Kwantlen Polytechnic University

KORA: Kwantlen Open Resource Access
Honours Theses

Student Scholarship

2015

Breaking Through a Culture of Denial: Pathways to
Environmental Activism in BC
Justine Nelson
Kwantlen Polytechnic University

Follow this and additional works at: http://kora.kpu.ca/honours_theses
Part of the Criminology Commons, and the Environmental Studies Commons
Recommended Citation
Nelson, Justine, "Breaking Through a Culture of Denial: Pathways to Environmental Activism in BC" (2015). Honours Theses. Paper 2.

This Honours Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at KORA: Kwantlen Open Resource Access. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Honours Theses by an authorized administrator of KORA: Kwantlen Open Resource Access. For more information, please
contact kora@kpu.ca.

Breaking Through a Culture of Denial:
Pathways to Environmental Activism in BC

Justine Nelson

Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Bachelor of Arts, Honours in Criminology

Criminology Department
Faculty of Arts
Kwantlen Polytechnic University

May 2015

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I want to thank my faculty supervisor, Mike Larsen, who supported me
through this journey and encouraged me to think outside the box.
As well as the following people, without whom this project would not have been as successful.
Lisa Monchalin and Gwen Barlee gave me wonderful and constructive feedback.
My colleagues Alex Devitt, Nisse Bourne, and Spencer Gillespie provided emotional and
intellectual support.
My family and friends, some of whose names you will find in this writing. They endured my
insanity, supported my dreams, and inspired me to keep going, and continue to do so.

Thesis Committee:
Mike Larsen, Criminology Department, Kwantlen Polytechnic University (Supervisor)
Lisa Monchalin, Criminology Department, Kwantlen Polytechnic University (Internal Reader)
Gwen Barlee, Policy Director, Wilderness Committee (External Reader)

!1

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Table of Contents

Section

Page

1

Introduction

3

2

Green Criminology

11

3

The Problem

23

4

Methodology

40

5

Analysis

45

Pathways to Activism

45

An Amalgamation of Social Movements: Are we all
Environmentalists?

54

Helping Others Break Through the Culture of Denial

67

6

My Own Journey Down the Pathway to Activism

76

7

Discussion

78

8

Works Cited

82

9

Appendices

91

Appendix A: Interview Questions

91

Appendix B: Communication Script

92

Appendix C: Invitation to Participate

93

Appendix D: Consent Form

95

!2

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Introduction
Starting in November 2014, there was a battle being fought over Burnaby Mountain
between the residents of Unceded Coast Salish territory in British Columbia and the Texas based
oil giant Kinder Morgan, which has had the use of the local police force1. The battle grounds
have included court rooms, the media, and the mountain itself. Protesters were camped out on the
mountain for months in attempts to block Kinder Morgan employees from doing testing on the
mountain. After a court injunction ruled in favour of Kinder Morgan the protesters were required
by law to leave the mountain. Instead they stayed and the RCMP was sent in to arrest all those
who crossed the line. More than 100 people were arrested2 including two 11 year old girls3,
Indigenous leaders, Simon Fraser University faculty, and family members of the Canadian
environmentalist David Suzuki (Luba, 2014; Darmarajah, 2014; Moreau, 2014).
The reason that so many people are willing to physically place themselves between
Kinder Morgan and Burnaby Mountain, and even get arrested, is the proposed plans to twin a
pipeline that goes from the Alberta tar sands to a terminal in Burnaby, BC. The new pipeline
would increase the amount of oil travelling from the tar sands from 300,000 barrels a day to 890,
000, also resulting in increased tanker traffic (Fumano, 2015). The protest started after attempts
to legally ban the pipeline from being built were ineffective, regardless of opposition from
citizens, Indigenous groups, business owners, and many Mayors along the proposed pipeline
(Wilderness Committee, n.d.). This is only one of several pipelines being proposed throughout
Canada, all of which are being met with intense opposition.
The situation on Burnaby Mountain is not unusual, it is only one example of the actions
of the social movement that Klein (2014) calls Blockadia. Canada has a history of actions around
environmental issues, including the Clayoquot Sound protest in 1993 (Tindall, 2013) and the
more recent protests against fracking at the Elsipogtog First Nation (Schwartz & Gollom, 2013).
The recent actions are fired by the stripping of federal protection for natural spaces (May, 2012)
and the continually decreasing quality of National Energy Board (NEB) reviews (Linnitt, 2014).
Across the country Canadians are taking direct action to protect the people and places that they
love.
In a world where climate change is no longer avoidable, demonstrations against projects
such as the Kinder Morgan pipeline are necessary to prevent the eventual destruction of our
planet. In fact Naomi Klein (2014) believes that “…only mass social movements can save us
now” (p.450). While there is no doubt that the effects of climate change are currently felt more
intensely by those in developing countries, countries such as Canada and the United States are
starting to face climate disasters. This can be seen in the drought currently occurring in
1 In a report titled “Criminal Threat to the Canadian Petroleum Industry” the RCMP outlines the threat

that anti-petroleum extremists present to Canada.
2 The charges were luckily dropped thanks to a misunderstanding about where the injunction line that

could not be crossed was located (Keller, 2014).
3 The girls were technically detained rather than arrested. However, the point they were making is

irrelevant to the fact that they were not charge.

!3

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

California (McCarthy, 2015), the movement of ticks and other organisms (Tahirali, 2015), and
effects predicted by scientists such as rising tides, acidifying oceans, and less precipitation (US
Global Change Research Program, 2014). This means that climate change is now a global crisis,
which is reflected in demonstrations across the world including the Peoples Climate March
(2014) which drew an estimated 400, 000 people to New York, and a Quebec City march which
drew 25, 000 people (Alarcon, 2015).
Climate change is the biggest threat to our world because it not only effects the
environment through melting glaciers, rising tides and destruction of natural places, but in turn
has enormous effects on the human way of life. The effects of climate change will result in cities
and islands being swallowed by the rising tides, mass migration, extreme food insecurity,
increased poverty and conflict, and a general destruction of our way of life. While the elite may
be able to avoid these threats for a while, they too will eventually be overcome by the realities of
a new world (Klein, 2014; White, 2011). Regardless of the mass global effect climate change
will have, and the possibility of hitting a tipping point where we can no longer undo what we
have done (The AAAS Climate Science Panel, n.d.), most of the leaders of the world seem
unwilling to make the significant and necessary changes (Klein, 2014).
So far attempts have run short of what is necessary; the Kyoto Protocol, carbon taxing,
and geo-engineering for example (Klein, 2014). Politicians have continuously fought over who is
responsible rather than taking action; the wealthy countries not wanting to take on a majority of
the change and the poorer countries feeling they should not pay for the actions of the wealthy
(Klein, 2014). While recent collaboration between China and the United States on a joint effort
to reduce carbon emissions is a step in the right direction, it pales in compassion to what is
needed and will not come close to the reductions the International Panel on Climate Change says
is needed (Biello, 2014). However unpleasant this reality is, it is not surprising within our
capitalist society, where profit is based on the exploitation of people and the environment. Klein
(2014) and White (2011; 2008) both acknowledge that effective change will be in contradiction
to the foundations of capitalism.
In her book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate, Klein (2014) presents
an argument for the connection between capitalism and both the creation of climate change and
lack of action against it. Her past work has engaged with neoliberalism, disaster capitalism, and
globalization, but she herself was in denial about the realities of climate change until recently.
Throughout the book she discusses her journey to climate action, and how she stopped “looking
away”. Her work not only provides a basis for the discussion of the connection between
capitalism and the climate but a view of the way forward.
The lack of action by those in positions of authority means that passionate people taking
a stand will have a significant effect on what the future looks like. As Klein (2014) notes, “[p]ast
social movements have ‘had tremendous influence on…how the dominant culture evolved’” (p.
450). Around the world people are taking to the streets to oppose environmental crimes, both
those defined as crimes legally and those that should be as a result of the harm they cause. While
there is a large movement around these issues, a significant amount of society still has their head
buried in the sand, attempting to ignore the changes that need to take place.

!4

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Denial is embedded in the issue of climate change. Even those who acknowledge it is real
tend to deny its implications or continue to act in ways that suggest they are in denial. Currently,
to completely remove everything that impacts the world’s climate from our lives would be
impossible. We need to eat and even the writing of this study has an impact on the world’s
climate. In our culture it is acceptable, even normal, to ignore the realities of climate change by
continuing to consume at an unnecessary rate, things that are made from the destruction of the
earth. We live in a culture of denial; a culture which is enforced by capitalism and neoliberalism,
and the corporations and states that run under these ideals.
Capitalism is based on the continued increase in both consumption and production,
without consideration for the effect this has on the planet. Within capitalism the market is
supposed to be led by an “invisible hand”, which allows the market to grow and change
independently. However, with neoliberalism this invisible hand is removed and instead of less
government involvement, the government directly interferes in the market with policies and laws
that allow the market free reign above all else (Brown, 2006; Giroux, 2013). For example, within
Canada this can be seen in the removal of environmental protections.
This way of thinking is spread past the economy, to other aspects of society such as
schools, health care, and even individuals. Market values are imprinted upon our way of life,
with everything being evaluated in terms of market trade value. Giroux (2013) explains that
“[m]arket discipline now regulates all aspects of social life and the regressive economic
rationality that drives it sacrifices the public good, public values, and social responsibility to a
tawdry consumerist dream while simultaneously creating a throwaway society of goods,
resources, and individuals now considered disposable” (p.257). The aspect of denial appears
because of the fact that the earth has limits, and it is not possible to have never ending increases
in consumption and production. Also, not everything should be valued in these economic terms,
clean air and water, or a livable planet for example. For capitalism to survive, especially within
the neoliberal ideology, it must create and enforce a society based on denial.
This research looks at those who have broken through this culture, and are now actively
working to prevent further destruction of the earth, and the resulting contribution to climate
change. Drawing on the work of Klein (2014), Cohen (2001), and Norgaard (2010), it discusses
how a person comes to break through the culture of denial and also how we might encourage
others down this pathway. A green criminological perspective is taken, which considers things
that are legal but significantly harmful, such as climate change, as deserving of criminological
inquiry. However, rather than focusing on those that are still in denial, this research looks at
activism as the solution to climate change, and as the only thing that will remove the capitalist
culture of denial. Through in depth interviews with five activists I have identified significant
moments in their pathways, their framing of the issue, and a consideration for how to get others
involved.
The concept of denial used in this study is based on the work of Stanley Cohen, who
coined the term moral panic, and has explored the connections between deviance, media
representation, and social reactions. In his book, States of Denial, Cohen (2001) expands these
concepts and connects them to psychological concepts of denial, symbolic interactionism, and

!5

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

the sociology of state crimes and human rights violations. By connecting all of this literature he
creates a theoretical framework for understanding the connection between individual (micro)
forms of denial, and official or cultural (macro) forms of denial. He makes sense of the different
forms of denial, and in addition creates an argument for the politics of acknowledgement and
moving past denial into action. His work around denial can be seen as attempting to create a
moral panic around things that are deserving of one but, because of the social and political
construction of the issue, are instead denied. He explains that, “[i]nstead of exposing moral
panics, [his] own cultural politics entails, in a sense, encouraging something like moral panics
about mass atrocities and political suffering – and trying to expose the strategies of denial
employed to prevent the acknowledgement of these realities” (Cohen, 2011, xIi (emphasis in
original)). Naomi Klein and other climate activists are attempting to create a sense of moral
panic around climate change, since it deserves the attention but is instead denied. This research is
adding to the ability to do this.
Denial is a way to protect ourselves from reality. Cohen (2001) states that “[o]ne
common thread runs through the many different stories of denial: people, organizations,
governments or whole societies are presented with information that is too disturbing, threatening
or anomalous to be fully absorbed or openly acknowledged”(p.1). He explains that there are
three main areas of denial: literal, interpretive and implicatory. To literally deny something is to
contest its existence such as the belief that climate change is a hoax to destroy capitalism. This
kind of denial may be based on an honest belief, a half- belief, or it may be an outright lie. An
interpretive denial is to accept the basic facts but to deny their interpretation, or to place them in
a different context. An example of this would be that climate change is happening but it will be a
good thing for the world, since everyone likes warm summer days. An implicatory denial is a
denial of the implication of the facts. This type of denial accepts the situation and its
interpretation but denies that there is any reason for that person to be concerned. An example
would be a person who does not believe they can change the effects of climate change, it is
simply too big, so they rationalize their inaction (Cohen, 2001).
All three of these kinds of denial can happen at three different levels: personal, cultural,
and official. Climate change denial happens at all three levels, all of which have their own
motivating factors and dangers. There are also three agents of this denial, the victim, perpetrator,
and the bystander. In the context of climate change we are focusing on denials by the perpetrator
and by standers, which are usually the same in this situation. While the victims may be in denial
of climate change, such as a town suffering from a drought being convinced it is gods will, they
tend to both acknowledge what is happening and act against it. This can be seen in actions taking
place around the world (Klein, 2014). These three agents are slowly merging into one category,
since in many places people are contributing to climate change, being bystanders to it, and also
becoming victims of climate disasters.
Denial then involves “cognition (knowing)…, emotion (feeling)…, morality (judging)…,
[and] action (behavior)” (Cohen, 2001, p.23). The connection between denial and action is less
obvious, in that we may completely acknowledge something but our lack of action, or continued
action, suggests we are still in denial. Within the context of climate change this could be a
corporation, or the person in control of it, continuing the use fossil fuels even though they know
!6

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

it contributes to climate change. This kind of denial may be based on the idea that it cannot
happen to them or may be results of “…political beliefs, cowardice, laziness, selfishness and
sheer amorality” (Cohen, 2001, p.23). From this perspective the lack of action against climate
change, at a group and individual level, can be seen as denial.
It is important to note that denials are based on some knowledge, whether it is conscious
or unconscious. Even those who honestly are not aware of the truth, somewhere in their
unconscious have some awareness. We cannot deny something if we have not heard of its
existence. There are situations where a denial is completely justified and true, for example a
person who is accused of cheating on their spouse, and has never come anywhere close to such
an act, is denying an allegation that is actually untrue (Cohen, 2001). However, within the
context of climate change denial is not as simple, since there is scientific and visual evidence to
back it up. The denial of realities that have evidence of their existence can occur for many
reasons. A person may use it as a defense mechanism to shut out unpleasant situations, a state
may use it to cover up a human rights atrocity, or it may be in the form of a bystander looking
away. Within these contexts denial is an active choice to not acknowledge something but within
that choice we must also at some level acknowledge it. This is referred to as the denial paradox;
knowing and not knowing at the same time (Cohen, 2001).
Our culture not only allows but encourages personal denial of climate change. It tells us
that “[c]ontemporary humans are too self-centered, too addicted to gratification to live without
the full freedom to satisfy our every whim” (Klein, 2014, p. 17). This is a lie but it is one that
many people have internalized. Although there are still people who deny the existence of climate
change, a majority of people accept that it is happening and their denial is interpretive or
implicatory. The reasons behind this denial vary. There are people who are simply unconcerned
with the effects of climate change, it is not their problem or they are unconcerned with the wellbeing of those in other countries. Of course this also holds the assumption that they are safe from
the effects, which is not necessarily true. This type of denial is implicatory in that it denies the
moral implications of the situation.
Other people deny by reinterpretation of the situation. ‘Climate change is real but we will
create a new technology that will save us and allow us to continue living as we are’.
‘Economically it makes more sense to focus on money since it can protect us from extreme
weather.’ ‘The world may be getting warmer but why is that a bad thing? I like the heat!’ All of
these are example of interpretive denial, especially since none of these alternatives are possible.
Technology is not going to save us, at least not all of us. Money is irrelevant when cities are
underwater, unless you are part of the capitalist elite; then money may help. And yes a little bit of
warm weather is great but that is not what we are in for (Klein, 2014).
Another type of denial is that which keeps us from action. ‘What am I supposed to do?’
‘I’m only one person, I won’t make a difference’. ‘I buy locally, take the bus and limit my
electricity use…I am doing my part’. ‘I am too busy’. ‘This is not my problem to fix’. All of
these are what Cohen (2001) would call midrange denials where “…the painful or frightening
implications of events or perceptions are denied, although the evidence itself is
acknowledged” (p. 23). This stems from the belief that there is nothing that can be done on an

!7

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

individual level, all there is “…to do is keep on denying how frightened we actually are” (p.4).
This belief that we lack the ability to do anything stems from the culture of denial that we live in,
based on neoliberalism and capitalism. This culture tells us that we cannot live without the
continued consumption of the latest product, that we would never survive without fossil fuels,
and that we are all self-centered. It denies us the ability to see past our neoliberal capitalist
society.
Klein (2014) refers to personal denial as “looking away”. We choose to avoid an
unpleasant reality which we feel we cannot change. Within Cohen’s (2001) concept of denial this
is simply a defense mechanism to protect ourselves from the psychological distress of facing
such an unpleasant reality. Within this we also deny the implications of our personal actions,
perhaps by stating that our actions do not have a large impact. We may also condemn the
condemner; ‘all of those environmentalists drive cars and live in big houses’. These are all forms
of neutralization, based on Sykes’s and Matza’s neutralization techniques for delinquents
(Cohen, 2001).
Individuals may also use these neutralizations to rationalize or justify their actions before
they do them. For example, a person who is planning on buying a new car that uses a lot of gas
may convince themselves it is okay before even purchasing it. This may sound similar to: ‘I
know climate change is a problem but I really like this car and it is not as if not buying it will
solve the climate crisis. Everyone else I know drives big trucks anyways…this car is not that
bad’. These types of denial often actually go against our self-image, so we have to keep
rationalizing with ourselves. A person who acknowledges climate change and its implications has
to continually rationalize every act that contributes to the climate crises. While it may not be a
conscious neutralization, it is a constant process in everyday life. This is a denial of their ability
to change based on a culture of denial.
This also turns us all into bystanders to the climate crisis. While our state is a bystander
nation, we are all individual bystanders. Within the context of seeing devastating footage of
natural disasters caused by climate change in distance places, it is not strange for people to
accept being bystanders. As Cohen (2001) explains it is difficult for people to open up their
moral community to include people from other countries, or even from other cities. Our moral
communities may be as small as our own family. At the other extreme there are people who care
for the suffering of people across the world. This inability to open up our moral community is
enforced by the neoliberal ideology that our capitalist society so adamantly enforces; everyone
for themselves.
There are cases were the climate crisis comes closer to home. Developed countries have
started to experience super storms and other variants of extreme weather. We also see
demonstrations happening. A recent local example of this is the protests which occurred on
Burnaby Mountain, discussed at the beginning of this section. There were a lot of people who
showed support by showing up to protest or sending supplies to the camp, but there were also a
lot of people who disagreed with the actions of Kinder Morgan and the police yet did nothing.
This is a perfect example of being an internal bystander. There was minimal aggression, but these
people were fighting to take action against climate change. Many people viewed the injunction

!8

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

and the use of local police as a violation of the rights of citizens, yet only a portion of them took
action. This of course stems from the same kind of neutralizations as discussed above; they are
stuck in a culture of denial.
Even though our actions point to the continual denial of climate change, a recent survey
revealed that half of Canadians are ‘extremely’ or ‘definitely’ worried about climate change,
specifically about what the world will look like for future generations (McDiarmid, 2014). There
are people who act out against the actions of our state and capitalism, calling for a change and
effective action against climate change. What makes these people stop ‘looking away’? How do
they break through the culture of denial?
The question animating this research is, how does a person move from denial into
acknowledgment and then to action, around environmental issues? There were three related
secondary questions in my research, which I believed needed exploration. The first was how or
why does a person come to be involved in civil disobedience? Or why not? While I do
acknowledge that not all activism involves civil disobedience, it seems to be a large part of the
movement, at least as it is visible in the media. Naomi Klein (2014) also emphasizes its
importance within the movement.
The second question was how do people frame environmental harm? While I focused on
environmental issues within British Columbia, I soon came to realize that these issues were not
seen as just environmental. People’s activism stemmed from other avenues, however their
activism at the moment is related to the environment. The last question looked at how we can
foster activism in other people, especially children/youth. While this movement seems to be
strong and growing (Klein, 2014), there is still a significant amount of people living in denial.
There is also some concern that the next generations will not have the same connection to nature,
as current and past generations (Louv, 2008).
This paper begins with an overview of green criminology, which is a growing perspective
and creates the foundation for research of this type. There will then be an overview of the “the
problem”. This starts by looking at the history of colonization, industrialization, and capitalism,
as they relate to environmental crimes. It also includes an explanation of what climate change is
and what it means for our world. These two sections will form the basis for this research and I
have chosen to delve into them in some detail because of the fact that they are not necessarily
well known. I believe that these sections create a strong argument for the connection between
capitalism, a culture of denial, and the continued destruction of our planet. At this point we
should have a firm understanding of what we are looking at. In the next section the methodology
for the research will be discussed. I will then present the analysis with three main sections:
“Pathways to activism”, “An amalgamation of social movements: are we all environmentalists?”,
and “Helping others break through the culture of denial”.
From here I will present my own journey. This research has been extremely selfreflective and has brought up many uncomfortable and empowering moments in my own life. I
came to this research as someone who was already involved in activism, although this mostly
involved doing park restoration, attending protests when I could, and attempting to limit my own
impact. This research was my “moment of awareness”, as I will discuss in greater detail in this
!9

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

section. I will conclude with a discussion of the implications of this research and by answering
the question of “what next?”. If a social movement is the solution, and climate change needs to
be acted on now, how do we get people to “wake up”? And how do we make this happen now?

!10

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Green Criminology
Traditionally the field of criminology has been concerned with the legal-procedural
definition of crime. This means that what is considered to be crime is prescribed by laws and
rules regulating human behaviour (White, 2009; Halsey & White, 1998). However, growing
concern over the extreme negative impact that humans have on the planet, has led to the
development of a new branch of criminological thought: green criminology (White, 2009; White,
2008). Green criminology takes on a socio-legal definition of harm that encompasses harmful or
destructive practices which may fall outside of what is defined as illegal within existing laws
(White, 2009; Halsey & White, 1998; White, 2003). This conceptualization of what is defined as
crime, and therefore worthy of criminological inquiry, is extremely important with regard to
environmental issues. This is because a large amount of environmental harms fall under socially
accepted practices (Halsey & White, 1998); mining, clear cut logging, and hydraulic fracking for
example. Green criminology has similarities to other work within the field of criminology on
white collar crime (Sutherland, 1949) and discrimination (Schwendinger & Schwendinger,
1975;)(White, 2003; Halsey & White, 1998).
White (2009) explains that the aim of green criminology “…is to stretch the boundaries
of mainstream criminology to accommodate issues of global significance, while also utilizing the
insights of conventional criminology, to illuminate ways in which to understand and respond to
environmental harm” (p. 2-3). The green perspective is based within critical criminology, which
questions the assumptions that criminology is based on. There is a focus on inequality and power
and how they influence these taken for granted assumptions (Uggen & Inderbitzin, 2010). There
is a huge gap between what is defined as environmental crime by laws and regulations and that
which actually causes destruction to the environment (Halsey & White, 1998). This is a result of
the current view of the relationship between humans and the environment. Before a further
discussion of green criminology, it is important to identify the different views of this
relationship.
The human/nature relationship
There are three main philosophical viewpoints of the relationship between humans and
the environment: anthropocentricism, biocentrism, and ecocentrism. Anthropocentrism is how
our society currently interacts with the environment. This view point “…emphasizes the
biological, mental and moral superiority of humans over all other living and non-living
entities” (Halsey & White, 1999, p.31). This view point sees non-human nature as simply a tool,
with its only worth being how it can benefit humans. There is little concern for the effect that
humans have on nature, or the implications this effect may have for the future of the human race.
Benefits and problems are only measured in economic terms. Any kind of environmental
conservation is done for aesthetics or sustainable development, within a framework of ‘green
capitalism’ (Halsey & White, 1998; White, 2008). The market is put above all else and any laws
seem to work with rather than prosecute offenders. There is a focus on “…regulation…to contain
instances specific to environment harms (e.g. oil spills), rather than to eradicate structural
problems (e.g. reliance on fossil fuels)” (Halsey & White, 1998, p.33).

!11

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

This kind of philosophical view of human superiority has had detrimental effects on how
we interact with each other and the earth. Anthropocentrism is a huge part of capitalism and “…it
is essential to those social systems which attempt to ‘naturalize’ the domination of humans by
humans (capital over labour) and the domination of non-human nature by humans (capital over
the natural environment)” (Halsey & White, 1998). Regardless of the disastrous effects of this
view point it continues to be prominent and relatively unchallenged within our society (Halsey &
White, 1998). A further discussion of the connection between anthropocentrism, capitalism, and
environmental harm will occur in the next section.
In contrast to the anthropocentric view is the biocentric view, which sees humans as equal
in all aspects to every other organism. Non-humans are seen as having moral worth, regardless of
the value attributed to them by humans (Halsey & White, 1998; White, 2008). This point of view
embraces natural selection and the idea that “when any species, including human beings, comes
up against ‘natural limits’ then ‘Nature’ will, through various biological means, reduce its
population to the ‘carrying capacity’ of a particular region” (Halsey & White, 1998). Any
decisions from this point of view would be made with the aim of living life as closely to nonhuman beings as possible, in that we would be attempting to live within the constraints of mother
earth.
Things such as famines and natural disasters are seen as nature’s way of reducing the
human population to live within these constraints. This view point lacks any response or
consideration for social effects or injustice that may result from the application of these ideas
(Halsey & White, 1998). Laws made under this philosophy “…would be to ‘reiterate’ biological
and ecological laws, regardless of the penalties to be paid by significant sections of the human
population” (Halsey & White, 1998, p. 36). Biocentrism lacks the ability to address the social
and political realities of environmental issues (Halsey & White, 1998).
At the mid-point between these two views is ecocentrism, which gives consideration to
the needs of both humans and non-humans but recognizes the special responsibility that humans
hold as a result of the global effects they can have (White, 2008; Halsey & White, 1998). While
humans are always going to have an impact on nature, they also have a need to work within the
limits of the natural world and help it flourish. This is so that they can continue to survive.
Ecocentrism has anthropocentric aspects in that it is concerned with the well-being of humans
and their individual and collective interests. However, it also realizes that these interests can only
continue to be met if the environment is preserved. Current methods of extraction, and the
commodification of nature, go against human needs in that they are destroying that which we
need to survive (air, water, etc.) (Halsey & White, 1998).
From this view point any decisions should be made within a framework of participatory
democracy. While global issues are of concern these issues are seen as best addressed at the
local, grass roots level, with “…a constant movement between local initiative and global
solidarity” (Halsey & White, 1998). An ecocentric philosophy has five assumptions: “1)
Everything is connected to everything else; 2) the whole is greater than the sum of its part; 3)
Meaning is context dependent; 4) Process has primacy over parts; [and] 5) Humans and nonhuman nature are one” (Merchant, 1990, p.59-60 as cited in Halsey & White, 1998, p. 38).

!12

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Environmental issues are also placed within a social justice framework. For example, the clear
cutting of forests would be a problem because of the negative effect on the eco-system but also
because of the effects on indigenous communities living in that forest, along with other related
social problems. Any legal changes would be made with these socio-environmental concerns as
their basis (Halsey & White, 1998).
Justice for who?
Green criminology is ultimately concerned with who or what the victim of the harm is. It
can be separated into three broad tendencies, which engage will all three of the above
philosophical views: environmental justice, ecological justice, and species justice. Environmental
justice is predominantly concerned with the rights of humans, which means that at face value it is
anthropocentric. Concerns for this area involve how the health and well-being of people are
effected by our ways of engaging with the environment. Of particular importance is the unequal
distribution of harm from unhealthy environments, with consideration for the fact that those who
are being harmed may not be aware of the realities of this harm. For example there is often
pressure as a result of socio-economic status to accept a certain amount of environmental risk
(White, 2008; White, 2003). While environmental justice is primarily concerned with human
rights, it can also be ecocentric if it “…is based upon enlightened human self-interest” (White,
2008, p.18 (emphasis in original)). In other words it can be based upon the realization that
human interests are intimately connected with the health of the environment.
Ecological justice on the other hand is primarily concerned with the health of the
environment and the rights of other species, which are seen to have their own intrinsic rights.
Humans are only one part of a vast ecosystem. Their actions should always consider this
relationship and any possibility of harm to the environment. This point of view can differ in its
understanding of the value of humans and their specific interests. At one end of the spectrum the
biocentric view sees human rights, or individual rights, as insignificant to the well-being of the
environment as a whole. Humans are seen as a problem and harms against them, such as famine,
are simply ways of controlling the problem. At the other end of the spectrum is the ecocentric
view which incorporates ecological justice into concepts of power and social justice. This view
realizes that human and environmental exploitation are both a result of social forces (White,
2008; White, 2003).
It is important to note that the framing of environmental harm within ecological or
environmental justice can be significantly influenced by socio-economic status. A person who is
living in poverty and can only afford to live next to a factory which emits toxic pollution may not
be able to look past their own needs. On the other hand, a financially wealthy person, who is
most likely living in safe and comfortable accommodations, has the ability to look past human
rights and focus on the rights of the environment (White, 2008). However, socio-economic status
does not guarantee a specific view point. There are many who live in poverty that are concerned
with the well-being of the environment and many who live privileged lives who are concerned
solely with their own well-being. This contrast comes up as a main theme within this research.

