David Suzuki on money, job creation, and the future for non-renewable resources
Following the most recent scandal in the oil industry – the criticism of energy company Kinder Morgan as “insensitive” for their statement on the possible positive economic effects of pipeline spills – David Suzuki threw his hat into the ring with an op-ed piece for the Huffington Post.
Kinder Morgan, in their submission to the National Energy Board, noted that “Spill response and cleanup creates business and employment opportunities for affected communities, regions, and cleanup service providers.” With the extra business created, these environmental hazards “can have both positive and negative effects on local and regional economies, both in the short- and long-term.”
Although insensitive, Suzuki notes that what Kinder Morgan is saying is true. “Destroying the environment is bad for the planet and all the life it supports,” Suzuki reiterates in his piece, “[b]ut it’s often good for business.” Suzuki cited the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as an example of this, as what was disastrous for the environmental stability of the Gulf added billions (find an exact number) to the United States gross domestic product.
But the economic boom created from these environmental destructions cannot foster long-term, overall stability, says Suzuki.
“The company will make money, the government will reap some tax and royalty benefits, and a relatively small number of jobs will be created,” he writes. “But the massive costs of dealing with a pipeline or tanker spill and the resulting climate change consequences will far outweigh the benefits.”
The problem Suzuki hammers home is that “Everything is measured in money.” Despite several studies from recent years which point to the uncertainty and danger surrounding fracking and pipeline creation, fossil fuel dependant infrastructure continues to be built. These actions, which hold some potential for easy money and an economic fix, actually serve to further necessary development in the future.
According to Suzuki, these fast economic fixes fail to recognize the limits of fossil fuels – “precious resources” which need to be conserved, not wasted. While oil and gas are currently necessary in cities and their infrastructures – and likely will be “for some time,” Suzuki notes – new options need to be considered, and old practices need to be re-evaluated.
“By conserving and switching to cleaner energy, we can ensure we still have oil and gas long into the future, perhaps long enough to learn to appreciate [its potential],” writes Suzuki. “If we dig it up and sell it … we consign ourselves to a polluted planet ravaged by global warming, with nothing to fall back on when the fossil fuels are gone.”
Suzuki believes that the change required will encompass more than just simply weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. “We must also look to economic systems, progress measurements, and ways of living that don’t depend on destroying [the planet],” he concludes, rather than “relying on … an economic system that depends on damaging ways and an absurd measurement to convince us it somehow all amounts to progress.”
When environmental destruction starts to accompany economic benefit, we reach a point where a critical decision must be made. Do we blindly pursue our desire for economic expansion, or do we realize that we are, contrary to popular belief, wholly reliant on the quality of the environment and change our ways? Our very future as a race depends on the outcome of this decision. As Mahatma Gandhi once said: “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.”
Capitalism’s fundamental flaw is its constant need for growth and increased profits. These drivers lead to the continued exploitation of the Earth’s natural resources. Unless some sort of intrinsic value is placed on nature then its destruction will continue to be seen as acceptable sacrifice to the process of economic growth.