We Eco-Terrorists are chastised in the Legislature

MLA Chelsae Petrovic slams citizens of Alberta with a broad and damning paintbrush, with no understanding that caring concerns for the environment are of benefit to her and all who think like her.

If salvaging this qualifies as Eco-Terrorism, then I’m guilty as charged. Oldman River - Photo: Bob Costa

In an effort to be an active participant in the Legislative Assembly on April 16, 2025, MLA Chelsae Petrovic called out the evil doers within the NDP Caucus as well as the other 70% of Albertans who choose to take responsibility, in an effort to sustain a healthy ecological environment. I can’t understand why this is such a difficult concept to understand, given that it is necessary to support life itself, in all forms.

Below is the statement of Ms. Petrovic from page 2937 of the Alberta Hansard, the documentation of recorded dialogue in Legislature.

For a better insight to the ignorance of name calling, here is a summation on that subject by Lorne Fitch.

Why I Became an Environmentalist

Lorne Fitch, P. Biol.

It started innocently enough in a line-up at the bank. In front of me was a fellow member of a service club I was then part of. We chatted amicably about neutral subjects, and then he asked me about a land-use proposal that would have resulted in the breaking and cultivation of some native grassland. I expressed concerns, biologist that I am, about the loss of even more prairie. His demeanour changed, his eyes narrowed, and he hissed, “You must be one of those greenies.” The conversation ended abruptly, but his statement lingered.

Greenies, fern-feelers, tree-huggers, Eco-freaks, granola gangstas, birkenstinks, job-killers, hippycrites, enviro-nazis, ecovangelists—the list of epithets to describe people concerned about the well-being of Earth and all her inhabitants is long and sometimes colourful. The time-honoured and often effective strategy of name calling and shouting at one’s opponent destroys any semblance of coherence, communication, and civility, as I discovered in that bank line-up. Labels are unhelpful, given the enormity of the environmental issues and tasks in front of us that require collective action.

The people denigrated with slurs and name calling includes bird watchers, anglers, naturalists, Raging Grannies, scientists, farmers, ranchers, parents, and others who wish to breathe unpolluted air, drink clean water, maintain wildlife, and support sustainable, ecologically benign economies. When questioned about their motives, all say they also wish to leave something for the grandkids other than an ever-increasing environmental debt and a toxic future.

You might categorize this group of malcontents as those who care, just not for stock dividends, corporate welfare, or the ephemeral rewards of industry. As a group and individually, they write letters, donate, demonstrate, plant trees, recycle, reduce personal expectations and consumption, or do without. Even with a general increase in ecological awareness, they have to work to motivate, badger, coax, pester, urge, and nag, to persuade people and influence institutions towards more responsible actions and outcomes.

The term environmentalists is often associated with such notables as David Suzuki and Greta Thunberg. However, most environmentalists work in obscurity and may not even identify as such. My neighbour is a committed recycler; a friend does volunteer weed pulls to stem the spread of invasive plants. Neither would call themselves environmentalists. The late Francis Gardner, a rancher and a friend, was clearly an environmentalist, judging by his actions, but he chose to identify himself as coming from the “radical middle.”

Maybe many people haven’t looked closely enough in the mirror, or into their own hearts, to see that they are environmentalists. Or should be. And that by stepping up, they can make as big or bigger a difference as those usual suspects.

However they identify themselves, the common denominator is that environmentalists work selflessly on issues. Yet as a group, they have been accused of acting in their own selfish interests. In an ironic twist, these people have championed decisions that all have benefited from, even the detractors.

To illustrate this, here is a little story that is a melding of many conversations I have overheard or been subjected to in board-rooms or coffee shops, beside some industrial project. A neo-con politician drives with a corporate executive to meet a lobbyist, who they hope will guide them in their task of thwarting some environmental legislation. As they drive, they rail about environmentalists putting up impossible impediments to “legitimate” economic progress.

Both of these people drink coffee made with safe, clean water, the result of environmental concerns raised and dealt with some decades ago. Their fruit pastries depend on pollinators, who are defended by environmentalists raising red flags over the use of neonicotinoids that are causing declines in bee populations.

A hawk on a power pole catches their eye. The banning of DDT in the mid-1970s allowed raptor populations to recover from egg-shell thinning caused by the chemical. Early environmental scientists like Rachel Carson raised alarms over the use of chemicals that bioaccumulate in the tissue of all living things, including humans.

The lowered emissions from their newer vehicle, which sips gasoline, contributes to slowing climate change and reducing the wild oscillations in weather that causes the corporate executive to worry about economic losses from forest fires and flooding. Fuel efficiency standards and reductions in green house gas emissions have been the result of long, sustained pressure from the environmental community.

