Documentary Reflection
August 5, 2023 By: Clarissa Wight
This Vancouver Sun article is about the use of administrative penalties for companies that fail to comply with environmental regulations. Although the penalties given out have increased substantially in recent years, the court fines have decreased. For large industrial companies that are profiting millions or billions of dollars, a $500,000 fine is easy to make back. Lawyer Andrew Gage argues that the court prosecutions are more effective. He also notes that in most situations where someone continually breaks the law, they either go to jail or lose their license but that is not something that is happening to the multimillion-dollar companies operating in BC. I agree with Gage that the administrative fines are not an effective way of changing behavior. With the damage to the environment being largely committed by companies rather than individual people, it is important to apply the necessary penalties for noncompliance. As long as profits remain large, companies have few incentives to change how they operate and consider their environmental impact.
With civil disobedience, when people turn to it as a way of getting their point across and having their thoughts heard, it is usually because other peaceful and obedient methods have not worked. If writing letters to companies and government bodies is not resulting in change or even a reaction, it makes sense that environmentalists turn to other methods. This is exactly what Daniel in the documentary “If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front” expressed. He spent hours writing to companies but none of the abuse towards the environment changed. In Eugene, when the city decided to cut down the trees for the parking lot the day before the meeting so they could avoid hearing opposition to their decision, they sent a message that peaceful and democratic methods taken by environmentalists will not work. Of course activists will escalate things for their cause when legal actions have zero results. However, there is a fine line between effective disobedience and, as with what happened with Daniel, illegal actions taken that damage other people’s personal property or have the potential to harm someone. Doing something that makes a big enough statement and draws attention to the cause can be effective when done thoughtfully. This can be seen with Greenpeace UK’s latest action. They cloaked the UK prime minister’s home in black and held signs opposing recent fossil fuel licenses given out for development in the North Sea. Although four of the six Greenpeace members involved in the protest trespassed on the property, it was a harmless action that did no physical damage to the property. Attention has been given to how they managed to infiltrate the property but it is, arguably, a level of disobedience that other citizens can support and if not, it at least brings attention to the issue at hand. Although there are other news articles relating to the licenses, the stunt has a wider topic than only the politics of the others that some may not choose to read.