The demise of up to 500 ducks on the Syncrude tailing ponds may be the crystallizing event that finally brings the public to outrage over the way the oil sands are being developed. The ducks landed on the ponds on Monday but apparently the company did not report it to the government. An anonymous tip was how this came to the attention of government. Not good!
Cambridge Strategies did a Oil Sands Discrete Choice Modeling Survey last November and found that the dominant value drivers for Albertans around responsible and sustainable oil sands development was wildlife habitat, GHGs, water and reclamation. It is potentially the perfect storm for industry and government based on Albertan’s dominant value drivers from our survey.
This situation involves wildlife habitat, reclamation and water issues. That is three of the four top value drivers and oil sands issues that concern Albertans. The story about "ducks dying in a toxic tar sands tailings ponds" has gone viral in the Internet. The story has legs and it activates some core values of Albertans and others about the environment and oil sands development.
These events have the potential to push the industry out of deferring its duty to reclaim the ponds. For government and regulatory authorities, enforcement inertia will turn into urgency and a new focus on more effective environmental enforcement. For ENGOs they have been given a sad but saleable gift to draw even more attention to oil sands issues. They will become more energized to press their narrative about dirty oil and toxic environmental consequences of oil sands development.
There are rising expectation levels by the public on government and industry to be more responsible and accountable than in the past - especially around environmental issues. In the “old days” providing insurance against damages was the norm. When bad things happened somebody got a cheque and that was that. Think Love Canal.
The standards then moved to assurance. The expectation changes toward industry and government required that they show us that they have taken reasonable steps to prevent and mitigate possible damages. And they had to convince us of the appropriateness of the steps being taken. The use of air cannons as scarecrows to keep birds off the tailing ponds is an example of trying to meet this expectation level.
The emerging public expectation standard is becoming one of “ensurance.” Now the public expects planning and procedures to be in place to try and make certain that some things will not happen at all. This is a very rigorous test indeed but as the public perceives that there is insufficient engagement on ecological issues the natural response is to raise the bar of expectation and perhaps legislation.
Yes, I think we may have just seen the crystallizing event that will create the overt shift in the public consciousness to become engaged and more demanding about the consequences of oil sands development. The public’s questions and concerns that could emerge from this value activating event will be very interesting. How the government, industry and ENGO players respond will also be very telling.
If the governments and industry just try to push the PR on us with platitudes and rhetoric they will do more harm than good – for citizens and their own credibility and reputations. If the ENGOs respond by merely raising the rhetoric and the volume of their rant, they will be perceived as only adding to the problem.
If the players just try to fix the blame instead of fixing the problem they will all be convicted in the court of public opinion and they will all be hanged together as a result.
Government enforcement better be quick and convincing. Industry commitment to reclamation better be quick and convincing. ENGOs better present the best information and science they can muster. All parties have to look for ways to collaborate so government and industry can achieve a more integrated approach to sustainable ecological outcomes from development of the oil sands.
The death of these ducks may be the equivalent of the proverbial butterfly of chaos theory that flaps its swings and causes a storm of public opinion to rage in Alberta and elsewhere.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteLooking at the Calgary Herald's dead duck story, you'd think that the "Mean Green Lobby" forced the ducks to land on the tailings pond. According to the Herald, Alberta is a David against a Great Green Goliath.
I hope that you're right about the crystallization of public opinion on the environmental costs of tar sands development - but if we continue to see such biased local media coverage, we might just see the exact opposite. (I'm sorry if I don't have much faith in the Calgarian public to see past the front ends of their SUVs)
I doubt it - my bet is that the Alberta Tories will just entrench further, stick their head in the sand (pardon the pun) and carry on with business as usual. Remember, this is the premier who calls environmental impacts a "myth".
ReplyDeleteI heard today that Stelmach is now saying he is being bullied by those rich environmentalists. Come on!
I'd say the ball is in Stelmach's court to solve these problems.
He could start by implementing the 100+ recommendations on ways to improve the industry that have been gathering dust since last years consultation.
Or he could protect the forest areas I read that every other stakeholder said should be set aside, but the Alberta Government blocked.
Or as a show of good faith he could stop approving new projects for say 6 months and actually do something on the environmental front.
What do you think Ken, why do the Tories have such a blind spot on this issue? Surely they are smart enough to see that oil sands done responsibly is not the same thing as "no oil sands"
This recent occurence certainly does not bode well for Syncrudes credibility.It appears they used last weeks snowfall as a reason but it certainly is a "lame"one at best.It was not a priority of theres and thats the bottom line.
ReplyDeleteWhile citing the 30 year history of Syncrude is worthy,the residents of Woodbuffalo know this is not the Syncrude we know.THe quality of the footsoldiers is second to none however the priorities of the current management is questionable.