!13

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

The last area is species justice, which is concerned primarily with the rights of animals
and may invoke the use of the term speciesism (discrimination of non-human animals). The
rights of animals can also be seen on a scale, from a welfarist approach to one based on rights.
The welfarist approach is concerned with treating animals as fairly as possible but not with the
removal of exploitation; the main issue is the prevention of unnecessary suffering. This approach
coincides with ecocentrism. A rights based approach is biocentric, in that it calls for the end of
exploitation. This is based on the belief that all animals should be able to live their lives in
freedom and that they should be right-bearing entities rather than property (White, 2008).
The question of which rights are most important and should be given the most weight is
not easily answerable. Within green criminology there is surely room for all of these view points
and each should be considered in its own space. White (2008) suggests that the most successful
way of dealing with this conflict is to see issues as they relate to all three perspectives. A
significant amount of environmental issues are harmful to humans, animals, and the
environment, and should be considered within their specific context. Figure 1 is “…a model of
decision-making in which information in each of the three areas is weighted up in regards to any
specific issue” (White, 2008, p. 24).
Weighing Up Harm
Ecocentric Approach to
Justice

Animalcentric Approach to
Justice

Humancentric Approach to
Justice

Figure 1 (White, 2008, p. 24)
This model acknowledges the interconnectedness of the three areas. The actions of
humans can have a negative effect on the environment and other species, which in turn can have
a negative impact on humans. A recent example of this is the tailing pond spill at Mount Polley
mine on August 4, 2014. The tailing pond near Likely, British Columbia spilled an estimated 25
million cubic meters of water, contaminated with mine waste, into surrounding waterways (CBC
News, 2014). This disaster effects the ecosystem of the surrounding water ways and the animals
that depend on the water but humans are one of the species which depend on it. Humans are
therefore effected by their own actions (or of actions by some of their species). The above model
allows for the weighing of harm to all those involved and gives context for the assessment of
these harms; rather than a rigid predetermined decision on which rights are more worthy (White,
2008). However, “[f]or the model to work, it is essential that objective data be collected, that
scientific studies be drawn upon, that various types of experiential and traditional knowledge are
tapped into, and that baseline information is provided” (White, 2008, p.26). This model is useful
when we are considering the results of this research and the many different ways that the
activists view their action.

!14

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

The social construction of environmental crime
Any analysis of environmental crime must be done while acknowledging that what is
defined as harm is ultimately a social construction. Within green criminology there is an
acceptance that realist and constructionist views both apply. In that, “yes, there is an objective
‘nature’, and yes, humans interpret this nature through cultural filters” (White, 2008, p.33). The
actual environmental problem may not be contested but the significance of it, and how much
attention it is given, is a social construct. In many ways environmental problems need to become
social problems to be given real weight within the current social context (White, 2008). This is
where the idea of a social movement being the solution to climate change comes into play.
White (2008) engages with Hannigan’s (2006) pathway to the social construction of
environmental problems. First is the assembling of the problem with supporting research and
evidence. Second, is presenting the problem by bringing attention to its significance, usually
through the mass media and by attributing moral worth to it. The third aspect is contesting,
which involves networking, gaining support and in general mobilizing people around the issue.
There are many factors that may interfere with the successful construction of a problem such as
lack of scientific authority, media attention, or motivated people. Ambiguity of definition can
also be an issue, since what is seen as a problem for one person may not be considered one for
someone else. Problems can also be framed in different lenses. For example, a logger may view
logging as an issue of job retention over environmental harm (Hannigan, 2006 as cited in White,
2008).
Important to this social construction, as noted above, is the framing of problems as both
social and environmental. While there is a desire within green criminology to move towards
more of an ecocentric point of view, certain realities place human needs over that of nonhumans. The basis for this is that humans have a significant amount of power over the
environment and therefore an ability to either help or harm it. While there are certain
environmental forces which effect humans, such as flooding and fires, humans have a drastically
bigger effect on the environment. The second issue is that equality among living and non-living
being on the earth, or complete moral egalitarianism, is neither logical nor practical. There are
differences between species and the view of human suffering as natural is unacceptable from a
moral standpoint (White, 2008).
Beyond this is the acknowledgment of universal human interests. This means that the
survival and prosperity of humans relies on the eco-systems which we effect. Basic needs for
survival, such as clean air and water, should be considered of greatest importance. However this
is not usually the case. White states that “…the reason why we are not fixing up the planet, even
though it is to the advantage of all that we work together in our common interest, is that specific
class interests intrude upon the process whereby planetary well-being might be the priority” (p.
47). The social construction of environmental issues is intimately connected with capitalism and
state/corporate crime.
Capitalism: the fuel for environmental crime.

!15

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Everyone can have an impact on the environment, and can therefore create environmental
harm, but the powerful have a significantly greater capacity to do so. Within a capitalist system4
it is the corporations whom have the most power, and therefore their environmental crimes are
the most harmful. However, it is the capitalist system itself which is the greatest culprit for
environmental crime, for it is inherently criminogenic (White, 2008). Glasbeek (2004) explains
that the system is designed to remove responsibility from those making decisions, in that the
corporation is legally a person and responsible for its acts. However, a corporation is not capable
of thinking and acting on its own and therefore it lacks criminal intent. Within a criminal justice
system which require both an act (actus reas) and intent (mens reas), there are no grounds to
convict. There have been new standards created, that state a “corporation [is] ‘criminally
responsible’ when it’s acting mind and will exhibit wrongful intention” (Glasbeek, 2004 as cited
in White, 2008). However this standard is very problematic within large corporations where it is
extremely hard to prove.
Glasbeek (2004) states that corporate crime is the norm rather than the exception. There
are rarely criminal sanctions imposed for corporate wrong doing, which results in crime being
profitable. Within a capitalist society citizens are divided into the upper (capitalist) class and the
lower (working) class. In western countries the capitalist class is filled with predominantly
wealthy, white men who own the corporations and/or are heavily invested in them. There is also
significant overlap between the capitalist class and those with state power. It is therefore no
surprise that the laws reflect their interests. This is the basis of the problem within state/corporate
crime, which, as a result of immense environmental transgressions, is also significant within
green criminology (Glasbeek, 2004; White 2008 & 2011).
The capitalist system is hugely responsible for environmental crime, and the social
construction of it, as a result of its engrained denial of harm (White, 2008). Capitalism is based
on the continual increase of consumption, with no regard to for the effects this has on nature. In
fact, nature is turned into a commodity that is seen as an exchange value rather than use value,
and may even be altered biologically or physically; the genetic engineering of food for example.
The system is the problem because of the way it views our relationship with nature, it is
harmfully anthropocentric (Glasbeek, 2004; White 2008 & 2011).
This mode of production, based on continued expansion and commodification, is
inseparable from the way we consume. Historically people have consumed based on what they
need to survive but capitalism is based on consumerism. Consumerism is the fuel for a capitalist
society in that it constantly creates new needs, such as through the introduction of new trends or
constantly evolving technology (the iPhone for example). In this sense production, or the need of
the corporations to sell, is served by the need to consume, rather than the need to consume being
served by production (White, 2008). The effect that this has on the environment is huge. There
are “…constant escalating pressures on the world’s non-renewable resources, huge waste of
existing human and natural resources and potentials, major issues of disposal and clean-up, and a
4 It is important to note that it is not just capitalism states that have a history of environmental

crimes, Communist countries are also known to have little consideration for the environment. However,
within the current context we are primarily concerned with capitalism.

!16

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

‘demonstration effect’ which is distorting world production-consumption patterns” (White, 2008,
p. 163).The fact that this production and consumption is based on the extraction and burning of
fossil fuels, means that capitalism is ultimately the driving force behind climate change.
In essence, capitalism socially constructs environmental destruction to seem normal and
not criminal. The creation of “needs” or desires makes corporate destruction of environment
seem as if it is unavoidable (White, 2008; Klein, 2014). For example, the tar sands are necessary
because we need oil for our car and we NEED our car. It also makes environmentally unfriendly
activities pleasurable, such as going for a scenic drive in that car. Consumption is a social
phenomenon as it is based on the production of needs and desires, for the purpose of fueling
capitalism. However, at its core this philosophy of continual increase in production and
consumption is contradictory. Capitalism is based on the continual increase of production
through use of raw material but it destroys the material that it relies on. Ecological sustainability
is impossible within a capitalist system, so capitalism is inherently environmentally harmful, and
therefore destroys its possibility of continual increase in production (White, 2008; Klein, 2014).
Capitalism is also inherently socially unjust, as it puts the need to increase production
over natural human needs and ignores social consequences. This is evident in the fact that those
with the least money often receive the worst service or quality of product (White, 2008& 2003).
It is also often the poor and working class who are exposed to environmental risks, with minority
groups bearing the brunt of this harm. Those who live in precarious situations are easily
exploited to work in dangerous situations. The capitalist system is structurally criminal, as it is
based on the exploitation of the environment and the working class (White, 2008; Klein, 2014;
Glasbeek, 2004).
The state is intimately connected with capitalism, as there is significant overlap between
the capitalist class and the state. This overlap is evident in who is elected, funding allocated to
campaigns by corporations, and a revolving door between regulators and corporate employees.
What is defined as criminal is therefore decided by the capitalist class, which explains why street
crime has harsh penalties when state/corporate crime does not; regardless of the fact it can cause
significantly more harm (White, 2008 & 2011). Canada is a great example of this reality, where
“getting tough on crime” has meant significantly harsher punishments for street crime. While at
the same time environmental protection has been stripped. This is a situation of the criminals
defining the crime (Green, Ward & McConnachie, 2007). Corporations also have the ability to
use state resources such as the police and the courts for their own purposes. This is evident in the
use of strategic lawsuits against public participation and the use of police officers or military to
protect corporate interests (White, 2008 & 2011; Klein, 2014; Hurley & Shogren, 1997).
Green criminology requires a critical analysis of capitalism and the social construction of
environmental harm. There is a blurry line between what is criminal and what is not, a line that is
constructed by capitalism. Green, Ward and McConnachie (2007) suggest “…that state crimes,
for criminological purposes, should be defined as actions by state agencies that not only violate
human rights, but also violate norms with which the agency in question was under significant
pressure to conform” (p.119). This also transfers to corporations, which should be held to a
higher standard than their own definitions of crime. However, not all state/corporate crime is

!17

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

defined as legal even within their own definitions. Corporations have a long history of
environmental crimes, such as the illegal dumping of toxic waste, and states have similar
histories, such as illegal logging. Legal loop holes and captured regulators allow many of these
crimes to go unpunished or even unacknowledged. While there are certainly state/corporate
crimes committed at a local level, many of these crimes transcend state boundaries and are
carried to other parts of the world as a result of globalization (White, 2008 & 2011; Green et al,
2007)
The Globalization of Environmental Harm and an Eco-Global Criminology
In today’s world we are all connected at some level. What we choose to do in our
everyday lives has effects on people living in countries around the world. White (2011) relates
this to the “butterfly effect”, where even the smallest act can have immense effects somewhere
else in the world. He suggests that “the local is indeed global in this worldwide system of
networks and flows” (p. 1). At a basic level globalization has led to transnational crime within
the traditional sense of crime as something which is illegal. This can also include environmental
issues such as illegal pollution. Within a green criminological perspective though transnational
environmental crimes involve:
-… some kind of cross-border transference and an international or global dimension…,
- Transgressions that are harmful to humans, environments and non-human animals,
regardless of legality per se; and
- environmental-related harms that are facilitated by the state, as well as corporations and
other powerful actors, insofar as these institutions have the capacity to shape official
definitions of environmental crime in ways that allow or condone environmentally
harmful practices. (White, 2011, p.3 (emphasis in original))
Globalization has led to the creation of superpowers called transnational corporations,
and the spread of capitalism across the world. Worldwide emphasis on ‘free trade’, privatization
of nature, and neoliberal states, all enforce the effects of global capitalism. They are also
supported by global institutions such as the World Bank (Friedrichs & Friedrichs, 2002). Many
people look to globalization as a good thing. However, the effects it has on poorer countries and
those who inhabit them, show it is only good for the corporations who now benefit off of the
commodification of the environment and people at both a global and local level.
In addition, neoliberalism enforces capitalism because it creates a culture where the
market is the ultimate concern. Policies are put in place to allow the corporations to increase
their production and profits as much as possible, with little, if any, consideration for the effects.
Over the last decade Canada has seen its environmental protections be stripped to pave the way
for energy projects such as the Kinder Morgan Pipeline, SLAPP suites are being filed against
those who dare stand up to corporations, and the conservative government is intent on keeping
the destructive tar sands alive. However, the Canadian economy benefits very minimally from
these destructive practices. These ideals are also spread to other sectors, such as education and
health care, where the quality is of little concern if the same service can be provided for less
!18

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

money. In addition, market values are spread to individual lives, where people are left to take
care of themselves regardless of their social situation. This has created a society which is
primarily concerned with themselves, and possibly their closest family and friends. Neoliberalism has been a strengthening force behind corporate control. (Giroux, 2013; Brown, 2006;
Brown, 2003)
The spread of capitalism has led to a new sub discipline within green criminology called
eco-global criminology. Eco-global criminology is attempting to address the global realities of
environmental harm and one of the main focuses is on how research is conducted. White (2011)
draws on Connell (2007), who “…queries whose knowledge, whose perspectives and whose
ideas come to dominate our understandings of the social world” (p.28). We can connect this to
Cohens (2001) concept of cultural denial, which looks at the social construction of denial, which
can lead to a personal denial of serious realities. To understand global issues we must hear global
voices, which is something that is missing within academia today. We must cross both cultural
and disciplinary boundaries and be sensitive to the specific situation we are working within,
rather than accepting the culture of denial. White (2011) states that “[b]ridging the gap requires
dialogue (not monologue), listening (not lecturing) and give-and-take interchange (not just give,
or just take)” (p.30). There is a history of exploitation within western academia, which mirrors
the exploitation by western capitalism, and this must be addressed for successful and useful
research to take place. This connects closely to decolonizing indigenous methods (Kovach,
2010).
There is also a need for the implementation of horizon scanning, where the risk of future
harms, or currently unacknowledged harms, are also addressed. Horizon scanning involves
identification of perpetrators of harm (causal forces), the use of multidisciplinary methods to
uncover these transgressions, and consideration of how to respond. Consideration of the future is
of specific importance through intergenerational justice (equity), precautionary principle
(measure of prevention), and transference over time (aggregate and amalgamating effects)
(White, 2011).
Within eco-global criminology there is a focus on three broad issues: climate change, biodiversity, and waste and pollution. All of these issues are related and have an immense impact on
the present and future state of our world. However, climate change is by far the greatest threat. It
is the cause of current harm and it is going to continue to increase in intensity and scope.
Capitalism is the pressing force behind climate change and the capitalist class refuses to change
its ways, placing economic gain over the continued prosperity and safety of the planet. The
effects of climate change will result in widespread chaos, as a result of food shortages, mass
migration and increased social conflicts. Even attempts by the capitalist class to mitigate the
effects of climate change result in more harm (paradoxical harms) (White, 2011).A discussion of
climate change and its implications for the future of our world will be discussed later in this
review.
From Research to Action: A Green Public Criminology
It is evident by the above overview of what green criminology encompasses, that there is
no simple answer to what green criminologists do. On one hand green criminology can work
!19

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

within existing legal definitions of crime by analyzing current laws and regulations surrounding
environmental crime. From this point there can be conceptualizations of ways to enhance
environmental protection through existing legal structures or through the introduction of new
ones, such as an international environmental court. However, White (2008) suggests that the real
goal of critical green criminology is “…challenging the status quo, and about making the world a
better place” (p.274). This involves seeing, judging, and acting. There is a need to be aware of
the social construction of environmental harm through capitalism and corporate/state actions. In
addition to being aware of how capitalism and globalization allows for immense social inequality
and the exploitation of people and the environment (White, 2008 & 2011). Through this
awareness there needs to be a call to action on the part of both criminologists and the world at
large.
This calls for further consideration of what is criminal, as a result of needing to overcome
the powers of capitalism. Activism in many parts of the world is criminalized and the state is
active in repressing democratic participation. The criminalization of dissent calls for further
investigation by criminologists, who must play an active role in exposing these wrongs. Activism
may also involve acts that are legally defined as illegal and may even be harmful, such as acts of
ecotage. In these situations there needs to be careful consideration for the realities surrounding
these actions. While harm is never good, in some cases it may be necessary. The capitalist elite
are powerful and harmful, and in the case of globally detrimental realities such as climate
change, there may be a need to fight fire with fire. In some cases illegal and harmful acts may be
justified and necessary (White, 2011).
This research expands on this consideration and study of activism, in that it see’s activism
as a solution to a culture of denial that is inherently criminal. From this point of view, the study
of how people come to be active is necessary to “solve” this crime. While traditional lenses of
criminology may see laws and prisons as solutions to street crimes, green criminologists should
see activism as the ultimate solution for the crime of climate change. From this point we also
need to make sure that as criminologists we are actively applying and engaging in these
solutions.
In essence green criminology calls for public involvement, or a green public criminology.
Uggen and Inderbitzin (2010) state that “[n]owhere is the gap between perception and evidence
greater than in the study of crime and punishment” (p. 726). I believe that this statement transfers
to environmental crime within its current capitalist social construction, as is demonstrated in the
above discussion. While there is currently no literature suggesting a green public criminology, it
seems that the aims of the perspective calls for one. Public criminology means taking research
and information from the criminology field and disseminating it within the wider public, while
also engaging with and working with and for the public. The point of this is to influence both
policy and public thought. In regards to this work, I am intending to utilize the findings to
strengthen the movement against climate change, from my position as an activist.
Uggen and Inderbitzen (2010) identify four main areas of public criminology, which
intersect with professional, critical and policy criminology:

!20

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

(a) evaluating and reframing cultural images of the criminal, which is perhaps the clearest
example of public criminology; (b) reconsidering rule making, which has deep roots in critical
criminology; (c) evaluating social interventions, which derives from policy criminology; and (d)
assembling social fact and situating crime in disciplinary knowledge, which most clearly maps
onto professional criminology (p. 726)
The intersection of public criminology within the other three areas makes it a useful platform for
a successful green criminology, which has an emphasis on social change. A reframing of who is
criminal is necessary because of the capitalist definition of what is crime. This leads to a need for
critical examination of rule-making within a capitalist system, and an evaluation of resulting
social interventions. Green criminology has a huge need for the use of interdisciplinary
knowledge and social facts to effect social change. Public criminology calls for engagement with
the public through media, teaching, and community engagement, something that green
criminology will need if it to be successful.
To simply study environmental crime and be critical of the realities surrounding it will
not create social change. Green criminology needs to be involved within the wider environmental
movement, by providing support and knowledge to those fighting environmental crime. This
could be through attempts to change social perceptions, pushing for legal changes surrounding
the criminalization of dissent, or joining in at the front lines of the battle through engagement
with environmental groups and acts of protest. Cohen (2001) explains that as intellectuals we
have a moral obligation “…to try to find out and tell the truth as best as one can about matter of
human significance to the right audience- that is, an audience that can do something about them”
(p.286(emphasis in original)).
Being involved in public green criminology may not be easy or immediately rewarding,
and it may even present possible dangers to the criminologist. In public criminology in general it
is it acknowledged that engaging with the public can be difficult, since they are navigating
through the media and fighting against public perceptions reinforced by the state. It can even
present dangers to the criminologist if they are associated with negatively viewed communities
such as sex offenders (Uggen & Inderbitzen, 2010). For green criminologists this reality is
heightened, since it is the corporations and state that we are speaking out against and
challenging. At a relatively unthreatening level corporations control what is let out through the
media, as a result of their ownership over most of the main media outlets. At a significantly more
threatening level they have control over the state, and through it the criminal justice system and
military. Green criminology is at its core deconstructing and challenging capitalism, and
threatening the current social order of the world; one that the capitalist elite are unlikely to give
up without a fight. This threat should not be a reason for not engaging in a public criminology.
For, as Cohen (2001) explains, “[i]ntellectuals who keep silent about what they know, who
ignore the crimes that matter by moral standards, are even more morally culpable when their
society is free and open. They can speak freely, but choose not to” (p.286).
This overview of green criminology will provide a perspective for the rest of this study.
Many of the topics mentioned above will reappear in later sections and the topics of climate
change, denial, and activism will be explored within a green criminology context. This research

!21

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

is expanding beyond what is traditionally thought of to be criminology, and green criminology,
especially eco-global criminology, provides a platform for these types of studies. This section has
come near the beginning of this study so that the rest of the sections can be read with this
perspective in mind. In the next section I will be providing in depth context for the exact problem
that we are facing. As criminologists we need to be aware of how our world is changing and
continue to evolve with these changes, so that we are investigating problems and implementing
strategies that are relevant and useful.

!22

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

The Problem:
Scientific evidence points to the eventual destruction of our current way of life as a result
of climate change. Multiple reports highlight the fact that climate change is happening, humans
are the major cause of it, and that it is going to have an immense and irreversible impact on our
world (IPCC, 2013; The AAAS Climate Science Panel, n.d.). From natural disasters to the
resulting devastation and social conflict, climate change is already and will continue to affect us
unless huge changes take place. This section will look at the history of environmental harm as it
relates to colonization and capitalism, the current realities surrounding climate change, what this
means for the future of our world, and how our government and nations are dealing with the
issue.
The colonization of environment and peoples
The history of the human occupation of earth is relativity short. Our species has only
been around for about 4 million years and the building of cities began only 10, 000 years ago.
Within the earth’s history of 4.6 billion years we have existed for only a moment in time (Seeds
& Backman, 2012). Humans had lived in relative harmony with the earth for thousands of years
and in most places this was still the case, until about 500 years ago. When the Americas were
“discovered” by imperial powers there began a long history of the pillaging of natural resources
and the commodification of people and places. Many of the crimes of empire were
environmental in nature (Hill, 2010).
The invading empires came to claim land and resources, which had been used for many
generations by Indigenous peoples. When the land was not given up freely, Indigenous peoples
were slaughtered by the millions across the globe. Stolen goods were sent back to Europe where
the ruling class became wealthy at the expense of Indigenous peoples (Hill, 2010). This
commodification of nature included not only the environment but the commodification of people
as slaves (Mrozowski, 1999). While this was certainly not the beginning of slavery, it was the
beginning of a world-wide slave trade, and those that were enslaved were treated in cruel and
unusual ways (Hill, 2010). Historically, colonization has been based on environmental crimes by
the empire, and continues to be environmental in nature, as will be discussed later in this review.
Iadicola (2010) discusses the power of empires, and their inherent criminality. He
believes that the crimes of empire are too often unacknowledged within criminology and even
within the study of state crime. Empires “…are organized to conquer and control the resources
and markets of other territories and people” (Iadicola, 2010, p.33). Today’s society is based on
the crimes of an empire, crimes which included wars of aggression, ethic-cleanings, and
genocide. Within the environmental context, crimes of empire included the stealing of land and
resources, destruction of natural spaces, and the enslavement of peoples.
Today the controlling empire has changed but an empire still exists. The United States of
America is an empire which conquers and controls other lands as it sees fit. All under the guise
of liberation; regardless of whether the people desire this liberation (Iadicola, 2010). An Empire
is”…a major actor in the international system based on the subordination of diverse national
elites, who, whether under compulsion or from shared convictions, accept the values of those

!23

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

who govern the dominant center or the metropole” (Maier, 2005 cited in Iadicola, 2010, p. 32).
Within the current context this can be seen in Shells occupation of the Niger Delta. There has
been a long history of destruction by empire within Nigeria, starting with the slave trade in 1444
by the Portuguese and then, when slavery was abolished, with the palm oil trade. Today the
Niger Delta, and the people who call it home, are exploited by the American oil company Shell
for the abundant oil it contains. A lack of consideration for safety has resulted in oil spills and
destruction of the environment, causing social disarray, immense health problems, and conflict
(Okonta & Douglas, 2003). This mass destruction of environment and peoples continues
relatively unhindered, showing the power of capitalism, corporations, and the empire that is the
United States of America.
There is a cultural denial surrounding the realities of the empire, both in the fact that they
are the successor of the British Empire and that they are the current empire. This denial is
necessary within empires to cover up the devastating realities of their actions; “[i]n the case of
the United States, it’s myth of a non-empire liberating people around the world from the tyranny
of evil empires and dictators” (Iadicola, p.32). This connects to Stanley Cohen’s (2001) concept
of cultural denial, which is used by people living within a state that is based on violence and
oppression to avoid the unpleasant reality. While they may be aware on some level, they deny the
implications of these realities or choose to not acknowledge them. This may take the form of
state suggested denial through media or could be a slow slip into cultural denial without state
intervention. This is evident in lack of acknowledgement around the history of, and continual,
colonization and destruction of indigenous communities, and the continued intervention into
other countries by the United States and its allies.
Environmental crime has its roots within the colonization of Indigenous peoples and
continues to be closely tied to them today. Indigenous peoples are in many cases the face of the
environmental movement, which will be further discussed later in this study. Today colonization
continues across the world, although it has two new faces: capitalism and globalization.
The rise of capitalism and the unbalancing of the human/nature relationship
It was only a few centuries ago, with the beginning of industrialization, when the
relationship between humans and nature began to become unbalanced. This unbalancing was
even noted in 1798 by Reverend Thomas Malthus who stated that:
The power of population is infinitely greater than the power of the earth to produce
subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence
only in an arithmetical ratio…by that law of our nature which makes food necessary for the life
of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal (as cited in Hopkins, 2000, p.
12)
Although it is unlikely that he could predict the grave realities of what lay a few hundred years in
the future for humans, it is telling that there was already a realization of the limits of nature.
Twenty-two years before Malthus publicly announced these worries, the first commercial steam
engine was introduced in 1776. This signified the birth of a new kind of industry.

