Occidental’s Greenwashing on Squamish Nation Land: Agreements, Power Sources, and Policy Contradictions

Introduction

Carbon Engineering's Direct Air Capture facility in Squamish, BC.

Background and Context

Occidental Petroleum (Oxy), through its subsidiary Oxy Low Carbon Ventures, is involved in a Direct Air Capture (DAC) facility located in Squamish, British Columbia – territory of the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw (Squamish Nation). This land is unceded, meaning it was never surrendered by treaty and remains subject to Squamish Nation’s title and rights. The DAC project originated with Carbon Engineering (CE), a Canadian clean-tech company founded in 2009, which built a pilot DAC plant on Squamish’s waterfront in 2015squamishchief.com. Carbon Engineering’s technology captures carbon dioxide (CO₂) from ambient air and can synthesize it into hydrocarbon fuels. By December 2017, the Squamish pilot was successfully pulling CO₂ from the atmosphere and converting it into synthetic fuel on-siteglobenewswire.com.

Oxy’s involvement came later as part of its strategy to invest in carbon removal. In 2019, Oxy announced a partnership with Carbon Engineering to develop large-scale DAC, and in 2023 Oxy (via Oxy Low Carbon Ventures) acquired Carbon Engineering outright for ~US$1.1 billionsquamishchief.com. This acquisition made Carbon Engineering a wholly-owned Oxy subsidiary and effectively put the Squamish DAC operations under Oxy’s umbrella. As Oxy aims to deploy DAC plants globally, the Squamish facility serves as an innovation and research hub for the technology. The question arises: how was Oxy (and Carbon Engineering) able to build and operate this facility on Squamish Nation’s traditional territory, and what agreements with the Indigenous nation were made?

Agreements with the Squamish Nation

From the outset, Carbon Engineering engaged with local authorities and the Squamish Nation to ground the project in the community. Squamish Nation leaders have been involved in planning the Squamish Oceanfront development where the DAC plant is located. In 2017, a Statement of Cooperation was signed by the Squamish Nation, the District of Squamish (municipal government), Carbon Engineering, and developers, with support from the University of British Columbia’s Clean Energy Research Centresquamish.casquamish.ca. This partnership created the “Squamish Clean Technology Association,” aiming to establish the Oceanfront as an innovation hub for clean energy – explicitly within the Squamish Nation’s traditional territorysquamish.ca. The Squamish Nation’s inclusion signaled consent and collaboration rather than opposition. It appears that the Nation agreed to (and even co-promoted) the DAC project as part of a vision for local climate solutions and economic development.

While specific contract terms (e.g. revenue sharing or land lease details) have not been made public, the Nation’s participation suggests certain benefits and conditions were secured. Likely local jobs, training opportunities, and cultural respect were part of the understanding. Indeed, the federal government noted that Carbon Engineering’s expansion in Squamish would create “450 jobs as well as co-operative learning positions” and keep intellectual property in Canadacanada.ca – outcomes that would benefit local communities including Squamish Nation members. Carbon Engineering also sought Squamish Nation input on the project’s design; for example, they hired cultural consultants to ensure facilities reflected Indigenous values (as evidenced by a request for Squamish cultural consultancy servicesnationtalk.ca). In short, the Squamish Nation gave formal support to the DAC facility through cooperative agreements, on the premise that it would advance climate action and provide community benefits on their land.

It’s important to note that the Squamish DAC installations are on Squamish Nation ancestral lands but not on an Indian Reserve – meaning provincial and municipal permits were involved as well. Because the land is unceded, the Nation’s approval was morally and politically crucial, even if Canadian law did not require full consent for an off-reserve development. In this case, the Nation was not an adversary but a partner, helping enable Carbon Engineering (now Oxy) to operate there legitimately. This stands in contrast to many resource projects in BC that proceed over Indigenous objections. By embracing this project, the Squamish Nation demonstrated a proactive approach to climate innovation. As we’ll see, however, the nature of the project’s energy source and purpose raises complicated questions about environmental impact and climate justice from an Indigenous perspective.

