Drawing comparisons between Alberta and Bhutan is sure to be
something of a stretch, but they are the two places I’ve now mostly lived over
the last year, and so I think it is fair to attempt to do so. Of course, there are certain evident
similarities, but what I am interested in is something deeper, something that
relates to the development patterns of these two places, and specifically their
choices for (sustainable?) resource development. Both places are now led by democratically
chosen leaders, and both share an abundance of natural resources, particularly
energy. Both are fairly wild lands with
sparse populations, and both even have mountains, though saying that they are
geographically similar is certainly a stretch.
Other than these basic facts, there is little that jumps out as immediate
and easy similarities.
 |
| Alberta or Bhutan? |
We can, though, make something of a comparison between a
province that is well established in developing its natural resources, and a
country that is only just beginning to.
But with a new PM at the head of Bhutan’s planning, one who is seemingly
more interested in dealing with unemployment, growth, infrastructure and
education than happiness; and thus one who seems destined to lead the country
deeper into the morass of development, modernity and environmental change, it
seems that a comparison is not too hard to find. Will Bhutan follow a path similar to that of
Canada, and Alberta specifically, in relation to developing its resources? This seems unlikely, yet the new PM does want
to grow more food and build buildings, and these are places that Canada has
plenty of experience. This recent NY
Times piece on the new PM shows just how different he is from his
predecessors. That it frames him as a
hyper-competitive, tech-savvy, and more nationalist than internationalist is
indicative of this:
That Bhutan is entering into a development phase according to
a Western model seems increasingly evident.
While it holds to GNH to some degree, it also increasingly aims to grow
its economy, and to me this is at odds with the philosophical roots of GNH, at
least insofar as it is rooted in Bhutan’s Buddhist heritage, and in the Buddhist
decrial of attachment, and promotion of a middle path. I have argued this, to some extent, in two
recent articles that are still in the process of being published. Whether GNH can function effectively and in
harmony with Western values and models is a major debate, and I personally
doubt that it can. Bhutan’s desire for
growth and modern convenience will make it another nation that is part of the
global dysfunctional family of nations, prey to its flaws, vices, and boons
alike. Not that GNH does not have a role
to play, and I continue to hope it will.
But there is no doubt that already much is being lost.
 |
| Dam in Bhutan |
In Canada, and in Alberta, we really don’t have the same
rich cultural traditions, and certainly not the same environmental preservation
legacy, that Bhutan does. European traditions
morphed as Europeans came to North America, and Indigenous traditions were
profoundly and irrevocably changed in this process as well. Settlers on this continent came specifically
to exploit its rich resources, and this continues, even though some urban
Canadians seem to want to bury their heads and deny it. Alberta is quickly becoming ground zero for
some of these debates, yet it seems all too easy for car-driving Torontonians
and Vancouverites to criticize Alberta’s energy extraction policies. Yet, in my mind, it is the system itself that
is in crisis, a world system that has been too focused on growth at the expense
of non-renewables and the environment for decades. The same people who would criticize Alberta’s
policies drive their cars to their office jobs to sell various services that
are wholly dependent on cheap energy for production and distribution. It is a conundrum that is so embedded in how
we live and think that it is almost entirely impossible to see the whole
complexity of. That Bhutan is building
more and more dams to sell energy to India, and meet its own increasing
demands, is evidence that it too is now part of this intricate web of give and
take, supply and demand; which, despite our best efforts, seems to have no end
in sight. Renewables may offer some
help, but they still fan the fires on a system that voraciously demands more
and more. Addressing consumption,
advertising, entertainment and many other unsustainable patterns and industries
that we have developed is essential to cooling our demands, though obviously this
would not be easy.
 |
| pipe-dreaming? |
Small and relatively poor countries (at least in financial
terms) like Bhutan have the most to lose.
They are disproportionately affected by climate change, and have less
access to the global trade and markets that are a foundation of this
system. Alberta, too, is landlocked like
Bhutan, and is dealing with how to move its products to the sea and overland
markets, and these are complex issues as well.
So, perhaps, drawing similarities between the two isn’t too much of a
stretch after all. Both aim to sell
their rich energy resources to large and powerful neighbours, and take
advantage of their reliance on this energy, and on a broken system that is
being fixed far too slowly for the citizens of these places who only hope that
these things can be meaningfully addressed in time for some of their culture
and natural environments to be preserved in meaningful and lasting ways. The tides of globalization may be against
them, but the choices they make and the policies they live by can surely help
guide those tides in positive directions, as long as they remain manageable and
malleable, and not so overwhelmingly large as to swallow them entirely.
