Conflict in
environmental ideals as a manifestation of
differences in fundamental economic
worldviews:
A case study in Tofino, BC
Rebecca
Livernois
Environmentalists, industry, and First Nations in Tofino, British
Columbia, debate often with little resolution. Conversations with representatives
of these groups suggest that their disagreements are symptomatic of different
and conflicting worldviews. However, it is not obvious whether these worldviews
can be reconciled, or, whether they are opposed at some fundamental level. The aim of this paper is to identify the
fundamental disagreements between industry and environmentalists, and industry
and First Nations, with the purpose of providing the opportunity for groups to
better understand their respective positions.
A strategy is needed to access fundamental values because they often
get entangled with, what I call, surface values. A surface value is one that a person appeals
to in defending some position, but which they are willing to retract if that
value is shown to conflict with some other value. A fundamental value is one that a personal
appeals to in defending some position, and which they will retain if it is
shown to conflict with some other value. Simply put, fundamental values are not
up for revision, at least without serious deliberation, while surface values
are. It is likely that many people are unaware of their fundamental values, because
the relative strengths of values may not be delineated until they are
challenged.
The strategy used in this paper is to distinguish ‘fundamental
values’ from ‘surface values’ through Socratic style conversation. Representatives of different interests groups
were presented with a challenging question designed to reveal their fundamental
values. The question asked how each representative would defend a particular
position of their group or organization, given that this position sometimes causes
harm to other people. The specific question often took on slightly different
form, depending on the context. For example, the groups and the nature of the
harm caused by each organization was sometimes described, to help make the
question clear. Through this process it
was possible to identify, for each group, which values are more fundamental
than causing harm.
A representative of the
salmon farming industry, a representative of Friends of Clayoquot Sound (a
local environmentalist organization that opposes salmon farming), and a
representative of the Nuu-Chah-Nulth First Nations were presented with the harm
question. Their responses are discussed in what follows.
The environmentalist representative was asked how he would defend
the organization’s opposition to a proposed mine in Tofino to a local, poor,
and unemployed person who’s life would greatly improve from a job at the mine. He
responded that the environment is intrinsically valuable, in a comparable way
that a person is intrinsically valuable. Hence, certain actions, such as the destruction
of old-growth forests, are unacceptable in a similar way that murder is
unacceptable.
The salmon farm representative was asked how he would defend his
organization’s possible pollution of the aquatic ecosystem through the farm’s regular
operations when this actively harms the interests of environmentally concerned
individuals and possibly the ecosystem as well. This representative took the stance
of a realist: he is operating within the rules of the current economic system while
adhering to government regulations. Furthermore, he believes that scientific
research proves that salmon farms are not seriously harming the environment.
The Nuu-Chah-Nulth representative was asked how he defended his aim
to protect his land from logging and regain his traditional territory when the
logging industry provides a primary employment source in the area, and as such,
the fulfillment of his aim would lead to high unemployment. He justified his interests
by arguing that his ancestors have been on that same land for thousands of
years, and as such they ought to be the ones to determine what happens to it.
This implies that the harm that is done is only a result of interfering in
their territory in the first place, and as such logging companies’ claim to log
the land to avoid job and profit losses is feeble.
The conflict between the environmentalist and the industry
perspectives is in part based on conceptions of how natural items ought to be
commodified. Industry is operating under a market-economy paradigm where
something with no economic value can have its existence changed, and ought to
have its existence changed, to become a resource (that is, to become
economically valuable) the moment it is demanded by someone with sufficient money
to pay for it. This is in direct conflict with the environmentalist perspective,
which values the environment intrinsically, not merely instrumentally, as is
the case with industry. It is likely that environmentalists believe that there
should be some additional, morally based step, such as a powerful steward of
the environment or an alternative economic system, between a natural thing
existing in-itself apart from economic value and existing as a resource. Some
things could become resources, while other things could never be considered as
a resource. Hence the conflict in values stems from differing beliefs in the
way nature ought to be commodified, if at all; this is a disagreement on the
mechanisms of the economy.
Contrasting the Nuu-Chah-Nulth to the industry perspective, it
becomes apparent that the direction of focus is starkly different. That is,
industry operates within a typical Western progress narrative where growth is
that which is good. Hence the future
is that which is aimed towards; technology and innovations will improve life.
In contrast, the highest good exists
in the past from a Nuu-Chah-Nulth perspective. A traditional First Nations
person is, in a way, aiming toward the ideal past to ensure a good future, a
concept which is foreign to people who hold strongly the dominant Western
paradigm. For the two groups, that which is good
exists in different time (past and future) and space (the land supporting local
First Nations communities versus supplying a global economy). Hence
perspectives are focused in opposite directions, which could make mutual
understanding difficult.
Resolutions in these conflicts seem unlikely. In particular, given
the definition of fundamental values as inflexible, there is little possibility
that any of these values will alter enough for an alignment of interests to
occur. However it is possible that environmentalists and industry values could
align, insofar as the industry representative is a realist. If the reality of
the economic system was changed in favour of environmentalists’ interest, and industry
maintains its realist stance, then the two interests would become aligned. However,
structural change is “likely to occur only when the old paradigm is clearly
shown to no longer be serviceable.”[1]
A shift in paradigm to one that is more in line with the environmentalist
perspective could only take place when industry can no longer make sufficient
profits without adjusting to better environmental practices. This could be
interpreted as the classic dilemma of having to wait for appropriate change
until something devastating occurs, and at which time change must take place.
However, there are alternative, less dramatic possible situations that could
bring on a gradual alignment of interests: the demands of consumers could alter
to a point where only environmentally responsible industries make large
profits.
From speaking with the Nuu-Chah-Nulth representative, it was clear
that he was fully aware of the different perspectives of First Nations and the
‘Western’ world. Therefore, in the conflict between worldviews of First Nations
and the West, this distinction is primarily useful for Western people in
acknowledging that progress, science and growth are only assumed to be good; they
are not the only, or necessarily right, way of seeing the world. If the First
Nation perspective was better understood by industry and the government, then
perhaps a more constructive debate could take place.
I suggest that the conflicts over the treatment of the environment
are based on fundamental differences in worldviews. It is possible that more
constructive debate could lead to shifting environmental regulations that the
realist industries would have to accept and which would better suit both
environmentalists and First Nations.
[1] William E. Shafer, “Social Paradigms and Attitudes Toward
Environmental Accountability,” Journal of
Business Ethics (2006) 65:125
No comments:
Post a Comment