The DAC Facility and Use of Hydroelectric Power

Direct Air Capture is energy-intensive. The Squamish DAC plant requires significant electricity to suck in air, run chemical reactions, and generate fuels. In British Columbia, the electricity grid is overwhelmingly powered by hydroelectric dams. Carbon Engineering tapped into BC’s grid to run its Squamish operations – meaning the DAC facility is powered by hydroelectric energynationalgeographic.com. This was touted as a feature: unlike DAC prototypes elsewhere that might use fossil power, the Squamish plant could claim near-zero-carbon operation by using BC’s “clean” hydro power. National Geographic reported that “the pilot plant in Squamish uses renewable hydro power” for its processesnationalgeographic.com. Thus, no fossil-fueled electricity or any on-site nuclear reactor is involved (nuclear energy is explicitly off-limits in BC, as discussed later).

Using hydroelectricity aligns with BC’s branding of its power as green and renewable. But from the Squamish Nation’s vantage point, hydro power is a double-edged sword. Large-scale hydroelectric projects have long wrought environmental damage in Indigenous territories. Even “run-of-river” operations can disrupt river ecosystems. In the Squamish area itself, BC Hydro’s decades-old Daisy Lake Dam on the Cheakamus River has interfered with salmon runs. In late 2021, a routine dam water release turned disastrous when flow rates were not properly managed: water levels dropped too quickly after a spill event, stranding thousands of spawning salmon. Over 7,000 fish (mostly pink salmon) died in that single incidentsquamishchief.com. The Squamish Nation and local conservationists were outraged – the Nation stated the event “shaken our confidence that this Cheakamus facility can ever operate in a manner that recognizes the value of Indigenous ways in respecting and protecting our lands, waters, and the life within it”squamishchief.com. In other words, the Squamish Nation directly called into question the ability of a hydroelectric dam to coexist with their values and salmon stewardship. This was not an isolated critique: it followed a similar fish kill in 2019, and such occurrences are a known problem with dam operations province-widesquamishchief.com.

For the Squamish people and many Coast Salish peoples, wild salmon are a cultural keystone and traditional food source. Anything harming salmon strikes at the heart of their livelihood and rights. So while the DAC facility’s exclusive use of hydro power might satisfy carbon accounting, it does not erase the local ecological cost of that power. BC’s hydro reservoirs have flooded sacred valleys and extinguished fisheries on many rivers (the Columbia River dams eliminated salmon in the upper Columbia; the ongoing Site C dam project in Treaty 8 territory threatens burial grounds and hunting lands, to name two examples). These impacts have often occurred without Indigenous consent – a stark injustice given the benefits of hydro largely flow to urban and industrial users elsewhere.

In the Squamish case, the Nation presumably accepted the trade-off: powering a carbon capture facility with BC Hydro’s energy was seen as acceptable to advance climate solutions. Nevertheless, it’s worth questioning the “clean” label of hydroelectricity. The DAC plant’s carbon footprint may be low, but it is indirectly tied to environmental harm that disproportionately affects Indigenous communities. This contradiction – relying on a “green” energy source that carries unacknowledged colonial impacts – is central to the broader critique of BC’s energy policy we will discuss. Clean energy isn’t necessarily just energy, especially when measured beyond greenhouse gases.

Synthetic Fuels Production (and Why the Plant Isn’t Nuclear-Powered)

One notable aspect of the Squamish DAC project is that it doesn’t just capture CO₂; it turns the carbon into synthetic fuels (SF). Carbon Engineering pioneered an “Air to Fuels” process: combining captured CO₂ with hydrogen (via water electrolysis) to synthesize hydrocarbons like gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel. The facility has produced these synthetic fuels in pilot quantities. In fact, Carbon Engineering has been “converting [CO₂] into fuels since December 2017” at the Squamish plantglobenewswire.com. The output is chemically identical to conventional fuels and can be used in today’s engines, but when burned it releases only the CO₂ that was originally taken from air – making it near carbon-neutral on a lifecycle basis. Squamish even envisioned using these fuels in municipal vehicles as a climate initiativesquamish.casquamish.ca.

It should be clarified that the Squamish DAC facility is not producing energy for the grid, nor is it powered by any on-site generation. In particular, it is not nuclear-powered. British Columbia has a legal ban on nuclear power. The BC Clean Energy Act of 2010 prohibits both building nuclear reactors in the province and uranium miningenergynow.ca. This ban reflects public and political resistance to nuclear energy in BC. As a result, nuclear power doesn’t enter the picture for any BC-based project – the law “aims to achieve B.C.’s energy objectives without the use of nuclear power”energybc.ca. So, even if one imagined a small modular reactor providing emissions-free heat or electricity for DAC, that would be illegal under current BC policy. The only power source for the DAC plant is the BC Hydro grid, i.e. predominantly hydroelectricity.

