CalgaryUrbanite

Green Peace and the Oil Sands: Together At Last

Posted on September 19th, 2009 by Derek McBurneysadsa in Economics, Rants

Hey, so guess what I did today? I dug up some bitumen in the Fort McMurray Oil Sands. I've done it a bunch of times actually.  I had surgery to remove a wisdom tooth yesterday morning and I still did it!  You know, now that I think about it, I haven't even been north of Edmonton yet I've still managed to do it! You've done it too. I don't even know you, but I know you've done it. Greenpeace went up to Fort Mac to protest Oil Sands development, and you know what? They've dug up bitumen too.


I try to keep this site Calgary focused, but I feel justified in turning out thoughts north, since the Oil Sands is reason for a lot of us to be here, and the reason Calgary is the city we know.

Now, I've never actually touched bitumen, instead I constantly order people to dig up the stuff for me. Not directly of course, as fun of an ego trip as that might be - I give my orders to dig up bitumen while I'm at the gas station, or the grocery store. So do you. And so does Greenpeace. The bottom line is that we all create the demand for oil with what we buy. We can't spend money on consuming oil and then tell business to stop supplying it to us. Greenpeace took action to declare that the Oil Sands are a 'climate crime', but failed point out that all of us, including Greenpeace, drive the Oil Sands business. If we understand and appreciate this relationship we have to the Oil Sands, we can start shifting demand away from it. Green power. Buy local. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. Public Transportation. Carpooling. Turns out all those buzz words actually mean something.  All these actions will create a momentum, a global economic shift, that curbs demand for oil, lowers prices, and prices dirty oil out of the market.

Of course, even with taking responsible action, there still aren't many opportunities to escape our oil economy, so we need to demand strong leadership on the issue.  Perhaps that was the message Greenpeace was trying to share.  But if it was, not many will listen.  Stopping down the oil sands tomorrow would destroy the livelyhood of hundreds of thousands of families and that's not an idea that the masses will ever entertain, and why should they?  Shutting down the oil sands isn't strong leadership, it's thoughtless.  Strong leadership is that which places incentives for greener industry so we can transition to a more environmentally friendly future as quickly as possible, without destroying lives.  Hard to believe it could happen? Well, in some parts of the world it is happening right now, although not so much here in Alberta.  We need to demand it.  And this issue, like all environmental issues, isn't partisan. People constantly talk about moving farther to the left, or farther to the right, but we need to finally talk about moving forward.


Hey, that's cool you're telling them to stop the Oil Sands, but what fuel did you use to get out here?

I'm all for making a statement (with non-violence of course!), and Greenpeace turning our attention to the environmental stain, if not disaster that is the Athabasca Oil Sands is noble.  I don't want to make the argument that because they aren't perfect environmental stewards, Greenpeace can't take stands on the environment.  On the contrary, no one is perfect, and letting our imperfections stop us from doing good things is probably the worst argument I've ever heard (and, again, even though I don't know you, I'm willing to bet you've seen someone try to use that argument on the comments section of a news site). I'm making the argument that asking for the Oil Sands to shut down, without understanding that we are responsible for it being in service to begin with, is misleading and only serves to alienate people against the cause of a cleaner Alberta.

Oil Sands development won't stop by telling everyone it should stop.  Oil Sands development will stop when everyone realizes their own demand they place on developing the oil sands every single day, and starts taking action about it.



5 comments:

Comment made on September 21st, 2009 at 8:33 pm by Mike

MikeThank you for such a great post. You are a very talented writer.
I have a love and hate relationship with Greenpeace.
Cheers

Report abusive comment
Comment made on September 22nd, 2009 at 7:05 pm by Derek McBurneysadsa

Derek McBurneysadsaHey thanks. I agree about Greenpeace. It's nice they are good at generating headlines for these causes, but at the same time they also seem to polarize people on all these important issues with their actions.

Report abusive comment
Comment made on September 23rd, 2009 at 5:46 pm by Tavis Ford

Tavis FordBefore wading into this conversation much further, let's clear up one misunderstanding: Greenpeace's action was a directed effort to have our leaders actually lead on tackling Climate Change. Understanding why that is important requires a bit of an explanation, but it stems from the science-based understanding that, short of an impact from an extra-terrestrial object and global nuclear war, it is the gravest threat facing life on this planet.

When one approaches the issue of Climate Change within the frame that immediate and substantive global action is required (there is no debate in the scientific community on this), then it is immediately clear that action is needed at all levels. At one level, as you have suggested - and, I might point out, is not missed by almost all individuals and organizations - is personal action.

Changing habits, changing lightbulbs, riding your bicycle, adopting a vegetarian lifestyle and so on, represent personal action. These things will be required of the people of this planet, mainly the ones in developed nations for obvious reasons, regardless. However, if one was to calculate their environmental footprint within the city of Calgary, even after committing to the most eco-conscious lifestyle possible, one's footprint would still be slightly over 3 Earth's. Within the answer to that dilemma lies much of the rationale of Greenpeace's (among others') wake-up calls. Namely, the City of Calgary, indeed, much of the province of Alberta and much of Canada are inherently unsustainable. This is because of our heavy reliance on fossil fuel inputs for energy, food-production, and transportation. These things are exacerbated by our sprawl model of growth, a reliance on jobs in the resource sector, and an excessive and growing use of natural resources for every day living. This is a topic unto itself but suffice to say, without government leadership and strong frameworks for transitioning to green jobs, conservation, and ending our addiction to fossil fuels, even if the entire population of Canada were to commit to the lowest possible footprint - a highly unlikely scenario - we would still not accomplish the necessary reductions in emissions.

Indeed, the focus on personal action over industry and government regulation has been usurped to great affect by a public relations and marketing industry intent on diverting attention away from their own unsustainable and destructive practices. The result of which is that we, by and large, perceive ourselves as passive consumers first, active consumers second and citizens and stewards of this land, a distant last. A limited example of is the "Project Porchlight" greenwash brought to your doorstep by Encana and the Government of Alberta. Their marketing material suggests that if everyone in Canada replaced just one bulb with a CFL (which folks are doing on their own, anyway), that it would remove the equivalent of 66,000 cars worth of CO2 emissions from the atmosphere, per year. However, the Tarsands alone, emit the equivalent of 10,000,000 cars worth of CO2 per year - and it's growing.

Already, this comment has gotten a bit long-winded. To cut it short: personal action without leadership and substantive action is not effective on it's own; personal action without a plan to transition to green jobs will result in few options to truly reduce our personal footprints; personal action without stopping the Tarsands is to tacitly admit defeat - to disempower people's ability to collectively create a better planet. To that end, Greenpeace, and every other environmental or social justice organization worth it's mettle, understand the need for transition and adaptation. While Greenpeace says "Stop the Tarsands", they are fully cognizant of the changes that that will necessitate to keep people employed. They also understand, for they have seen the studies and commissioned reports, that it is possible to do so. George Monbiot's "Heat" is one book that outlines an excellent strategy for achieving a 90% reduction in CO2 emissions, for instance.

Having said that, it's important to realize that we can't simply transition to Green Jobs and life as normal can go on. Committing to science-based targets and the limitations of a finite planet necessitate dramatic changes in our way of life, regardless of how many Windmills and organic farm co-ops we create.

Getting back to your article, I will take minor exception to the idea that you're "all for making a statement (with non-violence of course!), and Greenpeace turning our attention to the environmental stain" because you outline many ways in which you are not all for it. Which is a minor quibble and that's okay. Greenpeace is the dissenting voice: the voice that says, "Hey, if we turn up the electrical jolt past the mark labeled 'deadly', we might kill our test subjects." (reference: Stanley Milgram's famous electrical shock experiment in the 60's). While we may not initially agree with dissent or dissenters, they perform a vital function: the awakening of dormant thought; of suppressed morality.

Greenpeace, in this case, is telling our leaders to lead. It is brow-beating our politicians and investors and shareholders into doing what science tells us we must do; what our social conscience dictates we must do (lest we forget the long-lasting effects of turning the Northern half of this province into a toxic moonscape - which cannot be reclaimed, economically or otherwise). It is reminding us we must stop the Tarsands, regardless of employment potential, let alone our personal attachment to $500,000 monster homes and $60,000 trucks and cars and an endless array of consumer comforts. It is reminding us to demand action, transition, and responsible stewardship of this planet and it's inhabitants. It is reminding our leaders that we, the public, are aware of the need for substantive change. If not now, while an orderly transition is still possible, then later, as the Earth's limits remorselessly dictate.

Above all, Greenpeace is telling us that we must do everything in our power as citizens, consumers, leaders, workers, parents, children, corporations, and human beings, to take action right now.

I don't think the discussion around Greenpeace's use of fossil fuels warrants much discussion, incidentally. The task at hand for all of us is that we got ourselves into this messy fossil fuel addicition and, one way or another, we need to get out.

I'm available for a longer discussion in person any time. :)

Report abusive comment
Comment made on September 23rd, 2009 at 6:03 pm by Derek McBurneysadsa

Derek McBurneysadsaWOW! Great comment. Larger than my post itself! You should consider writing for us sometime, or at the very least register a profile here on the site, I'm sure people might want to find out a little about yourself.
I agree with a lot of what you said, and you make good points. I realize I might have tripped over myself a little by saying I support efforts to bring the issue to our attention but then criticize Greenpeace. There is now finally some momentum around stopping dirty oil My criticism lies in that many people are joining the 'stop dirty oil' bandwagon yet carrying on with their regular life style at the same time and not connecting A to B. I feel when Greenpeace takes the stage they don't help connect the dots either and give people a movement to follow without really understanding the work it actually takes. I realize it's hard to get off a complete message with their actions. One of those damned if you do, damned if you don't things I suppose.

Thanks for your insight.

Report abusive comment
Comment made on October 4th, 2009 at 1:17 am by Roberto

Robertocool blog

Report abusive comment
Add a comment

You are not signed on, but you can comment. Your comment may need to be approved, to skip the wait for approval, sign up. If you have an account, sign on.

Search

Share

Share on Facebook
Send to Twitter
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this


Post linked by

Sponsors

Contact us for sponsorship opportunities


 
dmcbdesign