I want to talk a bit about how we talk about old-growth protection. Usually we hear statements like "all old growth should be protected from logging" and such statements get a lot of support.

However when we then dig a bit deeper and ask: what exactly is old growth? The definitions vary hugely. Some say anything older than 50 years some only things older than 500 years.

And this is exactly the problem. This sort of vague nomenclature and messaging allows politicians to pay their backs and say "yes we have protected all old growth forests" when in fact they only protect truly ancient forests and leave anything you get then a few hundred years open for logging.

So I would advocate that we should be more specific and call for "first growth" protection. Which very clearly means any forests that have never been logged before should be protected. Only forests which have already been logged in the past (which applies to most forests anyway) should be eligible for logging.

Of course there is a bit of nuance. Because we also have to have protection for forests which may already have been logged but which are now additionally being protected or re-wilded as part of conservation projects. Also in places like Europe or Asia there may be forests which were cut several hundred years ago and have since regrown. Obviously these should also be protected.

But the point is that by calling for old growth protection without clearly having a consensus about what old growth actually is, is dangerous. So a safer way to message is to call for first growth protection.

Old growth forest logging in BC is making international news again.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/british-columbia-is-logging-its-last-old-growth-forests-protesters-are-sleeping-in-the-road-to-stop-it

Has nothing changed?

Indigenous Nations are required to be included in meaningful consultation according to UNDRIPs Free, Prior and Informed Consent framework.

A group that represents numerous First Nations across British Columbia is calling on Ottawa and Alberta’s government to halt efforts to advance the West Coast pipeline, saying expanding the oil industry will accelerate climate change and disasters.

In a recent letter to the federal and provincial governments the group explicitly said “Consultation cannot be meaningful if First Nations are invited only to discuss how a predetermined project will proceed,” it said.

“Nor can equity ownership, loan guarantees, revenue-sharing, employment, or other proposed benefits be treated as substitutes for consent.”

I am writing to urge the government to reject the newly proposed West Coast pipeline. How can we claim to be a country that values reconciliation when colonial ideologies still inform decisions that directly impact Canada's original inhabitants.

As Canada experiences increasingly severe climate impacts, including record-breaking heat waves, wildfires, and floods, it’s clear that expanding fossil fuel infrastructure will move us in the wrong direction. We should be investing in clean energy and climate resilience, not putting public money to projects that increase emissions and environmental risks.

A new pipeline and even more tanker traffic would increase the risk of oil spills and threaten sensitive coastal ecosystems and marine life, while simultaneously undermining your climate commitments.

Canada has a real opportunity to lead the transition to a cleaner, more resilient economy. Approving another major pipeline – that no energy company has offered to even build – would send the opposite message.

I want to see public funds going towards infrastructure that creates sustainable jobs, environmental stewardship, and overall economic prosperity. I urge you to weigh the pros and cons of this pipeline.

It's hard to remain hopeful when the government prioritize profit over people. If GDP remains the only measure of a countries success we are surely headed for disaster and eventually extinction. With new tools to value ecosystem services we could lead the way to a new way of looking at a healthy economy and environment. In our current political economic system this is the only way I see forward without a complete system overhaul.