!24

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Up until this point humans were constrained by the will of nature, both in travel and
production. Factories were powered by water wheels, therefor limiting where they could be built,
and ships were carried by wind, limiting their ability to travel. Water power had many benefits
such as being free, clean, and actually more powerful than coal powered steam engines.
However, the use of coal allowed humans to have control over nature, by centralizing the
production of goods within cities and allowing ships to travel through almost any weather. The
domination of earth was to appealing for men to turn down, and soon coal was used widely.
(Klein, 2014)
There has been a “…connection between pollution and labor exploitation…since the
earliest days of the Industrial Revolution” (Klein, 2014). As Marx and Engels (1848) so
famously stated “[t]he history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (p.
3). The struggles enclosed in environmental harm are similarly mirrored in these class struggles.
With the forceful removal of the commons and the introduction of factories and mining, it was
always the working class that faced the realities of environmental harm. The use of coal allowed
colonists to travel across the globe, claiming control of whatever they wanted and destroying
those who stood in their way. The labouring class worked in unhealthy conditions, often facing
serious health problems as a result of working with coal. (Klein, 2014)
As was discussed at length above, capitalism is based on the continual increase of
production and growth of wealth, and therefore, the continual and increasing exploitation of
natural resources and the working class (Klein, 2014; White, 2008 & 2011; Marx & Engels,
1846). The desire for continual growth is in itself unattainable. There are limited resources and
capitalism has no consideration for its impact on these resources. This continual increase in
consumption, and denial of the realities surrounding it, has led to a situation where we are no
longer in control; nature is fighting back in the form of climate change. Marx and Engels (1846)
may refer to the uncontrollability of the relationship between capitalism and climate change as
“… a sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has
called up by his spells”.
The Battle: Climate Change v. Globalism and Free Trade
Climate change has been acknowledged by scientists as a problem since the 1950’s, and
President Johnson was warned of the dangers of climate change in 1965 by his Science Advisory
Committee. Although it did not appear on the public radar until 1988, at this time it seemed that
real change was going to take place. The first emission reduction goals were discussed in June of
that year, at the World Conference on Changing Atmosphere in Toronto. The United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was also formed. In America awareness of the
greenhouse effect rose from 38% in 1981 to 79% in 1989. Discussion had even started to take
place around how to reverse the effects of climate change and the consumerist lifestyles of
developed nations were brought into the spotlight. (Klein 2014)
However, at the same time that climate change was seemingly acknowledged, major
historical events took place across the world: ending with the breaking of the berlin wall and
opening up the world to be taken over by capitalism. From Washington “right-wing ideologues…
waged a frontal attack on political experimentation, on the idea that there might be viable ways
!25

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

of organizing societies other than deregulated capitalism” (Klein, 2014, p.75). Over the next
decade the western version of extreme, pro-corporation capitalism would spread to every corner
of the world, and along with it the consumerist lifestyle of the middle and upper classes. The next
few years showed victories for both climate change and capitalism:
In 1992, governments met for the first United Nations Earth Summit in Rio, where they
signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the document
that formed the basis for all future climate negotiations. The same year, the North American Free
Trade Agreement was signed, going into effect two years later. Also in 1994, negotiations
establishing the World Trade Organization concluded, and the new global trade body made its
debut the next year. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, containing the first binding
emission reduction targets. In 2001, China gained full membership in the WTO, the culmination
of a trade and investment liberalization process that had begun decades earlier (Klein, 2014, p.
76).
While these events occurred within the same time period they took no consideration of
the effects they would have on each other. Global trade is intimately connected with increased
emissions and therefore in direct contradiction to fighting climate change. Regardless of the lack
of direct negotiations over which goal would be victorious, combating climate change or
increasing worldwide trade, there was never any real question of the fact that globalized trade
would win. From the beginning climate negotiators resigned to being second in line. The
UNFCCC stated that “measures taken to combat climate change, including unilateral ones,
should not constitute…a disguised restriction on international trade”, and the Kyoto Protocol
contained a very similar statement (Klein, 2014).
Robyn Eckersley explained the situation well, when she stated that:
Rather than push for the recalibration of the international trade rules to conform with the
requirements of climate protection, or push for the use of trade measures to enforce compliance
and ensure fairness to “first movers” in the climate regime, the Parties to the climate regime have
ensured that liberalized trade and an expanding global economy have been protected against
trade-restrictive climate policies (United Nations Environment Program, 2009, p. 32).
In essence those who were apparently concerned with climate change willingly handed
over control to those working towards globalized, borderless, free trade. However, those making
the trade agreements refused to acknowledge issues of climate change within their agreements,
and they have so far successfully won the battle. Today companies take their production to places
where they have the least restrictions, allowing the worst possible exploitation of both the
environment and people. These products are then sent around the world, where their consumers
use them for a period of time and then throw them in the trash, replacing them with the next
desired commodity. These realities have led to an increase rather than a decrease in carbon
emissions, skyrocketing past original predictions (Klein, 2014).
What is Climate Change?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines Climate Change “…as a
change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes

!26

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period,
typically decades or longer” (Cubasch, Wuebbles, Facchini, Frame, Mahowald & Winther, 2013,
p.8). Carbon dioxide is present in our atmosphere. It blocks out harmful radiation and also traps
heat from the sun, which keeps us from being a frozen planet. This is called the greenhouse
effect. While a certain amount of greenhouse effect is necessary for the survival of life on earth,
too much can result in extreme temperature changes. For example, the planet Venus has a
runaway greenhouse effect. It is covered by a dense layer of carbon dioxide clouds, and its
temperatures are extremely high. Carbon dioxide is naturally recycled by oceans and plants, and
stored in things such as coal and permafrost. Humans cause climate change as a result of
continually releasing carbon dioxide into the air through burning of fossil fuels and the
destruction of natural areas, such as the Amazon Forest (Seeds & Backman, 2012)
There is a general consensus within the scientific community that climate change is
happening, that it is caused by humans, and that it is going to have immense and irreversible
effects on our planet. The earth’s climate has warmed by an average of 1.4 ̊ F in the last 100
years. While this seems small, if we continue on our current path it is estimated that there will be
an additional 4 to 8 ̊ warming in the next 100 years. The average temperature for the last ice age
was only 9 ̊ higher than it is today (The AAAS Climate Science Panel, n.d.).
There are natural causes of climate change, such as volcanic eruptions. However, the
IPCC (2013) provides strong scientific evidence that humans are the main cause. Half of the
warming from 1951 to 2010 is believed to be caused by human actions. The American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) notes that “…the science linking human
activities to climate change is analogous to the science linking smoking to lung and
cardiovascular diseases” (The AAAS Climate Science Panel, n.d., p.4).
The effects of climate change are evident around the world. Summer Sea ice in Alaska in
2012 was at half the average of between 1979 and 2000 (National Snow and Ice Data Center,
2012 as cited in The AAAS Climate Science Panel, n.d.). Oceans are absorbing the extra carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere, resulting in their rapid acidification, which is already having negative
impacts on crustaceans (Hönisch et al, 2010 as cited in The AAAS Climate Science Panel, n.d.).
Animals are migrating towards the poles to escape the increasing temperatures (The AAAS
Climate Science Panel, n.d.). Sea levels are rising at extremely fast levels and patterns of
precipitation are changing. Some places are experiencing extreme rainfall, while others have heat
waves, which also increase the occurrences of fires (IPCC, 2013; The AAAS Climate Science
Panel, n.d.).
What does climate change mean for the humans?
These realities have implications for humans which extend beyond damages caused by
natural forces such as storms, sea levels, and forest fires. While these things will definitely result
in extreme suffering and many deaths, they will also cause, and are already causing, secondary
results. Social conflict is already occurring as a result of issues surrounding climate change, and
these conflicts are only going to increase as our situation worsens. There are four main areas of
concern: “conflicts over resources (e.g. water); conflicts linked to global warming (e.g. climate
induced migration); conflicts over differential exploitation of resources (e.g. biopiracy); and
!27

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

conflicts over the transference of harm (e.g. cross-border pollution)” (White, 2011, p. 39).
Hendrix and Salehyan (2012) found a positive relationship between conflict in Africa and the
amount of rainfall, with significantly more conflict occurring during the driest and wettest
periods. This will have severe implications for Africa within the future of climate change, since it
will experience more extreme weather patterns.
Increased migration, with the increase of “environment-refugees”, will put pressure on
first world countries and is “…reinforcing the development of a fortress mentality within
particular jurisdictions” (White, 2011). Forced migrations are already occurring in many parts of
the world, such as in the south pacific, where islands are disappearing into the sea as a result of
rising tides. Increasing instability as a result of climate change will result in a surge of asylum
seekers. This means that those in less affected countries will need to decide how to react.
Australia provides an example of how this situation may escalate. Starting in 2001, their ‘Pacific
Solution’ placed asylum seekers in a detention camp on the small island of Nauru. The
conditions are known to be inhumane and unbearable, with many detainees attempting to take
their own lives (Amnesty International, 2012; Klein, 2014). As detainees wait for years to find
out their fate, there are hunger strikes (Schetzer, 2014), riots (Farrell, 2014), and rape (Doherty,
2014). Nauru is an unpleasant example of the conflict and inhumanity that may accompany
climate change, specifically for those that are forced away from their homes to seek asylum in
other countries (Klein, 2014).
Nauru has its own story of being exploited for its natural resources, and then being taken
advantage of for its financial desperation. It is now disappearing from rising tides. Within 10
years after the first colonial discovery of a pure phosphate lime rock, Nauru went from a lush,
healthy country with amazing social programs, to an empty rock, with its inhabitants suffering
from obesity and multiple health conditions (Klein, 2014). Klein (2014) suggests that “…Nauru
has spent the last century disappearing from the inside out; now…it is disappearing from the
outside in” (p.165). It is a perfect example of how those who are least responsible for climate
change are often in the most precarious situations as a result of it. Even more paradoxical is that
the inhabitants of an island that is disappearing from climate change, and are likely soon going to
be environmental refugees, are charged with running a detainee camp for the refugees of today.
(Klein, 2014)
The effects of climate change will not be felt equally across the world, and neither will
the resulting conflict and unrest. They will be mixed with socio-economic and political issues, to
result in increases in crimes such as human and commodity trafficking, stealing, and other crimes
associated with conflict (White, 2011). Smith and Vivekananda (2007) explain that:
Many of the world’s poorest countries and communities thus face a double-headed
problem: that of climate change and violent conflict. There is a real risk that climate change will
compound the propensity for violent conflict, which in turn will leave communities poorer, less
resilient and less able to cope with the consequences of climate change. There are 46 countries –
home to 2.7 billion people – in which the effects of climate change interacting with economic,
social and political problems will create a high risk of violent conflict.

!28

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

There is a second group of 56 countries where the institutions of government will have
great difficulty taking the strain of climate change on top of all their other current challenges. In
these countries, though the risk of armed conflict may not be so immediate, the interaction of
climate change and other factors creates a high risk of political instability, with potential violent
conflict a distinct risk in the longer term. These 56 countries are home to 1.2 billion people (p.
3). Climate change in essence will greatly increase the gap between the rich and the poor. Even
within developed countries such as Canada and the United States those living in poverty, people
of colour, and women will suffer the most. This is because they often have fewer resources to
mitigate these effects.
Superstorm Sandy, which hit the east coast of the United States and Canada in 2012, is a
great example of how the suffering from these natural disasters is felt most acutely by the less
fortunate. The National Guard patrolled the streets of New York and those living in the wealthier
parts of town were given assistance. However, those living in less wealthy places such as
housing projects were not as fortunate, Until a group of volunteers formed “Occupy Sandy”.
They starting going from door to door offering assistance and found many people who had been
locked in their homes for days, often without necessary medicine. Some were too sick to leave or
in fear of being robbed or harmed. Many of these people were on welfare, elderly, or mentally ill;
some of the most vulnerable people within our communities. A similar situation happened in
New Orleans’s during and after Hurricane Katrina, when the poor were essentially left to fend for
themselves; giving the United States a less than satisfactory track record but sadly not a
surprising one (Klein, 2014).
From an eco-global criminology perspective, the lack of responsibility for causing
climate change by those who are suffering the worst, brings up huge questions around who is
responsible. How responsible should the wealthy be for the pain and suffering their lifestyles are
inflicting on the poor? Williams (1996) defines an environmental victim as:
Those of past, present, or future generations who are injured as a consequence of change
to the chemical, physical, microbiological, or psychosocial environment, brought about
by deliberate or reckless, individual or collective, human act or act of omission (p.21 as
cited in White, 2011)
By this definition it would seem that there are many ways to find the wealthy culpable for
inflicting harm on others. As was discussed earlier, from a green criminological perspective, it is
usually the capitalist elite, corporations, and the state that are considered responsible. This is as a
result of the immense power they have to cause harm and the fact that they are more than often
not using this power to act against climate change. With the facts seemingly being so clear, and
climate related disasters already occurring around the world, one would assume that the leaders
of the world would be taking action to stop climate change. If only for their own benefit, since
climate disasters also affect them, including their ability to produce and sell. However, this is not
the case. Instead they are engaging in what Cohen (2001) calls official denial.
The official denial of climate change

!29

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Official denials encompass public statements or actions of people (or groups) that are
responsible for an organization, corporation, or state. This includes government officials, NGO
representatives, corporate executives, and representatives of international organizations such as
the World Trade Organization. These are organized and collective denials. There are classical
denials (literal, interpretive, and implicatory), counter offensive denials, and partial
acknowledgments (Cohen, 2001). Official denials about climate change and the dangers
surrounding it are abundant. As discussed above, capitalism is based on denial of the fact that the
earth’s resources are finite and therefore continued expansion of production and consumption is
not possible. This leads to a culture of denial, which will be discussed later, and also means that
any state, NGO, corporation or other kind of organization that works within the ideology of
capitalism, is also in denial of this reality (White, 2008).
Most official climate change denial cannot be taken as actual denial of its existence,
rather as the denial of its implications or strategic denial for the benefit of capitalism. Klein
(2014) suggests that climate change deniers may actually be the most acutely aware of the
realities of climate change and the fact that any real change will completely derail their way of
life. This knowledge fuels their attempts to deny since successful climate change action is
ultimately the death of capitalism. It is important to understand then, that for corporations, or as
we will soon see those funded by them, denial is not an actual denial of the science but a frantic
attempt to save their lives; most, if not all of these corporations cannot survive without
capitalism (Klein, 2014).
The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Ayn Rand Foundation are all
conservative think tanks who were founded to be defenders of neoliberal forms of capitalism,
and now adamantly deny the implications of climate change. A significant portion of their
funding also happens to come from fossil fuel corporations. Cohen (2001) explains that the
increase in “…international visibility and transparency have made the more literal forms of
literal denial difficult to sustain” (p.105). Within the context of climate change it has become
increasingly harder to say that climate change does not exist at all; as a result of abundant
scientific evidence and increasingly unstable weather. Instead these think tanks revert to
implicatory denials and counter offensives.
There is a focus on denying the implications of climate change. Such as suggesting that a
few extra degrees of warmth would actually be a good thing, and that it would make many places
have better crops. There is also a denial of responsibility. While a majority of scientists agree that
climate change is fuelled by human actions, this fact is adamantly denied by many people within
these think tanks. For example Willie Soon, an astrophysicist and geoscientist, insists that
climate change is a result of natural changes in the sun (Klein, 2014). A recent example of
denying the implications of climate change is an interview with physicist Freeman Dyson. He
explains that while climate change is happening and it is caused by humans, it is not actually a
bad thing. In fact he suggests that it is making the earth greener. He says that we cannot be 100%
sure that there will be any climate disaster and even if one does occur it will not happen for
another 100 years. Therefore his conclusion is that we should not act against it (Vancouver Sun,
2015).

!30

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

While there are many different interpretations of climate change, some of them coming
from people within the same institute that are contradictory, they are all attempts to change the
discussion around the issue. Weak attempts to deny the fact that capitalism, which they
shamelessly promote, is the cause of a catastrophe. These semi-scientific attempts to deny
climate change are actually the nice side of these think tanks. Their implicatory denials also
include attempts at righteousness and necessity, both of which are forms of contextualization
(Cohen, 2001). Denial on the basis of righteousness can be seen in arguments suggesting that
those countries who cannot defend themselves from climate disaster deserve to suffer, regardless
of the fact that many of them did not contribute to the problem. This superiority complex is
evident by a newspaper article which suggested climate change would secure America’s geopolitical power. There is also the argument that to act against climate change would be more
expensive than to deal with the repercussions. Or that a world without capitalism would be full
of suffering and therefore to act against climate change would be wrong. Both are morally
repulsive and evidently wrong attempts to make their lack of action seem righteous. Similarly,
the strong belief in capitalism as the only possible way to live, is to deny that there are other
options. Climate change was therefore inevitable, as is their lack of action (Klein, 2014). These
are only a few examples of attempts to place climate change in a different context, however the
others are more aligned to counter offensive denials than serious attempts to deny.
Counter offensive denials could be considered the specialty of climate deniers. At some
point they realized that they could no longer deny the existence or implications of climate change
with facts, so they resorted to personal attacks on their accusers. Allegations are thrown around
like bullets, suggesting that environmentalists are terrorists, or socialists and communists. They
attack people that are publicly environmentalists, such as Al Gore and David Sazuki, on the basis
of their life style. Or the hacking of climate scientists emails, modification of the contents and
then the public claim that the scientists were in fact lying (Klein, 2014). A telling question was
asked At Heartland Institutes Sixth International Conference on Climate Change, “To what
extent is this entire movement simply a green Trojan horse, who belly is full with red Marxist
socioeconomic doctrine?” (Klein, 2014, p. 31).
The above attempts at denial are examples of capitalist corporation’s frantic attempts to
guarantee themselves a future. Action against climate change is a threat to their existence and the
only way to fight it is “by claiming that thousands upon thousands of scientists are lying and that
climate change is an elaborate hoax” (Klein, 2014, p.43). Regardless of the lack of real scientific,
moral or logical reasoning behind these denials, they ultimately have an effect. Articles, news
stories, and online media fill with the “facts” and ideas that come out of these think tanks (Klein,
2014). Aided by an already formed culture of denial, the corporations funding these
organizations are in some ways winning.
Corporations, or the people speaking for them, do not need to come out and openly deny
climate change. Although their actions ultimately speak to their lack of acknowledgement or
concern over their effects on the earth, they pay for others to deny for them. It is not only think
tanks and scientists however that can be bribed; so can politicians and green groups. For
politicians this bribery is legal and called lobbying.

!31

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

In 2013 in the United States alone, the oil and gas industry spent just under $400, 000 per
day lobbying Congress and government officials, and the industry doled out a record $73 million
in federal campaign and political donations during the 2012 election cycle, an 87 percent jump
from the 2008 elections (Klein, 2014, p.149).
The amount of campaign and political donations given out by the oil and gas industry in
Canada is not known, as a result of them not being required to reveal that information. The only
thing we know is how often they are in communication with each other. However, the numbers
are rather suggestive:
[T]he Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers spoke with federal government
officials 536 times between 2008 and 2012, while TransCanada, the company behind the
Keystone XL pipeline, had 279 communications. The Climate Action Network, on the other
hand, the country’s broadest coalition devoted to emission reduction, only logged six
communications in the same period (Klein, 2014, p.149).
The fact that the government is in the back pockets of oil and gas companies is evident by
their lack of action around climate change. While they are certainly not blatantly denying climate
change, since with the current scientific evidence and extreme weather occurrences it is not
politically acceptable, they are in no rush to make changes. Global carbon dioxide emissions in
2013 were 61% higher than when negotiations around climate action first began in 1991. At the
Copenhagen United Nations Climate Change Conference in 2009 it was agreed that we should
attempt to keep the temperature change bellow two degrees. The vague phrasing of this was not
accidental, since the lack of binding commitment to this goal made it more of a suggestion.
However, even this goal would leave many places in the world in great peril from rising sea
levels and ocean acidification. In fact it was referred to as a “death sentence” for people in
vulnerable countries. Developed countries would also be at risk since there is a possibility of
hitting a climate tipping point and setting off uncontrollable natural reactions. (Klein, 2014)
The suggestion of 2 degrees now seems like an attractive alternative to the predicted 4
degrees of warming we are on track to achieve. Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Center for
Climate Change Research stated that this amount of warming is “incompatible with any
reasonable characterization of an organized, equitable and civilized global community” (as cited
in Klein, 2014, p. 13). Islands would disappear, cities would drown, and heat waves would kill
both people and crops. The possibility of a tipping point, perhaps triggered by Arctic permafrost
melting and releasing large quantities of methane, is even higher (Klein, 2014).
This lack of action is an example of climate change denial, perhaps contextually in that
they do not believe the effects will be as disastrous. It may also be a denial of responsibility,
which is evident in that fact that a lot of climate discussion has centered on placing blame and
taking responsibility. Those from developed countries do not feel they should take on a majority
of the responsibility, even though they contributed the most overall. While those in developing
countries do not want to halt their economic growth since they have not caused as much of the
problem. There is also the economic argument that we cannot stop using fossil fuels or it will
destroy our economy and our way of life. This is an interpretive denial of necessity, based on the

!32

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

belief that our economic wellbeing is somehow more important than a habitable earth (Klein,
2014).
The state also uses counter offensive denials against environmental activists by defining
them as threats to the nation or as terrorists. Over the last few decades there has been growing
concern in Canada about the surveillance of activism, particularly as these kinds of activities
have been grouped with terrorism and extremism. Surveillance in this light can be seen as a way
to suppress social movements. As Boykoff (2007) explains suppression is “a process through
which the preconditions for dissident action, mobilization, and collective organization are
inhibited by either raising their costs or minimizing their benefits” (p. 12, as cited in Monoghan
& Walby, 2012). Monaghan and Walby (2012) show how surveillance was expanded in
preparation for the 2010 Winter Olympics and G20 summit as a way to suppress activism.
An Integrated Safety Unit (ISU) was formed for the purpose of security in preparation for
these events, and its Joint Intelligence Group (JIG) was primarily in charge of surveillance. The
role of threat assessments was later turned over to a CSIS agency called the Integrated Threat
Assessment Center (ITAC). Monaghan and Walby (2012) explain that the ISU and ITAC are
examples of fusion centers. These “…involve both centralization and extension of intelligence
practices: coordination is concentrated in a few, new agencies, but intelligence gathering
responsibilities are extended to local and regional police who never before participated in such
networks” (p.136). This concept originates from Anthony Newkirks work on the centralization of
intelligence after 9-11 in the United States.
These fusion centers have also expanded their functions beyond the original intention,
which is described by a term called “mission creep” (Monahan & Palmer, 2009). The original
documents created by these organizations referenced threats to these mass events, and Canada in
general, by various terrorist organizations. However, after a few years the label “Multi Issue
Extremist (MIE)” appeared and became the main focus of the threat assessments and
surveillance. While there is no exact definition of what an MIE is, it includes any group or
person that is involved in dissent against the status quo. Greenpeace is one of the groups most
often referenced (Monaghan & Palmer, 2009).
This new category, and the surveillance of domestic activist groups, has resulted in the
blurring of activism, terrorism and extremism5. While traditionally this type of surveillance was
focused on preventing violence against civilian populations, it is now focused on preventing
physical and financial damage. This damage is often aimed at corporations rather than state
property. While none of the MIE groups have ever aimed to harm civilians, the way the ITAC
blurs the categories makes it seem as if “…almost any expression of opposition is equated with
the threat of violence against civilians” (Monaghan & Walby, p. 145).
The fact that this type of dissent is the main focus of surveillance, leads Monaghan and
Walby (2012) to conclude that this is an attempt at social movement suppression. This means
that it “…aims to compose a picture in which political opposition is removed from the frame” (p.
5 It should be acknowledged that this is not the first time that activists have been the target of

government surveillance or constructed as threats to the country.

!33

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

135). Some examples of this surveillance is the infiltration of groups by undercover officers and
home visits by ISU officers. This can have a chilling effect on dissent and result in the
criminalization of activism. While all activist groups are subject to this surveillance, Indigenous
groups have been subject to more intense surveillance within Canada. A specific Aboriginal JIG
was formed and the military participates in surveillance specifically on Indigenous peoples
(Proulx, 2014).
In 2011 the Canadian Government released its “Counter Terrorism Strategy”. It identified
domestic terrorist threats as often “…based on grievances—real or perceived—revolving around
the promotion of various causes such as animal rights, white supremacy, environmentalism and
anti-capitalism” (p.9). This statement furthered the blurring of activism, terrorism and extremism
by placing activists within the same territory as violent extremists. This coincided with the public
release of the fact that the government was already spying on environmental and First Nation
groups, who have been identified as threats to national security (Diabo & Pasternak, 2011;
Voices Voix, 2013).
All of this was exemplified when an Access to Information Request revealed that
government organizations had been sharing this information with companies, such as Enbridge
and Shell. Briefings between these organizations had been occurring bi-yearly since 2005,
included presentations by the RCMP and CSIS, and was organized by the department of National
Resources (Groves, 2012). The spokesperson for Natural Resources Canada stated that the goal
of these events is to allow the companies “to plan and develop measures to protect their
facilities” (Groves, 2012).
Within the last few years documents gained through Access to Information and Freedom
of Information requests have continued to support the fact that the government is both spying on
activist groups and sharing this information with corporations. In 2013 it was revealed that the
government had been spying on activist groups opposing the oil-sands. The NEB was at the head
of coordinating CSIS, the RCMP and private oil companies in conducting surveillance on these
groups (Miller, 2013). Another request showed that CSIS was involved in helping the NEB and
Enbridge prepare for expected protests in the summer of 2014 (Bronskill, 2015).
All of this surveillance is done under the presumption that activists and their
organizations pose some kind of threat to Canada. A document that was leaked in early 2015
shows how negatively activists opposing the tar sands are viewed. The RCMP report, titled
“Criminal Threats to the Canadian Petroleum Industry”, explains the threat of “anti-petroleum
extremists” and “Aboriginal extremists”. It poses those who are active against the petroleum
industry as threats to Canada. This is especially concerning under the new anti-terrorism law:
Bill-C51. The bill lists interference with critical infrastructure as an activity that could threaten
the security of Canada and the RCMP document is created as a “Critical Infrastructure
Intelligence Assessment”. There are concerns around the criminalization of dissent now that BillC51 is passed (Stewart, 2015). If people are afraid that they will be arrested, or worse, they are
less likely to involve themselves in social movements. This adds to the suppression of social
movements, particularly those opposing the Alberta tar sands.

!34

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

The labelling of activists as terrorists is an attempt to discredit them and what they are
fighting for, as well as to try to prevent others from joining the cause. In 2013 Canadian
Environmentalists David Suzuki voiced his opinion that the reason Canada is building more
prisons at a time when crime is decreasing, is so they can fill them with eco-activists (Humes,
2013). While he has not spoken to the point again, his suggestion seems to have a reasonable
point. All of the spying and labeling of activists as terrorists can be seen as an attempt to deny the
real issue, which is the impeding consequences of climate change. They use the activists as
scapegoats, so that the attention can be focused on the apparent threat of MIE’s, rather than the
real threat of climate change. The RCMP even refers to climate change in their report as
something that is suggested rather than scientifically proven. A denial of the existence of climate
change by the biggest law enforcement organization in Canada is an unnerving statement.
The fact that any action against climate change would be in complete contradiction to
capitalism, and would mean the end of corporate control, is the big motivating factor behind
official denials. This lack of action is a result of “…selfishness and sheer amorality” (Cohen,
2001, p.23). Far from not believing in climate change, the capitalist elite seem to be highly aware
of the realities of it. Rather, they are terrified of what their future will look like if real action
against climate change happens. They are choosing to value the pursuit of profit over the wellbelling of all those who are not elite capitalists. Evident to this lack of literal denial is the fact
that there are cases of corporations profiting off of climate disasters (Klein, 2014).
Vulnerable countries, with very little responsibility for this climate crisis, are being sold
protection schemes in the form of insurance, resulting in billions of dollars in profit for the
insurance companies. Raytheon, the weapons giant, is preparing for a rising need for their
services, both response teams and weapons, as a result of the social conflict caused by climate
change. The genetically modified food giants, Monsanto and Syngenta, have been pushing
through hundreds of patents on seeds that are supposedly resistant to extreme weather (Klein,
2014). All of these are examples of how our current capitalist system is going to respond to
climate change. Even when they stop denying, they continue to try and profit off the suffering of
others.
What is even more disturbing than the capitalist elites desire to go down with their ship,
is the will of many green organizations to go down with them. Rather than continuing to fight
against the capitalist system which is causing the harm, some of the green organizations are
attempting to work with it. Attempts to work within the capitalist system, by speaking their
language, has become popular within some parts of the green movement. Big corporate
donations have also fueled the partnership, with many green organizations helping to “green
wash” their corporate donors. The promotion of fracking and nuclear energy as clean energy
sources also points to either their collusion with corporations or denial of the large scale changes
that need to take place. (Klein, 2014)
This also makes us into bystander nations. Where we are aware of the suffering of others,
which is ultimately caused by our lifestyle but we do nothing to change (Cohen, 2001). Climate
change currently has more of an effect on developing, third world countries, than on developed
countries such as the United States and Canada. Even though it will have an effect on our

!35

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

countries, and in some places already is, our nations have chosen to continue to be bystanders.
This is especially true for Canada, where the conservative government has failed to take any
action against climate change. Instead it has increased the extraction of oil and the expansion of
the Alberta tar sands (Chung, 2014). Cohen (2001) compares “[t]he state’s right to remain neutral
and uninvolved – even not to notice – [as] a political analogue of the individual’s ‘right to be an
ostrich’” (p.163). While it is the state that is refusing to act, it is the culture of denial which
allows the lack of action. These decisions mirror Orwell’s statement about nationalism:
The atrocities of official enemies arouse great anguish and indignation, vast coverage and
often shameless lying to portray them as even worse than they are; the treatment is
opposite in all respects when responsibility lies closer to home. Atrocities that do not bear
on domestic power interests are generally ignored (as cited in Cohen, 2001, p.163).
We can see this reflected in the large amount of money that the United States spends on
its military, a $495.6 billion base for 2015 (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense & Chief
Financial Officer, 2014). Yet when it comes to climate change very little is ever done to help
those who are suffering, even within their own country such as in the aftermaths of Hurricane
Sandy and Katrina. While it is impossible at this stage to completely ignore these realities, the
bare minimum is done because of the fact that it does not align with the interests of those in
power. Even the recent China/United States deal on climate change, although it is definitely a
step in the right direction, falls significantly short of what needs to be done (Biello, 2014).
Very often these attempts to cover up or deny the truth come out, which is evident in the
publishing of Klein’s (2014) book This Changes Everything, where she exposes these very
realities. Unfortunately the exposure of them does not automatically mean that things will
change. There are powerful cultural forces at work which place us within a culture of denial.
A culture of denial
These powerful forces are of course capitalism, neoliberalism, and consumerism. Our
culture is based on the denial of many things. At our foundation is the denial that our societies
were formed by the destruction of other people and their cultures. Our entire society was built
from crimes of genocide and is continually based on the exploitation of people across the world.
Cohen (2001) explains how whole “…societies are based on forms of cruelty, discrimination,
repression or exclusion which are ‘known’ about but never openly acknowledged” (p.11). These
cultures of denial may start as state suggestions but then become normalized within cultures.
Within capitalist neoliberal societies we have normalized these fundamental beliefs. They are
evident in our consumerist life styles, the extension of market values to non-market commodities
and individuals, and the intense individualism (Klein, 2014; White, 2008; Giroux, 2013). We are
aware of the fact that many of the most vulnerable people in the world are suffering to provide us
with these luxuries and that it is destroying our environment but we choose not to acknowledge
these realities.
The decision to not acknowledge the harm our lifestyles cause comes from two main
forces. One is from a culture which promotes these lifestyles as being necessary or normal. These
“[c]ultures of denial encourage turning a collective blind eye, leaving horrors unexamined or

