Bioregionalism, Deep Ecology and Social Ecology

Ruth Howell

The Exxon Valdez oil spill was one of the most ecologically destructive technological disasters in human history. The destructive power of oil was seen around the world in 1989 and continues to show that power in Prince William Sound even today. This power is seen in the oil that flows out of the trans-Alaska pipeline, the permanent fund, the oil company revenues and is still visible in the sound itself. The power of oil is always thought to be positive but in truth there are many more negatives, including war, poverty, terrorism and global warming (Fineberg, 2004). Our entire lives are bound to oil and its byproducts. How do we gain control of oil and gain control of the preservation of the resources we live on? In this paper I will explore one side of the answer to this question. Bioregionalism, deep ecology, and social ecology will be explained along with some of the philosophies behind them.

Bioregionalism

The philosophy of bioregionalism is simply the understanding or knowledge of the local environment. This philosophy is built around the idea of bioregions which are areas of similar land, plants and animals, climates, temperatures, and seasons (Berg, 2002). People who subscribe to this philosophy believe they live in a valley or on a hill not in a certain county or state line. They also believe that a better understanding of the plants and animals around them will allow them to live a better life. “Harmonizing with the natural systems of each bioregion is a necessary step toward preserving the whole biosphere (Berg, 2002)." In general this idea makes sense because if you know and understand the wild areas around you then you will also understand what harm you are doing to them. By oil’s presence in any environment, vapors are released into the atmosphere that not only aid global warming but also are ingested by all forms of animals and cause reproductive problems as well as other side effects (Steiner, 2004). A good example comes from the oil spill of 1989. If there had been more research and better understanding of the organisms in and around Prince William Sound then perhaps the hot water washes that removed most bacteria and killed what plants remained alive would not have been used. The hot water cooked the intertidal organisms that might have survived otherwise. Hot water washing was done to make people feel better about what they were seeing. The organisms were not even considered nor was the idea that more damage might be done than good. Bioregionalism has three goals: to preserve the local environments, to use only what is needed for “basic human needs”, and to restore natural habitat (Berg, 2002). One idea behind bioregionalism is that the environment comes first and that humans need to occupy their ecological niche. Waterways are typically considered the human ecological niche, but in occupying that niche there must also be an attempt to preserve resources so that our species and other species can continue to flourish.

The idea of a bioregional economy is one that is also discussed in some detail in The Starship and the Canoe. This idea is that we should seek to maintain and not overutilize resources. We need to adapt to available resources instead of manipulating the environment to our needs and wants. In The Starship and the Canoe, two very different views of the human race are presented. One view is that of Freeman Dyson who believes that humans can't be controlled and will use up all available resources in the near future. This leaves only one option: to find a new planet for colonization and continuation of the human race. George Dyson, on the other hand, believes that if the human race would manage its resources more efficiently, essentially stepping back in time, the Earth would last as long as the human race. Here are two ways of dealing with a single issue, one pushing for advancement in technology the other pushing for a simpler form of technology, opposite ends of the spectrum. George Dyson's ideas are a bit more down to Earth but would also rely on another philosophy, deep ecology.

Deep Ecology

The philosophy brought to us by Arne Naess is one that quite simply places us on the same level as every other animal on the planet. Humans are not more important but are equals to other animals. Arne Naess said that this must be true because other animal populations have controls and if you look at things just right you will see that our species has wars and epidemics that control our populations. Deep ecologists believe that "we need to develop a less dominating and aggressive posture towards the Earth if we and the planet are to survive (Atkisson, 1989)." This idea opens a door of thought. Do we really need oil or LNG (liquid natural gas)? Even small changes, utilizing the sun to power cars, would improve the environment and our lives substantially. Why not use water to provide electricity? It would be much less expensive and would affect the environment to a lesser degree. Hydro power is possible, Cordova Alaska runs off hydro power and seems to manage just fine (Ott, 2004). "People become trapped in the net of their own purposes, fears and dissatisfactions, no longer knowing who they are or how they fit into the larger scheme of things” (Hinchman and Hinchman, 1989). Michael Zimmerman states (in Atkisson, 1989) the entire idea perfectly, "We just wouldn't do certain things that damage the planet, just as you would not cut off your own finger." These "things we wouldn't do" are namely technological disasters: such things as oil spills, toxic chemical spills, reactor leaks, and atomic explosions. By decentralizing governments and focusing on bioregions it is thought that these disasters could be avoided. The idea being that the resources would be able to sustain the groups living in each bioregion, much like the American Indians lived off the land before the white man came. With this proper use of resources the world might be able to reach equilibrium of consumption and replacement of resources. Here again we hear George Dyson ringing in our ears, the idea that “...people should value nature as an end in itself rather than mere means to satisfy human desires” (Hinchman and Hinchman, 1989).

Deep ecology asks us to look into our way of life and determine if quality of life is really what it could be. Deep ecology wants us to question our beliefs and to compare them with the beliefs of others. How you feel about your life and the things in it are more important than what you have or want. If you have the necessary things then your quality of life should be good. Deep ecology also wants people to think of selves as being intertwined with all environments. One example would be the rain forest, you may not live there but a part of you may identify with it and so it should be saved. The idea that we are a part of everything and everything is a part of us or our inner being is drawn upon in this philosophy. It might be thought that everything is alive and because we are all inter connected we can’t live a full life unless everything is kept in harmony. Gaia theory takes this a step farther saying that even the Earth is alive and influences life in the way that a tree might (Lovelock, 1987).

One philosophy that opened the door for deep ecology was the idea of animal liberation. Peter Singer first wrote a book on the subject in the 1970s. This philosophy calls for animal rights and an idea of equal protection for other species. It also leans on the idea of equal space for each species on the planet. Not only did it include species but it also included mountains, rivers and lakes as things that are “living” and require space in the world. This idea was shot down quite a bit because some animals are small and others are big so some animals would need more space and others might need less as a population. In the end deep ecology sends the message of "evolution of a mode of awareness” (Atkisson 1989: 4-5). Being aware of the environment and to ease up on the damage we are doing is what must be done. Prevention of any more damage and better protection of resources is the most critical step for the future of the Earth. "So we confidently announce that the abundance and biodiversity must be conserved!” (Naess 1996: 2).

Social Ecology

The last philosophical approach is that of social ecology. Social ecologists believe that the form of government is to blame for the problems in the environment. They also believe that human social systems, not the numbers of populations, are the cause of economic issues at present. The idea here, I believe, is similar to what Richard Fineberg mentioned in our meeting with him at the Westmark hotel conference room. He mentioned that Iraq had thought of setting up a permanent fund much like the one in Alaska. Oil revenues would be used to pay the Iraqi people a dividend for allowing the oil to be taken in the first place. In the end the idea was thrown out because all it would do is make the people more dependent on money (Fineberg, 2004). Greed would then become a larger factor in the dealings between people. The social and economic systems would get thrown out of whack until the society conformed to the new influx of money. Societies, in the United States respond to seasonal changes, food availability, and other resources without much change in the economy or life habits. However, the Ganges Valley society, for example, is based on floods or drought. Here man is still working with nature to farm the land and this causes a bifurcation in the society (Mukherjee 1932: 2). Societies that move with the river and its floods end up having higher crime rates and other "anti-social" behavior because life sustaining resources are not guaranteed. The higher elevations, where the river doesn't threaten homes, people have a more secure grasp on the vital resources and can afford to be frivolous in the idea that they can use more resources and be guaranteed sustainability regardless of circumstances (Mukherjee 1932: 5). These two different ways that society affects and is affected by the environment show the idea behind social ecology. If the society feels safe then they over utilize resources while in an unstable society, one that is constantly moving, the people want to leave resources in tact in case there is a threat to their existence. Society must be set up in a way that the two extremes are made into a middle society. This is when resources will come into an equilibrium that will allow them to exist as long as the species on earth need them.

