Alberta rejects plan for referendum on independence from Canada

Canada's province of Alberta rejected a plan to hold a binding independence referendum, results showed Tuesday, a setback for separatists backed by allies of US President Donald Trump. Prime Minister Mark Carney welcomed the result and said Albertans had made a "clear choice" in favour of unity.


Issued on: 20/10/2026 - RFI

Supporters cheer as results begin to display at the pro-Canada watch party in Edmonton, Alberta Monday, 19 October 2026. © James Maclennan / The CanadianPress via AP

Public broadcaster CBC and leading private network CTV projected a comfortable victory for the federalist side, with official results showing more than 76 percent support for national unity with more than a third of ballots counted.

"They chose unity, to build together, and to take care of each other," Prime Minister Mark Carney said in a statement on social media platform X.

Carney had campaigned for national stability as the country faced Trump's trade war and annexation threats.

A sombre mood took over the restaurant in the provincial capital Edmonton where a leading separatist group watched the returns.

Jeffrey Rath, a top leader of the separatist Alberta Prosperity Project, told reporters his push for an independent Alberta will "absolutely" continue, despite the result from Monday's vote.

"We've learned a lot of lessons from this fight," he said.

Separatist supporter Jour Dain said he was "disappointed in [his] fellow Albertans."

"Honestly, if this continues down this path of remaining in Canada, I'm just going to move," the 40-year-old said, expressing a desire to live in the United States.

At the federalist election night party in Edmonton before the results were announced, a band warmed up ahead of an anticipated positive result.

"It was amazing to see the enthusiasm and resolve among Canadians," said Thomas Lukaszuk, who heads Forever Canadian, the group that campaigned across the province for national unity.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, a conservative, said she voted against independence but called the referendum to settle an issue that has divided the province.

She had said a federalist victory would settle the secession question.

Alberta has the world's fourth-largest proven oil reserves, and much of the separatist momentum has been driven by anger over oil industry management.

Smith has blamed Carney's predecessor Justin Trudeau for igniting the separatist fire, accusing him of trying to crush oil production to advance his pro-climate agenda.

Push from Trump allies

Alberta's independence push has also drawn sustained interest from Trump allies.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called Alberta a "natural partner" for the United States. Elon Musk, the world's richest person and a top Trump supporter, posted on X this month that Alberta "should separate."

Separatist leaders also held meetings at the US State Department and received advice from Republican political operatives.

Carney, who grew up in Alberta, has worked to improve relations between the province and Ottawa since taking office last year.

He has partnered with Smith on advancing a new pipeline to export more Alberta bitumen overseas, a project considered a non-starter during Trudeau's tenure.

Alberta Prosperity Project leader Mitch Sylvestre told French news agency AFP earlier Monday that Carney had "threatened" the province in the closing days of the campaign.

Carney's message was "voting against Canada is dangerous," Sylvestre said, calling that "very unreasonable."

Haley Erdegard, a 44-year-old who voted in Edmonton, voiced discomfort with the idea advanced by some separatists that Alberta is forced to share too much of its oil revenue with the rest of Canada.

"I think we probably need to put some more work towards cooperation before making rash decisions about trying to start our own country," she told AFP.

(with newswires)

Alberta votes to remain part of Canada in victory for PM Carney

Voters in oil-rich Alberta overwhelmingly backed remaining in Canada in the province's first-ever referendum on separation, with early results on Tuesday delivering a boost to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s push for national unity amid US President Donald Trump’s trade war and annexation threats.


Issued on:  20/10/2026 - 
By: FRANCE 24
Video by: Caitlin Brown

Cover image: Alberta separatists rallied ahead of the vote in the provincial capital of Edmonton. © Megan Albu, AFP
01:33



Canada's province of Alberta rejected a plan to hold a binding independence referendum, results showed Tuesday, a setback for separatists backed by allies of US President Donald Trump.

Public broadcaster CBC and leading private network CTV projected a comfortable victory for the federalist side, with official results showing more than 76 percent support for national unity with more than a third of ballots counted.

Prime Minister Mark Carney welcomed the result and said Albertans had made a "clear choice" in favour of unity.

"They chose unity, to build together, and to take care of each other," he said in a statement on X.

Carney had campaigned for national stability as the country faced Trump's trade war and annexation threats.

Could Alberta really leave Canada?

Cover image: Referendum poses challenge to PM 

© France24
04:24

    


A sombre mood took over the restaurant in the provincial capital Edmonton where a leading separatist group watched the returns.

Jeffrey Rath, a top leader of the separatist Alberta Prosperity Project, told reporters his push for an independent Alberta will "absolutely" continue, despite the result from Monday's vote.

"We've learned a lot of lessons from this fight," he said.

Separatist supporter Jour Dain said he was "disappointed in (his) fellow Albertans."

"Honestly, if this continues down this path of remaining in Canada, I'm just going to move," the 40-year-old said, expressing a desire to live in the United States.

Prosperity Project Mitch Sylvestre has a conversation ahead of the referendum results in Edmonton © Megan Albu / AFP

At the federalist election night party in Edmonton before the results were announced, a band warmed up ahead of an anticipated positive result.

"It was amazing to see the enthusiasm and resolve among Canadians," said Thomas Lukaszuk, who heads Forever Canadian, the group that campaigned across the province for national unity.

READ MORE  Alberta votes to remain part of Canada in victory for PM Carney

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, a conservative, said she voted against independence but called the referendum to settle an issue that has divided the province.

