather than further development.

Finally, we discuss how to organize and build the political and cultural will to act. Kevin recounts how opposition to opening the Eastern Slopes to coal mining united ranchers, Indigenous communities, hunters, fishers, urban environmentalists, and people across the political spectrum, demonstrating the power of collective stewardship of common land. Building on this, he proposes a “macro” strategy of reclaiming the narrative from vested interests—e.g., resisting misframing climate‑driven fires as forest‑management failures—and a “micro” strategy of choosing one headwater sub‑drainage to fully restore as a proof of concept for water security, biodiversity, and landscape health. Lorne and Colin emphasize bioregional organizing, knitting together local leaders and existing groups in each major headwater watershed, engaging with tools like Alberta’s nature strategy survey and South Saskatchewan Regional Plan review while also building grassroots, basin‑scale voices that can steward public lands. The conversation closes with Kevin and Lorne underscoring that the eastern slopes are a gift from previous generations, part of Albertans’ “DNA,” and that honouring this legacy means not squandering it but embracing stewardship, recognizing that every land‑use choice is a water decision, and focusing one’s efforts where they can be most effective.

One outstanding question lingers: How far is too far?

According to the Government of Alberta.

Arlene traces the evolution from the Northwest Irrigation Act to Alberta’s Water Resources Act and then the Water Act, noting that groundwater was brought under Crown ownership and FITFIR in 1962, replacing the old rule of capture. The Water Act introduced major river basin divisions and approved water management plans—currently for the South Saskatchewan, Battle, and Milk River basins—which must be considered in key regulatory decisions like transfers. It also created statutory authorizations: household and agricultural exemptions with quantified annual volumes, and licences that grant diversion rights for specified purposes (municipal, irrigation, commercial, habitat enhancement, recreation, water conservation objectives, and others) typically on renewable 10‑year terms, while older licences have no expiry and are easily renewed. New licences can include water conservation objective (WCO) conditions that allow the director to restrict diversions when flows fall below set thresholds, whereas older licences may have in‑stream objectives (IOs) that are generally less protective. Arlene contrasts both WCOs and IOs with scientifically determined in‑stream flow needs (IFNs), arguing that WCOs and IOs are more politically set and often below IFN levels, limiting ecosystem protection.

Assessing the Water Act against an idealized water law, Arlene finds major shortcomings. She notes that while there are some tools to curb impacts for new licences, existing licences are strongly protected, there is no expropriation power for water rights, and cancellation is only possible when rights have gone unused for three years with no reasonable prospect of use. The Act offers only limited mechanisms to secure sufficient in‑stream flows, does not recognize or secure Indigenous water rights, and does not integrate quantity and quality regulation, conjunctive management of surface and groundwater, formal watershed governance, clear rules for alternative sources (wastewater, rainwater, stormwater, saline water), or climate change mitigation and adaptation—though the government is proposing amendments on some of these fronts. Household use has the highest priority, partially securing basic human needs. Overall, Arlene would grade the Act a “D” and says she would not pass it, arguing Alberta could have moved away from FITFIR toward more equitable systems like those in Saskatchewan, Australia, and New Zealand, but powerful sectors—oil and gas, municipalities, and agriculture—resisted change. In practice, Davin McIntosh—a water rights consultant and broker who specializes in facilitating water transfers in Alberta, with prior experience as a planning and municipal development lawyer and involvement in a significant proportion of water transfers in the Bow River Basin and Southern Alberta—points out that priority calls under FITFIR are rarely made, with Alberta preferring voluntary reductions to avoid cutting off junior users, especially municipalities whose licences are technically subject to FITFIR but whose drinking water cannot realistically be curtailed.

Davin then explains why and how water transfers were introduced. As recognition grew in the 1980s–1990s that full exercise of long‑standing rights could push rivers below environmentally sustainable levels, the Water Act added transfer provisions, and a 2007 moratorium on new licences in many areas made transfers the main mechanism for reallocating water. He describes an eight‑step process:

1. finding a suitable right (difficult because rights are rarely advertised and cancellation risk discourages signalling non‑use),

2. negotiating price and contracts despite uncertainty of approval,

3. confirming the licence is in good standing (including compliance checks and sometimes costly reconstruction of works to match old plans),

4. submitting a paper application,

5. responding to extensive and discretionary requests for information from the director,

6. publishing mandatory public notice and handling statements of concern, possible public meetings, and finally a decision. He highlights the director’s broad discretion and evolving, often unwritten policies—such as disallowing transfers “around a corner” in a Y‑shaped tributary, apportionment rules limiting how much can move from a mainstem to a tributary,

7. partial good‑standing determinations, and

8. the 10% conservation holdback that created government WCO licences but is now proposed to be scrapped due to limited overall transfer volumes.

