04 Aug “All too often, we mistake mudslinging for real debate…”

David Wheeler, president of Cape Breton University and unpaid chair of the independent panel reviewing fracking in Nova Scotia, has responded to yesterday’s Contrarian post about a west coast journal’s attack on his objectivity. In my view, his position doesn’t need much of a defence,; Andrew Nikiforuk’s original attack was pretty thin gruel. But his last paragraph below highlights an existential crisis in the environmental movement.

We have never needed a strong environmental movement more than we do today. The dire consequences of climate change are bearing down upon us, while too many politicians and business leaders find it expedient to deny the problem or put off action to address it.

We need an environmental movement that is politically savvy and rooted in rigorous science. We need a strategic movement that can distinguish between problems that pose dire threats to the planet, and disagreements requiring aesthetic tradeoffs of limited scope. A movement that can work effectively with others, including business people and politicians, who do not fully share their views.

In place of this desperately needed movement, we get bullying zealots, fond of shouting down anyone who disagrees with them, quick to reject any scientific inquiry that does not proceed in a straight line to their pre-ordained conclusion, and prone to mistake mudslinging and personal attacks for reasoned civil discourse.

Here’s David Wheeler:

I appreciate very much your commentary on the bizarre turn of events on the hydraulic fracturing review with the Chronicle Herald headline ‘CBU president denies conflict in fracking review’ possibly qualifying for non-story of the year. ‘No earthquakes in Cape Breton yet this year’ would have been just as relevant.

The facts are as you state. When I was handed the somewhat dubious privilege of running the provincial Review (which some might now suggest was more poisoned chalice than honour), I did not even think about declaring interests that some might choose to misrepresent. It just did not occur to me that a journalist in British Columbia would call into question my personal integrity with innuendo and misrepresentation. I accepted the brief because of previous work I had done for the Province in energy efficiency and renewable electricity, both of which turned out very well. And of course I still have a—perhaps naive—belief in public service in areas where some think I may have a degree of expertise.

For the record: my role on the hydraulic fracturing review is unpaid and CBU only gets its direct costs covered. The Board of Governors at CBU never raised the link with LCI (a CBU affiliated company owned by the Province that trains petroleum engineers) as material to the brief I was asked to do for the Province on hydraulic fracturing or vice versa. Clearly it never occurred to them—nor to me—that there was a potential conflict, because there was none. I even corresponded with the Ecology Action Centre/NoFrac rep on the topic back in March and it was not raised in a single public meeting.

Had I even thought of declaring interests to the Deputy Minister of Energy when he was asking me to take on this highly time consuming and voluntary task a year ago, it would have been a long list. Apart from previous roles for the Province it could have included my active advocacy for marine renewables in recent years – surely indicating a potential bias for renewable energy development both in Nova Scotia and the UK. Perhaps my active role in supporting the late Ken Saro Wiwa in his campaign for ecological and social justice for the Ogoni in the oil rich Niger Delta in the 1990s could be construed as critical of the oil industry. Going further back, perhaps my work in the in countries such as Nicaragua during the contra war, Peru during the Sendero Luminoso insurgency, or Darfur during the humanitarian crisis in the early 1980s would illustrate a fatal bias for social activism as well as public health science. I could go on. There are a lot more stories like those in my curriculum vitae if people care to look.

However, it is not for me to defend my personal integrity and track record in the face of innuendo and muckraking journalism. Happily Minister Younger has already done that, which is right and proper. And the Board of Governors at CBU can surely fire me if I misstep. As for hydraulic fracturing, I will be judged by the quality of the Panel’s final report and its recommendations.

My only sadness is that in Nova Scotia we cannot seem to come to terms with civil discourse about important topics, and all too often we mistake mudslinging for real debate. The defamatory anonymous postings on the electronic graffiti boards in the Chronicle Herald and the Cape Breton Post prove that on a daily basis.
We have a mountain to climb in this province on so many levels. But as Nova Scotia continues to battle with its numerous social and economic challenges it would be great if we could start with civility as one of our ground rules.