Ongoing criticism of oilsands development in Alberta is wreaking reputational havoc on our province, culminating in an unfortunate hit to tourism operators with the recent Rethink Alberta campaign. We think a different response could level the criticisms.

We're not alone. U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson challenged industry to "do more to demonstrate how they're meeting the challenges of providing energy security while meeting their obligations of environmental stewardship."

That's not what's happening though. Instead, we're witnessing a self-defeating cycle of ramped up public relations from the Government of Alberta that never truly addresses the substance of the criticisms directed at the province's regulation of the oilsands industry.

It's been more than two months now that oil from BP's blown out Deepwater Horizon rig has been gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. A man-made disaster of epic proportions, some people are now claiming that it makes Alberta's landlocked oilsands look safe in comparison. In fact, that statement couldn't be further from the truth.

As oil gushes into the Gulf of Mexico, the consequences of a spill from the proposed Enbridge oilsands pipeline and related tanker traffic are all the more real.

There are no toxic tailings lakes, dead ducks, heavy-hauler trucks or strip mines visible from space: there's none of that associated with in situ oilsands development. So, as industry tells us, in situ oilsands development is nothing to worry about, right? Not quite, according to a new report evaluating in situ oilsands' real impacts.

Marlo Raynolds argues that the real challenge for Canada's Prime Minister is whether he is able to create a made-in-Canada climate plan — or leave it to American lawmakers to decide our climate and, therefore, economic policy.

Wild salmon are in trouble in British Columbia, and they face yet another threat in the form of a pipeline proposed by Enbridge to bring oil sands products through their habitat to the coast.

Seven out of nine tailings management plans filed with the provincial Energy Resources Conservation Board do not appear to comply with ERCB rules. It is baffling that key players in our largest industry seem to think the rules developed to protect Albertans and the environment do not apply to them.

The recent decision by the governments of Canada and Alberta to charge Syncrude for the death of 500 waterfowl on a tailings pond confirms the seriousness of the environmental challenges facing the oilsands.

Canada's Conservative government has come a long way in acknowledging the importance of climate change. But will the government's proposed policies put a meaningful price on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? And what is the likelihood that those policies will actually be implemented?

Par Marlo Raynolds, Directeur général de l'Institut Pembina et Steven Guilbeault, Cofondateur et coordonnateur général adjoint d'Équiterre

Un sondage réalisé plus tôt cette année par l'Institut Environics révélait que les Canadiens croient que les changements climatiques et la protection de l'environnement constituent l'enjeu planétaire numéro un.

By Steven Guilbeault, Co-founder and Deputy Executive Director of Équiterre and Marlo Raynolds, Executive Director of the Pembina Institute.

While Canadians take pride in having a positive international reputation, this is quickly being tarnished as we become increasingly known for producing "dirty oil" and taking a head-in-the-sand approach to global warming.

Amidst increasing global scrutiny, the Government of Alberta has launched a 25 million dollar public relations campaign to improve Alberta's growing reputation as a producer of "dirty oil."

There is an old French proverb that translates to, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." With the Alberta government's passing of Bill 46, this proverb rings true through both the hallways of the legislature and the landscapes of rural Alberta.

If Premier Stelmach chooses to implement the Royalty Review Panel's full set of recommendations and delivers Albertans’ their fair share, this is what I think my first son might have to say 23 years from now...

The Alberta Royalty Review Panel has issued its report and its conclusion is clear: Albertans are losing $2 billion every year because we charge embarrassingly low royalties for the right to develop our resources.

The conflict between Marie Lake residents and the energy industry sent a chill down the spine of all Alberta landowners. Could we wake up one morning to find oilsands rights had been sold beneath our feet without our knowledge?

Several prominent environmental scientists are grudgingly contemplating a role for nuclear power in the Alberta electricity system, a testament to just how catastrophic and certain the implications of accelerating global warming are.

With "the price of prosperity" emerging as the dominant theme of Premier Stelmach's first provincial budget, one is left to ponder this apparent contradiction. Are Albertans truly benefiting if this supposed prosperity comes with such a hefty price tag?

Minister Gary Lunn has become an increasingly vocal promoter of the idea of using nuclear power as an alternative energy source to natural gas for developing Alberta's oil sands.

Marlo Raynolds of The Pembina Institute responds to Ralph Klein's suggestion that Albertans should keep their noses out of the business of running the province and "especially businesses that want to take risks".