For completeness: some may wonder if the DAC plant itself is akin to a “nuclear” facility given its futuristic air-capture technology. It is not. The process involves fans, chemical contactors, and reactors for converting CO₂, but all running on electric and natural gas heat inputs (the Squamish pilot uses electric heaters; larger designs might use gas or waste heat). There are no radioactive materials or nuclear reactions involved at all. The mention of nuclear here is relevant solely because of BC’s energy policy stance, which we will analyze as potentially misguided in the context of climate change and Indigenous rights.

Public Funding and Greenwashing Concerns

Who is financing this facility, and is there government support? Yes – both federal and provincial actors have backed the project financially, raising questions about the motives and outcomes. In June 2019, the Government of Canada announced a major investment in Carbon Engineering: $25 million in federal funds toward the company’s $114-million project to build out its Squamish Innovation Centre and advance the design of a commercial-scale DAC plantcanada.cacanada.ca. The investment was framed as support for clean technology and job creation. “Our government firmly believes the economy and a clean environment go hand in hand,” said the federal Innovation Minister, touting Carbon Engineering’s work as cutting emissions while creating “good middle-class jobs”canada.cacanada.ca. This $25M likely came through a federal clean tech fund (Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s programs).

In addition to direct funding, Canada has introduced strong tax incentives for carbon removal projects. Notably, in 2022 the federal government unveiled a 60% investment tax credit for DAC capital expendituresabout.bnef.com – one of the most generous such credits in the world. This means a company like Oxy can write off a majority of its costs for DAC equipment in Canada, at taxpayer expense. While these incentives are meant to accelerate climate solutions, they also benefit Oxy’s bottom line if it builds DAC plants here. (By comparison, the U.S. provides an operational credit of $180 per ton captured under the 45Q program, and has awarded large grants for DAC hubs, including Oxy’s Texas projectabout.bnef.com.)

The Province of BC has been supportive in non-monetary ways – promoting the project as part of its CleanBC climate strategy – though we didn’t find record of a direct provincial grant specific to the Squamish DAC. Indirectly, BC Hydro’s provision of low-cost electricity is a subsidy of sorts (BC has among the cheapest power rates in Canada, thanks to public hydro). Local government (District of Squamish) also facilitated the project by zoning land and issuing permits (even extending a Temporary Use Permit when a lapse was discovered, to keep Carbon Engineering’s pilot runningsquamishchief.com). In sum, public sector support has been instrumental in making the Squamish DAC facility a reality.

This public support raises the issue of greenwashing. Are governments and Oxy using this high-profile DAC project to present a greener image, without tackling deeper issues? From one angle, funding carbon removal technology is a legitimate climate action – negative emissions may be required to meet Paris Agreement goals. However, critics point out that oil companies like Oxy benefit disproportionately from such projects in terms of PR and potential future credits. Oxy has branded itself a leader in “net zero” oil production. In fact, Occidental has gone so far as to market a concept of “net-zero oil” – essentially oil that is produced in conjunction with air-captured carbon offsets. In 2022, Oxy signed a deal to deliver “net-zero oil” to a buyer by pairing crude oil with an equivalent amount of CO₂ removed and sequestered from the atmosphereciel.org. The idea is to use DAC technology (like that developed at Squamish) to offset emissions from the entire life-cycle of the oil. Environmental advocates dub this a cynical smokescreen: a way to keep pumping oil under the guise that it’s climate-neutral. The Center for International Environmental Law noted that Oxy’s net-zero oil still involves enhanced oil recovery (injecting the captured CO₂ into wells to pump more oil), and lifecycle analyses show it’s far from truly zero emissions – one study found only a 27–30% net reduction per barrel, not 100%ciel.org. Calling this “net-zero” arguably stretches the definition to a breaking point, potentially misleading the publicciel.org.

Seen through this lens, the Canadian government’s support for Oxy/Carbon Engineering could be aiding corporate greenwashing. Taxpayer money helps Oxy develop DAC, which Oxy can use to claim climate leadership while continuing its core business of oil extraction. Rather than requiring oil companies to cut production, governments may find it politically easier to fund high-tech carbon removal projects and declare progress. There is a risk of mitigation deterrence – i.e. reliance on future CO₂ removal to justify current emissionsciel.org. The Squamish project can be cited in glossy sustainability reports and political speeches, but its actual contribution to climate mitigation so far is very small (the pilot captures <1 tonne CO₂ per day). Some analysts indeed label direct air capture, in its current nascent form, as “Big Oil’s latest smokescreen” – a public relations strategy to delay hard choicesciel.org.