She has said a win for the federalists would close the secession question.

Foreign influence?

Alberta has the world's fourth-largest proven oil reserves, and much of the separatist momentum has been driven by anger over oil industry management.

People voted across Alberta's capital, Edmonton, in a nonbinding poll on independence for the western Canadian province © Megan Albu / AFP

Smith has blamed Carney's predecessor Justin Trudeau for igniting the separatist fire, accusing him of trying to crush oil production to advance his pro-climate agenda.

Alberta's independence push has also drawn sustained interest from Trump allies.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called Alberta a "natural partner" for the United States. Elon Musk, the world's richest person and a top Trump supporter, posted on X this month that Alberta "should separate."

Separatist leaders also held meetings at the US State Department and received advice from Republican political operatives.

'Rash decisions'

Carney, who grew up in Alberta, has worked to improve relations between the province and Ottawa since taking office last year.

He has partnered with Smith on advancing a new pipeline to export more Alberta bitumen overseas, a project considered a nonstarter during Trudeau's tenure.

Separatist supporters have mobilized across Alberta in the run-up to Monday's nonbinding vote on independence © ABED ZAQ / AFP

Alberta Prosperity Project leader Mitch Sylvestre told AFP earlier Monday that Carney had "threatened" the province in the closing days of the campaign.

Carney's message was "voting against Canada is dangerous," Sylvestre said, calling that "very unreasonable."

Haley Erdegard, a 44-year-old who voted in Edmonton, voiced discomfort with the idea advanced by some separatists that Alberta is forced to share too much of its oil revenue with the rest of Canada.

"I think we probably need to put some more work towards cooperation before making rash decisions about trying to start our own country," she told AFP.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

 

Canadian steelmakers offset some US tariff pain with domestic demand

Reuters | October 16, 2026 | 

(Image: Tenaris. )

Canada’s steel industry, among the sectors hit first and hardest by US President Donald Trump’s tariffs, is starting to turn a corner thanks to an uptick in mining, energy and AI data center projects as well as government support, although the impact has not been even across the country.

While Canada is a small producer globally and steel contributes less than 1% to national GDP, it is one sector in which Prime Minister Mark Carney’s efforts to make Canada’s economy less reliant on the United States appear to be having some success, albeit with a heavy dose of government intervention.

Steel companies have been diversifying away from the US and focusing on domestic demand since Trump increased tariffs on imported steel from 25% to 50% in June 2025, steelmakers, analysts and union representatives said.

Canada used to send around 90% of its steel exports to the US, but shipments plummeted by 60% in 2025, according to the Canadian Steel Producers Association. Hundreds of steelworkers have been laid off.

But the share of steel used in Canada that was produced domestically rose to 51% in 2025, up from 41% in 2024, according to United Steelworkers, the sector’s main labour union. The import share declined from 59% to 49%. USW calculated the data based on World Steel Data and Canada’s imported steel data, said Guio Jacinto, an economic researcher for the union.

The green shoots are mostly appearing in western Canada, where some large industrial projects including a 1.2 gigawatt data center in Saskatchewan are under construction. Carney said a new oil pipeline to the Pacific Coast would also boost demand for steel.

Canadian steel demand is estimated to have grown around 2.7% in 2025 and is projected to increase by about 0.9% in 2026, according to an OECD report published in July.

“What we are seeing right now is that more Canadian companies are competing for domestic market, which means there is less space for steelmakers from outside,” said David Fritz of Alberta-based Supreme Steel, which manufactures fabricated steel.

“I feel optimistic for the outlook of fabricated steel market in Canada, there are enough projects in pipeline to support this industry,” Fritz added.

Government intervention

At a time of excess global capacity, Canadian steel would struggle to compete with lower-cost producers in China and South Korea without import quotas. Canada produces around 13 million tonnes of primary steel annually.

In May, the federal government announced C$1 billion ($700 million) in loans to the steel, aluminum and copper industries as working capital funding to get through the impact of US tariffs. The government extended a cap on foreign steel coming into the country, known as tariff rate quota, to address the issue of foreign steel dumping

Canada’s adaptation to Trump’s tariffs has been closely watched internationally, as Carney is one of the few global leaders to retaliate against US tariffs despite his country’s overwhelming economic dependence on the US.

The prime minister also threatened legal action against US steel producer Cleveland-Cliffs (NYSE: CLF) over plans to cut hundreds of jobs at its Hamilton, Ontario, facility.

Cleveland-Cliffs, which acquired Canada’s Stelco in 2024, said in its second-quarter earnings there was steep international competition for the galvanized steel produced at the Hamilton plant, but the market for its specific hot-rolled steel produced elsewhere in Canada contributed to improved guidance for the second half of 2026.

Cleveland-Cliffs will report quarterly results on October 19, potentially giving a clearer picture of the future of its Canadian operations.

Domestic market pivot

Luxembourg-headquartered Tenaris, which manufactures steel pipes for energy companies at its Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, facility, said it recently invested C$306 million to expand production of its Canadian-made products for Canadian customers.

“This strengthens Tenaris’s commitment to produce in Canada what Canada’s oil and gas industry needs. As a result, the company’s exposure to the United States tariffs is limited,” said Martín Castro, president of Tenaris in Canada, in an email.

The largest Canadian steel producer, Algoma (TSX: ASTL), said in December it would lay off 1,000 workers in Ontario – accounting for nearly all of the sector layoffs nationally since tariffs were imposed. But the company’s CEO recently touted the strengthening domestic market, citing growing infrastructure, construction and defence demand for its discrete steel plate.