!36

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

normalized as being a part of the rhythms of everyday life” (Cohen, 2001, p.101). This denial
originates from the corporations and states that influence our lives, and ultimately capitalism and
neoliberalism, which normalize these behaviours. In turn, it creates a society that is willing to
accept official denial of climate change and internalize it. Klein (2014) explains that,
…we are products of our age and a dominant ideological project. One that too often has
taught us to see ourselves as little more than singular, gratification-seeking units, out to
maximize our narrow advantage, while simultaneously severing so many of us from the
broader community whose pooled skills are capable of solving problems big and small.
This project also has led our governments to stand by helplessly for more than two
decades as the climate crises morphed from a ‘grandchildren’ problem to a bangingdown-the-door problem (p.460).
There are things that we can do to combat climate change. While it is no longer possible
to avoid all of its consequences, we can mitigate the worst of it. However, this means a change in
lifestyle. It means that wealth needs to be redistributed and that the rest of the fossil fuels need to
stay in the ground. It means that there needs to be a different approach to communities and
relationships with other countries. It means that capitalism and the continued increase in
production and consumption needs to stop. Capitalism and climate action are not possible
together, so this means we need to change the way we think: we need to change our culture.
(Klein, 2014)
The second force is fear and a desire for self-preservation, as a result of the fact that we
have to change. Cohen (2001) states that “[o]ne common thread runs through the many different
stories of denial: people, organizations, governments or whole societies are presented with
information that is too disturbing, threatening or anomalous to be fully absorbed or openly
acknowledged”(p.1). As discussed above the state and corporate elite are aware that these
changes need to take place, so they have been putting immense amounts of efforts into
preserving their way of life, and convincing the general public that we cannot change.
As a society we are so engulfed by capitalist neoliberal beliefs that we may actually fear
what our lives would look like without capitalism. We have been convinced that there is no
alternative. Klein (2014) explains that we are constantly bombarded with messages telling us “…
that humanity is…hopelessly selfish and greedy” (p.461). Perhaps, she suggests, the reason we
are in denial is because we are not able to deal with how much we actually care. Perhaps we are
not as selfish and greedy as our culture of denial is trying to convince us but that the reality is
just too much to come to terms with. If we believe there are no alternatives and that without
capitalism we would be suffering, then accepting our responsibility in contributing to climate
change would be terrifying.
This culture of denial tries to convince us that there is no other option; that at our core we
are selfish people and that we are not capable of change. So even if we do acknowledge that
climate change is happening, we are paralyzed by the reality with seemingly no way forward.
Just as Cohen (2001) explained, our culture of denial is a defense mechanism. It is a mechanism
created by the state and capitalist elite to try and preserve capitalism. Then, as we are convinced
by the ideology, it becomes a defense mechanism for us as individuals. We all know to some
!37

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

extent that the climate is changing. It is impossible to ignore now that social media allows us to
spread a message across the world within seconds. We see the natural disasters in real time. We
know the arctic ice is melting. We know the scientists are telling us we need to change. We know
all of this but we still do not fully acknowledge what is happening.
Naomi Klein (2014) calls this act of knowing but not fully acknowledging “looking
away”. She says there are many ways we look away. This may be in the form of telling a joke to
disregard the seriousness of the problem. We might suggest that economically, it does not make
sense to act against climate change. Even those who are environmentally conscious might decide
to not act. She explains that,
…we tell ourselves that all we can do is focus on ourselves. Meditate and shop at farmers
markets and stop driving – but forget trying to actually change the systems that are
making the crisis inevitable because that’s too much ‘bad energy’ and it will never work.
And at first it may appear as if we are looking, because many of these lifestyle changes
are indeed part of the solution, but we still have on eye tightly shut (p. 4).
To Cohen (2001) this is a personal denial enforced by a culture of denial. A majority of
the people in our country are choosing to look away. Maybe they accept the realities of climate
change. Maybe they even agree that it is caused by humans and that the only way we can
mitigate the effects are to change how we live. Maybe they know that what we are doing is not
enough, but they do not act. They do not demand change. They do not confront our government
about their inaction. To acknowledge something that is as dire as climate change and to not act, is
to still be in denial.
The problem then, is this. We are faced with an unprecedented threat to the very existence
of humans on earth; climate change. In the face of this threat our leaders have chosen not to act,
as a result of the fact that capitalism cannot survive in a climate friendly world. Instead, our
leaders and the capitalist elite have put an incredible amount of effort into making sure that no
action is taken, by reinforcing the culture of denial which we already live in. As a result of this, a
majority of people in first world countries, the countries that have the power to make the change,
are continually “looking away” from the problem.
In the past social movements have successfully changed cultures of denial, and forced
people to start acting. Our countries have shattered preexisting norms with the abolition of
slavery, the woman’s liberation movement, the civil liberties movement, and the labor
movement. It is possible. The biggest problem we face right now is that we are running out of
time. Climate change is not something we can deal with in 10, 20, or 50 years. We need to deal
with it now. In 2011 the International Energy Agency reported that if we do not seriously change
our relationship with energy by 2017 then we will have set in an irreversible climate change. In
an interview Faith Birol, IEA’s chief economist, stated that “[t]he door to reach two degrees is
about to close. In 2017 it will be closed forever” (Herron, 2011 as cited in Klein, 2014).
The IPCC has explained that from 2014 forward the world cannot emit more than 1000
gigatonnes of CO2 if we are to stay below the 2 degree goal. The IEA has predicted that we will
hit this limit by 2040 if we continue on this path. Their report in 2014 explained that “…it is

!38

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

clear that the 2°C objective requires urgent action to steer the energy system on to a safer path”.
So the problem is that we need to make serious changes within the next two years to avoid
irreversible changes to our world’s climate, and we do not have the political or social will at this
time to make these changes.
The positive side of this problem is that there are things we can do. Klein (2014) and
many other have laid out plans for how we could come together and fight climate change. The
problem is that any real change would requires a huge change in the way we live and interact
with the environment and each other. Historically these huge changes have come as a result of
social movements. Klein (2014) explains that “[i]t is slowly dawning on a great many of us that
no one is going to step in and fix this crisis; that if change is to take place it will only be because
leadership bubbled up form below” (p.465). These leaders are the people that I have chosen to
focus on. For the exact reason that they are the only hope we have of averting this crisis.

!39

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Methodology
This study consisted of five semi-structured interviews with people who are currently
involved in environmental activism within British Columbia. The aim of these interviews was to
gain stories of their personal journey to action around these issues. The participants are involved
in multiple different avenues of activism, such as protesting, civil disobedience, art, education,
advocacy, politics, and Aboriginal justice. While these avenues are certainly not mutually
exclusive, all were represented in this study. The sample was both convenient and selective, as it
was drawn from my own personal connections and by reaching out through public avenues such
as Facebook.
I attempted to make the sample as representative as possible, from what I already knew of
the movement. However, the sample cannot be considered formally representative. Inclusionary
criteria were: 1) they were over 18, 2) they currently resided in British Columbia, preferably the
lower mainland region, 3) they must be publicly involved in the environmental movement or in
an environmental organization and their involvement must be recent (i.e. 2013- present) and 4)
their contact information (i.e. email, phone number, social media) must be publicly available.
The sample consisted of three women and two men. Two of the women and one of the men were
Indigenous and the other two participants were Caucasian. There was also a wide range of ages,
the youngest being in her twenties and the eldest a grandfather. In addition to their activism they
led diverse lives. The sample consisted of people who fell in many different categories: student,
professor, artist, politician, government worker, retiree, parent, and grandparent, among other
things. This range of participants was important for a number of reasons.
Across the world Indigenous peoples and women are often leading the resistance against
environmental destruction, and the same is true within British Columbia (Klein, 2014). It was
therefore necessary to interview people who represented this leadership. A further discussion of
the importance of Indigenous and female leadership will occur in the analysis. The age range and
variety of life paths were also significantly important because of the fact that these issues affect
everyone who is alive today and all future generations. The framing and understanding of these
issues will vary depending on who a person is. Since the goal is to understand how a person
comes to be actively involved, it is necessary to understand and acknowledge the many different
avenues that are possible. In his research Cohen (2001) states that there are “…different
narratives of transformation: a long, gradual process; a dramatic transforming encounter; a
sudden epiphany; a special ‘ability’” (p.264).
The participants were originally contacted by email or through Facebook with a letter of
introduction (Appendix B). If they showed interest in participating they were then sent a letter of
invitation (Appendix C) and the informed consent (Appendix D) form through email. Eight
people were contacted with invitations to participate, seven showed interest in participating and
five followed through with an interview. The high success rate of invitations to participate can
speak to the fact that the participants believed this research to be important. These are all people
who lead incredibly busy lives. The fact that they were even willing to find the time to meet with
me, shows their dedication to the cause and their position as advocates for it. This also meant that

!40

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

a few of my interviews were rescheduled and that I had to be very flexible in finding a time that
worked within their schedule.
The main research method was a semi-structured interview with five prepared open
ended questions (Appendix A). The interviews ranged from 20 minutes to 50 minutes long. The
questions were focused on: 1) how a person came to be involved in the environmental
movement, 2) why they chose to participate in civil disobedience (or why not), and 3) any ideas
they had for getting others involved. However, if the conversation took a turn that was not
cohesive to the prepared questions, I did not force it back to them but let the story flow naturally.
This enabled the participants to tell their stories as they believe they should be told; as Kovach
states, “…the story breathes and the narrator regulates” (p.99). It allowed for an honest and
personal telling of their story and also aligns with traditional Aboriginal beliefs of the power of
stories (Kovach, 2010). Environmental issues, while they concern everyone, have historically
and continue to be led by Aboriginal peoples (Klein, 2014; Brook, 1998). This intimate
relationship meant that the research needed to be conducted with this connection in mind.
There is an unpleasant relationship between western modes of obtaining knowledge and
traditional Aboriginal forms of knowing. Historically traditional forms of knowledge have been
either disregarded or exploited, and research has been extractive in nature. It was important for
this research to not perpetuate this colonization. Special care was needed when converting oral
stories into written ones, so as to be as representative of the original voice as possible (Kovach,
2010).
However, the power of a story was significant for the research in general, as it allowed
for the most insight into a person’s experience. The point of this research was to hear subjective
stories from participants and to see what knowledge can be gained from them. Cohen (2001)
used stories to represent different forms of denial and acknowledgement, as a representation of
the subjective nature of these concepts. Within Aboriginal traditions there is a “…inseparable
relationship between story and knowing” (Kovach, 2010, p.94) and this is something I wished to
embrace in my research.
I needed to be aware that as “…a researcher [I] assume a responsibility that the story
shared will be treated with the respect it deserves in acknowledgment of the relationship from
which it emerged” (Kovach, 2010, p. 97). This required me to build a rapport, to the extent
possible within the study design, with the people I interviewed so that I could gain the necessary
trust for the sharing of their stories. I did this through self-location which means I shared my own
story, allowing the research participant to assess my motivations and alliances (Kovach, 2010).
This was initially done through a letter of introduction and then again in person at the beginning
of the interviews. Some of the participants I had a connection with before the research began,
which meant that a rapport had already been built.
Through all the interviews I began with a small conversation before the actual interview
started. For example, one of them began with a discussion of an event they had just spoken at
and a book I had on the table. While I did not place the book there specifically to start a
discussion, it allowed for a rapport to form. The conversation also continued to flow in almost all
the interviews after the tape recorder was turned off. This conversation ranged from discussion of
!41

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

masters programs to future activities/involvement. This speaks to the fact that there was at least a
baseline relationship and trust formed. My personal involvement within and desire to strengthen
the movement seemed to create a common ground, which I hope and believe allowed the
participants to feel comfortable sharing their experiences.
The goal was to have the research be conducted in a way that meshed with those involved
in the movement. This makes the results more organic and useful. I believe that personal
narratives were a comfortable and honest way for participants to tell their stories, and did my
best to integrate them in my research in a way that is respectful and representative. It is my hope
that, as Kovach (2010) suggests, these “[s]tories of resistance [will] inspire generations about the
strength of the culture” (p.103), and in this case also the strength of the movement.
To further encourage the natural telling of stories the participants were asked to provide
two questions which they believed were necessary to understand how they came to participate in
their activism. This is a method used by Woodilla and Forray (2008) which they developed from
Michel Bougon’s (1986) self-questioning procedure. The participants were emailed the request to
come up with two questions in advance, and then email them to me before the interview. I
decided to give them advance notice in writing the questions, so that they were able to give some
serious and critical thought to which ones best address their stories. I believed that these would
bring up themes and/or important events or issues which I did not consider, and therefore make
the results more relevant. However, none of the participants chose to email questions ahead of
time. While I think this is partly due to a lack of time on their part, all of them having incredibly
full schedules, it also seemed to be as a result of not feeling that anything needed to be added. At
the end of each interview I mentioned the option to add the additional questions and a majority
of the participants stated that they did not feel it was necessary.
The interviews took place in multiple locations, some in study rooms at the library, one at
a small coffee shop, and another on the phone. The main goal when choosing a location was to
make sure the participant was comfortable and that their participation was as convenient as
possible. The in person interviews were all done in public spaces where we still had an
acceptable amount of privacy from people over hearing our conversations. While in the study
rooms at KPU the participants were given the option of keeping the door open or closed, based
on their comfort level. The location for the coffee shop interview was done at the request of the
participant. I took extra care when conducting the phone interview to make sure I was in a
private space, where no one could overhear our conversation.
The interviews were voice recorded, after gaining consent from the participants. They
were then transcribed within a few days and the recording was deleted. The transcripts were
manually coded. First with paper and pencil, and then with highlighters, in an open format.
Themes and trends were identified from this open coding and the transcripts were all coded again
in a closed format. As a result of my analysis of existing literature and the conducting and
transcribing of the interviews, I did have some preconceived notions of what the themes would
be. However, I went through the transcripts looking for any themes that arose. I identified nine
main themes, with each of them having their own breakdown categories. I separated these

!42

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

themes into two groups: reason for action and environmentalism. Figure 2 is the coding manual
that was used for closed coding.
Figure 2: Coding Manual
Environmentalism:
Getting others involved
- Empowerment
- Youth
- Education
- Waking people up/moving past denial and guilt/shame
- Working together
- Personal reward/sacrifice
Framing activism
- Anti-capitalism – distrust/disappointment in the government/those in positions
of power.
- First Nations rights
- Humanism
- Everyone is an environmentalist
- Threat of climate change
- Connection to Feminism
Emotion/affect
- Fear
-Anger
-Hope
Denial
-Personal
- Official
-Cultural
Reason for action
Urgency – Can’t deny
-Threat of climate change/future of the planet
-Future for children/grandchildren
-Who they are
Childhood
-Connection to nature/earth
-Influential people
-Growing up female
-Growing up Indigenous
Feminism
-Growing up female
-Connection to First Nation women
Civil disobedience
- Lack of confidence in government/those in positions of power
- Lack of democracy
- Not viewed as civil disobedience
- Last straw
Who they are
-Responsibility
- Connection to First Nations
- Empowering themselves
- Personal reward/sacrifice

I chose to code the two groups on different transcripts, to make the themes stand out from
each other. The closed coding was done with highlighters, on transcripts printed on large sheets
of paper. I chose to leave the quotes in their full context, rather than cutting the transcripts and

!43

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

grouping together the themes. This was done to make sure that I did not lose the context of what
was being said and kept the stories intact. By this point I knew the transcripts incredibly well, so
while doing my analysis I was able to collect relevant quotes without them being pre-grouped.
Many of the quotes I use are quite lengthy. This was to ensure that their voices were heard in an
authentic way. It is important to note that, while I did my best to preserve the stories as they were
told, there is a significant difference between hearing someone tell their story and reading it. I do
believe that losing the emotion and tone of voice that all of the participants expressed, to some
extent reduces the quality of the story. This is to a large extent unavoidable but I did my best to
work around it.
When I was putting together my research proposal, I originally positioned working with
Indigenous peoples as an ethical concern. As discussed above there are definitely ethical
considerations when working with people of Indigenous decent, as a result of continued
colonization. However, I want to be careful to not position the people I work with as being in a
lower position of power than I am as a researcher. We are not only both involved in the
movement but the people I interviewed are almost all public figures, who can be seen as leading
a movement. These are people who are powerful in their positions within the movement and
while they may have been victimized at times in their life, I want to avoid portraying them as
victims. They are strong individuals, who I consider experts on the topics I am interested in.
In addition to working with people of Aboriginal decent there were other ethical
considerations. Although all the participants were public about their activism and therefore not
worried about others finding out, other personal circumstances could place them in difficult
situations. Some of these people may be part of ongoing court cases as a result of their activism.
These are also personal narratives, not professional ones, so some of the information I received
was regarding experiences that are not, and should not, be public knowledge. To mitigate these
ethical concerns all participants are anonymous, they were given pseudonyms, and extra care
was taken to make sure that there are no identifying features in this paper.

!44

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Analysis
When faced with the realities of climate change, denial is the norm. We live in a capitalist
society which enforces the belief that the exploitation of people and the earth for profit is
acceptable, and in fact desirable. Any real action against climate change would go against this
belief. Every day we make decisions as individuals and as a society about how we are going to
live, and typically we do not choose to act against climate change. As outlined above we face a
huge problem; one that could mean that the earth will no longer be habitable for our species. Yet
a majority of us are still not willing to make the changes that are needed to counter climate
change.
What about the minority though? What about those people who are standing up and
demanding change? How are they different than the majority of society? Or are they different?
Cohen (2011) came to the conclusion that rather than asking why people deny we need to ask
why they ever chose to acknowledge and act. Denial is a normal state, as it is a defense
mechanism when faced with unappealing realities. There are people who either chose not to or
are unable to deny the realities of the world, they have broken through this culture of denial.
From an eco-global or green criminology perspective, I am concerned with social change
and therefore how people come to acknowledgment and action. In green criminology there is an
awareness of the threat that the continued destruction of the environment poses to the world and
a desire to prevent this destruction. While it acknowledges avenues for change through
government organizations, it also realizes that extreme pressure is needed from outside sources
in the form of activism (White, 2011). To create this change though we need people who are able
to break through this culture of denial and, as Cohen suggest, fully absorb and openly
acknowledge the realities of climate change. The participants in this study are perfect examples
of this. They are all actively fighting against the continued destruction of the earth, so as a
criminologist I am interested in the path that led them to break through the culture of denial.
Within this analysis we will explore pathways to activism, with a focus on childhood,
education/career, and a moment of action. Then there will be an exploration of the framing of
their activism, and of the question, are we all environmentalists? Within this section there will
also be a focus on Indigenous rights and the connection to the climate action movement. The
analysis will finish off with a consideration of how to get others involved, with a focus on
education, dealing with negative emotions, privilege, and avenues to action. While this analysis
is composed significantly of original research, it is intertwined with existing literature because it
allows for a deeper understanding of the findings.
Pathways to Activism
In the context of this research a pathway simply means a story. It is an acknowledgment
that everyone has a history and that looking at a holistic view of a person’s life is important to
understanding where they are today. We all start on different paths and we have no control over
where or what this path is. At different points our paths change, we may not realize that they
have or it might be a conscious choice. However, where we are today has everything to do with
the road that we have travelled. Chawla (1999) uses a similar concept of paths in her work. She

!45

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

explains that “[t]he paths [that] lives follow reflect both intention and chance” (p.18). This is
built of off Bandura’s (1982) work which explains the relationship between determinism and
chance encounters. While there are certainly social and psychological forces at work, it is how
they interact with chance encounters that determine our path. Again, putting it in the simplest
terms, the pathways that these activists have travelled, are the stories of how they arrived where
they are today.
The five people I interviewed all have distinct pathways to their activism. While there are
some common themes, they all have their unique reasons for being where they are today.
Childhood, education/career, and moments of awakening or realization play an important part in
all of their stories. Pathways are varying and there is not one reason for why a person becomes
who they are. However, there are different parts of their stories that give us some insight into
why they have a desire to make an impact. These are, as Cohen states, ordinary people who have
come to be active in their own way. He suggests that “[t]hese are like folk-tales of conversion:
the slow buildup or sudden epiphany, then a lifetime’s selfless dedication” (p.251). While Cohen
speaks of “folk tales” or fables, this seems to describe the lives of my participants to a tee.
Childhood
Everyone acknowledged that their childhood had an impact on their involvement in
activism. These reasons ranged from growing up as an Indigenous person facing racism, growing
up as a female with no expectation of her, and specific influential people who instilled values in
them. Some of the participants were outspoken as children but not all of them were. Their
placement at the front of a movement is something which they have learned over the years.
Cohen speaks of different ways that people become active and he comes to the conclusion that
there is no such thing as an “altruistic personality”, we are not born activists.
The interviews confirmed this belief, in that none of them showed signs of being “born
this way”. They all had moments and reasons, stemming from their childhood, as to why they
became active. The closest thing to being born an activist was being born with a sense of
responsibility. However, it would seem that this responsibility came from the community rather
than genetics. Raymond explains that becoming who he is today was a result of a conscious
decision because of his sense of responsibility.
I was a shy kid growing up, you could never get me in front of an audience growing up and I
think it’s just something that I’ve just worked hard to develop. Because I’ve always known that
there’s a sense of responsibility for people…within our communities that’ve had the opportunities
and who’ve worked hard to uh become scholars or scholarly and that…we have a responsibility
within our communities to look after what’s best for our communities

All of the people that I interviewed spoke specifically to how the values of their culture
led them to their activism. The Indigenous people were especially focused on this aspect. Sophie
speaks to being raised in the Cree and Dene culture:
…I think there were key players in my life, through my upbringing, who made me understand…
values that I don’t think most of Canadian society upholds. One being, One being…the right to
lead as a woman and to govern my own body uhm and to take leadership positions. My mom was
a prime example of raising us this way and I wasn’t really understanding that these values were
carried by the Cree and Dene. As I grew up and chose to grow…outside of the home, I learned

!46

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial
that these aren’t the values that most people have and that a lot of the values that I was taught
aren’t upheld…

Similarly Hannah speaks to the influence that her father had on her. While he is not Indigenous,
he was adamant that her and her siblings grew up with an understanding of their Indigenous
history and culture, and the ability to stand up for themselves.
I would say the number one factor in me…using my voice to speak the truth is…my dad. … m y
dad raised my sister and I by himself with my mom’s family at Musqeum…I was taught the truth
of, of history and taught the fact that the history books don’t actually represent the truth….My
dad also did a lot of work, again in the most fun way possible, to ensure that my sister and I
would be intelligent, articulate and decisive. To be able to speak for ourselves. To not let other
people…dictate to us or intimidate us to be who we were, to be subservient, to be tractable to
their ideas. Being raised by a man and around men, and being comfortable to use my voice. Being
comfortable to speak up. Being comfortable to disagree. Being comfortable to have a different
opinion.

While she removed herself from her Musqeum culture for many years, growing up with
this family had an impact on her. It was her dad, however, that also impacted who she is. The
culture that we are brought up in has a huge impact on who we are today. Kathy and Nicholas
also reflect on the impact of their childhood and the culture which they grew up in. Kathy
explains that childhood was a time of “benign neglect” as a result of being a female. There were
no expectations for her to make anything of herself, so this left her free to become who she
wanted. Nicholas grew up in a family of politically active people, which he says “rubbed off” on
him. These childhoods have of course intertwined with the culture of denial which every person
in Canada is engulfed in. However, it would seem that these sub-cultures created an avenue, or
path, away from the norm.
Intertwined with these cultures, were the realities of growing up as either Indigenous and/
or female. Nicholas was the only interviewee who did not mention sex or race as prominent
feature of who he is today. Being that he is a white male, in a culture which caters to white males
(Kimmel & Ferber, 2010), this is not surprising. Sophie and Hannah both noted that they were
taught that women can lead and use their voice. However, growing up being an outspoken female
did not make things easier, especially being Indigenous. As Hannah explained:
Growing up knowing that people looked at me with this kind of hard, cold, mean eyes simply
based on the way I looked, it changed who I was. And the things that people felt comfortable to
say. But because I was raised to be strong and independent and outspoken, I was often those
things. So I remember at a young age I’ve known what it’s like to say something, to speak words
and truth that are upsetting to other people. To have people come back at you with, with an
energetic force and a violent force because how dare I…that little brown girl correct anybody or
say something contrary to what it is they’re thinking, saying and doing.

While not indigenous, Kathy also connects her experience of growing up as a female to
her activism today. However she is able to view her experiences in a positive light, perhaps this
speaks to growing up in a society where her skin colour did not negatively affect people’s
opinions of her. She explains:
I grew up in a very rural area and at a time when kids were set to run free. So I basically grew up
outdoors…so that was a deep connection with nature, so that was one thing. Uhm it was also an
era of benign neglect. So I have always been left to find my own way. And as a girl at that time

!47

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial
and that place I also uhm… well not much was expected of me and so…that gave me, I used to
think that it was a handicapped that I wasn’t supported and there wasn’t expectations for me to
make something of myself. But now that I’m older I realize that that was actually a gift because it
gave me freedom to follow my own instinct and confidence that I could do whatever I want.

She also benefits from a privilege based on her skin colour (Kimmel & Ferber, 2010).
This is a privilege that stems from the realities of colonization and the constructing of western
modes of knowing and living as the only legitimate way (Monture, 2006; Saul, 2014). For
Indigenous peoples, especially Indigenous women, their lives and pathways are shaped by the
realities of being oppressed. Being a woman is not separate from being Indigenous. Race and
sex, and other defining factors, are intertwining realities that construct who we are. Patricia
Monture (2006) explains:
By the time I reached law school, I understood that much of my identity was shaped on the
recognition that I was oppressed. I was oppressed as an Indian. I was oppressed as a woman. I
was oppressed as an Indian Woman. I do not experience categories of “Indian” and “woman” as
singular and unrelated. The experience of Indian and Woman is layered. My choice to go to law
school was premised on my desire to fight back against the oppression and violence that I had
lived with as an Indian woman (p.79).

This leads to a question that Cohen (2011) brings up in his book: “Do survivors and
victims, people who have suffered terribly themselves, have a special sensitivity to the suffering
of others?” (p. 266). Based on the context of the childhoods experienced by four of the five
activists that I interviewed, I am led to consider the possibility that the answer is yes. Perhaps
people who have suffered themselves are more likely to speak up in the face of injustice. While
Kathy speaks only of “benign neglect”, Raymond, Hannah, and Sophie all speak about the
racism and/or sexism that they faced growing up. For the women this was also coupled with
violence.
Hannah is specifically forward about her experiences of violence and racism. In an
emotional conversation she explained her experience of growing up as an indigenous female:
…I think I was 12 the first time a man hunted me, and ever since uhm…I’ve been hunted and
stalked and preyed upon. I’ve had men hold me hostage and try to rape me…And I’ve had uhm…
I am the only woman that I know who hasn’t been raped. And I am the only woman that I know
who…uhm…I made…these are…these are hard issues to talk about and for…for myself and my
own experience growing up with a mother who was in residential schools from 4 until 16….So
the ongoing torture devastation, the stripping away of dignity and respect, the trampling over of
the rights, the elimination of of…of the human being in first nation’s people, especially women.
We are uhm sexual object. We are uhm token, uhm…uh window displays when needed a lot of
the time. And my, this is what my experience has been in this world…

The question is in some ways unsettling, as Cohen suggests, but in other ways it can be
seen as empowering. Women and Indigenous peoples are leading the movement against climate
change, regardless of where you look in the world (Klein, 2014). This can be seen in the image
of a Mi’kmaq mother kneeling in front of the RCMP at a protest near Elsipogtog First Nation in
2013. This photo is a representation of the large number of Indigenous women who were and
continue to be a part of protecting the water from proposed fracking (Troian, 2013). Klein (2014)
looks at how, while these issues impact everyone, they impact those living in poverty and those
of colour first and foremost. Women and Indigenous peoples are two groups who have

!48

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

historically and in many ways continue to be oppressed (Monture, 2006; Saul, 2014). Yet they
have found a way to move past our culture of denial. A further look at the role of Indigenous
peoples and women, and specifically Indigenous women, will take place later in this analysis.
I do not intend to imply that activism that does not stem from these kinds of experiences
is any less authentic. However, it is important that those who live lives of privilege, whether this
stems from their sex, race, sexual orientation, economic class, or any other fact, are aware and
reflective of how this privilege impacts their lives (Kimmel & Ferber, 2010). Perhaps there is a
connection between suffering and activism. However, there is then the question of why do only
certain people who suffer act? And why do people who have seemingly not suffered still act?
There are of course other aspects to considered, as life paths are varying and have many factors.
It is important to note that a few of the participants did not engage in activism until after their
20’s. This means that a lot happened between their childhoods and their activism.
Another theme that kept appearing in my interviews was parental influence. Nicholas
and Hannah both speak of their fathers influence and Sophie was greatly influenced by her
mother. Raymond speaks generally of people within his family who are a source of inspiration
and says that his family has a history of activism:
There are many examples of people within my own family who…uhm have been active engagers
within,…within our society and uh ever since you know…the Indian reserve system was created
in British Columbia uh my family members were from, you know, from the mid 1800’s when the
country was still forming, were at the forefront of protesting and asking, not asking but looking
for justice within this construct of society that we are now set with.

