[Misguided Logic] A Lacking Morality

In what appears to be a sick replay of previous events, and a frightening warning of events to come, three Canadian soldiers were killed yesterday in Kandahar when a roadside bomb detonated next to their vehicle. Two of them have left behind wives and daughters, and if that isn't sad enough, it is an immense pity that I can almost guarantee that this exact type of death will occur again soon, leaving yet more Canadian families in mourning. And yet, with its typical immoral flair, our government will continue to fund and promote this war. What's more, we Canadians will be asked to continue to support our "boys in Afghanistan", in order to keep up troop morale. Well I already do support our troops (at least in the sense that they are hard working and courageous individuals who selflessly volunteered to take part in something they believe in)... But if we support them, why don't we bring them home so that they don't continue dying?

This morning, CBC Edmonton's morning radio show interviewed Christian Leuprecht, Associate Professor at the Royal Military College in Kingston, regarding Canadian troop morale in the face of the recent deaths. I think he made some important points - many of which I agree with - but I believe his conclusions were somewhat misguided. At first Leuprecht explained how the Taliban resistance was becoming more recluse and resorting more and more to guerrilla tactics such as roadside bombs and surprise attacks installations rather than conventional armed attacks on the coalition-manned areas. He then stated that this is a sign that the Taliban is weaker than it was previously. Fair enough.

However, Leuprecht concluded that this fact positively affects Canadian troop morale, and negatively affects Taliban resolve (because the Taliban know they are fighting a more powerful enemy and vice versa). I think this conclusion is overspeculative and simplistic, if not misguided. As Christine Fair, an expert with the Rand Corporation said today - the Taliban is getting much bolder with their insurgent tactics: "They are getting better. They are getting more effective. They are learning by doing." This is the nature of guerrilla warfare. The Taliban see this as a long and protracted unconventional war. They've got all the time in the world to fulfill their prophecy (yet again) of ridding the foreign invaders from their homeland, while the coalition forces are on bureacratic timelines based on budgets and dependent on "democratic support". The more coalition soldiers killed, the closer the insurgents are to getting the coalition members to withdraw from the war effort. Militarily speaking, the Taliban is outmanned and outgunned, but they are fighting for ideological reasons that are unwaveringly powerful. The Canadian soldiers, on the other hand, are fighting in a foreign land, away from their families, for reasons that are not entirely clear to anyone. The notion that they are fighting to "protect Canada" requires a massive mental leap that I, for one, am not willing to make. They are unable to engage the enemy in the type of warfare they are trained for, and instead, they are always wondering if this is the day that a roadside bomb will blow up next to their patrol vehicle. This is not good for morale!

The fact that the coalition forces are stronger militarily is a mute point when they are fighting against a hidden insurgency using dirty senseless tactics. Think Vietnam: The Viet Cong were nowhere near a military match for the combined American and South Vietnamese armies. Yet their resolve to remove foreigners and imperialists from their home country was so powerful, that they were willing to live in sweltering jungles infested with snakes and poisonous insects and tigers, eating meager rations of rice for years on end - all for a powerful nationalistic resolve similar to that felt by Afghan insurgents today. And let's remember who eventually won the Vietnam war? That's right, the army that was outnumbered and outgunned managed to inflict enough physical and financial damage upon the United States, that the latter had no option left but to withdraw.

Secondly, Leuprecht stated that the Canadian troops will maintain high morale when they know that they are "supported" back home. Although he didn't directly say it, he implied that this is good enough reason for us Canadians to support our troops, "whether or not we support the mission". Again, a logical assumption to start off with - you feel better when you know there are others thinking of you and wishing you the best- but I think the overall picture is more complex, particularly when we are addressing the psychology of those engaged in a foreign military battle.

We already know from numerous historical examples that troops who are sent abroad to fight begin to feel a detachment from their community back home. Day after day their new lives depend entirely on their fellow soldiers. This is their new community. These are the guys who they eat, sleep and shit with. These are the guys who really know what they've been through and who have shared the near-death experiences with them. Further, the war becomes personalized: It's not about "making my fellow countrymen proud" so much as it's about survival. It's about "beating these sons of bitches and rocket-launching them back to the stone age". It's about covering Pete while he runs from turret to turret. It's about avenging Pete's death when he gets killed in battle. It's about doing "whatever I need to do to make sure I get out of this hell hole alive". Fighting for the nation is an afterthought. I admit that I can't say this from personal experience, but we have been given countless testimonials of soldiers from wars past who have expressed such sentiments. Thus is borne the feeling of alienation that soldiers face when they return "home", greeted by some as heroes and others as cold blooded killers - all the while trying to reconcile what they saw, heard and felt during their few months in that other world. Again, knowing that your fellow countrymen back home support you is only one factor affecting your morale. You also know that many other fellow countrymen don't support you or even care about you. But most importantly - neither does the enemy who has you within the scope of his gun.

Finally, Leuprecht refuted a common assumption that a soldier's resolve is weakened when their comrades are killed. It's not so simple, he explained, because when their comrades die the remaining soldiers become determined to avenge their friends' deaths. Again, I agree with this statement, but what kind of implications does this have for the purpose of our Canadian involvement in Afghanistan? Does this mean that our soldiers are more concerned about schoolyard revenge than the original goal of developing a poor country? This is exactly why we should never have gotten involved in this war in the first place. It has become an endless game of cat and mouse, the original purpose of which has been lost amid the intensity of hurt feelings and pride. Is Canada's war effort really about protecting this country? Is it really about "helping and developing the Afghans"? No. It's about Stephen Harper and his neorealist cronies' little fantasy of becoming a world power. It's about letting the world know that Canada is not a small defenseless nation with a crapload of oil ("so don't mess with us!") You can bet your gun that Stephen would NEVER offer his life for this country, and yet he has asked thousands of Canadian soldiers to pay the ultimate sacrifice so he can pursue his twisted designs - likely devised during a childhood game of Risk. There should be a law that requires any politician who votes in favor of deploying troops to join those soldiers on the frontlines for an entire tour of duty. Ironically, such legislation would likely outlaw warfare, because no politician in this country's Conservative caucus (with their law and business degrees in pocket) would be willing to forego their bright and wealthy retirement plans.

But why do we put so much emphasis on troop morale, anyway? Do we honestly believe that morale is going to affect the outcome of this war? This is a war with no reasonable end in sight. The Taliban is a guerrilla insurgent force which will not be defeated by a conventional military. The only way to beat the Taliban is to make them unpopular and unwanted in their own home, and the only way to do that is to offer a better alternative. Create a world so good for the Afghans, so wonderful, that they begin to despise the insurgents and see them as a barrier to their bright future. But this is what we are NOT doing in Afghanistan. Instead, we are fueling the Afghans' historic hatred of foreign and imperialist presence when we drive around in armored vehicles, and hide behind our explosion-proof concrete barriers, and tell them "no, you can't make a livelihood growing poppies as you have for decades". We can continue to support our soldiers, and feed them rum, and protect them with helicopters, and maybe their morale will lift for an evening or two. But no amount of support or rum or helicopters will turn this war into a just war - and ultimately that's what keeps morale low - a lack of morality.

[Hypocrisy] Siding With China This Time Around...

There is one thing I hate more than being told what to do, and that's being told what to do by someone who could use their own advice. I bet most people out there would probably agree with this statement. Yet, this is exactly the kind of hypocritical two-faced crap that China is barraged with by our failure-of-a-leader Stephen Harper and his worship George W. Bush.

Every time the issue of China comes up, these lying sacks of shit make veiled threats about how the Western world will not tolerate human rights abuses in China, and that China better treat their citizens better... or else. Or else what? Nothing - no action whatsoever - has ever come of these meaningless words. They are just required utterances to fool the Canadian and American "democracy-loving" electorate that the guy in power is doing something about that "evil Communist China".

Here's a reality check:

Canada's third most important export partner: China

United States' third most important export partner: China

Canada's second most important import partner: China

United States' most important import partner: China

Value of annual US imports from China: $1.8 trillion

Yet the "threats" continue. An analogous situation would be as follows: Person A claims publicly that Person B is a pedophile and no one should do business with them, and the next day, Person A goes out and continues to conduct the majority of their business with Person B, and then goes home to rape a child.

