Neil Young rocks the tar sands

[Accountability Now]

Thanks for providing the links. I never knew there was a mantra that oil development is screwing with the environment.

You didn't know that was their mantra? Just look at good ol' Neil. Craps on the oil sands development and then recants by saying actually....the devlopment is ok as long as they honor the treaties...ie get money.

The links are a good starter, but where can you show me how these developments, that are agreed upon, are 'screwing up the environment'

They are pulling oil out of the ground. There are spills when this happens. Or in the Samson case, the pipeline could leak JUST as easily as the Northern Gateway but only one of them is screwing up the environment?

In any case, if the natives are paid, then there is no environmental issue.

What the tarsands do to the environment and how these developments on the reserves effect the environment are different in many ways.

Perhaps....but the same can be said about the economic return. They are getting millions of dollars from these smaller scale projects and billions of dollars from the oil sands. 1.8 billion to be exact.

You keep forgetting, the natives already approve the oil sands. They already accept the environmental degredation that is so called happening. I just think its hypocrtical and weak that they pretend to care about the environment when in every case....that environment has a price tag.

[Accountability Now]

We used to have, according to environment Canada, at least 31, 752 lakes in Canada. Now, under bill c-45 we have 97 lakes and 62 rivers. Fish habitat has been taken out of the equation and guess who helped out come up with these new numbers? Apparently pipeline companys had a bit to do with it. And here's a funny correlation. All those rivers and lakes happen to be in conservative ridings.

That sounds interesting. Do you have a link that shows the lakes/river removed and their relation to the riding?

Still waiting. I'm particularily interested in seeing the CPC ridings involved.

[waldo]

Just look at good ol' Neil. Craps on the oil sands development and then recants by saying actually....the devlopment is ok as long as they honor the treaties...ie get money.

citation request

[On Guard for Thee]

Still waiting. I'm particularily interested in seeing the CPC ridings involved.

I apologise I misspoke. It's actually only 89% of those waterways in CPC ridings.

[Accountability Now]

citation request

waldo...try your best to keep up. The citation for this was listed earlier by Boges. Yeesh.

[Accountability Now]

I apologise I misspoke. It's actually only 89% of those waterways in CPC ridings.

89% is a pretty big number though. Do you have a list of the lakes that were removed?

[waldo]

waldo...try your best to keep up. The citation for this was listed earlier by Boges. Yeesh.

nice! I found it a few pages back! A statement from an Ezrant POS article... not a direct quote, an Ezrant claim! Oh my - certainly meets your level of authority, accuracy and credibility! My googly prowess can't seem to find this anywhere... other than a brazillion places repeating the same Ezrant statement/claim.

[jacee]

You didn't know that was their mantra? Just look at good ol' Neil. Craps on the oil sands development and then recants by saying actually....the devlopment is ok as long as they honor the treaties...ie get money.

They are pulling oil out of the ground. There are spills when this happens. Or in the Samson case, the pipeline could leak JUST as easily as the Northern Gateway but only one of them is screwing up the environment?

In any case, if the natives are paid, then there is no environmental issue.

Perhaps....but the same can be said about the economic return. They are getting millions of dollars from these smaller scale projects and billions of dollars from the oil sands. 1.8 billion to be exact.

You keep forgetting, the natives already approve the oil sands. They already accept the environmental degredation that is so called happening. I just think its hypocrtical and weak that they pretend to care about the environment when in every case....that environment has a price tag.

You oversimplify to insult Indigenous people to an extent that is beyond the issues and displays a consistent generalized prejudice.

Indigenous Peoples, for the first time in Canada's history, are actually getting a share of the wealth taken from their traditional lands. They have a say in how development occurs, to try to minimize impacts on their environment.

They can negotiate for jobs and training for their youth.

Each project is different, environmental implications are different, and each community's needs are different.

It's their right to negotiate in the interests of their communities.

It's the law.

And it's about time.

.

[Accountability Now]

You oversimplify to insult Indigenous people to an extent that is beyond the issues and displays a consistent generalized prejudice.

.

Jacee....you are a hoot. I haven't even touched on the topic of whether they deserve the money or not. I'm speaking on their known hypocrisy to speak out about the 'environmental dangers' when they aren't getting enough but then to shut their traps when they do. Ask those who are part of the 1.8 billion share of the oil sands if they are ok with the development. I guess my 'over simplification' is still too complex for you.

[waldo]

per the tarsands industry advocacy group OSDG (now rebranded as OSCA):

Wood Buffalo and Lac La Biche Aboriginal companies performed over $1.8 billion in contract work with OSDG member companies in 2012. Source: OSDG 2013

(gross) 'over simplification':

'x' # of aboriginal companies contracted <=> tacit, all-encompassing acceptance of unqualified tarsands development by all aboriginals

[Accountability Now]

per the tarsands industry advocacy group OSDG (now rebranded as OSCA):

(gross) 'over simplification':

'x' # of aboriginal companies contracted <=> tacit, all-encompassing acceptance of unqualified tarsands development by all aboriginals

First....what does OSCA stand for?