Is activism then something that can be passed down generations? Again, this research
suggests that it is possible. Of course I do not mean this in terms of genetics, but socialization.
Four of the five participants spoke to the fact that their families were active while they were
growing up and that they had an impact on who they became. Nicholas’s parents could even be
described as activists themselves and he seems to have passed this on to his own children who,
while they are not publicly active, have both chosen paths that are environmentally conscious.
The importance of family influence was also found in Chawla’s (1999) work on “Life Paths into
Effective Environmental Activism”.
One theme that I expected to be more prominent, as it was in Chawla’s (1999) research, is
a connection to nature that originated in childhood. Kathy does speak to the fact that she was
always outside as a child and how this created “…a deep connection to nature”. Raymond also
speaks of the importance of growing up in a community that was based on fishing and living off
the land, which he says “…was really formative in sort of who [he] became…”. However, these
were the only two interviews where this theme arose, which was surprising. This was surprising
for two reasons. The first is that it had appeared in past research (Chawla, 1999) and the second
was because of the fact that this is an important factor in my own activism. I soon realized that
the environment was not the main focus of their activism, as I will discuss later on in this
analysis, which gave an explanation for why this theme was not more prominent.
A fulfilling education and/or career

!49

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Education and/or career were the next step on the pathway to environmental activism for
all of the participants. This also usually led to their moment of awakening or realization.
Education in this sense varies from postsecondary to spiritual and cultural education and is often
an extension from their childhood. For Sophie, Nicholas, and Kathy post-secondary education
played an influential role. Kathy states, “I’m a scientist so I’ve been very well aware for a long
time about the science behind climate change”. In this sense her education gave her knowledge
to understand the issue and realize its severity.
In contrast Nicholas and Sophie both changed their educational plans as a result of their
need to act. Sophie thought that she should finish her education before becoming involved: “So I
actually wanted to get my degree first and then get involved so I could find my place within it”.
But this was interrupted by her moment of realization, which was the G20 protests in 2010, when
she decided she could no longer wait to become involved. As she explains it: “That was the
moment when I was like okay, I don’t have time to wait, I need to get involved and so I went to
my first rally and engaged in symbolic activism”. She also uses her education as a way to engage
with the movement. She is currently studying conflict resolution and sees this as a way of
engaging people with these issues. While she specifically focuses on Indigenous communities, I
believe that she has found an important avenue to getting others involved, which I will be
delving into later in this analysis.
Nicholas started out his education in the sciences but then decided to move to sociology
for his master’s program. He explains that “…by that point I realized no, no, there’s too much
happening in this world I can’t foresee myself in a lab”. This is also connected to the cultural
context of this time, which was the 60’s. He explains it as a
…time of uh…incredible social ferment, I suppose is the way to put it. You had the civil r i g h t s
movement in the states. You had the Vietnam War. You had assassination after assassination of
US presidents and president hopefuls. Assassinations of black leaders. And in all of this the world
began to not make sense to the young and people really began to look for something new and out
of that broadly speaking, what’s been called the counter culture emerged. So it was, if you had
your eyes and ears open it was impossible to be immune to that. You would have to be picking up
on it.

This switch led him to complete a masters of sociology and then go into a career which he felt
allowed him to make change. He said that his position allowed him to work to make change
within a bureaucracy and be a “tempered activist”.
Raymond also spoke to his education and career but rather than changing his view he
uses his chosen career, art, to express his activism.
I’m an artist first and foremost. That’s my passion that’s my profession as well, so uh, a lot of the
work that I’ve done revolves around uh sort of a positive visioning of our community and one
way that I’m able to participate and help with that is through my art…. Asserting our presence on
the land. That we’ve had a continued and sustained presence in our territories for uhm, for
thousands of years and that one of the things that my art and the work of other artists in my
community does is uhm, sort of put a visual stamp on it. Saying yes we are here.

His art is a way of positioning his community and expressing who they are, it is also
drenched in his traditional teachings. His education is both postsecondary and traditional. In a
similar fashion Hannah’s education is a huge part of her activism but she speaks only to her
!50

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

traditional teachings. She separated herself from her Indigenous heritage for a long time, as a
defense mechanism against the racism and negativity she faced growing up as an Indigenous
woman. However one day she decided that she no longer wanted to live this way and she chose
to re-embrace her traditional teachings and start to learn her culture.
…and then six years ago I decided that I didn’t want to carry that shame anymore. I didn’t want
to carry that pain. I was letting go, excuse my language, and of all the bullshit that was never
mine to be lugging around for, you know, 35, 36 years at the time. And I started to learn my
language…

All of the participants had careers which led them or allowed them to express their
activism. It is interesting that none of them had the same careers or educations. Rather they had a
mixture of different interests, which allowed them to be active in their own way. I see this as an
important factor, since activism is often seen as only protesting and acts of civil disobedience.
Activism can and should take many forms. This is something that will come up again later in this
analysis. As I mentioned before, their careers and education often led to or were intertwined with
their moments of awareness. The moment when they could no longer deny that they had to act.
Moment of action: breaking through the culture of denial
Cohen explains that “…there are different narratives of transformation: a long, gradual
process; a dramatic, transforming encounter; a sudden epiphany; a special ability” (p.264). For
most of the participants their narrative of transformation was gradual but also included a
transforming encounter or a sudden epiphany. In many ways there can be connections drawn
between the childhood experiences of the participants, their education or careers and their
moments of awareness that led them into their activism today. None of them were devoid of a
connection to activism or an awareness about the realities of the world, but they were still
involved in a process of denial. These moments of awareness or realization can be seen as the
moment of breaking through the culture of denial. They may have always acknowledged the
problem but they were still able to convince themselves that not being active was okay. Then
there was a moment, a breakthrough, when they could no longer choose to not act.
I already explained how Sophie originally wanted to wait until she finished her degree
before she became actively involved but in 2010 the G8 protests created a moment where she
decided she could no longer wait. All the other participants had a similar moment, or multiple
moments, where they simply could not “look away” anymore. After re-embracing her culture and
starting to learn her language Hannah learned about a developer that wanted to build at c̓ $snaʔ$m
or maiden marpole, which is a traditional burial ground. She explains:
…I personally started to find my voice at c̓ $snaʔ$m and when Idle No More started, I started
going, started talking, started singing. Uhm this turned into three years later and I haven’t
stopped.

She also found a sense of empowerment in this moment. So it was more than awareness but a
moment of empowerment and connection, as she explains:
Being at c̓ $snaʔ$m and the bridge with my own community members and people that came
literally from all over the world and brought their songs and stories and their magic and their
healing. And the fact that they cared uhm…something magical happened there. There was…the
way I describe it is we tapped into this like universal energy of change and empowerment.
!51

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial
Because what I’m working on is, is empowering myself and reclaiming my dignity and
reclaiming my, my, my own respect. I am working on…uhm letting go of shame. I’m working on
letting go of constantly having to qualify that I even deserve to exist. Because that is, that is
beyond a hard place to live. It’s not even living. And uhm… I mean it’s…it’s such a gross
understatement to say it’s unhealthy. So the Idle No More uhm even that was here in Vancouver,
when I was standing the crown, with all of these drummers and singers. And it was a lot of First
Nations people and it still is and a lot of women. But there, but with the men and the women, and
some in regalia and with their drums and the songs and feeling that actual unity. Feeling that
connection happening from person to person to the hundreds of people who would turn up to each
event. And that it was positive and that it wasn’t uh, it wasn’t uh…take to the streets and trash the
windows and knock the garbage cans over and yell at, yell at all the while people. It was about us
and it was for us and it was empowering ourselves and reclaiming so much of what was brutally
stripped and continues to be stripped from us. And instead of being forced to accept it now, we
have a choice. We are at a time and a place, finally, where we’re not only able to stand up and
uhm…stand up for ourselves but we’re able to stand up for protection of the environment. We’re
able to stand up finally in protection of our women. And uhm in protection of what means too
much and is so necessary for every person hat is here. And I knew in that instant that this is where
I, this feeling, this is it. I found the work I need to be doing.

Her moment of empowerment was a spiritual awakening but it was also a moment of
awareness that she needed to fight for what she loved. As she says, she found where she
belonged and the work she needed to do. Raymond experienced similar moments of realizing he
needed to protect the things he loved. The first was when he learned about the Northern Gateway
pipeline and that Enbridge was not respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples regarding land
claims, and that these things would eventually come down the coast. He then took a canoe trip up
the coast of BC where he saw the destruction that other industries had left. He explains:
It was after that time that any…anything that I was sitting on the fence with like in regards to the
NEB process and Enbridge and Kinder Morgan was really diminished. Once I’d seen, once I saw
the damage that was wrought by other industries…. Where we visited communities along the
coast that uhm didn’t benefit from these exploitative resource extractive industries that once they
were done doing what they were doing, they were uhm, there was no uh…uh there was no
impetus from them to uh restore these vast resources that were taken and so the question from
many citizens that we’ve talked to across the province is that well if, if these government
regulated and government subsidized organizations and industries like logging, mining, and
fishing, didn’t look after the environment, what’s going to be so different about these oil
industries?

Not everyone viewed this need to fight for what they love as an empowering endeavour.
In fact Nicholas reinforces the fact that this was not part of his plan. He had things he wanted to
focus on when he retired and issues of climate change were supposed to be a secondary concern.
However, with the announcement of the Kinder Morgan pipeline and the birth of his
grandchildren, the issues became impossible to ignore. He chose to place his other goals on the
backburner to focus on action against the pipeline. He explains:
But what changed things for me was, the announcement that there would be two, not just one but
two, tar sand pipelines through BC. Uh with all the risk that that presented both to the land and to
the water. But the major concern in there was this is all about fuelling global warming and then
along came our grandchildren…At any rate when the grandkids were born, we found that you
know it’s great, it’s fun, especially for a grandparent, and joining that part of it. But uhm…so
there was the joy but also it, it…it sort of recast your awareness in thinking about the future. So
now you have a visceral way to look into the future so I think that was another major factor.

!52

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

He saw the issue to be important and he was emotionally connected to it by looking at the
future for his grandchildren. However, he spoke about the issue as if it is something he has to do,
rather than something he found great pleasure from.
So my niece’s husband says “O you must really enjoy this”, I said in a sense I don’t enjoy it but I
mean that in a sense Justine that it wasn’t part of the plan and I’ve got other things that I keep
wanting to get to. So it’s not as if I come into this with the sense of “yes this has really helped
fulfill me in some sense”. Uhm it does in a sense because I find that the people that are involve
are, almost to a person, people you’d like to know. So to come back to your question, of uhm, am
I the kind of person to get involved in these kinds of issues? Yeah I guess uh, sprinkled with a
little salt.

In this sense he felt compelled to act but did not seem to get the same feeling of
empowerment as Hannah. What all of these stories have in common is that they experienced
moments where they could no longer be in denial. This is the type of denial that Cohen speaks of
where someone is aware of what is happening but does not act. While not denying that there is a
problem, they all experienced denial in the form of convincing themselves they did not need to
act. Sophie believed that she could finish school before becoming active. Nicholas was
convinced he could retire and not focus on climate change. Kathy still thought the government
might make the necessary changes. Hannah had chosen to deny her culture, and in essence part
of who she was. Raymond had also chosen not to take concrete action until his moments of
awareness.
These moments changed their perspectives. I think of them as similar to needing glasses
and not realizing it, and then one day putting them on; the world is a lot clearer and in focus.
Cohen (2011) explains that “…this ability to see clearly – the move from peripheral to central
vision, seeing through the ‘gauze’ of euphemism- makes all the difference” (p.265). This is the
moment where they break through the culture of denial, which can in many ways be
uncomfortable but, from the way they speak of it, there really in no choice any more. The curtain
has been lifted and we can no longer deny what is behind it.
For many of them this meant making sacrifices in their own lives. Nicholas put his
retirement plans on hold because the future of his grandchildren was in jeopardy, regardless of
the fact that there are other things he wants to get to. Sophie could no longer focus solely on her
education, she needed to act. Kathy says that she “…think[s] we all have to make sacrifices to
make change”. Hannah speaks freely of being terrified and how she has to continue to act
regardless.
And I'm faltering to find my balance again and its uhm...I'm scared again, I'm terrified. And

even having, even knowing that, and even having that knowledge and having that fear, what I
know even more than that is, I will never stop speaking the truth and I will never stop protecting.
I will not be quiet and I will not go away. …so whatever fear or terror, whatever, you know it's
called post-traumatic stress, whatever these things uhm...is happening, I just have to find a way to
take care of myself and still keep moving forward with all of these things. Otherwise I should just
lie down and die because I will not live in a world where this is okay.

All of the participants speak to the fact that this is who they are. They may not always
have been this way, they may not have been born activists but it is who they are now. When I
asked Nicholas if his activism is still centered on the humanist approach he stated: “I’m still

!53

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

concerned with it, it’s part of who I am”. Hannah, as she expressed above, also views her
activism as her place in the world, where she is supposed to be. Sophie explains: “It’s my
passion, it’s my way of life. It’s who I am and everything about who I’ve become is rooted in this
long story about colonization”. Kathy also speaks of living life true to who she is, which results
in her activism. Raymond explains that it is a responsibility he has as a part of his community
and he sees his activism as looking after his community.
Cohen’s (2011) fables or “folk-tales of conversion: the slow buildup or sudden epiphany,
then a lifetime’s selfless dedication”, is exactly what my participants experienced. There was
both a slow build up, as seen in their childhoods and education/career choices, and then there
were moments of awareness or sudden epiphanies. While the concept of a lifetime of selfless
dedication seems extreme, my participants all show a sense of selflessness and an admirable
dedication. They pass up their own plans, such as Nicholas’s retirement plans and Sophie’s plan
to finish school, and keep active regardless of their own fears and hesitations.
Klein (2014) speaks of “[a] shared determination to stay in the fight for the long haul, and
to do whatever it takes to win”, which she sees in the people in this movement. I certainly see
this in all of the participants. They speak with an obvious passion and show a dedication in their
actions that speaks for itself. These are people who spend every free moment they have focused
on making an impact. While they all realize that they cannot do it on their own, they certainly
show a selfless dedication which shows no sign of ending.
An amalgamation of social movements: are we all environmentalists?
This research is titled “Pathways to Environmental Activism within BC” because I
wanted to speak with people who were active around issues such as proposed pipelines. I
assumed that people who were active on these issues would consider themselves
environmentalists, or at least approach the issue from an environmental perspective. What I have
learned first and foremost from my discussions with people at the forefront of this movement is
that they do not automatically identify as being environmentalists.
Environmentalism is actually treated as a dirty word by some of the participants. There
are suggestions that it is associated with hippies and on the fringe of society people. Or it is
considered an irrelevant category since everyone who knows the facts should be one. As Kathy
explained:
I personally don’t really like the term environmentalism because people use it in a derogatory
way and personally I have very strong feelings that any intelligent, thinking, person, is an
environmentalist and if they’re not uhm then they’re not thinking clearly about the issues.

If they consider themselves environmentalists at all it is an afterthought to their main
reason for being active. Something, that after consideration, they can see themselves as being
associated with. When I asked Hannah if she considered herself an environmentalist, after a
pause she responded by saying, “I’ve never really considered that. That’s…it would depend on
the definition of an environmentalist. More than anything I’m a protector and I’m a truth speaker.
And that’s my job and that’s why I’m here”. However, when I asked her to define
environmentalism she said she would define it as being a protector and a truth speaker. She is
okay considering herself an environmentalist if it can be defined in her broad terms.
!54

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Raymond had a similar reaction. He was reluctant to call himself an environmentalist but
after further consideration he decided that he was one. He explains: “…so I think that I’m one of
those people that is active so yes I’m an activist and I’m uh a speaker on behalf of the
environment as it pertains to my community, and so uh it’s very important to me”. All of the
participants were hesitant or outright denied their being labelled an environmentalist. However,
when asked to define what an environmentalist was they all described something similar to their
own activism. This speaks to the fact that environmentalism has in some cases obtained a
negative or exclusive definition. It also suggests that environmentalism has become a broader
term. While perhaps it used to be associated with “fringe of society people”, “hippies”, or “tree
huggers”, as some of my interviewees suggested, now it seems to have evolved to include a
greater variety of people.
Nicholas explains that core environmentalists are people who “…spend time uh engaged
in concerns about flora and fauna and preserving life, those forms of life on earth…”. He does
not consider himself an environmentalist in these specific terms but sees himself fitting into one
of the categories underneath this movement for climate action. For him there are four main
groups of people within the movement, which he views as a big tent. He explains:
Yeah I think the best way, term I’d like to use, that I think applies is the big tent. This is a l l
about creating a big tent, in which no end of people can participate and come under one roof and
say yeah, this is what we are doing you know, committed to this. We’re working on this together.
Yes I look around the room, look around the room and see a lot of different kinds of people and in
a lot of ways maybe we wouldn’t be spending time together, uh if the situation were different but
this whole issue of global warming is a uh is uh a hugely binding experience I think and uh folks
who are concerned about it, need to constantly be looking for ways to bring in more people, So
uhm, in that sense I’d like to think as a broadly speaking, a small e environmental movement,
with many different folk involved, many of whom, 5 years ago, two years ago, 6 months ago,
wouldn’t say, and maybe even right now, wouldn’t say they’re an environmentalist per say but
they see this issue uh as one that threatens the planet and there are so many aspects to what the
planet represents.

Nicholas does a wonderful job explaining how environmental issues have become a uniting
banner for many different activists. Climate change has specifically allowed different groups to
unite under one cause. This also means that, as Nicholas explained, people do not necessarily
come at the issue from an environmentalist perspective. This perspective connects to Klein’s
(2014) discussion of Blockadia; the grassroots world-wide movement that she says has risen up
to say “no”. All of this is done under the banner of climate change, which is a unifying issue, but
peoples reasoning for being involved are broad and varying. This is also reflected in Sophie’s
explanation:
Environmentalism is a pretty broad…understanding of protecting of the environment and animals
and the earth in general. But there’s different paths within environmentalism and different
motivations right? So some people become environmental activists because they don’t want to
lose their house or their land, right? When it directly affects them. Some people be
environmentalists because it’s cool and there’s a bunch of hippies with dreadlocks who just want
to smoke weed all day. And then there’s the anarchists. And then there’s people who actually
understand the scientific part of it.

Nicholas identifies four areas in his tent metaphor and they also came up in my research:
Core environmentalists, anti-capitalists, humanism, and indigenous rights. In addition my
!55

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

research brought up concepts of feminism. However, none of these groups are exclusive.
Nicholas explains these categories as, “Meaning you can come up with categories that largely
make sense but not everyone purely fits into one or the other so… I might be 60% of the
humanist category and a mix of others”.
While all of the participants could probably be placed primarily in one category, they
certainly overlap, since even the categories overlap. The only one that none of them outright
identified with was the core environmentalist group, where the preservation of flora and fauna, or
our natural spaces, was the main focus. However, the desire to protect natural spaces was present
in all of the interviews. For example, Raymond’s activism is focused on his community and the
colonization that Indigenous peoples have faced but he also speaks to the fact that the natural
areas have changed since he was a child. He is concerned for how the industries are treating the
natural places in British Columbia.
Similarly, Hannah definitely comes at the issue from the perspective of an Indigenous
woman but she also speaks about her desire to protect other living things. However, this is not
only because they need to be protected but because as human beings we also need them to
survive. This connects to the ecological conceptualization of our relationship with the
environment. She explains:
It’s hard because, I get conflicted because on one side of the coin I am doing work against…uhm
I’m doing work to speak up against the work, against Kinder Morgan Transmountain Pipeline, the
uhm…protecting the sacred headwaters, the tar sands, the fish farming, the continued mining, the
uhm resources extraction in south America, everywhere around the world, all of these things are
happening. But more importantly I’m working to speak up for, for the actual land, for the trees,
for for you know the two legged, the winged, the four legged, and all of our, and all of everything
in the water because they don’t have a voice. And it’s not just because they deserve to be
protected but on a more selfish note for a lot of people, not just the kind of hippy dippy tree
hugger mentality, we need every one of these species. We need the trees, we need the arable land.
I mean it’s. It goes…it’s beyond ridiculous to say we need clean water to drink, we need clear air
to breath, we need arable land, we need non uhm non uh… we need land that hasn’t been
modified to the point that it’s killing people and produce that come from it is killing people. But
we are at a point where these things need to be said and they have to be said loudly, consistently.

Her perspective is similar to ecological justice which was discussed in the “Green
Criminology” section. From this perspective we need to be concerned for everything on the earth
because we are all connected in one large eco-system. While there are certainly some things that
present a more severe threat to humans or to specific animal species, at a big picture perspective
we are all connected. This is represented in Hannah’s view that “…on a more selfish note…we
need every one of these species”.
Hannah is probably the most diverse in her framing of the activism she does. This last
quote identifies her as someone who is trying to protect and speak for the land, for its own sake
and for the future of humans. However she also discusses her activism as stemming from her
Indigenous and feminist roots. She sees environmental issues as originating in colonization and
the desire to gain access to land and resources, which continues today.
…from this most recent history of the residential schools but also looking at the history of
colonization and the whole purpose of of this uh…of Canada and the dominion of Canada and the
government of Canada at every level was to eradicate the First Nations people from the land. And
!56

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial
not just for the purpose of eradicating them but for the purpose of gaining full access and control
over what are called resources and the simple fact is, they weren’t able to eradicate us all. So all
the ongoing torture devastation, the stripping away of dignity and respect, the trampling over of
the rights, the elimination of of…of the human being in First Nation’s people, especially women.

Hannah seems to see the issue that she is active against as encompassing many
perspectives. She explains: “I mean there are so many little tiny issues that are connected. And
it’s this big ball of yarn, you can’t pull one string without the rest jangling. It’s ALL connected”.
She simply wants everyone to feel safe and live in a healthy world. She feels that people have a
right to this. From a broad perspective this may be humanism, or general social justice, but that
would ignore the fact that she is Indigenous and a female, and therefore her actions are driven by
her experiences as an Indigenous female.
Her discussion of growing up with the racism and violence that being an Indigenous
woman has brought her is steeped with emotion. She goes between anger and hope for the future.
It is clear that she never wants anyone else to have to face the things that she has and that no
matter how afraid she may be, she must keep acting. She sees a connection between not only
colonization and the treatment of the land but the treatment of women and the land.
I want a world where men have, uhm regained the knowledge and the uhm…the understanding of
the value and the power and the respect that women deserve. It is our job to keep ourselves safe
but why do we need,… why do we need to teach women to not get raped? This, this is a huge
starting point and its cus the rape and the violence go hand in hand and it’s the exact same thing
that’s being done to the earth. The earth is being devastated with bore holes and tar sands and
tailings ponds and fish farms and its being deforested. And all the perfect methods of resource
extraction…it’s the exact same thing.

Sophie connects her activism in a similar way to growing up as an indigenous woman and having
to face the violence and discrimination that comes along with that.
Well because of colonization, this is something that I talk about quite a bit with people, is as an
Indigenous woman who faces violence on a regular basis through colonization, my body has
become the landscape for violence. And uhm our bodies are a part of the environment, they’re a
part of the land, and they belong to each other there’s a cycle that happens. And… uhm my role is
in direct relations to my body being a physical manifestation of the land and so in order to stop
the violence that exists on my body I have to stop the violence that exists on the land because the
violence on my body is committed in order to gain the land.

When asked to define environmentalism she states:
So there are multiple understandings I think of environmentalism and multiple motivations that
lead people to become active. But I think that basically just the understanding that we can’t
continue to rape the earth any more than we already have and we’re leading to our own demise
basically.

Both Hannah and Sophie refer to the way we interact with the earth as rape. They also
acknowledge a connection between how our society interacts with the environment and how it
interacts with women. This connects to eco-feminism which “…advocates that, in the patriarchal
society, we should connect natural domination with sexual domination, combine the ecological
movement with the women’s movement, and solve the ecological crisis and the social crisis in
the process of fighting against patriarchal domination” (Ling, 2014, p.95). Although not all ecofeminists use the uncomfortable connection of rape, it has been discussed. Collard and Contrucci

!57

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

(1989) made the bold statement that “…nature, animals and women are objectified, hunted,
invaded, colonized, owned, consumed and forced to yield and to produce (or not). This violation
of the integrity of wild, spontaneous Being is rape” (p.1). Ecofeminism then views the
domination of the earth and women as resulting from patriarchy. They are both seen as
commodities rather than living beings, which also connects to capitalism. 6
In a discussion of the integration of criminology and eco-feminism, Lane (1998) notes
that ecofeminism may be a dying area of research. This is as result of the fact that many people
may not view their gender politics as the most important aspect of their activism. While at some
points they may come at their activism from a feminist standpoint, at other times they may be
active from other positions. Lane (1998) calls this transient ecofeminism and explains that this
forming of new alliances allows for a stronger social movement rather than the end of it.
This acknowledges the fact that we are all unique people who carry multiple identities,
yet are faced with many of the same problems. Rather than seen as a weakening of the ecofeminist movement, it should be seen as a strengthening of it and other movements. This alliance
can certainly be seen within the interviews that I conducted for this research. All of the
participants come at the issue from their own view points, yet they desire the same outcome; a
change in culture. At the core is really a desire to remove this culture of denial that is based on
capitalism. A culture that colonizes Indigenous peoples, places the pursuit of profit over all other
needs, and turns nature and people into commodities.
Hannah and Sophie see the issue from the perspective of Indigenous females. Raymond
while Indigenous, is not female, and he did not mention anything regarding the connection
between nature and women. He did however speak to the connection between the continued
colonization of Indigenous peoples and the destruction of the earth. Kathy and Nicholas on the
other hand, did not associate their action with issues of race. This is understandable since they
are Caucasian and are unlikely to have faced personalized racism. Nicholas did acknowledge that
Indigenous peoples play a huge role in his “big tent” and that they have their own unique
perspective. Nicholas sees the issue from the perspective of a grandfather. Kathy primarily
speaks of the issue as being one of political ideology. Specifically capitalism and neoliberalism.
She is also a woman, and does mention her childhood experiences of growing up a female, but
does not speak of the connection between woman and the earth. Yet all of these people are
fighting for the same cause and under the same banner. This speaks to the fact that it is an
amalgamation of all these different viewpoints.
It is also significantly important to note that none of them denounce the other avenues.
There was never a negative comment spoken about anyone who was fighting not on the side of
corporations and the state. Rather, they were often supportive of the other facets. For example,
Sophie comes at the issues from the perspective of an Indigenous female but she also speaks to
the fact that it is not just about Indigenous peoples: “This isn’t how we’re supposed to live. This
isn’t how we were meant to live. Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous peoples”. Nicholas and
6 It is important to note that there has not always been a positive relationship between Indigenous

women and the broader feminist movement (Monture, 2006).

!58

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Hannah also mention other perspectives or their consideration for other groups of people
multiple times. This is important because of the fact that it is such a diverse group of people and
they are all working together. While there are certainly subgroups, as Nicholas explained, they all
come together to stand against these issues. It is a unity of movements: feminist, Indigenous,
anti-capitalist, environmentalist, and humanist.
Klein (2014) also speaks of the social movement against the continued use of fossil fuels
as a continuation or amalgamation of other social movements. She explains that
…all of these past movements, in one form or another, are still fighting today – for full
human rights and equality regardless of ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation; for real
decolonization and reparation; for food security and famers rights; against oligarchic rule;
and to defend and expand the public sphere.
So climate change does not need some shiny new movement that will magically succeed
where others failed. Rather, as the furthest reaching crisis created by the extractivist
worldview, and one that puts humanity on a firm and unyielding deadline, climate change
can be the force- the grand push - that will bring together all of these still living
movements. A rushing river fed by countless streams, gathering collective force to finally
reach the sea (p.494-495).
This unification of social movements is evident in my own research. It is not just one
issue that needs to be dealt with. It is a multitude of issues that come together under the threat we
are facing from climate change. Because this threat effects everyone, it is acting as a unifying
factor. It is not just an indigenous, feminist, environmental, or humanist perspective. All of these
perspectives come together in the realization that the way we interact with the earth and each
other is not healthy. And built into this is the realization that capitalism and neoliberalism are not
healthy and we cannot move forward and make any effective change under this ideology. Kathy
is particularly adamant about this fact. She states that:
We are living in a time…when uhm…we’ve really have been asleep at the wheel for 30 years.
Uhm I think there’s been a big movement by an ideology that’s known as neoliberalism that is not
conservatism, it’s very distinct from conservatism. Uhmw here there’s a very strong ideology that
the markets, that they should be supported and uhm it’s not…less government…it’s actually more
government that does not value democracy and it does not value the environment and those are
two of my very big concerns and over the past few years when I’ve woken up to the fact both our
democracy and our environment are being totally being ran rush shod over. Uhm I had no choice
but to act.

This sense of intense urgency is something that is reoccurring in my interviews. Kathy
shows this urgency when she states that she had no choice but to act. Sophie, when asked how
she became involved in environmental movement, to start with simply said “urgency”. After
further inquiry she said,
So there is a sense of urgency uhm in regards to the way that oil impacts the environment, and
climate change as well as fracking. When I became educated about, about the environmental
impact but also the health impact on the Indigenous communities further downstream from tailing
ponds or directly dealing with fracking, then I was very concerned and I go involved.

