Fort McMurray is Not the Enemy

Few small cities can lay claim to the celebrity connection that Fort McMurray does. And likely none wants to shed the limelight those celebs bring, faster than this city of 67,000 located in Alberta’s northeast.

Typically, when stars of song and screen mention your city’s name, it’s a boon for tourism, recognition, and to some degree, legitimacy. However, when celebrities pontificate to the masses of the evils of industries such as Fort McMurray’s oil sands, citing dubious information or playing the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do game, it does a disservice to the image of the community, to its residents and workers, and to those companies investing billions of dollars into the economy while producing the most in-demand product in the world.

The Inconvenient Truth

Regardless of the method used, discovering and producing oil and gas is not the most sanitary of businesses. The demand for oil and gas has been increasing steadily for decades, and despite our plentiful reserves, we are still largely reliant on foreign oil from countries such as Russia, Venezuela, and those in the Middle East.

The inconvenient truth is that this burgeoning demand for oil is not created by countries. It comes from you. You soccer moms, commuters, and anyone stepping on an accelerator. Your plastic totes storing stuff you’re convinced you will use again, the film wrap protecting your sandwiches at lunchtime, and even your toothbrush are made from products that started their life, at least in part, as oil. Let’s face it, fossil fuels have become an inseparable part of our daily life. That’s okay. Our evolving and prevailing demand now is that we find cleaner ways to produce and process fossil fuels. And that’s okay too.

Credit Where Credit Is Due

Public sentiment and internal corporate pressure to become more efficient drives resource companies to find and invest in new technologies for producing their products. Fort McMurray’s oil sands industry can be held in high esteem for their inventions and applications in reducing emissions, reclaiming land used in the production of heavy crude, aggressively mitigating the effect their operations have on wildlife, recovering tailings previously thought to be waste, and being the unsung heroes in driving the economy of our nation.

Is there more work to be done? Definitely. And nobody in Fort McMurray would argue the point.

Comparing Apples to Apples

Comparatively speaking, however, putting Fort McMurray on trial for being dirty and destructive while ignoring current environmental disasters wreaking havoc on countless ecosystems is misleading at best.

A mammoth underwater well spewing raw oil into the Gulf of Mexico akin to that of BP’s 2010 much-hyped and devastating Horizon Deepwater leak that saw roughly 5 million barrels of oil contaminate the waters and shorelines of Gulf states, threatens to put BP’s record-breaking blight to shame. Nobody is talking about Taylor Energy’s sunken platform #23051 leaking up to a reported 700 barrels of oil per day, and it has been leaking since Hurricane Ivan ripped through the Gulf in 2004. Damage estimates already run into the billions of dollars with no end in sight. Nobody is accepting responsibility. No celebrities here wagging their admonishing finger and demanding someone clean up their act.

Even “green” energy solutions come with dark clouds. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 300,000 birds are killed annually in those huge rotating blades of wind turbines. Again, no celebs speaking out with the disgust levied against Fort McMurray’s oil sands.

Fracking. Nuclear reactors. Coal-fired electric generating plants. There are plenty more examples in North America that pose environmental complications, the point being that picking on the low hanging fruit of Fort McMurray’s oil sands only serves to ingratiate celebrities to a well-meaning, albeit, ill-informed public and spread misinformation, all the while these same celebrities engage in behaviors that are wasteful beyond that of the average Joe and Jane.

Leonardo DiCaprio

Leo to his friends, Mr. DiCaprio finally garnered the support he needed and was awarded his first Oscar in 2016 for Best Actor in a Leading Role for his part in The Revenant, a film shot partly in Alberta. DiCaprio used the platform of his acceptance speech to state (in part), “Climate change is real, it is happening right now. It is the most urgent threat facing our entire species, and we need to work collectively together and stop procrastinating. We need to support leaders around the world who do not speak for the big polluters, but who speak for all of humanity, for the indigenous people of the world, for the billions and billions of underprivileged people out there who would be most affected by this. For our children’s children, and for those people out there whose voices have been drowned out by the politics of greed.”

DiCaprio is a fine actor and leading man in Hollywood. He personally visited Fort McMurray to “research” the oil sands for a documentary. Somewhere along the way of his ongoing critical commentary of the oil and gas industry in general, and the oil sands in particular, he forgot to inform his adoring fans of his wasteful energy practices.

