Enbridge, Ipsos-Reid poll, and disinformation tactics
Friday, January 6, 2012 @ 3:46 AM
By Peter Ewart
One of the aims of disinformation campaigns is to shake the resolve of people. And we are seeing ample evidence of this in the campaign to sell the Enbridge pipeline which, if constructed, will stretch across the lands and waterways of Northern BC and result in major oil tanker traffic in the ocean waters off BC’s Pacific coast.
Recently, an Ipsos-Reid poll, released exclusively to the Postmedia News chain, is alleging that, by a whopping 48 to 32 percentage, most people across the province are now in favour of the controversial pipeline. This poll, of course, was commissioned and paid for by the Enbridge Corporation. The results are almost the exact opposite of another poll conducted by the Mustel polling group in 2010 and commissioned by pipeline opponent group “Forest Ethics”. That poll showed a 51 to 34 percent margin against the pipeline. The gap between the two polls is stunning.
Nonetheless, despite the huge disparity in poll results, the Postmedia News chain was quick to punch out headlines such as: “New poll points to pipeline support”, as well as articles claiming that the poll could be a “game changer” for project opponents. For its part, Enbridge has issued a statement that the “new poll” will set a “’proper context’ for the launch of National Energy Board hearings into Northern Gateway that begin this month in northern B.C.”
But the question needs to be asked: just what is Enbridge’s “proper context”? A key part of Enbridge’s efforts to establish this “proper context” is to create the impression that the people of this region and across the province actually support the controversial pipeline. And even more than that, they “want” it to be built.
This is an old tactic that has been used many times before. For example, the Campbell government used it to justify the sale of the publicly-owned BC Rail back in the early 2000s. At that time, Northerners were strongly opposed to the sale of the railway. Indeed, the opposition in this region was so strong that the Campbell Liberals actually lost the 1996 election because of it. In the wake of that election, Campbell claimed that he had learned a “lesson” and that the BC Liberals would not sell off the railway. In 2001, the Campbell Liberals were elected to government.
Now it would not have gone over well for Premier Campbell to simply declare that he was breaking his “solemn promise” to sell off the publicly-owned railway. Far better if the idea came from “others”, especially people from the North where the opposition was staunchest. And so it was that a handful of Liberal-friendly mayors from the North issued statements complaining about the rail service and that “other options” needed to be considered. This was closely followed by announcements from Premier Campbell that BC Rail was to be “leased” (for a potential 990 years as it later turned out), and that the provincial government was doing this simply in response to the “wishes” and “concerns” of these Northern mayors.
An interesting sidebar to all this is that Colin Kinsley, one of the “Northern mayors” who gave the call for the provincial government to take action about the railway, is now the Chair of the Northern Gateway Alliance, an Enbridge-funded group, which is actively promoting the pipeline project and claiming “community support” for it.
A similar kind of “BC Rail sale” tactic was attempted at the end of last year against First Nations groups in BC, almost all of whom have come out strongly opposed to the Enbridge pipeline. On December 3rd, the Vancouver Sun, which is part of the Postmedia News chain, printed a big front page article with the headlines stating that the Gitxsan First Nation “supported” the Enbridge pipeline and that, according to an Enbridge chief executive, “Critics have seriously underestimated his company’s support among first nations.” In a sub-heading, the article claims that the Gitxsan people had signed an “Enbridge support agreement.”
All of this was done the day after a coalition of 130 BC First Nations groups announced at a press conference in Vancouver that they had formed “an unbroken wall” to block construction of the pipeline. This news, of course, did not get front page treatment from the Vancouver Sun but rather was buried in the middle pages.
But as the days went on, the so-called “Gitxsan agreement” blew up in Enbridge’s face, with many Gitxsan leaders and members charging that the agreement signed by negotiator Elmer Derrick did not represent the wishes of the majority by a long shot. Subsequently, members of the Gitxsan First Nation blockaded Derrick’s office. To their credit, other First Nations announced that Enbridge’s tactic had only strengthened their resolve to oppose the pipeline.
