The Quest for Truth in the Oil Sands is the title of the Todd Hirsch op-ed in today’s Globe and Mail. It captures much of the angst Albertans are feeling as citizens and the owners of the oilsands. We know this from some of the values surveying we have been doing with Albertans in the last few years and more extensively in 2010. This survey was commissioned by OSRIN, the Oil Sands Research and Information Network out of the University of Alberta.
The subtext of Todd’s piece asks if the oil sands are an “economic bonanza” or an “environmental apolalypse.” There is so much spin and self-serving selection of fact that everyone know that the whole truth is not being told. Who can we trust and believe about what is happening in our oil sands these days? In Alberta today 89% of us believe the oil sands are either extremely important or very important to our future prosperity. Any government or industry that risks betraying our trust on oil sands development will face serious consequences from the voter and the public.
Progress is being made on the environmental front and a more rational approach to the pace and purpose of development is happening now too. There is more of a long term integrated view that is becoming the normative oil sands development model. This is in stark contract to the “damn the consequences” lets make a quick buck attitude that was so common in black gold rush of the recent past.
That said the facts are that conservation, habitat, air, water and reclamation concerns dominate the minds and values of Albertan around oilsands development. There is a sense that not enough is being done in these areas of concern to convince Albertans that our government or our industry tenants “get it” about how we want this resource developed.
The politics and policy approaches to oil sands development are still mired in mendacity, mediocrity and even the mundane. We are giving the resources away as we trade reasonable royalty rates in exchange for short term jobs or to appease industry threats that investment will dry up. Our environmental laws are not as good as we tout and our enforcement has been lack lustre. That is true notwithstanding the recent successful Syndrude prosecution of 1600 migrating ducks who drowned in tailings ponds due to corporate negligence.
Corporate and government communications efforts are focused mostly on PR positioning and not about sincere efforts at communicating and solving the problems. There are efforts being made and progress is being achieved but we don’t seem to hear or even believe those stories and when we do we sense they are mostly self-serving. We get snippets of stories but it seems the culture of spin is so pervasive that we just can’t bring ourselves to trust any good news about the oil sands. It is truly sad that the level of skepticism and cynicism about the oil sands is so endemic in Alberta and beyond these days.
Even the recent effort by the Alberta government to score a media coup with the Premier’s Letter to the Editor in the Washington Post has some interesting twists and turns. I applaud the efforts of the Premier to get out there and start telling the Alberta oil sands story in a broader context. Unfortunately the Washington Post Editor did not see the newsworthy merit of the letter saying it was more about “Canada Day than anything new.” So the province bought the newpaper space to promote their message instead. Even a cursory read of the Premier’s letter shows how wrong that “Canada Day” perception was about the content and context of the Permier’s letter. Still such a newspaper ad looks like the kind of boiler-plate damage control apologizing advertising we always see from businesses that screw up. Earned media is more believable than purchasing advertising space as a way to get a messgage out any day. But you still gotta do what you gotta do to try and communicate I guess.
I really applaud the Premier’s points about the safe, secure, reliable energy supply from the Alberta oil sands to the States – and the fact we are the largest suplier of oil to the Americans. That is a critical fact that is not well understood or appreciated by the Americans...and their ignorance is largely our fault.
As for GHG and other environmental issues, they are critical concerns but they need some context, like the Premier’s “letter” provided. If the entire value chain costs of oil sands development is considered and compared to entire value chain of other oil sources like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola and Algeria then the dirty oil tag on Alberta’s oil sands is not justified. All fossil fuels are dirty to varying degrees but to focus only on certain aspects of the oil sands in isolation and to ignore the greater political, environmental, human and social costs of other jurisdictions is a lobbying tactic that needs to be challenged.
Alberta is one of the few oil energy providers that have a democracy, the rule of law and stable currency and government. In addition there is only casual corruption in our culture compared to the rampant corruption in other supplier nations. You don’t have to worry about staff being kidnapped for ransom and you should not ignore the costs in human life in the internal conflicts in many other energy provider jurisdictions. Those costs are nonexistant in Alberta. I suggest the oil sands are by comparison is actually “cleaner,” than the sources form these other jurisdictions, all things considered. I may be right in that contention but that is still not good enough and Albertans know that too.
