Shutting Down the Tar Sands: A Moral Argument?

Alberta’s tar sands are a controversial project, both providing billions of dollars for industry and billions of barrels of energy for the Canadian people, as well as constituting what some might call an environmental disaster. The author of this blog post, Kyle Ashmead, takes the view that as scientific evidence clearly shows that the environmental degradation and health problems related to tar sands are enough to shut them down.

The groups that count morally in the author's viewpoint are first and foremost the people affected directly by the pollution. The First Nations groups that live around Fort Chipewyan (a major site of mining activity) count morally. Since the watershed from which they get water from is severely contaminated from the leakage of the local tailing pond there is a high concentration of certain cancers in native peoples in the area that are believed to be caused by the water pollution.

According to who is giving the argument, the consequences for continuing projects in Alberta's tar sands can be negative or positive. One can look at the issue and see that socially, the jobs and money coming in from the bitumen mining are positive consequences, and therefore the action is ethically right. However, the author takes the view of negative consequences; that is, that the environmental problems caused should be enough to shut down the tar sands. These include contamination of local watersheds due to leakage from toxic tailing ponds which lead to major health issues (such as cancers) in the surrounding populations. Both of these views constitute utilitarian arguments; but it is difficult to find which decision gives the most happiness, keeping the tar sands open or closing them.

The non-consequentialist view of this argument is very interesting, as almost all of the effects being discussed are future effects. When looking at a non-consequentialist view, one can look at ‘rights’ perspectives. Now if one gave some kind of moral standing to the watershed or the surrounding ecosystem as a whole, then it would be considered wrong to be dumping toxic contaminants into it. However, the only group that is considered to morally count in this author’s argument is humans, specifically, the group affected by health issues. So a non-consequentialists view is similar to a consequentialists view in this case.

There are many complex factors in determining the ethical legitimacy of shutting down the tar sands. Certainly polluting the surrounding waters to the detriment of the health of the surrounding environment and especially the surrounding human population is morally dubious. However, do the social benefits in employment and economy make up for environmental damages? It is a question to be explored in detail before any choices are to be made, and a question being hotly debated.

Reference
Ashmead, Kyle J. "Alberta Tar Sands: A Resource to be Exploited, or an Ecological Time Bomb?" Press4Change. Accessed Nov 4, 2009 from http://www.jhr.ca/hs/2009/10/alberta-tar-sands/