[R-G] Energy-hungry public turning its back on nature

[Anthony Fenton]

fyi

Trees are good but oil is better
Energy-hungry public turning its back on nature
Claudia Cattaneo,  Financial Post  Published: Wednesday, June 11, 2008
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=073f28a8-d537-4686-9daf-6f5c8b481608

SURVEY GAUGES OILSANDS ATTITUDES: Generally speaking, do you think  
that future development of the oilsands is a good thing or bad thing? 
Flieshman-Hillard Oilsands Survey, Andrew Barr, National Post

A year ago, the federal Cabinet would have bellyached for a while  
before giving its blessing to an oilsands project such as Kearl, owned  
by Imperial Oil Ltd. and its parent, Exxon Mobil Corp., facing a high- 
profile assault from the green lobby.

But oil then was at US$60 a barrel, gasoline sold for around a buck a  
litre and climate change was front and centre in a still-robust economy.

With oil prices now more than double year-ago levels, outrage over the  
high cost of gasoline in a slumping economy part of the daily news  
diet, rising food prices blamed on high energy costs, and greater  
public awareness about the tightness of global oil supplies, the  
recent behind-the-scenes federal government approval of permits to  
allow the continuation of Kearl, an $8-billion project delayed by  
court challenges from four green organizations, seemed like the right  
thing to do.

What's increasingly apparent is that the national mood is changing in  
favour of the continuation of oilsands development, despite an  
expanding effort by the green lobby to derail projects because of  
their environmental impact, confirming once again that the environment  
tends to take a back seat when its protection hits the pocketbook.

According to a poll of 500 Canadians and 500 Americans conducted in  
May and June for its clients by the Calgary and Dallas offices of U.  
S.-based Fleishman-Hillard International Communications, 75% of  
Canadians and 68% of Americans said future development of the oilsands  
is "a good thing."

The poll also found:

-A high level of awareness of the oilsands in both countries, with 67%  
of Canadians and 47% of Americans saying they were somewhat to very  
aware of the deposits in Northern Alberta.

-When asked how important the oilsands are to the overall security of  
the North American energy supply, 83% of Americans and 73% of  
Canadians said it is very important.

-Among those who believe that oilsands development is a bad thing,  
only 43% in Canada and 31% in the United States said it should be  
stopped even if it means paying more for oil and gas.

-Canadians have greater concern about the impact of oilsands  
development on the environment than about security of oil supplies,  
while Americans are more concerned about the oilsands as a secure  
supply of oil than about their environmental impact.

Linda Smith, Fleishman-Hillard executive vice-president, said she was  
surprised by how much Canadians and Americans are aware of and support  
oilsands development given the prominence of the environmental agenda  
in the media.

A survey on Canadian attitudes toward the oil-and-gas industry  
conducted recently by Ipsos Reid for the Canadian Association of  
Petroleum Producers came to similar conclusions.

While CAPP is still interpreting the extensive survey, conducted in  
February and March for its members, vice-president Brian Maynard said,  
"Opposition to the industry wasn't as high as I was expecting."

Mr. Maynard said even based on anecdotal evidence in the past couple  
of months, there has been a noticeable spurt in interest in the  
oilsands as an answer to tight oil supplies, while environmental  
concerns have been softening.

The public-opinion results are encouraging for the oil industry, which  
recently stepped up its efforts to communicate why oilsands  
development is needed, whether through advertising campaigns (the  
approach taken by Total SA), or meetings in the community (as done by  
ConocoPhillips).

What's also apparent is that the green community's efforts to paint  
the oilsands as an undesirable source of dirty oil aren't hitting the  
mark with an increasingly energy-sophisticated public.

ccattaneo at nationalpost.com