What I'm trying to say is, the Conservative and Republican governments don't have a very clean human rights record themselves. Canadians should forever bow their heads in shame for that inexcusable moment when Chuck Strahl voted in November 2007 - as a representative of the Harper government - against adopting the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, when just about every other fucking country in the world saw it as a necessary document for the future development of global human rights. China even signed the damn thing... but funny you mention it - the US was another of the four countries that did not vote for it either.

And let's not mention the documented human rights abuses committed by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib, nor the direct contravention of internatoinal law at Guantanamo Bay, nor the two wars and senseless bombing campaigns launched against relatively defenseless nations (Afghanistan and Iraq), nor the fact that 1 out of every 9 black male Americans aged 20 to 34 are in jail... No human rights issues there!!! Get it together America! Clean up your act, and THEN maybe talk about human rights, when you have an positive example to demonstrate!

Bush even pushed the line further today, when he idiotically denounced China's human rights record, get this - WHILE EN ROUTE TO ATTEND THE BEIJING OLYMPICS OPENING CEREMONIES! Yet again I wonder if the man has a brain.

To sum up, I have all the respect for anyone (organizations and states included) which have decided to boycott the Beijing olympics on the premise of their deplorable human rights record, but here's the caveat: You yourself can't have an equally deplorable human rights record, nor can you slap the wrist on one hand while buying cheap plastic goods with the other! Instead of Harper and Bush talk garbage on our behalf, I say let Amnesty International or the International Red Cross or Journalists without Borders do the talking. If you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk, but hey - that's just what I think.

[Slander] What a Friggin' Jerk

Ed Sellmach: Selling-Out Alberta one Barrel at a Time

They taught me at work to "attack the issue, not the person." But, what if the person is the issue?

You see, Alberta's Premier, Ed Stelmach, is a jerk. His local monikers "Steady Eddie" and "Honest Ed" are totally inaccurate. A more appropriate nickname would be "Sellmach", as he has done his best to sell out Alberta and its people - barrel by barrel, dollar by dollar. The definition of a "jerk" is "a foolish, rude, or contemptible person." These characteristics best describe the qualities of our sell-out Premier.

How else can you explain his self-proclaimed pay raise of 34%!? While study after study shows that the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer in Canada, good ol' Ed Stelmach pumps an additional $1.3 million annually into the salaries of a handful of political elites in this province - to the Speaker of the House, Cabinet Ministers and their assistants, and the leader of the opposition - the very people who just so happen to be the very ones who have the power to enact such a pay raise!

The Premier's salary was just injected with an additional $54,000 per year. That is $10,000 MORE than the average Joe makes in this province in a whole year, and even the latter statistic of the average annual salary is inflated in this province by the highly paid energy industry and related sectors. Thanks to back door, secret discussions with friends regarding his own desires, the Premier now makes $213,000 a year - more than any other Premier in the country. Oh, and did I mention that elected officials are allowed to claim 1/3 of their earnings as 100% tax free?

Liberal Opposition Leader Kevin Taft was also given a gigantic raise, equivalent to an additional $42,000 per year. This move (to give the opposition leader a pay hike) is a typical Stelmach tactic to shut-up and buy-out the opposition. Luckily Taft has a little more common sense, and he has promised to donate the extra $42,000 to charities - charities that are already fledgling in this province thanks to decades of funding cuts from a government with money pouring out of its coffers.

If you're not yet convinced that Stelmach's plan is conniving, avaricious and downright jerky, check this out: As it turns out, the retirement payouts resulting from this pay hike are an additional part of the plan. As reported in the Edmonton Journal, "The provincial formula essentially hands Mr. Stelmach another $63,000 a year in deferred payout. If he merely makes it to the end of his first term, and quits or loses office, he is eligible to collect $1.1-million."

That's right, Stelmach's new plan means he - a public servant - could retire a millionaire in just four years from now. And while the price of oil continues to climb higher, the plans to keep going with the dirtiest and most destructive oil extraction operation in the world also continue. Pretty soon we might just get another citizen's tax cheque for $400 dollars - a little "fuck you" gift from the province symbolizing the foolish selling off of our precious resources, the annihiliation of our ecology and the erosion of the public interest. Thanks Ed.

