Sand Branding

They’re not tarsands; they’re oilsands. At least that’s what the energy sector and the Alberta government want – nay, need – the world to understand. Will the message make it through the muddle?

Apr 1, 2009

by Scott Messenger

“The core message,” says Thomas, convinced Alberta companies have the capacity to move toward such a future even as they continue to meet undiminished demands, “is: ‘Look we’re going to be the leaders in the innovation to renewable energies. We’re the guys that are going to lead the way.’ The oilsands are kind of like a bridge to the future,” he adds. “That’s a solid message.”

The alternative to offering that kind of hope, he says, is to continue fighting the powerful filtering effect of the mainstream media and the “skewed view” of the NGO. And that, he points out, is of little benefit to society and shareholders alike.

The Contrarians

Chris Turner
Calgary-based journalist and author of The Geography of Hope, a book examining the possibility of a sustainably fuelled future

“If [the oilsands] can get emissions down to where they’re more or less equal to emissions from any other extraction operation then, OK, that’s a responsible approach to the resource, as long as there is recognition… at the government level – because it’s not the industry’s job to recognize this – that this is an inherently unsustainable approach to energy that needs to be transitioned away from. And that’s the thing that’s massively missing from everything Stelmach’s government says.”

But the view of the Alberta NGO, or at least of headline-grabber Greenpeace Canada, is surprisingly in line with Thomas’s – apart from dismissing what it considers token attempts at environmental improvements, not to mention a push for a complete oilsands phase-out. The idea, says climate and energy campaigner Mike Hudema, is to “build the green-job economy that’s being built all around the world without us.” Getting there, he’s convinced, isn’t going to happen through negotiation.

“It’s simply not working with this government, so you’ve seen the bigger activities to try to get the government’s attention, to try to signal to different markets around the world that the tarsands are not a safe oil play and that they come with a tremendous environmental and human rights price tag.” Hence a dramatic crashing of a political fundraiser and an attempt at blocking a tailings pond output pipe, both measures the NGO took to get its own message out last summer (and which produced a spike in donations and new volunteers). And until Greenpeace is convinced of real change, says Hudema, “you’re going to see us continue to try to apply the pressure.”

While he knows that extreme actions risk alienating a significant portion of the public, he can also probably be assured of making more front pages than any rebranding efforts by government or industry.

Regardless of whose truth you believe, there is an element of government and industry response that has it feeling like a defence, like the campaign is being too much shaped by criticism and less by creativity and true optimism. That could, however, actually be a good thing. It might show, as CAPP’s David Collyer insists, that the industry is listening.

“We’re not trying to duck our responsibilities, but we do think it’s important that people look at this through multiple lenses, not solely the environmental lens, and understand how energy and environment and economy come together. And we think that at the end of the day that will lead to… sustainable and responsible development, which is the objective we all share.”

Is this too rational a response to a situation in which the public is now emotionally involved? The goal here is reconnection. To pull it off, the oilsands industry must move from being long seen as uncommunicative and single-minded to being recognized as, well, caring. It must win hearts and minds. And as much as Collyer understands how difficult this transition will be, he insists that “we can’t shy away from that.”