Quo Vadis Greenpeace?

Greenpeace must be feeling pretty good about themselves right now. Wednesday, after 30 hours of protest, negotiation, and media attention, the environmental group reached a compromise deal with Shell Canada to peacefully end their demonstration at the company’s Muskeg River mine north of Fort McMurray. A group of approximately 20 protestors had entered the isolated facility Tuesday morning, chaining themselves to the mine’s heavy equipment and unfurling a large banner reading TAR SANDS: CLIMATE CRIME. In a surprising move, Shell Canada agreed not to pursue criminal charges, and after an exchange both sides lauded as frank and amicable, the protestors vacated the premises, no doubt satisfied that their mission had succeeded admirably.

And why shouldn’t Greenpeace feel good about the outcome? They managed to hit Shell Canada for the limits in the high-stakes game of civil disobedience and direct political action. Their anti-oil sands message was broadcast loud and clear, and their participants managed to dodge the legal repercussions that are normally anticipated as a kind of battlefield attrition during showdowns of this sort. If that’s not reason enough for Greenpeace to take their celebration to the streets, their adversary’s response certainly must be. Shell practically complimented them on their performance. Paul Hagel, the company spokesman, readily acknowledged the serious impact of climate change, calling the protestors ‘reasonable critics’ of the oil sands industry. Even more shocking, he virtually threw his company’s endorsement behind the environmental group. “We come on an even foot with Greenpeace,” he concluded.

This has got to be one of the most unexpected receptions Greenpeace has ever received from a victim of their political antics. It’s not every day that an energy giant like Shell transforms guerilla protestors into passionate citizens with legitimate political concerns. This rare display of empathy presents Greenpeace with a tremendous opportunity, not to celebrate the utility of direct action and civil disobedience, but to adopt a more positive advocacy role. The beneficial outcome of their Muskeg River mine protest does not vindicate their methods, nor does it promise these methods will deliver further victories. Instead, Greenpeace should take Shell’s magnanimity as an invitation to engage themselves in the legitimate political process. According to John Abbott, Shell’s Executive Vice President of Heavy Oil,

We hope in the future Greenpeace pursues opportunities for open dialogue and civil protest versus these types of illegal actions… Shell has agreed not to pursue criminal charges against the protestors because it does nothing to further the climate change conversation. We rely on democratic processes to determine Canadian CO₂ policy and other important matters.

An olive branch has been extended to Greenpeace, and they find themselves in a terrific position to prove themselves a responsible, respectful, and ultimately more meaningful member of civil society in Alberta.

For most mainstream Albertans, it’s hard to take Greenpeace seriously. Their numerous stunts have tainted the organization’s reputation in the eyes of many citizens and politicians, even among those that share their environmental concerns. Direct action and civil disobedience remain contentious forms of political expression for good reason. It’s a stretch to argue that the political conditions in Alberta are oppressive enough to legitimize these forms of protest. Radical activists will tell you that sometimes it’s alright to break the rules when the rules themselves are unjust. That is hardly the case in Alberta, at least where the freedom of expression is concerned. The gay community has no trouble expressing their dissatisfaction with discriminatory legislation or celebrating their lifestyle with the rest of their community. Pro-life campaigners have no institutional barriers preventing them from renting large obtrusive banner advertisements in our subway stations. Cyclists have no qualms in exercising their legal freedom to ride bicycles en masse and raise awareness for bike-friendly lifestyles. Bob Barker wasn’t stopped at the airport when he flew here to discuss the ethical treatment of our zoo elephant. Heck, they even gave him a podium and a microphone. The point here is that avenues for political expression exist in our province that do not require the abuse and disruption of private property or the defiance of public laws. Countless civil society and special interest groups use them to bring attention and awareness to their issues without unnecessarily breaking laws or unreasonably disrupting the activities of their fellow citizens. Greenpeace does not need to break the rules to get their point across because the rules are not stacked against them. Alberta may not have the perfect democracy, but at least it’s not Nigeria.

Nonetheless, for Greenpeace and their sympathizers, direct action and civil disobedience remain squarely in that grey area between right and wrong. Greenpeace acknowledges the existence of legitimate avenues for political expression in Alberta and, to their credit, they actively and admirably pursue them. Their reports on environmental issues effectively articulate environmental concerns, and they remain influential fulcrums of debate on environmental policy. Still, Greenpeace zealously retains their programme of direct action and civil disobedience. (Less than one month ago, Greenpeace brazenly advertised a ‘climate defenders camp’ where interested individuals could learn “the defence of the planet through civil disobedience”.) They do not justify these actions on the grounds that the rules are exclusionary, however. Instead, their villain is the nebulous mass-hypnosis of oil culture, and their actions are justified as a kind of political wake-up call. They argue that climate change constitutes the clearest and most present danger to humanity. If so, let’s argue about it, with dialogue and reason instead of stunts and antics. That is the burden of democracy. In a society of free-thinking individuals, the right course of action will prevail only when it has been recognized as such by society itself through reasoned and engaging debate. Climate change, and environmental concerns generally, has become one of the most important mainstream political issues across the globe, and environmental policy is increasingly laying the groundwork for a sustainable future. Humanity does not need a wake-up call – it needs a respected and reasonable voice articulating environmental concerns from inside the debate instead of lobbing rocks from outside the arena altogether.

Direct action and civil disobedience, aside from being unnecessary and indefensible in our society, have the additional drawback of incinerating any political goodwill towards Greenpeace’s agenda. These forms of political protest appear unreasonable and unjust, especially when alternate and legitimate avenues for expression exist. Imagine if oil industry advocates in Alberta pursued similar strategies against Greenpeace with such blatant disregard for the law and rights of their fellow citizens. Imagine if Greenpeace fundraisers canvassing on the streets of our cities were systematically targeted and accosted by pro-oil activists. Imagine if Greenpeace meetings were frequently interrupted by chanting crowds in hardhats and oil-stained coveralls. Imagine if slick oil executives chained themselves to the doors of Greenpeace offices, calling for the shutdown of the environmental movement. The public’s estimation of the oil industry would plummet and Greenpeace would be extremely reluctant to appreciate their concerns.

The reality is that both the oil industry and the environmental movement have an important role to play in Alberta’s economic future, and if this future is to be prosperous and sustainable, some kind of constructive relationship between the two will have to develop. In the short and medium term, Alberta’s economy would be well served if both our vast deposits of natural resources and our vast store of knowledge in resource extraction and processing are harnessed. The long term sustainability of this economy hinges of the judicious use of our bounty, however. For this to happen, environmental concerns must be integrated into our political discourse, and this will only occur when those concerns are articulated by respected and authoritative members of society. Greenpeace should actively pursue this role, and the cordial resolution of the Muskeg River mine protest should be taken as an indication that Alberta’s oil-sands industry is prepared to welcome their input as reformed, respectful, and responsible advocate.