Research Proposal: Erica Sandhu
Research Question
The Albertan oil sands have been subject to significant criticism, and have been the target of numerous environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) and activist groups both domestically and internationally. Despite this opposition, the Canadian and Albertan governments remain focused on accelerating growth in oil sands production[1], and the current Conservative government has spent millions on advertising campaigns to promote the oil sands.[2] Most noteworthy is the Harper government’s efforts to downplay objective, peer-reviewed scientific fact in regards to the devastating environmental effects of the oil sands. For example, in addition to peer-reviewed science, there have been numerous objectively implemented environmental impact assessments which have highlighted the environmental degradation and downstream effects of oil sands production and activity.[3] Although there is scientific consensus and widespread opposition to the oil sands, the Canadian government continues to aggressively promote the economic benefits of the oil sands and has positioned itself in direct opposition to activist groups, environmental NGOs, and most importantly, objective science.
In regards to this stance taken by the Canadian government, this paper seeks to examine the role of objective science in shaping the debate and discourse around the oil sands. More specifically, I ask why the federal government has sought to downplay scientific evidence, in that objective science does not get equal weight in comparison to the potential economic benefits of the oil sands. For example, media reports have highlighted Harper’s ignorance towards scientific knowledge, and his refusal to consider the downstream effects of the oil sands. In a second part to this puzzle, I consider how science plays into the public debate around the oil sands, as well as in efforts by activists and ENGOs. In other words, I argue that the strength of the oil sands opposition rests on the fact that science is on their side, and that opposition groups are able to use objective peer-reviewed science to shape the debate. In this regard, the Harper government (and successive governments) cannot continue to ignore scientific fact and aggressively promote oil sands development.
Proposed framework and Methodology
My first step involves providing a brief background to the oil sands, focusing on the role of science. For example, I examine when questions regarding the environmental impacts of oil sands first emerged. This includes the activity of environmental groups and activists, as well as objective, peer-reviewed reports and assessments on the oil sands. Secondly, going into my specific research question, I examine the role of the current Conservative government in regards to oil sands development and production. Through analyzing the federal government’s aggressive promotion of the oil sands, and overall discourse, I present an argument regarding Harper’s denial and rejection of objective scientific knowledge. Moreover, relying on published reports, news articles, and policy changes, I situate this within existing arguments regarding the Harper government’s stance on science. Therefore, while the Canadian government’s exclusion of objective scientific knowledge has already been explored, I aim to provide a theoretical framework or approach by which Harper’s stance on science (in relation to the oil sands) can be explained.
A probe of existing literature regarding the role of objective science in environmental policy and governance has provided considerable theoretical insight. For example, a rational-instrumental or political-institutional approach can be used to explain the interaction between “knowledge producers and policy-makers,”[4] that is, scientists and the Canadian government in regards to the oil sands. According to rationalists, science provides objective, verifiable facts about reality on which rational policy decisions can be made. Therefore, this approach “assumes policy makers recognize scientific research as a major supplier of credible and salient knowledge.”[5] In regards to the oil sands, however, the Canadian government’s stance is in opposition to this. Further, a political-institutional approach contends that scientific objectivity is divorced from political aims and governments, but the state defines what counts as valid knowledge. As a result, “even conclusive scientific evidence about the causes of the environmental problem at hand seems to have little influence on policies when powerful economic counter forces are involved in the decision making process.”[6] In terms of the oil sands, this perspective thus sheds light on why the Harper government continues to ignore objective, peer-reviewed science.
In order to address the second part of my paper, that is, how objective science has shaped the debate around the oil sands, and how it has affected the strength of each side of the debate (i.e. government vs. environmental groups), I draw upon an existing body of literature which examines the role of science in shaping public opinion around environmental policy, as well as the role of environmental NGOs in promoting a “culture of science.” For example, Oppenheimer has noted that NGOs “have shown an ability to convert a scientific question into a policy issue with great effectiveness,”[7] and as a result of their claim to transparency and legitimacy with the public, NGOs can serve as a “bulwark” against undemocratic and unrepresentative government. According to media reports, Harper’s attack on science and the reports and arguments of environmental groups and activists have undermined his credibility[8], as well as the overall strength of the Canadian Government’s stance on the oil sands. Further, media reports and public opinion polls reflect the way in which both domestic and international publics are largely opposed to the environmental impacts of the oil sands[9], thus allowing us to conclude that the Canadian government’s position is quite weak, while ENGOs hold a position of strength in the debate.
