Camels in the Arctic?

Climate change as the Inuit see it: “From the inside out.” NMA nominee: Politics and Public Interest
nunavut

Kuujjuaq spreads out on a riverbank some fifty kilometres inland from the Ungava Bay, and Nain sits at the head of a saltwater inlet in a semi-circle of bold cliffs. Igloolik in May is blinding, surrounded by flat and endless sea ice and land overwhelmed with snow of a whiteness that would be the envy of any detergent advertiser. I pulled into the tiny airport just as the Global Warming 101 expedition was leaving. It had brought Richard Branson on the last leg of a dogsled journey across Baffin Island to persuade the world that, unless reduced, greenhouse gas emissions would obliterate Inuit culture. But what I found in Igloolik was a community not well-disposed to notions of climate change.

As a site of human occupancy, this hamlet goes back some 4,000 years, and it remains singularly mindful of the past. Of all Inuit communities around the circumpolar north, it stands out in the determination of its elders to preserve traditional knowledge, as they know it and in their particular locality. This they have done by means of the Igloolik Oral History Project. A key figure in this venture is John MacDonald, a non-Inuk who has lived in the community for years, is thoroughly versed in the language, and knows something of what moves Inuit elders — the survival of traditional knowledge, in all its diversity, throughout the Inuit world. MacDonald quotes the testimony of Nathan Qamaniq (recorded in 2002): “Now they navigate only by following trails. This slows down learning and makes it more difficult to acquire knowledge about the things that need to be known. . . . We get everything so easy now and do not need to work hard.” So there are trails as in Nunavik, but now as a matter for lament.

Igloolik is further north, and the effects of climate change are less evident than in Nunavik where, for example, the summer boating season is considerably lengthier. In response to a question as to whether climate change might be injurious to the hunting culture of Inuit, Nathan Qamaniq says only that the spring seems colder than before. In a similar vein, as to whether hunting was now more dangerous in the autumn, the answer is merely that the freeze-up was delayed the last few years. Others agree that danger is nothing special and is inherent to hunting — the parkas of the men who have died over the years on the ice of nearby Fury and Hecla Strait would probably stretch from one side to the other.

In his simple constituency office facing the ice-covered shore, Louis Tapardjuk, minister of culture, language, elders, and youth for the government of Nunavut, said there was talk of climate change, but it originated with the southern media. The elders believed on the whole that the climate was never the same. They “weren’t overly concerned.” As he put it, “Change is normal.” And it tends to be “cyclical.” Asked if he himself was concerned about climate change, he replied, “Not at all.” Instead, he was extremely troubled by the erosion and loss of Inuit culture and skills. To strengthen the traditional way of life and the pride and dignity that went with it, he is trying to establish an adult-education Inuit Cultural School that would teach survival skills at several different campuses.

For some in Nunavut, human-caused climate change is part of a media-driven southern agenda that risks sidetracking Inuit from their first priority — cultural survival and self-reliance. A different variant on the same theme was supplied by Leah Otak, who prepares texts at the Oral History Project. Whereas in her view a warmer climate was slow to develop, Inuit culture and language could be lost “in twenty years . . . the way it’s going.” Which reminds me.

Before leaving Igloolik for Arctic Bay, I was told of something that had happened at nearby Hall Beach, one of the original dew Line sites. In the course of modernizing the line in the 1990s, Canada’s Department of National Defence sought to dismantle the old structure, including a couple of steel towers that can be seen for miles. Inuit objected mightily, saying they wanted the twin towers for ease of navigation. They stand there today as a humongous military-industrial inukshuk for a people whose ancient way of life is fast disappearing.

Arctic Bay offers the most dramatic situation of all the villages I visited. A community of about 700 on a bay surrounded by distant mountains, nearby rolling hills, and butte-like bluffs, Arctic Bay is just southwest Passage. Things were very quiet here — a fine young man had committed suicide just before my arrival, and the community was in grief.

More exposed to oceanic influences than Igloolik, those I met in Arctic Bay seemed more inclined to recognize climate changes, if not climate change. Consider the findings that emerged in separate conversations I had with Isaac Shooyook, a full-time hunter, and David Kalluk, a teacher and part-time hunter who was chosen to assist a Japanese biker on a trek to the North Pole in 1985.

In his bustling house, Shooyook told me through an interpreter that “climate change is not abrupt here, where it is still very cold.” Nevertheless, the sea ice had changed. It was thinner, more dangerous. Sea water was less salty, and the soap lathered more easily. According to Kalluk, multi-year ice is less evident in the bay, owing to changes in the prevailing winds, and nearby mountain glaciers are receding rapidly. As to whether these are indications of enduring change, both men ventured that in previous times the climate had been warm enough to permit the growth of forests in the Arctic. Pressed further on whether recent variation in sea ice, glacier, and related conditions might serve as indications of climate change, both reserved judgment. As well, they expressed faith in the ability of Inuit to adapt, whatever the situation. So did the mayor of Arctic Bay, Darlene Willie, who was more receptive to the notion of climate change.