“While the 50% US Section 232 tariffs continue to effectively foreclose our traditional access to the US market, our pivot to a Canada-centric, plate-first strategy is working,” CEO Rajat Marwah said on an earnings call in July.

Marty Warren, head of the Canadian branch of the USW, said there has been a turnaround in the industry but a bigger revival would require replacing even more imported steel with domestic production. The union also wants Canada to tighten the quota on imported steel and put tariffs on steel used in the US auto and aviation industries, which are currently exempt from broader retaliatory tariffs by Canada.

Canada’s finance ministry said the steel sector remained exposed to tariffs and the government was encouraging investment through a number of policies, such as buying Canadian steel for infrastructure projects.

“This is evidenced by the domestic demand cycle we are enabling through the Buy Canadian policy and more generally the government’s growth agenda which will require Canadian steel and workers,” the ministry said in an emailed statement.

(Divya Rajagopal in Toronto, additional reporting by Promit Mukherjee; Editing by Caroline Stauffer and Nia Williams)

JUST SAY NO; TO ALBERTA SEPARATION! YES TO CANADA!

 

It’s time to rally! Join us!

Fight Back Now and Forever Canadian are teaming up for one big final push before referendum day – and we’re encouraging all Albertans to be part of the action!

Forever Canadian will be hosting two weekday INDOOR rallies – one in Calgary the evening of Thursday, October 15 and the other in Edmonton the evening of Friday, October 16.

Then, Fight Back Now will be hosting two big weekend OUTDOOR rallies – one in Calgary on the afternoon of Saturday, October 17 (part of our provincewide Day of Protest), and then the big Unity Rally at the Legislature, the afternoon of Sunday, October 18.

We’re asking you to consider attending BOTH the Forever Canadian weeknight indoor rally nearest you AND either the Fight Back Now march and rally in Calgary on Saturday or the Unity Rally at the Legislature in Edmonton on Sunday.

You send a powerful message by voting AND by showing up to protest! The bigger the crowds at BOTH the Fight Back Now events and the Forever Canadian events the better!

Bring your friends; your voices; your signs; and your Canadian flags! Say “yes” to Canada and “no” to the divisive MAGA-inspired agenda that Danielle Smith is trying to impose on our province without a mandate!

---

Forever Canadian Weeknight Indoor Rallies

Calgary

DATE: Thursday, October 15

TIME: Doors 5:30 pm

LOCATION: BMO Centre at Stampede Park

Edmonton

DATE: Friday, October 16

TIME: Doors 5:30 pm

LOCATION: Edmonton EXPO Centre

Register to get your tickets for the Forever Canadian events HERE

---

Fight Back Now Weekend Outdoor Rallies

Calgary Day of Protest March & Rally

DATE: Saturday, October 17

TIME: 11 a.m. – 1:30 p.m.

LOCATION: Gather at City Hall (800 MacLeod Trail SE) at 11 a.m. and march to McDougall Centre (455 6 Street SW) for the rally

Edmonton Unity Rally

DATE: Sunday, October 18

TIME: 1-3 p.m.

LOCATION: Legislature Building (10800-97 Avenue, Edmonton)

---

No tickets needed for either the Calgary Fight Back Now march and rally or the Unity Rally at the Legislature. But we ask that you RSVP HERE.

NOTE: Forever Canadian spokesperson Thomas Lukaszuk will be one of the featured speakers at the Unity Rally in Edmonton. He will also promote the Calgary Day of Protest Rally and the Unity Rally from the stage at the Forever Canadian rallies. This is what solidarity looks like!

In solidarity,

The Alberta Federation of Labour

 

Coal’s revival is creating divisions in Canada’s energy heartland

Bloomberg News | October 11, 2026 | 

Grassy Mountain is on the site of an old mine that closed about 50 years ago. (Image courtesy of Northback Holdings.)

At the top of Grassy Mountain, some 6,700 feet above sea level, seams of coal are baked into the mountainside, visible through mining in this stretch of the Rocky Mountains in southwestern Alberta from the early to mid-1900s. This and other former mines dot the picturesque mountain towns on the eastern side of the continental divide, the industry having moved out of the region decades ago after plummeting prices and demand made mining here unprofitable. 

But Grassy still has more coal to give — much more. It’s now the center of a yearslong battle pitting nearby towns’ economic interests against environmental worries from downstream communities and ranchers. And this time, it’s being driven not by demand to heat homes in Canada, but to feed steelmakers in China, Japan, South Korea, India and other Asian countries.

Nearly 60 years after this site closed, locals are once again pinning their hopes for an economic revival on this windswept mountainside. Northback Holdings Corp., a division of Australian billionaire Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting Pty., is working to reopen the former mine.

This is Hancock’s second attempt after an earlier application was rejected by a joint federal and provincial review panel in 2021 over concerns about the impact on the nearby water ecosystem. Northback Chief Executive Officer Brad Johnston believes the company can address the deficiencies in its first application and go further in restoring the mountain, including much of the unreclaimed former mine site.

Gina Rinehart closer to opening contested coal mine in Canada

Hancock has spent more than a decade and over C$150 million ($105 million) on a project that faces stiff opposition and is still at least four years from opening. It’s promising to scale back its original plans by around 40% to produce 2.5 million metric tons a year instead of 4 million, boost reclamation efforts during the course of mining, build a water treatment plant and stick around for years after production ceases.