!59

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

This urgency comes from the fact that climate action needs to take place now and a realization
that those in positions of power are not acting. It also comes from the tar sands oil being sent to
our coast, or into our backyards. However, this urgency also mirrors the idea that they lacked the
ability to do anything else. None of the participants came at the issue as being something they
were incredibly excited to get involved with. Yet none of them felt they could make another
choice. This connects to Cohens (2001) concept of banality of virtue in that they see “…the
situation as giving them no choice” (p.264). Once they were faced with their moment of
awareness, or breaking through the culture of denial, they could no longer look away. However,
most of the participants were not excited to get involved, even though they acknowledge that
they do get a sense of empowerment and fulfillment from their involvement.
Nicholas explained a few times that this was not his plan. He is retired and had things he
wanted to accomplish but then with the announcement of the two pipelines he realized he needed
to focus his attention on the threat of climate change. Raymond speaks about the fact that he was
always shy growing up but that he has forced himself to become comfortable in the spotlight
because he has a responsibility. Kathy explains that she was waiting for the politicians to do their
job, she has kids and a life that she was living but then she realized that “…it was up to us” and
started acting. Sophie speaks about being apprehensive because there is fear involved and how
she had planned to get her degree finished first but then she could no longer wait after witnessing
police brutality at a protest. Hannah expresses her fear but determination to keep acting with a
strong sense of emotion:
So…we’re leaving the way to this and uhm…despite the fact that the majority of us are terrified.
Despite the fact that, that the majority of us have no idea how we’re going to pay our bills or rent,
or get from one event to the next. We’re fierce and we’re and and we…[stó:méxen?] I am warrior.
And I feel that and it’s not…the Hollywood version of warrior uhm…warrior is beautiful. Warrior
is powerful. Warrior is protector. Warrior is bland of uhm of uh emotions and logic and action and
caring for, for the communities. And uhm… to be to have that instead of a sense of shame,
embarrassment, and humiliation. To feel pride and acknowledgement and power. Knowing where
I come from and who my people were and how long we've been here and our stories. Uhm our
own histories and our own uhm experiences here on this land. We've been on it since the first
sunrise. I want every woman to feel the way I feel. And I am still terrified, I still have no clue
what I'm...what I'm actually going to be doing tomorrow, in an hour from now and that's not the
way I usually live and after […] I've had to take time off because uhm...because it triggered all of
the other violent incidents. It triggered every time I have been stalked or preyed or or or hurt by a
man. If I’m around men who are tense now. If I'm around a man, if he moves his hands fast. If
men have a bad energy or they're angry. I can't be around it. I'm, I'm having to go see counsellors.
I'm doing my own healing work with, with friends. Uh....I'm doing my own healing work with my
friends in the sense of taking time off and taking time away but I’m seeing spiritual healers, I'm
seeing cultural healers as well as I'm working with uhm counsellors who specifically work with
women who have uhm experienced violence. And I never thought I'd be back here again. I never
thought uh...I never imagined that it would be socially condoned at an incident where I was
peaceful for a police man to hit me in the face and other people say that I deserved. And, excuse
my language, it's fucked me up. And I'm faltering to find my balance again and its uhm...I'm
scared again, I'm terrified. And even having, even knowing that, and even having that knowledge
and having that fear, what I know even more than that is, I will never stop speaking the truth and I
will never stop protecting. I will not be quiet and I will not go away. And this makes me
dangerous to the people who benefit from maintaining the status quo. And these sheeple that
become the police and these sheeple who wander around uhm...still believing the propaganda, the
lies that have been created to keep them docile and not thinking...I can't really be too concerned
!60

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial
about uhm...their reactions to a lot of things because it’s that mentality that got us into the mess
we're in. so whatever fear or terror, whatever, you know it's called post-traumatic stress, whatever
these things uhm...is happening, I just have to find a way to take care of myself and still keep
moving forward with all of these things. Otherwise I should just lie down and die because I will
not live in a world where this is okay. I want you to be safe, I want all of the women in your
family, and all of the women in your circle to feel safe.

In everyone, regardless of their reasoning or their framing of their action, there is a sense
of urgency and that they really could do nothing else in the situation. As is demonstrated in
Hannah’s discussion of the topic, these issues are steeped in emotion. While not everyone speaks
about it in such a forward sense as Hannah, the emotion is evident. Discussions around climate
change, colonization, sexism, and inequality, are not easily had without an emotional component.
Klein (2014) believes that the one uniting force behind all the reasons for being involved
in, what she calls, Blockadia, is love. She explains,
The power of this ferocious love is what the resource companies and their advocates in
government inevitably underestimate, precisely because no amount of money can
extinguish it. When what is being fought for is an identity, a culture, a beloved place that
people are determined to pass on to their grandchildren, and that their ancestors may have
paid for with great sacrifice, there is nothing companies can offer as a bargaining chip.
No safety pledge will assuage; no bribe will be big enough. And though this kind of
connection to place is surely strongest in Indigenous communities where the ties to land
go back thousands of years, it is in fact Blockadia’s defining feature (p.342).
I feel confident in stating that based on my interviews, this is true. I believe that people
are active because of love. Raymond loves his community and is concerned for his future
children. Nicholas loves his grandchildren. Sophie also loves her community and family, which
includes her childhood friends. Hannah is intimately clear about her love for the world in
general, in fact her love seems to almost overwhelm her. Kathy is not as forward with her
professions of love but it is clear when she speaks that she has emotion in her activism. She loves
the places she is trying to protect but she comes at the issue from an academic perspective.
This also means that their activism involves concern for the future, with consideration for
these loved people or places. Climate change, along with the sexism and racism that some of the
participants connect to it, threaten the future for those they love. Ashlee Cunsolo Willox (2012)
connects climate change to the work of mourning and I believe that her concepts transfer to my
research. She wishes to extend the work of mourning beyond only human bodies and onto nonhumans such as animals or ecosystems. She says that although these things are not discussed at a
public or political level, we do mourn for loved places or creatures that are lost. This is
connected to Cohen’s (2001) belief that those who are not able to deny, or be bystanders, have
extended their sense of self to encompass people beyond their own social groups. This social
group may be a family, community or country.
In this sense then Willox (2012) is saying that we can extend our moral inclusivity to
non-humans as well and that there are already many people who do so. She calls on people to
share these stories of mourning and believes that this will bring these non-human entities into the
political and ethical sphere. This is an eco-centric view of the world. She is trying to call for an
!61

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

eco-citizenship form of mourning, where all types of mourning are taken seriously. From this
point of view, if we acknowledge that we are vulnerable to this type of mourning and speak
about it publically and often, then we can create a political discourse around the issues. She also
calls for people to take their anger and use it in a productive way. We can use anger to create a
social movement, which is really what the people I interviewed and those that Klein speaks about
are doing. A social movement that is created by anger, that is as a result of the things that we love
being threatened. However, rather than using this anger in a destructive way, people are using it
to create new spaces for conversation and to stand up in unity against these destructive forces.
Hannah speaks to using her own fear and anger in a positive way to unite others:
Uhm that even though there may be anger in, in the reality, and uhm...in the statements...the
overall feeling is that uhm... I wanna present it in a way that actual opens mind and opens hearts,
so we can all start to see things from the same perspective of the truth of the facts. Not the slanted
propagandas BS that has been spewed out to people for, for hundreds of years. So setting it up in
a way that people can actually take it in and not feel guilt and not feel shamed but instead feel like
they can actually make a difference, like they can actually be involved and feel good about it.
Uhm coming at it from that perspective instead of pointing the big finger and "shame, shame,
shame".

In this way she connects to Willox’s (2012) idea that mourning can unite us. However,
she is adamant that we need to extend the mournable body to non-human entities. While I agree
that there are benefits, and on a moral level it is logical, to acknowledge that we can grieve for
these non-human entities, I do not think it is necessary in the context of climate change. All of
my participants, while they mention a concern for natural spaces and non-human entities,
primarily come at the issue from a point of concern for the future of humanity. They connect
climate change to the future for their community, grandchildren, or even unborn children.
However, they also see things from an ecocentric point of view, where we acknowledge
that everything is connected and that our future is intertwined with non-human entities. So while
grief for non-humans may not be necessary for this movement to be successful, within the frame
of ecocentrism even those who are only concerned for the future of humanity need to grieve nonhuman loses. Willox (2012) also discusses the fact that we can grieve for predicted future loss.
While there are certainly already loses occurring as a result of climate change, it is the predicted
massive future loss that people are also currently mourning. However, we can take past loss and
the grief we felt for them and use this as a way to motivate our desire to prevent the future loss
we envision.
Perhaps this is an explanation for why those who have already suffered may be more
likely to engage in this movement. All of the Indigenous participants experienced huge loss. This
is evident in personal experiences and at a base level this is in the loss of their culture and way of
life. However, Hannah also speaks to the loss of their humanity in the eyes of others. She says
that people do not see Indigenous peoples, and especially women, as humans. While not the loss
of a physical beings or entity, it is loss on a massive scale. Colonization is all about loss and
perhaps this means that they are more acutely aware of what there is to be lost.
When I asked Hannah why Indigenous peoples were at the forefront of this movement
she explained:

!62

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial
People wonder what’s underneath all of this, really, we have nothing left to lose. So we, we need
to stand up. Because if we don’t stand up now and speak for the environment. We stand up and
we are using out voices for the land, because we have to learn to use our voices for ourselves
We’ve been so dehumanized that a lot of us believe that we’ve not even humans still. So using
our voices and in acts using our voices to protect the land. To speak for those who cannot speak
for themselves empowers us to use our voices for ourselves, so that we can be more powerful and
effective in the actual work of protecting.

Using our voices also connects to the power of stories. I chose to embrace the power of
story in this research because I believe it is an organic way to understand a person’s life and
pathway to activism. What my research has shown is that stories are also a powerful force within
the movement. Story allows for a human connection between people, which creates the basis for
a social movement. From Willox’s (2012) point of view these stories allow us to connect on an
emotional level based on our acts of mourning.
It is not surprising that stories play such an important role in this movement. The power
of story originates from Indigenous cultures and, as has already been discussed, Indigenous
people are in many ways leading this movement. For this reason I have chosen to have a section
that specially speaks about the role of Indigenous peoples. While certainly all other pathways and
conceptualizations of the problem are important, it is crucial to acknowledge the huge role that
the history and continued colonization of Indigenous people plays in this movement.
Indigenous rights and the climate action movement
Four of the five people I interviewed spoke of the connection between Indigenous
peoples and the activism they are involved in. All three of the people with Indigenous heritage
discussed the connection between colonization and our relationship with the land and each other.
This is how they frame their activism. Nicholas also discussed how Indigenous peoples seem to
come at the issue from a different perspective. He acknowledges that their culture places them at
a different position. I chose to make three of my five participants Indigenous because I was
already aware of the huge and critical position they have within the movement. It does not take a
lot of investigation to come to this conclusion, all you need to do is attend a rally or
demonstration regarding climate action. Even turning on the mainstream news would give you an
idea of how prominent they are, although there is no guarantee how accurate the portrayal would
be.
Klein (2014) and Saul (2014) are both adamant that there needs to be changes in the way
non-Indigenous peoples interact with Indigenous peoples. This is a result of a long history of
abuse, dishonesty, and attempts to destroy a people and culture. It also has to do with the fact that
we have not honoured the treaties that our country was based on. Settlers in Canada did not
always have a colonial relationship with Indigenous people. In fact, when settlers first arrived
here they depended on Indigenous peoples and adopted many of their ways of life (Saul, 2014).
Eventually this changed. Laws, such as the Royal Proclamation in 1763, required British
settlers to sign treaties with Indigenous peoples to obtain land from them. Treaties were signed
almost everywhere in Canada except British Columbia, which even today remains mostly
unceded territory. Attempts to open British Columbia up to settlers in 1874, after BC became a
part of Canada, were struck down by the Canadian government because no treaties had been
!63

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

signed. However, after threats from BC to remove itself from Canada, the Indian Act was created
in 1876 which gave control over all Indigenous peoples to the government (Hill, 2010).
This began the legacy of the residential schools, where children were taken from their
families and placed in church run schools. Over the years information has continued to come out
about the atrocities of these schools, from sexual and physical abuse to using the children as lab
rats for experiments. The goal was “killing the Indian in the child” and the assimilation of
Indigenous children into the white community (Nagy & Sehdev, 2012). Families were torn apart
and still suffer from inter-generational trauma that originated at these schools such as: “...alcohol
and substance abuse, cycles of violence, suicide, anger, hopelessness, isolation, shame, guilt, and
an inability to parent” (Nagy & Sehdev, 2012, p. 67). They were a form of State funded
genocide. The government was provided with detailed accounts of everything that occurred and
did nothing to stop it.
This colonization and violence continues in our current society. Today almost half of the
children in foster care are Indigenous (Woods & Kirkey, 2013). Star light tours are occurring,
where police officers drop off apprehended Indigenous peoples in freezing weather, far from
shelter with inappropriate clothing, often resulting in them freezing to death (MtPleasant, 2014).
The Human Rights Watch (2013) released a report detailing the significant misconduct by police
in Northern British Columbia, including sexual assaults and failure to respond to missing
women. Since 1980 more than 1,100 Indigenous women have gone missing or been murdered, a
rate that is three or four times higher than their portion of the population, and Prime Minister
Harper refuses to call for a national inquiry (Chase & Galloway, 2014). These realities are mixed
in with high levels of poverty (Hilderbrandt, 2013), substandard living conditions (Cossimmo,
2013), and the continued destruction of the land.
Hannah, Sophie, and Raymond all speak about colonization and its continuation today.
How this shaped their lives and their interactions with other people. However, this attempt to
annihilate Indigenous cultures and peoples was not successful. While they have never taken the
abuse without protest, there has been a renewed energy in Indigenous communities, especially
within women and the young. John Ralston Saul (2014) describes this reinvigoration in his book
The Comeback. He explains how our government continues to perpetuate colonization and how
many of their acts are in fact illegal, since they are not upholding the treaties. Idle No More, a
movement that originated with the passing of omnibus Bills C-38 and C-45, is calling for the
government to take real action for reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.
In many places this reinvigoration is taking the form of renewed rights under treaties
agreed upon by colonists and Indigenous peoples, where land rights for these groups are being
recognized. There has been great successes in regard to gaining back treaty rights. In 1997
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia “…ruled that in those large parts of B.C. that were not covered
by any treaty, Aboriginal title over the land had never been extinguished and still needed to be
settled” (Klein, 2014, p.371). In 1999 it was ruled that treaties signed by the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet,
and Passamaquoddy First Nations in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were not meant to give
away land but to share it with settlers. This was a significant case since many North American
Treaties had similar provisions for resource-sharing rather than transfer of “ownership”.

!64

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

However, sharing of the land was impossible when one side had the goal of destroying it and
making it uninhabitable (Klein, 2014). (Saul, 2014)
Even after these decisions were made the government of Canada continued to live in
denial and did not enforce the rights that had been affirmed by these cases. So Indigenous
peoples started to use the land that their ancestors had passed down to them without permission
from the state. This resulted in often violent conflicts between non-Indigenous and Indigenous
peoples, who were accused of using up all the resources such as fish and wild game. The time
was full of tension, violence, and racism (Klein, 2014). This type of reaction is a result of years
of official denial and of course a culture of denial which enforces imperial, colonial, and
capitalist belief systems. Indigenous peoples have been portrayed as incapable, in the way, and
freeloaders. There is a general lack of understanding/education within non-Indigenous
communities about the realities that surround this relationship (Saul, 2014).
However, things started to change in 2013 when the Elsipogtog First Nations were
fighting against fracking and called to non-Indigenous peoples to join them. This was a turning
point in the collaboration between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada,
specifically to prevent continued fossil fuel extraction. This is as a result of two main
realizations by many non-Indigenous people. The first is that treaty rights represent one of the
most promising ways to prevent the continued destruction of natural places and the prevention of
increased climate crisis. The second is that Indigenous circular models of living7 provide a
different way of viewing the world, one which is much more aligned with our values. In essence
the concepts of an ecological view of our relationship with the earth, as described in the green
criminology section, mirrors these models. Saul explains that:
Humans are part of the whole, not elevated above the place and its other inhabitants. And
so humans see themselves from within existence. They do not gaze down upon it from
above. This changes radically how things are conceived and therefor how things could be
done (p. 19). 8
It is significant to bring to attention that very little of the literature regarding green criminology
noted this connection. While there were a few instances where I found a note regarding
Indigenous world views (for example Lynch & Stretesky, 2003, p.92) and Indigenous resistance
(for example Lynch & Stetesky, 2001), a majority of the literature referred to Indigenous peoples
only in the context of victims. Even this connection was limited. From my view point this
connection is significant and the lack of current acknowledgement creates an unhealthy and
unjust void within green criminology. We cannot continue to view Indigenous peoples as only
victims, rather than groups of people with valid points of view and conceptualizations of the
world. As academics concerned with environmental issues green criminologists should be
initiating this change of perspective
7 It is important to note that there is no one “Indigenous way” since there is many different cultures

around the world. Saul (2014) is speaking specifically to what he calls the “northern half of North
America”. However, there are still many different cultures within that.
8 For a further discussion of this Saul (2014) suggests Richard Atleo’s Principles of Tsawalk.

!65

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (n.d.) has been actively working to
gather the truth about the residential schools by collecting stories and research. They also
travelled across Canada hosting events and raising awareness, with a goal of reconciliation. The
fact is though, that this reconciliation can only happen if we start to acknowledge the realities of
our country. We must stop denying and we must demand that our government stop denying and
start acting. Saul (2014) says that the Indigenous comeback is the “great issue of our time”. Klein
(2014) refers to the climate action movement in similar terms. While these could be seen as
conflicting statements, I do not see them this way and neither do Saul and Klein.
As discussed above this movement is a compilation of many other movements, one of
them being the Indigenous rights movement. From a non-Indigenous perspective though we need
to be aware of the huge political, legal, social, cultural, and sheer people, power that Indigenous
peoples play in this movement. We need to start the reconciliation process by respecting the
rights that Indigenous people hold. For the common sense moral fact that it is the right thing to
do but also because we need them. And we need to realize that we need them. Saul (2014)
explains that we need to stop viewing Indigenous peoples as part of failing cultures that need to
be helped. That they do not need our sympathy but that we need as a country to acknowledge the
wrong doings because it would be best for everyone involved. Klein (2014) similarly speaks
about how non-Indigenous people need to be conscious of the way they interact with Indigenous
communities, so as to not further the existing colonization. We cannot use their land rights and
world views for our own advantage without restoring real justice within our society.
From an Indigenous perspective there can also be a specific pathway seen, one which
involves removing this “victim” status. Monture (2006) discusses the evolution from victim to
warrior. She explains that from victim there is a slow process of being a survivor, and then from
there is the reveling of a warrior. Hannah speaks about herself in a similar way as a warrior:
We're fierce and we're and and we... [stó:méxen?] I am warrior. And I feel that and it’s not
the...the Hollywood version of warrior uhm...warrior is beautiful, warrior is powerful, warrior is
protector, warrior is balance of uhm of uh emotions and logic and action and caring for, for the
communities. And uhm...to actually be able to feel that again, to be to have that instead of a sense
of shame, embarrassment, and humiliation. To feel pride and acknowledgement and power.
Knowing where I come from and who my people were and how long we've been here and our
stories. Uhm our own histories and our own uhm experiences here on this land

From warrior Monture says a person then turns into a teacher, where they “…not only speak to
the truth but they also offer ways in which we may change the reality we are living in” (p.84).
Hannah has identified as a speaker of the truth, and a protector, but I believe she can also be seen
as a teacher.
I...do this work with the full intention of...of waking up...we'll say the embers of respect, dignity,
and power in the other women. In the women who read uhm an interview, in the women who are
at a rally. In the women who just sit and chat with me, wherever I might be. Uhm because every
single woman who is woken up, who is stirred to find her own way to healing and find her own
way back to dignity and strength and respect, then empowers how many more. And it is our job to
do it for ourselves, with ourselves, but we also need our men. Our male warriors to be able to
stand beside us and around us. To protect us and support us. To love us. To care for us.

!66

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Monture also speaks to male warriors, in that she sees that they exist but not in the same number
that the women. While there are definitely men who encompass what it means to be a warrior,
Raymond is a great example of this, those standing up and using their voices are predominantly
women.
As I mentioned above, none of the people I interviewed spoke ill of other people within
the movement. This includes the Indigenous people about the non-Indigenous peoples, and viceversa. However, all of the Indigenous people spoke to the fact that there needs to be education
within the non-Indigenous communities about these realities. That part of making people “wake
up”, is making them acknowledge how their country came to be. Raymond explained how he
was in protest of what he calls “tokenistic” traditional welcomes:
…that our communities have to stop doing these obligatory and tokenistic and ceremonial
welcoming onto the land of the Indigenous people and uh…you know basically all that does is it
negates the real work that needs to be done. That there needs to be authentic engagement, there
needs to be authentic collaboration with the indigenous communities in order for this to work, for
this society to work. Uhm and uh so…uh I think a lot of the work that I’m doing now is about
that, its saying ‘you know what I’m not coming here with my drum in hand, I’m not coming here
wearing my regalia or my cedar hat. I’m coming to you because I’m telling you that we need to
do more work than that’. That there needs to be a new sort of, we need to take the next steps.

What are these next steps? What does authentic collaboration look like? From what I
understand, it means that we not only break through this culture of denial but dismantle it. The
people I interviewed have stopped denying. They have done what Cohen (2001) explains as “…
break[ing] the rules of the game by exposing it as a game” (p. 259). From this “[p]eople discover
that it is possible to live inside the truth, to find a repressed alternative to the inauthentic, to
expose a ‘hidden sphere of life’” (p.258). This hidden sphere of life is the Indigenous circular
model of living. A way of life that colonizers attempted to eradicate but it is still there. The next
step is to get others involved, to create a collective acknowledgement, an authentic collaboration,
a “…transformation that makes previously normalized conditions into social problems” (Cohen,
2001, p. 250). We need to strengthen the movement.
Helping others break through the culture of denial
That is the big question at the centre of this movement: how do we get others involved?
We know that there are certain moments that lead a person to action, so how do we create these
moments for others. All of the participants show a mixture of frustration and hope when
discussing this. When asked if they have any ideas, a common response was to agree that it is a
problem and that we definitely need everyone to be on the same side. As Nicholas explained with
his big tent metaphor: “Ultimately we want 99% of the people in that big tent and the only 1%
that’s still out there are the sort of top executives of big oil and some of their key shareholders”.
Hannah similarly states:
Ideally I would love to have a working peaceful, relationship, between EVERYBODY whose
here. We ALL need to work together. We have a phrase in Halkomelem "n$́c̓ aʔmat t$ šxʷqʷel$w$n
ct", we are of one heart and one mind, and this is the truth. And when we get back to that, some
people are going to have be dragged kicking and screaming to it, when we get back to that one
heart and one mind place of thinking, acting and doing, everybody will benefit, not just one
percent.

!67

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

The concept of waking people up is something that came up a lot in the interviews.
Everyone spoke about making people wake up and become active. Cohen (2001) explains that
we cannot jump from denial to action, there are steps we must take. The problem is: “how to
transform ignorance into information, information into knowledge, knowledge into
acknowledgement (cognition into recognition, sight into insight), and finally acknowledgement
into action” (p.248). The main concepts that come out of my research were similar to the four
requirements that Cohen (2001) lays out: cognitive demands, emotional demands, moral
sentiments, and cultural channels. The activists that I interviewed all had their own ideas for how
to get other involved but they had a similar pathway in mind. This pathway closely resembled
their own lives. It starts with breaking through the denial (through education), then connecting on
an emotional level, and then empowering them by presenting avenues for action. All of them are
currently actively trying to get other people involved.
The first step is of course education. This education needs to span further than just
climate change however, into how our culture enforces denial through capitalism, privilege, and
a limited scope of our history. Hannah explains that “[p]eople need to educate themselves with
the truth, […], just the simple truth” but this spans further than climate change. She explains that
people need to understand the history and current relationship between Canada and Indigenous
communities:
…for people to properly unveil themselves of the truth. Of, of the history and what really
happened at residential schools because the whole truth isn’t even known yet. So we’re
prescribed one year [Truth and Reconciliation], and that walk was fucking phenomenal, 70, 000
people turned up to show that they care, that I matter, that what happened to my mom wasn’t right
and to offer their healing. One year doesn’t fix hundreds of years of, of what continues to carry on
as the wrong doing of the actual evil deeds. People really need to get, they really really need to be
able to soften themselves enough to understand the actual experience of the Indigenous peoples
from around the word. Because before the British went around conquering. There’s no land that
doesn’t know the horrors of what is called colonization or dominant culture. Right here in our
own backyards people really need to learn the history, they need to learn the truth of what
happened to this land and to these people and how many people aren’t even here anymore. […]
So …there’s a lot, there’s a lot, people need to educate themselves of the truth of the history of
this country and how Canada came to be, how Vancouver came to be.

Sophie explains her own struggles in educating people and how youth are easier to reach:
This is part of what I like about youth, is that if you explain to them what colonization is, it
doesn’t matter uhm what nation they come from, whether they’re Indigenous or non- Indigenous,
if you explain colonization, you explain to them racism, you explain to them sexism; hey get it.
But adults don’t seem to get it because it’s been so pervasively seeped into them.

She points out a huge barrier to true education, the fact that we live in a culture that does not
express the truth, as Hannah explains it. Our culture of denial does not acknowledge the wrong
doings and the steps that need to be taken. While there are certainly some things being done,
such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, there is a general denial that still encompasses
us. Why? Because it is uncomfortable and also because it is complicated. We need to really look
and try to understand. We need to truly absorb the truth rather than just acknowledging it and
turning away again. Sophie explains that:

!68

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial
It’s never just one thing, right? And this is part of why people have an issue understanding these
issues. It’s because they’re so overlapping and they’re so complex. They’re simply too but people
need to have things compartmentalized […]. And that’s how education is given to us. So to give
them complicated answers becomes difficult right?

So then how do we really educate people about the truth of this situation? To start with
we need to deal with the guilt that people feel as a result of these issues, Hannah and Nicholas
both emphasis this. Hannah explains:
But to my way of thinking, in the way that I work, I want to say these things and present it in a
way. Uhm that even though there may be anger in, in the reality, and uhm...in the statements...the
overall feeling is that uhm... I wanna present it in a way that actual opens minds and opens hearts,
so we can all start to see things from the same perspective of the truth of the facts. Not the slanted
propagandas BS, that has been spewed out to people for, for hundreds of years. So setting it up in
a way that people can actually take it in and not feel guilt and not feel shamed but instead feel like
they can actually make a difference, like they can actually be involved and feel good about it.
Uhm coming at it from that perspective instead of pointing the big finger and "shame, shame,
shame".
And this is why lots of people weren't aware of it because they got caught up in a system that kept
them distracted and....now see there's another word in my language [ ] and it means to wake
oneself up. Well I'm awake and also part of my job is to wake other people up but as gently as
possible. I don't want people to feel guilt or shame. I want people to feel empowered and
motivated and to know that, really, when we work as one we can make this exactly what we want
and need it to be.

