Rethink Rethink Alberta

Reader contribution

2010-07-15T15:02:00.000-07:00

On the Facebook fan page for Rethink Alberta, we threw up a link for the blog so people had an option to read something different.

Someone posted a response:

"funny how the link about all the Canadian geese killed in New York seems to have been erased. Hmmmm can point the finger but can't take it when it is pointed right back huh? But yes that number should be added to the ones in the link above."

Web article seen here. Excuse me, but birds were here first. If you're going to kill them BECAUSE they fly, don't you think that's a little more horrific than the odd accidental bird death?

These toxic lakes have taken measures to prevent birds from landing in the water. We are not rounding them up and killing them.

What I also gather from this person's comment is that Rethink Alberta is selecting what posts are "worthy" of sticking to their news feed and deleting some comments. I would like to remind you that all comments on this blog are not moderated based on opinion or evidence.

Here's another thing about this.

Notice anything about the Rethink Alberta website? You can't contact them. To me, that says that we have no opinion. Someone's trying to go on a power trip.

Conflicting information

2010-07-15T11:12:00.001-07:00

Edit!

Majority of research says that the number is 500. I haven't found the official court case yet but here is a link to a source. Most of the websites say 500, I guess every story does get bigger with each telling.

Original post:

Alright, I've read two different reports: One that the toxic lake killed 500 ducks, and one that it killed 1600. Right now I do not have any solid information to say which it is, but there is information in Alberta court records that I will be looking up, and will post which is the true number.

Now, still, while 1600 is a lot of birds, the number pales in relation to the other numbers, seen here.

What's your say?

2010-07-15T10:56:00.000-07:00

e-mail me at rewritingmondays@gmail.com with your "article" on Rehtink Alberta. If you can back up what they are saying, PLEASE DO, we are about all of the facts, whether they are for or against this website.

Please be sure all information is sourced and cited, and I will post your take.

Also, feel free to comment on any and all posts as I will not moderate your comments unless they are highly inappropriate or explicit. I would like for this information to be available to all ages!

To post links to your sources in the comments, type the following, replacing all [ brackets with < brackets.

[a href="web site URL"]Title or text[/a]

Why is none of Rethink Alberta backed up?

2010-07-15T10:15:00.000-07:00

Because there's nothing to back it up.

"To extract this oil, a diverse boreal forest the size of Michigan is being destroyed"

The size of Michigan is 56,804 square miles Source.

"Alberta’s oil sands underlie 140,200 km² (54,132 square miles) of land in the Athabasca, Cold Lake and Peace River areas in northern Alberta. As of March 31, 2009, just 602 km² are disturbed by oil sands mining, about the size of the City of Edmonton, which accounts for 0.3% of the oil sands area, or 0.1% of the total land area of Alberta."

Source

Okay, so the oil sands themselves are about the size of Michigan, except it's about 2,000 square miles short. Which is a big area. Why not pick a state like Wisonconsin, which is 54,310 square miles? Because that would be accurate!

Anyways, 602 square kilometers (the area disturbed as of last year) is about 233 square miles. (1 square km = 0.3861022159 square miles)... so is Rethink Alberta suggesting that 233 = 56 804? Somebody failed basic math.

The real area: Where did you get these numbers, Rethink?

2010-07-15T09:51:00.000-07:00

"A video ad on the Rethink Alberta campaign's website says the oilsands are destroying an area twice the size of England - more than 260,000 square kilometres.

"Only about 550 square kilometres have been disturbed."

Smooth.

As always, here is a source to back this up. Where are your sources, Rethink Alberta?

Let's cry for the birds that will POTENTIALLY die

2010-07-15T09:23:00.000-07:00

Number of animals killed by Alberta oil sands:
164 animals in 8 years
Plus 500 ducks killed by landing in toxic water
Plus 500 ducks/swallows/other by a small spill
Equals 1, 164.

Source

This is a hugely tragic number, yes?

Number of animals killed on roadways (per year):
In British Columbia alone: More than 5, 500 a year (Source)
In Canada: "There are 4 to 8 large animal vehicle collisions every hour in Canada." (I'll do the math for you: that's approximately 52, 596 a year) Please note that this does not include small animals. (Source)
In the USA: "Extrapolating this data nationwide, Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People Newspaper estimated that the following animals are being killed by motor vehicles in the United States annually:[6]

* 41 million squirrels
* 26 million cats
* 22 million rats
* 19 million opossums
* 15 million raccoons
* 6 million dogs
* 350,000 deer"
(Source)

In NSW (Australia): "2.5 million animals are killed on roads per annum in NSW not including small lizards, frogs or other invertebrates." (Source)

How big is 1, 164 now?

What were you comparing us to? BP? How many animals has BP killed? Right, about 85, 120 NOT INCLUDING SEA LIFE (which is very very very likely to be much, much, more than the number we have).

Let's continue.

Number of animals killed by the "clean energy" they want Alberta to convert to:

"It’s well known that on an annual basis, the minimum number of birds killed by wind turbines is around 30,000 [in the United States of America]."

So this number of birds is preferable to the less-than-1200? Yeah I guess that makes sense.

By the way, SOURCE.

Horse Slaughter:

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture says more than 45,000 horses went to Mexico for slaughter last year, up from about 11,000 the year before." Source

Greyhound Slaughter:

"12,000 greyhounds are put down every year" Source

I could go on and on.

So why is Alberta the main focus of your wrath? Give me a break.

Well-thought out facts.

2010-07-15T08:29:00.000-07:00

Thank you for doing your research, California.

"Huge amounts of water are required in the process, leaving toxic tailings ponds covering 50 square miles."

Yeah but the funny think about that, the waters get recycled, cleaned, and re-used.

"Three million gallons of toxic water leaks from these ponds into nearby water systems and rivers every day."

Where did you get this information? Right, right out of your ass.

"Downstream communities have seen an increase in rare cancers associated with Tar Sands compounds."

Okay, you mean "downstream COMMUNITY," and they have a "higher than expected amount." Also, it has been reported that "There are no chronic problems... We haven't found any trends.”

And I have something they don't. A SOURCE. Yeah, really, what's that?

Look, I'm not saying that these oil sands are environmentally awesome, because just have a look at that article. Yeah, the water sucks. But really, you want to relate that to the gushing oil in the gulf? Give me a break.

And though Wiki isn't exactly a 100% credible source, the page on this kind of cancer is pretty well-sourced. It says that this kind of cancer is mostly caused by "resonance imaging, endoscopic ultrasonography, [and] bile duct biopsy."

So how does that relate to the water from the oil sands?

"The Alberta Government rubber stamps new Tar Sands operations without thorough environmental assessment."

Which new tar sands operations? Where are you getting this information? Why are you just spewing "facts" without proper backup. Right, because that would require research that may not yield the results that suit you best.

"Millions of migratory birds are expected to die in the next several decades because of Tar Sands operations."

In the past couple of months, how many birds have been killed in the gulf? Approximately 712 birds, 315 turtles, and 37 mammals are killed every day in the gulf. So let's just multiply that by 80. That's 56, 960 birds dead, 25, 200 turtles, and 2, 960 mammals dead in less than three months. That's 85, 120 dead already, never mind fish, plants, and land animals dead from poisoning. You think more fish than birds are dead? You bet. They have to BREATHE this stuff.

By the way, a source for the above information.

So how DARE you compare Alberta's sands to this disaster!

And my favorite:

"Worst of all, the Tar Sands hold 178 billion barrels of oil, second largest reserve in the world. James Hansen, the eminent climatologist from NASA has said they if they are exploited fully, it’s essentially game over for global warming."

Now I really hate to break it to you morons but GLOBAL WARMING HAS BEEN EXPOSED AS A SCANDAL.

You.

Idiots.

Now I really was trying to find some fair facts to support Rethink Alberta and I did find the article on dirty water. Well that's no secret. But where did you get the rest of this crap?

Same place where all literal crap comes from?

Screen shot from official website, click to enlarge:

Somebody needs a map.

2010-07-15T08:18:00.000-07:00

"Which country is proposing an extensive network of Tar Sands pipelines and refineries that will keep the U.S. committed to dirty oil for at least another 30 years, while putting the areas around it (i.e. The Great Lakes) at risk of contamination?"

A direct quote from their "Traveler's Quiz" as seen here (click for full image):

Hey guys, I hate to break it to you, but...

Great lakes =/= surrounding area.