Economy vs. Environment: The Neverending Battle

In the constant debate over the use of the Alberta Tar Sands, the debate seems to simply come down to once overwhelming pro and one overwhelming con. The pro is that it’s good for both the U.S. and Canada’s economies, and the con is that it has the potential to devastate the environment in this region of the continent. In the report “The Alberta Oil Sands From BothSides of the Border”by Martin Pasqualetti, the benefits and problems with the projected expansion of oil production in the northeastern region of the country. Throughout the reading, I appreciate the fact that author doesn’t come out and take a stand on this touchy issue. Instead, he simply asks the questions and presents evidence for both sides. “Deciding on the proper role and contribution of the Alberta oil sands requires judging the economic benefits against its environmental costs. Will gaining the fruits of oil-sands development be later considered a devil’s bargain? More broadly, must the mere existence of this massive and enticing natural resource necessarily prompt its development?”

In the beginning, he discusses how it could be mutually beneficial to both countries. Simply put, Canada has more oil than they use, the U.S. is willing to buy it. Given the fact that Canada’s close proximity to the U.S. would cut down on transportation costs and the similar governments and cultures all but eliminate the possibility of political conflict, getting as much of our oil as reasonably possible from Canada seems like a good idea to many Americans and perhaps many in the Canadian government. However, once the environmental impacts are weighed, the question becomes much more difficult, the environment in Northern Canada is very fragile and has the potential to be thrown off on a devastating scale by the expansion of Oil Sand production. This could have a massive impact on the native wildlife, water supply, and native populations. With this negative impact comes potential high costs to the Canadian Government to fix the problems caused. Once this is taken into account, it certainly begs the question about whether or not the money made from the U.S. is worth the money that may need to be spent.

Another point worth looking at and mentioned throughout this debate is the idea that this expansion of oil production in Canada will be something of a “crutch” for both countries. As said by the “Global Edmonton” website, “Reserves are limited. In total, global reserves sit at around 1.3 trillion barrels, equivalent to about 40 years of reserves at current consumption rates.” To me, this seems like a quick fix, and one that could hinder the U.S.’s motivation to find other energy sources. The fact is we’re going to run out of oil at some point, and progress has to be made in way of other reliable sources. If we continue to scrap for oil anywhere we can, it feels like its nothing more than a Band-Aid on a bigger inevitable problem

.