Neil Young protests our oil sands

[valve37]

Neil Young nneds to go live in an igloo for a spell and burn whale oil to keep warm. But then Greenpeace would be after him for that. Better switch to seal or warlus oil instead.

“It’s all marketing. It’s all big money. This oil is all going to China. It’s not for Canada. It’s not for the United States. It’s not ours – it belongs to the oil companies, and Canada’s government is behind making this happen. It’s truly a disaster.”

At a press conference held on the stage of Toronto’s Massey Hall this afternoon, the environmentally concerned singer-songwriter Neil Young spoke out strongly against the federal government’s role in the industrial development of Northern Alberta oil sands.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/neil-young-blasts-harper-government-for-allowing-oilsan...

[pierrelebel]

"This oil is all going to China."

I would love to know where he got his "information".

How much oil is Canada producing every year?  How much from the oil sands?  How much is actually exported to China?

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

I took his statement to mean the "business is all going to China", not the physical oil itself.

Here's some other facts:

Harper himself said there would be no more State takeovers of Corporations in Canada. Then he let the Chinese in.

The Chinese Corporation is State owned, not privately owned. Since when do we do business with a Communist government with an atrocious human rights record? I mean seriously, when did we lose our integrity and sell it off for money.........or does that not matter to anyone anymore?

[pierrelebel]

If he did not mean to say "This oil is all going to China." he should have used different words.

[valve37]

Neil Young, as most in his profession are, MJ'd out most of the time and can't cumunicate reality.  

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

And your excuse would be what...........?

[my3dotties]

---

@valve37 wrote:

Neil Young, as most in his profession are, MJ'd out most of the time and can't cumunicate reality.  

---

Take a trip to the reserve in questions that's being overrun with the  perils of oil sands operations.

You will see what Neil is crying about.

Maybe stevie should send his 2 paleface children to summer camp on that rez this summer to witness first hand cancer epidemics.

W1

[brandeentertainment]

I say the only opposing opinions that count are guys like neil young .. He had a tour what did he do well travelling.. Drove his electric car ...

People scream and cry about everything to with pollution but how many of us actually do are part to give us the right to cry about what they are doing for supply and demand...

Last time I checked I have not envested 300k to put solar power to my house and 60k for an electric car ... So I am green in the sense of recylcing etc but I still very much need them to get some oil out of the ground for me so my options are fight against it then eventually pay double triple the amount or let it go through without fighting it and let the planet pay for it ...

I hate most topics like this because it is all supply and demand and people can say how wrong it is and that they are so disgusted by it etc but I would be willing to bet that less the .5% of those people are doing anything about it on a small scale so what give them the right  I mean do we need the oil yes ... Do people need to start your car to drive down 1 km down 10 streets NO but are you still driving that 1 km and flicking there cigarette butt out the window with the pop can flying out the window shortly after  ........

As for it being a reserve issue that is a big deal it is just like the fracking out west and I believe that protecting close or nearby communities is very important and this should be the issue at hand which is mostly what Neil Youngs tour is all about .... 

Run the oil sands run the pipelines but make sure you take care of the affected communities because that is an obligation of the company and of the people in general ...

Think about it on a large scale if 20 million people drove 10 minutes less tomorrow then today you have already made more of a change as the people in 1 day then the goverment can ever do in a day let alone weeks maybe even months  ..

I mean as the people of the world what do you think would happen if say 2 countries Canada and the US all refused for 1 day to drive or use oils.propane etc wanted cheaper Green energy and reduce green house emission and get electric cars on the market cheaper and efficient ...

I think this world would get safer,greener and alot better in general in a hurry .... So lots of people in the oil sand industry would lose there job but they would now be working for a solar company or something of the sort...

I for one hate blaming everything on certain people,places or companies because even though Canada like to lay down and stay down it would not take to much to make sure things changed and changed NOW ....

[rose-dee]

---

@pierrelebel wrote:

If he did not mean to say "This oil is all going to China." he should have used different words.

---

I agree.  I listened to the entirety of the Jian Gomeschi radio interview of Neil Young (prior to his concert tour), and it struck me that unfortunately Mr. Young was neither a very sophisticated nor helpful spokesperson on the subject. 

