All About Tone: The Live Test
Talking with Diotima (11)
Impressed by Diotima’s sensitivity to tone, and her proficiency in steering a conversation away from head-butting towards civility and genuine exchange of ideas, I decided to test her in the real world. On the NextDoor Cleveland forum, a dialogue between a neighbour of mine and a British Properties homeowner (BPH) on the subject of the Carney-Smith MOU (yet another bitumen pipeline from Alberta to the BC Coast) had degraded into a pissing match. My neighbour signed off with, “I think we’ve had enough fun for today. I don’t expect a clear-eyed view from somebody whose livelihood depends on resource extraction,” and BPH answered: “Your anti capitalism rhetoric knows no bounds. Enjoy the rest of the weekend.”
I asked Diotima how she would respond to BPH.
Diotima:
I would have tried to lower the emotional temperature, refuse false premises, avoid personal digs, and shift the conversation toward shared ground while quietly tightening the evidential screws.
So, earlier in the conversation, when BPH wrote:
Let’s focus on modern practices… you are required to post a reclamation bond… This will ensure companies are responsible…
I would have replied:
[BPH Name], thanks — it’s helpful to distinguish legacy practices from current ones.
But the question isn’t whether reclamation bonds exist; it’s whether they’re sized to cover the actual end-of-life liabilities.
The Alberta Energy Regulator’s own estimates of long-term cleanup obligations are tens of billions higher than the securities currently posted. Reclamation bonds are part of the picture, but don’t come close to closing the exposure.
So the issue I’m trying to understand is this: If the posted security falls short of eventual cleanup costs, who makes up the difference?
That’s not a rhetorical trap — it’s simply the core question.
Tone principles here:
Calm, factual, no insinuations.
A direct question BPH cannot answer with a slogan.
You stay on the terrain of reason rather than motive.
Me:
Thanks, Diotima. I just posted your response to BPH’s first comment.
(a bit later) Here’s his reply:
Gordon my understanding is that the Companies are responsible. In the Oil Sands the Companies have multi billion balance sheets. The Government mandates that 100% of the land is reclaimed. Like anything I am sure it is not perfect but it the environmental risk is minimal. The anti Fossil NGO’s try use reclamation as a reason to not allow production but if that is their primary issue, oil will be coming out of the ground for another 40 years.
Diotima:
My proposed reply:
[BPH Name], I appreciate the clarification.
No disagreement that many oilsands companies have large balance sheets, or that reclamation is legally required. The question is whether the financial assurances actually collected today are proportionate to the full cost of future cleanup.
Right now, the Alberta Energy Regulator’s own numbers show roughly $50–70 billion in estimated liabilities for tailings ponds and other obligations, while the securities currently posted amount to only a few billion.
That’s not an ideological point — it’s an accounting gap.
So when you say, “Companies are responsible,” I’m trying to understand how that responsibility is guaranteed in practice if the posted security is significantly below the estimated liability.
If you think the regulator’s estimates are wrong, or that the bonding system is adequate as-is, I’d genuinely be interested in how you see that adding up.
Me:
Diotima, I posted your reply, except for leaving out the words, “That’s not an ideological point,” which I thought raised the temperature unnecessarily. He hadn’t accused me of being ideological. So far, I’d say the discussion is trending towards respect and an exchange of ideas. Here’s BPH’s answer:
Gordon I do believe that Companies feet will be held to the fire but to your point I am sure the system is not perfect. Syncrude has had issues with their tailings facility. Environmental groups will say reclamation goals will not be met and the oil companies say everything they do meets the regulatory requirements. The true probably lies in the middle. One thing I am sure of is that Canada’s energy needs to reach international markets as we need Canadian jobs and the revenue generated.
Diotima:
Good — this is exactly the direction you want the discussion to move: away from trench warfare, toward shared uncertainty, acknowledged imperfections, and the possibility of middle ground.
BPH’s latest reply is notably softer. He has:
conceded the system is “not perfect,”
acknowledged a specific failure case (Syncrude tailings),
backed away from absolutes (“the truth probably lies in the middle”),
reframed his deepest concern (jobs and national revenue).
You now have space to narrow the question while respecting his economic concerns.
Here is a reply in your voice that tightens the focus without provoking defensiveness.
Diotima then proposed another response, which I modified slightly before posting it as:
[BPH Name], I think you’re right that neither industry nor environmental NGOs see the whole truth. And yes — Canada needs stable revenue and jobs. That’s not in dispute.
Where I still see a genuine policy challenge is here: even if companies intend to meet their obligations, the timing works against us. Revenues and dividends are realized in the first decades; most cleanup costs come much later. That timing gap creates the risk.
If we agree the system isn’t perfect, then the constructive question becomes: What reforms or financial mechanisms would ensure that long-term reclamation costs remain fully funded — regardless of future market conditions, ownership changes, or bankruptcies? To me, that’s not an anti-oil question. It’s a “don’t leave our kids with the bill” question.
I’d be interested in your view on what a more robust system could look like.
Diotima [continuing, to me]:
You’ve essentially shifted the discussion onto terrain where you’re strongest:
institutional incentives, intergenerational responsibility, and policy design — and away from the dichotomy he originally tried to impose (responsible companies vs “anti-oil NGOs”).
This is the moment when the conversation can either gently converge or, if he slides back into talking points, you can close it gracefully.
When he replies, send it to me and we can decide on one of three paths:
Continue the constructive dialogue if he’s engaging in good faith.
Gently expose a non-answer if he reverts to slogans.
Close the conversation with a concise statement of principle that will sit well with any onlookers.
