Neil Young rocks the tar sands

Michael Hardner · January 14, 2014

In 2014, he would be a better spokesperson for Depends or denture adhesive. I'm not surprised that some Canadians would reject an expat from the U.S. with his American rock 'n roll and American LincVolt and American guitar and American ranch telling them how bad the energy business can be.

You missed something: the point. He sells stuff. He will sell less stuff now.

WWWTT · January 14, 2014

No, as Young is also acting in self interest. This has been his bank account "schtick" for a long time. Neil Young did "inspire" something, he inspired Lynyrd Skynyrd to write the very popular "Sweet Home Alabama".

In this rare occasion I agree with you!

Neil Young is probably acting in his own self interest!

In fact, I would argue that he is taking advantage of the Alberta Natives to promote himself!

WWWTT

BubberMiley · January 14, 2014

That a boy BubberMiley, alleged global warming evidence is now SCIENCE!

I await your scientific data that indicates it doesn't exist. For now, it appears you're just going on faith.

WWWTT · January 14, 2014

I await your scientific data that indicates it doesn't exist. For now, it appears you're just going on faith.

What are you looking for, a world map painted green?

If not green, then what color?

Still waiting for those oceans to destroy us.

WWWTT

BubberMiley · January 14, 2014

What are you looking for, a world map painted green?

No, measurable data that suggests a different conclusion than what the vast majority of scientists are coming to. If you are going to state, over and over again, that current science is based on "faith", I would expect that you could come up with a reasonable argument to back that up and demonstrate what they are doing wrong. Instead, you keep repeating the statement while providing no reasons for how you came to this conclusion.

bush_cheney2004 · January 14, 2014

You missed something: the point. He sells stuff. He will sell less stuff now.

And you missed the point...he has been selling less stuff for many years.

Accountability Now · January 14, 2014

No, he said "rock stars" don't need oil.

That's interesting. So the PMO says "rock star" and you equate that to Neil Young. However Neil Young says 'rock star" and now he is left out of the equation. So which is it Bubber? Don't be a hypocrite now.

Of course I am still fascinated by how you imply what the PMO says and what Neil Young says and then pass it off as obvious fact. Keep trying though...

The fact that oil is key to our present economy is the point. Everyone knows that. Recognizing we need to move past that is not hypocritical or unrealistic or whatever you're trying desperately to interpret from the PMO's statement.

I'm desparately interpreting? ROTFL!!! That is all you are doing. No one, including the PMO's office, has said that we can't look at innovation. In fact I was the one that pointed out the Government of Canada offers tax breaks for such innovation. Its you that has been crying the hypocrite game when clearly there the only hypocracy is coming from you.

waldo · January 14, 2014

That a boy BubberMiley, alleged global warming evidence is now SCIENCE!

you're spewing this atheism of yours in your own dedicated thread... there's even some indulging you there! Are you feeling you're not getting enough mileage out of your blasphemous thread - is that why you're distracting/deflecting this one? :lol:

BubberMiley · January 14, 2014

That's interesting. So the PMO says "rock star" and you equate that to Neil Young. However Neil Young says 'rock star" and now he is left out of the equation. So which is it Bubber? Don't be a hypocrite now.

I think when both of them say "rock star", they're talking about rock stars. I'm not sure how you're interpreting it differently.

But yes, the PMO has not said we cannot look at innovation. They have, instead, said we must smother it by subsidizing fossil fuels, creating million-dollar marketing campaigns for the oil sands, and suggested people are hypocrites because they are opposed to this and want to focus our attention on moving beyond this dying technology.

TimG · January 14, 2014

No, he said "rock stars" don't need oil. That's because he has the means to invest in technology to move past reliance on oil, which he is suggesting the government do as well in order to make the technology available to everyone in the future.

Where does he think electricity comes from? Most likely coal or natural gas. Even in the places that have hydro will he be supporting native groups blocking expansions of hydro because it floods their lands? Or will he tell them that they should just accept it as necessary for society?

The trouble with Neil Young is he is clueless. He takes everything for granted and he has the nerve to lecture people who know a lot more than him about what can be done.

Edited January 14, 2014 by TimG

waldo · January 14, 2014

No, he said "rock stars" don't need oil. That's because he has the means to invest in technology to move past reliance on oil, which he is suggesting the government do as well in order to make the technology available to everyone in the future.