[List] 10 Reasons Why Alberta's Climate Change Plan is a Total Joke

In January 2008 the Government of Alberta released its new Climate Change Action Plan. The original plan of 2002 (the first of its kind in Canada) has been reworked, revamped and perfected. As an additional effort to curb emissions in the province, the government implemented its carbon intensity reduction plan for industry in 2007, based on a carbon credit system. Given all the work our government has done on climate change, one would assume that Alberta is doing its part to tackle global warming. Upon closer inspection, however, it is evident that the action plan is seriously flawed. It appears to be specifically designed to allow the continued emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) within the booming energy industry - Now that's a joke!

Albertans should not accept this kind of dishonest propaganda from our elected officials. We should ask that a better plan be brought into effect immediately - a real working strategy that will put a halt to this province's embarrassing environmental and climatological destruction. Here are ten reasons why the climate change plan is a total joke:

1) The plan allows crude oil production to double over the next 12 years! The only word to describe this is "insanity". The province currently produces approximately 2 million Barrels Per Day of crude oil and equivalent. Stelmach's conservatives want to see that production grow to 4 million Barrels Per Day by 2020. Every Albertan knows that the production of crude oil is dirty business, especially when it requires the removal of copious amounts of sand and other contaminants. And let us not forget that the final product - the vast majority of which we ship to the United States - will eventually get burned only to unleash even more greenhouse gases into our dying atmosphere. A real climate change plan would put an immediate moratorium on bitumen extraction. Knowing that Stelmach intends to double oil production while pretending to be serious about climate change is symptomatic of the collective joke he is playing on us.

2) The plan projects an increase of nearly 30% GHG emissions over the next 12 years! A climate change plan is supposed to reduce GHG emissions, not allow them to skyrocket in astronomical proportions! At our current rate of approximately 210 Megatonnes of GHG emissions per year, Alberta is by far the worst global warming culprit in the country. Yet the climate change plan expects an increase of nearly 60 Megatonnes of GHGs by 2020! That's a 30% increase of greenhouse gases within a timespan that is equivalent to 5% of the entire industrial era (when this climate change problem started). A functional climate change strategy would start reductions now, not allow a grace period of more than a decade for polluting corporations to unleash unprecedented amounts of carbon dioxide.

3) The plan only pays lip service to alternative energy. Alternative energy should be the main focus of our climate change strategy. We should be investing as much as possible RIGHT NOW into renewable energy technologies. We have lots of sun in this province. We have lots of wind. We have locations that are perfect for geothermal energy generation. And best of all, we have a wealth of the most important resource required for green energy production: Highly trained, innovative and hard working people! The province should have spearheaded and invested in these alternative energy industries years ago. Instead, they are so obsessed with the money to be made from fossil fuels that they still have not published their implementation plan for alternative energy production! For crying out loud - we're still burning coal to power our society! Our climate change plan should provide a framework for us to eventually source 100% of our energy from green sustainable sources. Instead, the Stelmach plan expects that by 2050, we'll only replace 18% of our dirty energy sources with alternative green sources. It's a real shame.

4) The plan only calls for a reduction of 14% of our GHG emissions in a period of 45 years! This is far too little, far too late! The government's highly-funded communications department is leading us on, by saying it will cut emissions by "50%", meaning a reduction of "200 Megatonnes". But in fact, if you read beyond the headlines it is clear that they only intend to cut emissions by 14% of 2005 levels! That equals less than 30 Megatonnes of real emission reductions from the base year of 2005. This is because they are asking for a 50% reduction of projected levels for 2050. It is absolutely ludicrous to claim that they will reduce emissions that are totally avoidable in the first place! A real climate change plan does not try to reduce emissions that could be created, it tries to reduce emissions that already exist! The irony is that if we adopted the government's plan for reducing GHG emissions by 200 Megatonnes today, we could be nearly carbon neutral by 2050! Instead, with Stelmach's current plan we'll still be producing more emissions in 2050 (after full implementation of the plan) than every other province managed to produce in 2005 (with the exception of Ontario).