Getting back to Todd’s point about who are we to believe in the Babel about oil sands, there is a need for the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to be discussed in the public realm. We have to stop the focus on issues management, message framing and media massaging that thrives on reporting conflict and not about construtively informing the public and helping us get a handle on the issues and the implications.
Our recently complete conjoint research survey tracked 8 crucial values Albertans have around the development of the oil sands as the owners of the resource. The insight we gained adds to the dilemma and disconsternation of the government and the industry as they continue to be tone deaf over what Albertans really want attended to in the development of their oil sands.
Safe secure reliable supply to the American market is a given. No “atta boys” for stating the obvious. Technology as a means to overcome environmantal and other abuses is not seen as the only a valid mitigation strategy we need to use to overcome harmful affects of oil sands development. It is acknowledged by Albertans that technological solutions are the responsible and reasonable thing to do but not the only asnwer to the concerns. No “atta boys” for doing the obvious here either.
The rationalization of the pace of development that does not cause boom and bust cycles is also now to be expected of intelligent investors and our industry tenants. We need to be sure only those who deserve their social licence to operate in Alberta are given the responsibilty and opportunity to exploit this public resource. The pull out threats from some elements in the energy industry (not all) and the rapid retreat by the provincial government in response to the reasonable and rational royalty regime is the epitome of fear and collusion against the public interest. That kind of intimidation by the tenants has to stop too.
None of the actions by government or industry on royalties has been seen to be in the greater public interest, either long term or short term. Misleading messaging and school-yard style bullying was the rule of the day around royalties. And all it did was show Albertans who really runs the province...and they do so all too often behind closed doors. Not approprite behaviour in any way.
So I think Todd has struck a nerve and hit a nail on the head at the same time with his op-ed. So who can we trust and believe in the noise around oil sands development? Albertans have to believe in someone and trust that someone is serving the public interest. We are mature and wise enough as people to know there are real issues and they are complicated. We know we can handle bad news. It seems that is pretty much all we get now about our oil sands development anyway. I would like to call for more carity and comprehensive information to the public instead of the over-simplified pap we get now in the oil sands messaging. We need and deserve that kind of comprehensive candour. It needs to come from the province and the companies that are in the business of developing our oil sands.
In the meantime governments, as our proxy holders of our oil sands interests, and the energy industry, as our tenants, had better start thinking about public perceptions of their worthiness to govern and to justify a social license to operate with our public assets.
Safe to say, Albertans are not amused. In fact, we are tired of being bemused and abused by the PR machines and machinations of government and industry around oil sands development. We need a reason to believe and trust government and industry aroudn oil sands issues. We must have some serious evidence of their integrity, honesty, accountability, transparency, environmental end economic stewardship around oil sands development. The stakes are too important for all concerned. Failure is not an option for oil sands development for Albertan. However, failure is an option for government and energy companies if public opinion and perceptions continue to distrust and disbelieve them.
Monday, July 05, 2010
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Alberta Government Plays Oil Sands PR Games While Canadian Forest Industries Show Leadership
I have to say the front pages of the Edmonton Journal for the past while have been amazing. The stuff they are featuring is so much of what I am interested in for public policy and politics. Some of the stories about the Alberta Minister of Energy telling a Middle East audience that the dead Syncrude ducks is a media event promoted by ENGOS has been astonishing. He has shown an enormous sense of tone deafness as to what Albertans and the world are seeing happen in terms of how we are developing our vital oil sands resources.
Then the fact that the Premier can't get earned media in the Washington Post newspaper from a Letter to the Editor so he bought advertising space to run the content is telling. In the Social Media world paid advertising is a necessary part of an y effective communications campaign. That said, it is also well regarded as the price you pay for being boring. I will read the letter with interest. Some of the media coverage n the paid ad has been "earned media" and the content has mentioned some vital points but rejection of a Letter to the Editor of one of the most influential newspapers in the USA has to speak volumes about how un-newsworthy they saw the letter from the Premier.
Buy space to run a text message on the Friday before a long weekend in the USA is damage control. It is not and effective media strategy...but what is new for the $25m of propaganda programing the province perpetrated and cancelled early...again after being caught publishing misleading photographs of Alberta beaches.
