Dr.BrianEgan,DepartmentofGeography,SimonFraserUniversity overview - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dr.
Brian
Egan,
Department
of
Geography,
Simon
Fraser
University


• verview


 update
/
review.
  key
themes
(conAnued).
  resources
in
historical
and
geographical
perspecAve.
  northern
gateway.


reserve
readings


Mather,
A.S.
and
K.
Chapman.
1995.
Environmental
resources.
New
York:
 PrenAce
Hall.

 Mitchell,
B.
(ed.).
2004.
Resource
and
environmental
management
in
Canada.
 Toronto:
Oxford
University
Press.

 Rees,
J.
1985.
Natural
resources:
alloca6on,
economics,
and
policy.
New
York:
 Routledge.

 Tietenberg,
T.
and
L.
Lewis.
2006.
Environmental
and
natural
resource
 economics.
Boston:
Pearson.



student
interests


 field
trips.
  guest
speakers
from
different
perspecAves.
  films.
  workshop;
group
discussion;
debate
and
dialogue.

  social
and
poliAcal
factors;
poliAcs
of
resource
issues;
poliAcal
ecology.
  sustainable
alternaAves
for
resource
use
(e.g.,
oil
sands).
  local
and
global
examples;
different
resource
case
studies.

  role
of
different
actors
(private
sector,
state,
etc.).


resource
scarcity


 absolute
(Malthusian)
scarcity
=
insufficient
physical
quanAAes


• f
a
resource
are
available
to
meet
human
demands.


 Lack
of
food
leads
to
starvaAon,
lack
of
water
to
drought.


 relaAve
(Ricardian)
scarcity
=
physical
quanAAes
of
a
resource


exist
to
meet
demand
but
problems
related
to
quality
of
 supply;
meeAng
demand
requires
exploiAng
lower
quality
 resources.



 e.g.,
food
producAon
may
require
farming
areas
poorly
suited
to


agriculture,
requiring
greater
effort,
inputs,
expenses.


 e.g.,
depleAon
of
easily
accessible
fossil
fuels
means
focus
shibs
to


• ther
sources
(e.g.,
tar
sands,
natural
gas
from
fracking).



resource
scarcity
(categories)


 physical
scarcity
=
resource
supply
is
finite;
scarcity
depends
on
amount
of


resource
available
and
level
of
demand;
within
overall
limits,
cycles
of
 scarcity/abundance
are
possible.



 economic
scarcity
=
scarcity
responds
to
market
forces
(i.e.,
supply
and


demand);
except
if
people
can
afford
to
pay
more.


 geopoli1cal
scarcity
=
groups
(naAons,
companies)
can
control
resource


supply
to
achieve
certain
poliAcal
or
economic
ends.


 e.g.,
OPEC
and
1973
oil
crisis.
  parAcularly
feasible
where
resource
supply
is
geographically
concentrated.



 scarcity
as
quality
(rather
than
quanAty)
of
resources
=
a
diminishing


supply
of
“prisAne”
forests,
for
example,
or
loss
of
biodiversity,
or
a
 dwindling
capacity
of
the
atmosphere
to
absorb
pollutants
(including
CO2).



 scarcity
of
prisAne
or
unimpaired
qualiAes;
  generally
unresponsive
to
market
forces;
other
(non‐market)
responses
needed
to
avoid
scarcity


sustainability



“sustainable
adjec6ve
1
Ecology
(esp.
of
development)
that
 conserves
an
ecological
balance
by
avoiding
depleAon
of
 natural
resources
(sustainable
agriculture;
sustainable
 forestry).
2
that
may
be
maintained,
esp.
at
a
parAcular
level
 (sustainable
income).”



Canadian
Oxford
Dic6onary,
2004


cost‐benefit
analysis


 mainstream:


 What
are
the
economic
costs
and
benefits
of
a
parAcular
decision
or


project?
What
is
the
most
‘efficient’
use
of
a
parAcular
resource
or
 asset
(e.g.,
capital).
Primary
goal
is
economic
efficiency.




 criAcal:


 How
are
the
costs
and
benefits
of
a
parAcular
project
distributed
in


society?
Who
gains
the
most?
Who
pays
the
highest
price?
What
kinds


• f
costs
(and
benefits)
are
leb
out
of
the
cost‐benefit
analysis?
What


about
costs
and
benefits
over
longer
periods
of
Ame
(e.g.,
future
 generaAons)?



