The anti-oil sands industry

An AEG op/ed published in the National Post. 

David MacLean, Financial Post 
Published: Friday, February 20, 2009 

Environmental pressure groups have sprouted up across the country in an effort to undermine Canada's oil sands industry. They portray themselves as righteous defenders of the good, protecting Canadians from the forces of greed and exploitation. But a closer look at these groups reveals a sobering truth: the movement is as much an "industry" as any other and is not above manipulating of science and public opinion to achieve its objectives. 

The anti-oil sands campaign is organized, well-funded and follows a distinct pattern. Groups like Greenpeace, Sierra Club and Environmental Defence release frequent reports raising alarm about the environmental impacts of the oil sands industry, which are dutifully reported by media. Without a swift rebuttal, these "studies" become accepted as gospel and are repeated by radical environmentalists in their media talking points around the world. 

Take, for example, a damning report released by U. S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council claiming that between six and 166 million migratory birds will be lost due to oil sands development in Alberta's boreal forest over the next 30 to 50 years. The report, entitled "Danger in the Nursery," garnered extensive global media coverage despite being shot full of statistically invalid data. For starters, the range of numbers is so broad it's statistically invalid. The report even claims the black scoter, a type of duck, has declined due to oil sands development, although the closest the scoter nests to the oil sands are 1,300 kilometers away, near Hudson Bay. 

Prominent ecologist Dr. Kevin Timoney, one of the report's reviewers, exposed another hole, this one about bird deaths at oil sands' tailings ponds. In an editorial published last month in the Edmonton Journal, Timoney pointed out how the report "assumed that peak [bird] landing rates exist 24 hours per day for 100 days." In reality, peak landing rates only occur during migration, which is 1-3 weeks per year, and not for 24 hours a day. Timoney had "discussions with the lead author" to explain the flaw in the method of estimating bird mortality. "I recommended that they either delete the section or use an approach that was scientifically credible," he wrote. "The authors evidently chose to ignore the advice." 

The report's contents were then reported in December by The Globe and Mail and other news outlets, before the study was even made available to Canadians. The report surfaced again in recent weeks when the Bishop for the Roman Catholic diocese that covers Fort McMurray referenced it in a pastoral letter condemning oil sands development as a "moral problem." The Bishop's letter made news around the world. 

The authors claim the report is peer reviewed but the reviewers are anti-oil sands advocates. True peer review is supposed to be anonymous to guard against attempts to influence authors and reviewers. In fact, the entire anti-oil sands community looks less like a bunch of independent groups than it does an incestuous family that's wholly-owned by massive U. S. foundations. 

Millions of dollars flow into Canada each year from a handful of American charitable foundations. One of largest and most influential is Pew Charitable Trusts which directed $41-million to Canadian boreal forest groups between 2003 and 2007. One of the reviewers of the migratory bird report, Larry Innes, is Executive Director of the Canadian Boreal Initiative (CBI), which distributes approximately $2-million in Pew money to environmental and aboriginal groups each year. 

If you follow the money that supports environmental outfits in Canada you will inevitably find yourself south of the border. Strange that, while Canadians are generally suspicious of foreign influence on domestic policies, tens of millions pouring into Canada from the United States to undermine the oil sands industry hardly raises an eyebrow. 

Canada's economic growth depends on tapping the potential that exists in the oil sands while ensuring a clean and safe environment for future generations. We need oil sands critics to come to the table with honest debate and not extreme alarmism. At the very least, Canadians must hold the protest groups to same standards as the industry advocates. - David MacLean is vice-president, Alberta Enterprise Group, a non-profit, member-driven public policy advocacy group. www.albertaenterprise.ca