Today's front page is reassuring and provocative in that it shows some conservationist, political and industry support to ensure the Canadian Boreal Forest is revered , respected preserved and respected as an intact and extensive ecosystem. I have much more to say about this later but for now, know that I worked for a few years on establishing a policy for biodiversity offsets in the Boreal forest to mitigate the habitat destruction of the oil sands development.
The forest industry also hired me in 2005 to help them understand what it would take to have them to be seen and valued as the preferred stewards of the public Boreal forest assets. We know that answer now and much is being done by the forest industry to deliver on that brand promise - in very difficult times.
There was a time when the forestry sector was the economic pariahs of corporate social responsibility. While not everyone in the industry is a stellar performer, many are now. The oil sands and conventional energy industry need to go to school on how be be worthy of a social license to operate as developers of the public's natural capital.
If we did not have the forestry industry in Canada these days, for purposes of setting a positive corporate social responsibility model, we would want to invent it. It is not all sweetness and light but the parties are on the right path and energy sector titans would do well to take a lesson from them and learn to be effective stewards and good tenants - not self-serving masters or their own universe.
The energy industry needs to be more concerned about the public interest and quit trying to bully government. Elections are coming and there is lots of evidence of changes in the air. Behind closed door deals with lame duck politicians is not a winning strategy to preserve a social license to operate in the public and shareholder interest any more. Time for real engagement by industry and the public and time to quit the behind the scenes games we see being played now.
So energy executive, take a forestry company leader to lunch and learn from them. You need to change your attitude just like they did.
Then the fact that the Premier can't get earned media in the Washington Post newspaper from a Letter to the Editor so he bought advertising space to run the content is telling. In the Social Media world paid advertising is a necessary part of an y effective communications campaign. That said, it is also well regarded as the price you pay for being boring. I will read the letter with interest. Some of the media coverage n the paid ad has been "earned media" and the content has mentioned some vital points but rejection of a Letter to the Editor of one of the most influential newspapers in the USA has to speak volumes about how un-newsworthy they saw the letter from the Premier.
Buy space to run a text message on the Friday before a long weekend in the USA is damage control. It is not and effective media strategy...but what is new for the $25m of propaganda programing the province perpetrated and cancelled early...again after being caught publishing misleading photographs of Alberta beaches.
Today's front page is reassuring and provocative in that it shows some conservationist, political and industry support to ensure the Canadian Boreal Forest is revered , respected preserved and respected as an intact and extensive ecosystem. I have much more to say about this later but for now, know that I worked for a few years on establishing a policy for biodiversity offsets in the Boreal forest to mitigate the habitat destruction of the oil sands development.
The forest industry also hired me in 2005 to help them understand what it would take to have them to be seen and valued as the preferred stewards of the public Boreal forest assets. We know that answer now and much is being done by the forest industry to deliver on that brand promise - in very difficult times.
There was a time when the forestry sector was the economic pariahs of corporate social responsibility. While not everyone in the industry is a stellar performer, many are now. The oil sands and conventional energy industry need to go to school on how be be worthy of a social license to operate as developers of the public's natural capital.
If we did not have the forestry industry in Canada these days, for purposes of setting a positive corporate social responsibility model, we would want to invent it. It is not all sweetness and light but the parties are on the right path and energy sector titans would do well to take a lesson from them and learn to be effective stewards and good tenants - not self-serving masters or their own universe.
The energy industry needs to be more concerned about the public interest and quit trying to bully government. Elections are coming and there is lots of evidence of changes in the air. Behind closed door deals with lame duck politicians is not a winning strategy to preserve a social license to operate in the public and shareholder interest any more. Time for real engagement by industry and the public and time to quit the behind the scenes games we see being played now.
So energy executive, take a forestry company leader to lunch and learn from them. You need to change your attitude just like they did.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
AHS Superboard Released Its $11B Alberta Health Budget
Last May I did this blog post suggesting the Alberta Health Services Superboard should go...(along with regional PDD and Children's Service boards).
