Environment

Kano, Nigeria – On a bustling day in northern Nigeria, Marian Shammah made her way to the Sabon Gari Market, one of the largest electronics hubs in Kano state.

The 34-year-old cleaner was in need of a refrigerator, but with rising costs and a meagre income, she saw the second-hand appliances sold at the market as a lifeline.

After locating the one she wanted, she paid the vendor 50,000 naira ($36) and took it home. But just a month later, the freezer collapsed.

“Only the top half of the refrigerator was working, and the freezer wasn’t working,” said Shammah.

Her food spoiled, her savings disappeared, and she was soon back in the market searching for another appliance.

Although Shammah could have bought a new local appliance for just over 30,000 naira ($30) more, she – like millions of Nigerians – believes second-hand products from America and Europe “last longer” than new products sold in Nigeria.

Observers say this trend is part of a larger crisis. Nigeria has become a major destination for the developed world’s discarded electronics – items often near the end of life, sometimes completely dead, and frequently toxic because they contain hazardous materials. When they break down, they add to landfills, worsening an already dire e-waste crisis on the African continent.

Around 60,000 tonnes of used electronics enter Nigeria through key ports each year, with at least 15,700 tonnes already damaged upon arrival, according to the United Nations.

The trade in used electronic goods is powered largely by foreign exporters. A UN tracking study between 2015 and 2016 showed that more than 85 percent of used electronics imported into Nigeria originated from Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, China, the United States, and the Republic of Ireland.

Many of these imports violate international restrictions, like the Basel Convention, an environmental treaty regulating the transboundary movement and disposal of hazardous electronic waste to developing countries with weaker environmental laws.

Across West Africa, the Basel Convention’s “E-Waste Africa Programme”, a project focused on strengthening e-waste management systems across the continent, estimates that Benin, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Liberia, and Nigeria collectively generate between 650,000 and 1,000,000 tonnes of e-waste annually – much of it the result of short-lifespan second-hand imports.

Health risks

The United Nations describes e-waste as any discarded device that uses a battery or plug and contains hazardous substances – like mercury – that can endanger both human health and the environment. Several of the toxic components commonly found in e-waste are included on the list of 10 chemicals of major public health concern maintained by the World Health Organization (WHO).

According to the WHO, used electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) presents a growing public health and environmental threat across Africa, with Nigeria at the centre of the trade.

“Much of the equipment shipped as used electronics is close to becoming waste,” said Rita Idehai, founder of Ecobarter, a Lagos-based environmental NGO, warning that devices imported and sold as affordable second-hand goods often fail shortly after arrival and quickly enter the waste stream.

The consequences are far-reaching. Many imported fridges and air conditioners, for instance, still contain CFC-based and HCFC-based refrigerants such as R-12 and R-22 – chemicals banned in Europe and the US for causing ozone depletion or being linked to cancer, miscarriages, neurological disorders, and long-term soil contamination. These gases live for 12 to 100 years, meaning leaking equipment adds to a multi-generational environmental burden.

After these imported items stop working or fall apart, informal recyclers then dismantle the electronics with their bare hands, Al Jazeera observed. In Kano, the recyclers inhale poisonous fumes and manage the heavy metals without protection. Their work earns them a meagre 3,500–14,000 naira ($2.50-$10) per week, they said, and the after-effects linger – including persistent coughing, chest pain, headaches, eye irritation, and breathing difficulties after long hours of burning cables and dismantling electronic devices.

The health crisis extends into Kano’s communities.

Among casual recyclers and residents who live close to e-waste dumps, many report symptoms that range from chronic headaches and skin irritation to breathing issues, miscarriages and neurological concerns, according to health surveys done by the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. These ailments are consistent with longtime toxic exposure, the researchers said.

Recent field assessments conducted by Nigeria’s Federal University Dutse also stressed that in and around Kano state, where the Sabon Gari Market is located, there are rising levels of heavy metals in soil and drainage channels.

Dr Ushakuma Michael Anenga, a gynaecologist at the Benue State Teaching Hospital and second vice president of the Nigerian Medical Association, warned that toxic exposure from informal e-waste recycling poses grave health risks to communities in Kano.

