“Rethink Alberta” badly thought out

Where's the ethics in Corporate Ethics International's campaign?

Jul 16, 2010

by Paul Marck

Where’s the ethics in Corporate Ethics International’s campaign?

By Paul Marck

There are some important lessons to be learned in a three-plus decades journalism career. A couple of them are these: When the truth is elusive or you choose to ignore it, at the very least do not report half-truths or misinformation. Secondly, be wary of parachuting into somebody else’s backyard and pretend to be an expert. Sadly, no such pangs of conscience seem to haunt Corporate Ethics International (CEI) and their “Rethink Alberta” campaign.

Certainly by now you have heard that these San-Francisco based propagandists have declared war on Alberta over the oil sands. This bunch has enacted a massive billboards and mixed-media campaign in the U.S. to drive tourists away from Alberta over perceived and alleged wrong-doing in our energy industry.

I read the “About the Tar Sands” report on the corpethics.org website and found it to be a rousing bit of fiction. Albertans have heard this brand of disinformation before. However, the alarmist tripe and piffle being put forward here is lamentable. To read this and other of their stuff about the oil sands is to believe that Armageddon is at hand. Suffice to say that mistruths, half-truths, embroideries and over-the top pronouncements are woven throughout. It is mindful of the worst of the pamphleteers and tabloid crusaders.

There is little sense in dissecting each and every one of their arguments. To do so would be pointless and time consuming beyond reason. But examining a couple of examples has merit. CEI variously refers to the oil sands as an area as large as the state of Michigan or twice the size of England. The England comparison was retracted Thursday in a rare mea culpa. But even that amended description is incorrect. The fact is that active tar sands mining and in-situ operations occupy less than one half of one per cent of Alberta’s land mass.

However, my favourite part of their treatise is this phrase: “Investigative researchers suspect that purposeful releases at night into the Athabasca River contributes to a 150-mile long oil slick … that flows into Athabasca Lake …” Hmm. Better get the X-Files onto this. The truth is out there. It is just not here, with such scurrilous innuendo.

I fired off an email to the deep thinkers at Corporate Ethics International, asking if any of their staff has ever set foot in Alberta to conduct first-hand investigation of these allegations. Never got a response. So perhaps it would not be valid to suggest that CEI parachuted in here. I would speculate — and am certainly not stating this as fact, by any means — that these people have never been to Alberta or seen the oil sands.

The truly tragic aspect of all this is that it detracts from thoughtful, sensible debate of how to promote alternate energy and wean society from its addiction to oil in every form. If Corporate Ethics International were ever to take the lead on this vital issue, it could do a world of good and perhaps help restore their credibility.

July 2010 Contents

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

You may also like these stories

CEOs need to get in front of the oil sands story
Oil sands and government have not delivered on clean-up over the past year
2011: Time to buck up
Premier's move right one on Athabasca report
Stelmach no doubt frustrated when his ministers undermine him
China will be Alberta's new dance partner
Hayward's loose lips point to bigger problem
Deposed BP boss a sign that moral decay is at centre of corporate culture

Alberta Venture welcomes your comments. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy. If you see a typo or error on our site, report it to us. Please include a link to the story where you spotted the error.

http://albertadiary.ca David J. Climenhaga
If you ask me, Corporate Ethics International’s advertising campaign achieved 100 per cent of its goals for a very modest cost. The complete freak-out by Alberta’s government, industry flacks, mainstream media and the like became a publicity generating machine working for CEI, all for the cost of four billboards in third-tier American cities. Any rational American observer of this brouhaha would conclude the intensity and defensiveness of the response by all the usual official suspects suggests something is indeed amiss in Alberta’s tarsands/oilsands/oilpatch. Mr. Marck accuses CEI of spreading “half-truths” and “misinformation,” and I suppose we can argue with many of their specific claims, but my guess is they are quite sincere in their belief in the truth of their assertions. By the same token, many claims made by the Alberta government and industry are not much more than transparent spin for truly irresponsible activities that are resulting in long-term environmental damage. Consider, for example, the Alberta government’s dubious claims there are no cancer clusters and no water-quality problems downstream from oilsands operations. If Alberta were serious about doing anything more than just talking the talk, we could start by charging a fair royalty to be used by the people of Alberta to finance aggressive environmental regulation of bitumen extraction operations and future rehabilitation of damaged land. Don’t bet on that happening, of course. But if we won’t behave ourselves, well, tourism boycotts by foreign groups are a legitimate tactic and one of the few ways that non-Albertans can influence our behaviour. So I guess we’ll have to get used to it.
DG Rowland
You write an interesting article Mark, which I agree with. If I beleived everything about the negative advertising on this article or any other I would not be going anywhere. So does this mean that because of AZ prop 1070 that I should go to Arizona. I was born and raised in Alberta and I still think it is one of the greatest Provinces. Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion.
http://corpethics.org heather
The rethinkAlberta campaign is a coalition. Mostly comprised of people on the ground in Alberta and across Canada. Your guess that people have not been to Alberta is nonsense and is intended to give your article some kind of “oomph” to make up for its host of “scurrilous innuendos”. RethinkAlberta and the coalition want the science to be complete and comprehensive. And they want the debate to open up to everyone involved – as a global audience that is facing climate change with devastating problems.
You couch your article as if you have reason to bolster your argument – but there is little reason here! How far has sensible debate on energy gotten anyone so far? Answer me that and then decry the tactics of a campaign that preceded RethinkAlberta and will continue to fight corporate externalities and corporate economics. You know very little about campaigning, it is obvious. But in your rant against a coalition of people who actually want Alberta to remain brilliant you become the best friend of corporate greed and environmental destruction.
You want this campaign to be comprised of know-nothing USAmericans – but, fortunately for Alberta, it is comprised of intelligent, driven, compassionate people who have had enough of the kum-by-ya campfire chants of the sheeple who do nothing but yak yak yak in the face of devastation.
p.s the amended description in the RA video is not incorrect. and please, start in on Dr. Schindler’s findings next, just to cement your defense of an industry that could give a shite about you or Alberta.