Second...where did I say that all aboriginals share in this? I asked what the people who share in the 1.8 billion would say. My guess is nothing because they got their money and are quite content with oil sands development.

[waldo]

...where did I say that all aboriginals share in this? I asked what the people who share in the 1.8 billion would say. My guess is nothing because they got their money and are quite content with oil sands development.

In any case, if the natives are paid, then there is no environmental issue.

.

.

You keep forgetting, the natives already approve the oil sands. They already accept the environmental degredation that is so called happening. I just think its hypocrtical and weak that they pretend to care about the environment when in every case....that environment has a price tag.

[jacee]

Nicely done waldo. Thanks.

Jacee....you are a hoot. I haven't even touched on the topic of whether they deserve the money or not. I'm speaking on their known hypocrisy to speak out about the 'environmental dangers' when they aren't getting enough but then to shut their traps when they do. Ask those who are part of the 1.8 billion share of the oil sands if they are ok with the development. I guess my 'over simplification' is still too complex for you.

Generalization.

Each Nation makes their own judgement for their own reasons.

Some welcome development.

Others don't.

You lump them all together as if there is some reason that they should all act the same.

You denigrate some for the actions of others.

"they ... they ... the natives ...

That's prejudice.

Edited January 25, 2014 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

...where did I say that all aboriginals share in this? I asked what the people who share in the 1.8 billion would say. My guess is nothing because they got their money and are quite content with oil sands development.

In any case, if the natives are paid, then there is no environmental issue.

.

.

You keep forgetting, the natives already approve the oil sands. They already accept the environmental degredation that is so called happening. I just think its hypocrtical and weak that they pretend to care about the environment when in every case....that environment has a price tag.

I see you didn't touch my first question. The answer of course its OIL SANDS Community Alliance ...not tar sands. I suggest you get that right if you're going to use their data.

As for your recent quote, you do realize that the Wood Buffalo area comprises the entire NE corner of Alberta including Fort Mac...right? And Lac La Biche is home to one of the largest native populations in Alberta in Saddle Lake....closely followed by Samson Cree who boasts that lovely gas line. The only reason others are chirping is they haven't got their share yet.

Want proof? How about this recent article titled "Not an anti tar sands crusade"

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/neil-young-concludes-anti-oilsands-concert-series-with-show-in-calgary/article16398977/?service=mobile

From the article:

Speaking to reporters prior to Sunday evenings concert, Mr. Young said he accomplished his goal of getting Canadians talking about First Nation treaty and environmental issues. Calgary will be another sold out show on Mr. Youngs cross-Canada tour, which has prompted a flurry of both traditional and social media discussion over the environmental effects and the economic benefits of Albertas oil sands.

Our tour across Canada is to bring awareness that the First Nations treaties must be honoured if tar sands expansion is to take place, said Mr. Young speaking on stage with Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Chief Allan Adam, environmentalist and broadcaster David Suzuki and other members of the First Nation and the tours entourage.

End quote.

Ouch!!!!!! I guess they do have a price tag after all!!!!

Is that a good enough non-Ezra citation for you waldo?

Edited January 25, 2014 by Accountability Now

[Accountability Now]

Nicely done waldo. Thanks.Generalization.

Each Nation makes their own judgement for their own reasons.

Some welcome development.

Others don't.

You lump them all together as if there is some reason that they should all act the same.

You denigrate some for the actions of others.

"they ... they ... the natives ...

That's prejudice.

Hey Jacee...check out the article above! I guess this "nation" is just like the rest. Ready to trade in the environment for cash!!!

[Accountability Now]

nice! I found it a few pages back! A statement from an Ezrant POS article... not a direct quote, an Ezrant claim! Oh my - certainly meets your level of authority, accuracy and credibility! My googly prowess can't seem to find this anywhere... other than a brazillion places repeating the same Ezrant statement/claim.

I guess your Googly prowess is much like your other so called prowress...as in non-existent!

[Accountability Now]

From the recent Globe and Mail article:

"Chief Adam noted that his band must walk a fine line when it comes to oil sands development. He noted the First Nation receives compensated through impact benefit agreements for environmental effects in their traditional lands. Those dollars, he said, are used to provide programs for housing, for school, education everything that is needed for the First Nation.

I guess the environment doesn't really rank as high on their list as it is made out to be!

[waldo]

Nicely done waldo. Thanks.

you're welcome. Of course, as you can see, once NoAccount's big time fail was highlighted, he went into his standard bluster routine... one where he refuses to actually respond to his highlighted fail as outlined in both our posts.

[waldo]

Is that a good enough non-Ezra citation for you waldo?

only you... and, of course, Ezrant, would take extreme liberties and extrapolate the interview into a wholesale, broad-sweeping acceptance by Mr. Young of unfettered tarsands expansion. More pointedly, to fabricate a position/statement implying that Mr. Young is "ok with development so long as treaties are honoured". Apparently, Mr. Young can't express a desire for tarsands emission reductions and sustainable development... while at the same time suggesting First Nation treaties must be honoured.

[Accountability Now]

you're welcome. Of course, as you can see, once NoAccount's big time fail was highlighted, he went into his standard bluster routine... one where he refuses to actually respond to his highlighted fail as outlined in both our posts.

First off....its ok to expand your vocabulary past your current go to word of 'bluster'. Based on the past whoopings I've given you, perhaps a new word combo for you should be "I surrender".

Now as for refusing to respond.....the article was my response. I requoted where you highlighted my comments:

In any case, if the natives are paid, then there is no environmental issue.

.

.

You keep forgetting, the natives already approve the oil sands. They already accept the environmental degredation that is so called happening. I just think its hypocrtical and weak that they pretend to care about the environment when in every case....that environment has a price tag.

Every case is dead on. Show me one group that has turned down oil sands development regardless of the money being offered. The article I cited is further proof.

The other native groups that are part of the 1.8B sector which includes Wood Buffalo (nearly comprises all of the Athabasca oil sands) and Lac La Biche (Cold Lake oil sands) don't say a peep about the oil sands. This recent group only piped up because now its their turn to cash in. My comment that "they pretend to care about the environment when in every case....that environment has a price tag".....was proved in the article as the Athabasca Chipewyan and Young agreed that the oil sands development can proceed IF the treaties are honored. Yup....nothing like selling out to big oil!

[Accountability Now]

only you... and, of course, Ezrant, would take extreme liberties and extrapolate the interview into a wholesale, broad-sweeping acceptance by Mr. Young of unfettered tarsands expansion. More pointedly, to fabricate a position/statement implying that Mr. Young is "ok with development so long as treaties are honoured". Apparently, Mr. Young can't express a desire for tarsands emission reductions and sustainable development... while at the same time suggesting First Nation treaties must be honoured.

Obviously he's not against it as he says so in the article. Also per the article, Allan Adam (chief of Athabasca Chipewyan) is NOT against it.....IF and only IF they get the treaties honored. Of course the Globe and Mail's Kelly Cryderman agrees with me too. Wow...looks like you're wrong and Ezra was right. OUCH!!!!

Obviously they care more for the cash than the environment. Now who suggested that sentiment back in post 451. Oh...that was me.

And of course who said their Googly prowress couldn't find anything on the original citation....oh...that was the waldingo.

This one really hurts hey. Fresh off the STIC loss.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Accountability Now

[jacee]

Hey Jacee...check out the article above! I guess this "nation" is just like the rest. Ready to trade in the environment for cash!!!

Honouring the treaties does involve payment for use of the land.

The issue I have with your posts is that you keep generalizing to "the rest", making up excuses for your prejudices.

Want to be a racist pig? Go ahead. Just don't try to pretend it's anything else but that.

.

.

[Accountability Now]

Honouring the treaties does involve payment for use of the land.

The issue I have with your posts is that you keep generalizing to "the rest", making up excuses for your prejudices.

Want to be a racist pig? Go ahead. Just don't try to pretend it's anything else but that.

.

.

Thank you for the personal attack. All I said was all these groups cry a mean game about the environment but have no problem cashing in when the price is right. The article I posted proved me right. 1.8B in oil sands revenue proves me right. Again....show me one 'nation' that has walked away from oil sands money because they felt the environment was worth more. That's not racist....its reality.

If they the issue is with honoring the treaties and getting the cash....then call it as such. Don't use the environment as your excuse.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Accountability Now

[jacee]

Thank you for the personal attack. All I said was all these groups cry a mean game about the environment but have no problem cashing in when the price is right. The article I posted proved me right. 1.8B in oil sands revenue proves me right. Again....show me one 'nation' that has walked away from oil sands money because they felt the environment was worth more. That's not racist....its reality.

If they the issue is with honoring the treaties and getting the cash....then call it as such. Don't use the environment as your excuse.

"all" is a racist generalization. Maybe if you were more careful with your words you wouldn't look so much like a racist pig.

Honouring the treaties means a variety of things: jobs, training, payment for resource rights, environmental protections. Look up the Impact Benefit Agreements and you'll see that environmental issues are important too. Accepting payments for resource rights doesn't mean that environmental issues are ignored. You just present it that way because you are focused on trying to justify your generalized racist statements.

Also, the legal rights of Indigenous Nations have been a wakeup call to the oil industry and have had a huge impact on changing their focus to more environmental protections overall.

.

[Accountability Now]

Look up the Impact Benefit Agreements and you'll see that environmental issues are important too.

.

Not nearly as important as the money!