The $11Billlion budget is out and if it passed without a debate or even a question about that much money being spent by appointed people, where is the due diligence, the oversight and the responsibility to public duty of such an entity. Don Braid of the Calgary Herald covers some of these concern rather well in his column.
I have no trouble with the quality and character of the people on the Superboard. I just don't know what value they add to solving the concerns around health care in Alberta. Those should be handled by the government itself. It seems like the disbanding of the regional boards for political reasons and the set up of the Superboard, for other political reasons, was just another Liepert induced level of bureaucracy that distances political policy makers from the problems.
This structure is confusing about who is in charge. It does not enhance transparency, accountability or assure citizens of integrity and fiscal responsibility for our tax dollars. It does not help health care providers or the government meet their responsibility to provide health care for Albertans.
Time has come to disband the Superboard and make the Minister and his administration directly accountable. The evidence is that since Gene Zwozdesky took over they are very capable of doing the job and don't need or want an buffer from the realities and challenges.
The $11Billlion budget is out and if it passed without a debate or even a question about that much money being spent by appointed people, where is the due diligence, the oversight and the responsibility to public duty of such an entity. Don Braid of the Calgary Herald covers some of these concern rather well in his column.
I have no trouble with the quality and character of the people on the Superboard. I just don't know what value they add to solving the concerns around health care in Alberta. Those should be handled by the government itself. It seems like the disbanding of the regional boards for political reasons and the set up of the Superboard, for other political reasons, was just another Liepert induced level of bureaucracy that distances political policy makers from the problems.
This structure is confusing about who is in charge. It does not enhance transparency, accountability or assure citizens of integrity and fiscal responsibility for our tax dollars. It does not help health care providers or the government meet their responsibility to provide health care for Albertans.
Time has come to disband the Superboard and make the Minister and his administration directly accountable. The evidence is that since Gene Zwozdesky took over they are very capable of doing the job and don't need or want an buffer from the realities and challenges.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Daveberta Disagrees With Me on Danielle and I Respond
HI Dave - good to have you comment. But I have to stand by my concerns over the Wildrose Alliance Party being a scary alternative and not open to open political debate and good governance.
Of course the WAP AGM as a well produced and well-managed event -but that is not the point. The reporting on the event was that is was more like "stage managed" to ensure only certain and deemed acceptable voices of the membership were heard.
Of course there are fringe elements in every party. I was part of one of them in the PCs for years but it never stopped me from speaking up. It occasionally got me chastised and denied me access and influence on the power structure of the PC government. But that was not often and besides, that is the price one must be prepared to pay for being an independent voice in the face of old style politics.
Of course the fringe elements might hurt the WAP if they got the spotlight. And the media loves to distort the attention to the conflict not the content or substance of the debated issues. Look at the recent G20 television coverage for evidence of that.
However, if those fringe voices truly do not represent the mainstream thinking of the WAP then let them be heard, be openly debated and then defeated on principle by a vote of the membership. Lets not decline into political manipulation or pandering pragmatism just to stifle and hide the truth of those voices in the "big tent" merely because they may embarrass us. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Fringe elements who are not persuasive should be defeated in a vote of all party members, but only after being heard, respected and understood. In many cases if it were not for fringe elements nothing would change. Wasn't it GB Shaw who said to the effect if it were not for the unreasonable man there would be no progress at all? Is not the unreasonable man the essence of a fringe element? All change happens at the margins why shirk from the margins?
The culture of refusing to listen to the other side of an argument is the essence of old style politics and undemocratic and a slight to free speech.
I was talking about the undisclosed influence of certain powerful private sector funding sources for theSmith leadership campaign not the WAP election campaign. When we don't get to know who is paying for the Smith leadership campaign we need to worry about where we are headed as a democracy. That same can be said for the Morton, Oberg and some of the Stelmach PC leadership donors too.
The reason Smith says she will not disclose is because her donors are afraid of the government. That is interesting. I applaud Smith's AGM speech for spotlighting the intimidation innuendo and threatening culture in some parts of the PC government saying communities and organizations will be cut off government funding, even if the money serves some of our most vulnerable citizens. They are being told there will be consequences if they don't be quiet, compliant and show support the PC party. as government. I have been a victim of that kind of subtle bully of late since I quit the PC Party last December.
I don't see why any political party leadership campaign is not subject to the same campaign funding disclosure rules as elections. Then your comment Dave about us getting to see the leadership campaign funding sources would be true. But now that disclosure is only about election campaigns where the laws are strict and clear. It is not a means however of us getting to know now who, if any, is pulling the strings of party leaders
I think is it disingenuous at best, for private citizens and private sector funders to be allowed to use fear as a reasonable excuse not to exercise your citizenship rights to support whatever political candidate they may wish. If this degree of fear is true, then our democracy is in deeper and more dire straits than even I think. A political culture of fear leads to the decline and eventual demise of open representative democracy. I do not want to say fascism is around the corner but it is definitely down the block if this is truly the case in Alberta and allowed to continue.
.
If the Smith leadership campaign donors are truly fearful of retaliation from the PC government did they propose a policy resolution for full campaign disclosure of all political party leadership campaigns? That kind of progressive accountable transparent and honest public policy would go a long way to raising my appreciation that the WAP is offering a different and better way of governing.
We cannot allow ourselves the luxury of hiding behind an excuse of fear of our government as a justification for anonymity - even if it is true, it is not justified. If we are afraid of our government and intimidated from exercising our right or free speech and free association we not only lose them, we invite the dirty political tricks of the Nixon era to be normative again.
When someone aspires to be worthy of our consent to govern us, the fact that they get to do so through an internal process of a private club called a political party is not a sufficient reason not to have full disclosure of leadership campaign funding.
With 40 years of a one-party state, the Alberta population has been lulled into inertia, indifference and overwhelmingly cynical about the consequences of not being informed and engaged citizens. Changing that mindset is the essence of the progressive citizen's movement called Reboot Alberta.
Our conjoint survey research shows that the most important values we progressives want from our political leaders are INTEGRITY, HONESTY, ACCOUNTABILITY, and TRANSPARENCY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP. The recent random sample of all Albertans had FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY instead of ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP but all the other values were in the top tier of progressives and average Albertans. There is a values consensus and a longing for political change to align with those basic political values again.
I applaud when anyone offers themselves up as a candidate for the duties and responsibilities of political servant leadership. But I suggest all citizens had better be more vigilant in pursuing evidence from those who aspire to public office or political power to demonstrate these values. They better be at the core of their characters and their campaigns and continue into how they govern.
I don't think the WAP massaging their policy messages just to divert attention away from their "true conservative" principles is any way to show evidence of alignment with those vital political values Albertans require of our political class. We need to be shown and have every right to expect those values be extant from all our actual and aspiring servant leaders...not just the WAP.
As always Dave - great to engage in conversation with you - sorry for the long response.
Of course the WAP AGM as a well produced and well-managed event -but that is not the point. The reporting on the event was that is was more like "stage managed" to ensure only certain and deemed acceptable voices of the membership were heard.
Of course there are fringe elements in every party. I was part of one of them in the PCs for years but it never stopped me from speaking up. It occasionally got me chastised and denied me access and influence on the power structure of the PC government. But that was not often and besides, that is the price one must be prepared to pay for being an independent voice in the face of old style politics.
Of course the fringe elements might hurt the WAP if they got the spotlight. And the media loves to distort the attention to the conflict not the content or substance of the debated issues. Look at the recent G20 television coverage for evidence of that.
However, if those fringe voices truly do not represent the mainstream thinking of the WAP then let them be heard, be openly debated and then defeated on principle by a vote of the membership. Lets not decline into political manipulation or pandering pragmatism just to stifle and hide the truth of those voices in the "big tent" merely because they may embarrass us. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Fringe elements who are not persuasive should be defeated in a vote of all party members, but only after being heard, respected and understood. In many cases if it were not for fringe elements nothing would change. Wasn't it GB Shaw who said to the effect if it were not for the unreasonable man there would be no progress at all? Is not the unreasonable man the essence of a fringe element? All change happens at the margins why shirk from the margins?
The culture of refusing to listen to the other side of an argument is the essence of old style politics and undemocratic and a slight to free speech.
