The world of oil sands development just got a lot more complicated today. Ecojustice launched a private prosecution against Syncrude Canada this morning over the tailing pond drowning of 500 migrating ducks last April. This event has become symbolic about the ecological concerns around oil sands development, and tailing ponds in particular.
The action is under the Federal Migratory Birds Convention Act that prohibits deposit of harmful substances in areas frequented by migratory birds. This action is aimed at Syncrude but also targets the Canadian and Alberta government on issues of enforcement of environment protection legislation. Both governments promised to pursue the environmental legal issues at the time of the ducks drowning from the residual oil in the tailing ponds.
A recent science-based study on oil sand impact on migratory birds was released by Alberta’s Pembina Institute, the Boreal Songbird Initiative and the Natural Resources Defense Council based in Washington D.C.
The potential long term impact of oil sands development on all migratory birds in the Alberta portion of the Boreal Forest ranged from 6 million to 166 million bird lost in a 30-50 year period, depending on the pace and nature of oil sands development.
This new legal action launched against Syncrude is supported by Sierra Club and Forest Ethics. Forest Ethics are the same folks who effectively took on the Canadian forestry industry a decade ago with the famous full page Victoria’s Secret ads in major American newspapers.
The accusation being made against Alberta and Canada governments are the long delay in prosecuting the “wildlife disaster” of the 500 dead ducks and enforcing the law. The reasons for the legal action expressed by the sponsoring ENGOs is wildlife and human health concerns all around the tailing ponds and oil sands development practices.
There is another Alberta government study in process and pending release on concerns of human health in the aboriginal populations in Fort Chipewyan, down steam from the oil sands. There is no indication when that human health study will be completed and released publicly either.
At a recent meeting in Edmonton with experts and industry dealing with oil sands tailing ponds an industry spokesperson suggested that the solution for the toxic tailing ponds would be to clean up the water and release it into the Athabasca River.
These stewardship and environmental issues on oil sands development are getting more complicated and more energized as time goes on. In our November 2007 research we polled 4600 Albertans on their values about oil sands development. We found the most important issue of concern was habitat protection. CO2, water usage and reclamation were also major concerns from our study. The drowning death of 500 ducks has most of these elements gathered together in one tragic and resonant event.
Stay tuned. With Obama’s environment and economic transformation agenda, this drama has only just begun.
Hooray for Ecojustice! I hope they win the lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand - the dingbats attacking Encana equipment in BC need to smarten up. "Non-violent" protest doesn't just mean that no persons or animals are hurt by the action, it also means "non-destructive". Destruction of property is violence, period.
Son of gaia,
ReplyDeleteIn a country where both the provincial and federal government are in the back pockets of big business, maybe eco-violence IS the only solution left to the people. Is it not violence to kill animals and people as is what has been happening for generations now?
I know violence only begets violence, but sometimes that is the only thing that gets the attention of the perpetuators of violence. Think back to the Squamish Five. Tick for tack.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. - John F. Kennedy
John, that's a bullshit comment.
ReplyDeleteViolence is inappropriate, unless you have a reason basically sums up what you just said - what garbage.
Sorry, John, I can't agree with that. When "the people" adopt the tactics of their oppressors, they risk becoming the very thing they purport to oppose. Abandoning your ethical and moral principles for the sake of expediency turns people into despicable hypocrites. "The ends justify the means" has corrupted the leadership of many "righteous causes" - such as Health Promotion - and must not be permitted to corrupt Environmental Protection.
ReplyDeleteCan the lawsuit against Syncrude be broadened to include the companies that operate wind-power generation farms and to include cities such as Toronto with their high-rise glass buildings? Hundreds of birds are killed daily when they fly into the wind turbines and into tall office buildings. As we move to eliminate power plants that burn fossil fuels, and to replace cars that run on the combustion of fossil fuels with those that run on cleaner energy such as electricity or hydrogen, the need for electrical power generation will rise significantly necessitating the number and size of wind-power generation farms to also rise significantly. The resulting impact on migratory birds will be devastating.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous
ReplyDeleteSorry, I do not respond to Anonymous comments and in fact on my blog, I do not even allow them.
son of gaia,
As long as we continue to live in a society that puts 'property rights' ahead of human life, and allows different levels of government and big business to dictate 'moral and ethical values' based on their 'bottom line', and a court system that at times appears to be deaf, dumb and blind to the travesties that are taking place in our country, I say 'violence' is the only option left to the people, at times.
That old saying "there is justice for the rich and the law for the poor" did not come about by accident. It is OK for a company to poison the environment while killing the animals in it, as well as subjecting people living downstream to health hazards and even death, but it is not okay to blow up a piece of equipment of those that are causing the problem. That don't even make sense to me, but it might to those who 'fear' standing up for what is right.
