Last week, I wrote a short history of the greenwashing campaign being waged by tar sands promoters, including (and especially) the Canadian and Alberta governments. Itโs clear that as the battle over the future of tar sands development has intensified, so has the greenwashing necessary to promote it in the age of climate change and increasing environmental literacy. The more people know about the dangerous costs and risks associated with tar sands development, the more time, effort and money its promoters must invest in the alchemy of disingenuousย propaganda.
The frustrating part for Canadians concerned with this egregious abuse and misuse of language is that there doesnโt appear to be any recourse. Tar sands supporters seem to disseminate their little black lies with impunity, and there is no way, in a democracy where free speech is sacrosanct, to stop the flood of tar sands bullshit sullying theย airwaves.
And yet, I may have stumbled on at least one way to hold those who choose to misrepresent the true nature of the environmental problems associated with turning Albertaโs bitumen deposits into tar sands crude to well-accepted standards of decency andย honesty.
In 2008, the federal governmentโs Competition Bureau, in partnership with the Canadian Standards Association, published Environmental Claims: A Guide for Industry and Advertisers. Ostensibly, the guide was prepared to help businesses and advertisers (and presumably public relations gurus as well) make self-declared environmental claims in a more honest and informative manner, and to avoid using โmisleading or deceptive claims relating to an implied or expressed environmentalย benefit.โ
The guide defines โself-declared environmental claimsโ as โthose claims that are made by manufacturers, importers, distributors, or any person who promotes a product/service or business interest who is likely to benefit from the productโs environmental claims.โ It doesnโt explicitly include politicians in this list, but given that tar sands oil is a โproductโ that is likely to benefit federal and provincial politicians as well as the corporations that produce and transport it, I see no reason not to hold politicians to the same standards as the oil companies for whom theyย shill.
The federal governmentโs Competition Bureau, moreover, considers these guidelines, published five years ago now, to reflect โbest practicesโ. While conceding that businesses are free to adopt any business practices they choose, the claims they make cannot be โfalse or misleading.โ If the recommendations included in Environmental Claims are followed, the guide goes on, โit is unlikely that environmental claims used in the promotion of a product or service or business interest would raise concerns under the statutes administered by the Competition Bureau,โ which includes the Competitionย Act.
According to the guide, the types of โanti-competitive activitiesโ frowned on by the Competition Bureau include, among other things, โmaterially false and misleading representations [that] are made knowingly or recklessly to the publicโ and โdeceptive marketing practices.โ Indeed, Section 2.2.2 of the Competition Act โprohibits knowingly or recklessly making, or permitting the making, of a representation to the public, in any form whatever, that is false or misleading in a materialย respect.โ
Referencing CAN/CSA–ISO 14021, which details the appropriate use of environmental terms, the guide specifically states that self-declared environmental claims shall be โaccurate and not misleadingโ, โsubstantiated and verifiedโ, and โunlikely to result in misinterpretationโ. In addition, they shall not โsuggest an environmental improvement that does not existโ, nor shall they โexaggerate the environmental aspect of the product to which the claim relatesโ. Environmental claims shall not be made โif, despite the claim being literally true, it is likely to be misinterpreted by purchasersโ or is โmisleading through the omission of relevantย facts.โ
How well do Canadaโs political and commercial tar sands promoters follow the federal governmentโs guidelines on the appropriate use of environmental claims? Not particularly well, as it turnsย out.
Tar sands development and/or oil has variously been described as a โcleanโ and โsustainableโ ย form of energy by various Canadian politicians too numerous to mention. Alberta politicians even talk about bitumen development as part of its โClean Energy Storyโ (whatever that means), where they claim Alberta they are โdoing our part to move the world towards a clean energy future.โ Canadaโs outspoken Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver went so far recently as to call them โgreen.โ
Itโs hard to imagine that any hydrocarbon, never mind tar sands bitumen, could be reasonably understood to be a โcleanโ source of energy.