That said, it’s important to acknowledge the other perspective: Indigenous groups like the Squamish Nation and many local stakeholders likely support DAC technology for sincere reasons – to combat climate change and diversify the economy. The federal funding to Carbon Engineering was not given to Oxy per se (at the time, Oxy hadn’t bought the company yet) but to a Canadian clean-tech venture that was seen as a world leader in its field. The challenge for policymakers and watchdogs is ensuring that such support isn’t merely enabling an oil company to polish its image. If DAC projects become an excuse to avoid cutting emissions or to persist with environmentally harmful practices (like hydrocarbon expansion or harmful hydro dams), then the label of greenwashing is deserved. This tension underlies the case we present: BC and Canada want to appear at the forefront of climate action (with projects like Squamish DAC), yet they maintain policies that favor certain industries and energy sources with problematic impacts.

BC’s Flawed Energy Policy: Banning Nuclear, Embracing Harmful Hydro

British Columbia’s energy policy contains a glaring contradiction highlighted by this case. On one hand, BC has a statutory ban on nuclear energy development, positioning itself as anti-nuclear and pro-renewable. On the other hand, BC heavily promotes and invests in large hydroelectric projects – even when these projects cause significant harm to Indigenous peoples and ecosystems. This double standard can be seen as a flawed and colonial energy policy, wherein certain low-carbon options are rejected due to perceived risks, while others with known detrimental impacts are pursued and labeled “clean.”

The Nuclear Ban: BC’s government passed the Clean Energy Act in 2010, which explicitly forbids nuclear power plants (and uranium mining) in the provinceenergynow.ca. This made formal a long-standing political stance: for decades BC leaders and the public have been opposed to nuclear energy, influenced by fears of accidents (like Chernobyl, Fukushima) and concerns over radioactive waste. As a result, unlike Ontario (which gets ~60% of its electricity from nuclear reactors) or New Brunswick (with one nuclear plant), BC has zero nuclear power and no plans for any. BC is proud of this ban, often held up as part of its green identity. In fact, BC officials boast of the province’s “tremendous hydroelectric resources” and have not “seriously entertained the possibility” of alternatives like nuclearenergynow.caenergynow.ca. Successive governments have considered hydro, wind, solar, and natural gas for electricity generation, but not nuclear – which remains politically taboo.

Reliance on Hydro: Instead, BC relies on an extensive network of dams and generating stations for roughly 90% of its electricity. From an emissions standpoint, this has kept BC’s electricity very low-carbon. But the social and ecological costs have been high. Many of BC’s hydro dams were built in the mid-20th century, when Indigenous communities had no say. Valleys were flooded without consent, gravesites submerged, and entire salmon migrations blocked. For example, the damming of the Peace River for a series of projects (W.A.C. Bennett Dam in the 1960s, now the Site C dam under construction) has severely impacted the Treaty 8 First Nations in northeastern BC – eroding hunting grounds, altering river flow, and infringing on treaty rightsamnesty.orgamnesty.org. In the northwest, the Columbia River Treaty with the U.S. led to huge dams that permanently extirpated salmon from the upper Columbia Basin, devastating First Nations fisherieswildsalmon.org. These are historic wounds that remain largely unaddressed. Even today, with BC ostensibly committed to reconciliation, the Site C dam is proceeding despite vehement First Nations opposition and ongoing court cases. Amnesty International pointed out “the persistent gap between rhetoric and reality when it comes to the rights of Indigenous peoples” in the context of Site C’s approvalamnesty.org.

The Squamish Nation’s experience with the Cheakamus River (as discussed earlier) is a microcosm of the continuing impacts of hydro. Spawning salmon can be wiped out by a single misstep in dam managementsquamishchief.com, and even in normal operation, dams often reduce biodiversity and affect water quality downstream. Yet BC’s policy framework heavily favors hydro: it defines large hydro as “clean energy” and counts it toward climate goals, whereas nuclear is not even considered as an option to reduce fossil fuel useenergynow.ca. This bias can be seen as incoherent when viewed through an environmental justice lens. Why is a nuclear power plant – which would emit no CO₂ and occupy a relatively small site – utterly forbidden, while mega-dams that irreversibly transform vast landscapes are celebrated? The official answer might be nuclear accident risk and waste vs. the belief that dams are controllable and renewable. But to an Indigenous community losing a river or a valley, the distinction offers little comfort.

