This piece touches on the practice of Coal Seam Gas drilling, aka 'fracking', but it more broadly addresses our failure as a society to honestly discuss important issues.
(Update: and this is what I'm talking about right here and of course here )
Depending on who you talk to, CSG is either the single most noxious form of drilling/mining in human history or a relatively inexpensive life saver to the world's energy shortage.
Opponents point to pollutants that have infested water tables, tap water that bursts into flame, poisoning and sickness as to why it has to go. Proponents point to its relative safety, relative low cost, and wide availability.
So what do you do? Which side do you sit on? Do you have to pick a side?
This is the problem. We've stopped learning to communicate as a society. Citizen pressure groups have long since learned that their government can only hear them when they're screaming and shouting. Governments have learned that clever bullshit and the dollar are what make the world go around, until you dip in the popularity polls anyway. Businesses have learned that the honey of jobs and the vinegar of moving offshore are all you need to get what you want. In short, we're broken.
Let's say fracking IS incredibly toxic and dangerous. How would we know? Licences have already been granted to fracking operations. By governments. Shouldn't that mean it's safe?
No, not really.
Not all businesses are run entirely by self-serving liars. That would be silly. The system, however promotes a little... flexibility with telling the truth. If you stand to make 500 million dollars (to pick a number out of thin air), are you going to be ruthlessly honest, if your honesty could threaten that windfall? No probably not.
As a government figure, are you going to turn down a bid from a business if it promises 1,000 jobs in your area? No, of course not. It will also make you look good. True, there's that environmental impact report to get done, but that should be a formality...
What avenues are there for a concerned local - worried about the risk of toxins or pollutants - to find out the truth, or to express concerns? They could read the government sponsored environmental impact report, or the glossy brochure of the mining company, or seek out other sources - documentaries, books, websites, all of which - because they are not from the mining company or government - are 'unreliable secondary sources'. Unless they're pro-mining, from someone in the industry, in which case they are 'reputable'.
In short, we all lie or are lied to, as a basic currency of the interaction. This is not right.
Citizens have a right to be informed - impartially and in full possession of all available facts - on an issue that affects them, especially if it is potentially deleterious to their health. When a citizen is misled, innocently or in full, knowing perversion of the process, that interaction is corrupted. I know that shale and coal seam drilling are different. I know that shale is supposed to be safer. How do I know for sure though? What if I've been lied to intentionally? If a mining outfit tells me they're going to instal a shale drilling gas extraction plant up the road, I should expect to be safe. Unless I've been lied to, in which case I can look forward to poisoning and cancer. That's a big gamble.
Government has an obligation to represent its citizenry, first and foremost. Citizenry does not include the private sector. Business must fall or thrive on its merits. It is not the place of government to overly coddle or protect the private sector, especially at the cost of its own citizenry. When it comes to something that may be harmful to the people, or to land held by government in the common interest, that is of great environmental or cultural value, the government's sole obligation is not to harm or allow to be harmed that protectorate without good cause. Good cause does not equal money drifting into the private sector, and a few jobs. Government must be highly alert and scrutinise all such deals with a fine-tooth comb.
The private sector has a drive, but not a right, to make money. If they are to do that in your country, then they abide by your laws, and respect the rights of that country's citizens, which are superior to any rights a corporate entity may have. Unfortunately too many private sector entities think they have a direct line to policy, and use the carrot of jobs, or the stick of withdrawing employment to get their way.
The news media also has a role to play in any debate like this - the provision of facts to inform the populace. I know I would happily forego a sports or finance report one night a week, if that time was instead spent exhaustively reporting the facts of a major issue. Why do we not see an unbiased rundown of the facts of an issue like CSG? I would like to see that, and I'm going to presume many others would as well. If the news media are getting bogged down in opinion, reactive 'event' reporting, or even a clear ideological bias, then they are quite simply not doing their jobs. The role of news media is to inform us, not shape our opinion toward a pre-chosen result.
It is also worth bringing up a false choice we are often given, that of an 'acceptable risk'. All too often, and especially with issues like mining and its attendant pollution and run-off, a decision has been made for us of an acceptable risk. Sure, the drilling, or mining, or its by-products might be toxic, but it is an acceptable low level of risk. Understand this - if you smoke or drink or go ice skating, hell if you decide to run naked through a lion reserve covered in barbecue sauce, that is a risk YOU have chosen to undertake. The risks run by pollutant by-products are NOT a choice you have made. A private company has possibly under-estimated those risks to a possibly callow government that has undertaken to accept you taking those risks. This is unjust. Nothing is a 'little bit toxic' or a 'little bit harmful' or 'mildly destructive to the environment'. It is or it isn't. That's it.
You are not done any kind of service by having someone decide for you that you might get cancer.
We all have our roles to play. As citizens we must be informed. Our news media must provide us objective fact, free from spin or slant. Our private sector must disclose all information they have that is relevant, must operate within our laws and must respect our rights as citizens. Government must protect its citizens first, and place ephemeral concerns secondary, and above all remain neutral to the demands of commerce. If we do not uphold these roles diligently, the whole structure begins to degrade.
And so back to fracking. I don't know everything about the topic - I'd like to know more. What I have seen scares me - poisoned drinking water, flammable tap water, leaks, chemical cocktails that stay trapped in the ecosystem, the pillaging of the Kimberly. Our news media owes it to us to provide fact, not just report on other reports, or protests. Our government has no right to allow licences to CSG outfits if any of the above fears are true. And the private sector must tell us honestly if this poses a threat, regardless of how much money they stand to make. If we all operate towards a best principle, within a framework of informed honesty, then we will have no problem.
Fracking is the smallest part of this agreement. Every issue could stand to suffer the same diligence.
0 comments:
Post a Comment