“Exposure to heavy metals and refrigerant gases in e-waste causes extreme brief and long-term health issues, generally affecting the breathing and renal organs,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Common casual practices like exposed burning and dismantling result in direct, high-level exposure for workers and nearby residents. Children and pregnant girls are particularly inclined due to the fact that those toxicants can disrupt development or even skip from mother to unborn baby, [while] recyclers who work without defensive equipment face repeated, frequently irreversible damage.”

Profits over protection

In Sabon Gari Market, second-hand electronics are advertised as less costly lifelines for households and poor business owners burdened by inflation.

Many customers say foreign-used home equipment appears sturdier and seems like better value for money than new imports from the developing world. Meanwhile, others are just looking for cheap options in difficult economic times.

“I usually go for second-hand or foreign-used electronics because brand-new ones are too expensive for me,” Umar Hussaini, who sells used electronics at the market, told Al Jazeera.

“Sometimes you can get them for half the price of new ones, and they look almost the same, so it feels like a good deal at the time.”

But the last refrigerator he bought stopped cooling after just three months. With no warranty or guarantee, the seller refused responsibility.

“For weeks, we couldn’t store food properly at home, and we ended up buying food daily, which was more expensive,” he said. “However, I have to buy another one again.”

For small business owners like Salisu Saidu, the losses can be even more devastating. He bought a used freezer for his shop, believing it had been serviced. Within weeks, it failed.

“I lost a lot of frozen food, which meant I lost money and customers,” he told Al Jazeera.

Around his neighbourhood, broken electronics are often dumped out in the street, sometimes emitting smoke or sparks.

“There’s also a lot of electronic waste piling up around,” he said, calling for tighter import controls, proper certification, and mandatory warranties to protect buyers from being sold what he described as “damaged goods disguised as fairly used”.

Bought as bargains, sold as burdens

At Sabon Gari Market, another vendor, Umar Abdullahi, is surrounded by imported refrigerators, air conditioners and washing machines stacked tightly together.

The products in his shop are advertised as “London use” or “Direct Belgium”, while he negotiates the sale of a double-door fridge for 120,000 naira ($87).

Abdullahi’s store is where Shammah returned after the refrigerator she bought failed. But he admits that much of what he sells to customers arrives unchecked.

“We buy them untested from suppliers in Europe, and we also sell them untested so we can make our profit,” he told Al Jazeera.

This despite the fact that international rules under the Basel Convention, as well as Nigerian environmental regulations, prohibit the shipment of material considered e-waste – with penalties including fines and jail terms.

Nwamaka Ejiofor, a spokesperson for Nigeria’s National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA), said the country does not permit the import of e-waste. However, the entry of used electronics is allowed under regulated conditions.

“The importation of used electrical and electronic equipment is regulated and may be allowed only where such equipment meets prescribed conditions, including functionality and compliance requirements,” she told Al Jazeera.

“Nigeria applies a combination of regulatory, administrative and enforcement measures to ensure that imported used electronics comply with national law and the country’s international obligations,” she added, listing out measures including environmental regulations, cargo inspection and verifying that imported equipment is “functional”.

However, despite this, some traders find loopholes in the system, including declaring cargo they plan to sell as personal belongings or second-hand household goods to avoid scrutiny.

Although NESREA says enforcement has improved, critics say the steady flow of mediocre goods continues largely unchecked. Even dealers at Sabon Gari Market acknowledge that most appliances are sold “as is”, without certification or guarantees.

‘Loopholes’

Behind the second-hand electronics trade is a network of collectors and exporters who source discarded appliances across Europe.

Baban Ladan Issa, who ships used electronics from Ireland to Nigeria, said items are gathered from weekend markets, private homes that are replacing old gadgets, and contractors clearing out equipment from offices, hotels and hospitals.

“Some suppliers mix working and damaged goods together,” he told Al Jazeera, noting that while he tries to avoid faulty items, not all buyers do the same.

Once assembled, shipments worth millions of naira are sent to Lagos through ships then down to sellers in the market in Kano state, sometimes packed in containers or hidden inside vehicles to reduce inspection risks.

Shipping records seen by Al Jazeera showed consignments labelled as “personal effects”, a classification that can limit detailed checks at ports.

Chinwe Okafor, an environmental policy analyst based in Abuja, said the problem is systemic.

“Exporting nations regularly take advantage of loopholes by means of labelling nonfunctional e-waste as ‘second-hand goods’ or ‘for repair,’” she told Al Jazeera. “In some instances, research estimates that over 75 percent of what arrives in developing countries is truly junk.”

“This permits wealthy countries to keep away from highly-priced recycling at home while pushing unsafe materials into nations with weaker safeguards.”

Ibrahim Adamu, a programme officer with the NGO Ecobarter, added that mislabelling, poor inspection technology and corruption at ports make enforcement difficult.

“The highest profits are captured by exporters and brokers who arbitrage the gap between disposal costs in Europe or Asia and the strong demand for ‘tokunbo’ goods in Nigeria,” he said, using the local name for used imported electronics.

To forestall this, he said Nigeria “must reinforce border inspections” and implement a policy whereby producers and manufacturers bear financial responsibility. At the same time, “the international network has to adopt binding bans that [hold] manufacturers and exporters responsible”, Adamu said.

Little oversight, mounting risks

Although Nigeria has regulations governing the import of electrical and electronic equipment, enforcement gaps keep exposing markets like Kano’s Sabon Gari to ageing and near-end-of-life appliances, locals say.

Ibrahim Bello, a used electronics importer with a decade in the business, said many shipments that arrive from Europe are in less-than-ideal condition.

“Around 20 to 30 percent of the items we receive have issues when they arrive,” he told Al Jazeera. “Some are already damaged, while others stop working after a short time because they are old.

“That’s just part of the business.”

Retailer Chinedu Peter gave similar estimates. “From what I’ve experienced, maybe 40 percent of the electronics have some fault as they come,” he said, adding that environmental and protection checks don’t happen as they are meant to.

“Such a lot of items enter without special checks.”

Both men feel that clearer rules and certified testing systems will improve trust. But until then, thousands of ageing, unsuitable products will continue to flood Nigeria.

Shammah, back at Sabon Gari Market just weeks after her refrigerator broke, was once again searching through rows of stacked appliances, hoping her next purchase might last longer than the last.

“I don’t really trust these fairly used appliances again, but I still have to buy something because we need it at home,” she told Al Jazeera.

“This time I’m thinking … I can buy a new one from a proper shop, even if it takes longer, because I don’t want to lose my money again.”

Mexico’s monarch butterfly population surged 64 percent this winter, raising hopes for the endangered species’ spring migration to the United States and Canada.

Health and environment advocacy groups in the United States are suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw a key 2009 climate change ruling known as the “endangerment finding”.

That finding had established that greenhouse gases are a risk to public health and environmental safety, given that they are the primary drivers of climate change. It formed the legal basis for many regulatory policies aimed at curbing climate change.

When US President Donald Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax” and a “con job”, rescinded the declaration in February this year, the EPA supported the move, deeming it the “single largest deregulatory action in US history”.

The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday this week, alleges that the Trump administration’s decision will risk the health and welfare of US citizens.

“Repealing the Endangerment Finding endangers all of us. People everywhere will face more pollution, higher costs, and thousands of avoidable deaths,” Peter Zalzal, the associate vice president of clean air strategies at the Environmental Defense Fund, one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement.

Trump’s revocation of the endangerment finding is the latest in a series of steps he has taken to prioritise deregulation, boost fossil fuel production and reverse climate regulations.

But Trump is not the first US president to enact policy damaging to the environment. Here’s how decades of US policy have harmed the environment before he arrived in the White House

What is the ‘endangerment finding’?

The endangerment finding was established under the presidency of Democrat Barack Obama. It states that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare.

That ruling allowed the EPA under President Obama to move forward on policy aimed at limit the release of greenhouse gases in the US, Michael Kraft, professor emeritus of political science and public and environmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, told Al Jazeera.

