Such an article as the one below is a very good thing to see, in a certain sense. It means, of course, that stage one & two of social action against the tar sands have now been passed: stage one is they ignore you, and two is they ridicule you. Three, of course-- so goes the old saying, anyhow-- is that we are violently opposed.
But is that the usual third stage of environmental issues in the post NAFTA, into the massive foundation granted "activism" era? Would not the next stage be "then they divide you"? Yes, the division of the movement is one that goes along lines of "respectable" and "crazy" or "unreasonable". Such a division, however, is aimed at neutralizing us *right at the time we are ascending* by creating a divide that lines people up into two camps: Those who industry can negotiate with and those they cannot.
Writing from the perspective of the oil-producing ruling class, the following article is summed up by this line:
"We need oil sands critics to come to the table with honest debate and not extreme alarmism. At the very least, Canadians must hold the protest groups to same standards as the industry advocates."
Interesting: We have the world's largest ever industrial project, composed of many many megaprojects making up the most damaging development conceived, systems with no realistic way out other than cessation-- whether that be the tailings ponds, the destruction of the riverways, the poisoning of the communities downstream, the ascent of the greenhouse gas emissions into the stratosphere-- all to produce a mock oil that is nowhere near as useful as regular crude even after being synthesized.
That this is the second fastest rate of deforestation on the planet never gets a mention.
So, given all this, what is the rational view? Should such a project operate at all?
Enter the following statement, made in the Fort McMurray Today:
"Gillian McEachern, senior energy campaigner with ForestEthics [...] said her group is not saying stop oilsands development, just do it better..."
No doubt this will be considered the "rational" voice. It means keep deforesting, keep heating the planet, keep attending funerals in the region.
Organizations such as FE are jostling to become the "legitimate" voice, the ones who an "sit at the table" with the tar sands corporations. They will continue to work hand in glove with the Canadian Boreal Initiative.
When articles begin to come out in even pro-industry rags like the National Post that accept the need to "improve" tar sands but that still need "rational" voices from the "environmentalists", groups that wish to jockey to be just such a rational voice that green-stamps the continued operation of the tar sands will have wagging tails-- knowing this "is their time to shine".
Of course, to get to the next level of attacks from the ruling elites after division will mean getting through the buy-off and legitimate weak, pro-industry and corrupted organizations phase. If we can keep and build this struggle from the grassroots to one of escalating tactics upon tar sands and away from closed door, private meeting "negotiations" then we will get to the next level: they attack us.
The stage after that one, would be "we win".
--M
The anti-oil sands industry
Posted: February 19, 2009,
By David MacLean
Environmental pressure groups have sprouted up across the country in an effort to undermine Canada’s oil sands industry. They portray themselves as righteous defenders of the good, protecting Canadians from the forces of greed and exploitation. But a closer look at these groups reveals a sobering truth: the movement is as much an “industry” as any other and is not above manipulating of science and public opinion to achieve its objectives.
The anti-oil sands campaign is organized, well-funded and follows a distinct pattern. Groups like Greenpeace, Sierra Club and Environmental Defence release frequent reports raising alarm about the environmental impacts of the oil sands industry, which are dutifully reported by media. Without a swift rebuttal, these “studies” become accepted as gospel and are repeated by radical environmentalists in their media talking points around the world.
Take, for example, a damning report released by U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council claiming that between six and 166 million migratory birds will be lost due to oil sands development in Alberta’s boreal forest over the next 30 to 50 years. The report, entitled Danger in the Nursery, garnered extensive global media coverage despite being shot full of statistically invalid data. For starters, the range of numbers is so broad it’s statistically invalid. The report even claims the black scoter, a type of duck, has declined due to oil sands development, although the closest the scoter nests to the oil sands are 1,300 kilometres away, near Hudson Bay.
Prominent ecologist Dr. Kevin Timoney, one of the report’s reviewers, exposed another hole, this one about bird deaths at oil sands’ tailings ponds. In an editorial published last month in The Edmonton Journal, Timoney pointed out how the report “assumed that peak [bird] landing rates exist 24 hours per day for 100 days.” In reality, peak landing rates only occur during migration, which is 1-3 weeks per year, and not for 24 hours a day. Timoney had “discussions with the lead author” to explain the flaw in the method of estimating bird mortality. “I recommended that they either delete the section or use an approach that was scientifically credible,” he wrote. “The authors evidently chose to ignore the advice.”
The report’s contents were then reported in December by The Globe and Mail and other news outlets, before the study was even made available to Canadians. The report surfaced again in recent weeks when the Bishop for the Roman Catholic diocese that covers Fort McMurray referenced it in a pastoral letter condemning oil sands development as a “moral problem.” The Bishop’s letter made news around the world.
The authors claim the report is peer reviewed but the reviewers are anti-oil sands advocates. True peer review is supposed to be anonymous to guard against attempts to influence authors and reviewers. In fact, the entire anti-oil sands community looks less like a bunch of independent groups than it does an incestuous family that’s wholly-owned by massive U.S. foundations.
Millions of dollars flow into Canada each year from a handful of American charitable foundations. One of largest and most influential is Pew Charitable Trusts which directed $41-million to Canadian boreal forest groups between 2003 and 2007. One of the reviewers of the migratory bird report, Larry Innes, is Executive Director of the Canadian Boreal Initiative (CBI), which distributes approximately $2-million in Pew money to environmental and aboriginal groups each year.
If you follow the money that supports environmental outfits in Canada you will inevitably find yourself south of the border. Strange that, while Canadians are generally suspicious of foreign influence on domestic policies, tens of millions pouring into Canada from the United States to undermine the oil sands industry hardly raises an eyebrow.
Canada’s economic growth depends on tapping the potential that exists in the oil sands while ensuring a clean and safe environment for future generations. We need oil sands critics to come to the table with honest debate and not extreme alarmism. At the very least, Canadians must hold the protest groups to same standards as the industry advocates.
Financial Post
David MacLean is vice-president, Alberta Enterprise Group, a non-profit, member-driven public policy advocacy group. www.albertaenterprise.ca
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/19/th...