resource
geography


 how
are
resources
distributed
geographically?

  what
effect
does
geography
have
on
resource
use?
  mobile
vs.
immobile
resources.


  mobile
resource
users.



expansion
of
resource
use


 expansion
from
highly
localized
to
extensive
(global)
use
of


environmental
resources.


 over
long
term,
five
major
transiAons
in
human‐environment


relaAons:


 from
basic
subsistence
(hunAng‐gathering)
cultures
to


agriculture‐based
ways
of
life
to
modern
industrial
society.



 changes
in
human‐environment
relaAonship
driven
primarily


by
changes
in
forms
of
social
organizaAon,
technological
 changes,
and
changing
ecological
condiAons
(changes
in
 availability
of
environmental
resources).



energy
use
and
sources


 hunter‐gatherer
cultures:
2000
kilocalories
per
person
per
day.


 early:
solar
energy
via
plants
and
animals.
  advanced:
as
above
plus
stored
energy
in
biomass
(fire).


 agriculturalists:
10,000
to
12,000
kilocalories.


 early:
as
above
plus
domesAc
animal
power.
  advanced:
as
above
plus
wind
and
water
power.


 industrial
society:
70,000
to
120,000
kilocalories.


 early:
as
above
plus
power
from
coal.
  advanced:
as
above
plus
power
from
oil
and
natural
gas.
  Contemporary:
as
above,
plus
nuclear
power.



 increased
energy
use
reflects
increased
environmental
impact.


the
world
economy


 trade
in
resource
and
commodiAes
expanded
rapidly
starAng


in
18th
C,
in
types
of
products,
quanAty,
and
geographical
 extent
of
trade
networks.


 a
global
system
of
producAon,
processing,
and
consumpAon;
iniAally,


Europe
at
center
of
new
world
economy.



 previously
restricted
to
high
value
products
(silks,
spices),
long‐distance


transport
of
bulk
(low
value)
commodiAes
became
possible.


 e.g.,
in
late
19th
C.,
wool
from
Australia
and
New
Zealand
feeding
Britain’s


woolen
mills.



 “ecological
imperialism”
–
transformaAon
of
distant
places
reflecAng


European
ideas
and
desires;
import
of
European
geneAc
material
(plants
 and
animals),
land
use
pracAces,
ideas
about
property
and
economic
 relaAons;
producAon
orieneted
towards
European
consumers.





core
and
periphery


 world
divided
into
core
and
periphery
regions
(someAmes


called
‘heartland’
and
‘hinterland’),
at
global,
regional,
 naAonal
scales.



 raw
(or
semi‐processed)
resources
flow
from
periphery
to
core.
  manufactured
gods
flow
from
core
to
periphery.

  ulAmate
expression
of
core‐periphery
relaAons
=
colonialism
and


imperialism.



 core‐periphery
reflected
in
‘developed’
vs.
’underdeveloped’
worlds.





progress
traps


 unforseen
consequences
of
progress
(in
technical
sense).


 e.g.,
nuclear
technology
=
nuclear
weapons.



 tendency
of
“advanced”
human
socieAes
to:


 expand
unAl
they
hit
and
exceed
natural
limits
(e.g.,
of
food
supply,


ability
of
ecosystems
to
absorb
waste).


 organize
themselves
in
a
hierarchical
system;
wealth
and
power


concentrated
at
top.


 overshoot
and
collapse.


environmental
aqtudes


 the
way
we
think
about
the
nature
or
the
environment
is


criAcal
to
the
way
we
think
about,
use,
and
manage
 environmental
resources.



 three
broad
perspecAves:


 dominaAon:
nature
is
a
storehouse
of
potenAal
resources
to


saAsfy
human
needs
and
wants.
nature
as
separate.


 stewardship:
dominion
over
nature
but
condiAoned
by
obligaAon


to
care
for
nature;
nature
as
both
separate
and
universal.





 deep
ecology:
humans
are
part
of
nature
with
no
special
rights.


biocentric
view,
no
such
thing
as
resources,
intrinsic
value
 arached
to
all
forms
of
life.




environmentalism


 in
the
West,
we
have
seen
several
environmental
movements,


with
changing
aqtudes
towards
nature
and
environment.



 late
20th
century
saw
growth
of
environmentalism,
emergence


• f
large
and
well‐organized
environmental
movement.



