Green Web Bulletin #75
Off-highway Vehicles and Deep
Ecology
Cultural Clash and
Alienation from the Natural World
By
David Orton
“There is no doubt that
ecologism’s stress on ‘limits’ of all sorts amounts to the
potential curtailment of certain
taken-for-granted freedoms, particularly in the realms
of production, consumption and
mobility.” Andrew Dobson (1)
“We must live at a level that we
seriously can wish
others to attain, not at a level that
requires the bulk of humanity NOT
to reach.” Arne Naess (2)
Introduction
In Nova
Scotia, where I live, as across Canada and North America, there has
been a growing awareness
that there is a “problem” with
off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, and there has been a growing bitter
debate.
The provincial government in Nova
Scotia initiated the formation of a task force on OHVs in 2003 (3) with
the aim of “regulating”
off-highway vehicles: all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), snowmobiles,
amphibious vehicles
(Argos), jetskis, dirt bikes,
dune buggies, etc. The task force accepted that OHV use was a
legitimate
“recreational” or “sport”
undertaking, noted the “positive impact on our economy” of these
vehicles, and
stated that it had “no
pre-conceived positions.” The task force held 24 public hearings
throughout the province,
as well as private consultations
with various interest groups. This created much discussion, in which I
and
several other supporters of deep
ecology have participated. (4) It also created a lot of media interest
and
many letters to the editor in
provincial newspapers. Deep Ecology (DE), which is a philosophy, but,
perhaps
more importantly, is also part
of a larger green movement in many countries and cultures, can
help
us
understand that the clashes
between those who ride off-highway vehicles and those of us, who are
opposed to
this, are fundamentally clashes
over basic values and the meaning of life. Such clashes, at their
heart, concern
how our industrial societies will
relate to the natural world and how human societies themselves are
going to be
organized.
Deep ecology considerations
Deep Ecology
the philosophical perspective which underpins this essay and the
analysis presented, was
first articulated by the
Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess in the early 1970s. (5) It has
captured what should
be our relationship to the
natural world for post industrial society. There is a tentativeness to
DE, an openness.
It is not a set of doctrines, so
it is hard to convey what its essence is. At the same time, as Naess
says,
"...nearly all supporters of the
deep ecology movement are likely to believe they have found some
truths." (6)
DE sees humanity as part of
Nature, as inseparable from it. If we ignore Nature we injure
ourselves. DE is
part of the larger green
movement, the first social movement in history to advocate a lower
material standard
of living from the perspective
of industrial consumerism. (7) Social justice for all humans is very
important, but
it must defer to the well-being
of the Earth and all her life forms.
We act in this
world based on how we SEE reality, and our ethics are based on this.
This also involves a
view of “self.” Those who
strongly support, and those who strongly oppose OHV use, appear to have
quite
contrasting definitions of self.
One Nova Scotia critic of OHVs spoke of such riders embracing what she
called a “culture of entitlement”
in contemporary society, where “I earn, therefore I am; and the more I
earn,
the more I am entitled to.” (8)
For supporters
of DE, the personal self seeks to move beyond
anthropocentric consciousness, so that the
personal self becomes an
ecological Self (also known as Self-realization in this philosophy) and
comes to
include all other beings and the
planet itself. The harassment of wildlife or the scarring of bog lands
by ATVs
is felt as personal pain and
injury. The Land is seen and felt as an extension of self. Nature is
not to be
“mastered” but to be adapted to.
The ecological Self is often experienced by those who may be
philosophically
unaware but who have a strong
sense of place, that is, persons rooted in the local area where they
live and
come to know intimately and feel
compelled to personally defend it. You have to stand with the trees and
animals, if you want the trees
to stand and the animals to live. DE requires that its supporters be
involved in
speaking up for the Earth and
defending her against all assaults, including those by OHVs. Consumer
society
gives a sense of false
self-identity through the acquisition of material goods, necessary to
expand an economy
that operates without any sense
of ecological limits. Off-highway vehicles need to be looked at from
this
perspective, to understand the
evident alienation from Nature, which so many OHV riders exhibit with
their
belligerent embracing of speed
and noise imposed on others and the natural world. Earth-centered
societies
need entirely different green
economies to those of capitalism or socialism, with their
multiplication of human
wants.
For deep
ecology supporters, the natural world is real, despite the critique of
post modernism. However the
social world, which fundamentally
impacts the natural world, as with the OHV issue, IS socially
constructed
and rests on usually
fundamentally unquestioned assumptions. We need to use the OHV debate
to bring out
and challenge these social
assumptions, and offer alternative definitions of self. Deep Ecology
has a different
viewpoint or a different ontology
from the typical OHV world view.
General deep
ecology ideas which can be brought into focus in the off-highway
vehicle discussion are:
“- A belief in the
intrinsic value of nonhuman nature;
- A belief that ecological
principles should dictate human actions and moral evaluations;
- An emphasis on
noninterference into natural processes;
- A critique of
materialism and technological progress.” (9)
Some
particular deep ecology conceptions have been useful for this debate:
1) NON HUMAN-CENTEREDNESS.
