Dilemma: Supporting the Calgary Flames after Mount Polley mine disaster

[PeteMoss]

Must admit, I kind of lose sympathy for your cause if you're only complaining because this happened in your area. If you were complaining about all of the oil sand issue or mining issues that happen throughout Canada or the world I would have more respect than just complaining when it happens in your face.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by thymebalm

I don't think I'm wrong in thinking that corporations have plenty of influence, perhaps even more in the short term than governments. The NHL is a big enterprise with an image to maintain, they might care.

I didn't say I wasn't going to write my MLA. I know how the provincial and federal government system works. My MLA (Herbert) and my MP (Fry) are opposition members who are already grilling the government for a full independent investigation and doing whatever they can to get results. Just because I don't specifically say something doesn't make me ignorant to it.

In fact, in a moment like this, my MLA and my MP know what to do. I voted for them, I elected them to do just that.

I think spreading my concern to where my money is spent is a logical next step. You see a lot of companies change their affiliations when public pressure put on them. Corporations have to be responsible four quarters every year. Politicians only feel the pressure once every leap year.

I don't understand some peoples need to water me down and oversimplify everything I say, and act like just because we have differing opinions I must be some kind of idiot, or even worse, an oilers fan.

Its more than the NHL isn't going to care. They may write you a letter and give lip service to something, but they don't care. Molson products likely are a part of countless drunk driving incidents. If a pal of yours was hit by a drunk driving who spent the night drinking Export would you expect the NHL to come in and yell at the Canadians owners about it?

[thymebalm]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Its more than the NHL isn't going to care. They may write you a letter and give lip service to something, but they don't care. Molson products likely are a part of countless drunk driving incidents. If a pal of yours was hit by a drunk driving who spent the night drinking Export would you expect the NHL to come in and yell at the Canadians owners about it?

You know that stuff really happens right? Groups like MADD put pressure on companies and their sponsors to provide positive messages about not drinking and driving, calling cabs and getting home safe?

If individuals don't hold corporations responsible for their affiliations and actions then who will?

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by thymebalm

I think spreading my concern to where my money is spent is a logical next step. You see a lot of companies change their affiliations when public pressure put on them.

In this scenario, what affiliation do you believe the NHL would change?

Perhaps it would be better to write a letter to Murray Edwards instead? Encouraging him to give greater due diligence to the companies which he invests in is probably reasonable.

[thymebalm]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Must admit, I kind of lose sympathy for your cause if you're only complaining because this happened in your area. If you were complaining about all of the oil sand issue or mining issues that happen throughout Canada or the world I would have more respect than just complaining when it happens in your face.

It's not that it happened in my face. And it's your face too. You live in this country. I'm probably not much closer to Likely, BC, than you are. You (or someone you know) eat the fish from those rivers.

It's the combination of me giving my money to a guy who on one hand "owns" this team I've cared about my whole life and on the other hand "owns" this mine that failed and caused a major disaster that really irks me.

It's that awkward sensation of being kissed in the lips and punched in the balls at the same time that I'm dealing with.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Despite your best intentions or desire to be a strong valued person, you are coming across really foolish by making extreme reaches to try and pretend this has something to do with the Flames/NHL.

If you have such an issue with Murray Edwards, then find out everything he has invested in and boycott all of it. If you realize you made a silly thread emotionally in the moment, just admit that this is not connected to the Flames, and lets all move on.

Please, do not continue to hang onto the ridiculous notion that supporting the Flames is somehow a vote for mining disasters. It is not, and despite whatever rebuttal you provide to this, it still is not.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by thymebalm

I don't think I'm wrong in thinking that corporations have plenty of influence, perhaps even more in the short term than governments. The NHL is a big enterprise with an image to maintain, they might care.

I didn't say I wasn't going to write my MLA. I know how the provincial and federal government system works. My MLA (Herbert) and my MP (Fry) are opposition members who are already grilling the government for a full independent investigation and doing whatever they can to get results. Just because I don't specifically say something doesn't make me ignorant to it.

In fact, in a moment like this, my MLA and my MP know what to do. I voted for them, I elected them to do just that.

I think spreading my concern to where my money is spent is a logical next step. You see a lot of companies change their affiliations when public pressure put on them. Corporations have to be responsible four quarters every year. Politicians only feel the pressure once every leap year.

I don't understand some peoples need to water me down and oversimplify everything I say, and act like just because we have differing opinions I must be some kind of idiot, or even worse, an oilers fan.

Because your initial post:

How can I continue to support the Calgary Flames with my time and money when Murray Edwards is taking that money and destroying my homeland with it?