Under the endangerment finding, power plants were required to meet federal limits on carbon emissions or risk being shut down. This forced oil and gas companies to invest more to detect and fix methane leaks, curb flaring, and improve tailpipe and fuel‑economy standards to enable automobile companies to manufacture more efficient, lower‑emitting vehicles.

What does rescinding it mean?

“By allowing for increased pollution, these recent changes [by the Trump administration] will harm practically every single person on the planet,” Washington, DC-based policy researcher Brett Heinz told Al Jazeera.

“People living near fossil fuel facilities will be some of the most immediately affected, as they will be exposed to the new air and water pollution unleashed by deregulatory policies,” Heinz added.

Without the endangerment finding in place, the EPA has lost a key legal basis on which to limit greenhouse gas emissions, making it easier for coal plants, oil refineries and petrochemical complexes to run older, dirtier equipment for longer, expand without installing modern pollution controls, and emit more soot, smog‑forming gases and toxic chemicals into nearby communities.

Heinz explained that higher greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels in power plants, cars and industry as well as continued deforestation will also amplify the dangers posed by natural disasters. This is because increased warming exacerbates heatwaves, storms, floods and droughts, and raises sea levels – all of which turn existing natural hazards into more frequent and more destructive disasters.

“The only people who will benefit from these decisions are a small handful of wealthy fossil fuel executives and shareholders, who will see healthy profits while the world grows sick. These fossil fuel elites, many of whom contributed money to Trump’s presidential campaign, have now gotten a return on this investment,” Heinz said.

Experts say that Trump’s decision to entirely do away with environmental policy is unlike any president before him.

“The White House’s tidal wave of new pro-pollution policies is completely unprecedented. While past administrations have modified environmental rules, the second Trump administration is essentially trying to eliminate them entirely. So far, this has been the most radically anti-environmental presidency in American history,” Heinz said.

How have previous US presidents endangered the environment?

Trump is by no means the first US president to enact policy which is damaging to the environment, however.

Under Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who was president from 1901 to 1909, Congress passed the Reclamation (Newlands) Act of 1902, which treated land and rivers primarily as raw material for large infrastructure projects rather than as ecosystems in need of protection.

This was furthered by Democrat Harry Truman, who was president from 1945 to 1953 and pushed for rapid post‑war industrial and suburban expansion by commissioning the construction of interstate highways and promoting car‑centric development.

Under Republican Dwight Eisenhower, who was president from 1953 to 1961, the interstate highway system burgeoned, and the private car became a developmental priority in the US.

While Republican Richard Nixon, who was president from 1969 to 1974, signed key environmental laws, he also backed massive fossil‑fuel expansion. Under Nixon, the highly toxic herbicide, known as Agent Orange, was used by the US military during the Vietnam War.

Republican Ronald Reagan, who was president from 1981 to 1989, appointed people to the EPA and the Department of Interior who pushed for expanded oil, gas, coal and timber extraction on public lands.

To facilitate this, they favoured deregulation and industry interests, and rolled back existing environmental policy, slashing budgets for EPA enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, easing rules on toxic emissions and pesticides, and opening up more federal land – including wilderness and wildlife habitat – to oil, gas, mining and logging activities.

Republican George W Bush, who was president from 2001 to 2009, refused to ratify the 1997 UN-backed emissions reductions Kyoto Protocol and actively undermined global climate negotiations by formally withdrawing US support for Kyoto in 2001, appointing senior officials who questioned climate science, and pushing voluntary, industry-friendly approaches instead of binding emissions cuts.

While Obama, who was president from 2009 to 2017, introduced several landmark climate regulations, he also oversaw the fracking boom, making the US the world’s largest oil and gas producer, and locking in long-term fossil infrastructure.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, involves blasting water, sand and chemicals into shale rock to release oil and gas, a process believed to cause methane leaks, groundwater contamination, heavy water use and increased local air pollution.