Humans do not have a privileged position. As a species, we are
just one member of a community
of all beings, each of which is the result of billions of years of
evolution.
There is no belief in a hierarchy
of organisms, with humans on top. Deep Ecology is about a needed new
relationship to Nature, where all
species of animals and plants have their own intrinsic values that are
not
determined by humans. The Western
industrial cosmology of industrial growth (equated with “progress”),
has no place for the defence of
wild Nature or animals in their own right. This industrial cosmology or
world view would have trouble
understanding the wonderful words of Calvin Martin, speaking about
animistic hunter/gatherer
societies: “Only a fool would imagine himself as somehow exclusively a
HUMAN
being.” (10) Industrial societies
have disenfranchised all other beings and the natural world itself, at
the
same time as human communication
and mobility have exploded. Overwhelmingly, OHV discussions are
about some humans in conflict
with other humans. This is not unimportant but is just part of the OHV
story.
Deep ecology enables us to see
beyond the human focus of the debate.
2) NECESSITY FOR A NEW SPIRITUAL
RELATIONSHIP TO NATURE. In order for industrial
capitalism to commodify the
Earth, its animistic spirituality had to be undermined. A future
Earth-centered
society will need to be organized
around an ecocentric morality that has an essential spiritual or sacred
dimension and is not based on
economics. ”Suiting or gearing up” for riding a powerful and noisy ATV
or
a snowmobile and putting on a
totally enclosing helmet, removes a person from any sense of an
interdependent relationship with
wild Nature and with other people.
3) INDUSTRIAL CAPITALIST SOCIETY
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTEMPORARY
ECOLOGICAL CRISIS. A society
oriented to continuous economic and population growth, a
consumerism without end, where
“profit” is the principal determinant of all value, and where the
economy
controls the society, cannot be
sustainable in the long term. There is a direct link between the
robbing of the
Earth’s natural wealth and
increased OHV use. Take, for example, industrial capitalist forestry -
pulp mill
clear-cut forestry. This type of
industrial forestry has not only destroyed the rich biodiversity of the
Acadian
forests in the Maritimes region
of Canada, as elsewhere, for a handful of tree species sought by the
pulp
and paper industry, but it has,
through its road and trail networks and clearcuts, effectively promoted
OHV
use. Another example would be the
recently installed (since 1999) natural gas high pressure pipeline,
snaking across Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick to United States markets, which opened up previously
inaccessible areas to OHV use.
The gas line is buried in expropriated “rights-of-way,” bitterly
resented
by many rural people. This main
natural gas line has various feeder lines, leading off from the main
line,
which provide more routes for
OHVs.
4) DEEP ECOLOGY OPPOSES THE IDEA
OF "PRIVATE PROPERTY" IN NATURE. As Arne Naess
has said: "The ideology of
ownership of nature has no place in an ecosophy." (11) (Within the
philosophy of
deep ecology, ecosophy is a term
used to mean the personal code of values guiding one’s interaction with
the
natural world.) No one can own
the Earth, whether from a state, individual, indigenous, or collective
point of
view. Actually, the Earth owns
us, we are its creatures. We need "usufruct use" instead of so-called
private
ownership of the natural world.
This means that there may be the "right of use," but one is ultimately
responsible and accountable to
some form of ecocentric governance much wider than human society.
“Private
property” or “ownership” is a
social convention, arrogant in its conception that humans can “own”
other species
and the Land, in Aldo Leopold’s
sense, itself. “Private property rights” cannot be advocated by the
ecologically
conscious as a main defense
against the off-highway vehicle rider.
What makes
Nova Scotia “different” in a Canadian context, when considering OHV
conflicts, is the high
percentage of “private” forest
land ownership in the province compared to the national picture. In
Canada,
about ten percent of productive
forest land is privately owned (the rest is crown or public land),
while the figure
for Nova Scotia is 70 percent
private. Small “woodlot owners” in the province (among which the writer
would
be listed) number about 30,000
individuals. (Woodlot is a human-centered terminology. It implies that
the
function of a forest is to
produce timber for human consumption.) The small woodlot owners’ sense
of private
property rights is on a major
collision course with the entrenched “right to ride anywhere” beliefs
held by many
OHV users. Theoretically, i.e.
legally, private landowners can prevent OHV use on their lands. The
reality
on
the ground is very different.
Apart from this important “fact” about the OHV conflict with private
property
alleged rights, the OHV issue in
Nova Scotia, with its many contradictions, is generally comparable with
the
situation throughout Canada.
Deep ecology
advocates that no woodlot owner should have the right to destroy their
woodlots for
economic reasons. We believe that
if responsibility to the Earth and to future human generations become
factored into ownership criteria,
as they should, until ecocentric governance is brought in as part of an
overall
paradigm change, then woodlot
owners need to be socially acountable for their behaviour. Such
behaviour
cannot include OHV use which
mutilates the environment of the woodlot, or destructive forestry
practices.
Ownership should be seen as a
privilege, attached to a definite set of obligations. Those who destroy
or
degrade their woodlots should
suffer definite social and criminal sanctions. The model to aim for,
until
ecocentric governance arrives,
is passing on the woodlot in a better condition, bearing in mind the
interests of
all the plant and animal species
living there.
