Neil Young: Productive or Polarizing?

This is an important issue, one that would be better approached using the classic techniques of Non-Violent Communication.  There is absolutely nothing good to be gained by name calling and anger.  This interesting and thought-provoking article from Desmog Canada reveals just that.  Please read and share:

Neil Young’s Honour the Treaties tour kicked off with a bang on Sunday when the ex-pat Canadian rocker ripped into the Conservative government’s management of the oilsands.

Calling the oilsands a “disaster” and a “devastating environmental catastrophe” at a press conference at Massey Hall in Toronto, Young stood by his earlier statement that the oilsands region resembles Hiroshima.

It wasn’t long before a war of words with the Prime Minister’s Office broke out. Young’s comments provoked a particularly fierce reaction in Calgary, the corporate headquarters of Canada’s oilpatch.

By Tuesday, the Globe and Mail had posted a cartoon depicting the House of Commons divided into two camps: “pro Neil Young” and “anti Neil Young.”

Talk about turning a complex issue into black and white. The more important question here is whether celebrity awareness-raising efforts like this one serve a valuable role in generating discussion or whether Young’s inflammatory language further divides the country into two opposite camps — moving Canadians further away from the solutions we so desperately need on the energy and climate file.

In an editorial on Wednesday, the Hamilton Spectator wrote:

“If there’s a downside to Young’s comments … it’s that the kerfuffle around Young might detract from the substance of his remarks. Some — including comparing the area to Hiroshima — are over-the-top silly. But about the pace of oilsands development and lack of environmental oversight, he’s not wrong. The question isn’t whether or not oilsands development should take place. It should, responsibly. The question is how fast growth should happen, and whether the regulatory and monitoring infrastructure is in place to make sure environmental damage is mitigated.”

Agreed. You might not know it from reading the news headlines, but the vast majority of Canadians strongly believe the country needs an integrated approach to climate change and energy. In July, Clean Energy Canada released the results of a Harris-Decima poll, which found 87 per cent of Canadians surveyed agreed: “The nation needs a Canadian climate and energy strategy to plan its energy future.”

Canadians were asked to indicate to what degree they would prioritize a series of objectives for a potential Canadian energy strategy. What did Canadians most frequently rank as “high” or “top” priorities? Improving energy efficiency (80 per cent), creating more jobs in clean energy (73 per cent), reducing Canada’s carbon pollution to slow down climate change (67 per cent) and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal (61 per cent). In contrast, only 31 per cent of those surveyed called “exporting more of Canada’s oil and gas resources” a high priority.

So why, when there’s so much common ground in the middle, does the Canadian energy debate continue to rage around the edges?

Well, for one, that’s where the conflict happens and we all know the media loves a good ole’ dust-up. And since the media likes a brawl, it’s tempting for players on all sides to make polarizing statements because they chalk up media hits and social media shares.

However, in doing so, they’re playing a dangerous game. Andy Hoffman, a professor of sustainable enterprise at the University of Michigan, describes scenarios in which two opposing sides talk past each other, impeding meaningful dialogue, as a “logic schism.”

“In a logic schism, a contest emerges in which opposing sides are debating different issues, seeking only information that supports their position and disconfirms their opponents’ arguments,” Hoffman told the University of Michigan Record. “Each side views the other with suspicion, even demonizing the other, leading to a strong resistance to any form of engagement, much less negotiation and concession.”

Dan Kahan, a professor of law and psychology at Yale, who researches science communication and the application of science to law and policymaking (and who just so happens to be a fan of Neil Young’s music), says debates like the one stirred by Neil Young become about much more than what they appear to be on the surface.

“People end up seeing questions of fact as kinds of symbols that are badges of who they are and stock that indicates their status in society,” Kahan says. “The kinds of dynamics that I find disturbing and sad are the ones that prevent people who really probably have the same goals, or at least pretty close to the same goals, from recognizing what the best available evidence is.”

Which brings us to the state of debate in Canada today. When Young says the Canadian government is “trading integrity for money,” Harper’s spokesman says: “Canada’s natural resources sector is and has always been a fundamental part of our country’s economy.”

Logic schism, anyone? The fact is rapid oilsands development comes with tradeoffs. Now, people are free to make different value judgments on those tradeoffs, but to deny they exist is to deny Canadians a sensible conversation on natural resource issues.

Young responded to the PMO with this: “Our issue is not whether the natural resource sector is a fundamental part of the country, our issue is with the government breaking treaties with the First Nation and plundering the natural resources the First Nation has rights to under the treaties.”

Indeed, proceeds from ticket sales for the concerts are going to support the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation in their legal challenges of oilsands projects. Unfortunately, as of right now, most of the conversation spurned by Young’s tour doesn’t appear to be of a substantive nature about the issues the First Nation faces.

Reading the PMO’s statement, you’d think there is nothing controversial going on up there. “Projects are approved only when they are deemed safe for Canadians and [the] environment,” MacDonald said.

That seems a strange thing to say given the federal government recently approved Shell Canada’s Jackpine mine expansion even though Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq said it is “likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.” (That’s what’s called a tradeoff, folks.)

And so it is that almost every environmental issue in our country plays out as a he said-she said in the media, and then goes on to one of two fates — stagnation or escalation, wherein both sides of the debate end up viewing the other as untrustworthy without much discussion of the real issues.

Roger Conner, a law professor at Vanderbilt Law School who also runs a consulting practice specializing in consensus building and conflict resolution on contentious public policy issues, coined the term “the advocacy trap” for this point in the debate where both sides have a profound distrust of the other.

“There are a few profoundly evil people in the world, but if you think you’re surrounded by them, you probably need to change your own psyche,” Conner said in an interview with DeSmog Canada founder Jim Hoggan. “If you think that the whole movement of people for the pipeline in Canada is made up of people who are either evil or idiots, I can almost assure you with great certainty that’ s not accurate.”

The only way out of this trap, Conner says, is for advocates to police their attitudes so they can learn to push sometimes, pull sometimes, collaborate sometimes and remain limber enough to sway back and forth as the situation demands, like a light-footed boxer. To use the entire range of strategic options, a public advocate must be able to avoid thinking of others as foes, he stresses.

“Resentment is like a drug. It feels good to go home and say: ‘Those assholes! Those jerks! Those liberals. Those conservatives … I’m right, they’re wrong,’ ” Conner says. “The truth is we all have some degree of uncertainty and we go to this self-righteous place to protect ourselves from that uncertainty.”

In other words, while it might feel good to be self-righteous and demonize people on the other side of the debate, it’s likely not helpful in advancing the energy policy solutions the vast majority of Canadians want for their country.

So long as civil society groups rely on ingenuity to do battle with companies with multi-million dollar PR budgets, celebrity activists are likely to continue to play a role in the debate. But if you’re using this as a moment for self-affirmation, to dig your trench a little deeper, remember: if we’re going to make progress on energy issues in this country, we’re all going to have to stick our heads up, stop seeing the people on the other side of the debate as enemies and find some common ground in the middle.

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

I can’t help but wonder why some one in such a powerful position as the PM with all of his college education, “religious” background and supposed “Christian” ethic does not have Non-Violent Communication techniques in place to create a better more honest dialogue.  He chooses, rather, to inflame the public with nonsensical name calling…not solving the problem…but making the populace confused, disheartened, reactive and finally apathetic.  This strikes me as manipulative to the nth degree.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: