Photo essay: Oil on Lubicon Land

Posted by bex - 23 June 2011 at 10:32am - Comments

From deepwater drilling in the Arctic to the Tar Sands in Canada, oil companies are going to ever greater extremes to squeeze the last drops of oil from the Earth. And where oil companies pile in, environmental destruction follows.

In Alberta, Canada, decades of oil and gas developments have had devastating impacts on local communities and the natural world, culminating in the recent Rainbow pipeline oil spill in Lubicon Cree traditional territory.

Melina Laboucan-Massimo is a member of the Lubicon Cree First Nation, plus a climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace. In this very personal photo essay, she describes the tragic consequences of oil development and spills on the traditional territory of the Lubicon Cree.

Find out more about our campaign to Go Beyond Oil.

Article tagged as: alberta, canada, go beyond oil, oil, oil spills, photo essays, rainbow pipeline, tar sands, videos

Comments Commenting is now closed

It is so sad to see this happen to a beautiful part of the world. Oil companies have a lot to answer for. They should be ashamed of themselves for what they are doing to the land and the people of this devestated land! It makes me physically sick and emotional to see this but it must be agonising for the locals.

By Ally R - 23 June 2011 at 8:44pm

Firstly, If the water is poluted there are already strong environmental laws that can be brought to bear. This should not be put up with. Same for other health issues. Why hasn't there been action on this if it is as bad as you say? Companies generally atl least *try* not to pollute, not for altuisistic reasons, but that they'll get their asses sued.

Secondly, you should also campaign against Greenpeace buying $6M of oil each year. A percentage of that will come from Deepwater drilling and Tar sands. Why is this hypocricy not being acted against?

Thirdly, the "subsidy" you state for the oil and gas isn't a true subsidy. It is a "Greenpeace" subsidy. As I understand it energy production isn't taxed at the point of manufacture. If it were then the cost would just be passed down the line and end up as a consumer/business tax. Greenpeace very cleverly calculated what this tax revenue 'would have been' if they *had* been taxed, and then called this a 'subsidy' when in fact it's a tax break that all energy users enjoy. The "subsidy" for renewable energy looks so much less because they produce so much less product..

By Daithesci - 24 June 2011 at 3:19pm

1 person agrees

Hi Daithesci

I'm not sure if you bothered to watch the photos pass through, but the laws you mention are clearly not doing anything. I am very sorry, but the worlds laws which you seem to think are enough matter not to big business. If this is not the case please do show me where the law has prevented oil and gas companies ripping the environment up, polluting the land, water and people and effectively buying power wherever they choose to be.

Regards

By mjew - 25 June 2011 at 9:51am

Seriously, don't feed the troll. Anyone without a massive bias could realise that all of his points are ridiculous and always will be.

By Anony - 25 June 2011 at 11:20am

@ Anony:

"that all of his points are ridiculous and always will be"

Eh?

Point 1 I was asking a question
Point 2 is a fact backed up by data from Greenpeace's own accounts..!
Point 3 is a fact backed up by GP's own calculations.

Sometimes the truth hurts sonny, but don't shoot the messenger.

By Daithesci - 27 June 2011 at 2:12pm