Democrat Joe Biden, who was president from 2021 to 2024, approved large fossil projects such as the Willow project in Alaska. This involved oil development on federal land in the National Petroleum Reserve, projected to pump hundreds of millions of barrels of crude over several decades.

Figures released by the the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) suggested that the project would release 239 million to 280 million tonnes of greenhouse gases over its lifetime. The project, approved in 2023 and ongoing, was projected to continue for 30 years.

Biden also backed LNG export growth by approving new and expanded export terminals and long‑term export licences, allowing companies to lock into multidecade contracts to ship US gas to Europe and Asia.

Is this a partisan issue?

No.

“The failure of US policymakers to aggressively tackle global warming is not so much a Democrat versus Republican matter,” Steinberg said.

“It’s neoliberalism, a form of corporate freedom, that is the heart of the problem. A bipartisan consensus on the need for economic growth has led to a general trend toward weakening environmental regulations,” he added.

The US once led the world in conservation by creating an extensive national park system in the 19th century, Ted Steinberg, a history professor at the US-based Case Western Reserve University, told Al Jazeera.

“That was then. US corporate interests, especially the fossil fuel industry, combined with the one-party political system, in which both Republicans and Democrats indenture themselves to the business class, have caused the United States to drag its feet on global warming,” Steinberg said.

What is the history of Washington’s impact on the environment?

The US has historically been the largest contributor to global warming, experts say.

“As in most countries, US environmental policy has been a response to the problems caused by industrialisation and urbanisation, starting in the mid-19th century and proceeding from there, happening at the local, state and national levels,” Chad Montrie, a history professor at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, told Al Jazeera.

“Much of that policy has been limited and inadequate, especially when corporations were able to exert their influence, but in some cases, it has been ahead of what other nations were doing,” Montrie, who specialises in environmental history, added.

There was a time when environmental policy was bipartisan. The EPA was, in fact, created by Republican President Richard Nixon in 1970.

“It wasn’t until the rise of pro-business politics in the 1980s that Republicans like President Reagan took a hard turn against environmental protections,” Heinz said.

“The Democratic Party continues to believe in environmental protection and climate-friendly policies to some degree, while the Republican Party has become one of the few political parties worldwide that completely denies the scientific facts around climate change.”

How does this affect the rest of the world?

“US policy often sets the standards for policy in other parts of the world, both because of its cultural influence and because of the control that the US has over global bodies like the International Monetary Fund,” Heinz said.

“Right now, the US is actively pushing dirty fossil fuels on the rest of the world and even threatening some of its allies for trying to negotiate new environmental agreements.”

Heinz explained that this pressure, coupled with soaring energy prices, seems to have convinced Europe to retreat from some of their climate goals. Household electricity prices jumped by about 20 percent across the European Union between 2021 and 2022, according to Eurostat data.

Heinz said that if the latest United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP negotiations are any indication, global climate ambition appears to be on the decline right now.

The latest conference concluded in November 2025 in Brazil with a draft proposal which did not include a roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels, nor did it mention the term “fossil fuels” at all. This drew rebuke from several countries attending the conference.

“So long as Donald Trump remains in office, the hope of future generations relies upon the nations of the world coming together and acting responsibly to preserve a healthy environment at a time when the United States has gone truly mad.”

Vancouver, Canada – Prime Minister Mark Carney’s efforts to unite Canadians around protecting the nation’s economy from the US are hitting roadblocks as he nears one year in power.

Indigenous peoples across Canada are increasingly divided over Carney’s aggressive push to expand resource extraction and projects on their ancestral lands.

Some experts question how his government can advance its agenda while respecting Indigenous rights enshrined in the country’s constitution.

March 14 will mark one year since Carney, former head of Canada’s central bank, was sworn into office.

After an election last year, his centrist Liberal party formed a minority government with the highest share of the popular vote in 40 years.

A key to Carney’s victory was his pledge to “stand strong” against US trade threats and grow Canada’s economic sovereignty, an assertive approach the prime minister has called “elbows up”.

“In the face of global trade shifts … we will build big and build fast to create a stronger, more sustainable, more independent economy,” Carney said in a statement on March 6.