The company is persistent because its forecasts show an undersupply in the global market within the next decade and pricing levels far beyond what it costs to extract the coal.

The proposal and others like it have struck a nerve in Alberta, a region traditionally friendly toward resource development, both in terms of public support and government policy. Country music star Corb Lund led a petition campaign this year to stop coal mining in the eastern slopes of the Rockies, attempting to force a provincial vote on the issue this month, unsuccessfully. A recent survey found a majority of the public would have supported his position in a referendum.

The fight over the project also reveals a little-known fact about Canadian coal. Within the country, it has been on a long decline, as governments moved to reduce coal used for power production. But at the country’s western ports, coal is still king of commodity volumes. About 39.9 million metric tons were exported from Vancouver last year, compared to 30 million tons of petroleum products.

While the province of British Columbia now accounts for the majority of coal production, Alberta has seen a number of proposals in recent years and the province recently approved an expansion of the Vista Coal Mine in Hinton, near Jasper National Park, that will make it the largest thermal coal mine in North America.

About 70% of the world’s steel supply depends on metallurgical coal and Canada is the fifth-largest global supplier, accounting for roughly C$9 billion in exports.

Northback isn’t the only such new proposal in the Rockies. Northwest of Calgary, Valory Resources Inc. is pitching Blackstone, an underground metallurgical mine in Clearwater County, and another one called Mine 14 near the town of Grande Cache.

In BC, Conuma Resources Ltd. reopened a mine near Tumbler Ridge in 2024 and a sister project was included in the province’s recent deal book marketed to global investors. Glencore Plc is also seeking to expand its Fording River site to maintain the mine’s 10 million metric tons of annual production.

Johnston, who took over as Northback’s CEO in July, says any coal mined at Grassy Mountain will all be for export off the west coast of Canada, largely out of the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert. The company’s projections, he says, show it can be profitable over the course of its projected 25-year lifespan due to strong Asian demand for steel-making coal, listing Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia and India as possible customers.

The type of coal here is also high-quality enough for European steel producers. “The world wants this coal, it needs it,” he says.

The proposal would be a major employer for the five historic mining communities near Grassy Mountain. He cites the roughly 400 full-time jobs needed to operate it and the C$2.2 billion ($1.5 billion) in government revenue the mine will generate over its lifetime, according to a report prepared for the company by EY.

The company has already been sponsoring local organizations and has hired locals for its preparatory work, including a First Nations security contractor. Johnston says he is aiming to file another application in the coming months, with a potential target of opening in late 2030 if it receives regulatory approval.

He acknowledges the company’s first application did not sufficiently deal with concerns over its environmental impact. A joint federal-provincial review panel found the project was “not in the public interest” and would harm the nearby population of westslope cutthroat trout. He believes their new proposal is improved enough to meet regulatory hurdles, but knows there’s widespread opposition to coal.

“There are some people that are opposed to what we do, no matter how well we do it, or whatever systems of controls we propose to put into place,” he says. The company is always willing to answer questions about environmental management, he says, and local support “doesn’t come unconditionally, and their expectation is that we’re going to provide jobs and economic benefit, but we’re going to do so in an environmentally responsible way. 

There’s been more public backing in Canada for energy projects since US President Donald Trump’s administration began pressuring the country on trade, says Heather Exner-Pirot, director of energy, natural resources and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. That attention has largely been around oil and gas, and hasn’t necessarily translated to coal.

“I think most people, even in Canada, don’t appreciate that metallurgical coal is our biggest export by volume out of the Port of Vancouver and the Port of Prince Rupert, and that by revenue, after gold, it’s usually our top-producing mineral product,” she says.

She points out the towns closest to the proposed mine are largely in favor and people further away are opposed. In Crowsnest Pass, the municipality nearest Grassy Mountain, more than 70% voted to support the mine in a 2024 plebiscite. But municipal councils downstream, including in Lethbridge, Alberta’s fourth-largest city, have been staunchly opposed.

While Prime Minister Mark Carney’s federal government has been encouraging “nation building” projects to spur economic activity and build stronger interprovincial connections, the coal in western Canada won’t be going to the steel factories of southern Ontario and Quebec. The cost to ship by rail across the country makes it too expensive for the steel factories to use.

Instead, demand is driven by Asian countries and interest in Canada as a conscientious steward in producing coal. “If you are a Japan or a Korea, you may be willing actually to pay a premium for that better environmentally and socially responsible product,” Exner-Pirot says.

Source: Bloomberg News.

Steel is “ubiquitous” in products ranging from batteries to large-scale energy infrastructure, said Ian Lange, a professor at the Colorado School of Mines. Demand for steel and therefore metallurgical coal can be a proxy for economic activity around the world. Alberta is one of the most attractive places for natural resource extraction given its friendly regulatory environment and ease of getting to Pacific ports, he says, and miners have been making greater efforts to ensure environmental protection.

But he says “it’s really hard to say with certainty that this won’t be a problem 30, 40 years down the line.” 

The environmental pushback to increased mining in the Rockies can point to substantial levies against operators in recent years. Coal mines in BC faced C$60 million in federal fines in 2021 for water contamination breaches, and another C$16 million in fines from the province in 2023. And as recently as this past July, Glencore-owned Elk Valley Operations Ltd. was fined an additional C$269,000  as part of a larger C$3.6 million ruling over delaying construction of water treatment facilities and 171 water quality breaches related to selenium.

