PoPulationand Public HealtH etHics

practice
Second, the process of oil extraction, as oil reserves deplete and become less
accessible (i.e., so-called “peak oil”), becomes more risky, more costly, and less
efficient in terms of the relative amount of energy gained in extracting each
barrel of oil. 5 The greater the risks taken to extract diminishing and more
remote reserves of oil, the more likely are toxic spills and ecological disasters,
with consequences for human health and well-being. One tension that
becomes immediately apparent is between short-term gains for one group of
people with longer-term losses for another group of people. For those taking
the risks through working or living in proximity to oil extraction industries,
are the benefits equivalent to those enjoyed by other stakeholders? And, what
about the health and well-being of future generations?
Third, this case analysis focuses more specifically on the harms to the
health and well-being of a sub-group of Albertans who live in proximity
to water contaminated with effluent from upstream oil industry activities.
Under the principle of “justice,” this raises concerns about the direct health
effects on a vulnerable community located in one area for the benefit of
economic activity elsewhere. What obligations fall on the affected community
(i.e., the vulnerable by virtue of their exposure), and what obligations
fall on those polluting their community (i.e., the oil industry) to respect
local culture and well-being? And also, from an enlightened self-interest
perspective, with environmental pollution affecting one group, would it
not behoove society-at-large to view the affected community’s experience
as a sentinel event, as one forewarning of potential impacts beyond that
community? The principle of respect for life requires that all dimensions
be taken into account.
What do we know – and what do we not know?
Hazard assessments demonstrate higher levels of pollutants in water flowing
past the community; both the community and living organisms, including
fish, depend on that water for their sustenance. Thus, these populations, under
classical risk assessment paradigms used by the us Environmental Protection
Agency (ePa) since the 1960s, demonstrate vulnerability.
The application by powerful interests of the Four-D paradigm (i.e., Deny,
Delay, Divide and Discredit) to allegations of harm was used in a cluster of
rare cancer outcomes in a community of 1,200 people downstream from oil
PoPulation anD Public HealtH etHics
170