Nicholas explains:
And I think it’s also important to deal with the guilt that the oil sector tries to force upon people.
Uhm they repeatedly, in their public comments, in fact it’s one of the most frequent refrains is,
you know this is all about providing what people want,…not only that it’s what they need, people
tell us we need our cars, we need our natural gas heating and on and on and on and then that’s
couple with, so it’s coupled with the underlying thought that they want to get into people’s minds
that you know what, you’re the problem, we’re not the problem, you are, cus you want these
things and that leads to guilt…

This has to do with both the realities of climate change, as Nicholas explains, but also the
realities of Canada and our acceptance of the truth of our origin. In her book Living in Denial
Kari Norgaard (2011) discusses the connection between denial, cognitive dissonance, and
privilege. She explains that:
Privilege is a precarious position. People occupying privileged social positions encounter
“invisible paradoxes” –awkward, troubling moments that they seek to avoid, pretend not
to have experienced (often as a matter of social tact), and forget as quickly as possible
once those moments have passed (p. 217).
When people that have privilege are faced with uncomfortable information, information that
threatens or questions this privilege they choose to look away. From my research I believe that
this concept of privilege is going to be huge in regards to creating a successful movement against
climate change, one where we are all working together. Everywhere in the world has its own
history, a story of how that place was created. At this point in time we cannot change the fact that
our history is unpleasant. We cannot go back and stop residential schools before they were
created. We cannot stop the colonization and slaughter of a culture and people that our country is
!69

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

based on. Regardless of the fact that we may want to. However, this does not mean that we
should ignore this reality, especially since the repercussions of this history are continuing to
effect people in a massive way today.
If we want to all work together, then we need to heal the relationships between settlers
and Indigenous peoples. With this, also comes things that need to be healed within male and
female relationships and class relationships. Privilege plays a huge part in why we deny, we are
uncomfortable with it. We are uncomfortable acknowledging that we have it and that it is at the
expense of other people not having it. However, to work together we need to accept that it exists,
why it exists, and do our best to repair relationships that have been broken. This starts with
education and an acceptance of the truth, while dealing with the uncomfortable feelings that
come from it.
Privilege has many levels, such as race, sex, and class, and they are all interconnected.
There is also the concept of environmental privilege, which is the next type that needs to be dealt
with and is of course connected to the other types. There is an unequal distribution of
environmental harm, it effects the poor, women, and people of colour to a higher degree (Klein,
2014). Raoul Lievanos (2010) explains environmental privilege as “the taken-for-granted
structures, practices, and ideologies that give a social group [a] disproportionately high level of
access to environmental benefits” (p1, as cited in Norgaard, 2010). This privilege allows those
living in certain areas, and usually of a certain race and social status, to not be faced with the
environmental destruction that our lifestyles create.
This distancing between benefits and realities is closing. Klein (2014) discusses how
“sacrifice zones” are now starting to encompass areas with people that usually benefit from this
environmental privilege. For example, there was an oil spill from a cargo ship in Vancouver’s
English Bay (CBC, 2014), and with the proposed pipelines bringing more oil from the tar sands,
we are no longer as environmentally privileged as we used to be. This can assist in bringing
people together for a specific cause but it does not mean that other forms of privilege do not need
to be dealt with. As discussed above, this movement has the possibility of being a unifying
movement for many social movements. However, if we are to do this in the most successful way
possible, these relationships need to be fixed and those with privilege need to acknowledge it.
Sophie speaks about her work in conflict resolution, as a way to get others involved:
So right now my thing is conflict resolution actually as a way of getting people involved. So I’m
looking at ways in which, in Indigenous communities specifically because uh Glen Coulthard
talks about politics of recognition and how Indigenous people need to stop looking to the
government to validate our existence and to recognize us as nations but that instead we need to
validate ourselves and work on the strength of our communities and so that’s what I’m doing with
conflict resolution and focusing on Indigenous peoples conflict because we were , we’ve always
been able to resolve conflict and through the processes of colonization a lot of things have been
interrupted as well as conflict resolution. So what I’m looking at is gaining strength within our
Indigenous communities […]. And learning how to strengthen those communities through
conflict resolution because we’re always going to have conflict, and changing people’s
perspective on conflict. Conflict is not scary uhm and it shouldn’t be scary, it’s a normal part of
life, it’s a natural part of life and it’s what makes us human and that we have ways to resolve
conflict and to involve our personal narratives. Now make those traditions, or infuse that with
traditional practices of resolving conflict to make relevant our understanding of conflict.
!70

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

I believe that this is a huge part of creating a strong movement. While Sophie specifically works
with Indigenous communities, which is of course an invaluable place to start, her concept of
applying conflict resolution needs to expand to the rest of our society. The only way to address
these larger issues of privilege, which results in strong emotions of guilt and anger, is to have
effective conflict resolution. Part of the capitalist and colonialist culture of denial is to make
everyone feel as if they are on their own, and that everyone should only look out for their own
wellbeing. The first step to breaking through this culture is to start resolving the conflicts that
keep us separated. Conflicts also represent the opportunity for action, so that conflict can be
resolved (Christie, 1977).
This separation creates a feeling of powerlessness. Kathy explains: “I think people have
been disempowered in that way, they don’t think that they can a make a difference as individuals,
they don’t recognize their own power”. While we can certainly make impacts individually, it is
as a group that we are powerful and that is why all of the activists I interviewed emphasized this
need to work together. This also means that along with conflict resolution is the need for a
human connection. If we can see the shared humanity in all of us, then we will hopefully find it
easier to resolve conflict. To find this shared humanity we need to connect to them on an
emotional level or as Hannah describes a human level:
…my own experience from this pretty small time frame of three years is that connecting with
people on a human level. Me being willing to be vulnerable, me being willing to share uhm my
experience. Ugly, uh traumatizing, painful, uhm…funny at times uhm. Me being able to, to just
let the light of truth shine on what my experience is. Me opening up and allowing myself to be a
human being. To connect with the human being in you. That enables you to do that same thing
with somebody else. And when we actually have that, even just the tiniest crack of an open mind
and an open heart then we actually get to see where, what, where is the heart in this person, what
sits in that heart and then we can make the connection between all of these uhm…all of these
challenges I guess. All of these realities. So that uhm as gently as possible the person is woken up
and finds their own way to act.

Nicholas speaks about connecting to a primal instinct in people that gives them a desire to
protect their young:
I think that uh the card to play, the way that we’ll be able to get these folks attention is to, is to
connect people to that real primal thing that we have which is to protect the young. I think the
same thing should be done with parents but with grandparents its particularly special because
grandparents can look 40 or 50 years in terms of the future for those little ones growing up…Well
I do strongly believe if you plat the card, if those parents are saying that they’re looking out for
[their child] by making money let’s say in the oil sector, point out to them that the future is not
looking bright because of what they do, for that child.

This primal instinct is something that is shown in Nicholas’s own reasons for acting (his
grandchildren) and is also mentioned by Raymond, who speaks about protecting the earth for his
unborn children and grandchildren. This is a theme that Klein (2014) also finds in her research.
She explains that “[t]he various toxic threats these communities are up against seem to be
awakening impulses that are universal, even primal- whether it’s the fierce drive to protect
children from harm, or a deep connection to land that has been previously suppressed”.
Perhaps the answer is, as Willox (2012) suggests, to use stories of mourning to encourage
the connection and unification of others for the cause. The idea of concern for the future of
!71

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

children means that there is concern over the quality of life these children will have. We are
mourning the dismal future that we see them living in. This is something that should be and can
be shared to other people. A mourning for an unpleasant future, where we use this mourning as a
way to motivate action. This also connects to Hannah’s belief that we need to connect to people
on a human level, where we acknowledge and share the truth through story. Willox (2012) states
that the sharing of our mourning through stories and art is a hugely important part of creating a
movement against climate change. She discusses how people are already doing this, which we
can see in Hannah’s sharing of her stories to others, Raymond’s sharing through his artwork, and
all of the participants in their sharing their stories with me.
In many ways the movement past denial and into action reflects the 5 stages of grief as
identified by Elisabeth Kubler Ross: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, depression, acceptance. The
choice to not move past denial is in many ways a defense mechanism against these unpleasant
emotions that lay between denial and acceptance. Norgaard found that “the desire to avoid
unpleasant emotions and the activities of emotional management can also work against social
movement participation” (p. 213). So to get others involved we need to help them deal with these
emotions, except from the perspective of climate change the hope would be to move past
acceptance and into action. If we get stuck at acceptance and don’t consider the fact that we can
change, then we resign ourselves to the destruction of the earth. As Cohen (2001) explains “…to
live daily with this repugnant truth is neither desirable not possible. Not only is such
‘acknowledgment’ unhelpful, but it immediately mutates into the feeling that ‘nothing can be
done about things like this’” (p.250). From this point of view those in denial are actual on the
spectrum of grief, so rather than seeing them as opposite to action we can see them at the first
step towards acceptance and hopefully action (Jamail, 2015).
Joe Duggen recently started a blog called “Is this how you feel?” where he asks scientists
to send in hand written letters describing their feelings about climate change. Not their scientific
reasoning but how the realities surrounding these facts affect them on an emotional and personal
level. Most of the scientists have gone through some or all of the stages of grief regarding the
fact that our world is being effected by human caused climate change and there is not serious
action being taken against it. However, rather than dwell in acceptance they seem devoted to
implementing change and encouraging others to do the same. Many of them speak of hope. Such
as Michael Mann who stated: “How do I feel about climate change? Well that’s tough. You see, I
feel several conflicting emotions. I feel concern, bemusement, frustration, disgust, anger, and
hope. Yes, most of all, I feel hope”.
The activists that I interviewed also expressed emotion, sometimes very intense emotion,
in regards to these issues but they also expressed hope. This is some ways may be seen as their
own sense of self-preservation, for if they accepted that there was no hope then they would have
no reason to keep acting. Hannah expresses these emotions in a very honest way when she states:
…I just have to find a way to take care of myself and still keep moving forward with all of these
things. Otherwise I should just lie down and die because I will not live in a world where this is
okay.

!72

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

This is an expression of denial, she does not think that she will be able to live in a world that
does not change. However, this is not denial in the same sense as I have been speaking about
denial so far. Cohen (2001) explains that in these cases “[d]enial is not a neurotic defense
mechanism, but a sane recognition that everyone else around is utterly insane” (p.262). From the
perspective of climate change, this is a kind of denial that we need. We need to believe that it is
possible to change because the way that we are living is insane. So we continue to have hope that
we can get others involved and work towards this goal.
Once we have moved past the stage of denial that makes us feel guilty, and started to
really educated ourselves, resolve conflict, and embrace the fact that we are all in this together,
we have to find empowerment. As leaders in the movements, we have to make others feel
empowered. They have to feel as if they can do something and that their actions matter. Cohen
(2001) explains that we need visible cultural channels which “…validate the sense that
something can be done, inform you what this something is and enable you to do it” (p.250). This
is significantly important in regards to climate change, and all of the other issues that are
combined with it. If we successfully get people to acknowledge what is happening, if people
absorb the truth, and then have no outlet to change the way things are, it will not be a positive
experience. Of course there will always be negative emotions associated with acknowledging
privilege, an unpleasant history, and the fact that we are destroying our world. However, this is
also the point where people will want to make a difference and there needs to be things in place
to let them do that. Nicholas explains how is can be overwhelming, especially for youth, to face
the challenge of climate change:
I sometimes worry about folks, particularly younger folks, not so much your age but let’s say
young teens and so forth and their struggling just to kind of figure out who the heck they are and
school and they have this undercurrent of concern that they keep hearing about, that the future of
the planet could go up in smoke. And uhm one of the concerns I have there is that it could be such
an overwhelming concern that you know, they just kind of ignore it or tuck their heads in the sand
because they can’t kind of bear to think about it. They don’t have a sense of what they can do.

To get people involved then we need to help them feel like they can make a difference,
like they have the power to make a change and that their actions do matter. Both Nicholas and
Hannah speak about showing people that any way they can help is important, no matter what that
is or how small their action is.
…the way to really do it is to help them understand that they can do things and that uhm no
matter how small their contribution it’s part of the larger whole, and it’s not as if they have to
personally solve this issue and go to every rally under the sun and uh ditch their schooling in
order to do this. No do what you can, in the context of your life, but everybody’s got to keep
working out their lives. So I think that if that sort of thematic message could be there for the
young, so that they don’t, they feel that they can plug in but not get overwhelmed and if folks can
talk, if we can get to them about how, you know what if we can do these four things it’s going to
cut carbon emission by that amount and that’s going to help us head off this 2 degree emission
rise issue.

Raymond explains how he empowers the youth in his community specifically, through canoe
journeys. These journeys involve both teachings and showing the youth that they are needed and
they are capable.

!73

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial
We have youth oriented, youth journeys that we do every summer, and part of the reason for that
is uhm to get our youth out in, out into these canoes because uh one it teaches leadership, uh
youth who are really shy about who they are…uhm are often coming from uhm in situations
where their choices are silence, whether that being the secondary or primary uh education
systems, or at homes, or on the streets, or wherever. So we bring them, we take them out on these
canoes and we say you know what we’re…we’re in this together, I’m here with you. If we don’t
work together we’re not going to get from a to b. And that it really becomes important for you as
a member, an important member of our community to take on the role of a leader. Because…we
need you more than ever.

After the empowerment, he also acknowledges that it is necessary to let them find their
own path, their own way to be involved. He sees this as a way to build strength because everyone
has their own identity and passion. This can be connected to his own passion for his art, a path
that has allowed him to connect his work to his activism. Similarly the other participants speak
about both allowing others to find their own way to participate but also how their chosen path led
them be involved. For Kathy her science led her to understand the threat of climate change and
then act. For Nicholas his work in the government made him into a tempered activist which then
led him to his work now. For Hannah this was finding her culture again. For Sophie her focus on
conflict resolution is integrated into her activism.
I believe that the message from this is that we do not need to change who we are to
become active. While there are cases where the people I interviewed stepped out of their comfort
zones because they felt they had no choice, their activism originates from something that they are
passionate about, somewhere they felt at home. Activism is not just going to protests, laying
down in front of bulldozers, and making a fuss. There are many things that go into a movement,
and if everyone is involved, then we can all focus on what we are passionate about and together
we can make real change. There are times when we need to step out of our comfort zone, and
doing this is not a bad thing, but leading lives we enjoy is important.
I am not at all suggesting that the activists I interviewed do not enjoy their lives.
However, it is obvious that they are all stretching themselves as far as possible to try and get
more people in this cause. Kathy speaks about trying to get her friends involved:
I think that’s a really, really hard problem. I struggle with it all the time. I have a hard time just
with good friends even, getting them to be active. Uhm they say “O good for you, glad you’re
doing that”, I just look at them and shake my head [incline in pitch] because I can’t do it all
myself or the few people that are doing it. We need everybody doing stuff and I don’t know what
it’s going to take to wake people up.

This is not an easy process and it is obviously a struggle for every person that I
interviewed. However, it is completely necessary. Once we have helped people break through
denial, dealt with the negative emotions, and empowered them by giving avenues towards
activism, we should have successfully strengthened the movement. At some point we need
acknowledgment of climate change and the realities surrounding it to be the norm. We have the
ability to use climate change, as Klein (2014) explains, as a way to repair many of the things that
are broken in our world. To do this we need collective acknowledgment and collective action.
Klein (2014) explains that when social movements are successful in making huge changes it’s a
result of “…activism becom[ing] an entirely normal activity throughout society….During
extraordinarily historical moments – both world wars, the aftermath of the Great Depression, or
!74

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

the peak of the civil rights era – the usual categories dividing ‘activists’ and ‘regular people’
became meaningless because the project of changing society was so deeply woven into the
project of life. Activists were, quite simply, everyone” (p. 459). This is what we need and is also
expressed by the activists that I interviewed. Kathy’s dislike for the word environmentalism was
that “…any intelligent, thinking, person, is an environmentalist and if they’re not uhm then
they’re not thinking clearly about the issues”. From the perspective of climate change this is
certainly true.
This analysis has provided the basis for a deeper understanding of how a person comes to
be active, specifically around environmental issues. It is clear that childhood influences, chosen
career or educational paths, and moments of awareness where they could no longer deny, play a
role in pathways to activism. The framing of their activism from many different perspectives
provides additional emphasis on the fact that this is an amalgamation of social movements, with
a leading voice from Indigenous peoples, as Klein (2014) suggests when speaking about
Blockadia. While there are certainly avenues for getting others involved, it is not an easy process
as it involves education on both the realities of climate change and the historical and social
construction of our society. Dealing with emotions connected privilege and climate change
means that care needs to be taken to react to these emotions in a constructive way. When a
person has acknowledged the unfortunate reality, they need to be presented with a way forward.
With positive action they can take, so that they are not overwhelmed. My own journey to
awareness and action in many ways mirrors the pathways those I interviewed took and their
ideas on how to wake people up.

!75

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

My own journey down the pathway to activism
Writing this has been, and continues to be, both an uncomfortable and empowering
experience for me. I considered myself an informed, engaged, and active person, and I have
always been concerned with environmental issues. So when I decided to look at activism around
these issues I thought it would be a piece of cake. When I was a kid I used to volunteer at the
SPCA, and throughout my teen years, even those unpleasant teen years, I was planting trees.
Camping, hiking, and other outdoor activities have always been a huge part of my life. Also, I
have always been an activist of sorts. In my elementary school the 7th graders played floor
hockey after school on Friday. When I reached 7th grade I was informed that only boys could
play, but a petition signed by a lot of parents and students quickly changed that. My relationship
with my grandfather, an outspoken and interesting man, shaped who I was as a child and who I
became. He and my parents instilled a desire in me to “do the right thing”, to always voice my
opinion, and stand up for myself. My mother always said that one day I would be hanging off a
Greenpeace boat.
I am not saying this to promote myself as some wonderful activist but to build a platform
to discuss the extreme discomfort I had when facing my own denial. Writing this has made me
face the fact that there is a lot I do not know, even regarding climate change, which I always
accepted as real and knew there needed to be action. What I learned is that I was in complete
denial about the fact that it needs to be happening now. I engaged in a lot of the methods of
denial that Klein (2014) speaks about during her discussion of “looking away”. I looked, I even
changed some of my actions, but then I did not take real action. I thought that taking care of local
parks, buying organic food, not eating meat, and other “environmental” actions were enough.
This has been my moment of awareness; my realization that I can no longer wait to act. I
cannot stress enough how uncomfortable it was. When I really looked and absorbed all this
information, the impending doom that we are facing as a result of our actions, it was an
emotional rollercoaster. I felt guilt at the fact that I had not acted enough. I felt fear at the fact
that this is a huge problem and that I am only one person. I felt angry at the fact that we had not
done anything yet; anger at myself, my family, my community, my country, my government, and
the world in general. I also felt depressed at times. There were moments when I thought that
nothing could be done, and where that sent me into an incredibly depressed mood. This was all
enhanced by the fact that it seemed like everyone around me was content with continuing to look
away.
Then I saw a poster for what I thought was an information session about the Kinder
Morgan Transmountain pipeline. This was an issue I had been following very closely. One of my
moments of most extreme discomfort was writing a literature review on these issues, while the
protests at Burnaby Mountain were happening, and not being on the mountain. I decided to
attend, and instead of an information session, I found about six people sitting around a table
discussing how to take action against the pipeline: I had walked into my first PIPE-UP meeting.
This was where I was presented with avenues to change and I had also found people that shared
my desire to create this change. This was the moment when I began to feel empowered. Over the
last few months I have been involved in planning events, doing presentations, and in general

!76

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

trying to educate and get people to be active. While I certainly could have looked for and found
ways to act against climate change, PIPE-UP presented me with a clear avenue, at a grass roots
level, where I could envision the impact we would have.
My empowerment was enhanced when I began my interviews with these amazingly
passionate activists. When they were speaking I found connections between their stories and
emotions and my own. This empowerment led me to change the way I interact with the world. I
do see my activism as a reason to wake up in the morning, and the people in my life are huge
motivations for that. I also found that when I became active and started to talk more openly about
these things, the people around me reacted in a positive way. They listen and engage in
conversation. We discuss climate change and all the issues that go along with it. My parents, my
sister and a couple of my close friends have also come to rallies and events with me. The more I
talk to people and connect with them, as Hannah says, on a human level, the more I see their
walls coming down. They stop defending themselves against the truth and start thinking of ways
to act. This, out of everything, is the most empowering moment, when I see someone start to
break through this culture of denial.
My denial encompasses more than just climate change however, as I am still in the
process of accepting my settler status. My background/heritage is a mess of different things,
including Indigenous. We do not know exactly how much, or where the roots are from, but they
are there. However, I did not grow up in the culture, or even as being an Indigenous person, since
I did not know about this part of me until the end of elementary school. I was always white, or
the more politically correct term “Caucasian”. I benefited from the privileges of appearing this
way. Over the years, as I learned about the history of Canada, I clung to this part of my heritage
because it allowed to deny my settler status. While this has been a journey that has been
happening longer than it took me to do this research, it was magnified while acknowledging the
huge role that privilege plays in creating a more just and sustainable world. I am learning to
embrace both my Indigenous and settler heritage, and the paradoxical problems that come with
this identity. This is a long, most likely never ending process, and the question that now needs
answering, is what next?

!77

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Discussion
In the face of climate change academics need to change the focus and scope of their
research. Green criminology is a useful starting point for discussions about environmental issues
and their global impact on the environment, people, and the world in general. My research has
expanded beyond what is normally looked at within green criminology. There is a general
understanding that social change needs to take place and that a lot of the momentum for this
change will come from grass roots initiatives. White (2011) discusses the need for transnational
activism, and explains that “[c]riminologists among others must insist upon the protection of
democratic spaces within which popular struggles can occur” (p.155). I also think that as
criminologists we should be concerned with creating a solution, and through this research I am
continuing the discussion of solutions to the problem of climate change. That solution being the
creation of a strong social movement.
As Cohen (2001) suggests, in our culture denial is the norm. We live in a capitalist
society that enforces denial of our effect on the earth and what that means for our future. What I
am interested in, is understanding how people break through this culture of denial. I have
approached the problem with an interest in knowing personal stories because I believe that there
is great power in story, as I discussed throughout this study. What I have learned, as I expected,
is that there is not one path to activism. My participants shared some similarities in their paths,
their upbringing, education/work, and a moment of awareness played a part in where they are
today. All of them came at the issue from a different perspective though, speaking to the fact that
this really is a movement that is made up of different movements.
The effects of childhood is important, since we need the next generation to be active. In
The Last Child in the Woods Louv (2005) discusses the disconnect between children and nature,
as a result of the way that we live today. He presents the concern that we may not see as many
environmentalists in the next generation. Raising children in a way where they care about the
environment is important, however, it was surprising to me that more of the participants did not
mention this connection in their own life. What my research suggests is that much of their
activism stems from their own suffering. I cannot claim that this is a universal truth but it was the
truth for some of my participants. It was not their only reason for acting but for many of them
their experience as a woman, Indigenous person, or Indigenous woman, is the platform for their
action.
This is dangerous. We do not want people to have to face suffering to become active. We
need to find other ways to engage with youth to make them want to be active later in life, and
also to engage with adults to be active now. The activists I interviewed had their own ideas for
how this could be done, but it is one area that needs further investigation. While we can certainly
accept that issues are framed from what we know, we do not want only those who suffer to be
active. This of course speaks to privilege and how it connects to denial. Nicholas did not face any
adverse situations, and Hannah, while a woman, has not faced the same things as the Indigenous
people I spoke to. I have also become truly active and I did not face any suffering as a child. So it
is possible, and we need to find ways to do it.

!78

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

From their childhood these activists then went on to education and careers that lead them
to a moment of awareness. Education here is meant in a broader sense than just post-secondary.
Before their moment of awareness they were still involved in stages of denial. Similar to myself,
they were aware but still convinced they did not have to act. Their moments of awareness varied
but they all resulted in an inability to continue to deny, they had to act. Their activism is now
who they are. While they sometimes found it frustrating, they always found it empowering and
rewarding. This research speaks to the fact that activists really are just “normal” people who
have experienced these moments of awareness.
My research also shows that the movement against climate change is an amalgamation of
other social movements. Every activist had their own reason for acting. These roots included
humanism, environmentalism, feminism, Indigenous rights, and anti-capitalism. As Klein (2014)
had suggested, this is a continuation of movements, where climate action can allow us to all gain
the justice, equality, and freedom that we desire. To do this though we need to repair and create
relationships, built on mutual respect. This means that those with privilege must acknowledge it,
which is understandably uncomfortable, and do their best to create change. The truth about the
history of Canada and the current realities of our society must be accepted. We must break
through the culture of denial created by capitalism, neoliberalism, and colonialism, which
ignores the realities of injustice within Canada, and climate change.
Indigenous peoples play a huge role in this movement, through treaty rights, world views,
and sheer people power. It is essential that this relationship is done responsibly and respectfully.
Klein (2014) calls attention to the fact that relationships need to be mutual. Colonization cannot
continue through the movement, instead we need to use this as an opportunity to repair
relationships. Not everywhere in the world will face the same issues, but in British Columbia this
is a huge hurtle. The first step in creating a healthy and strong movement is to stop denying the
effects that colonization has had on Indigenous peoples, and start creating or repairing these
relationships.
There is no doubt that this is uncomfortable. Moving past any kind of denial is difficult
but resolving conflict is essential. Sophie speaks to her work in conflict resolution within
Indigenous communities, and I believe that this is important throughout all communities. We
need to work on resolving conflict, in a healthy way, so that we can really start to work together.
How do we do this? By connecting on that human level. By engaging in real, emotional
conversations, where we admit that we are afraid but use each other to feel empowered. There is
power in numbers.
If we can heal relationships, move past this denial, and deal with the uncomfortable
feelings, then we can start to empower people by giving them avenues to act. This is where group
activities and organizations such as PIPE-UP come in, because people need to see that there is a
way forward. This is the point where we start to see others become involved and activism
becomes the norm. I am optimistic in thinking that this may be where we are right now. We have
a core group of very dedicated people and the conversation is growing every day. People are
coming into the movement who perhaps would not have in other circumstances. Klein (2014)
discusses how the expanded areas of sacrifice have forced people into acknowledgement and

!79

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

action, and I believe this is true. However, we need to be careful that we engage with one another
in a respectful way. We need to resolve conflict at the same time that we deal with climate
change, or else we may not have the type social movement that we hope for.
Social movements are the reason that societies change. They start with a few “radical”
people and then slowly everyone joins in, and what was once impossible is seen as the only way
(Klein, 2014). The part that frightens me is that none of these movements have happened without
violence. Even in situations where the people who were acting were dedicated to non-violence.
Often it is not the activists that initiate violence, it is the state. This is somewhat unavoidable
because we are threatening the way the state is run; we are threatening capitalism, neoliberalism,
and colonialism. While I fear possible violence from the state, I know I can do very little to avoid
it if it happens.
However, we are also creating a movement that is built up of many other movements,
some who do not always see eye to eye. We want everyone to work together but we cannot
ignore the fact that not everyone gets along. This is why we need conflict resolution. We need to
make sure that nothing divides the movement, and that those who are working together are doing
so in a healthy way, that does not threaten violence. When we are successful there will be many
decisions that need to be made about how we are going to change. These opportunities may come
suddenly and if we are not united as a group then we will not face them in a constructive and
unified way. This is not to say that we have to agree on everything, this is not possible. As
Sophie explained conflict is natural, but if we do not deal with underlying causes of anger and
guilt, then when these opportunities come to work together to create a better future, they will not
result in the society we envision.
So what next? There are plenty of areas where I can see avenues for continued research.
The connection between Indigenous culture/people and the environmental/climate movement,
the connection between feminism/women and the movement, how to us conflict resolution to
strengthen a movement, social movements as the ‘solution’ to systemic crime, and are people
who suffer more likely to act, just to name a few. The problem is that we do not have a
significant amount of time to be doing academic research. Climate action needs to happen now
and it needs to be a collective action. I can see how this could be done. I see the pathway to
getting people involved, but it is not going to be easy. Getting people to truly move past denial
and start to act is a long process but one that needs to happen soon. We need to engage with
Cohen’s (2001 & 2010) concept of denial to create a well-deserved moral panic with in our
society around climate change.
For me what is next is hands on, out in the community work, focusing on strengthening
the movement. I know this is where I need to put my energy. This feeling has been enhanced by
the oil spill in English Bay (Bell, 2015; Kresnyak, 2015), where the government has failed to
respond effectively, there is a lack of responsibility being taken, and volunteers have been
cleaning the beach instead of professionals; and yet again I am writing instead of being involved.
Not to say that more academic work is not in my future, or that it is not important. However, in
the face of the climate crisis, if we cannot get more people to break through denial, accept the

!80

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

truth, and work together to take action against climate change, then as Hannah suggests, what
would be the point of getting out of bed?

!81

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Works Cited
Alacron, K. (April 11, 2015). Act on Climate March draws 25, 000 to Quebec streets. Vancouver
Observer. Retrieved April 18. 2015 from http://www.vancouverobserver.com/nationalobserver/act-climate-march-draws-thousands-quebec-streets
Amnesty International. (November 23, 2012). Nauru camp a human rights catastrophe with no
end in sight. Retrieved December 7, 2014 from http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/
comments/30533/
Amster, R. (2006). Perspectives on Ecoterrorism: Catalysts, Conflations, and Casualties.
Contemporary Justice Review, 9(3), 287–301. doi:10.1080/10282580600827991
Bandura, A. (1982). The psychology of chance encounters and life paths. American
Psychologist, 37, 747-755.
Bell, W. (2015). Harper at fault? English Bay oil crisis took 3 years to build. Vancouver
Observer. Retrieved April 19, 2015 from http://www.vancouverobserver.com/opinion/
harper-fault-english-bay-oil-crisis-took-3-years-build
Biello, D. (November 12, 2014). Everything You Need to Know about the U.S.–China Climate
Change Agreement. Scientific American. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from http://
www.scientificamerican.com/article/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-u-s-chinaclimate-change-agreement/
Bougon, M. (1986). Using the self-Q interview process. University Park: Pennsylvania State
University.
Boykoff, J., 2007. Beyond bullets: the suppression of dissent in the United States. Oakland: AK
Press.
Brisman, A. (2010). The Indiscriminate criminalization of environmentally beneficial activities.
In R. White (ed.), Global environmental Harm: Criminological Perspectives, (pp.161192). Cullompton, Devon); Portland, Or: Willan.
Bronskill, J. (March 17, 2015). CSIS helped government prepare for expected Northern Gateway
protests. CBC News. Retrieved March 7, 2015 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/
csis-helped-government-prepare-for-expected-northern-gateway-protests-1.2997913
Brook, D. (1998). Environmental genocide: Native Americans and toxic waste. American
Journal of Evonomics and Sociology, 57(1), pp. 105-113.Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring.
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Brown, W. (2003). Neoliberalism and the End of Liberal Democracy. Theory and Event, 7(1),
37-59. doi: 10.1353/tae.2003.0020
Brown, W. (2006). American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and DeDemocratization. Political Theory, 34(6), 690-714.