Part of that push was to create a Major Projects Office to speed up approvals of economic developments, starting by fast-tracking 10 mega-projects.

They include two massive liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants and an open-pit mine in British Columbia, a nuclear plant in Ontario, a Quebec shipping terminal, and wind power in Atlantic Canada.

Those developments are worth 116 billion Canadian dollars ($85bn), the government estimates.

‘Our rights get pushed to the side’

Carney’s approach to the US trade war has gained support from Canadians, according to recent opinion surveys.

A March 3 poll of 1,500 citizens by Abacus Data found that 50 percent say Carney is protecting Canada’s core interests when dealing with Trump — compared with 36 percent with negative views.

“Whenever Canada is threatened, the protectionist nature of the state kind of re-emerges,” said Shady Hafez, assistant politics professor at Toronto Metropolitan University.

“Self-preservation of Canada becomes the priority.”

Hafez, a research associate with the Yellowhead Institute, is a member of the Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation in Quebec.

He said there are growing concerns in his community and others about Carney’s push to accelerate mega-projects across the country.

“For that to happen, Canada needs land, and it needs resources,” Hafez said, “and it takes those lands and resources from us.”

Blowback was swift after Carney pledged to build a highly controversial oil pipeline to the west coast in a late November deal signed with Alberta, Canada’s oil powerhouse.

Carney’s culture minister swiftly resigned, decrying “no consultation” with Indigenous nations and “major environmental impacts”.

And the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), which represents more than 600 Indigenous chiefs, unanimously passed an emergency resolution opposing a new pipeline.

“First Nations people, we stand with Canada against Trump’s illegal tariffs, but not at the expense of our rights,” AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak told Al Jazeera in an interview. “If you want to fast-track anything, you better make sure that First Nations are being included right off the bat.

“Trying to sideswipe or push aside First Nations people when there’s agreements between provinces and the feds — they have to remember that First Nations are here … and they are to be respected in their own homelands.”

The rights of Indigenous people in the country are enshrined in Canada’s constitution.

But too often, Hafez said, in the name of national prosperity, “Indigenous communities have to suffer.”

“Whenever there’s somewhat of an emergency, our rights get pushed to the side.”

But the resistance to the major projects push isn’t universal.

The First Nations Natural Gas Alliance praised Carney’s “much more aggressive” approach compared with his predecessor on developing energy resources.

But the group’s CEO, Karen Ogen, acknowledged there’s a “highly charged environment” on such issues.

“First Nations communities continue to face significant socioeconomic barriers”, stated the former chief of Wet’suwet’en First Nation. “LNG and natural gas development are not just an opportunity; they are a national imperative.

“Billions of dollars in procurement benefits and revenues are flowing to First Nations.”

Call for collaboration ‘on all major projects’

The trade war with the US has galvanised and united many Canadians — but with little acknowledgement of the impacts on Indigenous communities, said Sheryl Lightfoot, political science professor at the University of Toronto.

Lightfoot is vice-chair of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

“These projects, by many accounts, are advancing without full consultation or transparency”, she told Al Jazeera.

“It appears that economic or geopolitical pressures … are being used to justify bypassing Indigenous rights and environmental safeguards.”

But Canada’s Major Projects Office insists it will “seek input, hear concerns and ideas, and work in partnership moving forward” with Indigenous communities — and “will not be skipping over vital project steps including consultations with Indigenous Peoples,” an agency spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement.

“We are unlocking Canada’s economic potential, while respecting our environmental responsibilities and the rights of Indigenous Peoples,”

A significant number of projects on Carney’s fast-track list are concentrated in British Columbia (BC).

Those include two liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals on the Pacific coast — LNG Canada and Ksi Lisims LNG — as well as the electric transmission line to power the sector, and a copper and gold mine.

BC is unique in the country because, historically, very little of its land was subject to treaties between the Crown and First Nations. Canada’s top court has repeatedly ruled in favour of First Nations rights and title in the westernmost province.

All four major projects in the province have proven divisive among the region’s Indigenous peoples — even though several have the backing of individual First Nations governments.