The energy policy inconsistency is also counter-productive for climate change in the long run. BC’s electricity demand is rising (especially with plans to electrify transport and LNG projects), and climate change itself is straining hydro output through droughts and reduced snowmeltenergynow.caenergynow.ca. If BC refuses to reconsider nuclear, it might resort to more dam-building or increased natural gas generation to meet future needs – leading to more ecological damage or higher emissions. The Resource Works think-tank argues that “by refusing to strike down the [nuclear ban] law,” BC has made itself an outlier, even as other provinces now explore small modular reactors to tackle climate and energy needsenergynow.ca. In 2024, voices in BC have started calling for a re-examination of the nuclear option in light of these challengesenergynow.caenergynow.ca.

Implications for Indigenous and Climate Justice: BC’s stance effectively says no to nuclear energy (which, if well-managed, produces minimal local pollution), but yes to hydro (which inevitably alters ecosystems relied on by Indigenous nations). This could be viewed as a policy rooted more in politics than in principle. If the principle were truly minimizing harm, one would weigh all low-carbon options, including state-of-the-art nuclear, and measure their full impacts on communities. Instead, BC’s current approach disqualifies one of the most potent decarbonization tools available. From a justice perspective, this looks problematic: Indigenous communities were never asked if they would prefer a nuclear plant on settler territory to further damming of their rivers, for example. That conversation hasn’t happened because nuclear has been off the table by default. In framing a case for legal and policy review (as we might present to scholars like Val Napoleon and the Environmental Law Centre), this inconsistency is key. It suggests that BC’s energy law is not fully aligned with its reconciliation commitments or the urgent need to decarbonize without destroying more ecosystems.

Nuclear Realism as a Path Forward

“Nuclear realism” offers an alternative paradigm – one that could better serve both climate goals and Indigenous rights if executed with care. Nuclear realism is essentially the stance that nuclear power should be judged on empirical evidence and potential benefits, rather than presumed fears or outdated stigma. It recognizes that no energy source is without impacts, but it emphasizes the relative advantages of nuclear in a world facing a climate crisis.

France’s Model: A powerful example of nuclear’s potential is France. In response to the 1970s oil shocks, France decided to invest heavily in nuclear energy to ensure energy independence and cut reliance on fossil fuels. The result was the Messmer Plan which rapidly built a fleet of reactors. Today, about 68 reactors supply ~75% of France’s electricityenergybc.ca, giving France one of the lowest per-capita electricity emissions among industrialized nations. This massive decarbonization of the power sector was achieved in roughly two decades. France proved that a modern economy could be run predominantly on nuclear power. Importantly, France’s landscape and rivers were spared from extensive damming because the energy need was met by reactors rather than new hydro projects. (France does have some big dams in the Alps, but nowhere near the hydro development of, say, Canada or China.) For Indigenous and local communities in France, nuclear plants did not cause the kind of widespread displacement that hydro projects have caused in BC – the footprint is much smaller. Of course, nuclear energy has different issues (waste management, accident risk), but France has operated for decades without major incident and is working on long-term solutions for spent fuel. In the meantime, French consumers enjoy relatively stable low-carbon power, and France as a nation can claim leadership in climate-friendly energy.

The lesson for BC (and others) is that nuclear power, done right, can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions without requiring the flooding of valleys or damming of salmon rivers. A single 600 MW nuclear plant can generate as much carbon-free electricity as several large dams (depending on the river). The land disturbed per kWh is orders of magnitude lower for nuclear than for hydro or wind. In a province so concerned with preserving wilderness and respecting Indigenous territories, it seems counter-intuitive that nuclear is summarily dismissed. Nuclear realism would urge BC to at least study where small reactors or advanced nuclear could be deployed as an alternative to damaging projects. This doesn’t mean forcing nuclear on unwilling communities – but it means giving communities and decision-makers the full range of options to consider. For example, if a remote First Nation in BC’s north needs reliable power, would they prefer a small modular reactor on a brownfield site, or a series of new dams on their rivers? The current law denies them that choice.