Concerns over water quality extend south of the border. A 2024 study from the US Geological Survey found evidence of selenium pollution as far as 350 miles away from Elk Valley’s mine along the Columbia River and contamination in other cross-border waterways.

Lund is a fourth-generation Albertan, his family settling in the early 1900s on ranch land they still own near the Montana border. He spearheaded a petition to have a referendum on banning some new coal mining that garnered more than 170,000 signatures earlier this year, though the question did not get put on the ballot for voting day on Oct. 19. 

He says he was drawn into the issue after rancher friends of his worried about the potential impacts on downstream water from selenium and other contamination. The amount of water used and the air quality are other concerns.

“As far as I can tell, it’s a bad deal and it’s going to ruin our water and our ranch land, and there’s nothing in it for Albertans,” he said. “And I think it’s a foreign billionaire coming here to take our coal and make all the money and leave us with the mess.”

His family’s land isn’t threatened by the mine reopening, but his residence in Lethbridge is served by the watershed from around Grassy Mountain. He says he’s seen the issue resonate across political lines in the largely conservative, pro-resource development province. Many Albertans view the Rocky Mountains as “the soul of the province, and that includes a good chunk of the conservative base who are hunters and fishermen and ranchers and irrigating farmers,” Lund says. “So it’s not just a left-right issue. It’s very close to a lot of people’s hearts here.”  

He’s “been in this fight for almost seven years now, and we’ve outlasted two premiers” as well as “multiple CEOs from the coal companies” and they will do everything they can to stop new mining in the nearby Rockies.

Lucas Michalsky, a cattle rancher about 20 minutes east of Grassy Mountain, has a different take on the mine’s impact. “We are the forgotten corner of Alberta,” says Michalsky, whose family worked in nearby coal mines after moving from Poland in the early 1900s.

The Grassy Mountain proposal has already brought more hope to local residents about the prospect of higher-quality jobs. “Northback has put in tens of millions of dollars,” into the area, he says. “All the people that are against coal haven’t put a dime into our community.”

Some local residents work in Glencore’s coal mines across the BC border, or see their children move to work in northern Alberta’s oil sands. The draw for Michalsky is seeing his kids close to home where they might “have a job as a millwright or a welder or an electrician at Northback, and come home every night so they can run cattle.”

He believes the environmental impact is overstated by opponents, who are largely not from the immediate towns that will benefit from the mine. “This is a blue-collar community. It always has been. And we’ve lost our logging. We’ve lost our oil and gas. Mining is the only thing we have left, because we never really had much of the first two.”

(By Iain Boekhoff, Michael McKee and Arielle Schwartz)

INTERVIEW

Extreme Weather Disasters Cost Hundreds of Billions. Let’s Make Polluters Pay.


As the Trump administration guts disaster aid, it’s time for an extreme weather superfund paid for by fossil fuel firms.

By C.J. Polychroniou ,

Truthout

October 10, 2026

A sign is seen at a "People Over Profits" vigil for those affected by Hurricane Helene to protest against the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors' meeting in Asheville, North Carolina, on August 30, 2026.Allison Joyce / AFP via Getty Images

One of the most visible consequences of global warming is the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as the powerful nor’easter that hammered the East Coast and mid-Atlantic for several days in late September with heavy rain, winds, and flooding. Indeed, a wide array of scientific studies over the past couple of decades have shown how human-caused climate change affects the intensity, frequency, and impact of extreme weather — from wildfires in the U.S. and Australia to record-setting flooding in China. And now, a major study prepared by two dozen scientists from across the globe has found a link between industrial emissions and the warming of the snow-capped Himalayan region that led to the collapse of the glacier that caused the catastrophic floods in Nepal and Tibet last month, in which over 1,300 people were killed while thousands are still missing.

In light of such developments, programs designed to address climate disasters are urgently needed. In the interview that follows, economist Michael Ash makes the case for the establishment of an Extreme Weather Superfund to protect U.S. communities from extreme weather events like those discussed above. Ash is professor of economics and public policy and co-director of the Corporate Toxics Information Project at the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

The interview that follows has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

C.J. Polychroniou: This past summer was the hottest on record in the United States as well as in western Europe. Indeed, new data shows that global warming is accelerating and the UN says that exceeding the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal above pre-industrial levels looks now unavoidable. As such, extreme weather events like last month’s nor’easter storm that produced strong winds, large waves, and coastal flooding along the East Coast, and Hurricane Helene, which ripped across the U.S. Southeast two years ago and was responsible for at least 250 fatalities, are expected to become more intense. Yet, instead of increasing funding for extreme weather, the Trump administration has actually slashed disaster aid programs and gutted agencies whose mission is to protect communities against extreme weather disasters. Can you talk a bit about the problem at hand with extreme weather events?

Michael Ash: Top weather and climate disasters, typically hurricanes, have costs running into hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition to its war on climate policy, the Trump administration has been utterly derelict in protecting communities from extreme weather disasters or rebuilding after disasters.

Hurricane Helene brought horrendous damage to uplands North Carolina, making very clear that the impact of climate change will not be limited to low-lying coastal areas. Immediately after becoming president in 2025, Donald Trump went around North Carolina saying, “the days of betrayal and neglect are over,” while simultaneously planning to institutionalize betrayal and neglect by getting rid of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), remarking: “If it was up to me right now, I’d end it right now.”

