ice-breaker wrote:
he provides a well written honest opinion that is worthwhile to read.
I agree … Neil Young appears to have his mind made up. The industry has one set of interests, First Nations have theirs, residents of Fort McMurray who are green have theirs, filmmakers, workers in the oil sands, arm chair environmental alarmists, policy makers, canoers, voters, consumers, etc.
Neil Young doesn't seem to be at all naive about this. The author of the HuffPo story (which is a very good story) seems to think that there is a balance of interests according to his understanding, and any short term abuses (environmental, human rights, etc.) are moderated by the greater benefit to society of extraction (wealth equals more freedom, more opportunity, and a better quality of life). But I think he is confused on this matter. It's always been what we do with this wealth that matters more (not the mere existence of it). And here, we get back into the world of competing interests, rights, human lives, long term environmental practices, legal principles, private and public benefits, short term health, long term well being, alternatives, costs, and more.
Neil Young is using his voice to have his say (from his perspective) and make an impact … he's joining the fight (and it is a fight). And he's standing up to interest that are much better organized and well financed than his own. He's mining resources from his own back yard (so to speak). Language has it's own power to shape worlds and give lives meaning. These are the tools of his trade. People shouldn't be confused about this. Neil doesn't seem to care what is going right in the oil sands (despite the author wanting to show it to him). He only seems to want to provoke and ask difficult questions, and ask what does it all mean (and can it be done better). If we stop asking these difficult questions, it might be worth asking, if we don't each learn in our own ways and share our understandings, then are we still "rockin'" or "livin'. Is the world still "free." Or are we simply paying rent, and merely subsisting off a pittance. This could be very poor world, with a great deal of material wealth in it, indeed.
I find this reaction to Neil's statements interesting. It says to me that underneath it all there is some anxiety and ambivalence there. Or else, why does he appear to have struck a nerve in the first place?