Various online commentators and bloggers are raising questions about the content of the Ipsos-Reid survey itself, that the questionnaire omits words like “oil sands”, that it does not mention that the pipeline will be crossing First Nations claimed land, which may distort the results. And that, furthermore, 55% of respondents were either “not very” or “not at all” even aware of the existence of the pipeline project thus seeming to contradict big media claims that the “majority” of British Columbians are in favour of it. Others are reporting that Enbridge has conducted additional surveys which haven’t been made public. If that is the case, did Enbridge “cherry pick” this latest one and keep the less favourable ones hidden? We don’t know.
However, regardless of what the polls may or may not claim, one thing we do know – a large number of people in the North, whether First Nations or non-First Nations, are adamantly opposed to this pipeline project and do not want it to proceed. In the days and months ahead, it is likely that more disinformation about the pipeline is coming our way courtesy of big oil, big media, and the federal and provincial governments.
The people of our region need to be vigilant.
Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
Comments
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-poll-are-you-in-favour-of-enbridges-plans-to-build-a-pipeline-through-northern-bc/article1735830
http://pipeupagainstenbridge.ca/blog/online_polls_echo_strong_opposition_to_tankers_pipeline
Those polls should keep people on both sides happy with voting. Knock yourselves out.
So, what was Chief Elmer Derrick’s price?
metalman.
If “the majority” of people are against the Enbridge and other oil pipelines, why do so many people shop at Walmart? Clearly there is a big demand for oil based products.
I would like to see the people against the Enbridge pipeline picketing outside of Walmart, but I won’t hold my breath.
Why do the proponents always take the stance that if you don’t like this pipeline you must be against ANYTHING and EVERYTHING oil has and does do for us to make our lives easier. Don’t you get it JohnnyBelt, the people of BC and first nations are against THIS pipeline because it does very little to help BC, BUT BC is asked to take ALL the risk with very little (if any) real reward. You personally may have a business, or work in the business of oil, but that doesn’t make it good for everyone in BC just because it’s good for a few already rich fatcats.
When was the last time there were picketers in Prince George picketing due to environmental issues?
As the poll, probably relatively correctly, points out, those who lived in the north were more in favour than those who lived elsewhere.
People here do not even picket due to all those things that are the most common ones that people on here protest about.
“Why do the proponents always take the stance that if you don’t like this pipeline you must be against ANYTHING and EVERYTHING oil has and does do for us to make our lives easier.”
It’s really quite simple. You look like a hypocrite if you’re against this pipeline but you buy and consume cheap oil based products.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Maybe that type of thinking is ok in your view, but it is not in mine.
Explain to me how this pipeline is going to give ME access to cheap oil based products? Is it because we are going to be sending cheap oil to China and in return have the priviledge of buying all that cheap crap they make back from them to adorn the shelves of walmart? You know, those throwaway items we so desparetly need, like silly putty and plastic coat hangers and such? Is this the type of benefit you see for us in BC? Because I don’t see this project securing Canadas energy base and giving Canada access to cheap oil. Do You?
I don’t disagree that it’s cheap crap, and you might claim not to shop at Walmart, (and who knows what is really true) but thousands of people in this town shop there every day.
Why not start the protest at Walmart? Get people to stop demanding oil based products and there’s no need for a pipeline.
Did anyone hear the listener comments on CBC Daybreak this morning? I dare say the discussion is just beginning, and it is going to get hot.
Corporate media’s manipulation will, I suspect, remain a player in this battle for the jury in the court of public opinion.
Spin as we will, there is little real discussion so long as our evening news concentrates on sensational “rape du jour” journalism, sports, and The World in 90 Seconds.
Money talks! 12 minutes of every hour on broadcast television is dedicated to commercial advertising. If the product is so good…
Brainwashed with ring around my collar. Increasingly I mute the advertisements to give myself time to process…
The next while will be interesting.
I sure hope you’re not suggesting that the CBC is unbiased. At the end of the day, everybody’s got an agenda.
“that the questionnaire omits words like âoil sandsâ, that it does not mention that the pipeline will be crossing First Nations claimed land, which may distort the results”
The pipeline wont actually contain oil sands. It will contain oil extracted from the oil sands. I think that most rational people would conclude that including what has become a loaded word like “oil sands” would bias the results.
The First Nations have claimed all off BC several times over. So all land is “First Nations claimed land.”
I love fishing the Kitimat and the Skeena but I also realize that oil money is single handidly supporting the Canadian way of life. I wish we didnt need to build this thing, but we do. Unfortunately it will be BCs sacrifice.