There's nothing wrong with a pop celebrity or singer espousing a cause, but I think he would have been much more convincing and influential had he brought along a couple of well-informed people to that interview (and subsequent ones) to do most of the talking.  What he should have been doing, in my view, is simply lending his support, in a broad manner, to the voices of those who can speak intelligently and accurately on this very serious topic.  His heart was no doubt in the right place, but I think he's given the cringe factor to many who would otherwise agree with him, and given more reason for opponents to criticize and ridicule. 

Sadly, celebrities like this who make forays into scientific, technical, economic or political areas in which they have little training or expertise, tend to come off looking like buffoons with egg on their faces and foot-in-mouth disease (pardon the mixed metaphors), or they make egregious gaffes, misjudgments or ill-conceived statements that do more harm than good for the cause (remember Jane Fonda?). 

What we need is someone of substance and experience to convince and lead Canadians to change, rather than grumble and blame, and in this sense I agree with 'brande's' comments above.  That person, you would think, should normally be our Prime Minister, but since he has abandoned his responsibilities in so many ways in this arena, we need another champion.  David Suzuki comes to mind, but I'm not sure he has the experience and insight into corporate affairs and politics to be as helpful as he could be.  And he is getting on in years. 

I believe the technological solutions to many of these problems exist, even on an affordable scale, but the true issue is how to create the corporate and political will to overcome the status quo, the vested interests, and the greed that drives a lot of present-day multi-national corporate activity. 

Whether the oil itself is going to China, or China owns the interest in companies producing the oil that is then sold to the U.S. doesn't matter in the final analysis: it will all end up in smoke (well, CO2 and various toxic substances) and will all end up in the same place -- the air we breathe and, by extension, the weather that we all have to cope with around the world. 

There will also probably be an appetite in the world for oil and oil products until they cost so much that few can afford them.  The problem in the meantime, as I see it, is whether Canada is intent on short-run gain by selling out to unscrupulous and uncontrollable entities or nationalities, or longer-run and reasonable, sustainable development that respects native people, the environment, Canadians as a whole, and this delicately balanced planet we all live on. 

I'm deeply dismayed to see that the same sort of mentality that drove the Conquistadors to scrape every last piece of gold they could get their hands on from a new world, despoiling it in the process, or the insanity that surrounded the rush for gold in places like Alaska, still exists -- and exists on a megalithic, corporate scale -- when it comes to exploiting resources in the 21st century.  Have we really even moved the scale at all?

Neil Young made a point in the interview of saying that he drives an electric car.  He can probably well afford to buy such a car, but I wonder what the source of that electricity is when he plugs it in.  It means little or nothing to drive a car powered by electricity produced by coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, or even biofuel (which has its own issues).  It's nothing better than uploading the problem to some other source.  If he's running a truly  electric car, fueled by solar cells, he should have been clear, and should have admitted that few ordinary people can afford such a luxury.  Economics, and the ability of the ordinary person to free him/herself from the tyranny of oil, is a major contributing factor to this problem -- the world wants oil, corporate interests see to it that the world gets oil, by whatever means possible.  This aspect was never mentioned.

In addition, Young said almost nothing about the issues of the native people for whom he ostensibly was doing his tour in the first place, nor about the facts and history around the relevant treaties. 

This is not the kind of sub-analytical thinking that's needed in a truly useful spokesperson.  I feel Neil Young has, very unfortunately, actually hindered the cause by making proponents of clean energy and (as he purports to be) look like a bunch of uninformed fools. 

[valve37]

When will oil runout?

http://www.imeche.org/knowledge/themes/energy/energy-supply/fossil-energy/when-will-oil-run-out

If it becomes too expensive wars will be fought over it. Reminds me of two books by John Wesley White. Oil and the Middle East and Thinking the Unthinkable.

[rose-dee]

I'll provide another example of lack of political will and entrenched corporate interests combining to ensure that no meaningful change ever takes place. 

I currently live in Nova Scotia.  After living for years in Ontario and BC, it's been an interesting experience to live in a place that is geographically compact enough and with a fairly well-distributed but smaller population that could, if the impetus were there politically, be almost self-contained and self-sufficient.  In other words, a very manageable economic and political unit.  Alas, there is the "but for". 