Previous · Page 4 of 11 · Next

12 comment(s)

Brad ArnoldOctober 16, 2007 07:07 EST

It is very unlikely that mankind will cut their greenhouse gas emissions so fast and drastically that abrupt climate change and runaway global warming will be avoided.

Dr James Hansen of NASA says any feasible planetary rescue plan must include a method of removing the excess carbon dioxide from the air. I suggest the low cost method of biosequestration-removing vast amounts of carbon from the air and putting it back into the ground. I suggest seeding an extensively tested GMO into the ocean.

Author Franklyn Griffiths, in the article "Camels in the Arctic" writes "He does not speak of an overwhelming catastrophe that might come from the loss of a livable climate. Nor does he envisage a future in which smarter behaviour somehow allows us to remain basically as we are. Instead, he alludes to change that’s sufficiently severe to compel his people to surrender a treasured way of life in order to survive."

The only options are to either avoid abrupt climate change and runaway global warming, or lose a livable climate. It is too late to matter if we remain basically as we are, or surrender a treasured way of life:

"We now have evidence from the Earth's history that a similar event happened fifty-five million years ago when a geological accident released into the air more than a terraton of gaseous carbon compounds. As a consequence the temperature in the arctic and temperate regions rose eight degree Celsius and in tropical regions about five degrees, and it took over one hundred thousand years before normality was restored. We have already put more than half this quantity of carbon gas into the air and now the Earth is weakened by the loss of land we took to feed and house ourselves. In addition, the sun is now warmer, and as a consequence the Earth is now returning to the hot state it was in before, millions of years ago, and as it warms, most living things will die." (The Revenge of Gaia)

Danny BloomOctober 22, 2007 20:49 EST

This is a very important and insightful article. One thing I wonder about is this, in terms of the far distant future: might humankind need polar cities to house potential survivors of catastrophic global warming events, say in the year 2500 or so? I have created a blog about "polar cities" to pose the question and get feedback pro and con from observers around the world. Google the term "polar cities" or Wikipedia it, and tell me your point of view. I would especially like to hear what Franklyn Griffiths thinks about polar cities, as a concept worth pursuing or just a silly idea.

N. RamsinghOctober 24, 2007 11:26 EST

Asking the Inuit if they see evidence of global climate change is like asking people who live on a small island, who see the erosion of their beaches and coastline, the same question - their answer is relevant, but varied. Some will believe in global climate change, and others only see cyclical climate changes.
A microcosm can not define 'global' climate change, especially when that microcosm see themselves as bystanders to others' actions, i.e. do not see their actions reflected in any perceived local climate changes. It's a question that is not relevant to most of these people, and hence, can not be used to say whether the question of global climate change is relevant or not.
To use the varied perceptions of (not to be argued) most affected populations of 'global' climate change in support of or against climate change is not going to get us very far. All we really see is the playing out of the larger divide in perceptions worldwide.

D ChenOctober 28, 2007 11:19 EST

Firstly, a quick thanks Brad Arnold: I appreciate your comments. In my way of thinking, just because James Lovelock's ideas are terrible and unappealing, does not necessarily make them physically implausible. His academic credentials should be noted. Case in point, IPCC predicted 4 to 6 degrees C average temperature rise is actuallly a death sentence for millions (or billions ?) of people and most ecosystems. Once you start counting in billions of deaths, it would surely be difficult to predict whether the number of surivors (by century's end) will be counted in the billions, millions, thousands, or less. Furthermore, if James Hansen is right, that 4 to 6 degrees C rise might only represent the first half of the long-term temperature rise for the planet due to slow feedback mechanisms. What then is the probable severity of future climate change? Can governments, societies and corporations cooperate, mitigate and adapt sufficently quickly ? CC is clearly not the only issue, the bigger picture has never changed in our political worldview - people kill people for geopolitical reasons. Usually for resources (and more so for water, oil, food, living space, culture, race, religion). Rapidly changing political agendas (and possibly involving nuclear weapons) presents a volatile mix especially if a quick fix for CC is not found. Ideally, the world should uncertake a rapid educational program to explain the full risks of CC. We still need nuclear disarmament and better political systems, population control, sustainable technologies, and fossil fuel substitution. Perhaps a rapid slowing of the global economoy has to be triggered. I would not discount the possibility that Washington is considering that very option. No doubt, some scientists somewhere are undertaking feasability studies for building 10 million CO2 scrubbers and sapce shields etc.

Leslie BarczaNovember 25, 2007 12:00 EST

Griffiths holds a mirror to the lack of imagination within our current culture tainted by the fetishization of technology and material wealth. (and how do i send this message without my PC, without electricity, heat, etc? )

The VERY inconvenient truth is our need to change our ways to avoid killing human life on the planet. Real sustainability? Maybe we should ask the Inuit. The comment from N. Ramsingh ("To use the varied perceptions of...most affected populations of 'global' climate change in support of or against climate change is not going to get us very far") misses the point. Civilization and the objectives of our culture need to be reinvented/rethought to avoid the danger. The Inuit aren't just canaries in the mine, but possible role-models as well.

