My friend Pete is addicted to heroin. He's stuck pretty bad, both feet in the trap. He's been in it long enough to realize this is not the way to go, but how to turn back the clock? How to go a different way? How to change? The pupils in his eyes are dead, so it's an effort to stare, but he still surveys my face looking for a glimmer of hope. I offer none; "Pete, accept this like an adult, man you chose a certain path, and now there's no way back."
Ruthless, you say? Well, our MLA Joan McIntyre thinks that British Columbians need to have an "adult" conversation about the extent to which they rely on oil and gas industries (The Chief, July 5). With all my respect, the only difference between my attitude and our MLA's approach is that my story about Pete is false. Granted, we are addicted to fossil fuels, but how is it childish or adolescent to seek alternatives to the present?
Childhood and adolescence are times of boundless creativity, of new discoveries and attainments. Middle age has the advantage of greater experience and knowledge accumulation, but according to famed psychoanalyst Erikson, this is a time when adults face a conflict between generativity and stagnation. This may explain the state of our governmental affairs, particularly in what concerns our natural resource wealth; have our political leaders ever heard of the "natural resource curse?" Studied long and in depth, the ailment affects natural resource-exporting countries all over the world.
A good example is Venezuela. OPEC Founder Juan Pablo Perez-Alfonso very eloquently describes the impact of oil wealth on the country's state and health; "We're drowning in the devil's excrement," he exclaims. And how about copper-rich Zambia? Seeing the negligible benefits that extensive copper mining brings to the local economy and the negative impact it has on his country's environment and the livelihoods of his people, President of Zambia Kenneth Kaunda laments; "This is the curse of being born with a copper spoon in our mouths." It turns out that resource wealth can actually make you poor, but how?
Political Science Professors Michael Ross and Erik Wibbels argue that resource wealth leads to outcomes that are far from desirable. In places considered resource-rich, the economy is much shakier and volatile than one would think; democracy and government accountability suffer, while lack of fiscal transparency and civil conflict are rampant. Making matters worse, development is impeded and progress becomes stagnant.
Energy prices go up and down like a seesaw; they're extremely whimsical and unpredictable. The more dependent we are on energy exports for our money, the more vulnerable we become to shocks in the economy. This is actually a big problem; we need only look at the Alberta government, where they keep scratching their heads over how to diversify their oil and gas focused tax base. Revenue volatility means the government cannot do a proper job, because it lacks a clear vision of the revenues it's got. Furthermore, the constant income booms and busts translate into endless cycles of wasteful use of government funds followed by large spending cuts, so neither the private nor the public sectors ever know where they stand.
Still, operational inefficiencies may not be a high price to pay for a government who can prolong their stay in power thanks to ample, and opaque, resource rents. But too much of this type of wealth leads to much less democratic debate our political leaders don't need to bargain with us; they can use their vast funds to quell dissent and guard the status quo instead of promoting development.
Conflict in this situation, however, is difficult to escape. In our case, Alberta bears the weight of fast-paced environmental rape, the pressures of immigration and large-scale land expropriation. No wonder at the Stampede, Harper felt the need to publicly tell Calgarians theirs is the greatest city in Canada, exacerbating regional tensions that are quickly becoming dangerous. BC Premier Christy Clark is ready to sell, but the majority of British Columbians are sticking to their beloved coastline. The pipeline battle is becoming a battle of identities and principles. Can we afford to polarize our provinces and divide the Canadian people? I don't think so.
Remarks that British Columbians' attitude is childish or against Canadian interests do nothing to encourage peaceful, constructive dialogue. First and foremost, let's be respectful; after all, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism," as aptly noted by Thomas Jefferson.