Nova Scotia has one of the world's largest sources (if not the  largest source, aside from the sun) of clean, reliable and perpetual energy on its doorstep that could fuel the entire province, and probably a few more besides, forever: the Fundy tides.  I met our present Premier a few months before the election and asked him whether the Nova Scotia government planned to do anything to make use of this resource.  He gave me a rather perfunctory and slightly irritable answer to the effect that such a thing can't be done, the engineering won't work, and then he more or less moved on to other people to escape further inquiry. 

I stood there stunned, really a "huhh??" moment, as in "are you nuts?".  We can send people to the moon, we can make oil rigs that pull oil up from -- what is it -- 2 miles or more below the surface of some of the most dangerous seas, yet engineers can't devise something to move with the tides and capture free energy?  Not only that, but I was certain I had seen a documentary about just such devices being used off the coast of, as I recall, Holland, and also in Scotland.  I thought, why not put up a million bucks at a major engineering school to encourage young engineers to solve the problem?  It would pay out in perpetuity, through sustainable low-impact energy to the province and revenues through the sale of energy to others.

Instead, the province is planning to bring expensive hydro-electric energy via underwater cable from the Muskrat Falls development (which has its own environmental and native issues), and also likely tap into the supply line of oil proposed to run from Alberta to the refineries in New Brunswick.

But now for the real reason for ignoring Fundy energy: Irving Oil (the Irving family) has a stranglehold on the energy sector in this part of the country.  They also have fingers stuck deep into the political pie.  They virtually run the show.  I see recently that they are now placing ads in our local rural newspapers offering to buy up any and all firewood from local producers.  Why?  Likely because oil has become so expensive that many can't afford to heat their homes with it anymore and are turning to wood for winter heating, wood that is sourced from local private lot owners at about 1/3rd to 1/4 the cost of Irving's home heating oil.  No wonder Irving would like to squash that market. 

This is an example on a small scale of vested interests and political stagnation preventing a viable and beneficial solution from getting off the ground.  It doesn't give me much hope for such problems on a national or global scale. 

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

I listened to the entirety of the Jian Gomeschi radio interview of Neil Young (prior to his concert tour), and it struck me that unfortunately Mr. Young was neither a very sophisticated nor helpful spokesperson on the subject. 

I agree in a sense that he may be as you put it unsophisticated or a helpful spokesman but like someone who notices cruelty to animals of children but do not know all the specific information........they still know it's wrong......and wrong, is good enough.

and given more reason for opponents to criticize and ridicule.

Well they will anyhow. For ages they have been condemning any celebrity for giving their personal opinion. The hate based "you're a celebrity and you should not be speaking" became particularly rabid during the Bush years and the war in Iraq. The same people will go after anyone who dares speak out about their three idols......money....greed....or their leaders.

David Suzuki comes to mind, but I'm not sure he has the experience and insight into corporate affairs and politics to be as helpful as he could be.

I don't think Suzuki would make a good PM as much as I admire him because he is too focused in one area. However it does bring up an interesting point and that is why do both Provincial and Federal governments always appoint a minister to a portfolio who has little to no real experience in that area? It's a waste of out time, money and not enough gets done. Suzuki should be Minister of Environment or at least chair a national Federal board of environmentalists along with other scientists and environmentally knowledgeable people.

I believe the technological solutions to many of these problems exist, even on an affordable scale, but the true issue is how to create the corporate and political will to overcome the status quo, the vested interests, and the greed that drives a lot of present-day multi-national corporate activity. 

I believe we need that as well but we will never get corporations or their political friends to work towards that because it will hurt the bottom line of these corporations. What we need is a leader who says "this needs to be done" and makes sure it gets done. Take Zenn electric powered vehicles and the trouble they went through with government red tape. With regards to self sufficient power sources the government should be insuring research and promotion and working at making it both efficient and affordable for every home and business in Canada to have their own power source. People want jobs? There they are in the hundreds of thousands across the country in not just manufacturing but installation and repair. Then there is house manufacturing as well as retrofitting for both heating and self sufficient power, we are so far behind it's shameful. We need a leader with vision who will take us into the 21st century and Harper is not the one by a long shot. Canada could be #1 but instead we aren't even on the radar.

