Government Subsidies To Petroleum Industry Place Corporate Interests Over People And The Health Of Our Planet

By Mark Taliano

Corporate suppression of the known negative “externalities” of industry, to the detriment of the public, is nothing new.

 In the 1950’s, for example, tobacco industry scientists knew that smoking led to premature deaths and escalating health costs.  They decided not to publicize the information, but instead to fraudulently ramp up a campaign to manufacture unreasonable doubt so that they could sell their products to an unsuspecting public.

How did they do it? 

One technique was to ask disingenuous questions, to mislead the “consumer”.  For example, a question might be: Why are cancer rates different from one city to the next if smoking is the cause?  The answer is that smoking isn’t the only cause of cancer, so cancer rates will differ from place to place, but the false insinuation is that since cancer rates are different from place to place, smoking can not be a cause for cancer. 

If the misleading question is left unanswered, people become confused and start to doubt the peer-reviewed evidence that shows, and showed, beyond a reasonable doubt, that smoking causes cancer. Once unreasonable doubt is established, however, the industry can, and does, ramp up its Public Relations campaigns to promote their products.

It wasn’t until 2006, (and how many deaths?) that the tobacco industry was finally held to account.  The industry was found guilty under the RICO statute which confirmed that the tobacco industry had known of the health dangers of smoking as early as 1953, and that they had conspired to suppress their findings and manufacture doubt.

Think of the casualties/“externalities” created, at least in part, by the “doubt” campaign.  According to, World Health Organization statistics, smoking is the known or probable cause of numerous different diseases, and responsible for 5 million premature deaths every year.  About half of the premature deaths caused by smoking occur in middle age.

The same dynamics are at work now with the man-made global warming denial industry.

Executives at Enbridge know that there is conclusive evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, which proves that man-made global warming is a very real threat to the life and welfare of humans on this planet. 

If they admitted it and acted on their knowledge though, they would probably lose their jobs.

Petroleum company executives also know that cancer-causing pollutants

such as PAH’s (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), by-products of the Tar Sands extraction industry,  are literally killing people in Alberta, especially those unfortunate enough to live in communities downstream.

They do not act on this information, either though. They probably rationalize that industry-funded monitoring is adequate, and that it is not their business anyways. 

The scientific debate about man-made global warming has been closed since the mid 90’s.  An overwhelming consensus of international scientists, all qualified, and with peer-reviewed articles, has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that humans are the cause of  global warming.

This, however, hasn’t stopped corporate-funded think tanks, such as the Fraser Institute, and the corporate media, from creating unreasonable doubt about “externalities”.

Despite the fact that ignoring or suppressing scientific realities of AGW and pollution is harming the public, those who manufacture unreasonable doubt appeal to “fairness” and “balanced reporting”, when  giving disproportionate emphasis to the other side, even though the “other side” has been proven to be scientifically incorrect.

In matters of politics or economic theories, the notion of “fairness” applies, but when the scientific debate is closed, as it is with Anthropogenic Global Warming, and the effects of Tar Sands industry pollutants on humans, the industry appeal to “fairness” is fraudulent.

Where am I headed with this?

Our current government is controlled to a disproportionate degree by corporate self interest.  When the oil and gas industries want something, they usually get it. For example, the oil and gas industries recently requested changes to these six laws:

• National Energy Board Act.
• Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
• Fisheries Act.
• Navigable Waters Protection Act.
• Species at Risk Act.
• Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Omnibus Bills C-38 and C-45 take care of the changes requested by the oil and gas industries, but they do not take care of Canadians. The legislation, which impacts treaty rights, was passed without the free, prior, informed, and accommodated consent ( FPIC )  of the First Nations. 

This duty to consult is enshrined in Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, and in case law. 

Additionally, the Omnibus Bills, where they impact treaties and aboriginal rights, are in contravention of the United Nations Declaration On The Rights Of Indigenous Peoples.

This preference for corporate self interest over people is also negatively impacting jobs. 

The government’s preoccupation with one sector of the economy is creating economic imbalance throughout the country and costing jobs. Manufacturing and alternate energy industries create more jobs than the capital intensive petroleum industry.

The government’s subsidies of $2 billion per year to the oil and gas sectors, which are the richest companies in the world, would be better spent elsewhere.

 Putting that money into the alternate energy sector and manufacturing would create more jobs and a more balanced economy, less susceptible to the boom/bust cycles of a commodity-driven economy.

Investing tax payer’s money more wisely would also be an acknowledgement of scientific truths, and a sign that the government is governing for the public good, rather than for destructive corporate self-interests.

Mark Taliano is a Niagara resident and regular contributor of news and commentary to Niagara At Large.

 You can also learn more about this and related issues by visiting the website of the Ottawa-based Polaris Institute at www.polarisinstitute.org .

The first image on this post is courtesy of Heather Libby. We thank her and all others who are working to inform Canadians of the true costs of subsidizing the oil c artel  and its fixation on the tar sand, strip-mining of our great boreal forest regions in this country.

(Niagara At Large invites all individuals who care to share their first and last names with their views to join in the conversation by sharing them in the comment area below.)