...and several subsequent responses, doesnt make it sound like you've put a lot of thought into this issue.

Maybe you have, but that's not how it comes across.

It sounds like a very long-standing and complicated issue has suddenly hit home for you, and now you're fired up because "Something ought to be done ", but you're not sure what. It sounds like you're looking for a quick and simple response.

You're not getting a lot of traction because the quick and simple action you're proposing is frankly silly.

[thymebalm]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Despite your best intentions or desire to be a strong valued person, you are coming across really foolish by making extreme reaches to try and pretend this has something to do with the Flames/NHL.

If you have such an issue with Murray Edwards, then find out everything he has invested in and boycott all of it. If you realize you made a silly thread emotionally in the moment, just admit that this is not connected to the Flames, and lets all move on.

Please, do not continue to hang onto the ridiculous notion that supporting the Flames is somehow a vote for mining disasters. It is not, and despite whatever rebuttal you provide to this, it still is not.

If you can live your life in a world where someone can own a company and somehow not be affiliated with it, than so be it. I don't think it's silly to ask myself as a consumer if I should support a business who's ownership does something I am against.

The Calgary Flames are not Imperial Metals.

Even so, the profits still line the pockets of Edwards. I don't think that's a silly connection to make. That's just the reality of the situation.

If I support the Flames financially (at all) then I'm supporting Edwards financially (not that he'd ever need my money). If I support Edwards financially, that means I support him ethically, and until I see and hear the appropriate response from him, I'm not sure I can do that.

It's not emotions, its ethics. And I loved the last line of your comment, you must win a lot of schoolyard arguments with that one. "and no matter what you say next, I'm right!"

It's funny you say "this has nothing to do with the Flames" and then you say "find out everything Edwards is invested in and boycott it"... he owns the Flames... that's where the whole dilemma started... no?

[Ashasx]

I think the fact that you made this thread and are looking for ridiculous justifications for a boycott of the team is already telling that you are not a Flames fan anymore.

I think perhaps you've felt like this for a while and you're using this one accident as proof to justify what you already thought.

[thymebalm]

http://globalnews.ca/news/1496838/mo...urray-edwards/

This article gets at what I'm trying to say.

Recent court cases have established a precedent for a company’s directors being held responsible for environmental misdemeanours: The Ontario government has argued directors of a now-insolvent company were responsible for cleanup at a contaminated site.

But the Canadian Energy Research Institute’s Dinara Millington thinks it’s unlikely the Mount Polley breach will hurt Edwards directly.

“Him personally being held responsible, I don’t think so. But what might happen is you might see if he’s feeling pressure … he might be selling off shares,” she said.

“There could be pressure – internally or externally … to get him to rethink what companies to invest in.”

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Must admit, I kind of lose sympathy for your cause if you're only complaining because this happened in your area. If you were complaining about all of the oil sand issue or mining issues that happen throughout Canada or the world I would have more respect than just complaining when it happens in your face.

I felt the same way about Christopher Reeves when he became an advocate for spinal cord injury research only AFTER he had his horse riding accident. What a selfish prick.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I don't think there's hypocrisy in being critical. If it wasn't for regulatory bodies, profit maximizing companies (especially publicly sharing companies) would have no concern for externalities.

So unless I'm a Mennonite, I can't be critical against anything that benefits the economy?

The hypocrisy is in differing degrees of criticism based on postal code.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by 4X4

And for every "Damn Albertan" that's over in BC in Comox or wherever, there are two young BC men over here in Alberta making a killing on the rigs.

It's tiring to constantly read this kind of garbage where it's always Albertans that don't give a crap, and are the worst polluters in Canada. I bet there are less Albertans working in the Oilsands than BCers, Newfs, other Maritimers, and Ontarians. Meanwhile, a good portion of the construction industry is from Quebec.

So how exactly is it that Albertans are the polluters and the rednecks, when a huge chunk of our population are recent transplants here to get rich quick? Next time you see one of Alberta's famous "jacked up F-350s with a white sunglasses and affliction shirt wearing driver", check the license plate. Half of them are from BC or Sask, or NS.

As for the BS "Alberta" comment in the OP, with an ignorant attitude like that, I'm glad you're no longer an Albertan, and a Flames fan.

