There's definietely an argument that money made or GDP grown now is more valuable than deferring growth to avoid costs in the future. First, you could likely address the costs easier in the future if you're richer from the growth now. That's the theory.
I'm not saying that Alberta shouldn't exploit it's natural resources. I'm saying that just blindly accepting that this is the one and only economic course for the province and country is stupid.
There's a wide spectrum of debate of how much or little development of the oil sands is optimal for a full social accounting method. I think we would both agree on that.
I think it could be a key strategic error to be so heavily dependent on one sector for growth. A sector that has a host of problems with it both immediately and in the long-term. If you think these oil sands issues are going away think again. The defacto response seems to be that whenever they're threatened, the government rallies harder to defend them.
I would much rather see an aggressive royalty regime installed to ensure that Albertans are maximizing the value of the rents of oil, because after all, that bitumen belongs to all Albertans. I would also implement leading edge regulations like carbon pricing to strategically place oil sands production at the lead of clean oil development even if it meant that marginal projects would drop off with current oil prices. Increased royalties would be spent on innovation and R&D of all stripes, and the regulations may place Alberta as a leader in clean fuel development.
All in all though, I would say there's alot of agreement between you and I on this issue. I'm just much more concerned with the long game and the environment which is the basis for all our wealth generation.
|