Alberta under attack in new ad campaign

[Delirium]

ouch! but really, can any of this be denied?
• Video Link

Oil sands ads urge tourists to avoid Alberta
Calgary — The Canadian Press
Published on Wednesday, Jul. 14, 2010 10:32AM EDT

Alberta is famous worldwide for its stunning mountain vistas and wide open spaces, but a U.S. environmental group wants oil-soaked birds to be the image that sticks out in tourists' minds.

San Francisco-based Corporate Ethics International launched a new ad campaign Wednesday that urges would-be visitors to "rethink" planning a trip to Alberta. (Video embedded below.)

“Alberta is spending millions to brand itself as an environmentally friendly destination for tourists, when in fact we think it's the most environmentally unfriendly place in North America because of the tarsands,” said executive director Michael Marx.

Billboards are going up in Seattle, Portland, Denver and Minneapolis. The campaign will expand to the U.K. in two weeks.

The street-level signs read “Alberta: the Other Oil Disaster” above two side-by-side images of oil-coated birds. One picture is labelled “Gulf Oil SpillDisaster” and the other has the caption “Alberta Tar Sands Oil Disaster.”

“Thinking of visiting Alberta, Canada? Think again,” the ad continues.

Corporate Ethics is also taking out ads on Google and popular tourism websites.

“We think the Alberta government has been pretty arrogant in ignoring the concerns of environmental groups in the U.S., in Europe and in Canada, as well as First Nations and that it's been deceptive in its public relations in claiming that they're greening the tarsands,” said Mr. Marx.

“We felt like we needed to be more aggressive in calling the government out.”

Corporate Ethics was behind another controversial campaign that compared development of the oil sands to the plundering of Pandora, the fictional planet depicted in James Cameron's blockbuster movie Avatar.

[Calgarian]

This thread will rapidly turn into a shit storm.

RE: tar sands, they need to be more responsible how they do things up there, ads like this are just the beginning of what will likely be a decades long battle with environmentalists. There is no excuse for tailings ponds or chemicals leaking into the Athabasca river. Instead of using to gulf oil spill to make the tar sands look clean, they should be using the gulf spill as inspiration to clean up the tar sands.

[Coldrsx]

If anything I see this as another bit of positive pressure to make the boys up there clean up their act, be more responsible, and more accountable.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

If anything I see this as another bit of positive pressure to make the boys up there clean up their act, be more responsible, and more accountable.

I agree with that, if ads like this start to hurt the province, maybe the boys in Edmonton will smarten up and force the oil companies to be accountable.

I just mean that this thread will quickly devolve into the typical mud slinging that has become so prevalent on this forum of late.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Delirium

ouch! but really, can any of this be denied?

No more so than any of the following claims:

"Don't travel to BC since Victoria pumps raw shit into the ocean!"

or

"Don't travel to Quebec because they export one of the most carcinogenic materials (asbestos) to the third world!"

or

"Don't travel anywhere because someone there does something bad to the planet and we must push our agenda!!!"

=========

Note, since I have no agenda I will continue to travel to BC and Quebec since I love both, but you get my point ...

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I agree with that, if ads like this start to hurt the province, maybe the boys in Edmonton will smarten up and force the oil companies to be accountable.

While defining and enforcing stricter regulations may be required, don't forget at the end of the day it's the owner of the oil companies - not the CEO's - that demand that the oil companies do the bare minium to meet regulations. As such, we should be slaging entities like the BC, Ontario and Quebec pension funds just as much as we slag the CEO's and Albertans at large.

/rant

[Delirium]

Shreddog, very true but we're not talking about those issues are we? they ALL suck though!

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by shreddog

While defining and enforcing stricter regulations may be required, don't forget at the end of the day it's the owner of the oil companies - not the CEO's - that demand that the oil companies do the bare minium to meet regulations. As such, we should be slaging entities like the BC, Ontario and Quebec pension funds just as much as we slag the CEO's and Albertans at large.

/rant

I think it should be the government that sets the standards very high and enforces them as oil companies will probably do the least possible, to maximize their profits.

[sdimedru]

Hypothetically ... what would happen if we stopped shipping any Oil from Canada to the US... I know there are many, many contractual things to consider, but could the US survive without our Oil? (whether from the oilsands or conventional means)

I'm not saying its a reasonable option, I'm just curious how dependant they are on our Oil

I agree it's good to continue the pressure on Oil giants to become more responsible, but smear campains like this don't sit well with me...

[shreddog]

While we're not talking about those issues, there is a well know statement about people living in glass houses .... plus it has been shown time and time again that one side of the arguement against the Oil Sands has purposely mislead the masses as most people outside of Alberta believe a region the size of Florida will be open pit mined to get at the oil whereas the reality is that the open pit mines will never cover an area larger than Toronto (the city, not the CMA). Plus people will focus on false science such as supposed increased cancer rates at Fort Chip and link it to the Sands rather than the radiated cesspool at moose lake. Or how about deny the fact that Alberta is being responsible be collecting money UPFRONT from the miners up there to rehabilitate the land after mining is complete. (See here).

Rather, the simple anti-Sands community cherry picks their message oftent o push an agenda not associated to their stated environmental claims. Google the history of this Marx fellow to see what I mean.

Finally, unlike so many I have actually protested up in Fort Muck (mainly ensuring that McLellan Fen is preserved) but also understand that a human to even breath we negatively impact the earth. At the end of the day my shit don't smell any better than anyone elses so I don't try to pretend it does.

[Delirium]

looks like the province has responded:

Alberta government spends $55K on oilsands ad

After failing to convince editors at the Washington Post to publish an opinion piece signed by Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, the government spent $55,779.99 to buy an ad on page A4 in the influential newspaper.

