Syncrude's Dead Ducks: update

Don't worry about the toxic chemical lakes that cover over 50 square km of former Boreal forest, are growing by 1 million litres a day, and that we have no idea how to get rid of, folks! Wind turbines are our real problem. At least that's what Ed Stelmach says in a piece of logic and integrity that make me think his brain and heart, like several hundred hectares of our province, are full of carcinogenic sludge. According to this story in the Globe,

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach is down playing the deaths, saying that wind turbines kill 30,000 birds annually.

If anyone needed any more proof that Ed Stelmach doesn't care about the environment, this is it. Instead of confronting this issue, he flippantly quotes a meaningless and inflammatory statistic to attempt to minimize the debacle. Of course, this isn't at all surprising coming from a man who's government has chosen to spend $25 million in attempt to convince people everything's okay without actually making it okay first. In fact, I'd say it's a shining example of the supposed "integrity" that his supporters love to prattle on about.

Were it not so infuriating, it would be hilarious to watch Stelmach stumble through yet another incident with his characteristic media savvy. Prior to the above bombshell, Stelmach likened himself to David in a battle against the Goliath that is evil, all-powerful, and notoriously deep-pocketed environmental movement:

“The $25-million is small compared to the combined money of the various lobby groups,” said the premier. “In terms of David and Goliath, I've been in this position before and now I'm here, so I recognize the challenges.”

(From this story in the Globe.)

There you have it folks, your premier Ed Stelmach. When a flock of ducks dies by landing on an oil company's giant toxic slough, his default position is say it isn't a big deal, defend the oil company, and attack the environmental groups who dare use it as an example of poor environmental stewardship by self-righteously and incomprehensibly framing himself as the underdog. Like I said, I'd laugh at this were it not so completely depressing coming from the man that runs my province.

If anything, at least we can take solace in the fact that the unfortunate death of the 495 ducks was not completely in vain, as there is no question that the international news coverage of this tragic episode has more than negated any potential positive effect from the dishonest $25 million PR campaign. Quack heard around the world, indeed.

Comments

[One Alberta Voter]

The whole duck incdient has shattered the thin veneer of environmental responsibility of the Alberta government. It has also brought to the surface a whole raft of previously latent misperceptions and biases of our policy-makers, many of which are covered in this posting (environmentalists are bad, wrong, and conniving, oil industry is good and tells truth, Alberta's interests are inextricably tied to oil industry). Let's hope that this week's justifiable furor shakes up a few of these misconceptions and opens up some minds for a new constructive dialogue on how Alberta actually can do better.

[Aaron]

he flippantly quotes a meaningless and inflammatory statistic to attempt to minimize the debacle

It's a pattern. Remember the 300,000 jobs that would disappear if he implemented a proper energy royalty regime?

[nik]

do you know of any actions against sin-crude that people are taking on this issue?

[Greg Simm]

Typically, the activists are poised to rake anyone for offering a differing perspective to such unfortunate incidents. They would also throw society back to the dark ages and unemployment in the name of saving what is arguably more of a threat to their values than the environment. Political correctness has skewed what should be a healthy and productive debate among reasonable interests. I'm interested in the facts, but not if removed from the context of an industrialized society. When I see the pure sacrifice their needs for energy (transportation of selves and goods, air travel, heat, electricity from any source), I'll weigh their arguments accordingly against those of us who may not wish to live as the peasants of yore... until then it's only hypocritical rhetoric.

[jk]

Greg:

You accuse "activists" or being "poised to rake anyone for offering a differing perspective," but in the next sentence you effectively "rake" them for their perspective by exaggerating and distorting their views. Although "activists" is a very broad term and I can't be quite sure exactly which groups or individuals you've meant it to encompass, of the parties I would consider "activist" I know none that yearn for society to return to the feudal state you refer to.

With regards to your last sentence regarding "hypocrisy:" if you're interested, take a look at our earlier post "Some thoughts on hypocrisy" to see my thoughts on that issue.

[Greg Simm]

When I first heard of this story I saw it for the PR nightmare it was going to be for this industry since the people who make themselves heard will tend to see it more as an opportunity to embrace this as evidence of a complete lack of stewardship by the industry as a whole... not what I consider the balanced opinion that could lend far more to a genuinely appropriate and effective solution to the problem. A quick search confirmed this, and happened to land me here to say "hold on a minute, let's be fair". As your eloquent post on hypocrisy points out, I could have done a better job at being fair myself, but for the sake of making a general point I took that risk. At the same time, the vocal majority (better?) need to illustrate their interest in a reasonable compromise between running naked in the bush and letting the evil empire of corporate conspiracies destroy the planet, that is if they are interested in a broader appeal to their message.