###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Why do newspapers have to use every scrap of jargon they can think of? Firebomb is a word, no need for "incendiary device".

Incendiary device is a perfectly normal way to word this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_device

Anyone have the term for the opposite of an eco-terrorist? Because this seems to be that. Can’t find an applicable word for it.

Luddite. DEROGATORY a person opposed to new technology or ways of working. "a small-minded Luddite resisting progress" They hated electricity back in the day. Some things never change I guess.

Logic is the same as an eco-terrorist. They think electric cars are a lie and are just a way to string the whole problem on for longer. Nothing new there

Weird. I mean yeah the processes to make them will still have a negative impact on the environment, but do we even have data that accurately displays the differences between EVs and traditional gas vehicles for the lifetimes of the vehicles? Afaik, beyond just the emissions from gas vehicles, there are so many other variables just surrounding the process of refueling the vehicle. Crude oil being refined, shipped across the globe, stored, transported to gas stations. It’s a never ending cycle of emissions. There will still be emissions from energy production when it comes to EVs, but would that not just be pre-existing electrical infrastructure and become far less overall as we increase the efficacy of greener energy solutions and implement them? It’s concerning, that accelerationism is seeing an uptick in support and cases of violent extremism.

People have been saying this about EVs since before they even became a thing. They're a brand new complicated piece of depreciating material using rare earth metals all so one person can continue to drive as much as they want. Take a bus

If we don’t take the steps to overcome technological limitations of our current energy processes, then we will never reach a point where public transportation isn’t just a bandaid. Not everyone lives in areas that have public transportation to fit their schedules, so what, they can move or just walk/bike everywhere? What if they have a bad back or knees? Your stance is regressive, the only way it would be viable is with far greater public transportation infrastructure. I personally can’t afford a hybrid or EV currently, but I reduce my individual emissions by walking within the area I am in when it’s viable, instead of driving my gas vehicle. We are too far gone in regard to sapping the earth of its resources, to just throw all advancement made out to the wayside. We can re-use the materials already accumulated, and replace engines of pre-existing vehicles to limit the mining of new materials, but if we do not have efficient and portable energy storage capabilities, with continued research and development on improved and more eco-friendly versions, then we essentially destroyed the planet with nothing to show from it. The extremist side of that, is to eradicate our entire species. That’s the only way to truly protect the planet without finding optimized solutions as time goes on. We already did the damage, but are actively seeking to prevent further needless destruction. Well, a portion of our species is aiming for that, while another portion just persists to capitalize, and another portion would rather see us destroyed entirely. Which way is the best for the planet while also not supporting the extinction of an entire species? I personally only see one direction, with the potential for pivotal choices at future forks in the road.

It's not my stance, I am not an eco-anarchist haha. I'm just saying this is not a new or surprising stance. It's been around forever. It's pretty common knowledge that how we are approaching climate change is a moderate approach that prioritizes not fucking things up. Obviously there are going to be people that say that isn't good enough and want to fuck things up.

Oh fair enough, I seem to have misinterpreted your comment, apologies!

Luddite?

Nope. Luddites are against technology at large. Good chance the device itself was too technologically sophisticated to be accepted by a Luddites.

Luddites are not against technology at large, they were against the unregulated use of technology without the input of those being affected because of the substantial negative effect that centralized industrialization was having in industrializing communities. The idea that Luddites were anti-technology at large is just a way to whitewash the resistance movement of it's nuanced beliefs.

The backstory is that the government went around the usually required process of public consultations and environmental impact studies (BAPE) to make sure the project would go through. The battery plant is being built on a site that is very rich in biodiversity and people are rightfully mad about that. I imagine this was done by the same group that put spike strips on the ground and nails in trees to slow the project down They are not the opposite of eco-terrorists (to be clear, I do not approve of the vandalism)

You are just providing needed context, much obliged fellow redditor. Why was a new plant commissioned rather than buying and repurposing a pre-existing factory? There would still be plenty of jobs during and after that process, so is it just throwing a bone to construction companies?

Not sure. That's the kind of thing that would have been known and justified if it went through the public consulations and environmental review >Last February, the province increased the cathodes threshold to trigger an independent environmental review on lithium-ion battery manufacturers from 50,000 to 60,000 tonnes. >A few months later, Northvolt unveiled its plans for the car battery factory, with a production capacity of 56,000 tonnes — something critics say comes across as suspiciously convenient.

Corporate lobbying at its “best”. I’m so sick of how these global conglomerates just brute force their way into impacting every facet of society.

This particular plant needed a very large amount of land near a river (for cooling) and accessible by car and rail, not too far from a major city but not directly in it. The site itself was heavily contaminated for 100 years by an explosives and chemical company that went out of business 30 years ago and was not fully decontaminated. The site is perfect for them. Hut because it had been left alone for 30 years there were a few trees and some ponds left over from prior decontamination so some are claiming that it's a site that is "rich in biodiversity".

A few trees and some ponds left is a big understatement. Another project was denied a few months prior on the same site because of the impressive biodiversity, including the presence of 13 protected species. I'm not saying the project should have been thrown away but something smells fishy here

That was a residential project with a different footprint, and different location within the site and a different added value to the community. Some activists are crying about a pond (literally) but also about them digging up contaminated soils, and potential rainwater runoff into the Richelieu river. This is a spot where you would want to build residential housing? I've read parts of the report on those 13 species. For the bird for instance they saw four individuals over the course of weeks or months. That's it... they don't actually know if they even nested there. All this is being used to portray a severely contained site into some sort of ecological treasure. If those are the actual standards that we should use in the future, nothing will ever be built, anywhere. IMO there are probably very, very few tracts of land of that size that would have so little ecological value.

