Stumbling through the Media Spin
AO’s contributing author calls out for the development of a truly mainstream professional class of “environmentalists”
On September 28 of this year, the Globe and Mail’s Andrew Nikiforuk, known for his recounting of the Wiebo Ludwig saga, accused the Ralph Klein government of “systematically looting” landscapes in Alberta for petroleum and other purposes, and allowing gas drilling so intensive that the industry refers to it as ’carpet-bombing’. His point? For the price of the monetary capital from petro-dividends, the cost to the province is the sacrifice of its natural capital.
On October 23, the Calgary Herald’s Paul Haavardsrud reported on the degree of environmental harm that will result from Alberta’s oil sands developments, saying that opinions “range from manageable to irreparable”. As is media practice, his article refers to “environmentalists”, a common grab-bag descriptor often used to marginalize leftist fringe thinkers; and, because the developments are tucked in a corner of the province most people will never visit, he poses the question: “Do Albertans really need to be fussed about development?” When he states “given the serious dollars at play, it’s hard to envision a few hectares of boreal forest bucking the will of Big Oil for long”, Haavardsrud arrives at the same conclusion as Nikiforuk.
Are they both misguided “environmentalists” or should they be believed? If they are wrong, who will produce the countervailing opinion, and what is their axe to grind?
What would convince a voter to accept one opinion over another? Polls indicate that environmental issues
consistently rank high in importance in Albertan and Canadian public opinion. In light of this, how could we be allowing our environment to be systematically looted and carpet-bombed? Do we accept that environmental issues are not a concern if they are out of the sight of most voters?
Issue Contents
Entries