Several blogs also suggest that big US oil AND big US environmental groups are both paying off certain groups in Canada. Big oil to ensure that we cant sell to the Chinese (at a higher price) and big Enviro to ensure we cant build a pipeline.
Seems like the deck may be stacked against us.
The deck of cards may be stacked against us?
I was one of those interviewed by IPSOS-Reid who did not support the pipeline. In my opinion it would make much more sense to have oil refineries built close to the source and process this oil in Canada rather than ship this crude oil and resulting work out of country. As an earlier writer correctly identified, BC is asked to assume a great deal of risk for very little gain. We need to make better decisions about who owns and uses our resources and who will suffer if there is a problem. The Enbridge record on pipeline maintenance is far from stellar and even a small spill into one of our river systems would be devastating to our interior water supply and affected ecosystem. The effect upon our coastline in the face of a major tanker spill should also give people pause and casue for concern. We really wouldn’t be getting much economic benefit from this project as the real jobs would be overseas in the refining and processing industry.
Put the pipelines through and get the oil flowing. Save the drama please. Socialist’s crying into their borscht because Prosperity will come to us all, leaving no reason for people to vote in Leftards.
What’ll come to us all will be ‘inflation’ in the guise of ‘prosperity’. But the BC Liberals don’t know the difference. They actually think that the higher prices we’ll have to pay for everything is an indication that we’re more prosperous.
Enbridge northern pipeline will cost BC Drivers over $700 million dollars per year in higher gas prices.
Enbridge is setting up Canada like sitting ducks, Enbridge wants the international brent crude oil price, Brent crude price is on average 15% to 20% higher than the north american WTI price.
Stupid Canadians who allow Tar sand oil vampires to put through the Enbridge pipeline will get blasted at the pump.
Gawd are there a lot of idiots in BC!
Read the details here.
http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.com/2012/01/enbridge-northern-gateway-pipeline-will.html
Here’s a question. What if we were to build a refinery in northern BC? It would create lots of jobs and then we could move the products by pipeline to Kitimat for export.
These comments explain perfectly how Prince George voted for Shirley Bond and Pat Pledge pin Bell..
Is it the toxic air, the formaldehyde, is it because Prince George has the highest per capita government slugs, eer workers.
Prince Georgers, one thing for sure, the longest arms per person capital of the world.
You figure it out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlnri_scklA&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gXaYZVGw44&feature=player_embedded
Uh, yeah, that’s how you win people over — By insulting them and posting home-made youtube videos!
http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/section/OILSPILL/Kalamazoo-River-Oil-Spill
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jmogerman/michigan_oil_spill_was_indeed.html
http://dirtyoilsands.org/news/article/massive_michigan_oil_spill_pumps_up_debate_over_enbridges_alberta-to-b.c._p
As for winning you over Johnny belt…
I have no intention of even trying…
You could have 10,000 biologists, environmentalists, scientists, doctors, fisherman, First Nation`s testify against Enbridge northern pipeline and they wouldn`t budge…
I don`t argue with stumps…
Don`t flatter yourself Johnny
Petro China paid Enbridge $100 million to get this pipeline through the approval stage and build it for them… and Stephen Harper says today that he wants to ensure there is no foreign influence in the opposition side of the pipeline… scary the implications of Harpers understanding and intentions considering.
Today China said absolutely no way to the carbon trading scheme that is being forced on us in the ‘west’. China said none of it for their airlines and they simply would not pay it. Its about competitive advantage in the hundreds of millions and China draws the line on a carbon tax signaling their displeasure to pay any ‘domestic’ taxes for foreign countries… China expects to pay the cost of production or as near to it as they are allowed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/07/uk-airlines-carbon-tax-asia-idUSLNE80600Y20120107
So China wants our energy at cost and is willing to bid up the going rate if need be, but will not be paying any carbon taxes, road taxes, soon other taxes… meanwhile here in Canada we will be disadvantaged with the various climate excuse taxes on the cost of our energy on top of the China going rate. This is backwards from what a sovereign government should be doing, but for Stephen Harper its his new philosophy of ‘enlightened sovereignty’… which implies sovereignty so long as it doesn’t interfere with globalist interests.
