Dilemma: Supporting the Calgary Flames after Mount Polley mine disaster

[MarkGio]

Double post

[indes]

I'm positive Murray Edwards had the same reaction as the OP. This is the last thing he would want to happen, how you could blame him for it is beyond me, not to mention linking it to a bunch of professional athletes scattered around the globe.

[Schraderbrau]

Let's get back to the original question as asked by thymebalm, should you consider to still support the Flames after the mount pollen mine disaster?

The correct answer is no, go cheer for the Canucks.

Thanks for your support of the flames over the years and best of luck in the future with your new team.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Schraderbrau

Let's get back to the original question as asked by thymebalm, should you consider to still support the Flames after the mount pollen mine disaster?

The correct answer is no, go cheer for the Canucks.

Thanks for your support of the flames over the years and best of luck in the future with your new team.

Yes, because it matters which pro sports teams you cheer for.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by thymebalm

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.

Maybe you missed it.

But there have been several posters now who have asked you about how and why you have determined Murray Edwards' own personal culpability in this disaster, and what you know about his own direct involvement in the day-to-day operations of Imperial Metals, and if this at all matters to you.

Others have asked about why this specific tragedy has precipitated this sudden response, especially in light of the environmental impact that oil sands extraction has had in the North for decades now—a business that Edwards is much more clearly directly involved in.

Further, there have been questions posed to you about how you imagine the NHL is at all involved. Why should they respond and how, and on what basis should they involve themselves in matters that do not pertain to their own business?

You have been heavy handed in your delivery of ire and blame, but not so much in your measure of reason.

[doctajones428]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

We didn't start the us vs them. I think many people are generally tired of the attitude in BC that they are angelic stewards of the land, and the red plates are some menacing force of destruction. Just look at the ridiculous attempts to pin this disaster elsewhere. Obviously British Columbia couldn't be responsible for a terrible environmental accident. This must be Alberta's fault, because that's where 1/3 of the money came from. A lot of people need to drive past Hope or North to see how supernatural things really are.

Huh, I'm a angelic steward and I blame Alberta for everything. Who knew?

Get a grip.

[Thor]

How often do we find out in the aftermath of these disasters that business cozied up to politicians to deregulate or go easy on polluters and in the end we all get screwed because ultimately its good business sense to spend money on deregulation, oversight and line the pockets of parties that will support these things under the guise of "free market capitalism."

Worldwide in every capitalist country, hell any country, political contributions and corruption is so rampant and acknowledged that its common knowledge, yet collectively the voters in each nation seem helpless to do anything about it.

Accidents will happen, it could genuinely be that this instance they did follow the rules, but maybe oversight, inspection and tougher regulations will make this even less of a possibility in the future. The problem is we have lost true will from the people to enact policies and fund agencies dedicated to stopping such tragedies, and its really a pressing issue as the power of democracy has been usurped as always happens in nation states where rich and powerful use their immense influence to benefit themselves at usually the cost to everyone else.

We seem powerless to deal with this, its very frustrating, its even worse in the US with the powers given to corporate entities to go carte blanche in funding political campaigns, we need to fix this if we are ever to truly have corporate responsibility and real oversight since ethics and social responsibility are not big drivers in the business world.

[Flames89]

Edwards is a controlling shareholder, but that does not make him responsible for the actions of the company. His support of the mining projects was under the assumption that the company was properly managed by management (fail #1) who were to be held accountable by the Board of Directors (fail #2). Hate Pierre Lebel, Chairman of III versus their controlling shareholder.
The act of being a shareholder meant Edwards was motivated for III to succeed operationally and financially - which is tied with being a good steward of their operations. He is not responsible for a mining company to ensure they don't overfill their tailings ponds. That is management, the Board, and consultants.

[lanny9]

Seriously, why is this even a question? I mean to think that Edwards first off had any say in the ongoings of the mine, the engineering, the day to day operation, who they hire etc etc is ridiculous. Second, you, me and anyone else who holds mutual funds may be an owner to some degree, are you going to sell your mutual fund as well? Third, I own dozens of stocks in my online trading portfolio, maybe not as much as say Edwards, but it does make me an owner of those companies, does that mean I should be held liable for their actions or lack thereof?

Edwards is a shareholder, nothing more, if he were a director or within management than that is a different story but he's not so I don't think it should be an issue. Of course the media will want to make something of it, they always want to pin something on someone famous or rich, that is how they sell advertising nothing more, kind of like leeches when they go after a story like this imo.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Man the pile ons in this place are incredible. Give the OP a break, it was devastating news that impacted many people. It is natural to look for someone to blame in situations like this. We all react to stress in different ways, sometimes we even say things in the heat of the moment that we regret later. I don't see how running him through a gauntlet of snark helps anything.

Pile on? As far as forum discussions go, this seems super tame to me, especially considering the topic. Guy asks a Flames forum if he should still cheer for the Flames as a result of something that has nothing to do with the Flames. What sort of responses would you expect?

