The Curtain Lifts

Wind turbines arrived in Newfoundland not as a grassroots demand, but as a package deal — bundled in climate rhetoric, green investment language, and promises of jobs. At first glance, the pitch sounded familiar: economic revival through megaprojects, this time dressed up in sustainability slogans. But what lay behind the curtain was far less local, and far less transparent¹.

From the outset, the push for hydrogen and wind was not led by town halls or community petitions — it was driven by a web of memoranda, international climate targets, and financial promises inked between corporations and government bodies. These agreements were often announced after the fact, with the public left to read about them in press releases. By the time people knew what was happening, the framework was already in motion.

This is a pattern baked deep into Newfoundland’s history: outside actors arriving with grand visions, exploiting weak local governance, and turning uncertainty into opportunity. We’ve seen it before with offshore oil, with Muskrat Falls, and with the fisheries. The only thing different this time is the branding. The tools are legal. The justification is green. The agenda is global.

The turbine itself isn’t the real story. It’s a symbol. What matters is the machinery behind it — the contracts that bypass consent, the frameworks that ignore capacity, and the climate narrative that makes it all sound like common sense.

The Deal Nobody Voted For

In July 2022, Newfoundland signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Government of Germany to collaborate on green hydrogen development². The announcement was timed with Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s visit to Stephenville — a carefully staged photo-op framed as a win for both sides. Germany got a narrative of energy security after the Russian gas crisis. Canada got to flex climate leadership. Newfoundland got… a handshake agreement most of us never saw coming.

And it wasn’t the only one. The province stacked several overlapping MOUs in quick succession³, including arrangements with private companies like World Energy GH₂. These agreements were tied directly to federal net-zero policies and global export goals. None of them were subjected to meaningful public debate, Indigenous consultation, or even transparent local briefings.

MOUs like this are “soft contracts.” They’re politically binding, not legally binding — but they commit governments to a direction long before the first environmental assessment or public meeting. On paper, they’re called “vision statements.” In practice, they’re consent workarounds.

The hydrogen push here isn’t about our own energy needs. It’s about other countries outsourcing their climate math. Newfoundland, with its wind and water, got cast as the perfect export hub: lots of space, low population density, and a political culture that still too often defers to “big opportunity” without reading the fine print⁴.

Climate Branding as Land Strategy

The green agenda these days doesn’t just operate as policy — it works as a marketing campaign. Words like “sustainable development”, “climate resilience”, and “net-zero” are the wrapping paper. Inside the box is often something else entirely: a shift in who gets to use land, and for what.

Under frameworks like Canada’s 30×30 conservation target and the Emissions Reduction Plan, massive tracts of land are being repositioned⁵. The 30×30 commitment — to protect 30% of land and water by 2030 — was presented in December 2022 as a biodiversity win. But in practice, it overlaps with infrastructure corridors, industrial siting, and large-scale renewable projects. Conservation language is often rolled out alongside — and sometimes as cover for — the industrial build-out.

For rural and Indigenous communities, that means the land-use questions are often answered before they’re even asked. In Newfoundland, projects like wind-to-hydrogen were green-lit to move ahead before land claim issues, wildlife migration routes, or community planning were resolved.

This is where the term green colonialism fits⁶. It’s when land isn’t seized for oil or minerals, but for the optics of meeting global climate targets. And with that comes a social pressure campaign: if you question it, you’re “anti-environment.” That’s how false consensus gets manufactured — something I’ve written about before in The Playback Loop and Fractured Frontlines. When the world’s watching, dissent gets rebranded as ignorance.

Hydrogen: A Mirage With a Signature

Green hydrogen is being marketed like the crown jewel of clean energy exports. But scratch the surface, and the shine dulls fast. Converting wind power into hydrogen, compressing it, shipping it overseas — it’s energy-intensive, expensive, and often more about political storytelling than practical climate benefit⁷.

Multiple independent studies point to its inefficiency for mass export, its huge land footprint, and its dependency on subsidies to even be viable. The business case doesn’t pencil out without government guarantees. The environmental case gets murky once you factor in the full lifecycle emissions and infrastructure footprint.