I think this is pretty much an example of what thymebalm is saying. Sure, he started off with a shot about albertans, but, the impression is warranted from citizens of other provinces. The PM, who was elected out of Calgary, who runs a party who's centre of power is Alberta, has actively been trying to muzzle and erode Canada's science and monitoring arms. Albertans are routinely the least likely among Canadians to express a belief in climate change and it's consequences. There is a reason 'Friends of Science" is located in Calgary and not Hull Quebec or Nanaimo BC. It's not an unfounded stereotype, even if it doesn't account for all Albertans. Alberta's ruling provincial party can't decide whether it thinks climate change is important or not, and the official opposition chooses to fight policies aimed at mitigating climate change. These things are all real and are part of the way people make judgements about the province.

Originally Posted by GGG

I dont think not cheering for the flames is the right choice.

Copper is a pretty essential metal for our day to day existance.
Copper mines in Canada are likely leaders in enviromentally responsible extraction.

If you want to take action I woud enourage you to join organizations which are lobbying the AER in alberta and the similar body in BC for better monitoring and design of tailings ponds.

Gas Stations used to have single walled storaged tanks that correded out and leaked causing extenive damage. Now they are required by code to be double wall with interstitial monitoring.

Better design requirements, better maitenance requirements and harsh penalties for companies which dont meet code. Boycotting the person who is investing the money wont help change anything. All of his comanies policies will ave been designed around meeting code make the code more stringent and you improve enviromental performance.

But if Murray Edwards or any of his companies have contributed money to the political goal of reducing or restricting environmental legislation, (like the provincial and federal conservatives) doesn't that also add to culpability? If government bent to private interest in determining appropriate 'code' for these installations, that makes government culpable, but also the influencing private interest, does it not? It seems to me, duping is worse than being duped in this scenario.

Originally Posted by Red_Baron

Not to make light of this but the media has really cooked up a lot of misinformation and this misinformation has the potential to do a lot of damage to the hard work many of us professional scientists in BC do every day.
The media puts out words like "mercury" or "arsenic" to incite fear and how many times have we seen the words "toxic sludge" in this thread? I've worked on many tailings dams and have done geochem samples for a few very similar alkalic porphyry mines and the numbers are very comparable to the background numbers in the native soil.
If anyone has ever played the golf course in Princeton, BC, you just played the back nine of your round on "toxic sludge" according to the media. The entire back nine was built on tailings from the Copper Mountain mine circa 1925-1955.


awesome autocorrect malfunctions brought to you by tapatalk

Love these sorts of posts.

Originally Posted by kehatch

Do you drive a car? Do you use hyper carbon products? Do you fly? These types of accidents are a byproduct of that industry. And you are already voting with your dollars. Accidents might garner the most media attention. But it isn't the accidents that are causing the largest environmental impact.

What does stop watching the Flames do? It isn't the Flames that fund the oil industry. It's the other way around.

This is just acceptance of the status quo and an attempt to invalidate thymebalms opinion by trying to paint him as a hypocrite. Unfortunately, the society we live in makes us utterly dependent upon hydro-carbons and their various industries. Attempting to change this dynamic doesn't and shouldn't make one a hypocrite. Just saying that this is the the by-product of that dependency is to eschew the fact that progress is always being made, and often stifled, by competing interests. For example, what is the likely occurance in a tailing pond of this type leaking, and who decides on whether that risk is acceptable?

If it's weighed in terms of dollars, isn't that a potentially fundamentally flawed process of designing the structure? "Well, to do it really properly, so there will be no leaks, at all, will be 50 bucks. We can do it for 20 bucks though if you're ok with a 15 percent chance of a leak."

At what point do we decide as a society that we're willing to absorb the externalized costs of running businesses? Why isn't the standard higher, and if it's cost prohibitive, well, it's cost prohibitive because that is the true cost of doing business.

Originally Posted by fotze

Don't feel too bad thymebalm, we still like you and you do seem passionate about this (as you should).

If it makes you feel any better, Edwards ownership in the stock has dropped approximately 168 million dollars assuming 36.1% of the market cap before and after.

At least this is on land and you can see it, so it can be fixed, the Primrose thing, I don't know if you can fix that.

I think more devious for these corporations are the anonymous investors (the other 63.9%). The fund owners, the retirement plans, myself. I want my 10%, every year, no matter what. Edwards will make sure heads will roll because of this.

Corporations do all sorts of things to please the investor that has no face and do all sorts of corner cutting in order to appease them. The stock price must grow, dividends must be paid and the only way to grow when expansion is not an option is to cut costs.

Might be a function of placing such a massive percentage of director/management compensation in the form of stock and stock growth causing short sighted decision making, focused solely on beating the previous quarter.

Also as the major investor I do agree he does have some responsibility, no doubt.



EDCO is Edwards' company.

I think your bolded is a key contribution to this.

