On the 18 July, Greenpeace activists dressed in polar bears occupied Cairn HQ in Edinburgh. The occupation was covered by BBC Scotland. And Greenpeace has the details here. Cairn's response was to take out a gagging order against Greenpeace preventing any publication of images relating to the occupation. But as past misadventures from corporate power has shown, such actions are counter productive, as this article in the Guardian underlines.
Greenpeace were prevented from showing images. But the fact that you can click the link above and go on to the BBC website and view the Greenpeace video of the occupation, makes a total mockery of the legal process. Not to mention the fact that photos of the occupation were available on Flickr, before the injunction forced Greenpeace to remove them.
No doubt the above links whizzed through the ether like atoms in a particle accelerator. So is Cairn going to take out an injunction on the entire internet? Well I'm sure Cairns executives - like any other sentient being on the planet - is familiar with the closing the barn door after the horse has bolted saying.
So now take a deep breath because on August 15 2011, the Oil Spill Response Plan was finally published by none other than the Greenland Government. I will present my analysis in due course.
Casting our minds back to the Kingsnorth six trial, following a Greenpeace campaign at the power station, the activists were acquitted on the basis of lawful excuse. As reported in the Guardian 'The statutory framework for the defence was not that difficult. According to the law: 'A person shall have a lawful excuse if he damaged property in order to protect property belonging to another and at the time of the act he believed (1) that the property was in immediate need of protection and (2) that the means of protection adopted were reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
'The defence is sensible. If you see a fire in your neighbours' garden and you know they are out, you can break down his fence to prevent damage to his plants and to his bouncy castle. The law provides a "lawful excuse" to damage or destroy your neighbour's fence to put out the fire and save the grass and the earth. The defendants acted to put out the coal fire and save the Earth because so much is in danger and immediate action is called for. Not tomorrow, but now'.
OK the circumstances were a bit different and as the law applies only to England and Wales, the legal concept of 'Lawful Excuse' does not apply in Scotland, but the argument is in essence the same. Cairns activities in the Arctic is putting the climate at risk and by definition putting us at risk also. So the occupation was arguably in the public interest.
There's nothing new about oil companies withholding information. As I reported in my previous article on Tar Sands, big oil has many skeletons in the cupboard that they would like to keep there. But the Pembina Institute has made the world aware of these skeletons by publishing Full Disclosure. It calls on oil companies to become more transparent by being more forth coming concerning the real costs of exploration: 'Improved transparency is key, as it allows investors to understand the true level of risk facing their portfolios, and it also provides a financial incentive for companies to minimize environmental liabilities. Investors should therefore encourage securities regulators to improve disclosure by:
• Disaggregating oilsands [sic] liability from overall liability. Currently, companies with significantly higher risk exposure in the oilsands may appear to have minimal exposure when their operations are aggregated. Disaggregating oilsands liabilities (or other higher-risk unconventionals like deepwater offshore production) will allow investors to better discern a company’s risk exposure'.
So the message is clear. Deepwater drilling is being equated with tar sands production in terms of higher than usual risk. So this begs the question, what else is Cairn keeping under wraps? If I was an investor I'd be very concerned indeed about the regime of secrecy inherent within the company, which appears to be verging on paranoia.
Then there is the role of the Greenland Government. If we make the assumption that politicians are pretty much the same wherever you are in the world, they will doubtless follow the same tried, tested and failed rules of modern neo-liberal capitalism - even Chinese Communism has cottoned on to that one! But yes its that familiar mantra 'economic growth'.
But lets be fair here. Nobody is doubting than Greenland has stringent health and safety rules and that Cairns safety record is second to none - so far. But its the arrogant assumption that nothing will happen. That if you follow every safety tip in the book then you'll be safe. But the fact is you can never account for the unexpected. The Fukushima disaster in Japan was a good example of this. The nuclear plant there was built to the highest available standards. But those standards could not contend with the unexpected. The moral here is that we are technology dependent. It has almost became a metaphor for God. We expect technology to do everything for us. All you have to do is flick a switch or press a button. But like a power cut, you suddenly find yourself at the mercy of technologies occasional failure.
