That doesn't mean you are a "hypocrite" if you voice any concerns about it, just because you happen to have driven a car, taken a plane, or used a tour bus
I appreciate what you're saying for sure, but if you're someone that uses 10 times the oil as the average person, it's going to be harder for people to listen. Right or wrong. I mean Al Gore has a fabulous mansion, but at least he went essentially off the grid by using solar. But that doesn't mean he has a low carbon footprint, all the energy used to manufacture the products that went into his home were certainly not produced with clean energy.
At times I take a step back and see incredible irony when they hold environmental conferences in lavish buildings, with people being flown in from all over the world. Oil made it all happen.
I'm not calling Young a hypocrite outright, but if we all went "David Suzuki" on the world and closed down every plant that was an environmental concern, our lifestyles would be drastically altered. 99% of us would never accept the sacrifices.
If a celebrity (like Neil Young or Al Gore) influences hundreds or thousands of people to reduce their carbon footprint, they have had a net positive effect.
I doubt it does, I think it makes the cause look ridiculous and dishonest and it becomes one that can be argued heavily against.
Neil Young was incredibly dishonest or ignorant, I can't decide which yet. And he made his side look stupid.
Just like with Al Gore.
People on the whole global warming side talk about arguing the pure science. Well if your celebrity super guest star can't do that then what the hell are we talking about here.
I more respect Alice Cooper who basically said if you listen to celebrities to gain your political views your an idiot.
Personally its like Bono standing on stage clapping and saying that everytime I clap my hands a child in Africa dies. I just wish he would stop clapping.
If I came onto this board and started spouting the line of BS that Neil Young did I would get gutted on this board. Shouldn't we hold anyone that's campaigning to the same basic expectation that you know what the hell your talking about?
If a celebrity (like Neil Young or Al Gore) influences hundreds or thousands of people to reduce their carbon footprint, they have had a net positive effect.
I suppose, but I think that it detracts from intelligent discussion regarding the real environmental impacts of the oilsands.
I mean look, objectively speaking, the oilsands cause environmental damage. This is indisputable. But the socioeconomic benefits are massive and things like energy/natural resource security as a nation are also very important.
Things aren't black and white, and his message is that they are.
While Neil Young spoke to a Calgary news conference at the Jack Singer Concert Hall prior to his Sunday night show, five rock star-style motorhomes were left running outside, spewing fumes into the Calgary air, even though they were mostly unoccupied.
Inside the concert hall, the 68-year-old rock ‘n’ roll legend was talking about the “elephant in the room,” which he later explained was man-made global warming. The only elephant I could see was his enormous carbon footprint and his even bigger hypocrisy between his walk and his talk.
Today is going to be a big one. This is, after all, the heart of the business of Big Oil. Here is where the predominently foreign owned corporations have built towering glass monuments to symbolize their extreme wealth and power. We don't feel much love from them. But we do honour their commitment to their cause. My morning wish is that some of them take off their suits today, put on their jeans and come to the concert. If they can take some deep breaths with us and feel the music and feel the emotion of the people, maybe they will also start to feel the beating heart of Mother Earth. Maybe they'll start to see something greater and more powerful than money.
We also honour the men and women who work in the tar sands putting their health and lives on the line No matter what they try to tell you we have never ever wanted you to lose your jobs. We honour your families and your lives. We just want your bosses to clean up the mess that's been made and to stop expansion until they prove that can be done. Stop the empty television ad campaigns and do something real. We all know you are lying. We just want the oil-glazed governments of Alberta and Canada to stop supporting Big Oil at the expense of human rights. Remeber, if they can do this to the First Nations, they can do it to you. Honour The Treaties.
Calgary - come on down to the demonstration. It is gonna rock.
The singer did not accept an invitation from Canada's oil and gas industry lobby group to meet before Sunday's show.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers issued a statement Sunday saying it offered to "have a balanced discussion," but a representative of Young and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Chief Allan Adam offered an alternative that was unacceptable, CAPP said.
"Young's representative suggested oilsands producers participate in Neil Young's media conference today, but when CAPP requested a neutral moderator and equal representation, the organizer said this was not acceptable," the CAPP statement said.
I did that earlier in this thread based around his statements about Alberta Oil polluting China, him talking about the environment in Fort McMurray while ignoring the natural surface seepage of the Oil
His desire to show the worst of and not talk about or document any of the reclamation of the area or the newer green initiatives that are being used. etc
These aren't as you put it Ad Homiem attacks based around his lifestyle choices or his do as I say not as I do mantra.
He's distorted things to make his argument.
And Trout how is it Adhomien to point out that Neil Young and his group don't want a balanced debate, they want a forum but they don't want a debate they want the ability to shout down and slam the door an anyone that disagrees.
Last edited by CaptainCrunch; 01-20-2014 at 11:44 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
The ad hominem attacks are tiresome. Show where his message is wrong. Attacking the messenger is useless.
What is his message? The oilsands are bad for the environment? Congratulations Neil, you've stated an obvious fact.
What he doesn't state is why the environmental impact is not worth the socioeconomic benefit. He uses hyperbole like "looks like hiroshima" and "the calgary flood was caused by climate change" which are either untrue or unproven. It's not my job to prove that climate change didn't cause the flood, he's the one saying it did so the onus is on him.