One of those is the massive Ksi Lisims LNG plant, in which the Nisga’a Nation is a direct partner.

Co-developed with Texas-based Western LNG, the mega-project will “benefit all Canadians,” said Nisga’a President Eva Clayton.

In 2000, her nation became the first in BC to reach a modern self-government treaty.

“We are co-developing the Ksi Lisims LNG project on land that our nation owns under our treaty,” she told a parliamentary committee on February 24.

“This project is expected to bring in 30 billion [Canadian] dollars [$22bn] in investment, create thousands of skilled careers, and strengthen Canada’s leadership in low-emission LNG.”

‘Elbows up’ meets opposition

But LNG is fiercely opposed by other nearby First Nations.

Tara Marsden is Wilp sustainability director for the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, traditional leaders of the 900-member Gitanyow community.

“We have a lot more concerns and evidence regarding impacts in our territory,” she said.

“The federal government has done zero consultation on their fast-track list and the projects that actually affect our territory.”

Gitanyow oppose the BC projects on the fast-track list as harming their interests.

She said Ottawa cannot ignore First Nations opposition, even if there is support from others like the Nisga’a.

“They have a right to develop in their own territories”, said Marsden. “But if you have maybe 20 to 30 First Nations whose territory would be crossed — and you get maybe three on board — that’s not a resounding consensus.

“They’re just trying to use this small handful of nations to steamroll over everybody else.”

If Canada truly wants to strengthen its sovereignty and economy, she said, it must do so alongside Indigenous people.

“This is something that First Nations across the country have been saying since Carney took the ‘elbows up’ approach,” Marsden said.

“The government has really just ignored that … and actually now back-stopping these mega-projects with taxpayer dollars.”

Free, prior and informed consent

McGill University economics lecturer Julian Karaguesian served for decades in the Department of Finance and Canada’s Embassy in Washington, DC.

He agreed that most Canadians support Carney’s attempt to boost the economy with “nation-building” projects.

“I think they’re a fantastic idea”, he told Al Jazeera. “But we’ve committed to consultations with First Nations, Metis and Inuit people.

“Once we’ve started compromising on economic and social justice … we can create bitterness. First Nations leaders understand the situation we’re in, and I think [Ottawa] can work with them.”

Even on projects endorsed by some First Nations, the international legal principle of “free, prior and informed consent” must still apply to other communities impacted, said Lightfoot.

That’s “not simply a procedural requirement” to rubber-stamp projects, she said.

“It is a substantive right, anchored in Indigenous peoples’ self-determination and their ability to make decisions about matters that affect their lands, communities, and futures.”

And that could risk slowing down Carney’s hopes to speed through projects if there is no Indigenous consensus — potentially tying more divisive ones up in the courts.

“Failure to include Indigenous knowledge and decision-making early in the process,” Lightfoot said, “can undermine the legitimacy and fairness of project approvals.”

Carney’s ratings among First Nations are “mixed,” says AFN’s national chief. One positive, she noted, is his openness to meeting Indigenous leaders raising concerns.

But with many of the prime minister’s economic hopes dependent on building “national interest” infrastructure on First Nations homelands, Woodhouse Nepinak said the relationship needs care.

“Carney is at a crossroads in his personal relationship with First Nations,” she said.

“And we understand First Nations rights are under threat in new ways by this government.”

Israeli strikes on fuel depots and petroleum logistic sites in Tehran on Sunday saw apocalyptic images coming out of the Iranian capital, as the spilled oil ignited a river of fire, and thick black smoke blanketed the city of 10 million, leaving streets and vehicles covered with soot.

Israel and the United States claimed they were targeting Iranian military and government sites, but government officials and people say civilian structures such as schools, hospitals and major landmarks are increasingly coming under attack. At least 1,255 people have been killed in the strikes since February 28.

What Israeli and US military planners frame as a calculated degradation of state infrastructure is being described by local officials and environmental experts as an act of total warfare, and collective punishment.

Shina Ansari, head of Iran’s Department of Environment, described the systematic destruction of the oil depots as a blatant act of ecocide.

