Say, did Neil Young and Lynyrd Skynyrd ever make up?
Anyway.
That he's (allegedly) on specious and shaky factual ground when it comes to oil development shouldn't surprise anyone. This side, realistically, the fact remains Canada is a semi-diversified, branch plant economy that relies on natural resources production. Mess with that, you mess with its economic well-being. No doubt, as mentioned below, the Canadian government hasn't always honored treaties signed with First Nations (in fact, it has a terrible and embarrassing track record), but it has made strides.
It's funny Neil Young isn't all that interested in the rampant corruption among First Nations leaders.
The Dark Side responded to Young's debatable position:
"The oil industry has made strides in its relationship with First Nations and oil sands projects have resulted in $1.3 billion in annual revenue to aboriginal-owned businesses and more than 1,700 permanent jobs for local First Nations people, he said.
"No one in industry begrudges the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation or any other aboriginal community from representing their interests," Collyer wrote, "And there’s no question that aboriginal issues must be addressed if Canada is to have timely access to markets for its energy production – timely access that benefits all Canadians."
"Maclean's Econowatch blogger Andrew Leach, an economist at the University of Alberta, wrote Friday that Young exaggerated the scale of proposed oil sands development. Young claims the land area covering Alberta's oil sands deposits, which he equates to the size of England, will all be disturbed by mining.
As Mason noted, Young's premature on the China export front, though some oil sands production likely is destined for Asia if the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipelines are approved.
Young is also on shaky ground claiming oil sands projects produces as much carbon dioxide daily as "all the automobiles in Canada," said Leach.
"Young was very clear in his interviews that he believed Canadians were subject to misinformation from politicians and the oil industry," Leach concluded. "That is often the case. However, what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, so Mr, Young might want to take a little more care himself."
Young undermines his position when he tosses out debatable facts, which is regrettable because, as Mason points out, he's on much firmer ground when it comes to treatment of First Nations.
"His contention that treaties in Canada have not been honoured, in many cases, is indisputable," Mason wrote."
Think he's sitting around carefully weighing everyone's position? Of course not. That wouldn't make for good music. He has to stick to the man. The man doesn't have a valid reason to do what he is doing since it's all for profits.
Anyway.
That he's (allegedly) on specious and shaky factual ground when it comes to oil development shouldn't surprise anyone. This side, realistically, the fact remains Canada is a semi-diversified, branch plant economy that relies on natural resources production. Mess with that, you mess with its economic well-being. No doubt, as mentioned below, the Canadian government hasn't always honored treaties signed with First Nations (in fact, it has a terrible and embarrassing track record), but it has made strides.
It's funny Neil Young isn't all that interested in the rampant corruption among First Nations leaders.
The Dark Side responded to Young's debatable position:
"The oil industry has made strides in its relationship with First Nations and oil sands projects have resulted in $1.3 billion in annual revenue to aboriginal-owned businesses and more than 1,700 permanent jobs for local First Nations people, he said.
"No one in industry begrudges the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation or any other aboriginal community from representing their interests," Collyer wrote, "And there’s no question that aboriginal issues must be addressed if Canada is to have timely access to markets for its energy production – timely access that benefits all Canadians."
"Maclean's Econowatch blogger Andrew Leach, an economist at the University of Alberta, wrote Friday that Young exaggerated the scale of proposed oil sands development. Young claims the land area covering Alberta's oil sands deposits, which he equates to the size of England, will all be disturbed by mining.
As Mason noted, Young's premature on the China export front, though some oil sands production likely is destined for Asia if the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipelines are approved.
Young is also on shaky ground claiming oil sands projects produces as much carbon dioxide daily as "all the automobiles in Canada," said Leach.
"Young was very clear in his interviews that he believed Canadians were subject to misinformation from politicians and the oil industry," Leach concluded. "That is often the case. However, what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, so Mr, Young might want to take a little more care himself."
Young undermines his position when he tosses out debatable facts, which is regrettable because, as Mason points out, he's on much firmer ground when it comes to treatment of First Nations.
"His contention that treaties in Canada have not been honoured, in many cases, is indisputable," Mason wrote."
Think he's sitting around carefully weighing everyone's position? Of course not. That wouldn't make for good music. He has to stick to the man. The man doesn't have a valid reason to do what he is doing since it's all for profits.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.