The Trump administration squeezed out 4,300 staff from FEMA in 2025. Its plan to reduce another 11,000 employees this year has been stopped by the courts for now. FEMA’s capacity is degraded. As The Nation article recounts, the North Carolina recovery funds have been delivered in an ineffective trickle.

How should we explain the Trump administration’s complete disregard of the risks associated with extreme weather events, which should be of deep concern to voters in the upcoming midterm elections?

It fits important patterns: climate denialism in service to fossil fuel companies; callous disregard for human suffering; and federal abdication of responsibility for the general welfare.

How much more likely and how much more destructive are episodes of extreme heat or rainfall, droughts, or hurricanes because of climate change? The science is increasingly precise and clear. Attribution science — the subject of a terrific new National Academies publication, “The Attribution of Extreme Weather and Climate Events and Their Impacts” (2026) — can establish with remarkable accuracy how much anthropogenic climate change (human contribution of greenhouse gases to Earth’s atmosphere) has contributed to extreme weather events.

To address the problem of extreme weather events, and as part of the Game Changers: Economic Policies for a Working America project that has been launched by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, you and your colleague James K. Boyce have called for the establishment of an Extreme Weather Superfund (EWS). What would be the actual mission of an EWS?

The Extreme Weather Superfund is modeled on the original Superfund: the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, which was designed to clean up land and water contaminated with toxic substances. There were two key principles: the polluter pays; and joint and several liability, which keeps polluters from dodging responsibility by pointing the finger at other parties or declaring bankruptcy.

The original Superfund empowered the Environmental Protection Agency to find and sue responsible parties and collected a valuable trust fund that paid for many useful cleanups. My son went canoeing with friends last month on Brooklyn’s Gowanus Canal, which was horribly polluted for more than a century, declared a Superfund site in 2010, and is now on the road to cleanup.

The Extreme Weather Superfund works from the Superfund model: quantify the harms, identify the responsible parties, and make the polluters pay. Except here, the harm is the introduction of greenhouse gases by carbon majors.

Can you discuss more specifically the central features of this policy and the benefits that U.S. communities can derive from it?

The big point is that communities all over the U.S. are already seeing damage from the carbon that the fossil fuel giants brought into our economy and atmosphere.

We face high costs of recovery from these disasters and high costs of adaptation, to build protection, hardened infrastructure, from these foreseeable and growing threats. Preparation makes a huge difference, but it needs investment up front.

The Extreme Weather Superfund will levy a total annual assessment of $100 billion per year on all fossil fuel corporations with a business presence in the United States that contributed more than 1 billion tons to global carbon dioxide (CO2)-equivalent emissions over the past 30 years. We call 1995 to 2024 the historical reference period: By 1995, the danger from fossil fuels was completely clear. (Some of the major carbon emitters, or what I call “carbon majors,” had suppressed evidence as early as the 1970s; so there is no “Who could have known” defense for 1995.)

The $100 billion is an estimate of the annual costs of disaster response and infrastructure adaptation for the foreseeable future. We would expect $75 billion in infrastructure hardening and, thanks to attribution science, $25 billion in response to current disasters. The 1 billion ton CO2 threshold means that we are talking about carbon majors. The responsible parties are big fossil fuel companies.

The big fossil fuel companies designated as responsible parties will split the $100 billion annual levy in proportion to the emissions from the fuels that they extracted from the earth and introduced to the world’s economy. To give an idea of the magnitude, ExxonMobil brought 19 billion tons of CO2-equivalent into being between 1995 and 2024; that’s roughly 6 percent of the total CO2 the carbon majors introduced over that period. So ExxonMobil would pay 6 percent of the $100 billion total annual assessment, or $6 billion per year. With nearly $400 billion in annual corporate revenue and $40 billion in profits in recent years, ExxonMobil can afford $6 billion per year as its share of cleaning up the mess it has made.

We have some important additional provisions, including a supplemental levy in years when exceptional climate-related extreme weather damage exceeds the expected $25 billion cost of disaster cleanup. FEMA has regularly received supplemental appropriations to respond to exceptional disasters, and we need to consider an acceleration in the frequency and impact of extreme events.

The policy would also require a document disclosure, forcing the carbon majors to come clean with information about how and when companies understood the link between their products and extreme weather events — and their efforts to conceal this knowledge from the public. This provision is based on the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement of 1998, which exposed an extraordinary history of companies’ knowledge about the harms from their products and intentional hiding of these harms from the public.

How does the Extreme Weather Superfund differ from carbon-pricing policies?

The Extreme Weather Superfund is retrospective. It assesses and addresses responsibility for the damage that we are already suffering from past carbon emissions. The point is to collect compensation from parties that have already done terrible climate damage — the responsible parties.

In contrast, carbon pricing is focused on reducing carbon emissions going forward. The Extreme Weather Superfund addresses the consequences of climate destabilization from past emissions, and it pays for adaptation and disaster response to carbon that has already been emitted. What’s interesting about the retrospective approach in the Extreme Weather Superfund is that the opportunities for passing through costs to customers are limited. Current fuel prices are set in the world market. Carbon pricing raises the cost of bringing fuels into the economy, and fuel companies pass through some of the carbon pricing as higher fuel prices for customers. The Extreme Weather Superfund is much harder to pass through. A company trying to pass through its Extreme Weather Superfund liabilities as higher fuel prices would be noncompetitive in the current market.