Maureen Flynn-BurhoeNovember 30, 2007 16:05 EST

How can a Canadian social scientist in 2007 set aside economic development, energy security, youth perspectives, mental and spiritual health issues to focus on climate change as it related to hunting, sea ice, and the maintenance of an Inuit [pre-contact?] way of life? Readers would have benefited from a more accurate thumbnail sketch of the complexity of Inuit everyday life today: linguistic disparities, Inuit governing bodies, local initiatives, the long history of meddling in Inuit affairs by successive waves of interlopers. How much trust and intimacy can you develop in each community as you seek Inuit to gather impressions when the six-week enquiry is divided between tiny, remote towns, communities and hamlets like Nain in northern Labrador; Kuujjuaq in Nunavik; Iqaluit, Igloolik, Arctic Bay in Nunavut; Yellowknife, NWT and the Inuvialuit in western Arctic Ocean communities like Paulatuk and Tuktoyaktuk reached in twenty-five zigzag flights covering 24,000 kilometres? How does that improve the way social scientists put people in the picture in studies of the Arctic? Where is the background context based on Inuit-initiated research? Where are the sources so a public policy researcher can follow through with questions arising from this article? Has this article and lecture by the same name helped in anyway to revisit the distorted history of the Inuit as called for in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996)? It is misleading to suggest that increased suicide will be a future unintended consequence of the destruction of the Inuit lifestyle without acknowledging the heart-rending on-going tragedy of youth suicide epidemic, with rates that are among the highest in the planet, that directly or indirectly touches every northern Inuit community as well as thousands of urban Inuit in the south. How can any social scientist claim a people-centred ethnography while skimming over key social issues and structional changes affecting Inuit lives such as land claims implementation and human rights concerns regarding access to housing, employment, health and education services (the early exit from schooling). Two or three well-edited and well-researched paragraphs could have briefly traced a critical Inuit social history to dismantle some of the commonly held myths about the north. At the end of the lecture did the assistant from PEI understand that Inuit do not live in igloos anymore and that there are Inuit hunters who are politically-saavy individuals with cellphones and computers who travel frequently to regional, national and international conferences. Did no Inuit in his travels mention the northerly creep of flora and fauna? Would Griffiths not have found those who are deeply troubled, skeptical or even optimistic about climate change among Newfoundland fishers, PEI farmers, Alberta ranchers or First Nations hunters? Would isolationist southern fishers, farmers and ranchers not also be found to be conservative, pragmatic and immediate in their responses to climate change? "

Geza C. TelekiDecember 18, 2007 10:05 EST

In my view, as a practicing environmental and social sector professional for over 30 years, Prof. Griffiths goal was to present a snapshot—a different viewpoint on the basis of an insightful, albiet short, visit to selected areas of arctic. I found the article clear, all underlying assumptions defined, and done with great sensitivity. I loved Leslie Barcza's comments and appreciated the depth of Maureen Flynn-Burhoe's commentary we need to take on board. I found Prof Griffith's article a breath of fresh air and something all of us southern do-gooders (me included) should read very carefully. History is replete with examples of where the "educated macro-scale thinkers" have lost sight of the the intuitive, observational and anicdotal accounts of local people on the ground. I think of Griffiths acccount of the polar bear issue! We must seek out and include such data in our "southern thinking and decision-making". No doubt the views expressed by the Inuit are views from 'within'—but my question is why is the south continuing to ignore them. Just think of the Goverment's plan to keep the NW passage Canadian—but with little or no involvement (at least as far as I have heard) of the Inuit? We would do well to listen to their message about adaptation, while at the same time cleaning up our own local CO2 footprints by turning off lights,wearing sweaters, refusing packaging and using a bike instead of a car. I for one am sending the article's web-link to all my colleagues around the world

Danny BloomFebruary 23, 2008 05:05 EST

I got some images on my website now, of polar cities. And Nina Munteanu linked to this site here today.

http://sfgirl-thealiennextdoor.blogspot.com/2008/02/polar-citiesfriday-feature.html

Danny BloomFebruary 23, 2008 05:05 EST

Quick link to SF GIRL blog here above.

AnonymousMarch 25, 2008 18:50 EST

your page is too long and didnt have the info i needed

???????? ??????January 03, 2010 19:17 EST

???????????? ???????? ?????? - ??? ??? =)

??????? ???????????January 18, 2010 12:04 EST

?? ????????? ??? ???????? ???????????!!

Add a comment

  
I agree to walrusmagazine.com’s comments policy.

Canada & its place in the world. Published by
the non-profit charitable Walrus Foundation
TwitterFacebookRSS
On newsstands now
New Issue on Sale
June 2012
Subscribe online for as little as $2.49 an issue. Visit The Walrus Store
to buy prints of our covers
The Walrus Foundation National Event Guide

The Walrus HOOPP Pension Debate
Be It Resolved That Canadians Are Incapable
of Saving for Their Retirement Needs Alone

12 pm, Wednesday, May 30 at
Hart House Debate Room, Toronto

The Walrus Glenbow Debate
Calgary’s Cowboy Culture:
Living Legacy or Just History?

6:30 pm, Thursday, June 7 at
Epcor Centre: Max Bell Theatre, Calgary

The Walrus Laughs
The Walrus SoapBox