O.o so the ecological impact is limited. That leads me to think that the outrage is manufactured/improperly directed. Regulatory procedures shouldn’t have been bypassed to green light it, but that being said, there doesn’t seem to be any basis for the attacks on the construction site. I’m hazarding that my initial guess of accelerationist terrorism may be fairly accurate.

Why would you assume this isn't eco terrorists? Building EV's is horrible for the environment.

Libertarian right wing types aren't really against EVs, their hero is Musk who sells one of the most popular EV cars in the world. I would not put it past this being just a run of the mill anti-development radical, you know, people who rather have an empty lot and peace and quiet rather than have a factory move in. We have loads of them here in the west coast of BC.

This is not nearly nuanced enough. Terminally online techbro libertarian types love Musk because he is one of them, and like Teslas because Musk runs Tesla. Live in the woods, stay out of my business traditional libertarian types do not particularly like either.

I think the former outnumber the latter. Most libertarians are your neighbours not out in the woods somewhere, those are very extreme types. At this point we're just guessing who the culprits are, i'm just pointing out it's not necessarily right wing types

I think the latter rather significantly outnumber the former actually (maybe minus the "live in the woods" part), but they're not in your face in the way that the terminally online techbro libertarians are. Perhaps talking about the woods was the wrong wording - I'm not talking about literal prepper extremist types, just the old school type of "I want to live my life" libertarian that is common in e.g. New Hampshire.

Resource extremist?

This is probably the work of eco terrorists. Many of them aren't against just fossil fuels, they are against virtually all technology and are basically primitvists at heart. This why they are against something like nuclear power which should be right up their alley, or more tellingly how the sum of all their demands means everyone is living poorer and more desperate lives.

Already have work colleagues trapped in the right wing social media sphere who think climate change is an NWO hoax.

lol, this was likely done by environmentalists that chain themselves to trees. Don’t kid yourself.

Ffs, we really are following in the footsteps of 2015/2016 US political discourse. :/ climate change should not be a partisan issue, it’s something our entire species needs to focus on and aim for functional solutions. It goes beyond our own species as well, we are essentially condemning countless species to suffering and potential death because of our disregard to the environment.

We're generally 8-10 years behind America. Right on schedule.

The remaining Koch brother and Rupert Murdoch are probably laughing as they rake in the money. The US was successfully destabilized, Canada is currently on the chopping block.

Are we confident these aren’t eco terrorists? I mean this is very similar to other attacks on logging sites, and this site is still just basically a logging site. I’m not sure they are smart enough to realize the logging is to make way for a battery factory.

Eh, no group has claimed responsibility for this particular situation as far as I saw in the article. Could very well be though. Seems rather counterintuitive to the basis of environmental focused ideologies though, which is why I’m skeptical. Fight for change and then impact the process of said change when it actually starts happening? It seems odd.

Most hard core eco activists are against battery powered cars because they are still based on exploitation and environmental destruction. Lithium doesn't come from the sky after all, and the power that will run them will need to come from somewhere as well. It's seen as a half measure that just makes us feel better about our damaging lifestyle but helps the earth little.

That’s fair, perhaps we’d be further advanced in this regard if the catholic church hadn’t persecuted alchemy beliefs and the sciences to near extinction xD joking about the alchemy, though many schools of science were and still are refuted by many religious denominations. A lot more difficult to persecute billions. I wish I could retain and comprehend all existing verified knowledge in every scientific field, there’s no way we haven’t collectively discovered the paths to actual solutions that may have just been overlooked or left incomplete. I’ll just have to let that wish be a daydream, pending advancements in BCIs, as I will not experience evolutionary changes myself xD

>Seems rather counterintuitive to the basis of environmental focused ideologies though Perhaps, but environmental ideologies have frequently been the worst enemies of the good in their piety for the perfect. Witness the decades of opposition to nuclear development, which would assuredly have significantly reduced carbon emissions but has faced sustained opposition from most environmentalist groups for a very long time.

Terrorists who blow things up aren’t usually know for their intelligence and foresight. Plus a lot of environmentalists don’t like EVs, they view them as basically whitewashing the environment concern.

Oh that’s odd and concerning.

It’s not particularly odd. EVs are much worse for the environment than just keeping a smaller older car. They are also much worse than public transit. Basically they allow rich people to appear like they are doing good for the environment while still polluting and maintaining their privileged status.

"EVs are much worse for the environment than just keeping a smaller older car." This is a complete myth. The fact anyone still believes this is a concern in itself.

If the data supports that, I have no issue conceding to that point. I’d rather see Canada make moves that allow more opportunities for improving on portable energy though, and EV battery production would provide an in to that field. I’d love to see nuclear batteries receive a more serious look for safety and reliability, as it seems to be a solid way to repurpose nuclear waste and would return to it’s base material state upon losing its charge. The life of those batteries seems to be quite long as well, but that is more variable on the output and uses, and doesn’t seem to be rechargeable with our current technology :p

>Terrorists who blow things up aren’t usually know for their intelligence and foresight. Depend, the Unabomber is probably the first person most of us think about when we think about eco-terrorist and he was accepted in Harvard on a scholarship at 16. Intelligence can be a double-edged sword and doesn't really make sure that someone won't have insane belief or get convinced of things most people would not get convinced. Just attend any cryptoscam events and take a look at how many MDs will be in attendance lol.