The majority of the responses also agreed that this is an environmental disaster and that mine operators and government should be held accountable. I don't see anyone complaining about the "pile-on" against them.

[Meers]

Originally Posted by lanny9

I mean to think that Edwards first off had any say in the ongoings of the mine, the engineering, the day to day operation, who they hire etc etc is ridiculous.

I don't think you know Murray very well then.

That having been said, given the nature of what occurred and understanding something about the engineering of tailings dams, I can't see him as bearing any personal responsibility for what occurred here (this is likely just a black swan event) - although he has bourne the largest financial loss to date.

And to drag the Flames into this is just silly - unless they change their names to "The Environmental Despoilers" (which I understand has already been taken by an AHL-quality team from Northern Alberta, which goes by an abbreviated version).

[btimbit]

This is all Sven Baertschi's fault

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Meers

I don't think you know Murray very well then.

That having been said, given the nature of what occurred and understanding something about the engineering of tailings dams, I can't see him as bearing any personal responsibility for what occurred here (this is likely just a black swan event) - although he has bourne the largest financial loss to date.

And to drag the Flames into this is just silly - unless they change their names to "The Environmental Despoilers" (which I understand has already been taken by an AHL-quality team from Northern Alberta, which goes by an abbreviated version).

His wide reputation as a control freak aside, there is no way he made a decision that compromised this, in my opinion. Even if you assume he instructed this company to run as lean as possible (as with CNQ) a dam is a yes/no event, either it works or it doesn't, and it would have been engineered to work.

As the poster upthread mentioned, if you really think M.E. is to blame here, his ski resorts are a better boycott target. The target market for them is likely to be more environmentally conscious, and they are more dependent on transient business.

[thymebalm]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

The only thing I don't really feel you've answered (that I'm honestly just curious about) is why now?

Murray didn't cause the spill. Everyone knows that, but he was financially involved with the company that did. That's undeniable.

That much I understand. I gather that you're upset that Murray is involved with a company that can have a negative environmental impact. This however, isn't new or different than anything that has been happening for more than a decade. That's where you lose me.

He has more involvement than anyone in the oilsands. Tailing ponds are nothing new to him, and have been destroying the environment in Northern Alberta for years.

So why now? You said it wasn't about it being close to you, so why haven't the critically damaging oilsands, which Murray has been far more personally involved in than Imperial Metals, been the source of your moral dilemma?

I wasn't aware (and am still not fully aware) of Edwards track record environmentally speaking. As his name appears in the newspaper and I get more information that helps me make my decision.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I didn't know until this week that his company CNRL had 4 (possibly more) pipeline leaks in the last year. I'm glad that the current incident prompted me to further investigate his portfolio so I can weigh it against my own moral compass. It's a tragedy that a public figure like Edwards isn't pressured by the public more to protect the land he profits so greatly from.

So, why now? Because sometimes you wind up looking a little closer at things following a disaster. Education and information.. it's an ongoing process of discovery. It was the disaster that prompted me to look closer at the connection between Flames ownership and their dealing with the environment. Had I been hit hard with connection last year, or ten years ago, I may not have reacted the same. As I carve my own ethical path, decisions that were once easy or irrelevant to me become more complicated.

I didn't understand the impact my consumption has ten years ago the same way I understand it today. I feel the need to add here that I expect my understanding to continue to change as I grow, my relationship with the planet changes, and as the world around me grows as well.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Maybe you missed it.

But there have been several posters now who have asked you about how and why you have determined Murray Edwards' own personal culpability in this disaster, and what you know about his own direct involvement in the day-to-day operations of Imperial Metals, and if this at all matters to you.

Edwards' culpability in this is yet to be determined. In fact, when I first asked the question of what do I do about this dilemma, I think the best advice I was given was to wait. That it was still too early to determine fault.

What is being uncovered day by day is that Edwards was not passive in his connection with Imperial Metals. It is starting to appear as though he heavily financed a political party who then changed the province's mining legislation to appease corps like Imperial Metals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/dermodt...ef=bc-politics

This weekend, the Vancouver Sun reported that Alberta billionaire Murray Edwards helped organize a $1 million fundraiser for the B.C. Liberal party at the Calgary Petroleum Club last year. Rapidly becoming a household name in B.C., Edwards of course is the controlling shareholder of Imperial Metals, which operates the Mount Polley Mine.

...

Since 2005, Imperial Metals has donated at least $149,890 to the B.C. Liberals. With a win, place and show wager, that total includes $2,500 to each of the leadership campaigns of Christy Clark, Kevin Falcon and George Abbott. It also tossed $3,000 into the kitty for Bill Bennett's 2009 re-election campaign.

Mount Polley got in on the action as well, with the mine topping up donations to the Liberals by $46,720.
...

The article goes on to discuss how following a presentation from Imperial Metals in 2012 the BC Liberals started to change their attitudes about environmental protections needed to be hurdled to start a mine...