Maybe it's the relatively lax environmental policies on mining that make it an attractive investment target.

Maybe with less market pressure and more stringent laws, any future occurrence of these types of disasters would be mitigated based on size alone?

Great post to start the discussion thymebalm. I'm glad you've come back and explained your position more and have ignored some of the more negative feedback.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think this is pretty much an example of what thymebalm is saying. Sure, he started off with a shot about albertans, but, the impression is warranted from citizens of other provinces.

British Colubmians are whiny hippy rioters.

Saskatchewanites are Pilsner drinking inbreds.

Ontarians are self-centred and whiny with delusions of superiority.

Quebeccers are corrupt bigots.

Maritimers are lazy bums who rely on Canada's welfare state to survive.

If that ignorant "impression" of Alberta is warranted, so too is every single one of these.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by thymebalm

http://globalnews.ca/news/1496838/mo...urray-edwards/

This article gets at what I'm trying to say.

Ok. And that has what, exactly, do to with the Flames or NHL?

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by thymebalm

If you can live your life in a world where someone can own a company and somehow not be affiliated with it, than so be it. I don't think it's silly to ask myself as a consumer if I should support a business who's ownership does something I am against.

The Calgary Flames are not Imperial Metals.

Even so, the profits still line the pockets of Edwards. I don't think that's a silly connection to make. That's just the reality of the situation.

If I support the Flames financially (at all) then I'm supporting Edwards financially (not that he'd ever need my money). If I support Edwards financially, that means I support him ethically, and until I see and hear the appropriate response from him, I'm not sure I can do that.

It's not emotions, its ethics. And I loved the last line of your comment, you must win a lot of schoolyard arguments with that one. "and no matter what you say next, I'm right!"

It's funny you say "this has nothing to do with the Flames" and then you say "find out everything Edwards is invested in and boycott it"... he owns the Flames... that's where the whole dilemma started... no?

Ok then just continue down that path. No more skiing at any of the Resorts of the Canadian Rockies.

- Fernie
- Kimberly
- Nakiska
- Kicking Horse

How about Ensign Energy, surely they are equally if not more guilty as the Calgary Flames are correct? And imagine all the pollution they may or may not be producing with all the drilling theyre involved in! And Northern alberta is OUR home too! Why dont you take the time to research exactly what products are serviced but Ensign and then report back once you have given them the "thymebalm no-vote of his dollar".

It's absolutely your choice to stand by what ethical platform you make for yourself. But have no illusions about it, you come across as a butthurt (for lack of better term) hippy, standing on his milkcrate of self righteousness, preaching an irrational condemnation of a sports team for an unrelated mining disaster. Do you also expect Fernie to rename a chairlift in honor of the mining disaster that occurred? Should Ensign employees sacrifice their christmas bonuses in an effort to clean up the mess? Should the Flames be forced to wear jerseys dipped in the wastewater of mount polley tailingsponds as a reminder of the failing of Mr. Edwards? Does my use of extreme examples paint the picture a little more clearly for you? Get a grip man.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

British Colubmians are whiny hippy rioters.

Saskatchewanites are Pilsner drinking inbreds.

Ontarians are self-centred and whiny with delusions of superiority.

Quebeccers are corrupt bigots.

Maritimers are lazy bums who rely on Canada's welfare state to survive.

If that ignorant "impression" of Alberta is warranted, so too is every single one of these.

I think these are all stereotypes that Albertans have. I don't think they are universal.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

...Great post to start the discussion thymebalm. I'm glad you've come back and explained your position more and have ignored some of the more negative feedback.

He is also conveniently ignoring a number of very pertinent and respectfully posed questions along the way. In so doing, he doesn't really appear all that interested in discussion as far as I can see. More just impassioned activism in random directions with varying degrees of relevance.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

He is also conveniently ignoring a number of very pertinent and respectfully posed questions along the way. In so doing, he doesn't really appear all that interested in discussion as far as I can see. More just impassioned activism in random directions with varying degrees of relevance.

I think that's a symptom of not quite knowing what his goal is for this thread, which he's admitted to, but you may be correct.

[thymebalm]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

He is also conveniently ignoring a number of very pertinent and respectfully posed questions along the way. In so doing, he doesn't really appear all that interested in discussion as far as I can see. More just impassioned activism in random directions with varying degrees of relevance.

Please point out what pertinent parts of the discussion I've missed. I'm not dodging any bullets here, I have no need or desire to do so. I'm very interested in the discussion, I started it after all.

Maybe I thought I responded to them already in another post, maybe I didn't have an answer for it, and maybe I simply missed it.