Justice analysis of the Athabasca Oil sands

Justice analysis of the Athabasca Oil sands

The concept of decoloniality offers a powerful framework to analyse the environmental impacts of the extraction of Athabasca oil sands. This is particularly useful in relation to the indigenous communities. Decoloniality, as explained by Sultana (2022); critiques the enduring colonial dynamics that shape extractive industries, where Indigenous lands are often used for resource extraction without equitable benefits to local communities. Sultana’s (2022) related concept of “climate coloniality” highlights how these practises prioritise economic gain over indigenous rights and environmental health, reinforcing historic injustices. In the Athabasca region, bitumen extraction has transformed large areas of traditional lands degrading ecosystems and releasing pollutants into waterways. This degradation not only affects wildlife but also disrupts the traditional practises of Indigenous communities who depend on these ecosystems for cultural and subsistence purposes (Davidson and Gismondi 2018). This framework helps us see how these impacts extend a form of “climate coloniality”, where indigenous people beat the environmental costs of the resource extraction but lack fair access to its economic benefits (Sultana 2022).

Through the lens of decoloniality, the Athabasca oil sands problem also reveals an imbalance in decision making power between the Canadian government and Indigenous groups. The government has historically prioritised oil sands extraction as an economic driver, viewing it as a path to national prosperity. However, this approach often side lines Indigenous perspectives and undermines environmental stewardship. Environmental damage to traditional lands poses serous health risks, such as the documented rise in cancer rates among Indigenous communities near contaminated waterways (Timoney and Lee 2009). The Framework shows how indigenous groups lack control over decisions impacting their lands that fuels a cycle of environmental harm tied to systemic inequities.

Furthermore, the concept of distributive justice highlights how resource extractions economic benefits are concentrated in corporate and government hands, leaving local communities to grapple with long term environmental and health consequences. Walker and Day (2012) describe disruptive justice as the fair allocation of both benefits and burdens in society, emphasising the need for equitable access to the benefits of economic development. In the Athabasca case, wealth generated by oil sands extraction flows largely to corporations and government revenues, while Indigenous and local communities experience disproportionate environmental degradation. Without meaningful measure that ensure fair benefit distributions and prioritise indigenous input in decision-making, oil sands development will likely continue to reproduce historic injustices, making sustainable and just outcomes a distant and unachievable goal.

Additionally, a procedural justice perspective, outlined by Walker and Day (2012), reveal how exclusionary decision-making processes aggravate injustices faced by Indigenous communities. Procedural justice emphasises the importance of fair, transparent and inclusive processes, ensuring that all affected parties have a meaningful role in decision making. However, indigenous groups have frequently voiced concerns about inadequate consultation and limited influence over land use decisions that directly affect their lands and livelihoods. This lack of agency not only undermines Indigenous rights but also perpetuates a cycle of environmental and social harm imposed without meaningful consent from the community. Studies by Papillon and Rodon (2017) on Indigenous consultation in Canada reveal that government-led resource development projects often neglect Indigenous voices, reinforcing structural inequalities and contributing to the marginalization of these communities. In the case of the Athabasca oil sands, such practices result in disproportionate environmental costs borne by Indigenous populations, with limited mechanisms for effective participation in decision-making (Hoogeveen 2015). Procedural justice therefore highlights that sustainable solutions in resources extraction must prioritise indigenous participation to address these inequities and build trust.

Davidson, D.J. & Gismondi, M. 2018, Challenging Legitimacy at the Precipice of Energy Calamity, Springer.[onine] available at: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Davidson%2C+D.J.+%26+Gismondi%2C+M.+2018%2C+Challenging+Legitimacy+at+the+Precipice+of+Energy+Calamity%2C+Springer.&btnG=

Hoogeveen, D., 2015. Sub-surface property, free-entry mineral staking and settler colonialism in Canada. Antipode, 47(1), pp.121-138. [online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12110

Papillon, M. & Rodon, T., 2017. Proponent-Indigenous agreements and the implementation of the right to free, prior, and informed consent in Canada. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, pp.216-224. [online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.06.009

Sultana, F. 2022, "The unbearable heaviness of climate coloniality." Political Geography, vol. 99, p. 102638.[online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102638.

Timoney, K.P. & Lee, P. 2009, 'Does the Alberta tar sands industry pollute? The scientific evidence', The Open Conservation Biology Journal, vol. 3, pp. 65-81. [online]. Available at:https://benthamopenarchives.com/abstract.php?ArticleCode=TOCONSBJ-3-65

Walker, G., & Day, R. 2012, "Fuel poverty as injustice: Integrating distribution, recognition and procedure in the struggle for affordable warmth." Energy Policy, vol. 49, pp. 69–75. [online]. Available at:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421512000705