Let me elaborate on what this inconvenience entails. A river of thick corrosive tar has covered backyards and driveways. It’s like playing lava—the black parts are magma and the green parts are land—only this stuff contains carcinogens. The spill’s effects on residents and the damages it has caused have yet to be assessed. But consider that the 2010 Enbridge’s 877,000 gallon oil spill into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River caused symptoms such as nausea and vomiting for nearby residents.

And the clean-up is slow. About 12,000 barrels of oil and water from the Arkansas leak have been vacuumed up so far, with no date for completion. Oil is still being removed from the Kalamazoo River spill three years ago and cleanup costs should rack up to $1 billion once it’s done.

Generally, there are about 364 pipeline leaks in the U.S. each year. Last week alone, three oil spills were  reported. There was a 2,200 barrel spill in Alberta last Monday. Two days later, fifteen gallons spilled in Minnesota. A broken pipe at Suncor Energy Inc. contaminated the Athabasca River in Alberta the very next day.

Good thing Harper cancelled 3,000 environmental screenings on the potential damages of new resource developments. Potential damages like pipeline leaks. Are you kidding me, Stephen? Environmental screenings are what keep resource developments in check, ensuring less harm done on the environment. Meanwhile, we await Obama’s decision on Keystone XL, a tidy little pipeline extending from Alberta’s tar sands to an oil refinery in Texas.

There are a lot oil spills, and they seem inevitable as long as we’re transporting oil. Oil companies keep tabs on their pipelines by running infrequent tests on them and using “leak detection technology”. And when one of them bursts, leaks, ruptures, or fails us on a huge scale, taxpayer dollars are diverted to cleaning up the mess.

That’s because we’re talking bitumen here, a peanut-butter-thick substance that is exempt from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund—which, after a spill, pays the oil removal bill. The mentality is that bitumen isn’t oil before it makes it to the refinery, even though it can spill and cause more damage. So companies like ExxonMobil and Enbridge contribute nil to the fund that cleans up their mess. Whatever the fund doesn’t cover is compensated by the government. However, incidents like this one can result in charges on the company.

If the $5-billion Keystone XL doesn’t get Obama’s OK, that doesn’t mean the oil can’t be transported. Transportation can still be done via train, which comes with its own slew of spills. For example, a train transporting crude oil from Canada spilled 15,000 gallons of oil when it derailed in Minnesota on Wednesday.

We hardly hear about the frequent occurrence of oil spills anymore—although we should. We should be enraged. When oil spills hit this magnitude, it’s guaranteed that people and the environment suffer. Oil is being transported because there’s a demand for it. But at this point, it seems irresponsible to transport it—or even extract it.

A charging station concept by Better Place, a private company attempting to develop a business model for electric cars.

We’re not getting the job done with the Harper government, so where do we go next? Rebecca’s option of industry leadership in last week’s column may have raised some eyebrows for those of us working on policy like pricing carbon or regulation to get industries to do the right thing. And also for those who see industry as the bad guy—not an unreasonable view—since big companies produce an unreasonable amount of total greenhouse gases.

The truth is that companies need drivers to reduce pollution. One of those can be internal, through a corporate leader who gets it, who has started a company that meets her own values, or one who has seen the light, like Interface head Ray Anderson after reading The Ecology of Commerce.

These cases, however, are the exception. While you might see some big oil companies appear to be getting ahead of government by requesting a carbon tax, the next thing you read, the same company’s dealings with pollution and people in Nigeria or Alberta raise questions of ecological commitment.

On the other hand, some companies have made the commitment to green all the way. The clean technology sector is growing on the Toronto Stock Exchange. An area of growth, this sector has nowhere to go but up.

Corporate sustainability specialist Bob Willard has long talked to sustainability change agents about the kinds of factors that influence companies to move—and many do exist. From NGOs putting on the pressure to insurance companies more than peeking into the concept of climate change, big companies have been nudged for quite a few years now.

So how do citizens shift the economy to what we want—drastically reduced carbon, in the least?

Green companies need support. Governments may be more willing to support incentives to help clean companies and reduce subsidies to grey ones, than explicitly regulating or taxing pollution. One area of potential policy pressure.

But as citizens and potential consumers and investors, we can do more to support and expand those companies doing the right thing. And of course as people show choices with their pocketbook, they must doubly make that choice at the ballot box. Those without the privilege of financial resources (like NGOs) can support companies leading the green economy in other ways.

On the flip side is punishing the bad guys—making them change or lose profit share if they don’t.

Large industries, and increasingly financial institutions, have been the target of boycotts and campaigns to change their practices. These campaigns can work if being given support from all organizations that need work on climate causes. Campaigns should be given focus. One effective lobby targeting divestment from a tar sands company, with presence at shareholder meetings, newspaper ads and calls from prominent Canadians could get other companies looking at what they need to change.

Good neighbour campaigns take a more positive spin, through tactics like community letter writing to companies that should be doing better. These can be effective because of the personal tone, recognizing CEOs as people too, and putting social pressure through community ties.

Industry’s time to pollute needs to be up. With some more clever pressure from the people, things could shift from the bottom up.