This is a few months old now, but frankly, the content is ancient. Why is it mission critical when it’s in our own backyard, but business as usual elsewhere?

Nigeria is in my top five place to report from. Top five. In fact, it might even occupy position number one.

Obama addresses the nation

“For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires.

“Time and again, the path forward has been blocked – not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candour.

“The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1bn of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf [of Mexico], we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.”

Renewable energy? Addiction to fossil fuels? These are not the words of an American President, and mark a firm departure from the disaster of the previous decade. Or do they? In 2006, George W. Bush made similar observation of America’s addiction to oil. Yet here we are, four years later, listening to the same song and dance.

Actions speak louder than words. Obama’s address was decidedly vague, and it remains to be seen exactly what future energy policy will look like. The BP Oil disaster has certainly put the issue back on the map and in the minds of the American people. But until I see acres of wind farms and a solar heater on the roof of every suburban American home, Mr. Obama will remain, for me, a little more vanilla that tiger stripe.

Still, this is the man who managed Health Care reform, a feat so many before him had failed. Maybe he’s got some tricks up his sleeve yet.

The explosion is said to have been cause by a sudden bubble of methane gas. Impossible to predict. But certainly a probable outcome of drilling. Reason should dictate that such an explosion would cause the oil tanker to sink. And that sealing a hole in the ocean floor would be challenging at best, and impossible at worst. Reality is dictating the worst.

Here’s what I don’t get; We’re all born with common sense. We know that error happens. We know what the fall out of possible error is. And yet our governments continue to invest in unsustainable energy sources. What if this had been a nuclear tailing pond, which must stand undisturbed for 100,000 years to neutralize the effects?

Errors happen. Maybe it’s time we start accounting for that in initial plans.

Last night I went to a special screening of the documentary H2Oil, a film about water contamination and the Alberta Tar Sands.  I haven’t written much on the topic of oil developments in the Athabasca, partly because (I’m embarrassed to admit) I’m decidedly uneducated when it comes to the subject matter, and partly because so much critique already exists.  I’m not sure what I have to add.

The film itself was a series of sound bites about the oil and gas industry in Alberta (the tar sands are the largest oil deposit in the world, it takes four barrels of water to make one barrel of oil, etc) set against a backdrop of stark images.  Alberta is depicted as a barred moonscape, the tailings ponds like giant craters.  The story hobbles between Fort Chipewyan, an aboriginal community 250 km downstream from the development where cancer rates have skyrocketed, and a Hinton Alberta, where a young couple that operates a spring water company is trying to protect their clean source of drinking water. If you’re new to the topic, it’s a great crash course in the travesty occurring in the Canadian Midwest, and the systematic genocide of the traditional way of life of the first nations in the Athabasca.

Following the screening there was a brief panel discussion, which was really a soapbox for Olivia Chow to recruit more NDP votes (this bugs me – documentary screenings should be non-partisan events).  There was a lot of talk about the importance of retrofitting your home in Toronto to prevent the tar sands development from growing (while I’m all for energy conservation, the suggestion is ridiculous really). Finally a representative from the indigenous environmental network pipped up.

“It’s all well and good to retrofit your home, but if you want to take on the mammoth of the oil and gas companies, ladies and gentlemen, you have to get politicized.”

I couldn’t agree more.

The growing trend of converting agriculture lands to agrifuel lands is very real in the world’s poorest nations.  While in Lusaka last year I attended a colloquium where Jatropha was hailed as the miracle crop that would carry Zambia through an economic slump in the global price of copper.  At the time, Zambia’s petro prices had skyrocket above two dollars a liter, the most expensive in the region.  (The irony of course being that the nation shares a boarder with Angola.)  The benefits of petro-independence for the landlocked nation were awfully appealing.

A small but growing biofuel lobby was pressuring government officials to create strong incentives for farmers to convert their fields to fuel growing powerhouses.  Alas, the number’s simply didn’t add up.  Jatropha is tricky to grow. It’s productivity is variable, it’s yields unpredictable  Without subsidies the costs of production would exceed potential returns, meaning production of Jatropha would rely heavily on foreign aid dollars.  Dollars that could be spent on fertilizer for food-growing fields, or even food itself. (Never mind the fact that the general scientific consensus is that biofuel production is counter-productive due to it’s high demand on water and petro to grow crops.)

In a nation where many go hungry and the majority live on less than $1 a day, growing fuel instead of food simply doesn’t make sense.

While I am certainly thrilled for the victory of the Ogoni people, I question if justice has really been served. Along with the $15.5m payout, Shell issued the following statement:

While we were prepared to go to court to clear our name, we believe the right way forward is to focus on the future for Ogoni people, which is important for peace and stability in the region.

This statement is particularly rich given that prior investigations have revealed that Shell lied about importing arms into Nigeria. True, the trial process may have yielded unfavorable results for the plaintive, and years of appeals from the accused, but a conviction in such a case would set a strong precedent on corporate accountability to human rights and environmental responsibility in overseas operations.

Roughly 75 percent of the 27 million civilians living in the Niger Delta, a globally critical wetland, rely on the natural environment for their livelihood. Shell has rendered their land useless. The Delta is characterized as “one of the world’s most severely petroleum-impacted ecosystems.” Shell’s practice of gas flaring (where natural gas which is a byproduct of the oil extraction is burned off in open spaces) has contributed more greenhouse gas emissions than all other sources in sub-Saharan Africa combined. The process has contaminated waterways and fields with toxic chemicals and carcinogens, land which local communities rely on. An estimated 1.5 million tons of oil has spilled into the Niger Delta ecosystem over the last 50 years, roughly equivalent to one Exxon Valdez spill each year.

The Exxon Valdez spill cost the company hundreds of millions in retribution and clean up fees. From where I’m sitting, it looks like Shell got a deal – a small payout and no accountability to sweep a giant mess under the rug, at least a little longer.

UPDATE: For more background on the case, read Ken Saro Wiwa Jr. piece on his father, published in the Guardian last month.