I was talking about the undisclosed influence of certain powerful private sector funding sources for theSmith leadership campaign not the WAP election campaign. When we don't get to know who is paying for the Smith leadership campaign we need to worry about where we are headed as a democracy. That same can be said for the Morton, Oberg and some of the Stelmach PC leadership donors too.
The reason Smith says she will not disclose is because her donors are afraid of the government. That is interesting. I applaud Smith's AGM speech for spotlighting the intimidation innuendo and threatening culture in some parts of the PC government saying communities and organizations will be cut off government funding, even if the money serves some of our most vulnerable citizens. They are being told there will be consequences if they don't be quiet, compliant and show support the PC party. as government. I have been a victim of that kind of subtle bully of late since I quit the PC Party last December.
I don't see why any political party leadership campaign is not subject to the same campaign funding disclosure rules as elections. Then your comment Dave about us getting to see the leadership campaign funding sources would be true. But now that disclosure is only about election campaigns where the laws are strict and clear. It is not a means however of us getting to know now who, if any, is pulling the strings of party leaders
I think is it disingenuous at best, for private citizens and private sector funders to be allowed to use fear as a reasonable excuse not to exercise your citizenship rights to support whatever political candidate they may wish. If this degree of fear is true, then our democracy is in deeper and more dire straits than even I think. A political culture of fear leads to the decline and eventual demise of open representative democracy. I do not want to say fascism is around the corner but it is definitely down the block if this is truly the case in Alberta and allowed to continue.
.
If the Smith leadership campaign donors are truly fearful of retaliation from the PC government did they propose a policy resolution for full campaign disclosure of all political party leadership campaigns? That kind of progressive accountable transparent and honest public policy would go a long way to raising my appreciation that the WAP is offering a different and better way of governing.
We cannot allow ourselves the luxury of hiding behind an excuse of fear of our government as a justification for anonymity - even if it is true, it is not justified. If we are afraid of our government and intimidated from exercising our right or free speech and free association we not only lose them, we invite the dirty political tricks of the Nixon era to be normative again.
When someone aspires to be worthy of our consent to govern us, the fact that they get to do so through an internal process of a private club called a political party is not a sufficient reason not to have full disclosure of leadership campaign funding.
With 40 years of a one-party state, the Alberta population has been lulled into inertia, indifference and overwhelmingly cynical about the consequences of not being informed and engaged citizens. Changing that mindset is the essence of the progressive citizen's movement called Reboot Alberta.
Our conjoint survey research shows that the most important values we progressives want from our political leaders are INTEGRITY, HONESTY, ACCOUNTABILITY, and TRANSPARENCY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP. The recent random sample of all Albertans had FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY instead of ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP but all the other values were in the top tier of progressives and average Albertans. There is a values consensus and a longing for political change to align with those basic political values again.
I applaud when anyone offers themselves up as a candidate for the duties and responsibilities of political servant leadership. But I suggest all citizens had better be more vigilant in pursuing evidence from those who aspire to public office or political power to demonstrate these values. They better be at the core of their characters and their campaigns and continue into how they govern.
I don't think the WAP massaging their policy messages just to divert attention away from their "true conservative" principles is any way to show evidence of alignment with those vital political values Albertans require of our political class. We need to be shown and have every right to expect those values be extant from all our actual and aspiring servant leaders...not just the WAP.
As always Dave - great to engage in conversation with you - sorry for the long response.
Proud to be on Alberta Venture's 50 Most Influential Albertans for 2010
I am proud to be on the Alberta Venture Magazine list of 50 Most Influential Albertans for 2010. I know many of the others and agree with their designation.
My "influence" comes from my recent political stands and my work with Reboot Alberta. If you are a progressive thinker and want to see the future of Alberta NOT veer to the far right from the political culture war that is currently being waged between the Wildrose Alliance Party and the "Progressive" Conservative Party, you might want to join this citizens movement called Reboot Alberta. You will find your tribe if you are a progressive thinker.
My "influence" comes from my recent political stands and my work with Reboot Alberta. If you are a progressive thinker and want to see the future of Alberta NOT veer to the far right from the political culture war that is currently being waged between the Wildrose Alliance Party and the "Progressive" Conservative Party, you might want to join this citizens movement called Reboot Alberta. You will find your tribe if you are a progressive thinker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)