[rose-dee]

---

@prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil wrote:

I believe we need that as well but we will never get corporations or their political friends to work towards that because it will hurt the bottom line of these corporations. What we need is a leader who says "this needs to be done" and makes sure it gets done. Take Zenn electric powered vehicles and the trouble they went through with government red tape. With regards to self sufficient power sources the government should be insuring research and promotion and working at making it both efficient and affordable for every home and business in Canada to have their own power source. People want jobs? There they are in the hundreds of thousands across the country in not just manufacturing but installation and repair. Then there is house manufacturing as well as retrofitting for both heating and self sufficient power, we are so far behind it's shameful. We need a leader with vision who will take us into the 21st century and Harper is not the one by a long shot. Canada could be #1 but instead we aren't even on the radar.

---

I still disagree with you about Neil Young, as I think he was about as effective as a dog barking.  I just think he would have made far more impact had he voiced his support for someone knowledgeable, stepped aside and let them speak intelligently and in depth on the subject.  That could have been far more compelling. 

I do completely agree though with your thoughts above.  As I said, it will take a leader with the courage to say "no" to the corporations and "yes" to the people at large.  I don't like to draw political lines, because this really has nothing to do with any particular political party, but I had hoped that Jack Layton might have been that type.  The trouble is, these politicians get pushed and pulled in all directions by corporate interests and find themselves capitulating to the point of virtual uselessness. 

Yes, clean energy should be a government priority, and should be supported by the federal government so that it can be pursued on a community level.  It can be done, and in the longer run we'd all benefit in so many ways by the spinoffs, but Canadians as a whole have to want it (or get to the point where, economically, there is no other choice), and then demandit of their leaders. 

In the meantime, there is still perhaps the possibility of initiatives on a more local scale.  Our house here in Nova Scotia runs off electricity from the Annapolis tidal station and a small wind farm on a hilltop near Digby.  We heat our house in winter with local hardwood (by the way not an excess carbon contributor if done properly, since the tree, if left to die and rot, would emit that carbon over time anyway, and the stove or furnace, if modern and efficient, emits very little of what is burned). 

These solutions are great, but they are very limited and local.  Other solutions might be more appropriate for different areas.  I'm now hearing wind farms have been found to create human health issues if placed too near homes.  Almost every source of clean energy will have its drawbacks, but they are more manageable and affordable to the human race than simply burning up all the oil until there is either nothing left (or nothing affordable), and we're all living in a poisoned, ravaged world. 

[rose-dee]

---

@valve37 wrote:

When will oil runout?

If it becomes too expensive wars will be fought over it.

---

You are probably right about wars once things get really bad.  That point may be reached long before the oil actually runs out, but when it gets so expensive that an average family can no longer afford to heat their home in winter or run their (multiple) vehicles.

We have a window of opportunity, collectively, to do something about it that will mitigate, if not prevent, the crisis, but will we? 

The only reason we're still mostly driving cars running on gasoline is because it was a cheap by-product of kerosene production over a hundred year ago that nobody knew what to do with. 

Now that vested corporate interests (car companies as well as oil companies) are locked into it, it will be impossible to effect meaningful, widespread change unless a lot more people make some hard, unpalatable decisions: Do without a second vehicle; use public transportation; buy a smaller, less expensive house and a cleaner (but more expensive) vehicle; invest in solar heating, give up all the gasoline-run toys, etc. etc.

[tobyshitzu]

"Take Zenn electric powered vehicles and the trouble they went through with government red tape"

??

That stock promotion effort based on *nothing*?  Few hundred cars purchased in europe and sold at a huge loss in florida after they installed a purchased from elsewhere electric power train that had massive warranty claims

About *8000* electric only cars now in Canada even after ones that work made by real car manufacturers are available.  Compared to toward 2 million cars sold per year.  But government read tape was the problem with the garbage zenn sold...right

[valve37]

Hard to imagine how we in the northern hemisphere could ever do without burning a fossil fuel for heating our living quarters. Well maybe so called global warming will bathe us in a southern like climate someday. Long way from that right now as a cold weather alert was issued this evening for Southern Ontario. And when I moved here many years ago I was told S.Ontario was the banna belt of Canada. Also was told when it snowed here it almost always melted the next day.

[consoledcat]

Telling Us Something We Need To Hear

from:  The Vancouver Sun

date:  18 January 2014

In September, Neil Young went to Washington to give a speech against the oilsands, describing a road trip he took to Fort McMurray, Alta., in his hybrid 1959 Lincoln Continental.

"The fact is, Fort McMurray looks like Hiroshima," the musician said. "Fort McMurray is a wasteland. The fuel's all over - the fumes everywhere - you can smell it when you get to town. The closest place to Fort McMurray that is doing the tarsands work is 25 or 30 miles out of town and you can taste it when you get to Fort McMurray. People are sick. People are dying of cancer because of this."

Fort McMurray, of course, is fairly attractive. It doesn't look like Hiroshima after the atomic bomb. Also, there is no clear evidence that the oilsands are causing cancer, and lots of evidence that the industry is providing employment for aboriginals.

Last week, as Young gave interviews to promote his antioilsands concerts, he said a number of other things that are not especially accurate. He said, for instance, that Alberta bitumen is contributing to air pollution in China, which is not the case, and exaggerated the size of the oilpatch's carbon footprint.

"They put out as much CO2 as all the automobiles in Canada on that day," he said. "For every day that goes by, it's like there's twice as many cars on the road."

In fact, passenger vehicles produce a lot more carbon every day than the oilsands.

Young also said that if the industry develops as planned, "the industrial area will be the size of England," as if northern Alberta will be one big pit mine.

Young's inaccuracies opened him to attacks from politicians, pundits and industry spokespeople, who lamented his slight to Japan's war dead.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall said Young's Hiroshima remarks were "insensitive and just ignorant of the facts."

A spokesman from the Prime Minister's Office pointed out that "even the lifestyle of a rock star relies, to some degree, on the resources developed by thousands of hardworking Canadians every day." Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said

Young's Hiroshima comment "is as inaccurate as it is insulting to victims."

We can likely all agree that Young would not make a good natural resources minister. His many years of getting high and noodling on the guitar are not the best preparation for complex environmental debates.

On the other hand, he's often not as wrong as he seems, and he's more honest than the politicians attacking him.

In 2011, oilsands production caused 55 million tonnes of carbon to be put into the atmosphere while cars produced 40 million tonnes. Throw in trucks, and passenger transport emissions far exceeded oilsands production, but by 2017, the oilsands will surpass vehicles in emissions.

This is the key point: The scale of the developments is increasing more quickly than we realize.

Industrial developments could eventually cover 140,000 square kilometres of northern Alberta, which is about 10,000 square kilometres bigger than England.

That's a lot of emissions, a lot of habitat loss, a lot of toxic tailing ponds, a lot of land destroyed more thoroughly than by an atomic bomb.

The money Young is raising from his recent series of benefit concerts is to go to a legal fund for the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, which suffers from unusually high rates of rare cancers.

The band is challenging Shell's Jackpine project, which cabinet approved although the review panel found that it will have "significant adverse environmental project effects," including the loss of more than 10,000 hectares of wetland, permanently destroying caribou and migratory bird habitat.

Young's crusade is necessary because the federal government, which is supposed to be balancing interests in the oilpatch, is not doing so. It acts like an industry association, aggressively promoting the oilsands at home and abroad, attacking critics, doing what it can to block emission treaties, pushing hard for maximum growth.

Ottawa is full of oil lobbyists in expensive suits, pulling the levers of power, funding thinktanks, buying slick ads, pushing an official story that does not include "significant adverse environmental project effects."

It is the job of poets like Young to make us notice when the official story and reality diverge too greatly.

We should count our lucky stars for the many benefits of the oil industry. It is a boon to anyone with a pension, but the environmental cost is higher than most Canadians realize.

This week, while politicians were attacking Young, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird was down in Washington, undiplomatically demanding that U.S. President Barack Obama reach a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline.

In 2008, when Baird was environment minister, he promised that Ottawa would impose "tough new emission standards" on the oilsands to cut national emissions 20 per cent by 2020.

In 2013, there are still no such standards. We won't come close to our 2020 targets and the oilsands emissions are increasing dramatically.

It's funny that everyone's attacking the singer.

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

[rose-dee]

---

@valve37 wrote:

Hard to imagine how we in the northern hemisphere could ever do without burning a fossil fuel for heating our living quarters. Well maybe so called global warming will bathe us in a southern like climate someday. Long way from that right now as a cold weather alert was issued this evening for Southern Ontario. And when I moved here many years ago I was told S.Ontario was the banna belt of Canada. Also was told when it snowed here it almost always melted the next day.

