IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v139y2017icp68-74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Good for the Economy? An Ecological Economics Approach to Analyzing Alberta’s Bitumen Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Kits, Gerda J.

Abstract

Competing claims about the economic, social and environmental impacts of bitumen projects make Alberta's oilsands industry highly contentious. This paper uses a case study of a major bitumen project, Shell Canada's Jackpine mine expansion, to examine the evidence considered by government decision-makers in the project approval process. The project was determined to be “in the public interest” based primarily on its economic benefits, despite significant adverse environmental and social impacts. The paper evaluates the evidence that was presented to support this decision, using three criteria drawn from ecological economics: efficient allocation, just distribution, and sustainable macroeconomic scale. It finds that the evidence presented is, in fact, insufficient to justify the project on any of the three criteria. Furthermore, other studies of the bitumen industry cast doubt on the likelihood that the project would satisfy these criteria if further analysis were conducted. It concludes by recommending several measures that could help to improve decision-making on bitumen projects in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Kits, Gerda J., 2017. "Good for the Economy? An Ecological Economics Approach to Analyzing Alberta’s Bitumen Industry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 68-74.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:139:y:2017:i:c:p:68-74
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915302962
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daly, Herman E., 1992. "Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an economics that is efficient, just, and sustainable," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 185-193, December.
    2. Nyborg, Karine, 2014. "Project evaluation with democratic decision-making: What does cost–benefit analysis really measure?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 124-131.
    3. Leslie Shiell & Suzanne Loney, 2007. "Global Warming Damages and Canada's Oil Sands," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 33(4), pages 419-440, December.
    4. Wackernagel, Mathis & Rees, William E., 1997. "Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-24, January.
    5. Siddiqi, Yusuf Salem, Meir, 2012. "A Social Accounting Matrix for Canada," Economic Analysis (EA) Research Paper Series 2012076e, Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch.
    6. Andrew Sharpe & Jean-François Arsenault & Alexander Murray & Sharon Qiao, 2008. "The Valuation of the Alberta Oil Sands," CSLS Research Reports 2008-07, Centre for the Study of Living Standards.
    7. International Monetary Fund, 2013. "Canada: Selected Issues," IMF Staff Country Reports 2013/041, International Monetary Fund.
    8. van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M., 2004. "Optimal climate policy is a utopia: from quantitative to qualitative cost-benefit analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 385-393, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2010. "Externality or sustainability economics?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2047-2052, September.
    2. Michael B. Wironen & Robert V. Bartlett & Jon D. Erickson, 2019. "Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    3. Smith, Nicola J. & McDonald, Garry W. & Patterson, Murray G., 2014. "Is there overshoot of planetary limits? New indicators of human appropriation of the global biogeochemical cycles relative to their regenerative capacity based on ‘ecotime’ analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 80-92.
    4. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    5. Natalie Slawinski & Jonatan Pinkse & Timo Busch & Subhabrata Bobby Banerjeed, 2014. "The role of short-termism and uncertainty in organizational inaction on climate change: multilevel framework," Working Papers hal-00961226, HAL.
    6. Ridgley, Mark A, 1996. "Fair sharing of greenhouse gas burdens," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 517-529, June.
    7. Erin A. Hopkins, 2016. "Program efficiency analysis within the environmental landscape," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 209-216, June.
    8. Rodrigues, João & Domingos, Tiago & Conceição, Pedro & Belbute, José, 2005. "Constraints on dematerialisation and allocation of natural capital along a sustainable growth path," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 382-396, September.
    9. Duro, Juan Antonio, 2013. "International mobility in carbon dioxide emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 208-216.
    10. Davis, Carlton George & Langham, Max R., 1995. "Agricultural Industrialization And Sustainable Development: A Global Perspective," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 1-14, July.
    11. repec:ipg:wpaper:13 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Teixidó Figueras, Jordi & Duro Moreno, Juan Antonio, 2012. "Ecological Footprint Inequality: A methodological review and some results," Working Papers 2072/203168, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    13. Vargas, Andrés & Sarmiento Erazo, Juan Pablo & Diaz, David, 2020. "Has Cost Benefit Analysis Improved Decisions in Colombia? Evidence from the Environmental Licensing Process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    14. Alcott, Blake, 2008. "The sufficiency strategy: Would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 770-786, February.
    15. Chen, B. & Chen, G.Q., 2007. "Modified ecological footprint accounting and analysis based on embodied exergy--a case study of the Chinese society 1981-2001," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 355-376, March.
    16. Van Oijstaeijen, Wito & Van Passel, Steven & Back, Phil & Cools, Jan, 2022. "The politics of green infrastructure: A discrete choice experiment with Flemish local decision-makers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    17. Karen Turner, 2006. "Additional precision provided by region-specific data: The identification of fuel-use and pollution-generation coefficients in the Jersey economy," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 347-364.
    18. Tol, Richard S.J., 2012. "A cost–benefit analysis of the EU 20/20/2020 package," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 288-295.
    19. Malayaranjan Sahoo & Narayan Sethi, 2022. "The dynamic impact of urbanization, structural transformation, and technological innovation on ecological footprint and PM2.5: evidence from newly industrialized countries," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 4244-4277, March.
    20. Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2014. "Sustainable development in ecological economics," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 3, pages 41-54, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    21. Luis Cadavid & Vivek Arulnathan & Nathan Pelletier, 2024. "Food Security and Food Sovereignty: A Review of Commonly Used Indicators and Consideration of Environmental Sustainability Aspects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-20, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:139:y:2017:i:c:p:68-74. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.