Tarmageddon

[nl1234]

In the article "Tarmageddon" author Andrew Nikiforuk states that the oil sands is like "economic engine" and a "Dutch disease" for Canada's economy which can be perceived as ultimately true. This is manly because you imagine a engine moving you forward but a disease is what holds you back so in a way that is what the oil sands are doing to Canada's economy, they provide a huge source of revenue by selling the oil on the world market at high prices with high margins but by doing so drowns out the other markets like what happened in the Netherlands as mentioned in the text book, more and more resources going and developing the oil sands and less going to other industries.

Discussion Question: Which is the better outcome, being a rich country because of and environmentally damaging industry or to be a poorer country and not have as big of an environmental damage?

Comments

[japanlove]

Neither. What do you mean by a rich country or a poorer country? By wealth or by natural resources? My answer is based on the presumption on by wealth.

In the past 60-70 years, more specifically, since the end of the World War II, we see most of today's world transformed into capitalist nations. For example, China has shown dramatic economic growth since Deng Xiaoping was in power in 1978. As he once said, "To get rich is glorious", the Chinese Communist Party transformed China into capitalist-socialist nation. As a result, China has recently become the top export-oriented country, and many people except peasants in rural areas benefit from its economic success. Despite the China's economic success, there are serious environmental issues in China.

If I were given an opportunity to ask Chinese people who has experienced these historical transformation from Mao Zedong to Deng Xiaoping, I would like to ask which time was better for them.