Although the guide doesnโt mention the word โcleanโ specifically, Section 5.6 specifies that โit is not sufficient to make vague claims of environmental improvement or implying environmental improvement.โ If weโre only talking greenhouse gas emissions, energy generated from hydro, nuclear and wind are generally considered the least intensive, and natural gas is the cleanest hydrocarbon (though its ten times worse than hydro). Tar sands oil, on the other hand, is about as dirty as it gets, and is significantly dirtier than conventional crude. It is also getting dirtier as more bitumen is extracted using in situ methods. Bitumen may be cleaner than coal, but calling it โcleanโ is kind of like calling Hitler humane because he didnโt kill as many people asย Stalin.
Tar sands development also spews tonnes (literally) of other pollutants into the regionโs land, water and wildlife (and perhaps even people). Some of the pollutants โ napthenic acids, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy metals โ are toxic at low levels, and thereโs plenty of evidence to suggest that tar sands mines, upgraders and tailings ponds are spewing the stuff into the air and water faster than anyoneโs ready to admit. David Schindler recently found similarities between fish deformities found downstream from Alberta’s tar sands and those observed after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska and Florida’s Deepwater Horizonย disaster.
How about โsustainableโ? Not so much. According to the guide, โthe concepts involved in sustainability are highly complex and still under study. At this time there are no definitive methods for measuring sustainability or confirming its accomplishment. Therefore, no claim of achieving sustainability shall be made.โ (Emphasis added)
Sometimes, the guide admits, โclaims that refer to specific, registered management systems are acceptable provided that they can be verified.โ Given that neither Canada nor Alberta has an adequate monitoring system in place or a policy regime that actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions, any claim of โsustainabilityโ is pure hogwash. This probably should apply to Albertaโs Orwellian Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development and Canadaโs ridiculously ambiguous Federal Sustainable Development Act, neither of which have moved us a millimetre toward so-called โsustainableโย development.
The guide specifically identifies the term โgreen,โ which Minister Oliver abused to describe his beloved tar sands oil, as an example of the โvague claims of environmental improvementโ that should never be made. Any such claim, the guide goes on, โmust detail the environmental benefit in such a way that it can be verified.โ Itโs difficult to imagine how Minister Oliver could verify that tar sands oil is in any way โgreen,โ but I thought Iโd check his website to see what I couldย find.
Natural Resources Canadaโs website used to include a section on the tar sands, but itโs not there anymore. I did learn that the federal governmentโs Responsible Resource Development Program โwill strengthen Canadaโs world-class environmental standards.โ Canadaโs Environment Minister, Peter Kent, made similar claims in a speech he gave about Canadaโs โgreen economyโ at the European UnionโCanada Going Green Conference in Montreal inย March.
Well, the claim about Canadaโs โworld-classโ environmental performance is one that has been verified, and it turns out to be totally and utterly false. Canada has always had some of the worst environmental legislation in the developed world, and it has been weakened further by the Harper government in recent years. And everyone (except Minister Oliver, apparently) knows that Canada is one of the worst emitters (on a per capita basis) of climate-warming greenhouse gases in the developedย world.
I could go on and on, but itโs abundantly clear that Canadian politicians have ignored the guidelines the federal government has set out for businesses, advertisers and โany person who promotes a product/service or business interest who is likely to benefit from the productโs environmental claims.โ Iโm no lawyer, but it would seem to me that the Competition Bureau and the Canadian Standards Association might want to have a look at the โmaterially false and misleading representationsโ Canadian politicians are โknowingly and recklesslyโ making in Canada, Europe and the Unitedย States.
Because if politicians can get away with rampant greenwashing, how are they going to hold businesses accountable for doingย it?
Part III of this series will explore whether the oil industry does a better job following the federal governmentโs Environmental Claims Guidelines for Industry and Advertising than Canadianย politicians.
Image Credit: TerraChoice The Sins of Greenwashing report.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts