In August 2008, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated: takes responsibility for environmental protection and enforcement in Arctic This magnificent and unspoiled ecological region is one for which will demonstrate stewardship on behalf of country, and indeed, all of humanity.1Our Arctic waters. Our country. We take responsibility and we are the stewards. Constructions of ownership and acts of boundarydrawing are deeply embedded in this statement. We and our are words that function to exclude and simultaneously claim a space as Canadian. statement also tells us that we are committed to the environmental wellbeing of the Arctic and we will care for the Arctic on behalf of humanity.The unfortunate reality is that consider the political discourses crafted by the Conservative government of Stephen Harper on the Arctic, are encouraged to regard Canada as an Arctic power, to focus on sovereignty and security, and to consider the melting Arctic as an opportunity for economic development. In spite of claims of stewardship, these discourses encourage us to be blind to the realities of climate change, to disregard the problematic nature of sovereignty in an era of global environmental change, and to turn a blind eye to contribution to the looming environmental tragedy. government discourse is also shaped in a way that allows the government to appear to be the champion of indigenous peoples, even to the point of co-opting part of their discourse with reference to climate change. However, the government discourse actually obscures alternative views of the Arctic and climate change and discourages us from looking beyond government statements to see the impact on indigenous peoples. As the government, and some academics, debate the finer points of international law regarding the Northwest Passage, envision future terrorist plots with their origins in the Arctic, and ponder the riches that await us, the Arctic melts.This article begins by examining the dominant themes in the discourse relating to the Arctic as articulated by members of the Canadian Conservative government. In this section I focus on the themes of sovereignty, security, resource development, and climate change. I then turn my attention to an analysis of how the government discourse works to deflect attention away from the realities of climate change, obscures the Canadian contribution to the problem of climate change, and discourages us from seeing the peoples most affected by climate change in the Arctic. article ends with reflections on the implications of a government discourse that is built on antiquated and indeed dangerous understandings of the world in which live.KEY THEMES IN THE CONSERVATIVE ARCTIC DISCOURSECanadian government speeches and policy statements about the Arctic are an interesting mix of romantic invocations of the north coupled with aggressive claims of ownership. For example, announcing the building of a new polar-dass icebreaker in 2008, Harper described the initiative as a major Arctic sovereignty project and then went on to wax poetic about the Arctic and Canadian identity, stating: The True North is destiny, for explorers, for entrepreneurs, for artists. And to not embrace its promise now at the dawn of its ascendency would be to turn backs on what it is to be Canadian.2 Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon has made similar statements that link Canadian identity to the Arctic, romanticize the Arctic, and make power and ownership claims.3 And while leaders muse about the true north (verbally planting flags with their references to the English version of Canada's national anthem), and declare Canada to be an Arctic power, the 2010 policy statement on the Arctic concludes with a statement that would have been appropriate in the Cold War era, as its tone is nothing if not aggressive: when positions or actions are taken by others that affect national interests, undermine the cooperative relationships have built, or demonstrate a lack of sensitivity to the interests or perspectives of Arctic peoples or states, respond. …