Owning multi-million dollar homes, using private jets and the world’s fifth largest yacht, Topaz, (owned by a Middle Eastern oil tycoon) and measuring a whopping 453 feet in length, destroys DiCaprio’s moral authority to be preaching restraint while his carbon footprint sprawls. 

Topaz photo source moneyinc.com

Neil Young

It would be difficult to name a more recognizable Canadian singer and songwriter than Ontario’s own Neil Young. With over 50 years of award-winning recording under his belt, his music is iconic and often reflects the moods of the era.

Flying over Fort McMurray in 2013, Young later reportedly commented (in part), “The fact is, Fort McMurray looks like Hiroshima. Fort McMurray is a wasteland.” There can be no confusion over where Young’s line in the proverbial sand is.

Neil Young owns multiple homes, including a 1500 acre ranch in California, flies in private jets, and takes upwards of five tour busses and several semis when he tours.

Here is a link to a view of Neil Young's massive home from VirtualGlobtrotting.com

Integrity is what seems to drive Young these days, unless you count his ranch built on indigenous lands (the tribe seemingly slaughtered long ago, as was the norm), or the straggling carbon footprint from his touring operations, or the 23 million dollar home in Hawaii that he recently sold. It takes utilities to run those houses. Where does the energy for them come from, Neil?

Other notable celebrities spouting their negative opinions about Fort McMurray have included Jane Fonda, James Cameron, and Jann Arden.

Speaking Out is Okay

It is doubtful anyone would want to stifle intelligent conversations from occurring on what is perhaps the most important topic in the history of mankind. The way each of us has contributed to the waste on this planet is cause for concern and we all must be part of the solution. But the answer does not include those with celebrity platforms spreading what amounts to as gossip while attempting to enhance their public relations credibility or making themselves seem otherwise relevant.

Celebrities are entitled to their opinions. However, when they speak publicly about any issue, it generates media coverage, and we all know media just loves negativity. If the same celebrities noted above were to expound the virtues of discovering and processing fossil fuels, nary a peep would be reported, and the masses would think their fuel, and products derived from petroleum products, somehow just came into being, much in the same way those who believe their food comes from the supermarket but don’t want any animal slaughtered.

Let us communicate and debate significant issues with respect, armed with rational data, and commit to solving complicated topics together. Mudslinging by celebrities at hard working men and women just out earning their daily bread, at a community not reduced to sucking at the dry nipples of government handouts, or at an industry at the forefront of delivering world-class scientific innovation and the energy you demand, is as ugly and greedy as the Fort McMurray they claim exists.

Everybody Should Own At Least One Gun

We have, unfortunately, become such a wimpy overly politically correct society that it is a challenge to have an open and honest dialogue about the many issues we face in a world manufactured by oligarchs who plant fear through propaganda and reap trillions in profits yearly from their smoke and mirrors.

Let’s take the renewed passion regarding gun control as an example.

Mainstream media unapologetically tugs at the emotional heart strings following any school shooting involving more than three or four victims. Yes, it is tragic that some people in this plastic world which we created see no alternative to their angst and are propelled into making whatever bold statement they have conceived, by slaughtering children who are in an environment where they believe, as do their parents, that of all places that could possibly be chosen as a backdrop to such dastardly deeds, an education facility certainly adds to the hysteria.

I happen to live in the second most violent community in my city, and I happen to live in Canada where gun control laws are incomparably restricted than most of the United States. I recently moved here from the most crime ridden community of the city. A step up perhaps. I am also a double amputee who spends a great deal of time in a wheelchair, so I am always an easy target once I roll around the neighborhood. I believe I have a something of a unique perspective on crime from, literally, the ground floor.

Despite the restrictions Canadians face on gun ownership, I can easily roll outside and obtain a handgun and most other weapons in the time it takes me to reach the supermarket. I choose not to; however, I am compelled by recent events to rethink my current passive position on gun ownership.

The FBI released their crime statistics for the United States from 2011 (most recent year for which data is available as of this writing) intimating that where gun ownership is more permissible, violent crimes such as rape, aggravated assault, murders, robberies, etc. markedly decrease. Presumably someone about to commit a violent crime in these communities may think twice, fearing their intended victim might be packing heat.