Global South Relevance – Niger Delta: Expanding our view globally, a nuclear-inclusive strategy could aid climate justice in regions like the Niger Delta in Nigeria. The Niger Delta is an oil-rich region that has endured devastating pollution and social harm from oil extraction. Since oil was discovered there in 1956, “people in the region have continued to endure both social and environmental degradation, mostly due to oil spills” and industry impactsfairplanet.org. Decades of spills by multinational oil companies (Shell, Eni, others) have fouled the water and destroyed fishing livelihoods. Gas flaring from oil wells has emitted pollution and greenhouse gases, contributing to climate change. This is a textbook case of environmental injustice: local communities suffer health problems and lose traditional lands, while the oil serves global energy demand and corporate profits. Climate change, driven by burning that very oil, then circles back to hit vulnerable communities (flooding, heat, etc.).

How does nuclear energy relate? If the world aggressively pursues nuclear (alongside renewables) to move off fossil fuels, the demand for oil could plummet in the coming decades. That in turn could reduce the pressure for ever-riskier oil extraction in places like the Niger Delta. Essentially, a successful global energy transition to low-carbon sources would mean oil companies have less incentive to drill and maintain operations in ecologically sensitive or unstable regions. In an even more direct sense, countries in the Global South can consider nuclear power as part of their own energy mix to leapfrog fossil fuels. Nigeria itself has expressed interest in nuclear energy for years (signing agreements with Russia’s Rosatom, for instance, though projects haven’t materialized yet). If Nigeria had a stable nuclear power program, it might generate electricity without needing to burn as much diesel or gas, and could conserve more of its gas for value-added uses rather than flaring.

Of course, nuclear projects are capital-intensive and require strong governance – challenges for many developing nations. But there are emerging models, like smaller reactors and international partnerships, that could make nuclear accessible beyond the richest countries. The key point is that nuclear realism connects climate action with human rights: it refuses to write off a whole class of technology that could mitigate climate change dramatically. By keeping nuclear on the table, we expand the toolkit for decarbonization, which ultimately benefits frontline communities globally who are hit first and worst by both climate change and destructive extractive activities. The Niger Delta’s plight underscores the urgency – continued reliance on oil is literally toxic for such communities. A world that uses oil for a dwindling number of essential purposes (or not at all) because it has shifted to cleaner alternatives (be it nuclear, solar, etc.) is a world where the Niger Delta can begin to heal and future “sacrifice zones” can be avoided.

In applying nuclear realism to BC’s context: one could imagine BC contributing to this global shift by embracing advanced nuclear for its own needs (reducing LNG production, for instance, which currently is slated to expand and ship fossil gas overseas) and by sharing expertise with others. Instead of exporting hydroelectric know-how that might not be applicable abroad (few places have BC’s geography for dams, and large hydro is often socially fraught), BC could be part of a nuclear innovation network, while simultaneously relieving the need for more local dams that impact First Nations.

Conclusion and Recommendations

This case study – the Oxy/Carbon Engineering DAC facility on Squamish Nation land – provides a nuanced look at the intersections of climate technology, Indigenous rights, and energy policy. On the one hand, it’s a story of collaboration: an Indigenous nation engaging with a cutting-edge climate solution, governments investing in clean innovation, and even an oil company shifting its focus toward carbon removal. There is a hopeful element here: if done with true partnership, such projects could empower Indigenous communities to be leaders in climate action, not just victims of climate impacts. The Squamish Nation’s proactive approach in teaming up on the DAC project could serve as a model for how First Nations might influence and benefit from the low-carbon economy of the future.

On the other hand, when we peel back the layers, we uncover troubling contradictions that merit the attention of legal experts and policy reformers (hence why this briefing is directed at voices like Dr. Val Napoleon and the UVic Environmental Law Centre). BC’s ban on one form of clean energy (nuclear) while celebrating another that harms Indigenous lands (hydro) reflects inconsistent values. It suggests that some green narratives in BC have overlooked Indigenous perspectives – considering climate change but not fully considering Indigenous environmental stewardship, or choosing politically palatable solutions over potentially more just ones. Likewise, the involvement of an oil major like Oxy in carbon capture raises flags about motive: is this truly a transition, or a new facade for old practices? Greenwashing potential is high when public relations can tout “net-zero oil” or “direct air capture on Indigenous land” without addressing systemic fossil fuel dependency or historical injustices like hydro dam impacts.