Neil Young refuses to have a balanced discussion about the topic and has refused to meet with the industry so they can explain to him some of the things they are doing to limit the environmental fallout. Although it's just one man's blog, he referenced the fact that Young had never heard of SAGD before....that's plain ignorant.
His only facts come from Fort Chip first nations, people who are using anecdotal evidence to back up their claims and not science.
I'm not sure what you want us to say when you say "show me where he is wrong", do you want us to prove that the oilsands are the cleanest form of energy? It's not.. But it's a lot better than many alternatives.
"Fort McMurray is a project of great scale; to be weighed on its merits and demerits, on what it contributes to the well-being of workers, to the Alberta and Canadian economies, and on the social and economic benefits it's already spread to many regions of this country. It is also to be weighed on its care; the supervision of the environment, safety, and pace of development. But it should not be made the concentrated vessel of every wrong and mischance of the world energy industry, and most certainly should not be the first target of every autumn superstar looking for one last kick at the publicity can."
................
Fort Mac is not Blake's "satanic-mill." But neither is it Shangri-la. Between these poles there can be a discussion.
However, one-sided and over-toxic condemnations amplified by the voice of a rock star are not that discussion. Mr. Young has failed to be fair, and thereby he fails also to be persuasive.
__________________
Last edited by corporatejay; 01-20-2014 at 11:42 AM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
I have a question that I'm hoping some of the O&G guys can answer for me. Is the oil coming out of the earth in other parts of the world any less impactful/cleaner for the environment at the end of the day?
I understand the oil sands by their very nature require more earth being moved & more resources to separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak. But is the after effects that much worse than other oil producing areas of the world?
Would Neil and his gang be able look at the after effects of a plant in say Russia or Saudi Arabia and say "See the environment here is in much better shape than Alberta's oil sands! There's a better way!"
I have no real agenda with this question, I'm just curious as to how our "dirty oil" stacks up when compared to traditional production/extraction.
The ad hominem attacks are tiresome. Show where his message is wrong. Attacking the messenger is useless.
I completely agree with this except everyone is still waiting for him to articulate a coherent message that isn't "Oil executives are slimy liars out to doom our Mother Earth to feed their insatiable lust for money". It's not worthy of a response.
I guess there's something vaguely stated about the treatment of first nations during this process and "not honouring treaties", but there are no specifics and the response is pretty easily made: First Nations are not a monolithic entity with a single unified set of priorities, and to use them as the bulwark for your agenda is exploitative. The Journal article posted earlier is an appendix to this response - it ain't that simple.
The Following User Says Thank You to 19Yzerman19 For This Useful Post:
I have a question that I'm hoping some of the O&G guys can answer for me. Is the oil coming out of the earth in other parts of the world any less impactful/cleaner for the environment at the end of the day?
I understand the oil sands by their very nature require more earth being moved & more resources to separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak. But is the after effects that much worse than other oil producing areas of the world?
Would Neil and his gang be able look at the after effects of a plant in say Russia or Saudi Arabia and say "See the environment here is in much better shape than Alberta's oil sands! There's a better way!"
I have no real agenda with this question, I'm just curious as to how our "dirty oil" stacks up when compared to traditional production/extraction.
Here is the report from the Royal Society of Engineers which was done independently. They have been asked to review some portions of the study as the data they used was apparently not current. They are currently undertaking to do that.
Is the oil sands industry the most environmentally destructive project on earth, as has been suggested by some media and declared critics of the industry?
Based on our review of the publicly accessible evidence, a claim of such global magnitude is not accurate. Despite the lack of evidence to support this
particular view, it has gained considerable traction with the media and it now pervades the internet. This depiction is clearly aided by the photographs of ugly surface-mined landscapes, but the claims of global supremacy for oil sands environmental impacts do not accord with any credible quantitative evidence of environmental damage
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
I have a question that I'm hoping some of the O&G guys can answer for me. Is the oil coming out of the earth in other parts of the world any less impactful/cleaner for the environment at the end of the day?
Conventional is typically cleaner, but certain practices, like flaring off natural gas instead of collecting it, can the narrow or eliminate the gap.
There's a couple things that should be distinguished when it comes to oilsands, mining vs in situ (SAGD). I can only speak of SAGD because that's what I know from first hand experience.
If you compare SAGD crude against other heavy oils from around the world, it is similar if not slightly better from a GHG/barrel perspective. This is dependent on a couple of factors, namely the SOR (Steam to Oil Ratio). The lower the SOR the lower the energy requirements to produce a barrel of oil. SAGD is getting lower and lower SORs every year as technology advances, the lowest I've seen is 1.3. Anything less than 2.5 SOR is better than average conventional heavy oil. Some projects are worse depending on the reservoir, but most are achieving that SOR or lower.
If you compare bitumen to heavy oils from around the world, it's not the monster it's been made out to be.
I should add, the worst oil I've seen from a GHG perspective is heavy oil from California, it's about 10% worse than your average SAGD produced oilsands crude.
The whole area around Bakersfield is a polluted wasteland.
If these people gave a damn about the environment they would talk about Bakersfield or Hanford. Those are places that need decades worth of remediation.
The Following User Says Thank You to burn_this_city For This Useful Post:
The open letter, which was released to media outlets by the Athabasca Chipewyan on Monday, included the names of many prominent Canadians, including musician Gord Downie of the Tragically Hip, musician Sarah Harmer, actress Neve Campbell and author Naomi Klein. The letter was also signed by David Suzuki, who led panel discussions during Young’s concert tour
