Actually, the "public relations hell" assessment of the National Geographic article came from Canadian commentator Don Martin, in the op/ed piece linked to in the Spin.
Dump it off the shores of a <a href="http://www.alternet.org/audits/135716/%27pirates%27_strike_a_u.s._ship_owned_by_a_pentagon_contractor%2C_but_is_the_media_telling_the_whole_story/?page=entire">third-world failed state</a>:
<blockquote>"As soon as the [Somali] government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died."</blockquote>
The author of this story, Jeremy Scahill, quotes that paragraph from another source. His story is about Somali pirates; it gives wider context to that subject while challenging any thoughtful person to think further about "safe disposal," "reprocessing," and the like.
David Sands from the Government of Alberta here.
You have an interesting take on the National Geographic article. While the photographs were impactful, of course, the story was balanced. Lively, colourful writing, too.
We are addressing environmental impacts from developing the oil sands, and we've got to get that message out to the markets that access this resource for their own economic and social wellbeing.
Want to see precisely what we're doing - no spin? Follow this link and view the "Conversation" film. It's 100% flack-free: [http://oilsands.alberta.ca/ link here].
Cheers!
is easier said than done. When wood is burned WHERE PRACTICAL, its decades to renew beats the hell out of hundreds of millions of years (if ever) for hydrocarbons; harvesting it in sustainable quantities is a lot less drastic than mountaintop removal or supertanker spills.
No one hopes more fervently than I that the progress of conservation and sun-driven energy sources will eventually solve our problems. Until then, we can't afford to ignore any sustainable local partial solution.
Actually, the "public relations hell" assessment of the National Geographic article came from Canadian commentator Don Martin, in the op/ed piece linked to in the Spin.
David Sands from the Government of Alberta here.
You have an interesting take on the National Geographic article. While the photographs were impactful, of course, the story was balanced. Lively, colourful writing, too.
We are addressing environmental impacts from developing the oil sands, and we've got to get that message out to the markets that access this resource for their own economic and social wellbeing.
Want to see precisely what we're doing - no spin? Follow this link and view the "Conversation" film. It's 100% flack-free: [http://oilsands.alberta.ca/ link here].
Cheers!
Pages