“Given the ever-increasing attention this issue is receiving in the U.S. and Europe, and the importance of the issue to the Canadian economy and our international reputation, a more concerted strategy is needed in some jurisdictions,” said a draft strategy produced in the early days of the plan.
“At the same time, we must carefully balance our messaging to ensure that we cannot be accused by oil sands opponents of simply being cheerleaders or apologists for the industry; the environmental challenges of the oil sands are huge (although not as dire as some NGOs claim) so taking a facts-based approach is vital.”
The draft lobbying and marketing strategy from 2008 was sent out to Natural Resources Canada officials for review by Robert Arnot, then a senior policy adviser on energy issues at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
The proposal has since evolved into a full-blown marketing and lobbying strategy, funded by taxpayers, that now includes special training on lobbying for diplomats, regular meetings with industry representatives, distribution of “communications products,” and outreach to “select” foreign media outlets.
The government and industry officials have touted estimates from the Canadian Energy Research Institute that the oilsands will contribute $1.7 trillion to the Canadian economy over the next 25 years.
The federal government has recently revealed it spent over $20,000 on oilsands brochures distributed by its diplomats since 2009, on top of racking up about $54,000 in expenses for a two-day training retreat in 2011 for the foreign officers on how to lobby.
But Travis Davies, a spokesman for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, rejected suggestions that the federal government has become a cheerleader for oil companies, explaining that it was normal for officials to consult with industry about information.
“It’s just transparency and such data doesn’t ‘sugarcoat’ the fact that there is an environmental component to oil and gas production,” he said, noting that the industry also releases its own comprehensive data about impacts and is supporting government efforts to increase environmental monitoring.
One of the first products was a federal brochure that was to be distributed to other countries at G8 meetings in the summer of 2009 by Lisa Raitt, who was then the minister of natural resources.
“I really like your new brochure, but would suggest that the pictures are all mining (truck/shovels) and a key message we are trying to get out is that 80 per cent of the resource will be recovered using more conventional drilling methods (in situ) so some pictures of insitu would help add this balance in the future,” wrote Greg Stringham, the vice-president of markets and oilsands at CAPP on May 21, 2009, in an email to a federal bureaucrat, Paul Khanna. “We can send some if that would help.”
Other emails in the exchange, released through access to information legislation to Climate Action Network Canada, revealed that Khanna, an oilsands policy adviser at Natural Resources Canada, used a list of “proposed common shared facts from Greg Stringham” along with the new pictures in the brochure.
“Thanks Greg, I like them (pictures) very much. I will send them to the (communications) people so they can choose the most ‘aesthetic’ one,” wrote Khanna on June 15. “I am looking forward to our continued work together.”
But the draft marketing strategy’s assessment contrasts with the analysis from Environment Canada and the Privy Council Office which have warned in previously released secret documents that the oilsands industry is the “fastest growing source of (greenhouse gases) in Canada,” and that it could be causing irreversible damage to Alberta’s ecosystems and economy, representing a “significant environmental and financial risk.”
The conflicting views within government provoked a clash between departments over an analysis by Khanna and other Natural Resources Canada officials that was slammed by Environment Canada scientist Mark Tushingham for delivering a “pro-industry” assessment of the oilsands.
“The package should deliver neutral, balanced and factual information,” Tushingham had written in an internal email in February 2009. “Currently, much of the language is too pro-industry, and would make the government to be perceived as bias and thus not credible or serving the public good.”
The newly released documents also reveal that Canadian diplomats unsuccessfully attempted to recruit academics to defend the industry and speak out against proposed climate change policies in California, including arguments that were made by the Sierra Club of Canada in a newspaper opinion piece.
"Yesterday, (Canada's consulate in San Francisco) went ahead and contacted a few third party local academics to nudge them to possibly write their own OpEds but so far they are not interested in doing so," wrote Nadia Scipio del Campo, a consul for political, economic relations and public affairs in the city on Feb. 20, 2009.
"Again this is an illustration of the need for a communications team in place to be able to respond quickly to media pieces as well as speak on the record in radio/tv and other public forum."
The Canadian diplomat also expressed concerns in the same message about an oilsands company that was placed on a "watch" list related to ethics by a pension fund with a reputation for making socially responsible investments.
Keith Stewart, a climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, questioned why industry officials were allowed to edit government documents while federal environmental scientists were being muzzled.
"We expect our government to defend the public interest and not to act as the public relations agency for big oil," Stewart said. "This isn't just cheerleading. It should be called as a penalty for too many men on the ice."
Industry and government officials have argued that emerging technological breakthroughs will allow them to address environmental challenges, but there are no regulations in place that force oilsands operators to cap or reduce emissions from current levels.
Environment Minister Peter Kent has publicly defended the industry, describing it as "sustainable," while accusing its critics of mischief and in some cases treason.
Meanwhile, senior bureaucrats and diplomats involved in the lobbying and marketing activities have jokingly suggested their efforts are righteous.
"You guys are doing God's work (so to speak) on this file!" wrote Keith Christie, an assistant deputy minister and Canadian negotiator at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, on June 19, 2010, in an email to other diplomats and bureaucrats about a series of meetings with stakeholders in Canada, the U.S. and Europe.
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Mike De Souza
No comments:
Post a Comment