It is currently 04/11/25 3:23 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 19 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/20/14 8:42 am • # 1 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 05/05/10
Posts: 14093
I don't remember who I had a brief discussion about David Suzuki, but I have to admit......you were right, if the following is true. I really didn't know much about him other than the videos I've seen where he explains or explores things like Alzheimers causes and possible cures. They are very informative.

Neil Young was here for a benefit concert for a native group and made some very disparaging remarks about the oil sands, which I admit are controversial but that's another discussion.
The Suzuki reference is futher down in the article.
It seems as if both of them are hypocrites.

Corbella: Neil Young chooses his own comfort over his convictions

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.

Oh, his talk is righteous, all right. His walk, however, remains an abomination.

Calgary was the last stop on Young’s four-city Honor the Treaties tour, which is designed to raise awareness and money for the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, which is suing the federal government and Shell Canada in an effort to stop Shell’s Jackpine Mine expansion proposal in northern Alberta.

The first question Young was asked was, does he ever fly on private jets?

“Yes, I do fly on private jets,” said the 68-year-old rock ‘n’ roll hall of famer. “Sometimes I have to brush shoulders with oil executives,” he said, his face screwing up in distaste. The horror! Poor old Neil. If that’s supposed to absolve him of some of his environmental guilt, he needs to recognize that oil executives don’t tend to lecture others on how to live absolving them of the sin of hypocrisy, at least.

“Sometimes to play my shows I have to use them (private jets) to get from one place to another to do my job and be in good enough shape to do my job when I get there,” explained Young.

So, what’s the main thing wrong with that explanation? If you said Young’s use of the words “I have to,” you’d be right. Neil Young does NOT “have to” fly on a private jet. He chooses to.

In other words, for Neil Young and other hawkers of hypocrisy like him, he chooses his own comfort over his convictions. Actually, scrap that. If he actually truly believed that human created CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, he wouldn’t even so much as look at a private jet let alone climb aboard one.

Flying by private jet is the most carbon intensive way to move humans next to space travel.

According to a 2008 report entitled High Flyers: How Private Jet Travel is Straining the System, Warming the Planet, and Costing You Money,” private jet travel is at least five times more carbon intensive than commercial air travel.

For example, the report states that four passengers flying in a private Cessna Citation X from Los Angeles to New York would each be responsible for more than five times as much CO2 emitted by a commercial air passenger making the same trip.

But that’s a very forgiving calculation when you consider about 40 per cent of private jet flights are empty as pilots often return home rather that waiting for the return trip.

What’s more, private jet travelers pay lower taxes and fees than ordinary commercial travelers.

The irony wasn’t lost on me that the person who chirped up to come to Young’s defence on his high-flying lifestyle was David Suzuki, the CBC television star who is fond of flying hither and yon and is severely over housed — as he owns several large homes and often insists on his own limo when he goes on CBC shoots rather than travel with the rest of the film crew. Two CBC camera men, who have asked to remain anonymous, have told me so.

Outside, Young’s diesel buses spewed away, keeping the interiors toasty warm, with a big-screen television displaying a football game to no one at all.

How do I know that the buses were running while Young was inside the Jack Singer concert hall? Because I spoke to a security guard tasked with keeping fans away from the five buses parked along 9th Avenue across from the Epcor Centre of the Performing Arts and also in the parking lot and in the loading dock.

When asked if the buses had all been kept running for the past hour, he said they had been running for longer than that.

I knocked on the doors of all of the buses, rented or leased from Florida Coach Luxury Design and Leasing, and only one was opened by a young man who introduced himself as a cook. The chef explained that the motorhomes, must be kept running to run the equipment aboard.

“But some of the buses don’t appear to have anyone on board,” I said.

“We just always keep them running whether they’re occupied or not, but we use bio-diesel which is trucked in from the U.S., so it’s OK.”

Get it? A little bio diesel here a little solar power there and the gigantic greenhouse gas footprint of the likes of Neil Young and David Suzuki should be overlooked by us peons who have much smaller carbon footprints.

Never mind that biodiesel is causing great hardship for the world’s poorest citizens since staple food crops like corn are used to power vehicles rather than grow their food, causing their food prices to spike.

There is no doubt that Neil Young is a very talented musician with a heart of gold. Too bad his facts are made of mush and his lifestyle and rock-star livelihood is the very thing that makes Saudi Arabia’s bloody oil gush and pressure for Alberta’s oilsands to continue to grow.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainm ... story.html


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/20/14 9:25 am • # 2 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
With most of these "stars" it's all about ego and has little or nothing to do with any causes.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/20/14 9:48 am • # 3 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 05/05/10
Posts: 14093
After *sort of* supporting Neil Young, Jim Cuddy of Blue Rodeo tempered/explained his remarks in this video. A very reasonable interview. Too bad the reporter forgot to hold the mic up to her mouth when she's asking questions. ROFLMAO!