The attacks systematically targeted four major storage facilities and a distribution centre, including the Tehran refinery in the south and depots in Aghdasieh, Shahran, and Karaj. In the Shahran district, witnesses reported unrefined oil leaking directly into the streets as temperatures hovered around 13C (55F).

Ansari from Iran’s Department of Environment stated that the environment remains the silent victim of the war, noting that the incineration of vast fuel reserves has trapped the capital under a suffocating shroud of pollutants.

The medical and environmental fallout is immediate and severe. The Iranian Red Crescent Society warned that the smoke contains high concentrations of toxic hydrocarbons, sulphur, and nitrogen oxides. The organisation noted that any rainfall passing through these plumes becomes highly acidic, posing risks of skin burns and severe lung damage upon contact or inhalation.

Ali Jafarian, Iran’s deputy health minister, told Al Jazeera that this acid rain is already contaminating the soil and water supply. Jafarian added that the toxic air poses a life-threatening risk to the elderly, children, and those with pre-existing respiratory conditions, prompting authorities to advise residents to remain indoors.

The destruction has also forced the Iranian Ministry of Petroleum to slash daily fuel rations for civilians from 30 litres [8 gallons] to 20 litres [5 gallons]. At least four employees, including two tanker drivers, were killed in the depot strikes.

The strategic bombing myth

Major General Mamoun Abu Nowar, a retired Jordanian military analyst, told Al Jazeera that the primary objective of the strikes is to break the resilience of the Iranian people and paralyse the country’s logistics and economy.

“They are preparing the Iranian environment for an uprising against the regime,” Abu Nowar said, adding that the broader goal is to halt state operations and curb Tehran’s regional influence.

However, Abu Nowar raised urgent concerns about the specific munitions deployed, urging Iranian authorities to investigate the bomb fragments given the unusual density of the smoke and the resulting acid rain.

Some military strategists argue that striking an adversary’s vital infrastructure can paralyse the state from the inside out, bypassing the need to fight its military forces directly.

Modern warfare has increasingly relied on this strategic bombing via precision drones and missiles to destroy morale and incapacitate an adversary’s ability to wage war. For Israel, which is engaged in a genocidal war in Gaza and wider regional conflicts, targeting oil depots is viewed as a way to send a coercive message while avoiding a ground war.

However, Adel Shadid, a researcher in Israeli affairs, told Al Jazeera Arabic that the strategy is designed to make life hell for ordinary Iranians in hopes of sparking an uprising. Shadid noted a glaring contradiction in the rhetoric of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who claims to support the Iranian people while overseeing the destruction of their basic means of survival.

Raphael S Cohen, director of the Strategy and Doctrine Program at the RAND Corporation, notes that such bombing campaigns consistently fail to achieve their primary goal of breaking a population’s will. Instead, Cohen argues, strategic bombing typically produces a rally-around-the-flag effect, unifying societies against a common foe rather than causing them to capitulate.

Historical echoes and retaliation

The reality of targeting oil infrastructure rarely aligns with sterile military theory, as history shows that such tactics reliably produce devastating, long-term environmental consequences.

During the 1991 Gulf War, the torching of Kuwaiti oil wells created a regional environmental catastrophe. Similarly, during the battle against ISIL (ISIS) in Iraq, the burning of the Qayyarah oil fields created a “Daesh Winter” that blocked out the sun for months.

The fires released vast quantities of toxic residues, including sulphur dioxide and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, causing severe respiratory illnesses, soil acidification, and long-term carcinogenic risks for the local population.

Meanwhile, Mokhtar Haddad, director of the Al-Wefaq newspaper, told Al Jazeera Arabic that the targeting of energy hubs could trigger a global energy war.

According to Al Jazeera’s Sohaib al-Assa, reporting from Tehran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has already retaliated by striking the Haifa oil refinery and targeting a US base in Kuwait, signalling that the conflict is no longer confined to military targets.

On Monday, Bahrain’s state-run oil company Bapco declared force majeure after waves of Iranian strikes targeted its energy installations. Iran has also been accused of also targeting energy facilities in other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.