5) The plan relies way too heavily on carbon capture and storage technology. The three main ways to reduce emissions, according to Stelmach, are by increasing efficiency and conservation (which will account for 12% of planned reductions), using alternative energy (18% of planned reductions), and finally, adopting carbon sequestration practices (accounting for 70% of our planned reductions!). This puts an overwhelming amount of faith in a technology that has not yet even been put to use in the province! We're talking about a proposed 140 Megatonnes of GHGs that will be captured every single year, and we don't yet have a place to store all of this! Some experts note that plants that are set up to capture carbon actually use 25% more energy than those plants that just let it float away. Here's another joke for you: When the oil companies tell you that their operations are "carbon capture ready", all this actually means is that they have left space on their industrial plants where they can build the appropriate carbon capture facilities when they are required to do so. However, they are not required to do so. Further, a carbon pipeline will have to be built between the plants that emit CO2 (which happen to be all over the province) to the right location for storage (a location that needs to be chosen based on the appropriate geological formations (where the carbon is pumped underground). Such a pipeline is estimated to cost at least $5 billion in Alberta, and nobody appears to want to foot the bill. The climate change plan should put a moratorium on projects that create high emissions until the carbon capture technology and infrastructure is already fully in place.

6) They got the numbers wrong. The provincial government projections for GHG growth and reductions suggest that in 2005 Alberta produced 205 Megatonnes of GHGs. However, the federal agency which tabulates emissions suggests that this is a very low estimate. In its "2005 Greenhouse Gas Inventory", Environment Canada indicates that Alberta produced more that 235 Megatonnes of GHGs in 2005. That our provincial government is underestimating our 2005 emissions by 30 Megatonnes is a frightening thought. First of all, our government could potentially be lying to us about the emissions to downplay the province's leading role as contributor to climate change. Secondly, the entire plan's projections are based on the calculations for 2005 emissions. Within the provincial schema, the "business as usual" model projects GHG emissions to climb from 205 Megatonnes in 2005 up to approximately 375 Megatonnes by 2050. But if Environment Canada is right in its figure of Alberta's 2005 emissions, we're in for trouble: the recalculated projection would bring the 2050 emission level back to 205 Megatonnes after a 50% reduction. The punchline? This is the very amount of emissions that the province is claiming we need to reduce! Rather than underestimate the amount of emissions currently produced, the climate change forecast model should overestimate the amount we currently produce, in order to "play it safe" and ensure our impact is not worse than we expect. Instead, thanks to this underestimation mistake on our government's behalf, we will see NO REDUCTIONS of 2005 levels by 2050!

7) Companies can easily buy their way out of dealing with climate change. As part of the Climate Change and Emissions Management Act, the large GHG emitting companies in the province are required to reduce their emissions by 12% each year. While this is an excellent policy - in principle - the system that is set up to ensure that this happens is severely flawed. The system is based on carbon credits - a company gets a credit when it reduces emissions. But what if a company is not able to actually reduce annual emissions by the target 12%? In this case, the company has the option of buying a credit at the rate of $15/tonne. This rate is way too low - it allows companies to easily buy their way out of dealing with global warming. The money from these carbon credit purchases goes into the province's Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund. After 2007, we now know that companies are opting to just pay the low rate rather than actually reduce emissions. The fund now has $40 million. That may sound good - but it's actually bad news: First of all, it means that 12.7 Megatonnes of CO2 that should NOT have been emitted were actually emitted! Secondly, $40 million is "chump change" relative to the massive profits in the oil industry - an industry that often deals in "billions" of dollars. What this means is that the companies that pollute are just absorbing the cost emitting carbon dioxide into their regular operating costs.

