Following recent actions by Greenpeace, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach and Solicitor General Fred Lindsay have suggested that protesters who trespass at oil and gas facilities should face harsher punishments.
I have no doubt that the two politicians are eager to see justice dealt, but at this point in time there does not appear to be any evidence to suggest that our legal system is not working as it should be. The protesters have been arrested and are now facing charges of trespassing and mischief.
There are a number of obvious root causes of these incidents and none of them have to do with getting tough on crime. While attempting to focus international media attention on Alberta's oilsands before the Copenhagen Conference, Greenpeace activists planning and executing actions like these know what they are doing is illegal and they don't care. Instead of blaming the legal system, Stelmach and Lindsay should take real action by 1) articulating why their vision for oilsands development is the right one for Alberta, Canada and the world; and 2) improving public confidence in how our most valuable nature resources are being safeguarded.
What is the state of security in Alberta's oilsands?
Just as a confidential report prepared by sector experts has highlighted serious concerns about security in the oilsands, Shell is now taking productive steps by publicly vowing to review facility security. While the conclusions have now been contradicted by the evidence presented through Greenpeace's canoe-paddling incursion skillz, Solicitor General Lindsay described the provincial security plan as "one of the most comprehensive in the country" in the Legislative Assembly on February 19, 2009.
Mr. Richard Marz: My first question is to the Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security. What measures are in place to protect Alberta’s energy resources such as the oil sands?
The Speaker: The hon. minister.
Mr. Lindsay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government does have a plan in place to protect all critical infrastructure in our province. The Alberta counterterrorism crisis management plan emphasizes the use of intelligence from a range of sources to identify, mitigate, or prevent a security threat before it occurs, and the Alberta Security and Strategic Intelligence Support Team gathers, analyzes, distributes critical intelligent information to industry and law enforcement. Partnership and collaboration between government, industry, and law enforcement is the backbone of our counterterrorism plan.
Mr. Marz: My final question, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. There have been several pipeline bombings in northwestern British Columbia in the past few months. What assurance can the minister provide that pipelines in Alberta will be protected from attacks such as the ones in B.C.?
Mr. Lindsay: Mr. Speaker, the Alberta government takes the security of our energy resources very seriously. There is no indication that Alberta Energy infrastructure is at risk, and our threat level remains low. However, we will continue to work with the oil and gas industry and law enforcement agencies to ensure the security of the industry. Our counterterrorism and crisis management plan is regarded as one of the most comprehensive in the country and is continually reviewed to make sure it meets the stringent requirements of both government and industry.
Related Post: Alberta and Greenpeace: Tourists home and abroad.
Posts
17 comments:
Great post again, Dave!
If it's about site security, what happened when you contacted Shell to discuss it with them?
Great find on the Hansard quote. I bet he's eating his words now.
Was Lindsay on vacation when Greenpeace spent the last 6 months planning these protests? At an international conference?
I can't see how judges here in Alberta won't look to what happened in the UK as a legal precedent in this case.
Word verification: 'exoil'
I am proud to see that Shell is taking responsibility and improving their security protocols. The free market prevails as it always does.
CHris Henderson said it best on twitter:
"Special penalties for protesting is tantamount to suppressing free speech. Punish trespassing, not dissent."
Funny how expression, when limited by 140 characters, produces enlightening slogan-like conciseness.
Thanks for posting the twitter quote, Andrew. It really sums up how I feel as well.
lyrical: I wonder how much it will affect this case. From what I understand, the Kingsnorth case had a lot to do with the local circumstances (the building another very dirty coal power plant) and the trial being decided by jury (rather than by a judge). Thoughts?
I don't know if he was really saying anything then, either. Meeting government and industry standards is like saying meeting your own standards (who doesn't?), and the standards of the people who would have to pay for it (which are predictably low).
"Stelmach and Lindsay should take real action by 1) articulating why their vision for oilsands development is the right one for Alberta, Canada and the world; and 2) improving public confidence in how our most valuable nature resources are being safeguarded."
Sorry, but no actually, what they should do is take note of international opinion and wind down the tar sands industry.
Really Jane? People express their opinions with how they spend their money. Internationally, we don't seem to be having any trouble finding a market for our oil. Have you considered that those international customers have maybe done some research and realized that Alberta oilsands producers exceed their environmental obligations and are making huge investments in reclamation and resource management?
Sorry altapo, I can't work out whether you are being ironic or not, so I'll assume you are not and state the bleeding obvious.
On 21st September, Rajendra Pachauri, nobel laureate, of the IPCC, called on Canada to consider closing down the tar sands operation.
Canada does not have a viable plan to reduce its CO2 emissions by 80% below 1990 levels, which will be necessary to prevent dangerous global warming. It will be virtually impossible for Canada to do so without closing down the tar-sands. Other countries will not be able to meet their C02 reduction obligations and buy tar-sands oil.
The USA does not yet have a programme for cutting down on C02 in place. When it does, if that programme is effective, they will stop buying tar-sands oil. And ditto China.
I don't think anybody outside Canada thinks the tar-sands are environmentally friendly, and Canada's reputation has plummeted.
Canada would be wise to close the tar sand down while it is ahead, and before it is forced to.
Suncor should sue Greenpeace for the revenue they lost due to this little stunt. Every worker who lost pay should sue too.
Jane, some evidence about potential US actions please?
And can you please give an example of another large scale natural resource development that has been shut down?
Evidence about potential US action. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/06/MNGA5Q9T7S1.DTL. Actually, it's had a lot of media attention, but obviously you missed it.
As for a large scale natural resource development that was shut down -- how about the slave trade? That was shut down. The analogy seems a nice one to me.
Even China is losing patience with wild Western countries who don't want to cut their emissions but want poorer developing countries to cut theirs. At this rate it might be tough to avoid a future Climate Calamity, Jane.
Great quote from Linsday!
"Our counterterrorism and crisis management plan is regarded as one of the most comprehensive in the country and is continually reviewed to make sure it meets the stringent requirements of both government and industry."
Too bad it's just talk. yeah!
Thanks Jane, but are you always that snarky?
Must apologize, I should have asked for actual US actions and not potential. Yes, there have been many newspapers articles published. There are just as many published discussing the benefits of the tar sands to the US.
Did you really have to use the slave trade as a "natural resource industry." Do you really want to go down that path? Do you have support for that?
Please note that all the elected political parties are on record supporting the development of the oil/tar sands and I think even the Fed NDP is officially supportive as well.
Post a Comment