With only about 400 transfers approved since 2007, roughly half being arm’s‑length, the conservation holdback has not significantly boosted in‑stream protection.

Throughout the discussion, we stress that enforcement of ecological needs and federal powers has been weak. Arlene notes that IFNs are not directly recognized in the Water Act, that WCOs and IOs fall short of IFNs, and that private in‑stream flow licences are not currently allowed, though government can and has issued WCO licences to itself.

More water lessons within the Water In Southern Alberta miniseries.

Sandford explains the UN “global water bankruptcy” concept as a post‑crisis state where societies persistently withdraw more water than renewable flows can support, depleting natural capital such as snowpack, glaciers, wetlands, and groundwater that provide “liquid income.” The report shows that even water‑rich countries like Canada, and regions such as southern Alberta, are not immune and may be nearing water bankruptcy, prompting initiatives like the Canada Water Agency. He argues that Alberta has failed to “repay” nature through forest, watershed, and biodiversity protection, and that maladaptive responses—creating weak watershed bodies, building more dams, drilling deeper wells, and diverting rivers—temporarily mask insecurity while deepening insolvency. Nature, he says, is now “initiating foreclosure” by shutting off water, as seen in glacier loss and shrinking snow and ice, and each drained wetland or logged headwater further erodes resilience beyond what engineering can replace.

Summary continues before this news update!

WOW: Did you see Hoekstra on Ryan Jespersen’s Real Talk?

With water bankruptcy—and the West Texas Intermediate system collapse on the horizon—can you believe what is coming out of Pete Hoekstra’s mouth?

Frequency of Contact with Alberta Premier:

Admits that he talks to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith “maybe once every three or four weeks” and speaks with her representatives in Ottawa “at least every week.”

Lack of Expertise on Canadian Perspectives:

States: “I’m not an expert on Canadian citizens or why they think the way that they do or what drives them and those kinds of things.” This is Pete’s job.

Acknowledgment of the “No Need for Canada” Position:

Confirms: “He says we don’t need Canada” — acknowledging that the president has made this statement on the record.

The Sales Approach:

Expects the Canadian provinces to “put on your sales hat” and actively pitch why buying from Canada is beneficial, rather than expecting automatic trade relationships.

SIGN THIS: Send Pete Packing!

Bob and Water Bankruptcy continued

Looking ahead, Sandford urges Alberta to formally acknowledge water bankruptcy risk and adopt transparent, fair rules for sharing scarcity, with participatory processes and strong social safety nets—conditions he says are absent under the current government. He links water security directly to food security and broader sustainable and circular economies, noting that water is often the only issue warring or divided groups can agree on, citing examples from the Middle East, the Northwest Territories, and transboundary agreements with Alberta. He highlights emerging climate science from James Hansen suggesting another El Niño and accelerated warming that could push global temperatures toward 2°C in the 2030s, with Canada warming at twice the global rate, implying severe drought, reduced snowpack, year‑round wildfire risk, and deep social and economic disruption in Alberta by 2027 and beyond. He likens the current moment to “Munich 1939,” arguing that Alberta is unprepared for three degrees of warming, with unpredictable precipitation, concurrent floods and droughts, and increasingly manipulated water licensing.

Politically, Sandford and other speakers connect water to a broader project of “rescuing, reviving, and restoring democracy” in Alberta, suggesting that the looming threat of water bankruptcy could galvanize citizens across issues like education, healthcare, and food security without relying on existing political parties.

TAKE ACTION

Join Public Interest Alberta’s, “No thanks. We choose hope.” Campaign!

Join "No thanks. We Choose Hope."