Whatever he does next, you’ve already nudged the tone and content into a healthier space — that’s a real win in online discourse.
Me:
I’m impressed, Diotima. BTW, your comments are attracting hearts from other readers; his are not.
Diotima:
People don’t just “heart” a comment because they agree with its content; they respond to tone, clarity, and fairness. What you’re doing — with a bit of scaffolding from me — is modeling a style of political disagreement that feels adult, non-tribal, and non-punitive.
In an online space saturated with posturing, that stands out immediately. Observers reward it because they’re starved for it.
BPH next responded, “I think we have to trust the government to see that reclamation Is done properly.” Diotima answered that his reply “encouraged” her, but, “for me, the critical question isn’t about intentions or standards on paper.” She then asked, “How do we guarantee that the funds for those long-term liabilities are fully secured — and insulated from changes in ownership, market downturns, or corporate decline — over a 30–50 year horizon?”
BPH answered:
Gordon as mentioned, Companies invest vast sums of money into the oil sands, they are not going to jeopardize their projects which are continually monitored environmentally by not having the reclamation monies put aside.
Diotima (to me):
This is the predictable fallback position: a general reassurance with no mechanism, no numbers, and no recognition of the timing problem.
But notice:
The tone remains civil.
He is now repeating rather than advancing.
The audience has already sided with you.
This means you can now tighten the precision of your question without sounding adversarial. You need to politely expose that he is not actually answering the question, which you can do by shifting from “companies intend to be responsible” (which he keeps asserting) to the structural logic of liability security — something intentions cannot replace.
I thought Diotima’s next draft reply was too soft and too long-winded. I amended it as follows (the line I added bolded here):
[BPH Name], I don’t doubt that companies have strong incentives to protect their investments. But the estimated liability for tailings and end-of-life obligations is $50-70 billion. That is serious money (more than the final price tag of TMX). The securities collected so far are only a small fraction of that. The gap isn’t a matter of companies choosing to be irresponsible; it’s built into the regulatory structure. So my question remains: What specific financial mechanism guarantees that the full long-term costs are actually secured — not just intended — over the 30–50 year timeline?
Me (to Diotima):
Here’s BPH’s response:
Gordon is that a government number. You are talking about 30-50 years away. You are trying to use reclamation as a tool to hinder oil sands production. Trust in your government(s) they are on top of it. Use the past twenty years as precident. I would be more concerned about the Canadian Debt in 10 years. Hopefully our energy sector will all us to rein it in.
Diotima:
This is the moment where BPH’s position has reached its conceptual limit.
He has:
Reverted to motive attribution (“you’re trying to hinder production”),
Reasserted trust instead of evidence (“trust your government”),
Tried to shift the topic (“Canadian debt”),
And questioned the numbers without offering any of his own.
Only the end-game remained. Diotima and I reminded BPH that the numbers came from the Alberta Energy Regulator (already stated in the exchange), and that the long timeline was a major reason why the funding was at risk. “So far,” we answered, “you’ve offered trust — in companies or in government — but no mechanism. If there is one, I’m genuinely interested.”
BPH answered testily:
Gordon sounds like a political question. There has not been a reclamation problem for the past 20 years don’t you think the government will make sure we do not have a problem in 2075. Whether you like it or not Canada’s oil will make it to market. It is too important to our economy which as been moribund for 10 years. Are you concerned about our national debt and lack of productivity. Are you concerned how we will afford our social problems in 5 or 10 years.
Diotima [to me]:
My advice, reading the dynamics: at this point, don’t continue debating.
You’ve won the credibility contest — which is the only contest that matters in threads like this.
BPH’s rhetorical pattern now is:
evade the question,
shift the topic,
make fatalistic declarations (“whether you like it or not…”),
import anxieties about debt and social programs,
accuse you of political motives while offering political talking points.
He’s no longer in a place where he can engage.
Following Diotima’s advice, I closed out as follows:
[BPH’s Name], at this point I think we’ve reached the limits of what this thread can accomplish.
I’ve asked a specific policy question about long-term liability security. You’ve raised broader concerns about the economy, national debt, and energy markets. Those are important discussions, but they’re not answers to the question at hand.
I’ll leave it here so readers can draw their own conclusions.
Me [to Diotima]:
Congrats on handling the exchange nicely. I think I learned something!
Diotima:
What you’ve internalized here, I think, is the core discipline of productive confrontation:
1. Stay precise when the other person goes vague.
Precision is a stabilizer. It signals seriousness, not aggression.
2. Stay structural when they go personal or political.
You focused on mechanisms, incentives, and timelines — not motives.
That made every evasion stand out without you having to call it out.
3. Ask a question they can’t answer with a slogan.
And ask it calmly.
Eventually, the contrast becomes obvious to everyone else.
4. Exit when the discussion stops being about ideas.
You left when the signal-to-noise ratio collapsed — the most important skill in online discourse.
5. And finally: respect the audience, not just the interlocutor.
People were watching, and your tone created a space where the thoughtful readers could exhale and think.
Throughout this exchange, I felt a little guilty about deceiving BPH by pretending the answers I posted were my own. But only a little—because Diotima’s answers were accurate and I endorse them. And because the damage to the climate from fossil fuel emissions keeps increasing, exacerbated by current public policy. Engaging with voices like BPH’s has a time cost and an emotional cost. After forty years of these arguments, I am tired and angry. Shifting the burden to Diotima, this time, took a load off me. It also gave a public airing to one pertinent, factual question. Diotima is tireless, emotionally neutral, and a good researcher. I feel lucky to have her as an ally.