As evening rolls around you make your way over to the community center. It’s an hour early when you arrive but the entrance-way is already crowed with people engaged in lively conversation. It’s encouraging to see such interest and participation in the democratic process. Pinned to the bulletin board alongside the sign-up sheets for junior soccer and after school programs are slick-looking posters from energy giants like Exxon and Shell announcing their commitment to environmental stewardship and social responsibility. You can see by glancing at the glossy slogans printed on the wall that nearly every political faction is represented here tonight, although conspicuously absent is the Social Democrat Party logo.
The first person to speak is a delegate from the National Petroleum Producers Association. Soft, slow building electro-pop music accompanies them to the stage. Their entire appearance and body language seems to exude confidence as they take the microphone and turn to face the audience, a subtle, warm smile across their perfectly smooth and wrinkle-free face. The music fades and they begin to speak into a well-balanced, masterfully-levelled sound system that makes them sound as though they’re sitting right beside you.
They start with a few introductory quips about the price of gas and lead into a basic, sub-technical description of hydraulic fracturing suitable for a junior high geography class, then move into full-swing propaganda mode.
“Hydraulic fracturing is a safe technology that has been in use for over 60 years without incident in over a million wells across the country. Nationally we have some of the world’s highest environmental regulations and the domestic industry continues to improve on our best practices that are above and beyond government regulations. This helps us continue to produce energy right here at home where we use it, and that allows us to keep control of our energy independence and choose exactly how the energy we consume is produced. Would we rather depend on foreign energy produced in countries with no environmental protection or labour standards? Or would we rather keep this industry here were we can continue to provide good incomes for families, contribute to community development, and help propel this great nation into the future?”
There are cheers and jeers from the auditorium as they take their leave from the podium. You wonder if there are paid oil industry plants in the audience, or if people are really so greedy and blind to be excited about selling out their future for jobs.
The next speaker is introduced as a member of the National Science Association a national organization of objective researchers who educate and inform public policy based on scientific knowledge. There are much muffled thumps and bumps as the speaker humbly self-adjusts the microphone, and clears their throat.
“Hello? Can you hear me? Good. I’m not here to dazzle you with dance music and whatnot. Rather, I’ll let the facts make their own impression.” They pause while sorting through a pile of papers eventually selecting one which they hold before them on display to the audience. “In the last edition of our peer reviewed journal we published a paper and made available to the public unarguable evidence of a direct link between levels of methane gas contamination in ground water and the proximity of hydro fracking wells. This of course is the explanation behind the widely popularized phenomenon wherein people have videotaped themselves lighting their tap water on fire, something which unto its self is great cause for concern. But the problems do not end there. Earlier research also indicates that the toxic chemicals which are injected into the ground during the fracking process, and that remain in reservoirs afterwards, also make their way into the water table, and are commonly detectable in ground water samples. This poses a much greater, albeit less sensational, health risk to the public as there are higher-than-average cancer rates and other health problems documented in regions where fracking takes place. There are some who will say that this is a green technology. That it is cleaner than coal, and safer than nuclear power. If I have not already convinced you that this is not true then let me also mention that the process of extracting gas using hydro fracking is enormously energy intensive, and that the end product itself is a fossil fuel that contributes to greenhouse gases.”
The scientist continues their damning condemnation of the fracking industry until the moderator tells them that they’ve run out of time, and opens the floor up for questions and comments. The forum hears from representatives from unions, professional associations, community groups, and environmental organisations, but from the looks of it there’s nobody from government present in the centre.
“I’m surprised there’s no one here from the Social Democrats,” you speak aloud to no one in particular but yourself.
“I’m not surprised at all,” the stranger seated next to you speaks up. They’re middle aged, sensibly dressed, with a pin on their hat that reads ‘no fracking way’.
“Why’s that?” you ask, genuinely surprised.
“They want to stay as far away as possible from an issue this divisive. It’s not good for the polls. They refuse to take a side, which if you ask me is a vote for the status quo. I used to be a card carrying member of the Social Democrats. But they really disappointed me with their lack of initiative on environmental issues. A group of us organized a mass resignation from the party in protest but it didn’t change a thing.”
“So they don’t have a policy on fracking?”
“Not one that I would be proud of.”
“That’s a shame.”
“You’re darn right it is.”
It seems from the debate that follows, that little has changed in people’s minds. Most people, yourself included, have retained the same opinions they held when they arrived. When the conversation degrades into immature labels like “treehuggers” versus “greedheads,” you tire of the tedious and childish discussion and decide to pack it in.
You grab your bike helmet and head for the door. As you make your exit from the community centre you find yourself in the middle of some kind of scuffle. A small group of people have set up a booth of sorts and are being berated by one of the employees from the centre.
“I told you to get out of here!”
“We’re on the side walk, it’s a public space.”
“If you don’t leave immediately, I’m calling the police!”
“Go ahead asshole! We’ve got a right to be here. It’s called freedom of speech!”
“What’s going on here?” you ask, approaching the people at the booth.
“You want to join the real fracking resistance comrade?” asks one of the picketers. “We’re here to say no fracking on stolen Native land. Have you heard about the blockade?”
“Blockade? I’m afraid not.”
“We’re working with indigenous land defenders who’ve constructed a barricade blocking any further drilling on their territory. Together we’re protecting the waters of these lands for the defence of mother earth, and of course there’s also an element of modern colonialism here.”
“What do you mean?”
“The effect of western capitalism is the domination of the earth and its peoples. Indigenous people are standing up to imperialism, and we stand in solidarity with them in their anti-colonial struggle.”
“I see. So tell me about the blockade.”
“The blockade is the result of indigenous leadership and backed by people like ourselves who believe that social justice is intrinsically linked to environmental issues. We’re here today to encourage people to get involved and come out to the blockade. These are not times for half-hearted efforts. The entire planet is in jeopardy. We have to stop this.”
It seems this young activist has presented you with a choice. On one hand, it’s clear that the Social Democrats are too afraid of offending the mainstream to seriously challenge the energy sector, but they do offer more environmental protection than any of the other parties, and nobody else has promised to get any results at all when it comes to standing up for local water safety. On the other hand, there are greater issues at stake, and maybe the blockaders are right, environmental destruction is only one symptom of a whole system that exploits people as well. But the problem with lofty radical positions is that extremists very rarely succeed in living up to any of their ideals, while moderates, with their modest goals, have a much greater likelihood of seeing their demands met. Perhaps that is because moderate demands do not in any way threaten the powers that be and often fall short of solving the underlying problems inherent in our capitalist system. Some would go so far to say that middle-of-the-road environmentalists even provide a cover for corporations to appear as though they are addressing the public’s social and environmental concerns, while they continue to practice business as usual. Others would argue that cynicism is not productive, that we should push for change where we know that progress is a real possibility.