So what happens if a 'power cut' happens in the Arctic? Well, that was the question being asked of Cairn. And if their silence was anything to go by - they didn't have a clue themselves. But now that the Plan has been published, Cairn has in a sense been let of the hook. But lets get back to the nitty gritty and find out precisely what the interdict said.
Well it turns out to be pretty much a full account of the Greenpeace campaign against Cairn. Indeed the contents of the interdict could well have been copied and pasted from the Greenpeace blog articles of the campaign on their website!
There's a common thread which runs through the Interdict - that of the health and safety of Greenpeace activists and workers connected with Cairn. It points the finger at Greenpeace for putting activists at risk.
But the fact is our lives are being threatened by climate change. So in order to protect ourselves, we 'wage war' against those who perpetuate the problem. In this particular case the 'insurgent' is an oil company.
One interesting paragraph (10) details the action Greenpeace took against Chevron, when activists tried to stop the Stena Carron by swimming in front of the ships bow. What relevance this has to Cairn Energy is beyond me. Clearly the intention was to demonstrate the 'unlawful' nature of the incident. But again its irrelevant to this particular case.
Perhaps the most eye catching part of the Interdict is paragraph 11, in which it is stated that 'The petitioners' [Cairn] are reasonably apprehensive that the respondents [Greenpeace] may well attempt to invade their offices again. The petitioners also reasonably apprehend that they will suffer substantial financial loss in the event of such disruption by the respondents. The petitioners are also reasonably apprehensive that the respondents will have sent pictures taken within the petitioners’ premises to [Greenpeace] and that [Greenpeace] will disseminate those widely. In the event that the said pictures are disseminated the petitioners will suffer considerable financial harm'.
Clearly Cairn were very concerned indeed that Greenpeace might have stumbled across something - a skeleton perhaps?
So Cairns paranoia has been amplified. But unnecessarily. It is unlikely that Greenpeace would in good faith release any sensitive material. The remit has always been to compel Cairn to act in the public interest and forward the oil spill plan, which Greenland has now done of course.
But this is when the story becomes very interesting. If you access the Cairn website you will find two statements:
- Interdict Clarification - Here Cairn gives a summary of the action they have taken against Greenpeace. But interestingly they don't offer a copy of the Interdict for download.
- Contingency Plans - This is what they say: 'People have asked what contingency plans are in place to deal with a possible oil spill... Cairn, working closely with the Greenland authorities, has developed extensive contingency plans... As stipulated by Greenland Authorities, the oil spill response documents are not publicly available.
So the clear message coming from the above statement is that the Greenland Authorities told Cairn to effectively keep their mouths shut. So why was Greenland so anxious to keep everything under wraps? There's a distinct feeling of deja vous here and it emanates from the previous tar sands article. Greenland appears to have taken a leaf out of their Western neighbours book. The parallels with the Canadian Authorities cover-up mentality were striking. One wonders precisely what flavour of propaganda Greenlanders are being fed. Indeed Danish MP Soeren Espersen, a member of the Danish People's Party, was quoted as saying that Greenlanders had been "brainwashed with unprecedented propaganda... I believe huge problems are waiting in the future". The BBC article goes on to report that 'Greenland has been shaken by several scandals over abuse of public money and property in recent years. Danish police are currently investigating how 11 Greenland MPs and top officials managed to buy attractive properties at a third of the market price. The scandals have led some Danes to call for stronger controls over Greenland's management of the Danish subsidies'.
Greenland's decision to publish the Plan seems to fit rather nicely with the comments made above. Clearly they have been under the spot light and have become somewhat dazzled by unwelcome attention they are not used to.
Some history
Greenland is effectively a former Danish colony. During world war 2 and the cold war that followed, Greenland was of high strategic importance - so much so that the US offered to purchase it from Denmark. But the Danes refused. So now with the ice packs melting due to global warming a new strategic significance has came to the region. Already this is being dubbed as the 'new cold war'. And it seems that the participants of the old one have came back to play. This time its an arms race of a different kind. Its pretty evident that an apparent triangle consisting of Greenpeace, Greenland and Cairn, started to lose its shape before it even formed. The Guardian puts it like this: 'The Arctic area is becoming a focus of international attention. Climate change, and with that the possible opening up of the North-West Passage and its existing infrastructural and economic perspectives, along with the natural resources of the area, attracts global attention to our enormous potential. Denmark has an obvious interest in remaining a player with a stake in the region. The grant to Greenland, which is approximately 55% of its annual state budget (0.75% of the Danish state budget), secures this'.