The fact that oil is key to our present economy is the point. Everyone knows that. Recognizing we need to move past that is not hypocritical or unrealistic or whatever you're trying desperately to interpret from the PMO's statement.

I wouldn't bother Bubber... Young makes a reference and backs it up with his LinkVolt journey... and yes, he and other 'rock stars' do have the means to go "off-grid", if so inclined. Of course, there are "literalists" who will beat upon the statement and the symbology to play the silly-assed game that Young must... become a Somali goat-herder to have any credibility, to be able to say anything!

Edited January 14, 2014 by waldo

Accountability Now · January 14, 2014

I think when both of them say "rock star", they're talking about rock stars. I'm not sure how you're interpreting it differently.

No...go back and read what YOU said. Neil Young's exact comment was "Of course, rock stars don't need oil". You then said that's not what Neil Young believes. Its tough to go back on that one now...but keep trying.

But yes, the PMO has not said we cannot look at innovation. They have, instead, said we must smother it by subsidizing fossil fuels, creating million-dollar marketing campaigns for the oil sands, and suggested people are hypocrites because they are opposed to this and want to focus our attention on moving beyond this dying technology.

Again....they subsidize the area gives the best return for its people. That's what governments should do. When the point comes where green energy gives the best return then they will subsidize that. In the mean time they give tax credits for people looking to make that transition. Not a very difficult concept.

BubberMiley · January 14, 2014

No...go back and read what YOU said. Neil Young's exact comment was "Of course, rock stars don't need oil". You then said that's not what Neil Young believes. Its tough to go back on that one now...but keep trying.

Good lord. He said "rock stars" don't need oil. You misrepresented what he said by saying

he believe's they don't need oil. He clearly isn't aware of all the uses of oil.

This misrepresentation suggested that he was saying everybody doesn't need oil. That's not what he said.

That's what governments should do. When the point comes where green energy gives the best return then they will subsidize that.

It's already giving the best return if we think about the long-term economic consequences of not pursuing sustainable energy.

PIK · January 14, 2014

This sounds like a dream you would have if you ate too much cheese before bed. Your analogies are as addictive as they are perplexing. I think Kimmy went for the full-court press with a super rational response so I will try that too:

In this scenario, Neil is acting out of motivation for the common good and persuading you to modify your behavior to fit a moral model. You are telling someone to not (I assume) compete with Canadian workers. You're either doing so out of self-interest, or out of duty to your countrymen.

That's the first difference. The second one is that the target of the appeal-to-action has choices in the first scenario, but not in the second.

There are good analogies and awkward ones. If you like the awkward ones, then really you're like an omelette chef licking a Rubik's cube in a karaoke bar.

Motivation for the common good, well we have different ideas of what is the common good.

waldo · January 14, 2014

But yes, the PMO has not said we cannot look at innovation.

if anything... Harper Conservatives discourage innovation. Setting aside their 'war on science', and the shift away from basic/academic research with the accompanying shift of available Harper Conservative R&D funding toward short-term commercial pursuits, the Science, Technology and Innovation Council in its latest "State of the Nation 2012", declared that:

- in measuring Canada's, 'science, technology and innovation (STI)' performance, Canada has dropped in rank from 16th to 23rd in overall expenditures on research and development relative to GDP compared to other economically developed countries.

- as a recommendation, the government should put more emphasis on direct government support for industry-driven research instead of indirect support in the form of tax credits.

- Canada’s gross domestic expenditures on R&D (GERD) declined from their peak in 2008 and, when measured in relation to gross domestic product (GDP), since 2001. In contrast, the GERD and GERD intensity of most other countries have been increasing. Canada’s declining GERD intensity has pushed its rank down from 16th position in 2006 to 17th in 2008 and to 23rd in 2011 (among 41 economies).

- Canada’s performance is particularly poor on measures of business enterprise expenditures on research and development (BERD)—that is, the R&D performed by firms. Although preliminary data suggest that BERD in Canada increased very slightly in both 2011 and 2012, BERD intensity (i.e., BERD as a percentage of GDP) has been in almost continuous decline for the past decade. Canada’s rank among comparator countries on BERD-to-GDP fell to 25th in 2011 (of 41 economies).