Some corporations have now grown gigantic; actually becoming global forces with more power and resources than some countries... they float above the world's constraints... They are alien to the notion of democratic responsiveness, internal or external. In the universe of corporations everything focuses on the acquisition of resources, labor, and markets. These are the sources of power. Inside corporations Equality hides her face... In democratic America most corporations are iridescent examples of autocracy, thriving on soil where the Constitution guarantees everybody's freedom and equality... First, we are all educated to look elsewhere, for instance to unchecked government, as the primary threat to freedom. Second corporations make and sell our creature comforts, so we can't tamper with them without threatening our prosperity. Third, we feel powerless. The concentration of corporate power is inverse to people's feelings of personal power. Fourth, we see no alternative.
They say the next revolution will be inside corporations. You are able to both work for a company, and rebel against it. Go in, behave - and take over…
Sounds like romantic middle-class fantasy to me, John. Have you ever known anyone who acted out this fantasy of yours? I have. Darren Thurston was once one of my favorite friends. Go ahead and google him. Does that fulfill your fantasy, John? Do you find his "adventures" admirable? Can you not see what a sad tragedy his life has been in the decades since I saw him last?
ReplyDeleteWhen we were younger men, we both were involved in confronting the Artan Nations' gang of Skinhead Nazis here in Edmonton. But, it was the Rule of Law - not fisticuffs in the street - that brought about a resolution of that problem. Compiling the necessary evidence of the gang's criminal activity and turning that info over to the police ultimately sent them to prison and removed them from the community - not violent confrontation.
I chose not to follow Darren into the realm of destructive protest, although our ideologies were quite similar in some respects. I chose to stay true to my pacifist beliefs and I'm glad I did.
Ultimately, these corporate entities that you fear so greatly have the power they have because YOU give it to them with your middle-class lifestyle. It is the income & expenditures you generate that props up the consumerist economy from which they derive their power. Can you give up your personal comfort, live a minimalist lifestyle like I have for the last 30 years and stop feeding the very ogre that you rail against here? There would be more courage in that course of action than in indulging a romantic taste for violence...
Talk about kitchen-sinking, coupled with self-righteous indignation. WOW!!!
ReplyDeleteWithout getting into my personal history, let me just say that I grew up during the FLQ crisis, and the Quiet Revolution, in a land where I did not speak the language, while living on the wrong side of the tracks. Middle class... far from it!
I've seen and done things that would make a pacifist like you squirm (no disrespect intended). I've lived my whole life fighting injustices, and still do. I’ve seen and known men killed for doing the same.
Aside from Ghandi and a few others, I don't see how pacifism in this country, during these modern times, helps or changes the fact that 1 in 5 children go to bed hungry in this country every night, while these corporations you claim I 'fear' exploit the masses with our government(s) blessing and support. I don't see how your pacifism helps those in distress to put food on the table or to have a roof over their heads. In fact, I see it as a hindrance rather than a blessing, as you do. Like a famous General once said in the heat of battle, “I don’t care what you do (go forward or retreat) but do something! Don’t just stand there!” In my opinion, pacifists just stand there… in the way.
Again, with respect to your middle-class comment:
"Poor people of all races now have little chance of ever making it up to the middle class - for a complex of reasons including economic: the loss of jobs as capitalism goes global; technological: the sudden demands of computer skills at work; and attitude: Americans (Canadians) are really unsure if they want to provide equality of opportunity, because they believe a market economy thrives better on inequality... they are going to let poverty be a goad."
To think you can change things by doing nothing, but following the slave-masters rules, is delusional thinking, in my opinion. At least your ‘former’ friend (who I have not read up on yet) had the ‘guts’ to stand up for what he believed in, which is more than can be said about most people in today’s modern age. For in a world where anything or anyone can be owned, manipulated, and exploited for profit, everything and everyone will eventually be.
Well, John, let's take a practical example into this discussion. Did the firebombing of Jim Carter's home put food on anyone's table, or a roof over anyone's head? Or did it just convince more people that environmental activists are violent whackjobs?
ReplyDeleteWhich hurts the oil companies more substantially? The burning of Jim Carter's house, or living your life in such a way that you never consume their product?
Son of gaia,
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to get drawn in to speaking about people I don't know or the isolated circumstances around why something happened to them. Random acts of violence (eco-violence or any other), is not something I am advocating, because…
Violence is random it comes from nowhere and leads to nothing. Who can fight nothing from nowhere".
A people standing up and saying “Enough is Enough” is where I am coming from. Like I said before, Tick for Tack…
"Humanity does not gradually progress from combat to combat until it arrives at universal reciprocity, where the rule of law finally replaces warfare; humanity installs each of its violences in a system of rules and thus proceeds from domination to domination." The "successes of history", i.e. the winners of those struggles, are those who have used the rules against the rulers while disguised by those rules.