Guy Boutilier eludes to this in a newspaper article in the local paper
http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/Local%20News/397066.html
Hmmmm no one wants to take on this 'dead duck' blog?
ReplyDeleteIn general I agree with your argumentation.... and a bit of your assessment Ken.
BUT it depends on a few OTHER things in my view to truely be a perfect storm...(keep in mind I don't have Cambridge Strategies research at hand just my network).
One population segment that may have sympathy also say, "500 ducks is one good day shooting.... this is lots of fuss about nothing" Those that suffered the Wabamum spill, and other similar env. damages, may be offended that ducks are "the worst env. disaster..." For these groups they NEED a strong linkage made to at least one of two things.... and possibly both.
1. personal (population) health and/or
2. Industry not keeping it's part of the bargin (inexcusable negligence) OR WHAT else is industry NOT doing? AND how might that hurt me, my environment, my children.
Not to parse your words too much BUT there is a bit more to your nice: insurance, assurance, ensurance formula.
First.. the insurance approach has literally been privatized to the banks and literal insurance industry. Frankly they do it well and when you hear current day discussions it sounds like risk management, health and safety... AND has spawned a large industry to address this risk assessment. My point is that the insurance 'phase' is alive and well just not living in government. Many businesses, especially international ones, now have an environmental line or greenline in their annual reports and budgets.
Second... assurance steps taken to see that things do not happen... this has been over a decade of EIAs, ESAs, and now commulative impact assessments... Generally this approach has been managed and regulated by government, undertaken by private sector and NGOs and the results are generally mixed to poor.
The reclamation portion has spawned a fairly effective industry in Alberta that for years has been a leader... until Alberta slowed their enforcement capacity (any connection? you tell me)... The format for discussion and examination of env. issues has been innovative BUT the results continue to be environmental degradation. A lot of various interests get heard now. Necessary compromises to get things done and that work for various intersts, groups/ NGOs, industry etc. and their continuation do not necessarialy make for a clean or functioning environment...
Phase three ... ensurance = to make certain thing do not happen.
This is unrealistic... 'things' always happen. A better approach (does this start to sound repetitive?) Is to build in a biophysical framework that protects natural resilency so that eventually we can achieve, or return to, abundance which all natural systems need to support 'economies'.
In the between time I agree that government, industry and NGOs better all get out their pencils 'cause they are ALL guilty in not pressing for faster reclamation solutions...to the current tailing ponds..
... and Frankly we are LUCKY DUCKS that it was a disaster of dead ducks and NOT a breach of the dykes holding the tailing ponds in from the river system....
...now THAT would be an environmental disaster on anybody's radar...
and like LOVE CANAL in conjunction with BOPAL it would virtually put the Alberta northern oil guys OUT OF BUSINESS until they did something radical in terms of raising the bar environmentally.
In the case of the Chemical Industry (Love Canal/ BOPAL) they came out with an industry wide standard of care protocol "Cradle to Grave" which was amazing in its time... NOW cradle to grave is no longer anywhere close to good enough...industry would need to develop AND committ to operating guidelines that were cradle to cradle (this means closed loop industrial systems OR at least where one waste stream Must be feed stock to another industry... NO WASTE, NO EXTERNAL DEGRADATION)....
So Ken, please tell your gov't and industry buddies to get on it (=do something very credible very FAST) 'cause I do not think the Northern Oil industry could turn on a dime and achieve or credibly commit to the standards that the public will demand (restorative / cradel to cradle/ closed loop systems...) IF they loose it at this point.
And few shares that I have in O&G, simply in order to follow what these folks are really committed to,(ok maybe to make a bit of money) do not need to take a hit.
Thanks greengirl
Hi Ken
ReplyDeleteI found your survey very interesting.I am interested in seeing how each group or area responded.Can you give enlighten us on the attiudes of the different areas??As well can you tell us who commisioned(paid for)the survey>>
Hi Anon - we did the survey and have presented the findings to a number of orginzations including departments in the GOA.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean how each group or area responded?
Great comment greengirl - as usual.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry Ken, it's already handled. Didn't you read in the budget how much money they're putting toward their environmental plan?
ReplyDeleteWhy, I bet right now the printing presses at the legislature are going overtime so that we can all hear the TRUTH about our great environnmental strides. See, this time, we've conscripted ducks to suck all the bitumen out of the tailings pond. We just need to get a few more thousand to land.
So go ahead, laud your PC buddies once again. After all, you know they're doing the right thing. Or at least, gosh darn it, they sure do intend to.. one day.. later.. I'm certain..
Hi Ken
ReplyDeleteI am interested to see the mindset of Calgary versus Edmonton versus Rural..was it consistent or was for example the Rural was more passionate and what not over the Urban responses?