Although it is important to voice one’s opinions in the media, you shouldn’t take someone else’s opinion or argument at face value without thinking about it critically. An example of a poor argument that may fool weak thinkers is the blog post by Walt Humphries in the Northern News Services entitled “Don’t trust oil sands protesters.” The argument he attempts to make is that environmental protesters are just using oil/tar sands as a means to justify their existence or occupation. According to him, they
take donations from hard working people but don’t put it to any productive use. The reason that his argument should not be taken seriously is because the evidence used is irrelevant to his argument and he has no evidence to support his bold claims.
His argument revolves around how environmentalists are using the tar sands. Tar sands have killed a number of birds in the past. The companies were fined three million dollars, but the next day almost the same number of birds was killed there again despite controls in place to stop this. In his perspective, the death of birds here is inevitable and there are many other places environmental protesters could be campaigning against bird deaths. He believes protesters are just using the tar sands as a money grab, and they don't actually care about the well-being of the birds.
The primary evidence Walt Humphries uses to support his claims against environmental protesters is difference sources of bird deaths other than from tar sands. This included killings by cats, hunters, skyscrapers, communication towers and above ground electrical lines. The theory behind all these statistics is that by showing many different ways birds die normally in the world, this will lessen the impact of their deaths from tar sands. This is a non sequitur argument; the inference does not follow from the premises. Just because there are deaths of birds from one source does not justify more deaths of birds from another source. This is especially true of a man-made toxic pool such as tar sands that create so many other environmental problems. That is not to mention the problems with his sources. Cats are a natural predator of birds, and even so there are methods of controlling them though declawing. Methods of control are also applied to skyscrapers such as turning the lights off at night so that the birds will not be attracted towards it. These are proven methods to lessen the death of birds. Walt Humphries provides many statistics of the number of killings to birds in Minnesota, yet hunting is a regulated practice. Hunters need licenses to hunt so that the bird populations can be controlled and conserved. Tar sands do not have licenses. Finally, his evidence is lacking because he admits himself that his information was found off of Google. These are not primary scientific sources and not peer reviewed so therefore not very credible.
Another fault in his argument is that he is biased towards the tailings ponds. This is shown through his reference to them as oil sands whereas environmentalists generally call them tar sands. Tar has a negative connotation compared to oil. For example, people used to tar and feather people they didn’t like, and mothers used to read their children about tar baby to alert them of the dangers of tar. This makes it clear that environmentalists believe the tar sands are extremely hazardous compared to the companies that support them and refer to them as oil. Through Walt Humphries reference to them as “oil”, he is siding with the tar supporting companies.
Additionally, Walt Humphries makes some bold claims that he fails to effectively back up. He calls environmental organizations “whiners and complainers” and says, “being constructive and proactive is not how they work” (Humphries 2010.) He has no evidence to support these unsubstantiated claims. His words are inflammatory and try to create emotions but based on no real facts. According to him, environmental organizations don’t put their donation money to good use, because they spend so much money on traveling to conferences and meetings as well as on advertising their cause. The truth is the funding these organizations receive is minuscule compared to the corporations they are fighting against. And the meetings and conferences they attend are necessary for them to be organized, professional and to achieve credibility. Advertising is a necessary practice for them to create public awareness and gain support in their efforts.
The claim that environmental organizations lack solutions is incorrect because their primary solution is to remove tar sands completely. They are not creating solutions for the birds’ deaths in the tar sands because that would be agreeing to the use of tar sands. Since a control method was put in place but more birds were killed anyway, it is clear that there are no answers to tar sands; they just need to be taken away. Tar sands fundamentally break the laws of the land, which is why the companies were fined in the first place. The environmental organizations realize this and stand by their simple solution to remove the source of the problem, the tar sands themselves. He is correct in calling wildlife groups gleeful for the further deaths of the birds because this is further proof that their argument is correct and that methods to prevent deaths on tar sands are useless. In the long run, the deaths of these birds could help win them their case and save countless other wildlife and ecosystems.
Conclusion
There is a lack of relevant evidence to support Walt Humphries skepticism with environmental protesters and he is acting as an apologist for the oil companies. Environmentalists are looking to rid the world of the fundamental problems harming ecosystems such as tar sands, they are not looking to accommodate tar sands with solutions to make them somewhat better. And although birds die in many different ways, one evil does not justify another. Tar sands look inviting for a migratory bird whereas the claws of a cat do not. As I see it, the people who shouldn’t be trusted are those who support these toxic pools which are hurting out planet, through naively calling them oil sands.
References
Humphries, Walt. "Don't Trust Oil Sands Protesters." Northern News Services Northwest Territories / Nunavut Canada. 5 Nov. 2010. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. http://nnsl.com/northern-news-services/stories/papers/nov5_10waltcol.html>.
"More Birds Dying in Alberta Oil Sands than First Reported." SNIPPITS and SNAPPITS. 9 Sept. 2010. Web. 10 Nov. 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment