On Monday Jean-Michel Gires, President & CEO of Total E&P Canada, gave a presentation titled “Energy, Oil Sands, and Sustainable Development.” Gires talked about the environmental problems faced when extracting resources for energy.What seperated Gires’ presentation from the environmental scientist’s were the overwhelming facts pointing to a positive future. His lecture was marked by statistics intended to comfort instead of inform the audience.
After describing the economic and environmental situation and how it can be mitigated by implementing alternatives, Gires showed how Total was already at the forefront of this movement. Gires gave a list of Total’s environmental contributions: investment in alternative energy, research in carbon capture and storage, and research in “ecodriving” (which focuses on reducing the mileage of consumer cars). Gires wanted to make it clear that Total is doing as much as it can to invest in alternative energy.
Next, Gires tackled the controversial oil sands. The “bad press” campaign, said Gires, often cited facts that exaggerated their environmental impact. “Dirty oil” is often construed as a crime but when compared to the amount of pollution elsewhere it’s negligible. A quick fact illustrated this point: the oil sands emit about as much carbon as the state of Indiana. So, as Gires said, “If it is a crime, you have quite a lot of criminals in North America.” Gires also touched on the issues of cutting down forests and issues concerning the First Nations. Mineable forested land only represents 0.1% of the total boreal forest in Canada, and Gires claimed that, after mining, Total would attempt to “re-integrate [the land] in the boreal forest”. About the First Nations, who “happened to be there before”, Gires said that Total was doing its best to come to socio-economic agreements and limit their negative impacts. This is “not so easy”, said Gires, ”because we are very very different”. Nevertheless, there was progress on that front too.
The examples Gires gave were the definition of tokenism. For example, Gires seemed most proud of Total’s recent stake in a new nuclear energy facility in France. France has been investing in nuclear energy since 1965. In fact about 79% of its power came from nuclear plants in 2004. When the 8.33% interest Total invested in one single (future) power plant is compared to these figures, it’s clear that Total isn’t, as Gires made it out to be, an environmentally aware and responsible corporation. Instead, it’s more of a late-comer too worried about financial risk. Now that nuclear plants are clearly safe, Total is willing to jump on the bandwagon. Gires’ optimism that Total’s investments are making a difference and contributing to mitigating climate change–illustrated by his constant use of terms like ”very encouraging results” and “continuous improvement”–is an example of corporate advertising moved to an academic setting. Facts and figures sum up to the feeling that everything is “all right”. While the average environmental scientist’s presentation will come across as an awakening alarm bell, Gires described problems of the environment the way a doctor would describe your symptoms and suggest tranquilizing medicine.
A refreshing breeze came from the three McGill students that were allowed to ask questions after the presentation. Alex Briggs, an environmental and social justice activist, asked Gires how he “expects [the tar sands] to be an energy solution.” Gires’ response was again one of optimism: regardless of the “bad press”, Total is trying to promote attractive alternatives. Maggie Knight, another student involved with several groups on campus including SSMU and Journalists for Human Rights challenged Gires on the possibility to replant the forests and Total’s willingness to agree to a carbon tax. Gires agreed that the former would be a very difficult project but stated, again, that there are “very encouraging results.” With regards to carbon tax, Europe’s tax system had given them the experience to deal with a Canadian tax system. When pressed if he would “advocate a carbon tax” he responded, “yes, definitely… But we are not going to decide, we have so many stakeholders.”
To me, much of Gires’ presentation seemed calculated for comfort rather than shock. Environmental problems should come across as a shock to the system (and it will), but it’s in an oil company’s interest to calm and soothe consumers. The question I was burning to ask Gires: ”How much is your presentation a business strategy rather than an attempt to honestly inform a university audience?” I really want to know.
Aaron Vansintjan
Photo source: http://www.universite.total.com/html/uni/publish/templates/index9220.html