Sources and Evidence
In terms of academic literature, I will draw upon studies which have examined the role of science and objective scientific knowledge in environmental policy making and governance to build a theoretical framework. Furthermore, there is quite a large body of research on the role of science in shaping public debate, discourse, and opinions around climate change which provides valuable insight and support to my argument. Literature regarding the role of NGOs (i.e. environmental groups) in the production and communication of scientific knowledge will also be referenced. My evidence will be qualitative rather than quantitative. For example, I will reference scientific findings in objective, peer-reviewed journals, gain an understanding of ENGO activities through reports and official websites, rely on newspaper articles, public opinion polls, as well as government campaigns and advertising in regards to the oil sands.
Research Contribution
Although the oil sands are a topic of great discussion and debate, and a number of books have been published examining the environmental and economic impacts, there has been less attention regarding the role of science in shaping the debate around the oil sands, more specifically, the way in which science has impacted the relative strengths of the different sides of the debate (i.e. government vs. environmental groups). The topic is of great relevance and interest especially in regards to the Keystone XL debate. Moreover, we see that the Harper Government is becoming even more aggressive in its promotion of the oil sands, thus fully in opposition to objective, peer-reviewed scientific reports that have highlighted the adverse environmental impacts. For example, the Canadian government continues its “greenwashing” strategy despite widespread opposition to the oil sands. By examining the Harper government’s stance, I hope to provide a theoretical lens through which we can assess their actions and expand upon literature which has examined the role of scientific knowledge in shaping policy debates.
Preliminary Sources/Bibliography
Boutilier, Alex. “Ottawa hires ad firm for $22 Million oilsands campaign.” The Toronto Star. 09 Jan 2014.
Brocking, Stephen. (2013). “Science and Society: The Structures of Scientific Advice.” Global Environmental Politics. 13, No. 2, 154-159.
Cuddy, Andrew (2010). Troubling Evidence: The Harper Government’s Approach to Climate Science Research in Canada. Climate Acton Network.
Droitsch, Danielle. “New poll on Keystone XL tar sands pipeline indicating growing opposition to the pipeline and waning support.” Natural Resources Defence Council. 29 Jan
Gosselin, Pierre et al. (2010) “Environmental and Health Impacts of Canada’s oilsands industry.” The Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel.
Goodman, Lee-Ann. “Americans befuddled by Harper government’s pro oilsands ads.” Financial Post. 25 October, 2013.
Gulbrandsen. Lars (2008). “The Role of Science in Environmental Governance: competing knowledge producers in Swedish and Norwegian Forestry.” Global Environmental Politics. 8, No. 2, 99-122.
Lidskog, Rolf, Göran Sundqvist. (2011) Governing the Air: The Dynamics of Science, Policy, and Citizen Interaction. MIT Press: Cambridge.
Murray, Gray et al (2011). “Oil Sands and the Environment.” Physics Today. 64, No. 2.
Nikiforuk, Andrew. (2010). Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent. Vancouver: Greystone Books.
Oppenheimer, Michael (2006). “Science and Environmental Policy: The Role of Nongovernmental Organizations.” Social Research 73 No. 3, 881-890.
Rayner, Steve. (2012). “Uncomfortable knowledge: the social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses.” Economy and Society.
Steel, Brent, Warner Rebecca, Johnson Alex. “Environmental NGOs and Science Policy: A comparative analysis of Bulgaria and the United States.” Journal of Environmental Systems. 31, No. 2 141-157.
Woynillowicz, Dan (2005). “Background to the Oil Sands.” Pembina Institute, 1-86.
[1] Dan Woynillowicz (2005). “Background to the Oil Sands.” Pembina Institute, 1-86.
[2] Alex Boutilier. “Ottawa hires ad firm for $22 Million oilsands campaign.” The Toronto Star. 09 Jan 2014.
[3] Dr. Pierre Gosselin et al. (2010) “Environmental and Health Impacts of Canada’s oilsands industry.” The Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel.
[4] Lars Gulbrandsen (2008). “The Role of Science in Environmental Governance: competing knowledge producers in Swedish and Norwegian Forestry.” Global Environmental Politics. 8, No. 2, 99-122.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Michael Oppenheimer (2006). “Science and Environmental Policy: The Role of Nongovernmental Organizations.” Social Research 73 No. 3, 881-890.
[8] Lee-Ann Goodman. “Americans befuddled by Harper government’s pro oilsands ads.” Financial Post. 25 October, 2013.
[9] Danielle Droitsch. “New poll on Keystone XL tar sands pipeline indicating growing opposition to the pipeline and waning support.” Natural Resources Defence Council. 29 Jan 2014.