!82

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

CBC News. (2014). Mount Polley mine spill 78% larger than 1st estimates. Retrieved December
2, 2014 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mount-polley-mine-spill78-larger-than-1st-estimates-1.2755974
CBC News. (April 9, 2015). Toxic fuel spill clean-up underway in Vancouver’s English Bay.
Retrived April 9, 2015 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/toxic-fuelspill-clean-up-underway-in-vancouver-s-english-bay-1.3026227
Chase, S. & Galloway, G. (December 17, 2014). Harper continues to resist calls for missing
Aboriginal women inquiry. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved December 17, 2014 from
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-continues-to-resist-calls-formissing-aboriginal-women-inquiry/article22133991/
Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 31(1), 15.
Chung, E. (December 1, 2014). Canada’s climate inaction leaves it ‘increasingly isolated’ ahead
of COP 20. CBC News. Retrieved December 9, 2014 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/
technology/canada-s-climate-inaction-leaves-it-increasingly- isolated-ahead-ofcop-20-1.2853774
Christie, N. (1977). Conflicts as Property. British Journal of Criminology, 17(1), 1–15.
Connell, R. (2001). Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science.
Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Cubasch, U., D. Wuebbles, D. Chen, M.C. Facchini, D. Frame, N. Mahowald, and J.-G. Winther.
(2013). Introduction. In: Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J.
Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.) Climate Change 2013:
The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
Cohen, S. (2001). States of denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. Malden, MA;
Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Cohen, S. (2011). Folk Devils and Moral Panics. Abingdon, Oxon); New York: Routledge.
Collard, A. & Contrucci, J. (1989). Rape of the Wild: Man’s Violence Against Animals and the
Earth. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press
Commisso, C. (October 15, 2013). Canada faces a ‘crisis’ on Aboriginal reserves: UN
investigator. CTV News. Retrieved December 17, 2014 from http://www.ctvnews.ca/
canada/canada-faces-a-crisis-on-aboriginal-reserves-un-investigator-1.1497612
Critical Infrastructure Team. (2014). Criminal Threat to the Canadian Petroleum Industry. Royal
Canadian Mounted Police. Retrieved from http://www.desmog.ca/sites/
beta.desmogblog.com/files/RCMP%20-%20Criminal%20Threats%20to%20Canadian
%20Petroleum%20Industry.pdf

!83

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Darmarajah, S. (November 24, 2014). David Suzuki’s daughter and granddaughter arrested
protesting Kinder Morgan. Vancouver Observer. Retrieved from http://
www.vancouverobserver.com/news/david-suzuki-s-daughter-and-granddaughterarrested-protesting-kinder-morgan-burnaby-mountain
Diabo, R. & Pasternak, S. (June 7, 2011). First Nations Under Surveillance. The Media Co-op.
Retrieved March 28, 2015 from http://www.mediacoop.ca/story/first-nations-undersurveillance/7434
Doherty, B. (November 28, 2014). Female asylum seeker allegedly fell pregnant after being
raped on Nauru. The Guardian. Retrieved December 7, 2014 from http://
www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/28/female-asylum-seeker-allegedly-fellpregnant-raped-nauru
Farrell, P. (February 23, 2014). Nauru riot blamed on 'uncertainty' about processing asylum
claims. The Guardian. Retrieved December 7, 2014 from http://www.theguardian.com/
world/2014/feb/23/nauru-riot-blamed-uncertainty
Fractured Land. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2014 from http://fracturedland.com/
Friedrichs, D. & Friedrichs, J. (2002). The World Bank and crimes of globalization: a case study.
Social Justice, 29(1-2), 13-36. In R. White (ed.), Environmental Crime: A Reader (pp.
131-150). Devon, UK; Portland: Willan Publishing.
Fumano, D. (2015, June 4). Kinder Morgan says 34 ships a month would visit Vancouver
harbour if pipeline expansion is OK’d. The Province. Retrieved June 6, 2015 from http://
www.theprovince.com/news/Kinder+Morgan+says+ships+month+would+visit+Vancouver
+harbour+pipeline+expansion/11109965/story.html
Giroux, H. (2013). The Disimagination Machine and the Pathologies of Power. Symploke,
21(1-2), 257-269. Doi: 10.1353/sym.2013.0040
Glasbeek, H. J. (2002). Wealth by stealth: Corporate crime, corporate law, and the perversion of
democracy. Toronto [Ont.]: Between the Lines.
Government of Canada. (2011). Building Resilience Against terrorism: Canada’s Counter
Terrorism Strategy. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada. Retrieved
from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/sp-ps/PS4-104-2011-eng.pdf
Greenpeace. (n.d.) History. Retrieved December 16, 2014 from http://www.greenpeace.org/
canada/en/About-us/History/
Green, P., Ward, T. & McConnachie, K. (2007). Logging and Legality: environmental crime,
civil society, and the state. Social Justice, 34(2), 94-110. In R. White (ed.), Environmental
Crime: A Reader (pp. 116-130). Devon, UK; Portland: Willan Publishing.
Groves, T. (October 10, 2012). Canada’s Spy Groups Divulge Secret Intelligence to Energy
Companies. The Dominion. Retrieved March 2, 1015 from http://
www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4640

!84

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Halsey, M., & White, R. (1998). Crime, ecophilosophy and environmental harm. Theoretical
Criminology, 2(3), 345-371. doi:10.1177/1362480698002003003. In R. White (ed.),
Environmental Crime: A Reader, (pp.27-49). Devon, UK; Portland: Willan Publishing.
Hannigan, J. (2006). Environmental Sociology (2nd edition). London: Routledge.
Hendrix, C. S., & Salehyan, I. (2012). Climate change, rainfall, and social conflict in Africa.
Journal of Peace Research, 49(1), 35–50. doi:10.1177/0022343311426165
Herron, J. (November 10, 2011). Energy Agency Warns Governments to Take Action Against
Global Warming. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 5, 2015 from http://
www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204358004577027542955102790
Hilderbrandt, A. (June 19, 2013). Half of First Nations children live in poverty. CBC News
Canada. Retrieved December 17, 2014 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/half-offirst-nations-children-live-in-poverty-1.1324232
Hill, G. (2010). The 500 Years of Resistance Comic Book. Vancouver, BC: Arsenal Pulp Press
Hönisch, B., Ridgwell, A., Schmidt, D., Thomas, E., Gibbs, S., Sluijs, A., Zeebe, R., Kump, L.,
Martindale, R., Greene, S., Kiessling, W., Ries, J., Zachos, J., Royer, D., Barker, S.,
Marchitto, T., Moyer, R., Pelejero, C., Ziveri, P., Foster, G., & Williams, B. (2012). The
geological record of ocean acidification. Science, 335 (6072), 1058–63. doi:10.1126/
science.1208277
Hopkins, E. (2000). Industrialization and Society: A Social History, 1830-1951. London, GBR:
Routledge.
Human Rights Watch. (2013). Those Who Take Us Away: Abusing Policing and Failures in the
Protection of Indigenous Women and Girls in Northern British Columbia, Canada.
Retrieved December 17, 2013 from http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/
canada0213webwcover_0.pdf
Humes, J. (September 25, 2013). Suzuki: Harper is building prisons for eco-activists. Winnipeg
Sun. Retrieved December 9, 2014 from http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/09/25/suzukiharper-is-building-prisons-for-eco-activists
Hurley & Shogren. (1997). Environmental Conflicts and the SLAPP. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management, 33, 253-273.
Iadicola, P. (2010) The centrality of empire in the study of state crime and violence. In W.
Chambliss, R. Michalowski, & R. Kramer. (eds). State Crime in a Global Age.
Cullompton, Devon; Portland, Or: Willan Pub.
IPCC. (2013). Summary for Policymakers. In: T, Stocker, D. Qin, G. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.
Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P. Midgley (eds.). Climate Change
2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

!85

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

International Energy Agency. (2011). World Energy Outlook 2011. Retrieved April 5, 2015 from
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO2011_WEB.pdf
International Energy Agency. (2014). World Energy Outlook 2014: Executive Summary.
Retrieved April 5, 2015 from http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/
publication/WEO_2014_ES_English_WEB.pdf
Jamail, D. (2015, January 25). Mourning Our Planet: Climate Scientists Share Their Grieving
Process. Truthout. Retrieved February 4, 2015, from http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/
28702-mourning-our-planet-climate-scientists-share-their-grieving-process
Keller, J. (November 27, 2014). Burnaby Mountain Protest Charges Dropped. The Huffington
Post. Retreived April 10, 2015 from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/11/27/burnabymountain-protest_n_6233274.html
Kimmel, M. S., & Ferber, A. L. (2010). Privilege: A reader. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press.
Klein, N. (2014). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate.
Kovach, M. E. (2010). Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts
(Reprint edition.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division.
Kresnyak, D. (2015). Former Coast Guard commander casts doubt on 'excellent' spill cleanup
claim. Vancouver Observer. Retrieved April 19, 2015 from http://
www.vancouverobserver.com/national-observer/former-coast-guard-commander- castsdoubt-claims-excellent-spill-cleanup
Lane, P. (1998). Ecofeminism Meets Criminology. Theoretical Criminology, 2(2), 235-248.
Lievanos, R. (2010). A Minority Perspective is Limited: Environmental Privilege and Surface
Water Hazards in an Impaired Estuary. Presented at the annual meeting of the
Association of American Geographers, April 18, Washington, DC.
Ling, C. (2014). The Manifestations and Symptoms of Ecofeminism. Studies in Sociology of
Science, 5(3), 95-100. DOI: 10.3968/5229
Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder.
Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.
Luba, F. (November 24, 2014).11-year-old Kinder Morgan pipeline protesters escorted off
Burnaby Mountain. The Province. Retrieved from http://www.theprovince.com/news/year
+Kinder+Morgan+pipeline+protesters+escorted+Burnaby+Mountain+video/10407436/
story.html
Lynch, M. & Stretesky, P. (2003). The meaning of green: contrasting criminological
perspectives. Theoretical Criminology, 7(2), 217-238. In R. White (ed.), Environmental
Crime: A Reader, (pp. 84-102). Devon, UK; Portland: Willan Publishing.
Lynch, M. & Stretesky. (2010). Global Warming, global crime: a green criminological
perspective. In R. White (ed.), Global environmental Harm: Criminological Perspectives,
(pp. 62-84). Cullompton, Devon); Portland, Or: Willan.

!86

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

McCarthy, S. (February 10, 2012). Ottawa’s new anti-terrorism strategy lists eco-extremists as
threats. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved December 9, 2014 from http://
www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawas-new-anti-terrorism-strategy-lists- ecoextremists-as-threats/article533522/
McDiarmid, M. (November 28, 2014). Climate change survey reveals Canadians’ fear for future
generations. CBC News. Retrieved December 9, 2014 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/
politics/climate-change-survey-reveals-canadians-fears-for-future-generations-1.2852605
Merchant, C. (1990). Environmental Ethics and Political Conflict: A View from California.
Environmental Ethics, 12(1), 45-86. In R. White (ed.), Environmental Crime: A Reader
(pp. 103-115). Devon, UK; Portland: Willan Publishing.
Millar, M. (November 19, 2013). Harper government’s extensive spying on anti-oil sands groups
revealed in FOI’s. Vancouver Observer. Retrieved March 17, 2015 from http://
www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/harper-governments-extensive-spying-antioilsands-groups-revealed-fois
Monaghan & Walby. (2012). Making up ‘Terror Identities’: security intelligence, Canada’s
Integrated Threat Assessment Centre and social movement suppression. Policing &
Society, 22(2), 133-151.
Monahan, T. & Palmer, N. (2009). The emerging politics of DHS fusion centers. Security
Dialogue, 40 (6), 617-636.
Moreau, J. (2014). More arrests on Burnaby Mountain as Kinder Morgan moves in. Burnaby
Now. Retrieved from http://www.burnabynow.com/news/more-arrests-on-burnabymountain-as-kinder-morgan-moves-in-1.1616359
MtPleasant, J. (January 29, 2014). Ernie Louttit and the investigation into “Starlight tours”. Two
Row Times. Retrieved December 17, 2014 from https://www.tworowtimes.com/news/
national/ernie-louttit-and-the-investigation-into-starlight-tours/
Nagy, R., & Sehdev, R. K. (2012). Introduction: Residential schools and decolonization.
Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 27(1), 67-73. doi:10.3138/cjls.27.1.067
National Snow and Ice Data Center (2012). Arctic sea ice extent settles at record seasonal
minimum. Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis, September 19, 2012. http://nsidc.org/
arcticseaicenews/2012/09/arctic-sea-ice-extent-settles-at-record-seasonal- minimum/
McCarthy, T. (2015). California governor tells climate change deniers to wake up. The
Guardian. Retrieved April 18, 2015 from http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/
05/california-governor-drought-climate-change-dianne-feinstein
Monture, P. (2006). Standing Against Canadian Law: Naming Omissions of Race, Culture and
Gender. In E. Comack (ed.). Locating Law, p. 73-93
Noorgard, K. M. (2011). Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

!87

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense & Chief Financial Officer. (2014). United States
Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request Overview. Department of
Defense United States of America. Retrieved December 9, 2014 from http://
comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2015/fy2015_Budget_
Request_Overview_Book.pdf
Okonta, I., & Douglas, O. (2003). Where Vultures Feast: Shell, Human Rights, and Oil in the
Niger Delta. Verso.
Ogilvie, C. (2012). BC’s Huge Gamble- short film – Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. You
Tube. Retrieved December 16, 2014 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=UgvY6zBc3q4
Proulx, C. (2014). Colonizing Surveillance: Canada Constructs and Indigenous Terror Threat.
Anthropologica. 56(1), 83-100.
Saul, J. R. (2014). The comeback. Toronto, Ontario, Canada; New York, New York, U.S.A:
Viking.
Schetzer, A. (December 6, 2014). Manus Island detainees on hunger strike, refugee advocates
say. The Age National. Retrieved December 7, 2014 from http://www.theage.com.au/
national/manus-island-detainees-on-hunger-strike-refugee-advocatessay-20141206-121mj3.html
Schwartz, D. & Gollom, M. (October 19, 2013). N.B. fracking protests and the fight for
Aboriginal rights. CBC News. Retrieved April 10, 2015 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/
canada/n-b-fracking-protests-and-the-fight-for-aboriginal-rights-1.2126515
Schwendinger, H. & Schwendinger, J. (1975). Defenders of Order or Guardians of human
rights?, in I. Taylor, P. Walton, & J. Young (eds) Critical Criminology, 113 – 146.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Seeds, M., & Backman, D. (2012). The Solar System (8 edition.). Boston, MA: Cengage
Learning.
Simon, D. (2000). Corporate environmental crimes and social inequality: new directions for
environmental justice research. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(4), 633-645.
Smith, D. & Vivekananda. (2007). A Climate of Conflict: The links Between Climate Change,
Peace and Ware. London: International Alert.
South, N. (2010). The ecocidal tendencies of late modernity: transnational crime, social
exclusion, victims and rights. In R. White (ed.), Global environmental Harm:
Criminological Perspectives, (pp.228-247). Cullompton, Devon); Portland, Or: Willan.
Stewart, K. (2015). Caring about the climate is not a crime in Canada. Yet. Greenpeace Canada.
Retrieved March 28, 2015 from http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/Blogentry/caringabout-the-climate-is-not-a-crime-in-ca/blog/52134/
Sutherland, E. (1949). White Collar Crime. New York: Dryden Press

!88

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Tahirali, J. (May 23, 2015). Changing climate brings ticks, Lyme disease into Canada. CTV
News. Retrieved June 6, 2015, from http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/changing-climatebrings-ticks-lyme-disease-into-canada-1.2387044
Takemura, N. (2010). The criticality of global environmental crime and the response of chaos
criminology. In R. White (ed.), Global environmental Harm: Criminological
Perspectives, (pp.210-227). Cullompton, Devon); Portland, Or: Willan.
The AAAS Climate Science Panel (n.d.). What We Know: The Reality, Risks, and Response to
Climate Change. The American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved
from http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/whatweknow_website.pdf
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (n.d.). Our Mandate. Retrieved December
17, 2014 from http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/index.php?p=7
Tindall, D. (August 12, 2013). Twenty years after the protest, what we learned from Clayoquot
Sound. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globedebate/twenty-years-after-the-protest-what-we-learned-from-clayoquot-sound/
article13709014/?page=all
Troian, M. (November 10, 2013). Mi’kmaq Anti-Fracking Protest Brings Women to the Front
Lines to Fight for Water. Indian Country. Retrieved March 29, 2015 from http://
indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/11/10/mikmaq-anti-fracking-protest- bringswomen-front-lines-fight-water-152169
Uggen & Inderbitzen. (2010). Public Criminologies. Criminology and Public Policy, 9(4), 725749.
United Nations Environment Program. (2009). Climate and Trade Policies in a Post-2012
World. Retrieved from http://environmentportal.in/files/climate-tradepolicy.pdf#page=27
United Nations. (2007). The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
US Global Change Research Program. (2014). National Climate Assessment. Retrieved June 6,
2015 from http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/.
Vancouver Sun. (April 4, 2015). Conversations that matter – Earth is actually growing greener.
Retrieved April 6, 2015 from http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Conversations
+that+matter+Earth+actually+growing +greener/10944052/story.html
Voices Voix. (March 4, 2013). Aboriginal Communities and Environmental Groups. Retrieved
March 28, 2015 from http://voices-voix.ca/en/facts/profile/aboriginal-communities-andenvironmental-groups
White, R. (2003). Environmental issues and the criminological imagination. Theoretical
Criminology, 7(4), 483-506.
White, R. (2008). Crimes against nature: environmental criminology and ecological justice.
Cullompton, UK); Portland, Or.: Willan.
!89

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

White, R. (2009). Introduction: Environmental crime and eco-global criminology. In R. White
(ed.), Environmental Crime: A Reader (pp. 1- 8). Devon, UK; Portland: Willan
Publishing.
White, R. (2010). Globalization and environmental harm. In R. White (ed.), Global
environmental Harm: Criminological Perspectives, (pp.3-19). Cullompton, Devon);
Portland, Or: Willan.
White, R. (2011). Transnational environmental crime: Toward an eco-global criminology.
London; New York, NY: Routledge.
Wilderness Committee. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions regarding the Kinder Morgan pipeline
proposal. Retrieved November 29, 2014 from https://www.wildernesscommittee.org/
frequently_asked_questions_regarding_the_kinder_morgan_pipeline_proposal
Williams, C. (1996). An Environmental Victimology. Social Justice,23(4), 16-40.
Willox, A. C. (2012). Climate Change as the Work of Mourning. Ethics and the Environment,
17(2), 137-164.
Woods, M. & Kirke, S. (May 8, 2013). ‘Tragic’ number of aboriginal children in foster care
stuns even the experts. Canada.com. Retrieved December 17, 2014 from http://
www.canada.com/health/Tragic+number+aboriginal+children+foster+care+stuns+e ven
+experts/8354098/story.html
Woodilla, J., & Forray, J. M. (2008). Justice and the Political in Organizational Life A Narrative
Inquiry. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(1), 4–19.doi:10.1177/10564926080170010201
Yang, S. (2010). The polluting behavior of the multinational corporations in China. In R. White
(ed.), Global environmental Harm: Criminological Perspectives, (pp.150-158).
Cullompton, Devon); Portland, Or: Willan.

!90

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Appendix A: Interview Questions
The standard interview questions were as follows:
1. How did you come to be actively involved in the environmental movement?
(a) Are there any significant movements, people, or events that you would attribute your activism
to?
2. What does environmentalism mean to you?
(a) Why is it important?
(b) What does the environmental movement mean to you?
3. Do you participate in civil disobedience?
(a) Why or why not?
4. What role, if any, did your childhood and / or upbringing play in shaping your current
approach to environmental issues?
5. Based on your experience, how would you suggest that we go about getting others involved in
the environmental movement?
(a) How should we foster interest and involvement in youth?

!91

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Appendix B: Communication Script
[Date]
Dear [participant],
I hope that this message finds you well. My name is Justine Nelson, and I am an honours student
in the Criminology Department at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. I am currently working on a
thesis research project that investigates how people come to be involved in the environmental
movement (broadly understood). The environment has always been a passion of mine and I
currently volunteer with Evergreen and the Lower Mainland Green Team doing invasive plant
removal and tree planting. Within these organization we also focus on engaging youth and
connecting them to nature in their neighborhoods. I have also participated in demonstrations in
Vancouver, including the recent Peoples Climate March.
I am wondering if you would be willing to consider participating in this research project by
sitting down with me for a one-on-one interview in Vancouver this February or early March.
Your work in […] is exactly the sort of environmental engagement that I am hoping to study.
If this sounds like something that might be of interest, please reply to this message and I will
send along a formal invitation and additional information about my research. Please do not
hesitate to contact me with any questions about this.
Sincerely,
Justine Nelson
Justine.nelson@kpu.ca
Note: This research project has been approved by the Kwantlen Polytechnic University Research
Ethics Board, and is designated project REB 2015-011

!92

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Appendix C: Invitation to Participate
[Date]
Dear (Participant),
First, I would like to thank you for considering participation in this research, as per our earlier
discussion.
By way of formal introduction, my name is Justine Nelson, and I am an honours student in the
Criminology Department at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. I am currently working on a thesis
research project that investigates how people come to be involved with the environmental
movement. The environment has always been a passion of mine and I currently volunteer with
Evergreen and the Lower Mainland Green Team doing invasive plant removal and tree planting.
Within these organization we also focus on engaging youth and connecting them to nature in
their neighborhoods. I have also participated in demonstrations in Vancouver, including the
recent Peoples Climate March.
As part of the research, you are being invited to participate in a one-one-one interview. The
participation in this research study and the interview is voluntary, and there will be no monetary
or other compensation offered. Your identity will remain confidential. Your privacy will be
protected, unless there is an identified risk of harm to others or self, which must be disclosed to
the proper authorities. You have the right to withdraw from the research study and interview at
any time without prejudice or consequence.
The results of my research will be disseminated to all research participants, and I anticipate that
my findings will help to identify some of the common experiences and ideas that lead people to
become actively involved in environmental issues.
I will be conducting all interviews in person, in February and March 2015. Interviews will last
for approximately one hour, and take place in meeting rooms located at the Central Branch of the
Vancouver Public Library, located at 350 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, B.C. The meeting
rooms have glass walls, which limit the potential for a strictly confidential interview, but the
rooms have doors and passersby will not be able to overhear an interview.

!93

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Please respond via email to [Justine.Nelson@kpu.ca] by [Date], indicating if you wish to
participate in the study. Please also include three possible dates and times you are available
during the following time period [Date - Date]. Central Branch hours are Mon-Thurs, 10:00 21:00, Fri-Sat, 10:00 - 18:00, and Sun 11 - 18:00.
Once we have identified a viable date and time, I will contact you to confirm your availability.
The attached consent form explains the research study that you are being asked to join. Please
review this form carefully and contact me with any questions about this study before agree to
participate. You may ask questions and / or withdraw from the study at any time. If you agree to
participate in the study, I would ask that you send me (via email or post) a signed copy of the
consent form. If this is not possible, I can accept an email confirmation of your consent to
participate, and you can sign a printed consent form at the time of our interview.
I have also attached a copy of my interview questions. As you can see, these are general
questions, and my interview participants are invited to use them as a starting point for discussion
and reflection. I am also inviting you to suggest one or two additional question that you think
that I, as a researcher, should consider posing. This is entirely optional.
If you have questions or wish to verify the authenticity of this research project, you can contact
my honours thesis Supervisor and the principal investigator for the study, Mike Larsen (faculty,
Criminology Department) at 604 599 3413, or via email [mike.larsen@kpu.ca], or call the
Kwantlen Office of Research and Scholarship at [telephone number].
Sincerely,
Justine Nelson
Criminology Student (Honours), Kwantlen Polytechnic University
Enclosures (Consent Form and Interview Questions)
Note: This research project has been approved by the Kwantlen Polytechnic University Research
Ethics Board, and is designated project REB 2015-011

!94

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Appendix D: Consent Form

Consent Form
Your participation in this research project and this interview is completely voluntary. You
have the right to withdraw from the research study and interview at any time without
prejudice or consequence.
Title of Research Project: Breaking Through a Culture of Denial: Pathways to Environmental
Activism in British Columbia
Principal Investigator: Mike Larsen
Honours Student Researcher: Justine Nelson
Research Project # REB 2015-011
Voluntary Participation:
Your participation in this research project and interview is completely voluntary. You have the
right to withdraw from the research study and interview at any time without prejudice or
consequence. By consenting to participate in this research project, you do not waive your rights
to legal recourse in the event of research related harm. No compensation (monetary or otherwise)
will be provided as part of this research project.
The expected duration of the interview is approximately one hour.
Permission to Audio Record Interview:
Your participation in this research project and interview is completely voluntary. I will be asking
for your permission to make an audio recording of this interview. You have the right to refuse
permission to record this interview, or to withdraw permission at any time. If you do not consent
to the audio recording of this interview, I will make handwritten interview notes.
If you do consent to the audio recording of this interview, the resulting audio file will be
accessible by me (Justine Nelson) alone, and will be destroyed following the transcription of our
interview
Please tick the appropriate box below:
1. I grant you permission to make an audio recording of this interview
2. I do not grant you permission to make an audio recording of this interview

!95

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

Purpose of Research Project:
This project seeks to understand first how people come to acknowledge climate change and
related environmental harms as serious issues, and second, how they move from this
acknowledgement into forms of active engagement.
Three secondary (and related) questions inform also inform this study:
How do people who are actively involved in the environmental movement or environmental
groups understand and frame environmental harm?
How do people who are actively involved in the environmental movement or environmental
groups decide whether or not to engage in civil disobedience?
and finally
How do we foster environmentalism in children/youth?
Procedures:
Each study participant will take part in a single, one-on-one, one-hour semi-structured interview.
Participants will be persons who are actively and publicly involved in the environmental
movement and / or specific environmental groups. These interviews will allow participants to
share their own ideas and experiences with the researcher.
Risks of harm / Discomforts / Inconvenience:
There are minimal risks involved in this study. You are not obligated to answer any research
question, and you have the right to withdraw from this study at any time. The identities of all
participants will be protected at all times, and all interview data will be anonymized before it is
analyzed and / or shared.
Benefits:
The research project has the potential to highlight the common experiences and ideas that lead
people to become actively involved in environmental issues, and to suggest possible turning
points that can move others from denial through to acknowledgement and action. Research
participants will be provided with copies of the finished Honours Thesis describing the findings
of this study.
Mandatory Disclosure:

!96

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

The researcher will protect the participant’s privacy, unless there is an identified serious risk of
harm to others or self, which must be disclosed to the proper authorities.
Storage and Retention of Data:
If you consent to the audio recording of the interview:
The data will be recorded on a dedicated digital audio recording device owned by the Honours
Student researcher. Upon the completion of an interview, the Honours Student researcher will
transfer interview audio file from this device to her personal (single-user password-protected)
laptop computer and immediately delete the file from the audio recording device. Interview
audio files will be retained on the Honours Student researcher’s personal laptop computer until
she has completed transcription, at which point the audio file will be permanently deleted.
If you do not consent to the audio recording of the interview:
The Honours Student researcher’s handwritten interview notes will be transcribed to her personal
laptop computer. Following this, the original handwritten notes will be securely shredded.
Regarding interview transcripts:
The Honours Student researcher will remove identifying information (names, organizational
affiliations, group membership) during the transcription process, replacing it with nonidentifying codes. The Honours Student will keep a document containing the ‘key’ for these
codes on her personal laptop computer. Digital copies of anonymized interview transcripts will
be kept on the Honours Student researcher’s password-protected personal computer. Copies may
be transferred to the Principal Investigator’s password-protected office computer via passwordprotected USB device, for the purpose of printing them. No copies of these files will be retained
on the Principal Investigator’s personal computer, and the USB files will be deleted after the
transfer. Printed copies of the anonymized transcripts will be stored in a locked filing cabinet in
the Principal Investigator’s (locked) university office. Printed copies may also be stored at the
home of the Honours Student researcher, in a locked room in a locked filing cabinet.
Disposal of Records / Data:
All interview audio files will be permanently deleted upon transcription.
The Honours Student researcher will retain a single digital copy of each transcribed interview
file and the ‘key’ document (following the storage procedures outlined above) for a period of one
year following the completion of the project. These files will then be permanently deleted.
Both the Honours Student researcher and the Principal Investigator will retain copies of
anonymized interview transcripts for a period of one year following the completion of the project
!97

Nelson / Breaking Through a Culture of Denial

(following the storage procedures outlined above). These documents will then be securely
shredded.
Disposition of Data in Case of Withdrawal:
Should you elect to withdraw from this study during or after the interview and prior to the
submission of the written Honours Thesis detailing the research findings, all data related to the
study (audio recording, if applicable, notes, and transcripts) will be destroyed as soon as
practicable. You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time.
Persons to Contact:
If you have questions or wish to verify the authenticity of this research project, or if you wish to
speak with someone because you think that you have not been treated fairly or think that you
have been harmed by joining the study, you should contact the Principal Investigator, Mike
Larsen (faculty, Criminology Department), at 604 599 3413, or call the Kwantlen Office of
Research and Scholarship at [telephone number].
Once you have read this document, or the document has been read and explained to you,
and you have been given the opportunity to ask any questions, please sign below if you
agree to take part in the study.

Name of Participant (first, last):

Signature or Mark of Participant or Legally Authorized Representative

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent

Date

!98

Date