Some Comparisons of Canadian and U.S. Attitudes/Behaviour Concerning Sustainable Development

Canadian Review of American Studies/ Revue cmwdwmre d'Pludes amhtcame~ Volume 2S, Number 1, 1998, pp. 1-18 Some Comparisons of Canadian and U.S. Introduction Attitudes/Behaviour Concerning Sustainable Development Henry H. Webster The view has been expressed elsewhere that forestry in the United States 1s in a very curious state (Webster and Chappelle 1997). This is a time of general improvement of many domestic resources, most definitely forests (Easterbrook 1995, Frederick and Sedjo 1991, Sampson and Hair 1990). The effect is further to make these resource sectors an area of potential national comparative advantage. This is also a time of deepening concern about m,rny aspects of the U.S. economy; for example, the quality of U.S. jobs and wage levels, widening inequality of incomes, and the balance of trade. There is concern ultimately about consequences and social stability of an increasingly two-tiered society, quite opulent at the top of one tier and deeply in squalor at the bottom of the other (for one example of many, see Thurow 1996). However, national comparative advantage in resource sectors and deepening economic concerns appear to exist on two different planets in terms of societal behaviour patterns concerning commodities from natural resources. 2 C,1.1uclu11Rev1e\\' nf ·\menc.rn Sr11d1e~ Re11111• 011111d1e11111• d'h11de., am1•111·a1111•s The possibility that this compar,1tivc adv,mt,1gc L'Duldhcl~)(;:isone of nuny factors) to overL·omecurrent economiL' difficulties seems tmn_'L~ognized in ,my major publiL'sense. tvfatters have gone ,1ppn:Yi,1blybetter in Can,1da. Poverty r;1tes for csscnti ,1lly all dcmographiL' L'atcgories MC lower th,111 in the l lnitcd States. Incqu ,dity of inL'OmL'S is ,1ppreci,1blyless. Health cMc is ,1v,1iL1ble to all ,..'.itizen~, sourc1's commoditiesisvery high by comparisonwith areas of the world at similarstage of societaldevelopment. For example,per capita consumptionof paper and paperboard in the U.S.is verynearly half again ashigh as in Canada,and morethat 90 percent higherthan inWesternEurope. Alsoper capitaconsumptionof gasoline in the U.S. is 40percenthigherthan the secondOECDcountryin thelist. Canada is sc..-cond, Australia isthird. (c) II s production ofresonrces commoditiesjsrelatively low andin some ca5cs hcrn 111 iog suhst;mtiallylower For example,forest productsoutputs inthe PacificNorthwestarcin process of beingreducedby 75 coSOpercent. This regionhas for a considerabletime been the primarydomesticproduceroflumber and relatedsolid-woodproducts. Also, domesticoil productionis at a 40-yearlow,and domesticoilexplorationis ata 50-plusycarlow . Michigan Barban G. Clariomull,Sduaidt U.S. ForclllScivi definitions nf wh,lt 1s2), the frdcr.1I ,mJ provi1Kial ministers responsible for forest rt.·sourl'L' m,ltters. It w.1stlflL·d "Sustainable Forests: A Canadian Commitment." This statement is Vl'ry e,plicit on need for a strong economic base both n,1tion,1llyand in major regions , supported in part by forest products and by reLTCationand rnunsm. This statement also identifies (,unong other things) the 1.·onsider,1ble rnngt.·of torestry aL'.tivitiesth,lt contribute to sustainable development. Se\'t·ral dt'.il qmte directly with societal and instirntion,11 underpinnings for sust.tin.thle development. An additional example of unre.tlistiL'. ,lttituJcs co1Kt:Tni11g susr.1i11,1hle Jevelopment in some U.S. circles occurred in .. 1\v'isL'nnsinruundr.1hlc on ,lppropriate uses of forest resources. Sevcrc1Iparticip.rnts reportedly thought th,n environmt.'ntal conditions were the only thing to be sustained. Sust.1111mg employment, \vages, ,md community fabric seemed to be of no crn11.·ernto them. T'hey appc,1rcd to think th,lt ,1susuinable t'L'nnornywas simply one that helped sustain cn\'ironmental conditions 1111d1anged. It !us bL·en my experiellL'Cthat even some ll. S. economists ,1rchq~inning tu think this w,1y when (\'cry OCl'.asion,1lly)they think about resrn1rcc nrnttcrs. How such ,l thought p,1ttcrn dcvelopeJ ,1mong even economists is a good question tor another day. Bill Clinton's remarks on visiting ,1 rainforest in Costa RiL·,1last ~fay provide a further example. He stressed th,1t economic progress depended on proteL'.ting the environment. He made no mention wh.itcver of the cruL·1,1l BruntLmd point th.n ability to protCL'tthe environment depends on L'L·onumtL' growth ,rnJ progress.' A fin.ii Me,1of considcr,1hlc ditfrrcncc...