What we see with China’s refusal to pay carbon taxes is the very reason behind this pipeline. China will not pay carbon taxes, nor will they have stringent regulations for environmental pollution, but China will import oil sands carbon tax free to process in their refineries without regard for pollution standards using slave wage labor… and then gain a competitive advantage over Canada’s own energy security (especially price)… meanwhile our politicians will claim that BC is on target through efforts of our carbon tax to reduce our carbon output seeing as all the oil sands exported to China don’t count if the carbon is released once it leaves Canadian shores (making tax reduced reductions utterly ridiculous in comparison).
I think the key is knowledge. Its knowledge up against the big media and corpocracy, and hopefully with knowledge people will understand the lunacy of Petro China’s Gateway project in Northern BC. Hopefully this country still has enough patriots to stop Harper and big oil and we can build a real legacy for future generations other than globalized servitude….
Time Will Tell
From Wikipedia
________________________________________Both the long-term and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied.[25] Immediate effects included the deaths of, at the best estimates[citation needed], 100,000 to as many as 250,000 seabirds, at least 2,800 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbor seals, 247 Bald Eagles, and 22 orcas, as well as the destruction of billions of salmon and herring eggs.[8][26] The effects of the spill continued to be felt for many years[quantify] afterwards. Overall reductions in population were seen in various ocean animals, including stunted growth in pink salmon populations.[27] The effect on salmon and other prey populations in turn adversely affected killer whales in Prince William Sound and Alaska’s Kenai Fjords region. Eleven members (about half) of one resident pod disappeared in the following year. By 2009, scientists[who?] estimated the AT1 transient population (considered part of a larger population of 346 transients), numbered only 7 individuals and had not reproduced since the spill, this population is expected to die out.[citation needed] Sea otters and ducks also showed higher[quantify] death rates in following years,[quantify] partially because they ingested prey from contaminated soil and from ingestion of oil residues on hair due to grooming.[28]
Some twenty years after the spill, a team from the University of North Carolina found that the effects were lasting far longer than expected.[27] The team estimates some shoreline Arctic habitats may take up to thirty years to recover.[clarification needed][8] Exxon Mobil denies any concerns over this, stating that they anticipated a remaining fraction that they assert will not cause any long-term ecological impacts, according to the conclusions of 350 peer-reviewed studies.[28] However, a NOAA study concluded that this contamination can produce chronic low-level exposure, discourage subsistence where the contamination is heavy, and decrease the “wilderness character” of the area.[23]
__________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
Put that in your pipe and smoke it…Johnny belt
The oilsands are a fact of life people. Expanding our markets beyond the US certainly isn’t in the best interests of the yanks. WE know what reliance on the US is like from years of softwood disputes. Big enviro is as bad as big oil for misinformation. As far as benifits to BC? with the dippers coming to power we can look forward to have not status and we’ll need alberta’s money to pay our bills.
Right on dow7500. Criminalmind can stay in denial all he wants. I don’t mind a bit.
dow 7500 wrote: “with the dippers coming to power we can look forward to have not status and we’ll need alberta’s money to pay our bills.”
Do you know something we don’t? Such as, is Alberta or Enbridge paying a royalty to BC for punching a private tranportation system through our land? It would be an easement, and an easement right has a value. So how much is Alberta, which stands to gain from the royalties of the oil being mined, or Enbridge, paying.
And if it is the Feds who have a say with interprovincial transportation, then how much are they paying BC for a private right of way?
Does anyone here have the faintest of what the actual details are of just the financial benefits to this province, to Alberta, and to Canada of this pipeline versus the other pipeline options?
Enbridge is not the only choice.
Does anyone know whether part of the agreement is to provide for removal of the pipeline once it has performed its function? I would think that should be provided for. I would not want the next generation of BC residents to have to pay for that. For a true cost-benefit analysis of the project that cost should be borne by Enbridge as a charge to its customers who will, in turn, charge the purchaser of the resource.
The City of Prince Rupertâ has released a draft of its written submission to the government hearings on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, which are set top begin next month.
Boiled-down to its most basic message, the submission argues that Prince Rupert depends on a pristine marine environment too much to put it at risk â no matter how statistically small that risk is â by having oil tankers sailing out of Kitimat.
The submission itself is kept clean of any slights against Enbridge the company, nor does it point out any particular aspect or perceived flaws of the project that are cause for concern. Instead of arguing the moral responsibility of protecting the environment, they make their argument with the same tools that the energy company often makes theirs: economics.
The thrust of the City’s argument is that many of the existing industries in Prince Rupert depend on a clean marine environment for survival. Prince Rupert’s tourism for instance relies on it for everything from the nice views for drawing in tourists, to sports fishing and grizzly bear tours.
âNeedless to say a Prince William Sound-esque (Exxon Valdez) oil spill would put much of the economic activity in jeopardy not to mention the destruction of marine habitat,â reads the draft submission.
The City also worries what an accident would mean for those who make their living from harvesting resources from the ocean.
âThe harvesting of salmon, halibut, herring, crabs and a host of other marine species generates tens of millions of dollars into the Prince Rupert and regional economy. Historically, a clean marine environment has allowed Prince Rupert to literally generate billions of dollars in economic activity.”
The City also argues that First Nations people who live in Prince Rupert have a right to harvest the ocean for social, ceremonial and cultural purpose, a right they could not exercise if the waters off Prince Rupert were ever polluted. This, they fear, would have a profoundly negative effect on aboriginal communities.
âFor time immemorial, Coastal First Nation peoples have depended on a clean marine environment to sustain their civilization. That dependency exists to this day even in our modern world.â
The City advocates that the National Energy Boardâ’s joint review panel for assessing the pipeline project should use a method called âthe triple bottom line approach.â Using this approach, a potential development is assessed on its social, environmental and economic value, instead of just trying to figure out if a project’s economic benefit outweighs the environmental risk.
This approach is meant to give a better idea of how a project will effect quality of life in a region. The city says that the triple bottom line approach is the basis for the Prince Rupert’s Quality of Life Official Community Plan. The result has been, according to the city, that development in Prince Rupert has gone ahead while keeping in mind how much residents value their environment.
âEven with growth, Prince Rupert has retained its natural and pristine look and feel. Development has been balanced as a result of the retention of natural landscapes, harbour views and mountain views and focusing higher densities and larger buildings downtown,â reads the submission.
With environmental conservation being an important factor for the survival of existing industries and for preserving Prince Rupert’s quality of life for its residents, the City concludes that:
âAny negative effect on the physical environment severely handicaps the community to exist as it desires.â
The written submission will not be the only participation in the Enbridge hearings that the City is planning. The City of Prince Rupert has also registered as an intervenor, which means that it will be allowed to submit questions and present evidence at the hearings when they get underway.
City manager, Gord Howie, cautions that the current draft of the submission is just that: at draft. Which means it could still be changed before being sent to the joint review panel.
BCers and Prince Rupert will stop Enbridge in their tracks.
http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/135614898.html
BC will receive a mere $131 million dollars in royalties over `6 years
That`s $14.3 million per years, all the risk,risk 1200 river and streams and our fragile northern coast for $14.3 million per year..
After 16 years there wouldn`t be enough for a 1/4 of a new BC Place roof
gus, its called equalization. Alberta pays for quebecs low tuition, daycare, and their language nazis. With Ontario tanking, they will be on the equalization dole as well. If Bc dosen’t grasp the need for growth, we will be on it to. Nobody on either side of the gateway debate wants to see an oil spill of any kind. But stopping this because its” dirty oil” while Iran holds the world hostage and the hollywood hipocrates are against it, is not in Canada’s interests.
The fact is with the global economies facing years of struggle, most of canada is facing huge shifting demographic costs. We need this. We also need it to be built to the highest standards and monitoring. This must be a win for all parties, with the exception of hollywood.
If your strongest point is because Iran will hold the world hostage, then tell that to Eastern Canadians. If anything, and the globalists do manage to get a war going with Iran that closes the Hormuz Straight, or Iran commits suicide and does it first, then… while the price of oil on the world markets goes up crazy and we pay much more than the 20% premium we see today between Asian markets and North American markets… and since the oil will go to the highest market player and the pipeline connects to the higher payer… then oil companies win and make hundreds of millions more from our domestic Canadian markets with windfall profits to offshore….
The world instability argument is one that should be used against this pipeline and not for it.
Iran was not my strongest point. Diversifing our markets is. Trudea’s national energy program argument is not a viable solution either.
Comments for this article are closed.