 movement
fractured,
groups
tend
to
focus
on
specific
issues


(forests,
fisheries,
air
polluAon),
but
has
pushed
governments
 and
resource
companies
to
respond.



 emergence
of
environmental
management
regime:


environmental
professionals,
laws
and
policies,
bureaucraAc
 systems
(EIA),
academic
disciplines,
insAtuAons,
markets.





environmental
and
social
relaAons


 some
theorists
have
linked
environmental
problems
with


social
problems
–
arguing
that
dominaAon
of
environment
is
 linked
to
dominaAon
of
people
(women,
workers,
different
 races,
etc.).



 nature
provides
the
raw
materials
to
produce
wealth
and


people
provide
the
raw
labour
to
produce
wealth.



stewardship


 embodies
idea
of
responsibility
to
other
people,
both
living


and
future
generaAons,
and
to
the
earth.



 emergence
in
last
half
of
the
twenAeth
century,
part
of
an


emerging
environmental
ethic.



 involves
ideas
about
wise
and
responsible
use
of
resources,


conservaAon,
and
obligaAons
to
future
generaAons.





the
basis
of
survival



“CivilizaAons
have
developed
many
techniques
for
making
the


earth
produce
more
food
–
some
sustainable,
others
not.
The
 lesson
I
read
in
the
past
is
this:
that
the
health
of
land
and
 water
–
and
of
woods,
which
are
the
keepers
of
water
–
can
be
 the
only
lasAng
basis
for
any
civilizaAon’s
survival
and
success.”
 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ronald
Wright.
2004.
A
short
history
of
progress.


Toronto:
Anansi
Press.
p.
105.




northern
gateway


 what
is
the
project?
  who
are
the
key
players?


 and
what
are
their
roles
and
objecAves?


 what
is
at
stake?
  what
are
the
issues?
  what
is
the
process?


 who
decides?
  who
gets
a
say?
  how
will
decision
get
made?


proponent
and
supporters


 proponent:
Enbridge
–
www.northerngateway.ca/
  supporters:


 the
energy
industry:


Canadian
AssociaAon
of
Petroleum
Producers
–
www.capp.ca/



 community:


Northern
Gateway
Alliance
‐
hrp://northerngatewayalliance.ca/
 Ethical
Oil
–
www.ethicaloil.org/

 Our
Decision
‐
www.ourdecision.ca/


the
state


 Canada:


 Prime
Minister
Stephen
Harper:
Northern
Gateway
project
in
“naAonal


interest”.
 hrp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/poliAcs/orawa‐notebook/foreign‐ money‐could‐gum‐up‐pipeline‐approval‐harper‐warns/arAcle2294309/? utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS %2FAtom&utm_source=PoliAcs&utm_content=2294309



 Minister
of
Natural
Resources
Joe
Oliver
on
“environmental
and
other
radical


groups”
opposed
to
the
Northern
Gateway
project.
 hrp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/naAonal/an‐open‐lerer‐from‐natural‐ resources‐minister‐joe‐oliver/arAcle2295599/



 BriAsh
Columbia?


environmental


 Pembina
InsAtute.
  Polaris
InsAtute.
  Dogwood
IniAaAve.

  Forest
Ethics.
  Greenpeace
Canada.
  West
Coast
Environmental
Law.
  Living
Oceans
Society.

  David
Suzuki
FoundaAon
‐
hrp://www.cbc.ca/earlyediAon/#.Tw9KugaT4fo

  Pipe
up
against
Enbridge
alliance
‐
pipeupagainstenbridge.ca



aboriginal


 Carrier
Sekani
Tribal
Council
–
www.cstc.bc.ca/cstc

  Office
of
the
Wet’suwet’en
–
wetsuweten.com/
  Coastal
First
NaAons
–
www.coastalfirstnaAons.ca/


 Gerald
Amos,
Haisla
First
NaAon
–


hrp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/gerald‐amos/northern‐gateway‐ pipeline_b_1199956.html


• thers


 labour.
  media.
  communiAes
/
local
residents.
  ‘experts’
–
scienAsts,
policy
specialists,
etc.



the
process


 federal
Joint
Review
Panel:


 hrp://gatewaypanel.review‐examen.gc.ca/clf‐nsi/prtcptngprcss/hrng‐

eng.html