Social Ecologists believe that the only way to curb what is happening to the earth is to curb society. By changing the social make-up of the communities it is believed that maybe the rain forest would be saved, we could stop future oil spills like the Exxon Valdez, and maybe save a few other places as well. In the literature out there on social ecology little has been said on how to make this happen. How to change our societies so that the environment would be saved is the question. Although, social ecologists claim they do not put nature above society or the other way around. They simply say that our societies today need to be changed not because of the environment but because of our effect on the environment.

The idea of human domination of the environment is touched on in almost every article about social ecology. Social ecologists believe that the domination of nature is brought on by the domination of other human beings. Basically, because our society is set up so that there are levels of power in companies and politics the people who are lower down feel the only thing they can dominate is nature. We need to restructure our thought processes if this is the case. The idea should be that we are a member of nature not above or below it but simply are part of it. Social ecologists say that capitalism is the problem, that may be but people’s hearts and minds must be changed first.

Conclusion

These philosophies may help us answer big questions we are facing today. Alaska is facing one of these questions right now; should there be drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)? The question is what is more important: the caribou herds (43% of the herd uses the costal plains where drilling would occur) or the oil that people "need" to live? The Gwich'in people who live on the porcupine caribou of ANWR are strongly opposed but the politicians of Alaska continue to use the price of oil as a reason to start drilling (“US Senators”: 1). Some Native Alaskans have joined together to form a group known as Alaskan Native Oil and Gas Working Group to slow and maybe even stop the exploitation of resources in Alaska (Laduke 2003:1). On the other hand Arctic Power is pushing hard for development in the ANWR (Williams 2001: 2-9). I guess it all comes down to money (like always). Should we spend billions to get some oil out of the Arctic or should we spend that money on education, national debt or research into renewable resources that could replace oil?

What about Chernobyl? What about Project Chariot? The force of devastation to the ecosystems was/could be horrific. Even testing of nuclear devices has an impact on the environment but to knowingly detonate a nuclear device in a place where people are living and surviving off the wildlife could affect more than the lives of the people in the immediate area. If caribou are affected by radiation sickness or other wildlife then they migrate to another area. The possibility of having catastrophic drops in wildlife and human populations that would throw the ecosystem into a disastrous fall are probable. Even if Chernobyl had occurred in the middle of nowhere human life would be affected by the change in climate, wildlife, and plant life. Anything that is done will affect us no matter how far from humans it occurs. Why? Because we are all connected whether by the wind, water, or sun we all have an impact on each other and so the question remains, how will we change how we affect the world around us so life reaches equilibrium?

Where does this leave us? We must decide now who will win in the fight of humans vs. nature. For the future of our species and other species on the Earth some changes need to happen. These are not going to be simple changes or ones that can happen over night. Thanks to the RCACs (Regional Citizens Advisory Council) in Alaska some changes in the oil companies there have begun. Companies must now build double hull tankers, there are escort tugs for the tankers, iceberg detection has been improved, and vapor emissions are in better check then they were (PWS RCAC, 2004). Oil is a big part of human life on this planet because greed for money is in the heart of the human race. What needs to happen is a divergence from life as we know it into a more environmentally friendly one. We need to start phasing out the use of non-renewable resources and increase the utilization of renewable resources such as wind, sunlight, water, and other Earth forces. We don't require most of the stuff we have in our homes; they are simply conveniences and we have gotten used to them. If blasting off into space in search of a new home is your answer, then continue driving the low standard cars and breathing the smog and carcinogens and drill in our national forests. If keeping our feet on the ground is the preference then changes need to be made now, before it is too late. Prevention is the key to maintaining our life on earth.