This past January in a speech to the B.C. Association for Mineral Exploration, Premier Clark took it further, promising a review of B.C.'s environmental assessment office to make it "more effective and efficient," claiming that "over the years, the environmental assessment process has gotten so long, so difficult and so complex that communities, proponents, can't get a yes, can't get a no."

We are starting to look back and question how all this money influenced our political figures, environmental protections, and mining policies.

At this stage I think its fair to say Edwards' culpability based on his actions and influence is higher than 0%. I can't hold him directly accountable for the breach, I know he didn't jump up and down on the dam to break it, and I know it's not in his best interests to have his mine fail so tragically.

But its fair to question how Edwards business practices created an environment with less protection, less regulation, and ultimately, made it easier for his own mine to fail.

Others have asked about why this specific tragedy has precipitated this sudden response, especially in light of the environmental impact that oil sands extraction has had in the North for decades now—a business that Edwards is much more clearly directly involved in.

Hopefully answered above.

Further, there have been questions posed to you about how you imagine the NHL is at all involved. Why should they respond and how, and on what basis should they involve themselves in matters that do not pertain to their own business?

I don't see the NHL as being directly involved. But I believe they could become involved. The connection I'm making to the league is that to me it seems flimsy to release a big report about how important the environment is to the sustainability of your business, while your ownership group involves themselves in activities that can and do have such negative impacts on the environment you are attempting to steward.

In the same way the Clippers ex-owner was canned for something that had nothing to do with the NBA, the league has an image to maintain, and the NHL has included environmentalism in that image.

You have been heavy handed in your delivery of ire and blame, but not so much in your measure of reason.

I find you much more fun to read when you play your text-critic game with other posters, but I hope I answered your questions.

[Red_Baron]

I think this thread should be moved to the politics section, it has diverged way too far from hockey.


awesome autocorrect malfunctions brought to you by tapatalk

[heep223]

Who's job is it to protect the environment under our capitalist system? Private or public? To this question, there is no objective truth, just opinions and subjectivity. My own personal opinion is that both private and public have a moral obligations to protect the environment and that disasters like this are both the company's fault and the government's fault. It would be so much better if all could just work together to avoid.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Thor

How often do we find out in the aftermath of these disasters that business cozied up to politicians to deregulate or go easy on polluters and in the end we all get screwed because ultimately its good business sense to spend money on deregulation, oversight and line the pockets of parties that will support these things under the guise of "free market capitalism."

Worldwide in every capitalist country, hell any country, political contributions and corruption is so rampant and acknowledged that its common knowledge, yet collectively the voters in each nation seem helpless to do anything about it.

Accidents will happen, it could genuinely be that this instance they did follow the rules, but maybe oversight, inspection and tougher regulations will make this even less of a possibility in the future. The problem is we have lost true will from the people to enact policies and fund agencies dedicated to stopping such tragedies, and its really a pressing issue as the power of democracy has been usurped as always happens in nation states where rich and powerful use their immense influence to benefit themselves at usually the cost to everyone else.

We seem powerless to deal with this, its very frustrating, its even worse in the US with the powers given to corporate entities to go carte blanche in funding political campaigns, we need to fix this if we are ever to truly have corporate responsibility and real oversight since ethics and social responsibility are not big drivers in the business world.

While I genuinely agree with you on a practical level, I think it's a party mandate because the "economy" is a concern for a lot voters, even though very few people know exactly what is good for the economy, given that it's governed by the laws of Chaos Theory on a whole.

What's really unfortunate is that regulatory bodies use the same old model of fines and administrative orders. WCB has a model using an underwriters laboratory to collect premiums from employers and it creates a healthy system where good and progressive employers can profit maximize while others cannot. But WCB fails to deliver enough fines and administrative orders against employers who cheat the system.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by heep223

Who's job is it to protect the environment under our capitalist system? Private or public? To this question, there is no objective truth, just opinions and subjectivity. My own personal opinion is that both private and public have a moral obligations to protect the environment and that disasters like this are both the company's fault and the government's fault. It would be so much better if all could just work together to avoid.

There's an objective truth. Look at how many publicly trading firms piss off their share holders by presenting poor growth reports because instead assets was allocated towards environmental protection programs.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by doctajones428

Huh, I'm a angelic steward and I blame Alberta for everything. Who knew?

Get a grip.

You live in Fort Mac Jr. the comment doesn't apply to Northern BC.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

you didnt read his OP before he edited it then. He did exactly that, which is why some posters have focused on it.

I read it and as I said it wasn't an attack. Your either hyper sensitive or take yourself too seriously if what he said and how he said it actually offended you. It probably wasn't the best choice of words but half the people in here pretty much proved him right. At the end of the day I don't care if he called Albertans a bunch of redneck idiots. I'd rather peoples energy focus on what actually matters over what really doesn't.