The annexation playbook borrows from climate denial tactics

Over a decade ago, I was involved in raising awareness of the dangers of fracking proposed in Newfoundland and Labrador, where I was born and raised. It was a crash course in misinformation. Fracking advocates dismissed legitimate community concerns as emotional and irrational, sent out volleys of questionable information to back up their projects, and cast themselves as economic saviours. Journalists were not always equipped to deal with this approach, but at least at the time, we did have more local journalism than is present now. 

Time tends to reveal people’s true intentions. A decade later, one of those companies, Shoal Point Energy, is trying to sue the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador for half a billion dollars in taxpayer money because they didn’t get the chance to frack there. 

Over the past decade, I have continued to learn more about how climate denial and disinformation work — especially as it relates to energy and the communications campaigns of oil and gas corporations. 

Climate denial spread, not just online, but in major media outlets that fell for the spin or unintentionally incorporated it into their otherwise well-meaning coverage. ‘Fake news’ emerged from climate denial like John Carpenter’s The Thing — assimilating new host issues as it went. The monster created by oil and gas corporations quickly evolved into a general tool for wealthy interests.

Now, we are seeing that assimilation process play out in real time around U.S. 51st statism, and I hope it’s a wake-up call, because we can stop the process if we act quickly.

A Shared Pattern in Annexation Arguments

The pattern I witnessed all those years ago in the arguments used by fracking advocates, a pattern common to climate misinformation, is now emerging in pro-annexation arguments directed against Canada. That’s perhaps not surprising given the closeness of the U.S. administration and oil and gas corporations — corporations that in Canada coincidentally want oil and gas exempt from any retaliatory tariffs against the U.S.

There are three main parts to the strategic anatomy of both climate denial and delayism that are shared by arguments in favour of annexation. These three strategies are:

To create chaos by shifting goal posts and to create multiple layers of disinformation that hinder action and generate division:  Climate-related examples include claims that “climate change isn’t real,” followed by claims that “climate change is real but not caused by CO2,” then by “climate change is caused by CO2, but it’s not that bad,” and then, by “climate change is bad, but companies can capture the CO2 so we don’t need a shift from oil and gas.” 

Annexationist examples of this first strategy include notions that “the tariffs are coming because of immigration at the border”, followed by arguments about fentanyl, the digital services tax, trade deficits, and hemispheric security, that all constantly shift. Each of these arguments creates uncertainty about what the U.S. is after, while disorienting Canada’s response.

To shift the centre of a debate and make the unreasonable seem reasonable in the process — using the media’s natural tendency to both-sides-ism: Some climate messaging examples of this include claims that “climate change as a reality is debatable,” that “emotional climate activists need to understand the reality of the situation,” and that “renewable energy just isn’t feasible.” 

Annexationist examples include claims that “we should seriously discuss the idea of becoming a state or entering into an economic union with the U.S.,” that “booing the national anthem of a hostile power is impolite,” and that “it’s just an emotional reaction to oppose an economic union with the U.S.” 

To shift blame for the underlying problem from the perpetrator onto those most affected: Climate messaging examples of this include the idea that”‘individual choices are primarily to blame for climate change,” that “oil and gas corporations are just responding to market demand,” or that “if you use oil and gas now, then wanting a different future makes you a hypocrite.” 

Annexationist examples of this include messaging that “Canadians are to blame for the situation we find ourselves in with the U.S.,” that “if only Canada takes a certain action then tariffs won’t happen,” or that “Canada has been a bad friend to the U.S.”

People are waking up to the strategies above in terms of annexationism, and it’s already showing in the way they are responding to the issue and to media coverage of it. 

A Communications War 

I am encouraged that so many people are waking up to the importance of understanding how ideas like the 51st state and misinformation spread. Because it is not enough just to inform the public about individual issues or individual pieces of misinformation. To defeat climate denial and 51st-statism, we need to show people how misinformation works. You can’t defeat The Thing — to revisit that analogy — with individual ax strikes. You need a flamethrower that reduces it to its fundamental parts.

The U.S. could never successfully invade Canada and occupy the country militarily, though it would be horrific if they tried. That means right now, for annexation to happen, we really would need to willingly hand over the country or enter an economic union. We also need to understand that 51st-statism is a symptom of a larger global conflict between oligarchy (linked extensively to oil and gas interests) on one hand, and democracy on the other. Indeed, we are entering into what may one day be recorded as a global communications war between the two ideologies.

Canada’s fate, at this time at least, will be determined by communications, and it’s important to remember we are all, each one of us, communicators. We absolutely must be vocal in our opposition to annexation — it will not go away on its own. But we must do so in a way that builds resilience to misinformation and oligarchy as a whole.

Conor Curtis, a social and environmental researcher and writer from Corner Brook, N.L., is head of communications at Sierra Club Canada Foundation.