This conversation from August 2024 centers on Alberta’s escalating water crisis, framed by drought conditions, failing infrastructure, and inadequate government planning and oversight. I outline recent drought impacts, including four southern Alberta communities that had to have water trucked in, and highlights the auditor general’s findings: modelling is limited to parts of the province, most basins lack conservation objectives, there is weak monitoring of water pressure and risk triggers, and enforcement of water licenses and compliance is ineffective. Bruce stress that current models assume “water in equals water out” and ignore losses from heat and evapotranspiration, and that surface water analysis is largely missing, with monitoring focused on rivers and streams rather than the full hydrological picture. We also connect Alberta’s decisions to downstream regions, noting that Alberta is effectively “the taps” for Saskatchewan and Manitoba,—not the Mississippi basin (oops!)—so local choices have far-reaching consequences.

Against this backdrop, Bruce presents his proposal for an integrated water resource preservation and restoration agency that is public, independent, apolitical, interdisciplinary, intercultural, and accountable.

Bruce’s Water Agency Framework

1. Terms of Reference: coherent initiative of social planning with an interdisciplinary approach to managing water basin resources and their uses to identify and satisfy water resource stability and sustainability sufficient to secure ecological, social, and human subsistence indefinitely given resource conflicts, external disruptions, and climate change.

2. Scope of work: to include intake, withdrawal and loss of every drop of surface water, groundwater, aquifer, relative to watershed management including; flood control, tourism, hydropower, fisheries, water quality, navigation, sand and gravel extraction, and riverbank enhancement, erosion, relocation, etc.

3. Adequate data collection and information consistent with the scope and modeling requirements.

4. Scenario modeling and analysis including climate change, extreme weather, financial and institutional risk.

5. Government and public response, input, and real time communication and information.

6. Forecast modeling consistent with sustaining food, health, safety, ecosystem, and biomass sustainability.

7. Agency accountability that ensures system integrity and optimized investment decisions, allocation of capital resources, time horizons, and project implementation and operations.

8. Communication to inform public awareness. disaster readiness, and ensure contingency plans are available for rapid disaster response, food and water security, as well as communicate cost, liability, and inherent risk in real time, consistent with global weather fluctuations of hours, days, and weeks.

9. Government and industry funding, staffing, scheduling, and accountability.

His letter calls for a 10,000‑foot, river‑basin‑wide perspective that considers future water supply under climate change, glacier loss, and increasingly extreme and erratic weather, rather than just current allocations. He argues that no one is currently modelling entire basins or systematically integrating rainfall, aquifers, usage, and ecosystem needs across agriculture, urban, recreational, and wildlife uses. The proposed agency’s terms of reference include tracking intake, withdrawal, and loss of every drop of water from mountain precipitation through snow and ice fields to river flows, recognizing that only about 25% of falling moisture becomes usable river water. It would use complex systems modelling and advances in mathematics and AI to run scenario analyses, identify failure points, and guide long‑term, province‑wide planning, funded on a multi‑decade horizon rather than political cycles.

The discussion then broadens into practical implications, governance gaps, and examples of both failure and opportunity. We describe failing and aging infrastructure, such as Calgary’s major water pipe installed 49 years ago and similar vulnerabilities in other systems, noting that promises of “hundred‑year” assets outlast the people responsible and erode accountability. We criticize fragmented watershed councils that can only advise, not veto projects like proposed Bow River dams, and point out that infrastructure‑heavy solutions are being pursued despite scientific skepticism and uncertainty about future water availability. We highlight how development, oil and gas, and gravel extraction are expanding water use in sensitive areas even as shortages loom, and how sampling is mis‑targeted—focused on rivers rather than wells where contamination and drying are actually being observed by landowners. Bruce’s experience with government responses underscores a pattern of political “feel‑good” letters that claim things are under control without engaging the urgency or substance of his proposals, reinforcing the need for public pressure and stakeholder‑driven change.

Finally, we emphasize accountability, equity, and systemic thinking about water, food, and land use. Bruce insists that all humans need water and should be treated equitably, and that agriculture, urban use, and industry must be reconsidered to reduce waste, including shifting to local food systems such as rooftop or vertical farming to cut transport and water use. Alex cites Dutch vertical gardening and local greenhouse operations as proof that low‑water, local production is feasible and could reduce emissions and pesticide use. We argue that small changes—like replacing imported strawberries with local production—can significantly alter complex models because everything is interrelated, and warn that once we alter systems (e.g., dams, clear‑cuts, urban heat islands), there is “no going back,” so interventions must be carefully evaluated for ecosystem impacts on flora, fauna, and even jet streams.

Next Up, I’ll jump ahead reshare Bob Sandford’s outlining of risks of Global Water Bankruptcy. Stay tuned!