The Trip for Me

I think we can make the necessary changes to protect the environment in the future. I think that the starting point is going to have to be Alaska and once people understand the need to protect such wild places more will do so. But the starting is the hard part; if we pull together we can do it. I have discovered that there are people out there who feel like me and that there are others out there who hold the environment at the same level that I do. It isn't just a place you go to ride around in your SUV, it is a place to learn and discover what an amazing place our planet is. The Exxon Valdez oil spill, I believe, should have opened people’s eyes wider than it did. Disaster is always looming. It is a matter of what decisions we make and whether they occur or not. I think that using the ideas of bioregionalism, deep ecology, and social ecology will only help us to understand the damage we have done to the environment and the ways to stop that damage. I think that the spill also showed us that we value some resources far too much. Our reliance on them may be our down fall. I think that this spill will forever be a cornerstone, or should be, in the way that toxic chemicals are transported and used. Better understanding of chemicals that we use and safer ways of using them should be explored and utilized. The rigors of understanding so many aspects of this oil spill all at once are monumental, but I think that through my research and speaking with so many involved people I have developed a better appreciation of my home, the amount of resources I utilize, and the damage that I personally am doing to the environment. I hope to make changes to my life that will allow others to see that the dependence on non-renewable resources is not necessary, it is just laziness and who knows what else. People just don't think about the emissions from their car or effects their house may have on the environment. People don't even realize and if they do they figure "I am only one person..." I think it is time for every "one person" to stand up and make an effort because all together that makes millions of "one persons."

The trip opened my eyes to the environment in Alaska because I thought that Alaska was the rain forest that is in the southern part of the state. I think that people need to see the whole state not just the aesthetically pleasing part. Human nature is an interesting creature because all we want to see is what is pretty and makes us feel good about the world. We don’t want to see the tundra and low shrub land because we think if we don’t see it then it won’t exist. We did the same thing with the oil spill. People could see the oil on the surface and all Exxon wanted was to make the environment look, on the surface, like it was still pristine. It was one of those “if you can’t see it then it isn’t there” moments. I think that oil companies will eventually be given rights to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because people don’t go there much and once they see the land that would be drilled in they won’t care anymore. They will turn away and pretend like nothing is wrong.

I think that another integral part of the understanding of the oil spill is the chemistry behind it. I only understand a little of the chemistry of oil after talking to Riki Ott, Rick Steiner, Dune Lankard, Al Maki, and a few others we interviewed. From what I learned oil is pretty bad stuff. I don’t understand why more people don’t understand that. I only hope that people start understanding before we destroy everything that is beautiful.

Works Cited

Atkisson, Alan. 1989. Introduction to Deep Ecology. In Context 22: 24-32.

Berg, Peter. 2002. Bioregionalism (Defined and Updated 2002). http://www.diggers.org/freecitynews/_disc1/00000017.html. April 26 2004.

Fineberg, Richard. 2004. Personal Interview. Fairbanks, May 14.

Hinchman, Lewis, and Sandra Hinchman. 1989. “’Deep Ecology’ and the revival of the Natural Right.” The Western Political Quarterly 3: 201-228.

Laduke, Winona. 2003. Alaska: ANWR, Oil and the Natives. News From Indian Country: April 7th. http://www.yeoldeconsciousnesshoppe.com/art132.html

Lovelock, James. E. 1987. Gaia: a New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Mukherjee, Radhakamal. 1932. The Concepts of Distribution and Succession in Social Ecology. Social Forces 11: 1-7.

Naess, Arne. 1996. “Living a Life That Reflects Evolutionary Insight.” Conservation Biology 10: 1557-9.

Ott, Riki. 2004 Personal Interview. Cordova, May 4.

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council. 2004. Personal Interview. Valdez, April 30.

Steiner, Rick. 2004. Personal Interview. Anchorage, May 1.

“US Senators Ask for Access to Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.” Drillbits & Tailings. 5: 1-3. http://www.moles.org/projectUndereground /drillbits/5_05/2.html April 25 2004.

Williams, B. 2001. “Special Report: Alaska update--ANWR Coastal Plain Leasing at Center of Storm over Bush Energy Policy.” Oil & Gas Journal 99: 60-6.

Top of Page