From a legal and policy standpoint, this case highlights a few key arguments:

• Reconciliation in Energy Projects: Projects on unceded Indigenous land, even if environmentally progressive, must involve Indigenous peoples from the ground up. Squamish Nation’s role here seems positive, but it should become standard practice to obtain free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for any project – whether it’s a dam, a pipeline, or a carbon removal facility. BC has passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) to align with UNDRIP; applying it consistently would prevent the double standards seen with hydro vs. other projects.

• Reforming BC’s Energy Ban: BC’s categorical ban on nuclear energy is ripe for re-examination. Laws can change as understandings evolve. Given climate urgency, the development of safer nuclear technology, and the province’s own need for reliable clean power (especially as hydro conditions become less predictable with climate change), a measured repeal or amendment of the ban should be considered. This is not to rush into building reactors, but to allow open research, dialogue, and even proposals for pilot projects, possibly in partnership with willing First Nations or neighboring provinces. The goal would be to diversify BC’s clean energy portfolio in a way that minimizes total ecological and cultural damage.

• Holistic Clean Energy Definition: BC (and Canada) should broaden their definition of “clean energy” to incorporate all low-carbon options, analyzed through a sustainability and justice lens. This means recognizing that large hydro is not impact-free and holding it to higher standards (or limiting new large dams altogether). It also means acknowledging that nuclear, despite its challenges, produces extremely low lifecycle emissions and might offer high-value solutions (for example, small reactors providing heat and power to remote Indigenous communities currently reliant on diesel – an idea some Yukon and Nunavut communities are now exploring). A revised energy policy could set stringent safety and waste criteria for any nuclear project, ensure Indigenous consent and benefit-sharing, and simultaneously require that any new hydro project meets far more rigorous Indigenous rights and environmental tests. In short, consistency in evaluating energy options is needed.

• Accountability for Greenwashing: If public money is supporting projects like the Squamish DAC, there should be accountability mechanisms to ensure these projects are not merely token gestures. This could involve transparent reporting of the actual climate benefits achieved (CO₂ actually removed and sequestered, not just captured and used for oil production), conditions that funding cannot be used to enhance oil extraction, and perhaps linking support to commitments by companies like Oxy to real emission reductions in their fossil fuel operations. The law can also play a role by regulating how products like “net-zero oil” can be advertised or whether claims align with reality (to prevent consumer or investor misinformation).

In conclusion, Occidental’s DAC venture on Squamish Nation land encapsulates both the promise and pitfalls of our current climate response. It promises a visionary approach where Indigenous nations lead in climate tech and where even oil companies redirect efforts toward carbon removal. But it also exposes pitfalls: policy hypocrisy (nuclear vs hydro), potential greenwashing, and the risk that we celebrate “innovative” solutions while ignoring ongoing injustices (such as the salmon dying below our dams). For British Columbia to truly champion climate justice, it must align its energy policies with climate science and Indigenous knowledge. That means being willing to change course on long-held biases – including reconsidering nuclear power – and ensuring that “clean energy” doesn’t come at the expense of Indigenous peoples. As we prepare this case for experts in environmental law and Indigenous law, the hope is to spark informed debate and ultimately guide BC toward an energy strategy that is coherent, just, and effective for the climate. The path of nuclear realism, coupled with respect for Indigenous rights, may well provide a more just and sustainable way forward for British Columbia, and a model for others grappling with similar challenges.

Sources:

• Squamish DAC facility history and Oxy acquisition: Carbon Engineering press and newssquamishchief.comsquamishchief.com; GlobeNewswireglobenewswire.com.

• Squamish Nation agreements: District of Squamish news releasesquamish.casquamish.ca.

• Use of hydro power and impact on salmon: National Geographicnationalgeographic.com; Squamish Chief (Cheakamus fish kill)squamishchief.comsquamishchief.com.

• Synthetic fuel production: District of Squamish infosquamish.casquamish.ca; NatGeonationalgeographic.com.

• Nuclear power ban in BC: Clean Energy Act 2010energynow.ca.

• Federal funding for DAC: ISED Canada news releasecanada.cacanada.ca.

• Tax credit for DAC: BloombergNEFabout.bnef.com.

• Oxy “net-zero oil” greenwashing: CIEL reportciel.org.

• Nuclear vs hydro policy critique: EnergyNow/Resource Worksenergynow.caenergynow.ca.

• France’s nuclear program: Energy BC dataenergybc.ca.

• Niger Delta oil impacts: FairPlanet reportfairplanet.org.