So why the rush? Because on paper, it checks the right boxes. Hydrogen looks great in emissions forecasts. It lets European governments claim future carbon cuts. It justifies billions in federal “transition” spending. And it’s catnip for global finance networks like GFANZ (Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero)⁸, which hunt for large-scale green infrastructure plays with high speculative potential.

In this setup, Newfoundland isn’t a partner. It’s a node in a global supply chain — valuable for its geography, not for its sovereignty.

The Cultural Cloak: Soft Power in the Background

While turbines dominate the skyline, the cultural sector often operates in the shadows — helping smooth the edges of these projects. Funding from Heritage Canada, “pride of place” initiatives, and local storytelling programs (like the ABCD Project) get rolled out right alongside development plans⁹.

None of this is accidental. Cultural programming is one of the soft tools of governance. It creates a curated version of “the community” — one that photographs well, speaks in unison, and quietly sidesteps uncomfortable topics. These initiatives look bottom-up, but they’re usually managed top-down. They gather “community sentiment” only after it’s been filtered.

In places like Port au Port, that’s led to public confusion. People are told to celebrate their culture and their “role in the transition” — but not to question the pace, scale, or ownership of what’s coming.

Governance Without Consent

The machinery driving Newfoundland’s wind and hydrogen build-out isn’t just corporate — it’s tied into global agreements, climate finance structures, and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. The Paris Agreement set the climate targets. Net-zero frameworks dictated the timelines. Financial alliances like GFANZ bring the capital. And somewhere far down that chain, local councils and residents get told what’s happening¹⁰.

This is the local paradox in action¹¹: the global depends on the local to deliver, but rarely shares power, resources, or decision-making. We’re left to react to a future already decided elsewhere.

Fighting for a real say in these decisions isn’t fighting against progress. It’s fighting for the right to weigh the trade-offs before they’re locked in. For the ability to say yes or no while it still matters.

The curtain’s lifting. What happens next will decide whether governance follows energy — or the other way around.

References

[1] Government of Canada. “Canada and Germany sign agreement to enhance German energy security with clean Canadian hydrogen.” Aug 23, 2022. https://www.canada.ca/en/natural-resources-canada/news/2022/08/canada-and-germany-sign-agreement-to-enhance-german-energy-security-with-clean-canadian-hydrogen.html

[2] DW News. “Germany and Canada sign hydrogen deal.” Aug 23, 2022. https://www.dw.com/en/germany-and-canada-sign-hydrogen-deal/a-62899992

[3] Offshore Energy. “Canada and Germany bolster hydrogen alliance with first-of-its-kind bilateral program.” Mar 15, 2024. https://www.offshore-energy.biz/canada-and-germany-bolster-hydrogen-alliance-with-first-of-its-kind-bilateral-program/

[4] Reuters. “Canada signs hydrogen deal with Germany.” Mar 18, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/canada-signs-hydrogen-deal-with-germany-cites-need-shun-russia-energy-2024-03-18/

[5] Environment and Climate Change Canada. “Canada’s 2030 Nature Strategy.” 2023. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/biodiversity/canada-2030-nature-strategy.html

[6] Dunlap, A., & Jakobsen, J. “The Violent Technologies of Extraction.” Palgrave, 2020. https://www.academia.edu/40646837/The_Violent_Technologies_of_Extraction_Political_Ecology_Critical_Agrarian_Studies_and_the_Capitalist_Worldeater

[7] International Energy Agency. “Global Hydrogen Review 2022.” 2022. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-hydrogen-review-2022

[8] GFANZ. “GFANZ Progress Report 2022.” 2022. https://www.gfanzero.com/progress-report/

[9] Government of Canada. “Heritage Canada Cultural Investments.” 2022. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/funding.html

[10] UNFCCC. “The Paris Agreement.” 2015. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement

[11] Van Assche, K., Beunen, R., Gruezmacher, M. “The Local Paradox in Grand Policy Schemes.” 2022. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956522122000197 (local download)