Environment challenged by Arctic oil, tar sands energy options for USand Canada

[caption id="attachment_4499" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Tar sands risks"][/caption]

by Carol Forsloff - While environmentalists are demonstrating against nuclear energy, they also oppose drilling in the Arctic, as demonstrators are poised to begin a major protest using a large dramatization at the Department of Foreign Affairs in Ottawa on Wednesday.

A large oil spill dramatization complete with icebergs and oil barrels will allow the media to take the kind of photos environmentalists hope will cement their position with the public on the risks of drilling in the Arctic.  The demonstration will be taking place at 10:00 a.m. and is being organized by the Council of Canadians and the Indigenous Environmental Network.

Environmentalists are part of what is said to be the growing movement to 'leave it in the ground.' They hope to create a moratorium on Arctic drilling according to a Canadian newswire.

Oil drilling that creates environmental challenges is being protested widely concerning offshore drilling and drilling in pristine areas. This includes the tar sands of Canada and the pipelines to proceed through the United States bringing oil across the border from another controversial strategy. Recently there has been a rash of commercials on American television touting tar sands oil as one of the answers to getting needed oil and gas to the United States and removing the dependency on Middle Eastern sources.

Oppostion to tar sands began to heat up in earnest in 2010.  An organization called ForestEthics is hoping to involve American retailers, including Wal-Mart, Radio Shack, and Safeway in the fight against tar sands, as Whole Foods and Bed, Bath and Beyond have already signed up.

“Toxic waste ponds, air and water pollution, habitat and species destruction are all legacies of the enormous operations in northern Alberta. “ declares one website, advancing claims that tar sands has created serious problems for Canada the site says  will really impact all Canadians

New research tells us why populations differ sharply on environmental regs, oil drilling

 

[caption id="attachment_10758" align="alignleft" width="250" caption="Offshore oil drilling"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff -There will be a rally in support of oil drilling and ending the moratorium for deepwater drilling for oil on the coast in Lafayette on July 21 at the Cajun Dome.  Why do some people want to continue drilling when there is an oil spill disaster while others consider it vital for their future?

New research takes a look at this in the journal Rural Sociology in an article entitled, “Place Effects on Environmental Views.”

“Our research shows that people who live in rural areas with high unemployment rates are less likely to support environmental regulations. Economic pressures help to understand why, in spite of the devastation caused by the BP oil spill, many residents of the Gulf Coast oppose a moratorium on off-shore drilling,” said Larry Hamilton, professor of sociology, senior fellow at the Carsey Institute at UNH, and lead author of the study. The study is co-authored by Chris Colocousis, assistant professor at James Madison University, and Mil Duncan, director of the Carsey Institute at UNH.

Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana, reflects the views of many people in the Gulf Coast region, with views that may sound alien to many but make sense within the confines of the cultural views of the region.

To look at which some people adopt conservation and environmental control and others do not, researchers surveyed more than 7,800 people in 19 rural counties of nine states.   These states included Midwestern farm country, the Rocky Mountains, Pacific Northwest, Northwest, Northeast, Midwestern farm country, Appalachia, Mississippi Delta and Alabama's Black Belt.  These areas represented four brand types of rural locations where there has been resource and population decline, chronic poverty, and an economy driven by certain amenities.

The states consisted of seven geographic regions -- the Rocky Mountains, Pacific Northwest, Northeast, Midwestern farm country, Appalachia, Mississippi Delta, and Alabama’s Black Belt – that represented four broad types of rural places characterized by resource and population decline, amenity-driven population growth, amenity-driven population growth and decline, and chronic poverty.

What researchers have found is that people in rural areas with high unemployment rates are less likely to support conservation efforts and restrictive environmental regulations.. “People living in areas with high unemployment rates may perceive environmental rules as a threat to their economic livelihood,” Hamilton said.

People in rural areas with high rates of population growth are more likely to support conservation efforts and environmental regulations. “In such places, population change could be altering the environment in visible ways and make it seem more in need of protection,” Hamilton explained.

Then there are other factors that influence views on conservation, that appear to be classic and predictable and these include Republicans, older respondents, and those who regularly attend church.. Women, nonminority, and better-educated respondents are more likely to favor conservation.

Similar to views on conservation, the researchers confirmed previous research that shows environmental regulations are supported more by younger, better educated, and less Republican respondents.

When interacting and planning for any given area, these aspects of why people look favorably on environmental safeguards or do not can help people understand the differing views on these issues.  Folks need to see why people in the same region will share the same views of an environmental situation.

“For example, in our Rocky Mountain counties, the growing economy based on recreation and natural amenities gives people less reason to perceive conflict between jobs and conservation. In Appalachia, on the other hand, coal mining interests have cast debates over mountaintop-removal mining as a choice between jobs and conservation,” Hamilton says.