In light of the long-term environmental consequences of fossil energy extraction (whether that be hydraulic fracturing, tar sands, mountaintop mining, offshore drilling), and the cost of protecting water, air, and both human and ecosystem health, it's clear that something must be done.
Most experts agree that over the next ten to twenty years, fossil fuels will become an ever-more specialized (and ever-more expensive) niche product, because solar, wind, battery, and smartgrid technologies will become both more efficient and much cheaper, over those two decades.
The problem is how to get through the next ten to twenty years with the least long-term damage, to the largest area. It is a classic conflict between short-term benefit and long-term harm; between short-term profit and long-term quality of life.
If we continue to allow fossil energy extraction across the whole of North America, whether it's tar sands in Alberta, fracking from New Brunswick to New York to Texas, deepwater drilling from the Arctic to the Gulf, coal production in the Appalachians -- and if we accept that "Murphy's Law" (and the "Law of the Lowest Bidder") is simply part of Nature, then it's safe to predict that major calamities will continue, year after year: toxified aquifers here, massive die-offs in that river there, heavy metal impacts in the North, Gulf gushers in the South, and ecosystem collapses hither and thither. Needless to say, these will have long-term consequences for generations, and it will affect the economies of the entirety of North America.
In short, North America will suffer the consequences of the next two decades of energy demand, and not only for the rest of our natural lives, but also the lives of our great-great-great-grandchildren.
It is self-evidently short-sighted to damage everything, when such damage could be concentrated, centralized, and separated from most living creatures, without a great deal of economic turmoil.
I propose officially designating 10% of each country -- which in Canada might be a province, in the US is a handful of states -- as energy extraction "Altruism Zones." Within this Zone, all manner of destruction and toxic effluent would be allowed. Its forests can be clearcut, its topsoil removed, its rivers dammed, its mountains topped, its water poisoned. By undertaking this one simple policy, it would allow the other 90% of the country to benefit from a clean recovery.
Some will call these regions "sacrificial lands," or "Blots," but I prefer the term "Altruism Zones," since they are being sacrificed for the good of the majority. Of course, altruism can only go so far, so I further propose that the federal government reward those willing to work, live, and potentially raise a family in the Zone by providing a long-term benefit: perhaps an annual $30,000 retirement-fund bonus, for each Zone worker.
With such a model, in twenty years, workers within the Zone could retire with $600,000 in the bank, certainly enough for a comfortable convalescence. By the end of the two decades the Zone could be predominantly depopulated, apart from those few who would become the high-paying "Recovery Corps" for the region, maintaining a minimal infrastructure, and winding the region down.
The rest of the country, who would have avoided deep environmental damage, would welcome the "Altruists" back -- those who potentially sacrificed their health for the well-being of the rest of us.
Let us take Alberta as an example. Plentiful land, forest, deep-well natural gas, the tar-sand extraction, the rivers already heavy with heavy metals. It seems clear that, for Canada at least, Alberta is the best candidate to become the Altruism Zone. It's about the right size (7%), is already heavily involved in extractive energy, and parts of it are already too far gone to be recovered.
If Alberta took the opportunity to volunteer, then all environmental and worker-protection laws in the province could be rescinded. Because of the short time horizon (twenty years), it would save billions on avoiding new public infrastructure. Its government would be charged with the orderly winding down of its citizens through resettlement, especially in years ten through twenty. By 2030, Alberta could be functionally abandoned, with the expectation that it would remain so, for seven generations.
Alberta's short-term goal would be to extract the maximal amount of fossil energy from within its borders during that time. Biomass energy from the vast clear-cut forests has great potential; fracking could be undertaken much more cheaply if health concerns could be fully ignored; the tar sands could go "full steam ahead" without worry about watersheds, toxic effluent, or radioactivity. Pipelines could be cobbled together with duct tape, at least within Alberta's borders, if that was the most profitable way. There is even the possibility of geoforming regions to be optimal wind tunnels, to produce wind energy.
It seems likely that certain other polluting industries would take advantage of the regulation-free opportunities of the Zone, especially as the rest of North America is increasingly focused on reclaiming a healthy environment for the future -- and so the added benefit of having chemical, industrial, and other polluting industries releasing their effluent into the Altruism Zone should not be underestimated.
In the US, the states of West Virginia, Arkansas, Texas, Michigan, and New Jersey fit the criteria well, though other states have valid points in their favor -- Oklahoma, Nevada, or Arizona, for example. Alaska has great appeal as well, since the US wouldn't even have to commit all of it, to get to its 10% target.
The implications and repercussions of this proposal are huge: 9/10 of the rest of the states or provinces would be able to become enviable living spaces, without irreperable leaks, spills, or long-lived ambient poisons. Property values in most of the Clean Region would increase substantially, and an emphasis on sustainable, clean industries could be allowed to flourish. For Wall Street, a great deal of uncertainty would be taken out of the marketplace (regarding insurance, possible liability, and the like), thereby bolstering most stock prices by calming insurers.
In a two-decade period of climate chaos and economic turmoil, certainty is a valuable currency. To be certain that the worst damage is wrought in a constrained space is, I believe, the best approach to the near-term future, and certainly is optimal for the long-term future of North America. If we were to allow it to be generally toxified and extracted to emptiness, then the majority of North America risks becoming an "Altruism Zone" (though to whose benefit is uncertain).
There is much to be worked out in this proposal, of course. I look to other mindful citizens to flesh out this idea, and build in the necessary constraints.
The principle is, I believe, sound, though the details themselves may be devilish.
(Apologies to J. Swift, whose themes I have stolen, and whose own "A Modest Proposal" raised a ruckus among many not accustomed to sarcasm dry, with a twist. Note also: It has also be a very long time since I last posted; apologies for having been occupied in other necessities.)