Wildfires should not be deemed as ‘natural events’
WHITEFISH RIVER FIRST NATION—Dr. Deborah McGregor explains that the scale and frequency of today’s wildfires cannot be understood simply as natural events.
“If you look at the science, the Great Lakes region traditionally wouldn’t experience fires like this because of the humidity generated by the Great Lakes and the composition of the forests. Boreal forests have always been vulnerable to fire—fire occurred naturally—but not like it does now. Years of fire suppression for timber production, along with forest management practices that favour monocultures of conifers because they’re easier for the timber industry to process, have also contributed. Those practices need to change.”
For Dr. McGregor, however, the underlying issue extends well beyond forestry practices or climate policy.
“The bottom line is that people don’t know how to relate properly to the natural world anymore. You can see that at every scale—from individuals who no longer notice the bees, to families, municipalities, and even international climate change meetings where we’re trying to figure out how to address these issues.
“People don’t notice how every decision they make affects the living world. Do I need to drive to the store, or could I walk or ride my bike? Every decision has consequences. If people truly understood that they depend on the natural world to live, they would notice—and they would care.”
Drawing on the principles outlined in the Turtle Lodge Declaration, Dr. McGregor argues that responding to climate change ultimately requires changing ourselves.
“One of the fundamental ideas is that while the climate is changing, people are not willing to change along with it. That’s a very poignant observation. People don’t want to give up convenience or comfort.
“The world is changing, so we have to change too. That means life will sometimes be inconvenient and uncomfortable. We won’t always get what we want because we’ll have to make decisions for the benefit of the natural world rather than our own personal comfort or convenience.”
Dr. McGregor describes this shift with a word she returns to repeatedly: unwant.
“There isn’t one solution or one technological fix. People are always looking for the solution, but there isn’t one. Fundamentally, it’s about people, their values, and what they’re willing to unwant.”
She offers electric vehicles as an example.
“One of the first climate change meetings I attended focused on getting everyone into electric cars,” she says. “The assumption was that if everyone drove an electric vehicle, we’d reduce emissions and meet our climate targets. I remember thinking that wasn’t realistic for many northern and remote communities, and not everyone can afford an expensive electric vehicle.”
“More importantly, I thought the question was wrong. What makes us think everyone should have a car in the first place? That’s what we need to unwant.
“When I was growing up, most people in my community didn’t own a car. If someone did, they took everyone’s grocery lists and shopped on behalf of the community. There was a sense of cohesion and mutual dependence.
“To me, that’s the point. An electric car doesn’t solve the deeper problem because people—and the values we’ve developed—are the problem. We’ve become disconnected from the natural world. We rarely stop to ask how buying something affects the environment, or justice in other parts of the world, or whether we really need it at all.”
Dr. McGregor acknowledges that this perspective challenges dominant cultural assumptions.
“It’s not a popular thing to say because people associate living more sustainably with being poor, and nobody wants to be poor. But I grew up poor, and I didn’t know I was poor or care that I was poor. What I knew was that I could depend on people, and I had a great time.”
By Jacqueline St.Pierre, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Original Published on Aug 04, 2026 at 15:07
Recent Comments