- on the international measure of information and communications technologies (ICT) investment intensity (i.e., ICT as a percentage of non-residential gross fixed capital formation), Canada still ranks in the middle among countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Of particular concern, Canada’s ICT investment gap with the United States (U.S.) is increasing—ICT investment intensity in the business sector in Canada averaged only 42 percent of U.S. levels over the period from 2000 to 2010. Canada also performs poorly on venture capital investment as a share of GDP, ranking 15th out of 27 comparator countries.

PIK · January 14, 2014

Good lord. He said "rock stars" don't need oil. You misrepresented what he said by sayingThis misrepresentation suggested that he was saying everybody doesn't need oil. That's not what he said.

It's already giving the best return if we think about the long-term economic consequences of not pursuing sustainable energy.

Thing is we already had substainable energy( hydro dams and lots of them) and the eco freaks are shutting it down.

Michael Hardner · January 14, 2014

Motivation for the common good, well we have different ideas of what is the common good.

I agree with what you said here 100%, but well all do things for selfish reasons as well as the common good. People are people, as Tears for Fears said...

waldo · January 14, 2014

Thing is we already had substainable energy( hydro dams and lots of them) and the eco freaks are shutting it down.

nothing new here... you haven't a clue what you're talking about

BubberMiley · January 14, 2014

Thing is we already had substainable energy( hydro dams and lots of them) and the eco freaks are shutting it down.

What are you referring to?

Spiderfish · January 14, 2014

I agree with what you said here 100%, but well all do things for selfish reasons as well as the common good. People are people, as Tears for Fears said...

I believe that was Depeche Mode. Tears for Fears said that "everybody wants to rule the world".

Accountability Now · January 14, 2014

Good lord. He said "rock stars" don't need oil. You misrepresented what he said by sayingThis misrepresentation suggested that he was saying everybody doesn't need oil. That's not what he said.

The 'they' in this conversation has always been in regards to Rock Stars which Neil Young is apart of and from that he clearly said THEY don't need oil. You are now interpreting (once again based on what he does not say) that 'everybody does not need oil".

I'll simplify this for you....Neil Young = rock star. PMO says rock stars use oil. Neil Young says they don't need to. If that is Young's belief then I strongly question his understanding of all the uses of oil.

It's already giving the best return if we think about the long-term economic consequences of not pursuing sustainable energy.

I'll play along. Let's say one day sustainable energy is able to overcome fossil fuel energy for all attributes (cost, efficiency, etc) and that everyone goes green. At that point, what market will there be for Canada as an exporting green nation? You don't think the US will just take on those green technologies and cut Canada out? What edge would Canad have? What would Canada have to sell to world markets? At this point we have a marketable resource that we can sell and can help our economy. The beauty is that right now, that product is still proven to be the most efficient and cost effective energy product out there.

overthere · January 14, 2014

Love Neil Youngs music.

I don't think he was aware that when he plugged in his electric powered Lincoln to recharge in Alberta the electricity came from either natural gas or coal.

Michael Hardner · January 14, 2014

I believe that was Depeche Mode. Tears for Fears said that "everybody wants to rule the world"

overthere · January 14, 2014

And you missed the point...he has been selling less stuff for many years.

Not really. He is still recording and selling well, and touring whenever he gets the urge. Concerts can be softer stuff, bluegrassy, or hard rocking with Crazy Horse.

Poltics aside, Young is one of very very few musicians who:

1) has never overtly bowed to commercial pressure: his tours aren't sponsored by beer or condom or clothing sponsors.

2) he has always recorded what he wanted when he wanted to- which has pissed off many fans and confounded many music critics. He does what he feels like doing on record and on stage. if people don't like it. oh well.....

i cannot think of anybody really who has done what he does, perhaps Bob Dylan would be similar.

I've seen him twice live. The first time was not too long after a recorded collaboration with Pearl Jam. About half the crowd was expecting a folk concert. What we got was an earsplitting, hardcore psychedelic wall of sound played by a great band. To add to the perversity, in the middle he stopped and played three solo acoustic songs. It was a great, great concert, one of the best I've ever seen.

WWWTT · January 14, 2014

No, measurable data that suggests a different conclusion than what the vast majority of scientists are coming to. If you are going to state, over and over again, that current science is based on "faith", I would expect that you could come up with a reasonable argument to back that up and demonstrate what they are doing wrong. Instead, you keep repeating the statement while providing no reasons for how you came to this conclusion.

I came to the conclusion because there is no hard evidence! Only prophecies!

WWWTT