As they drive over a clear stream with banks covered with thick willows, they muse about an anticipated trout fishing trip, unaware that persistent lobbying from environmental groups has tightened up the rules for land-use activities, which better protects trout habitat. In addition, many environmentalist volunteers have donated time and energy to habitat restoration, including willow planting.

Both talk of a recent trip with their families to a provincial park, recalled as a pleasurable experience, with wildlife sightings, drop-dead gorgeous scenery, and quiet. Neither are aware of the lengthy process of having the area designated as a park, or of the environmental groups that championed the idea.

They are among many who are oblivious to the accomplishments of the environmental movement, and of those damned environmentalists. Acting as the adults in the room, we owe them for contributions to our health, safety, landscape integrity, and transition to clean energy and sustainable forms of economic activity that work towards dealing with climate change. Just as we are asked, if we eat, to thank a farmer, maybe some recognition and thanks are due to environmentalists, instead of facile name calling.

So, with so many high-priced and highly placed people shilling for short-term economic strategies with large environmental consequences, it seems logical and necessary to have some balance, with a few clear-eyed individuals with contrary thoughts asking for some ecological equity.

With a gaze firmly on the economy, perhaps with loonies affixed over their pupils and the sounds of cash registers in their ears, some choose not to hear the truth in economist Herman Daly’s statement that “the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment.” We need to develop a perspective where the economy and the environment are seen as two sides of the same coin, with an ever-present feedback loop between the two.

The difficulty in merging the two is our economic system, capitalism, which is half a millennium old according to historians. As Carl Safina, an ocean scientist, notes, “Our daily dealings are still influenced by ideas that were firmly set out before anyone knew the world was round.” Only very recently have mechanisms been developed to incorporate ecology into economics and adjust to the realization that economic thinking has pushed ecosystems into failure.

If we were to bring ecology and economics together, we might recognize that wealth is more than making money. An intact watershed that collects, stores, and slowly releases water significantly reduces flood and drought risk, produces clean water, maintains trout populations, and has aesthetic features sought after by recreationalists and tourists. All those features have values, many of which are economic. We can choose to liquidate that wealth through things like coal mining, but the long-term ecological costs and irretrievable economic ones will be greater than the short-term economic benefits.

The prevailing narrative of the name callers is that environmentalists are against everything involving economic activity. In fact, most environmentalists are for many economic initiatives. They support an economy shifting from endless growth to thoughtful development, from the burning of petroleum and coal to renewable energy that would still entail tremendous investment opportunities and produce sustainable jobs. Other examples of economic activity supported by environmentalists are restoration of landscapes ravaged by inappropriate land uses, shortening supply lines, and reducing energy costs by buying locally, as well as support for sustainable, regenerative agriculture. What environmentalists want us all to understand is what the real and full costs are of something, not just the hype of inflated and sometimes illusionary benefits.

One of the great fallacies in today’s world, especially in the West, is that we can have our cake and eat it too, because the perception is that there is always more where that came from. We can have unbridled economic development and protect the environment; we can ramp up the extraction and use of fossil fuels and still reduce greenhouse gases; and we can have unrestrained off-highway vehicle use on public lands and still maintain biodiversity, water quality, and quiet recreation. If it seems too good to be true, it is. Ask an environmentalist.

Wallace Stegner put it this way, “The environmental movement has had one abiding purpose: to assert the long-range public interest against short-term economic interests—in effect, to promote civilized responsibility, both public and private, over frontier carelessness and greed.” The Beatles, in the Yellow Submarine album, sang, “All the world’s a birthday cake, so take a piece, but not too much.” Surely, it’s worth listening to the Beatles, if not environmentalists.

The real challenge, as Phil Burpee, a perceptive friend suggested, is to remove the moniker “environmentalist” altogether. It is too handy a pejorative despite the fact that concerns about environmental issues cut across lines of gender, education, race, profession, social status, geography, and political leanings. We would be better to self-identify as “citizens”—with all the obligations that term entails.

Julian Barnes, a British novelist, touched on this when he said, “The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonourably, foolishly, viciously.” When governments, corporations, and individuals act selfishly, rapaciously, and impetuously, we all should feel obligated to speak out. That’s what I did in that bank line-up. It’s unfortunate the conversation didn’t go any further than me being labelled a “greenie.”

The loss and diminishment of ecological integrity has been a constant throughout my career and compels me to think about the future. Are we justified in calling ahead and cancelling the reservations of the next generations just because we want to eat their lunch now? I hope the answer is self-evident. So, brand me as an environmentalist if you like. I guess I am one of those “greenies.” My lingering question is, When you strip reality down to the bones, aren’t you really one too?

Lorne Fitch is a Professional Biologist, a retired Fish and Wildlife Biologist and a former Adjunct Professor with the University of Calgary. He is the author of Streams of Consequence—Dispatches From the Conservation World and Travels Up the Creek—A Biologist’s Search For a Paddle.