8) The carbon credit system only targets the top few emitters, and allows other emitters to continue polluting without any requirement to make reductions. The legislation only calls for companies that produce over 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas per year in the province. That equals approximately 100 companies mostly in the energy, electrical and chemical industry. But what about the companies that produce 90,000 tonnes of GHGs a year? Or even 20,000 tonnes (which is an awful lot of climate changing gas!). In short, nothing - only those companies that produce over 100,000 tonnes per year are required to take part in the carbon credit system. This has caused me to think twice about recent media reports about energy companies that "split" (rather than merge) into two subsidiary companies. It is common for energy companies to set up new subsidiary companies to operate new projects (such as the "Fort Hills Energy Corporation" or the "Albian Sands Energy Corporation", which are both subsidiaries of other common energy companies). I sometimes wonder if by spreading the work across different corporate entities, they are avoiding their responsibilities in reducing emissions (and they can thereby save money). The requirement to reduce emissions by 12% should apply to ALL polluters, not just the few worst polluters.

9) The culprit companies can merely channel costs to the Alberta citizen rather than suffer the costs themselves. The government expects the "costs of compliance" for companies attempting to reduce emissions to total $177 million. In other words, it costs money to reduce emissions. Rather than foot the bill themselves, however, the government has no regulation on whether companies can merely increase the prices of their products (and thereby pass the cost on to the consumer). In fact, they invite companies to simply charge more for the final product (electricity, for example). While it is a good idea for consumers to pay a premium on products that cause high emissions, it is not right for companies to merely shrug off the costs of dealing with climate change. There should be regulations in place that require companies that produce emissions to pay for it, at least in part. We need to make it less lucrative to be in the business of planet killing, and more profitable to be leading the way in sustainable energy creation.

10) The province's climate change plan is designed to keep the oil industry growing. Why else would a climate change plan allow emissions of GHGs to increase by so much? Why else would the plan not come into effect for 12 years? Why else would the plan rely so heavily on carbon sequestration and storage (rather than reducing carbon emissions in the first place?). The reason is that this government is addicted to oil, and oil revenues and investments. They can't think outside the box. They worry that if they fail to make the business climate attractive for investment that the world will end or something. But what they don't realize is that they are playing a genuine role in destroying the planet, destroying the future of our civilization. The free market is not going to solve our climate change crisis. It's time for our climate change responsibilities to come first - before the oil industry. Maybe then we might see an "oil reduction" plan that shows how we will wean ourselves off of this dirty 20th century commodity and move onto cleaner, better things. Right now we've got things backwards.

So there you have it - 10 reasons why the very people we voted into office are playing a crude joke on us! It's high time that this province - by far the worst culprit in the country for emissions - get serious about climate change. Our atmosphere is already approaching 385 parts per million of Carbon Dioxide. We are playing with fire, and it may already be too late to reverse the damage. We need politicians who will take climate change seriously NOW, and we need a Premier who has the guts to take on the oil companies, not one who acquiesces to their every desire.

[Equation] Lakes of Tar = Death

[Photo caption: View of Syncrude plant and tailing "pond" in Northern Alberta. Not long ago this land was covered in ancient forests that acted as an important lung for the planet]

It's as simple as adding things together. What do you expect to occur when you bulldoze miles upon miles of previously untouched forest, then dig out a series of gigantic holes, and fill them with toxic, sludgy, tar-filled waste-water? To top it off, these massive carcinogenic lakes (which are visible from space) happen to be located within the migratory path of many species of bird and other wildlife, and just happen to be a couple of kilometers upstream from human-inhabited areas.

If the answer isn't obvious to you yet, you may want to revisit your basic arithmetic skills. The answer is "death". You get "death" when you build man-made lakes of carcinogenic sludge. It's that simple.

Hence my lack of surprise when I woke up to today's news. A flock of some 500 ducks, en route to its summer habitat, was flying by Fort McMurray, when it located a series of lakes - which seemed perfect for a rest. These were not the first birds to think it might make a good rest stop, but they were the first (at least that we know of) to have NOT been properly warned ahead of time that these were not real lakes of fresh water, but rather that they were the carcinogenic lakes of tar-water mentioned above. In fact, most days there are birds of various species trying to make a stop in the famous "tailings ponds" of Northern Alberta - the liquid waste product of copious amounts of water used to produce crude oil - but - the companies which produce these toxic seas employ a number of sophisticated tactics to convince birds to stay away from them. They use scarecrows, for example, and large air canons (which are loud enough to scare the shit out of any animal).

For some reason, however, these ducks were not given the air canon warnings, nor did the scarecrows seem to do their job. So all 500 of them landed in one of Syncrude's tailings ponds.

Well they're dead now - at least the majority of them are. If any survived, they are now covered in sticky tar and are no longer capable of using their wings. And if they manage to get rehabilitated by rescue workers, maybe - just maybe - they will continue to thrive, only to get struck with cancer at a later date, having been exposed to extremely dangerous contaminants... just like the people of Fort Chipewyan.

What's that? Are you saying the people of Fort Chipewyan have been struck with cancer, having been exposed to dangerous contaminants from the oil sands?

YES. THE PEOPLE OF FORT CHIPEWYAN, and other communities located on the Athabasca River, downstream from Fort McMurray, ARE DYING FROM CANCER AT ABNORMALLY HIGH RATES!!!

This is why a Doctor by the name of John O'Connor, some 7 years ago, reported with grave concern that a number of people had acquired cholangiocarcinoma - a rare form of cancer that usually impacts less than 1 in 100,000 people. Yet here were up to 5 people with it, in a population of 1200!!! Medically speaking, this is extreme cause for alarm. Yet as many of you reading this will know, O'Connor raised the issue publicly, and was then fired by Health Canada for causing unnecessary public panic.

Now, I have not been to Fort Chip myself, but I was at an event regarding the Tar Sands here in Edmonton that was attended by a number of Fort Chip residents. I WILL BE FOREVER HAUNTED by the appeal by one of them - a woman in her 40s: Addressing the audience with tears pouring down her cheeks, she PLEADED with us to do whatever we could to stop the death of her community. She listed case after case, person after person, with the familiarity of their first names - her friends and family members who had either died or will soon die of cancer. Her sadness turned to anger... "this is not normal" she screamed at us, referring to attempts by our provincial and federal governments to shrug off the public health disaster as a typical health issue that is unrelated to the tar sands operations.

The extremely powerful PR assault led by the oil industry and the provincial and federal government is winning. They have managed to block the story of genocide in Fort Chip from filtering into the everyday car driver's head. They have somehow managed to convince us that slowing tar sands production will mean economic collapse - despite the clear warnings by economists that climate change will more likely wreak global economic havoc. And perhaps this is what makes the story of the ducks all the more bitter for me. Part of the story is that this "duck disaster" comes just as Stelmach's PR squad is returning from an international propaganda tour - the goal of which was to convince elites around the world that the tar sands operations are sophisticated, GREEN, oil-exploitation procedures - where EVERY CARE is taken to ensure the environmental, climatological and ecological sustainability of the land. Not only do the deaths of these birds prove the sheer absurdity of Stelmach's lies, they also demonstrate the simplicity of the equation of death involved in the tar sands gigaproject. We must hold Stelmach accountable for his crimes. Let us never forget the deaths that have been a direct result of this, either animal or human!

After hearing of those poor dead ducks, a friend of mine asked in desperation - "what will it take for the government to realize it has to stop the tar sands"? Our country is so racist towards first nations people that it seems the death of a native community will not halt tar sands expansion. I highly doubt the bird story will do anything either, other than arouse more temporary anger. But within the increased production intended by the Stelmach Conservatives lies their own demise. This provincial government, already the greatest emitter of carbon emissions in the country (thanks to oil production), has already begun to drive itself into a dark tunnel of history. Alberta oil is so dirty that even American politicians are threatening to stop buying it, given the horrendous environmental and climactic impacts of converting bitumen into crude oil (California already has a law to forbid the buying of Alberta oil). So to answer the question "what will it take"? I think it will take one of two things: Either a) it will take unprecedented amounts of environmental destruction and climactic trauma for to the point that it's no longer worth it to feed gas into their SUV so they can drive to the store to buy their things - because the things won't be there anymore (or at least they'll be totally unafordable). In this scenario it will take economic collapse - which already seems pending, or b) it will take smart citizens to foresee this industrial collapse before it happens, and start acting NOW to reduce the amount of harm we will face as a civilization from global warming and the economic meltdown it will throw upon the world. Which doomsday scenario do you choose?