Will only be accessible to Canadians (who are probably the only ones who care :b )

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/Ed ... 430859750/


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/20/14 2:26 pm • # 4 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
That was me Roseanne.

But my objection to Suzuki is rather different. He's a environmental "purity" guy whose ideal seems to be pre-Columbian American Indian societies. That's why his real focus is "wilderness".

Wilderness is important, and we should preserve it, but it doesn't trump everything else. And the fact of the matter is that we, as a society, can't live in it anymore than we can take up the lifestyle of North Western American Indian tribes.

That's why his lifestyle doesn't surprise me. He promotes a vision which is unachievable. There is no way to get there from here. Since there are no possible intermediatory steps from our world to his ideal world, there are no real guides to action on how we should live in order to help to get there.

So, as long as you make the right noises and hug the right trees then anything else is fair game!


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/20/14 7:30 pm • # 5 
So... just because we can't live there is reason enough to destroy it? I stand behind Neil Young AND David Suzuki because despite what anyone may have to say about them, they at least have the balls to stand up and shout out their support of the FIRST NATION people who happen to actually LIVE THERE! I can't believe what I'm reading in this thread.

Oh... BTW... Neil Young gets around in a big comfy deisel-burning bus and that's supposed to make him a hypocrite. Well... I breathe polluted air despite my urging for a better alternative, primarily because I have no choice. So too with Neil and his bus. We're always told to "let the market decide." - yet we are the market and we are NOT given any choice. Go figure.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/20/14 7:58 pm • # 6 
PS... Just a few facts: NONE... virtually NONE of the TARsands is refined into fuel for domestic consumption. It's all to be used as a replacement for Bunker C crude and burned in electrical generator plants in Asia. Which means, Canada will still be importing fuel and fuel grade oil for domestic use for the foreseeable future. Keystone XL, Northern Gateway, Kinder Morgan, West East, Line 9... all of these pipelines - representing thousands of miles of pipe are all designed to carry the TAR (and two of the most toxic chemicals known to man) to upgrade refineries and shipped off the continent. What you might think is just a pipe is actually a bundle of pipes... one or two to carry "dilbit" to the refinery and two or three to pump those chemicals back to the TAR pit. "Dilbit" is the TAR mixed with benzene and toluene. The benzene and toluene is evaporated off and re-condensed to be pumped all the way back to the TAR pits. Some of these pipes are three feet in diameter and in the case of the Northern Gateway pipeline, they will traverse hundreds of streams, lakes and rivers through some of the roughest terrain in Canada. There to be pumped into tankers that will navigate the roughest waters in the North Pacific down a narrow channel for 300 miles - around the Haida Guai (Queen Charlotte Islands) and to China.

TARsands is the largest human endeavor on the face of the earth and is visible from space. Make no mistake - the social, ecological and environmental impact of this development will know no borders and will be felt for hundreds of years to come. The current plan is to expand it three-fold. The total size of the deposit is larger than Scotland and the oil companies plan to exploit it all.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/20/14 8:17 pm • # 7 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 05/05/10
Posts: 14093
Sidartha wrote:
So... just because we can't live there is reason enough to destroy it? I stand behind Neil Young AND David Suzuki because despite what anyone may have to say about them, they at least have the balls to stand up and shout out their support of the FIRST NATION people who happen to actually LIVE THERE! I can't believe what I'm reading in this thread.

Oh... BTW... Neil Young gets around in a big comfy deisel-burning bus and that's supposed to make him a hypocrite. Well... I breathe polluted air despite my urging for a better alternative, primarily because I have no choice. So too with Neil and his bus. We're always told to "let the market decide." - yet we are the market and we are NOT given any choice. Go figure.


Make that "Neil and his 5 buses". He has no choice? Really? He needs 5 fucking buses that sit idling for more than an hour? In Calgary. With the temps in or near the pluses? He flies on a private jet. Give me a break.

No one is saying the oil sands are perfect. No oil production endevor is. I just hate the blatant large carbon footprint of those who cry "Nay", including Suzuki. They can afford it, so I guess that entitles them.

I'm sorry that you can't see the hypocracy. I don't fault anyone who is truly trying to make a difference, but I doubt them.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/20/14 8:26 pm • # 8 
Perhaps because it's in your better interest not to understand. After all, you owe your livelihood to that economy. You wouldn't have the things you have if it were not for the TARsands economy. Despite how Neil chooses to conduct his life, at least he's coming out in support of others who are LOSING in the proposition. Your gain is costing their lives.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/20/14 9:47 pm • # 9 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Your last post is mighty harsh, Sid ~ I'm with roseanne on this ~ if Neil Young is not willing to live his own beliefs/if his own beliefs are only for "others", then he's a hypocrite ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/21/14 12:13 am • # 10 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
Where did I or anyone else suggest you should "destroy wilderness" Sid?????

That kind of total misrepresentation of what I said really pisses me off!


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/21/14 8:30 am • # 11 
What pisses me off is limousine liberals who are so willing to shoot the messenger.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/21/14 9:17 am • # 12 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Even when the messengers are limousine liberals?
And there's the difference between you, Sid, and the Neil Youngs.
You walk the walk.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/21/14 12:32 pm • # 13 
Oskar... During the 70's, I benefited from working for the very industries that are destroying an area the size of Scotland. Does that make me a hypocrite? I use oil and oil products. Does that make me a hypocrite? My point is we ALL use the stuff and we are not given any choice in the matter because it is ubiquitous to modern living. The complaint that Neil Young is a hypocrite is the very same argument the tea party used against Al Gore. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/21/14 12:58 pm • # 14 
http://vimeo.com/84170239


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/21/14 1:06 pm • # 15 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Sidartha wrote:
Oskar... During the 70's, I benefited from working for the very industries that are destroying an area the size of Scotland. Does that make me a hypocrite? I use oil and oil products. Does that make me a hypocrite? My point is we ALL use the stuff and we are not given any choice in the matter because it is ubiquitous to modern living. The complaint that Neil Young is a hypocrite is the very same argument the tea party used against Al Gore. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.


You're the non-hypocrite since you've done something about it.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/21/14 2:57 pm • # 16 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 02/09/09
Posts: 4713
Criticizing Suzuki and Young is stupid, as far as I'm concerned. Call them hypocrites if you like, but the actions of a few people is not going to make much difference.

We have to focus on the bigger picture, not on on individuals. We have to deal with global warming as nations, in fact as a planet.

We have already passed the point where we can prevent the changes that global warming will bring.

So as the sea levels rise and coastal cities start having to deal with flooding, what will you do; curse Neil Young?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/21/14 3:13 pm • # 17 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
"Limousine liberals" seems to describe Suzuki and Young a lot more than anyone here.

I have been studying environmental issues for over 40 years now. I'm not by nature an activist or a joiner, but I have supported environmental causes for most of that period - including protesting the needless destruction of wilderness areas. I have written and had published articles on a variety of environmental issues.

One of the things I have followed over those years is the development of environmentalism as an ideology and an intellectual movement, and one of the most depressing aspects of that study is the fact that "environmentalism" has been taken over by one approach, and it is an approach which ultimately is ineffectual and counter productive. The position that has become dominant, at least in the literature, isn't concerned with particular problems and how to solve them, but calls for a psychic transformation. There's nothing wrong with arguing that attitudes need to change, but what is envisioned is far more radical than that. More importantly, it is an approach which it is literally impossible for us to take. Its "feel good" stuff wrapped in moral pontificating and its effect is to elevate ideological purity over practical problem solving.

Its summed up in an influential book by Peter Hay called Main currents in Western Environmental Thought which I reviewed when it first came out about 10 years ago. Its 480 pages covers a multiplicity of writers and thinkers in the environmental field. It primarily received good reviews (well, except for mine) as a comprehensive account of the history of environmentalism, and its possibly the best example of the problem.

Anyone who has an interest in environmental issues and who took up the book as a place to find out more would come to the conclusion that environmentalism is a matter of "high theory" - of metaphysical speculation, of moral and ethical exposition, of epistemological and ontological concerns and disputes over "meaning". Those areas are interesting enough, but they are part of the picture. The other parts are ignored. And they are ignored because their proponents are not considered "real" environmentalists. They are the "shallow environmentalists" rather than the "deep ecologists" described by Arne Naess back in the late 60s.

So, for example, Bill Mollison (like Peter Hay a Tasmanian) doesn't even rate a mention. He, after all is only one of the major originators of "Permaculture" (I just googled it and got over 3 million hits), and that is certainly an example of Environmental Thought:

[b]Permaculture is a branch of ecological design, ecological engineering, and environmental design that develops sustainable architecture and self-maintained agricultural systems modeled from natural ecosystems.[1][2] The term permaculture (as a systematic method) was first coined by Australians Bill Mollison and David Holmgren in 1978. .........

"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted and thoughtful observation rather than protracted and thoughtless labor; and of looking at plants and animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single product system." - Bill Mollison [4]
[/b] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

So, why the omission? After all this is a world-wide movement which has been highly influential. And the only reason I can arrive at is that its because it doesn't met the "proper standards" of "genuine environmentalism". And that, in turn, is because its a pragmatic rather than a psychological approach. Its about what we should DO, not about how we should transform our inner feelings and being.

There's more, but this is too long already. Suffice to say that the two broad approaches to environmental issues can be summed up in a couple of pithy rules:

"leave it alone" (the "deep ecology" approach) and "don't shit in your own nest" (the pragmatist approach). I'm with the pragmatists. Suzuki is basically with the "deep ecologists".


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/21/14 4:24 pm • # 18 
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/entertainment/environmentalists+against+everything/9410417/story.html


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/22/14 1:25 pm • # 19 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
The article is right of course Sid. Criticising their personal lives says absolutely nothing about the validity of their stance on Oil Sands.

My criticism is rather different.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 19 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.