I understand such an extrapolation. As a counter to this, violent crime generally in Canada and United States has reduced. So, the comparative literature from academia, law enforcement agencies and other credible sources such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), American Gun Facts, and Fact Check.org can seem foggy for the average bloke such as I. Like all statistics, they are subject to bias and interpretation.

So, lets take the statistics out of the equation for a moment.

The second amendment to the United States constitution, essentially the right to bear arms, was expertly crafted so that government cannot prohibit gun ownership nor the right to protect oneself, their property and their family. During the 20^th century, somewhere around 200 million people were eliminated worldwide. The first tenet of being able to annihilate entire populations by deranged dictators is to greatly restrict, and then ban, gun ownership by their citizens, depriving them of any means of defence.

It is easy to imagine how the comfort and peace of mind armed citizens would feel, and how risky and audacious any despot would have to be, to march their robotic military, crushing any opposition, subverting intelligent debate, burning books, rewriting history to sanitize their carnage, and cleansing their little spot on Earth of whatever they consider vermin. Hitler. Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and right on back to the colonial powers throughout antiquity that invaded and enslaved entire populations.  And it continues to more recent times. Rwanda, Yugoslavia, South Africa, Chechnya, Ukraine, Iraq, blah, blah, blah. I wonder how much different the world would be if the victims of such oppression and horror were armed. And it’s that very thought that has me purposely rolling my wheelchair to the right to bear arms camp.

In February 2016, I interviewed David Thweatt, Superintendent of the Harrold Independent School District in Texas, and the spirit and driving force behind being the first school in North America to arm teachers and staff. You can read the article HERE. In it, you probably can hear my fence-sitting posture, trying to imagine what school would have been like for me knowing at least one teacher or staff member was armed. School for me was difficult with many “interactions” with teachers and principles, receiving various degrees of admonishment. Could one of those interactions have created a scenario where I would have been on the wrong side of a concealed gun? I can recall a few testy sessions where physical contact was used and can conceive the possibility. Would I have behaved differently having that little kernel planted in my head when I first enrolled?

It is also true that some people should not own guns. The system is broken. There are plenty of examples where assassins slipped through mental health cracks, law enforcement gorges, and other points of contact, failing to protect the public. Our social systems must learn to talk to each other, share pertinent information, arrive at solutions that limit infringement of personal rights while identifying and intervening where high-risk factors are imminent.

It’s a mountainous task indeed. So many lines in the sand are blurred. But we must be honest with ourselves and others, approach the conversation with an open mind, and most of all, we must be courageous enough to take those first bold baby steps. There will not be a magic wand that, when twirled, will be the one eureka moment.

Limiting gun ownership is not the answer. If someone wants to get a firearm, it’s almost as easy as ordering a pizza. The answer must be deeper, more intrinsic, thoroughly involved, and somehow more relevant than the systems we have, or arguably don’t have, now.

Here’s a baby step. Perhaps we can start by demanding background checks, waiting periods, and safety training across the board for anyone wanting to own a gun. I have not yet met a gun owner that opposes these basic foundations. Some jurisdictions already have components of this move forward. In this regard, the Canadian gun ownership process is far superior to any of those in the United States. It’s not perfect. No system is.

It’s also easy to pick on the low hanging fruit, in that the United States is always in the spotlight over gun ownership. Other countries also experience mass shootings. We don’t get to hear much about them in mainstream media. Some assassins use bombs rather than guns. We certainly hear about most of those. The IRA, the Unabomber, and whatever Muslim core we are fighting this week are but a few examples.

It’s rather easy to construct a bomb in your garage with rudimentary everyday items. The internet is rife with DIY bomb making tutorials. We don’t seem to be in any rush to restrict or ban the ingredients for explosive devices.

More people are killed in the United States and Canada every year with automobiles than with firearms. We are perfectly happy to welcome each new unveiling of these weapons of mass destruction.

The bottom line is anything can be used as a weapon. The concern surrounding mass shootings (beyond gun ownership) seems to dwell in the capacity of guns. Monstrous magazine clips and what are condemned to be called assault rifles appear to be the epicenter of eruption each time a mass shooting is overly hyped.

I get it. I don’t need a firearm that can shoot 50 rounds a second to hunt a deer. But if there are enemies, domestic or foreign, that want to ravage my country, I am guessing that 50 rounder is going to come in mighty handy.