Silence Surrounding Oilsands Report Follows Familiar Pattern

The “go-to” model for so-called balanced inquiries into industrial projects these days is the joint industry / environmental co-chairmanship.

But once a final joint report is issued, sometimes the environmental co-chair quickly goes underground, ducking and covering. The only endorsing voice left is the industry-linked one.

So much for balance, writes the Calgary Herald’s Deborah Yedlin in a must-read piece from yesterday’s edition.

"The prevailing silence (of the greens) underscores a widely held sentiment within the energy sector,” writes Yedlin. “It doesn’t matter what’s being done to decrease the carbon footprint of the oilpatch. It will never be enough for those whose agenda remains getting ‘off oil.’"

Yedlin’s excellent piece on the environmentalists’ apparent commitment to nothing but the complete cessation of oil use is an eye-opener.

Stating that environmental NGOs will never give the energy sector credit for carbon reduction advancements, Yedlin details an error-riddled, anti-Trans Mountain rant in the editorial pages of the Financial Times of London (written of course, by an anti-oilsands activist) as a prime example of the problem.

Yedlin concludes the NGO model relies on conflict – not consensus – and is therefore averse to reducing emissions through improved practices and technologies, seeing such improvements as a threat to an NGO’s livelihood. It’s an all-or-nothing stance, and it should be recognized as just that.

Please read the article. Share it with a few colleagues and friends. After all, the best way to fight misinformation is with genuine knowledge.

Link to article here: