It has recently come to my attention that I may periodically give the impression that I am anti-development. Nothing could be further from the truth. So let me clear things up a bit...
My issue is with sustainability, or lack thereof. Our world is in the midst of an ecological crisis and our government is doing its letter best to sell tar sands petroleum products to as many countries as possible. I wouldn't go so far as to call it oil, because it is far less refined than your typical crude. There is growing resistance to Alberta Tar Sands products due to the energy and water resources that are used to extract the petroleum - a fundamentally different type of oil than that found in conventional oil sources. For every barrel of oil produced in the Alberta Tar Sands, four to five barrels of water are needed to force the oil to separate from the sand in which it lies (not to mention enough natural gas energy to heat a home for four days as well as the destruction of acres of natural habitats for, ultimately, displaced animals). And what is done with this "used" water?
Many of you likely know about Sydney's Tar Pond. Considered to be one of the world's worst ecological disaster's, cleanup of the Tar Pond site has been "in progress" for over 20 years. Any number of cleanup methods have been suggested, evaluated, and rejected over the years in favour of the present method: encapsulation. Let's be honest, this is a cover it up now and let someone else worry about it in a few decades when the seals on the area ultimately begin to break down and signs of new contamination rear their ugly heads. So why am I bringing it up?
There are, quite literally, billions of litres of waste water being dumped back into Northern Alberta's groundwater and natural ecosystems every year. Animals that have managed to sustain their lives in their natural habitats are consuming plants that absorb the toxins produced by the tar sand extraction process. They are drinking the water that contain the toxins directly. The Tar Sands Project has been trying to sell itself as environmentally responsible at a time when the very creation of new fossil fuel sources is a contradiction of such policies in and of itself. Companies are spending marginal amounts toward investment in green technologies when a factor of ten is spent on producing new carbon-producing, methane-releasing, dirty-burning (get my point?) fuel resources at the expense of our children, not to mention our very species.
It isn't just animals that we need to be concerned about. It is also the people who work on the tar sands projects. A media blitz is underway to change the perception of the Tar Sands developments. The oil companies and their contractors want to show how responsible they are and how they care about the environments in which they work. Touching sound bites and visuals featuring employees who are impressed by how much their employers work to take care of the many wild animals they impact and the landscapes they decimate. Of course, the landscapes they show are at the outer borders of the lands on which they work and the animals they show are either inside a captive preserve or, again, live outside the work zone. It is nice that they try to take care of them, to a certain extent, but it is little more than a hollow gesture meant to curry public support. But I digress. We're talking about the people who work there.
Often we hear politicians claiming to be environmentally conscious, and yet when partisanship comes into play we see them damning one another's green policy in order to garner power and influence over making the best decision for our nation and our world. Remember Stephan Dion'sGreen Shift (you'll note that the link points to the environmental concern largely responsible for Dion's policies and research, rather than the Liberal site itself)? Well, it had a number of recommendations. First and foremost was a national green policy - not something that would be regionalized and altered as special interests might request.
The Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party criticized Dion's Liberals for the economic impact of such a plan. They argued that taxing carbon/methane polluters would create an unreasonable burden on big and small business alike. The irony is that if the average voter did their research they would realize that a large part of the Green Shift involves teaching businesses how to be environmentally responsible. It means short term investment in learning how to make green choices an advantageous and profitable part of the business model. Unfortunately, Dion's weak English translated into a lack of charisma and an inability to respond to more challenging questions as quickly as the "instant gratification" audience would like. Also unfortunately, this is a weakness that the other party leaders were able to exploit. And they exploited Dion right out of office. The ensuing weeks were spent with the Liberal Party in a flurry to find a new leader...which helped the minority Conservatives deflect criticism of their lack of environmental policy, and the NDP gained new ground in the polls as a result.
The answer, it seems, lies with homegrown political will. For every voter, there are about a dozen non-voters who whine about policy while refusing to exercise their right to impact it. One of the most shocking groups of apathetic non-voters are the 18-25 demographic. Marketing executives try to garner favour with this group because of their spending power and dynamic will. But politicians largely ignore this group because they do not vote. If today's young adults, tomorrow's leaders, want politicians to take their concerns seriously they need to exercise their right to vote. Having a right is fine, but exercising that right is making the statement that you have a voice and an opinion that matters. Until our young adults learn this important fact, we may continue to lag behind as one of the world's largest "per capita" polluters. Food for thought...