At the top of the responsible party list are companies owned abroad: Saudi Aramco would owe $15 billion per year and Russia’s Gazprom would owe $13 billion. U.S.-based ExxonMobil is next on the list with $6 billion per year. Of the top 10 responsible parties, only two — ExxonMobil and Chevron — are U.S.-based; when we look out at the top 20, we add four more U.S. companies, including two from big coal: Peabody Energy, with a $3.5 billion share of the annual levy and Core Natural Resources with a $3 billion share.

Is the EWS something that states alone can pursue? In other words, can it be financially sustained without federal participation?

An important feature of the Extreme Weather Superfund is that it could be carried out by individual states without federal participation. That’s crucial, given the current federal climate of climate denial and extreme-weather neglect.

New York State and Vermont have already passed climate responsibility legislation.

The scale is smaller, and there are some additional challenges involved in pursuing state-level Extreme Weather Superfunds. First, the scope of naming responsible parties would be limited to companies doing business in the state. For large states with lucrative markets, such as New York or California, the carbon majors are less likely to withdraw than to accept the Superfund fines.

The biggest danger for the Extreme Weather Superfund at the moment may be less federal neglect and more federal involvement. We are likely to see a huge push by the carbon majors for liability protection, along the lines of how the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005) shielded the gun industry from being held accountable for the harms the gun industry had caused.

The carbon majors — that is, the oil industry, the coal industry, and the natural gas industry — will seek federal preemption to undermine state legislative efforts and lawsuits in state courts to seek redress for the damage these industries have caused.

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments in Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. Suncor, a Canadian energy company active in the Alberta tar sands, is arguing that U.S. federal law preempts local governments from bringing claims for climate-related damages against fossil fuel companies. This would be a terrible precedent.

So it’s already in the courts, and we’ll likely soon see a federal bill providing protection for these polluters.

The Extreme Weather Superfund will take taxpayers off the hook and put the carbon polluters on the hook for disaster response and adaptation investments to limit future damages.


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

C.J. Polychroniou
C.J. Polychroniou is a political scientist/political economist, author and journalist who has taught and worked in numerous universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. Currently, his main research interests are in U.S. politics and the political economy of the United States, European economic integration, globalization, climate change and environmental economics, and the deconstruction of neoliberalism’s politico-economic project. He is a columnist for Global Policy Journal and a regular contributor to Truthout. He has published scores of books, including Marxist Perspectives on Imperialism: A Theoretical Analysis; Perspectives and Issues in International Political Economy (ed.); and Socialism: Crisis and Renewal (ed.), and over 1,000 articles which have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. Many of his publications have been translated into a multitude of languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Turkish. His latest books are Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal: The Political Economy of Saving the Planet (with Noam Chomsky and Robert Pollin as primary authors, 2020); The Precipice: Neoliberalism, the Pandemic, and the Urgent Need for Radical Change (an anthology of interviews with Noam Chomsky, 2021); Economics and the Left: Interviews with Progressive Economists (2021); Illegitimate Authority: Facing the Challenges of Our Time (an anthology of interviews with Noam Chomsky, 2023); and A Livable Future Is Possible: Confronting the Threats to Our Survival (an anthology of interviews with Noam Chomsky, 2024).

 Canada yanks sponsorship of disinformation conference discussing U.S. as a threat

BUT IT IS!

CBC
Wed, October 7, 2026 


Canadian and European diplomatic services pulled their support for a disinformation conference in Lithuania's capital on Wednesday. (Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press - image credit)


The federal government has withdrawn sponsorship of a European disinformation conference that includes panels discussing the U.S. government as a foreign interference risk.

Samantha Lafleur, a spokesperson for Global Affairs Canada (GAC), said the government took issue with the framing of some panels at the event organized by EU DisinfoLab, a non-profit based in Brussels.

The conference features panels about the U.S. as a source of "foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI)," a phenomenon where foreign governments or actors on their behalf manipulate information to confuse, divide or mislead the public and erode confidence in institutions.

GAC — Ottawa's diplomatic arm — Lithuania's Foreign Ministry and the European External Action Service were initially listed as supporters of the annual conference largely attended by researchers and civil society organizations.

(Submitted)

As the gathering got underway in Vilnius, Lithuania, on Wednesday, their names were covered up on signs spotted around the conference, according to photos shared with CBC News. As of writing, the French government remains a sponsor.

In a statement to CBC News, GAC did not deny that it had concerns with describing the U.S. as a foreign interference threat.

"Following changes to the framing of several panel discussions, GAC decided to revise its participation in those sessions at the EU DisinfoLab 2026 conference," wrote Lafleur.

She did not respond to questions about particular changes GAC took issue with or whether the U.S. raised concerns.

According to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, the description of Wednesday's panel discussing how to push back on the U.S. as a foreign interference threat appears to have been unchanged since Sept. 9.

GAC no longer chairing Arctic panel

A GAC official also pulled out of chairing a session on disinformation in the Arctic scheduled for Thursday, said presenter Ben Shultz with the American Sunlight Project.

The panel proposes to talk about Greenland and "growing evidence that the United States has, in specific Arctic contexts, operated as a FIMI actor."

Shultz shared the initial plan for the panel from months ago, which includes talking about the U.S. as a foreign interference actor.

He called three governments withdrawing a "shock" and questioned whether they were pressured.

"Thankfully every speaker has still shown up, which is awesome, and I think a testament to the resolve of the research community. But it's definitely put a bit of a damper on the atmosphere," he said in an interview.