---

Believe it or not, southern Ontario (where I grew up) was a lot colder decades ago.  This winter of 2013/14 is a little closer to what it used to be every winter.  Temperatures of -20 weren't unusual in January and February (and that's Fahrenheit, not Celsius).  Winter started in early November and ended in early May many years. 

As for heating, there are many alternatives these days, and more coming along.  We use a high efficiency wood furnace (available in outdoor models as well) that keeps the whole house cozy all winter.  There are many newer designs of wood burning free-standing units or inserts that can be put into old, otherwise useless fireplaces -- many houses from the 1970's and earlier have these old masonry chimneys and fireplaces.  Pacific Energy makes free-standing woodstoves that are close to 85% efficient and re-burn exhaust gases, making them extremely clean emitters. 

There are the economical heat pumps that run on electricity, which granted, are expensive but are energy efficient and save money over the long run.  If you're interested in solar, you don't have to heat your whole home, but install heat-saving add-ons, like solar window panels, solar hot water heating, etc. 

There is a lot of information on these alternative heating and energy options if you check local and provincial government sites, as well as local suppliers.  Even places like Rona or Home Hardware can steer you in the right direction.  The initial outlay is often the problem, but there are sometimes government rebates or grants available.  In the longer run, when everybody else is paying $2 a litre for home heating oil, you'll be ahead.

And if you're really into permanent savings and clean energy, there are the geothermal heat pumps.  They are expensive to install, but apparently simple to operate and aside from the small amount of electricity involved to operate them, essentially free energy for as long as you want it.  True, not everybody has the funds upfront, but if you borrowed the money for the installation it's probably still cheaper than $4,000 or $5,000 a year in heating bills. 

There are options -- people just have to be prepared to pay for them up front in order to reap the savings and efficiency over the long term. 

[valve37]

Neil mentioned China, he didn't go far enough. Main source for smog and CO2 emissions in China is coal used almost exclusively for industry etc. And it isn't going away any time soon. China needs and is trying to switch to NG which experts say will take 10-15 years. We could help them out by building the west coast LNG pipeline but you know the story on that one.  

Beijing Gets Hit With First Off-The-Charts Air Pollution Day Of The Year

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/16/3171681/dangerous-beijing-smog-2014/

[valve37]

Can't wait for this one, uninformed Al Gore.

Alberta Premier Alison Redford may debate former Vice President Al Gore over oilsands in Switzerland 

Premier Alison Redford may spar with former U.S. vice-president Al Gore over his oilsands "myths" during this week's World Economic Forum in Switzerland.

Gore is scheduled to present during a private session discussion on "the future of climate regulatory mechanisms and their impact on business" while in Davos on Thursday. Redford is a special guest of the intimate panel, which will have an audience of roughly five dozen politicians and business leaders.

The "An Inconvenient Truth" activist has publicly criticized Alberta's oilsands as "the dirtiest fuel on the planet." Redford may or may not get the opportunity to speak to Gore, but if so, she's ready to square off.

"I'll do what I always do which is talk about Alberta's record and to give him the facts and to suggest that as he draws conclusions which are erroneous with respect to the oilsands, and that he take into account the reality of the production and not the myths of the production," said Redford on Monday.

"It's difficult to continue to put forward a case, I think at the end of the day, when you don't have science on your side and when you're providing information to people that is inaccurate and eventually, it all comes home to settle."

Gore, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, has said he hopes U.S. President Barack Obama eventually decides to block the planned Keystone XL pipeline that would carry as much as 830,000 barrels of Alberta crude to the gulf coast annually.

Redford isn't fazed by Gore's influence as a politician and environmental activist.

"I don't really care who's saying it, we can't have people out there spreading myths," she said.

Connie Hedegaard, a Danish politician and Commissioner for Climate Action in the European Commission, will also take part in the panel, said Redford, adding she will also meet with Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England.

The World Economic Forum will encompass a wide variety of issues, she said, including climate change, oil and natural gas servicing, youth entrepreneurship, early child development and global energy competitiveness.

Redford will take part in the forum this week before travelling back to Alberta on Friday.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/01/20/alberta-premier-alison-redford-to-debate-former-vice-president...