In a classic case of green-themed marketing vs. the real world, hundreds of ducks die, an energy technology formerly touted as environmentally sound has become even more questionable, and an oil company's fortunes are at risk. And it seems Canada is reevaluating its practice of exporting most of its oil to the United States. I hope to have good news for ducks some other time, because they seem to have turned into an environmental bellweather species. A quacking canary, so to speak, needing much attention and support, which in turn give rise to more strident marketing claims, mentioned in this blog a while ago.
I'm sure you've followed the story. In Alberta, Canada, Syncrude extracts oil from vast sand deposits by a combination of mining and building wells.
Unfortunately, oil extraction from sand results in the creation of toxic lakes of sludge. Eventually, after lengthy and expensive cleanup, the water can be recycled, but in the meantime it's pure poison. Following regulation by the province of Alberta, the company operates noise-making equipment to deter migrating birds from landing on the poisonous ponds, but that equipment only runs from spring until fall. And, since weather conditions in Alberta this year have been extremely cold and winter-like until now, the equipment wasn't running and didn't do anything to scare off a flock of approximately 500 mallards that landed on a so-called "tailings pond." All the birds got poisoned, became unable to fly, and died.
Damage control ensued. Company officials make excuses and offer apologies. Greenpeace is demanding a public inquiry. And, seemingly overnight, the poor ducks have become a "new symbol of oil sands activism." Syncrude finds itself the target of a governmental probe.
The province of Alberta has become wealthy through the oil business, so people are wondering how extensive any scrutiny or penalties for Syncrude and other oil companies will be. In the meantime, Syncrude still offers as a "quick fact" on its Web site that it "is one of Alberta's largest and most respected employers." They offer an apology, as well. The language is soothing, remarkably balanced, not overly bureaucratic, and noncommittal. It's almost as if the company is daring a reader to push for practical follow-up in a tangible manner: What are they going to actually do about this problem?
"We understand you expect the best from Syncrude in environmental management and the protection of wildlife. It’s a value that we share, and we are committed to making the necessary changes to our long-established practices to help ensure a sad event like this never happens again. This is a promise we make to you and all those who depend on our crude oil product to fuel their daily lives.
"As we go forward, we will learn from what happened, we will improve our practices, and we will meet your expectations for responsible development."
In the history of greenwashing, this apology deserves careful study and consideration. Please read it a couple of times and watch the content vanish into thin air.
In the meantime, if you want more background and substantial information about Alberta and its oil industry, including factual responses to the industry's and governments' environmental claims, one great resource is Tar Sands Watch by the Polaris Institute.
Tar Sands Watch calls for a moratorium on increased tar sand exploitation until "a set of basic environmental and social conditions has been achieved." Bear in mind that the organization is not at all hostile to business or petro-based energy. They even advocate that Canada amass strategic petroleum reserves. As far as I can tell, the information and calls to action on the Tar Sands Watch site are well balanced and reasonable, in addition to being articulated in an engaging, friendly manner. Consider participating or at least following as they present the story.
Comments