Help me get to 500 subscribers on YouTube and 1000 here on Substack! Like and share this video.

Shannon then situates the famous “Dust Bowl” drought of the 1930s in a longer climate and economic context, explaining that settlers arrived during an unusually wet 15‑year period and mistook those conditions for normal, whereas tree‑ring records show that multi‑year droughts are part of the Prairie West’s long‑term climate. The 1930s crisis was intensified by three factors: lower‑than‑expected precipitation, collapsing wheat prices during the global depression, and accumulating damage from unsustainable agricultural practices such as black summer fallow, which degraded soils. We connect this to colonial policy, noting how agricultural colonization and the creation of Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905 were intertwined with the Department of Indian Affairs under Duncan Campbell Scott, reserve segregation, and legal mechanisms that dispossessed Indigenous peoples and blocked their emerging agricultural success, such as among the Blackfoot in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Shannon elaborates that agricultural settlement was “tightly coupled” with Indigenous dispossession, genocidal policies, and measures like the Peasant Farming policy that forced Indigenous farmers to use outdated technology while neighbouring settlers used modern machinery, all within a broader “clearing the plains” project described by James Daschuk.

Our discussion turns to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA), created in 1935 as part of Canada’s “New Deal” response to the 1930s emergency, and operating until its elimination in 2009 under Stephen Harper’s government in what some have called a “war on science.” Shannon describes PFRA’s early soil‑conservation strategy of strip farming—alternating cropped and fallowed strips to anchor topsoil—which produced unintended consequences by creating more field edges that favoured wheat stem sawflies, leading to severe pest outbreaks that caused some farmers to abandon strip farming despite ongoing soil loss. PFRA’s small‑scale water development projects, such as dugouts and stock‑watering ponds, are presented as relatively successful in providing reliable water for households, gardens, and livestock without large‑scale irrigation, whereas later large irrigation schemes were more complex. Shannon also recounts PFRA’s role in international development in northern Ghana, where Canadian expertise was exported to build water infrastructure; the project had mixed technical success but led to serious unintended health impacts due to increased water‑related diseases carried by snails and mosquitoes—risks that had not been present in the Canadian prairies—highlighting the dangers of transplanting models without local ecological and cultural knowledge.

From there, the conversation broadens to contemporary farming, irrigation, and governance. Bruce notes that many prairie farmers historically arrived with little climate knowledge, took decades to learn the land, and now face soil deterioration and micronutrient loss after a century of farming, while cultural mismatches—whether Europeans in Canada or Canadians in Africa—underscore the importance of local knowledge. Shannon explains that farms have grown larger since the 1930s, making intimate, soil‑attentive management harder, and that the elimination of PFRA and other public agricultural science capacity under neoliberal “small government” has left farmers more dependent on corporations like Monsanto, whose mandate is profit rather than public interest, thereby increasing farmer vulnerability. She traces Alberta’s irrigation history from small individual schemes to corporate and cooperative models, and then to a 1930s shift that framed irrigation as a public good to justify state investment in large infrastructure, with later efficiency gains in the 1960s–70s; nonetheless, she stresses that “you can’t build your way out” of most problems and that more infrastructure alone often creates new issues. We contrast proposals for more dams, irrigation, and even north‑south water transfers—raising concerns about species transfer and failing infrastructure like the Oldman Dam and St. Mary Reservoir—with their preference for restoring headwater forests, removing roads and industrial sites, and enhancing natural storage and habitat.

In the final part of the conversation, we explore potential paths forward. Alex advocates for wetland restoration as a low‑cost way to filter water, maintain movement to reduce sulphates and phosphates, and increase biodiversity, citing artificial wetland basins in his own community that effectively filter hill runoff before it reaches treatment plants. He and others draw parallels between past and present “New Deals,” migrant promises, and cycles of empire, industrialization, and monocropping, arguing that large machinery and annual GMO seed systems from companies like Bayer have disconnected farmers from their land and trapped them in unsustainable models, while small‑scale, greenhouse‑based local food production offers more intimate, resilient alternatives.

Check Out More from Shannon and Bruce in the Water in Southern Alberta podcast mini-series.

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.

Support Trevor Bastien's Legal Effort

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:

Bioregional Organizing Videos

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.

WRITE YOUR MP HERE!

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

Clean Energy Future Talk Sign Up!

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!

Pledge "Together-NO!" Here!

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.

Join Us Here!

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!