The European External Action Service, the EU's diplomatic service, said in a statement it asked to have its logo removed from the material associated with the conference "in view of the content of the programme."

Asked if it was related to the U.S. foreign interference panel, an EU spokesperson repeated that the EEAS logo was removed because "organizers chose to frame some of the discussions in a way which does not align with the official positions held by the EU."

Neither Lithuania's Foreign Ministry nor the conference organizers responded to a request for comment.

Canada's withdrawal comes the same week the Globe and Mail reported that some people involved in campaigning for Alberta independence had met on both sides of the border with U.S. entities.

CBC News previously reported that some of those meetings took place in U.S. State Department offices in Washington, D.C., last year.

GAC's move also comes as the country is embroiled in an often bitter and personal trade dispute with U.S. President Donald Trump's administration.

Lafleur said Canada "remains firmly committed to addressing the challenge of disinformation and misinformation" and that Global Affairs Canada officials "look forward to engaging with partners and stakeholders on efforts to counter disinformation."

Mark Carney Fires Back at Elon Musk Over Calls for Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan to Break Away — ‘Large Tech Firms’ Can’t Tell Canadians What to Do

Namrata Sen
Sun, October 11, 2026 
BENZINGA

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney answering questions (Credit: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney answering questions | Photo courtesy: Shutterstock)

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has pushed back against Tesla Inc. CEO Elon Musk's public support for separatist movements in Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Carney responded Thursday in Quebec after Musk backed separation efforts involving the three provinces. Speaking with reporters, Carney said Quebec residents would determine their own priorities, alongside the government's 43 members of Parliament representing the province. He cited affordability, social justice and homelessness as key concerns, while supporting "a strong Quebec within a strong Canada."

The Canadian Prime Minister also called for a Canada that is more independent, sovereign and prosperous, while preserving Quebec's language, culture and way of life.

"Free from interference from foreign governments and large tech firms that think they can tell us what to do," he said.

Musk Backs Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan Secession

On Wednesday, Elon Musk weighed in on Quebec independence after responding Wednesday to a post about premier-designate Paul St-Pierre Plamondon's pledge to achieve independence.

"Good. Quebec should separate," Musk wrote on X. In another post, he added, "They would be better off. Alberta and Saskatchewan should separate too."

Good. Quebec should separate.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 7, 2026

Notably, in an interview with the New York Times last month, Carney signaled that Canada would reduce its reliance on Musk's Starlink satellite internet service. "Starlink we will diversify away from, no question." he said.

Carney Warns of Brexit-Style Crisis

The dispute comes as separatist sentiment in Alberta has gained organizational momentum. In February, volunteers with the Alberta Prosperity Project and allied groups pursued the roughly 177,000 signatures needed to trigger a citizen-initiated independence referendum. The campaign unfolded as Canada faced strained relations with the United States, including tariff disputes and annexation rhetoric.

Carney later warned that an Alberta referendum could create a Brexit-style crisis that Canada might struggle to reverse, calling Premier Danielle Smith's proposed October 19 referendum "a very dangerous bluff."

Carney says Canadians will decide their future after Elon Musk expresses support for separatism

Associated Press
Updated Thu, October 8, 2026 

Prime Minister Mark Carney announces a new federal heat pump rebate program while visiting Dettson, a manufacturer of residential and commercial HVAC systems in Sherbrooke, Quebec, Thursday, Oct. 8, 2026. (Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press via AP) (Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press via AP)

Prime Minister Mark Carney announces a new federal heat pump rebate program while visiting Dettson, a manufacturer of residential and commercial HVAC systems in Sherbrooke, Quebec, Thursday, Oct. 8, 2026. (Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press via AP) (Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press via AP)

Prime Minister Mark Carney, center right, arrives at Dettson, a manufacturer of residential and commercial HVAC systems in Sherbrooke, Quebec, Thursday, Oct. 8, 2026. (Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press via AP) (Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press via AP)

SHERBROOKE, Quebec (AP) — Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Thursday that Canada's future will be decided by Canadians, pushing back on Elon Musk's call for Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan to separate from Canada.

"The future of Canada will be decided by Canadians and the priorities of Canadians, the priorities of the people of Quebec," Carney said when asked about Musk's comments.

Carney said Canadians should be free to live according to their languages and cultures, without interference "from foreign governments and large tech firms that think they can tell us what to do."

Musk weighed in on Canada's separatist debates Wednesday in a post on X about Quebec Premier-designate Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, whose separatist Parti Québécois won Monday's provincial election.

The PQ's victory was not a mandate for independence. The party won about 28% of the popular vote and fell short of a majority of the seats in the Quebec legislature. Support for Quebec independence remains at about 30%, said Daniel Béland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal. He said the election was driven more by a desire to oust the Coalition Avenir Québec government than by support for separation.

"Good. Quebec should separate," Musk wrote, adding that "They would be better off. Alberta and Saskatchewan should separate too."

Alberta is scheduled to hold a vote Oct. 19 on whether the province should remain in Canada or move toward a future referendum on separation. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has said she will vote to remain in Canada.



Smith said Thursday that separatist sentiment in her province has weakened as her government and Carney's have worked to address Albertans' concerns.

"The federal government has changed. Their approach to us has changed and they're willing to work together on addressing those issues," Smith said in Edmonton.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe responded to Musk on X with a single word: "No."

Musk, the world's richest man and first-ever trillionaire, is a South African-born Canadian-American.