The ad ran Friday.

The ad stresses that Alberta is the largest supplier of crude to the U.S., and that the province is "a safe, reliable and responsible energy producer" that is seeking to "reduce the carbon intensity of the oilsands."

A group of 50 congressmen had recently asked the State Department to delay Keystone XL, a pipeline that would ship Canadian crude to refineries on the Texas Gulf coast.

Full story; http://www.torontosun.com/money/2010/07/02/14593556.html

I wish they would retort with facts on what is being done to be more responsible, etc. His letter in the Post seemed more like just a bunch of PR bull.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

... as oil companies will probably do the least possible, to maximize their profits.

EXACTLY ... and who demands that they do this??? The owners - that is shareholders. My point isn't to absolve the government of their role, but rather to point out that the many others are just as guilty in this mess, often times the same people trying to shut it down, though of course they would never accept a lower return on their dividend!!!

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Delirium

ouch! but really, can any of this be denied?

Yes.

1. The Rockies are nowhere close to the oilsands. Artificial human political boundaries are no way related to actual geographic realities.

2. 42,000 acres seems REALLY BIG, right? Alberta is over 163 MILLION acres in size. That's what, 4000 times bigger?

3. "Toxic lakes large enough to be seen from outer space". So's my house, you freaking morons. Welcome to camera technology post 1957.

4. "Twice the size of England" - England is 32 million acres. 42,000 acres worth of tailing ponds is destroying an area of 64 million acres?

5. "Thousands of birds every year" - the Syncrude incident was horrible. Fucking despicable, and it should never be allowed to happen again. BUT IT WAS AN ISOLATED INCIDENT. It was international news for a reason - it does not happen every year. This was the first major bird kill in the oilsands, period.

6. "Nearby Native populations suffer more diseases" - compared to what? Admittedly I'd like to see some peer-reviewed studies on this before drawing many conclusions, but it's well known that most Native populations suffer more diseases than just about anywhere else in Canada. We have much deeper problems with our reserve system than the oilsands.

7. A stack venting what is mostly water vapour - give me a fucking break. This kind of imagery was discredited in the 1960s. THAT IS NOT CO2 YOU'RE SEEING. OMG greenhouse gases!!!!!!! Oh wait, it's just fucking WATER. Grow up.

8. Conventional oil kills far more people than oilsands. And oppresses a lot more women. Google "the Middle East" if you want to learn where most of our conventional oil comes from. If you'd rather humanity live like that, I can book you a plane ticket to Saudi Arabia - just don't bring the wife if you want her to keep her license.

9. Again with the Rockies. Yes, they're within 1000km and due to political history are in the same province. Wow, you've managed to connect 2 entirely unrelated things. Oh wait, THE DUCKS. Yes, one time incident for which the responsible parties are paying millions in fines.




I dunno, but scare tactics piss me off. Yes, the oilsands need work. Like every single other industrial project on the planet. But this type of fear mongering is infantile and non-productive.

Edit: pardon the language. But morons really piss me off.

[Delirium]

really, at the end of the day we are resposible for this since we all consume oil. it's such a paradox.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by sdimedru

Hypothetically ... what would happen if we stopped shipping any Oil from Canada to the US... I know there are many, many contractual things to consider, but could the US survive without our Oil? (whether from the oilsands or conventional means)

I heard some statistic the other day that the oilsands are now the #1 supplier of US oil. Without context I have no idea what that means, I suspect they cherry-picked it so it's compared to each individual oilfield overseas or something.

Either way, there's a metric butt-ton of oilsands oil now feeding the US. If they want to cut that off, have at 'er.

[joeyedm]

and greed is to blame.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Delirium

looks like the province has responded:

Alberta government spends $55K on oilsands ad

After failing to convince editors at the Washington Post to publish an opinion piece signed by Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, the government spent $55,779.99 to buy an ad on page A4 in the influential newspaper.

The ad ran Friday.

...

What annoys me about this is rather than spend 55K hiring some researcher for 3 months to study something relevant in the environment there, we end up playing this "he said/she said" game because of someone else's agenda. I wish more of the environmental groups would work with industry and government ... as well as the gov't and industry working with more environmental groups (though that happens more than you'd think)

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I heard some statistic the other day that the oilsands are now the #1 supplier of US oil. Without context I have no idea what that means, ...

Some context - Canada provides about 16-18% of the US oil needs - #1 foreign supplier. Oil Sands based oil accounts for roughly half of Alberta's production however that doesn't mean that it also accounts for half of all oil exports to the US. Finally, raw Bit exports to the US are not the largest source of foreign hydrocarbons to the US.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Some context - Canada provides about 16-18% of the US oil needs - #1 foreign supplier. Oil Sands based oil accounts for roughly half of Alberta's production however that doesn't mean that it also accounts for half of all oil exports to the US. Finally, raw Bit exports to the US are not the largest source of foreign hydrocarbons to the US.

Good numbers, and thanks for the context. This is why it's hard to get a grasp on the whole issue.

I suspect with some of the new pipelines being proposed that oilsands MAY become the #1 source - there's a ton of bitumen processing planned in Texas, but who knows if it will become a reality. Right now I have a hard time believing the oilsands are #1 anything (other than fueling the AB gov't coffers).

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I think it should be the government that sets the standards very high and enforces them as oil companies will probably do the least possible, to maximize their profits.

governemts shouldn't have to be doing this though its stupid... but because of human nature and our own stupidities at times we have to regulate and force stuff like safty... if we didn't have those laws 1000's of people would die a year just in the tar sands and last time i checked the stats least one person a day dies in some sorta acedent in alberta no?