There’s no evidence and no intentions for tarsands deal

Dawn Paley’s article ignores key aspects of the Great Bear Rainforest agreement to fit her theory about a trend to “secretive deals” between green groups and industry, marginalizing First Nations [“Are green groups ready for tarsands deal?”, November 21-28]]. Paley’s key evidence that supposedly proves that our organizations are responsible for outcomes negotiated without First Nations involvement is, ironically, the same agreement signed between Great Bear Rainforest First Nations and the provincial government.

Completed after a long negotiation that included our groups, the agreement has had radically good results. Among other things, it has helped establish a new government-to-government relationship and so far has conserved half of the region’s rainforest from logging. And our work is continuing toward meeting the agreed-to science-based conservation goal of the agreement. All of which would have been easy to find out if Paley would have spoken to us.

The agreement, a fundamentally collaborative model between all parties, also includes a $120-million fund, raised by environmental groups with First Nations, for building a conservation economy in their communities.

Our position on the tarsands remains crystal clear: tarsands production needs to be phased out as soon as possible because of the climate crisis. We continue to work with First Nations and other communities across the country to achieve this goal, as evidenced by the 130 citizen rallies across Canada on November 16.

> Valerie Langer / ForestEthics Solutions, Eduardo Sousa / Greenpeace, Jens Wieting / Sierra Club B.C.



boris moris

Nov 26, 2013 at 7:06pm

No intent? No evidence? Sounds like the plausible deniability talking points have been rehearsed.

Some recent history:

"But, like the Great Bear agreement, the CBFA generated criticisms from the moment the deal was announced.
“Obviously, when the forestry sector announced a cease-war with the NGO community and created this voluntary conservation zone with the interest being caribou-habitat protection, we had some pretty major concerns that no First Nations were involved in that conversation,” Clayton Thomas-Muller, who today runs the Indigenous Tar Sands Campaign, told the Straight from his home office in Ottawa.
After a rocky start and a rejection by indigenous people across Canada, the CBFA held for a couple of years before it finally fell apart. Greenpeace, one of the most high-profile environmental groups to sign on to the deal, walked last December."

Does this coalition have its shit together or are they spitballing something on the "sands" that Tzep cooked up?
Maybe they'll discuss softening the language of the rhetoric so the Frazer Institute can draft the final news release for msm.

Listen to someone who knows. Someone who has seen up close what havoc major energy companies can wreak on the environment, on public assets and on citizens:

"Journalist Naomi Klein, who has recently criticized the big green groups, maintains that a deal is unfathomable. “In my opinion, there is no circumstance in which greens should be negotiating with tarsands operators, and I don’t think that in the current political context any green group could seriously believe they could get away with that again,” she told the Straight by phone.
“The grassroots resistance is too strong.” "