[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I have been looking for this thread in the Off Topic main thread, but just found it here. I was wondering why no one was discussing this, so now I am glad to find it!

Anyways, my thoughts.

Nice post but it shouldn't go unchallenged.

1. Neil is not doing this for fame, or to re-invent himself. I think that is the Sun News cop out to attack the man, and not his message. It has be documented that he's driven his electric car up to Ft. McMurray with Darryl Hannah to do a documentary years ago. This is nothing new for him.

2. His message as it comes to the environment is just wrong and is perverted truth, plain and simple. Oil Sands is cleaner than coal by quite a margin on CO2 emissions. Coal is what they are burning in China that is causing all the dirty air, not oil direct from the sands. In fact, if they were to stop all coal and start burning oil their CO2 levels would drop.

I'm ignorant of Neil's actual writings on this but did he really say oil was worse than coal? I highly doubt that. But otherwise this is the this most classic and utterly nihilistic argument that always rolled out. "We're not the problem, those guys over there are the problem!" Stop and think to yourself where that argument leads you to? Nothing. That's where you end up. You wont go convincing the Chinese to act pointing the finger at them. Especially because they aren't responsible for the past 150 years of cummulative GHG emissions that are warming the climate right now. They are responsible on the margin, not for this problem. Huge difference.

And in any case, bringing it down to psychology. This issue is the textbook definition of the tragedy of the commons. Nobody has any incentive to act. So instead they try to blame each other. If we were truly being rational. We'd all recognize that the commons were being depleted rapidly and we'd agree to stop activities in unison. How does that happen? Well you basically have to demonstrate that you're getting your own house in order.

But the oilsands are the reason why we can't get our house in order. Environment Canada has repeatedly demonstrated that the emissions projections out to 2030 are dominated by growth in the oilsands and there's no way we can even level, let alone reduce our emissions. That's basically all the result of the growth of one sector. Yes the climate change issue is WAY bigger than the oilsands. But here in Canada the oilsands are basically THE problem. And it's something we need to get a grip on, not blithely dismiss with the worst of all justifications.

3. Oil Sands are of generally two types Open Pit and SAGD. I will disclose that I work for a SAGD company and have been to site numerous times. It looks nothing like a bomb site. In fact small pad areas are cut, the oil is extracted using water, and when the pad is done they grow trees right back on top, you would never know anyone is there. Open Pit does disturb the ground much more, but I think the last stat I saw was .02% of Alberta forest is currently disturbed by all Oil Sands, so the footprint overall is very small.

Looks may be deceiving. Sure the physical terrestrial impact is smaller, much smaller and in situ recovery looks poised to overcome surface mining for bitumen produced but just a couple things. Just because it looks better doesn't mean it's categorically better. In situ recovery uses more energy than surface mining, meaning it emits more greenhouse gases. It also uses alot more water. By my understanding even with the best technology we use half as much water as oil produced but currently we use upwards of 3 times as much water as oil produced. Some of this water is produced deep, other times its drawn from aquifers or the surface. So it's pretty disingenuous to say, hey look at how cleaner this process "looks". Peel a layer back and in situ is the direct reason why oilsands are getting more GHG and water intensive, in other words, they're making the oilsands become more environmentally destructive.

4. He is claiming to champion native treaty rights, but has turned the conversation to environment. What is it? Is it the natives are getting a raw deal? They want zero development? They want some development? No one is asking about this, instead his rhetoric is environment, so people are countering with his 5 tour buses spewing exhaust. No one is even talking about the very people he is supposed to be helping.

Yes native rights and environmental concerns are completely separate issues...

This is just a weird paragraph that's nonsensical. He's raised $800,000 for affected aboriginal communities on this tour alone. Pretty sure aboriginals with a legal treaty in hand and supported by recent court judgements that their treaty rights had been violated by oilsands developments and environmental destruction was THE reason cited as the violation. This is about the environment. Aboriginal communities who traditionally use the land and river for their economic means are thereby suffering more.

5. US Big Oil and the US Government is more indirectly involved in this than you know. I am not saying Neil now works directly for the man. I am saying he is a pawn. Right now US has a cheap and steady supply of Canadian Oil because we can only ship to Chicago to refine. Keystone and N.Gateway would help us sell to other markets, thus weakening the refiners and US control on our product. So what do you think the US is gonna do...let it happen, or donate to a bunch of Environmental groups to proxy block and upset anything that will strengthen Canada. It is a no brainer that a country that disposes of all competition all over the world wouldn't do this because it is so simple, just donate money and let the hippies block everything and keep status quo. So the band leader accepted $50K from Tides, I would love to see who donates to Tides, follow the money.

Ok we're deep in the Calgary bubble now. This is utter bunk. That environmentalists are somehow pawns in a geopolitical conspiracy to keep the oilsands down. Quit reading that self flaggelating bubkus from Peter Foster, Viviane Krause, and Claudia Cattaneo. It is freaking ridiculous.

The problem with even arguing against this theory is that it's so crazy you can't even really engage it. The idea is that tens of millions were poured into Canadian NGOs over the past ten years to protest the oilsands because it would serve American companies better. If that's the actual case then it has failed miserably. During that time the oilsands growth in the past ten years has more than doubled. The Government of freaking Canada is their biggest supporter and lobbyist. There has been ZERO policy implemented to contain the oilsands since the SGER in 2007 and much more policy to make oilsands development and ship easier. And that the supporters of the oilsands, the corporations, the state owned corporations and all of the other money that has poured into them has mounted to over $100 billion.

Yes... say generously $50 million has been donated to ENGOs what impact has that really had?

Why not play the occam's razor game? What is the simplest explanation to explain why ENGOs are protesting the oil sands and why people even Americans are donating to support that? Because they don't like the environmental and social damage associated with unfettered oilsands development! Wow, what a conspiracy.

Hate that conspiracy. It's batnuts crazy.

6. The dirtiest oil in the world is in Neil's backyard California. No protest there, ever. Strange hunh?

Red herring. California heavy oil isn't being produced to any meaningful volume. Way less than the oilsands.

7. The less Oil from Canada is more from dictatorships. Save a tree, oppress another person that is you cold hard reality.

Ethical oil ridiculousness. This is a callow and intellectually bankrupt argument. In all honesty, judging by the market realities now, it's oil from everywhere at full tilt. Canada isn't supplanting some alternate supply we're just adding to it. There's no offseting dictatorship that Canadian oil is heroically undermining.

I know some of this may come of a bit conspiracy theory but honestly after what I have seen, it is my opinion of what is happening. We need to realize that Neil is a good talented musician who is a legend, he just happens to be not to bright on this subject but his fame allows for instant credibility and air time. It also makes him the perfect pawn for those who don't want to upset the status quo.

Yes it is crazy conspiracy hour.