Yes, which is why it is appropriate to say MYOB. If Alberta were threatening the peace and safety of its neighbors in some way with the oil sand projects, that would be a different matter.
I think that is sometimes what people don’t like about activists of various stripes - their assumption that there is nothing in the world about which the average citizen can say, “I don’t care what you think.” It happens with environmentalists, it happens with anti-smoking types, it happens with anti-porn (and anti-gay rights) types.
The ability to not give a rap about what other people think about things that don’t affect them is called “the right of pursuit of happiness”. As they say in baseball, you can look it up.
But, as you yourself noted in your previous post, “They can certainly try to sway public opinion.”
Put another way: There might be some things in the world about which the average citizen can say, “I don’t care what you think,” but there is nothing about which a community of citizens can say, "We don’t have to listen to what you think."
Put still another way: You can argue that whatever damage tar-sands mining does to Alberta’s environment is only Albertans’ business, but you don’t get to use that to shut down the debate. You get to stay out of the debate if you wish, of course, that’s your choice, but if you participate in it you have no grounds for a “MYOB!” objection.
Like mlees says, there is a point at which one side can get tired of arguing a point. It’s not silencing anyone to say, in essence, “talk to the hand, the head ain’t listening”.
FTR, I am assuming the debate goes like this:
The Arizona State Legislature: “We know that the Barry Goldwater Memorial Dam will [ul][li]produce enough clean energy to supply ten thousand homes for the next five hundred years []flood two-thirds of Happy Meadows Scenic Park, and []kill off the Incredibly Ugly and Worthless Greater Horned Toad.[/ul] All in favor, say Aye.”[/li] The People of Arizona, thru their elected representatives: “Aye.”
Sonya Flapjaw, Chair of the Committee to Save the Arizona Ugly Toad: “But you will destroy the precious habitant of this rare and interesting critter!”
The People of Arizona: “Yes yes - we know. We like jobs better than toads. You got anything else?”
Sonja Flapjaw: “You will destroy the Happy Meadows Park! Don’t you care about Mother Earth?”
TPoA: “We know about that. We already talked about that. It’s in the bill. Anything else?”
Sonja Flapjaw: “…diversity…legacy for our children…irreplacable…stewards of Gaia creation…hemp shirts…fluorescent lightbulbs…global warming…” for twenty minutes or so before she begins to repeat herself
TPoA: “We covered that on page 3. Do you own any property that is being condemned?”
Sonja J. : “No.”
TPoA: “Do you even live in Arizona?”
Sonja J.: “No, I’m a citizen of the whole Earth”.
TPoA “So what is your problem? Nobody’s hurting you - what is the major malfunction?”
Sonja Flapjaw: “I speak for the voiceless!! I represent the silent voices of all the little creatures who will DIE if this horrible dam violates the virginity of the planet!! Save the whales! Split wood, not atoms!”
And, of course, there are some things (not saying this is one of them) that simply are everybody’s business, regardless of personal interest or lack thereof. I’ve never met a victim of female genital mutiliation and I never expect to. That doesn’t mean I would be talking out of turn if I made a fuss about the practice. Same applies to 19th-Century Europeans who moralized about slavery in America and Brazil.
People (and by extension, their governments) can bring up these concerns through their Ambassadors and/or, more recently, multi-national lobby groups. That’s what there for. That’s what they’ve been used for, for centuries.
All that I am saying is that, bar some kind of treaty, Canada/Alberta has the right to say “MYOB”. That’s what “sovereignty” is all about.
Of course, other nations will respond as they see fit, if that nation feels that the activities described in the OP warrant them.
Do you, BG, feel that the environmental concerns of the world should be enforced upon an unwilling nation? (These can include boycotts of the Olympics, economic sanctions, and/or war. )
Sure, but don’t you think these two examples are a bit different? The people of Arizona consented to the losses they suffered building the dam. Female children cannot, and slaves did not, consent to the losses they suffered.
Also a good point. If other states don’t want to buy the electricity from Arizona, they don’t have to.
Of course, if the environmentalists were only trying to sway public opinion, that would be fine. But that’s not really where they stop, is it? Next up will be attempts to use the courts to shut us down. First in Alberta, then the Canadian federal government. Then the U.N. or whatever other international busybody they can get on board.
And of course, you’ve always got trade as a weapon. Isn’t Obama threatening to withold goods and services from poor people if they don’t meet YOUR expectations for working conditions and environmental damage? That’s just a little more in your face than ‘trying to sway public opinion.’
And you can damned well bet that trade will be discussed very soon as a weapon against Alberta. There will be talk of a CO2 tax on Alberta-generated oil. There will be moves by the countries that sell cleaner oil (Russia, the Middle East, etc) to demand that Alberta be sanctioned in some way. Of course, they’ll be doing it to improve their own greedy market share, but the environmentalists will be more than happy to jump on that bandwagon.
And of course the Federal Government might even play along with that, since it gives them a good reason to bring back something like the NEP or special taxes on Alberta oil. As long as Harper is PM that probably won’t happen, but if the liberals or NDP are elected, you can bet that Alberta will be in the cross-hairs.
It’s always nice to try to talk people out of being mean to the Earth. But if they won’t listen to reason, it’s a good thing you’ve got a gun in your waistband.
Hell yes there should be a higher cost for dirtier energy sources. Pollution is a huge way of passing cost on to future generations. Maybe at 31 I still have a bit of optimism, but I’d like to think that this generation might be able to leave the Earth a little bit better than the way we found it, unlike the generations before us (particularly the Baby Boom) who obviously don’t give a flying fuck.
Does the rest of Canada get a say? I mean, by the same token that the tar sands are Alberta’s “property”, surely they are also Canada’s as a whole? I had no idea Canada was quite that federalist.
Not that I’m agreeing about property rights, you understand, but I’m playing along here…
Well, yes, that’s precisely correct. It belongs to us (of course, it’s not just the common property of Albertans; to some extent it’s also the property of Canadians, or of the owners of the land) and the owners of the land make the call.
Of course it’s different, but the difference isn’t a matter of “consent.” The plants and animals of the Alberta oilfields will not be asked to consent to being ploughed up or displaced by bulldozers. The difference is that humans are of greater value. (Which does not, of course, mean wild plants and animals and ecosystems have no value at all – and I mean value as ends-in-themselves, not as things useful to humans.)
At our Base Mine site, land reclamation now exceeds disturbance. This trend will continue as the mine reaches the end of its production life and operations shift to the North and Aurora mining areas.
In 2006, more than $30 million was spent on reclamation activities. To date, we’ve reclaimed over 4,600 hectares and planted around 4.5 million tree seedlings.
#In cooperation with the Fort McKay First Nation, we have successfully developed wood bison habitats. More than 300 wood bison now graze on land reclaimed from our mining and tailings operations.
I think you’re missing the point. People wouldn’t put it in their SUV’s if it wasn’t so cheap. The true costs of using oil as the basis for transportation are not currently included in the price. We all are benefitting from the tragedy of the commons, but some, such as Exxon, are benefitting more than others.
You could also say that the manufacturers of the vehicles themselves aren’t including the true price of using their product into the equation. Or you could say that for pretty much everything that has some perceived detrimental impact to the environment, couldn’t you?
Everything has an environmental impact, perceived or not. Sometimes that impact is detrimental, other times beneficial, and I imagine there would be some neutral cases as well. My point is that ignoring those impacts is very short sighted. By building those long-term costs into the price, we can discourage detrimental impacts. Frex, California has mandated emissions controls on cars. That made both cars and gas more expensive, but it has improved the air quality tremendously, with a great savings to health and quality of life.