And this is where Denmark fits into the equation. £400 million (3.5bn Danish kroner) is the sum expended by Denmark per annum to support its former colony. So if Greenland did became self sufficient through oil revenue, would Denmark pocket the subsidies and wave cheerio to Denmark?
In 2009 Greenland effectively became devolved from Copenhagen. The upshot of this is that they can now decide their own future. The final step would be total independence from Denmark discontinuing the subsidy. This raises an interesting question. With oil wealth sustaining Greenland, Denmark will save the sums paid out, but what will they lose in potential oil revenue? I would reckon that Denmark is quietly participating in the new Arctic geopolitical geometry taking shape.
Who else will form an aspect around the Arctic?
Well these consist of the Arctic Council - established by the Ottawa Declaration of 1996, which is a high level intergovernmental forum to provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States, with the involvement of the Arctic Indigenous communities and other Arctic inhabitants on common Arctic issues, in particular issues of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic. These consist of the 8 permanent states of Norway, Canada, Denmark (through Greenland), United States, Russia, Sweden, Finland and Iceland. It is also possible for Non-arctic states, Inter-governmental and inter-parliamentary organizations, global and regional, and Non-governmental organizations to apply for observer status on the Council. Greenpeace isn't an observer on the council - although they have tried, but WWF is, within the context of their International Arctic Program.
In addition the non Arctic states, France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the UK all have observer status. China and the EU have applied for observer status. So the shape of the Arctic is now complete with Cairn in the middle and Greenpeace on the fringe.
On the 12 May 2011, the 7th Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting took place in Nuuk, Greenland. Considering what's at stake in the Arctic, this was a high level meeting. So what did it achieve? Well Greenpeace's response didn't flatter, indicating that many issues weren't addressed. The reason for this was highlighted in a BBC Newsnight report, following the release of cables from Wikileaks. The cables revealed that there is only one aim of the Arctic nations and that's to exploit the natural resources. The then US Ambassador to Denmark James P Cain said in the cables that he introduced Greenland's government to New York financiers "to help the Greenlanders secure the investments needed for such exploitation".
So the scene is set. And one is given to wonder whether the rapid geopolitical changes taking place in the Arctic over the last couple of years or so had anything to with Denmark occupying the chair of the Council. Sweden now has the Chair and Canada will take over when the next ministerial meeting takes place in 2013, which should be rather interesting.
So is the finger being unfairly pointed at Denmark? Well history would suggest not. With the 'new cold war' starting to chill, it was the last one that shrouded Denmark in scandal.
During the cold war Denmark proclaimed publicly that it was a nuclear free nation. But in 1995 revelations came to light that that wasn't quite the case. It was revealed that nuclear weapons were on the ground at US controlled Thule air base in Greenland and that B-52 bombers routinely flew over Greenland air space carrying nuclear weapons. Things came to a head when a bomber crashed near the base in 1968 causing local radioactive contamination. Fears within local communities of radiation induced illness led to an investigation in 1995. The incident became known as 'Thulegate'. Although this incident isn't directly related to current events, its an example of how prevalent political duplicity is - where a country proclaims a public policy and does the complete opposite in private. Hilary Clinton though is the exception to the rule. During the Arctic Council meeting she stated to the press that 'this region faces so many challenges, especially with the harmful effects of climate change on its ecology and natural resources and the livelihoods of millions of people who are living of the land and the sea'. Later on she had this to say: 'The challenges in the region are not just environmental, the melting of sea ice, for example, will result in more shipping, fishing and tourism, and the possibility to develop newly accessible oil and gas reserves. We seek to pursue these opportunities in a smart, sustainable way that preserves the Arctic environment and ecosystem'. Not only an example of duplicity but she's thrown in an oxymoron for good measure. To paraphrase Greenpeace: 'Sorry Secretary Clinton, what is so smart or sustainable about drilling for the last drop of oil, at the risk of destroying the very Arctic environment and ecosystem that you seek to preserve'?
