Think back to your elementary school days, when National Geographic was a go-to source of information for advancing the odd school assignment in geography or history.

It turns out, this flagship publication that claims an interest in geography, archeology and natural science might not have been as reliable as we all thought. In fact, National Geographic needs to up its game. The latest edition of the long-standing photo monthly carries an anti-Canadian oil piece that’s so biased and unscientific that’s it’s almost funny. Almost!

Distroscale

First, its editors opt for a headline designed to induce in unsuspecting readers a sense of shock, outrage and utter fear about Canada’s oilsands: “This is the world’s most destructive oil operation — and it’s growing,” screams the headline above the photo spread and editorial.

Whether it’s Greenpeace, or Dogwood or another of many activist groups campaigning in Canada and connected to U.S. foundations, the goal is often to convince the public that Canadian oil is “the worst, most destructive” product on the global market.

Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

But it’s false. Time and time again Canadian energy resources are shown to have been produced to the highest environmental standards anywhere. Several sources of oil in the U.S. and globally are known to be far more carbon-intensive than Canadian oil, and far less restrictive in their environmental, health and safety standards — and in the compliance with those standards.

Second, the sub-headline of the article isn’t much better: “Indigenous people and environmentalists want to prevent the expansion of Canada’s oil sands development …”

That’s also false. If he’s only writing about the anti-oilsands campaign run by foreign-funded environmental activist groups, then the author might be partially right. The so-called Tar Sands Campaign, according to one of its key partners, CorpEthics, has been active since 2008 in order to push the following clear strategy:

“From the very beginning, the campaign strategy was to land-lock the tar sands so their [Canada] crude could not reach the international market where it could fetch a high price per barrel. This meant national and grassroots organizing to block all proposed pipelines.”

(Apparently embarrassed by the negative attention this web passage has attracted, CorpEthics has since deleted it.)

The idea that Indigenous communities oppose expansion is — with perhaps a handful of exceptions — largely false. Canadians recently read about Chief Roy Fox who in December spoke clearly against two crippling federal legislative proposals — bills C-69 (a catastrophic redesign of the environmental assessment act) and C-48 (a bill that would ban Alberta products from coastal tankers):

Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

“Consider that there are 26 oil-producing First Nations in Western Canada,” Fox wrote in a widely circulated opinion editorial. “An estimate, provided by Indian Oil and Gas Canada and verified by Indian Resource Canada, shows continued operation at the current differential (the huge price spread between Alberta oil sold in the U.S., and the price it attracts on the open market) will cost the families of producing nations several thousands of dollars a year.

“In that context, it’d be an understatement to say the policies proposed within Bills C-69 and C-48 are damaging our position by restricting access and reducing our ability to survive as a community,” Fox wrote. He’s not alone.

Third, National Geographic makes much of the fact Canada pushed for a Paris climate deal, enacted related legislation and then bought a pipeline — and not just any pipeline, but “the only oil pipeline from Canada’s west coast to the Alberta oil sands to ensure future growth of its oil exports, and allow expansion of operations in the oil sands.”

But the author must know the pipeline purchase came after the defeat (by the U.S.-supported “Tars Sands Campaign” designed to land-lock Canadian product) of other Canadian pipelines that would have similarly delivered product to market. It’s unlikely the recent purchase would have been considered, had other pipelines not been targeted and defeated.

And since the author works for a Washington, D.C.-based publication, he’d be aware the U.S. has never ratified the Kyoto Protocol — not under Clinton, G. W Bush, Obama nor the current administration. And the Trump White House, virtually just around the corner from National Geographic, has pledged that the U.S., on economic grounds and in the midst of a huge oil expansion in that country, will invoke Article 28 and withdraw from the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation. Blame Canada, I guess.

Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

What should we make of the description that “175-odd oil sands mining projects are owned by major oil companies from around the world, including Exxon and China’s CNOOC?” It’s a disappointing statement, designed to stoke fear of multiple dozens of giant strip mines. Or, it makes it clear that the author doesn’t understand the difference between surface mining operations and in situ drilling. It’s also important to note that 80 per cent of oilsands production is by Canadian companies.

Oilsands are recovered using two main methods: drilling (in situ) and mining. The method used depends on how deep the reserves are deposited.

Of all oilsands reserves, 80 per cent are too deep to be mined. Those reserves are recovered in place, or “in situ,” by drilling wells. Drilling methods create minimal land disturbance and do not require tailings ponds. That’s right. None.

National Geographical isn’t the first group to falsely tell the world that Alberta is being destroyed. Entertainers Neil Young, Jane Fonda, Leo DiCaprio have all done it, and on equally flimsy evidence.

But it’s especially wrong for a once-respected periodical to claim that, if the Trans Mountain expansion proceeded, it’s possible it won’t be needed since “the decline in global oil demand is not far off.” Meanwhile, global demand for energy continues to rise. According to the International Energy Agency, demand worldwide is expected to increase to nearly 112 million barrels a day by 2040, driven primarily by China, India, Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. And TMX is already fully subscribed by producers.

For those of us who based our school projects on the information gleaned in the pages of National Geographic back in the day, it’s taken a fear-based, manipulative piece on the oilsands to show us the magazine needs to improve. But for the six million-plus monthly readers in 40 languages, all I can say is — buyer, beware!

Cody Battershill is a Calgary realtor and founder/spokesman for CanadaAction.ca, a volunteer organization that supports Canadian energy development and the environmental, social and economic benefits that come with it.