As for Denmark? Well looking at their back-room manoeuvres at the climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009 you have to wonder if anything had changed in 40 years. Certainly according to the leaked Wikileaks cables Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller joked with the Americans saying "if you stay out, then the rest of us will have more to carve up in the Arctic". QED I think... .
So the Arctic is hotting up in more ways than one. And judging by the evidence on the table so far its quite clear that politicians neither have the intelligence nor the will to take a positive and constructive role to preserve one of the worlds few wilderness areas left undisturbed.
This brings in a fascinating observation from Buddhist religion: '[The] Buddha sits in meditation with his left palm upright on his lap, while his right hand touches the earth. Demonic forces have tried to unseat him, because their king, Mara, claims that place under the bodhi tree. As they proclaim their leader's powers, Mara demands that Gautama produce a witness to confirm his spiritual awakening. The Buddha simply touches the earth with his right hand, and the Earth itself immediately responds: "I am your witness." Mara and his minions vanish'. The observation continues; 'Has Mara taken a new form today -- as our own species? Just as Mara claimed the Buddha's sitting-place as his own, Homo sapiens today claims, in effect, that the only really important species is itself. All other species have meaning and value only insofar as they serve our purposes. Indeed, powerful elements of our economic system (notably Big Oil and its enablers) seem to have relocated to the state of "zero empathy," a characteristic of psychopathic or narcissistic personalities'. Following on from this is the concept of sacred activism; 'If we wait for corporations to transform our situation, we will wait until the last tree is burnt down. If we wait for politicians to have a major spiritual transformation, we will be waiting for the last animal to disappear'. The basic message is that whatever your beliefs it is essential to follow heart and soul and fight for the preservation of the planet that sustains us.
There are Psychological connotations to the observations above. The first is an emerging area research into embodied cognition; 'Psychological scientists are giving us more insight into embodied cognition - the notion that the brain circuits responsible for abstract thinking are closely tied to those circuits that analyze and process sensory experiences - and its role in how we think and feel about our world.' The following observation seems to fit in with the subject matter of this article; 'a new study by Zhong, Vanessa Bohns (University of Toronto), and Francesca Gino (University of North Carolina) suggests that darkness is not just scary — skulking in dark corners may actually make us more prone to dishonest behavior. In their study, volunteers who were in a dimly-lit room were more likely to cheat (and end up with undeserved money) than were volunteers in a brightly-lit room. In addition, volunteers wearing sunglasses behaved more selfishly than did those wearing untinted glasses. These results suggest that when people are in the dark, they feel they are unnoticed by others, and therefore think that they have a better chance of getting away with bad behavior (Zhong, Bohns, & Gino, in press)'.
In addition to the above, people give off subliminal signals through body language and speech. Desmond Morris was perhaps the most famous investigator of human behaviour.
So perhaps the means to figure out what makes corporations such as big oil tick is to tap into psychology. Does this mean that players such as Cairn CEO Bill Gammel should be subjected to Psycho-analysis? It's probably already been done! As for Greenland. Well they seem to prefer subdued light!
I've just watched the thoroughly absorbing and engaging documentary 'The Corporation' - made in Canada in 2003. Taking its status as a legal "person" to the logical conclusion, the film puts the corporation on the psychiatrist's couch to ask "What kind of person is it?" The remarkable conclusion based on the DSM-IV mental health criteria is that the corporation is a Psychopath. An excerpt from the film is shown beneath this article and the film can be viewed in its entirety on Youtube. If you haven't seen it then it's an absolute must!
The film completely encapsulates everything I've covered above and does more to deconstruct the psyche of a major corporation than any article. So if you've ever wondered why its impossible to rationalise with big business... .
The oil spill plan
Glancing at the thing, it gives the impression that it is perfectly feasible to deal with an oil spill in the Arctic - even though the plan itself actually documents the difficulties that could be encountered should the situation arise. I was left with the thought - should I waste my time going through a 200+ page document? Probably not. Should one give credence to a plan who's author is a psychopath? And where does this leave the mental health status of politicians?
Greenpeace has now published it's assessment of the plan.
This is a slightly abridged version of an article published on my environment blog.
Comments