5) WE HAVE TO LIVE THE DE
PHILOSOPHY to the largest extent possible. This means "voluntary
simplicity", leaving perhaps
footprints but not tire treads, minimizing consumption, and having a
bioregional
focus. Advertising creates
“needs” as part of an expansionary consumer capitalism, like the
alleged need for
off-highway vehicles to
experience the outdoors. For many of the populace, these then become
erroneously
defined as “vital needs” and part
of a taken-for-granted lifestyle that is not to be called into
question. For
someone influenced by deep
ecology, it is the overcoming of material desires and taking personal
responsibility for one’s own
actions, which is part of living as simply as possible. This is also on
the personal
spiritual self purification path,
part of the hardening preparation for the eco-warrior in today’s world,
to
break from the death course of
industrial society. This DE view of personal responsibility is opposed
to a
more traditional “Left” view, of
tending to explain individual behaviours as totally socially determined.
There are real
contradictions and ambiguities that the deep ecology activist faces.
For example, DE does
not sufficiently address the
“use” of Nature by humans: thus is there a role for OHVs? There
is also
a
tendency by some university-based
deep ecologists, particularly in North America, to “accommodate” to
industrial capitalism and to mute
the subversive essence of this philosophy. This tendency would thus
stress
more reformist, rather than
radical solutions to environmental problems. But DE can theoretically
arm the
activist, who seeks a deeper
alternative to the industrial status quo.
Deep ecology
once accepted, enables “alternative visions” to be raised around
particular environmental
issues, here off-highway vehicle
use. Usually, “working the system”, for mainstream environmentalists
e.g.
here trying to impose a
regulatory regime on OHV users, but not fundamentally challenging their
“right to
ride”,
means that deeper ecological
visions are seen as counterproductive to the tasks at hand and are
excluded
from public discussions.
Questions raised publicly about the destructive, “more economic growth”
trajectory
of industrial consumer
capitalism, growing human populations and the coming end of the fossil
fuel economy,
etc. are not welcome, when the
focus is on how to “regulate” OHV use.
I have come
to see such OHV discussions as irresolvable without a fundamental
values
shift, involving as
they do a clash of cultures - in
the sense of starkly competing definitions of what constitutes “the
good life.”
The case has been
convincingly made, that the present North American consumer
lifestyle, as model for
the
world's population, would require
several planets. (12) The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
with its call that greenhouse gas
emissions must be cut 50-70 percent if the atmosphere of the planet is
to
remain hospitable, points to the
ending of the fossil-fuel driven industrial capitalist economy. All of
us must
learn to live much more simply
and less intrusively on this one Earth we share.
The escalating
use of off-highway vehicles, will not be ended until there is a basic
shift in values within
industrial consumer society,
which will end this society as we have come to know it. The work of
contributing
to such a values shift, aims to
foster alternative visions of the “good” society, so that such visions
become part
of the public discourse and
result in fundamental changes in behaviour. This is what some have
called
"paradigm warrior" work. The
paradigm shifts which are needed are really out of our individual
hands. But
our incremental work in
critiquing the dominant paradigm of values and proposing an alternative
is important
and does contribute to such
needed paradigm shifts. To end or severely restrict off-highway vehicle
use is
ultimately a paradigm shift
change, not a regulatory issue.
The off-highway vehicle world
view and “Wise Use”
The N.S.
task force on OHV use produced an interim report in February 2004,
entitled “Out of Control”,
(13) with a list of 48
recommendations for further public discussion and written comment. These
recommendations can change in the
final report but they have served as more fuel for the public OHV
debate.
The interim report advocates some
progressive measures. But overall, it is a tinkering document, which
will
facilitate and legitimate OHV
use. A final report of the task force will be produced after the public
had
a period
of time to respond. The period
to respond to the interim report has been extended mainly due to
lobbying
by
the OHV industry and organized
rider groups, who have been mobilizing to oppose the regulatory thrust
of the
report.
The interim
report advocated a greatly increased trail network and OHV
infrastructure
throughout the
province, with initial government
funding, later to be financed by users, which would lead to more OHV
use.
The infrastructure even included
“core funding of OHV user associations.” So a task force set up to
supposedly bring under control
a definite social and ecological problem, ends up suggesting measures
which
will increase OHV use!
Many of the
recommendations in the interim report, which essentially put forward a
motor-vehicle licensing
model for off-highway vehicles,
sought to introduce some controls. For example, mandatory registration
for
all OHVs ($50 per year) with
license plates on each vehicle at the front and rear; children under 14
cannot
drive OHVs; requirement for third
party liability insurance; OHVs can only use designated trails on public
(crown) lands; written permission
required from private landowners; OHVs excluded from wilderness posted
areas; permits required for
rallies involving more than 50 OHV riders, etc.
At the public
meetings I attended and from newspaper reports of other meetings, with
a handful of
exceptions, most critical
comments tended to be a discussion about "bad apples" who were spoiling
it for the
rest. But from my perspective,
the barrel of OHV apples is mainly rotten. Or perhaps more charitably,
there
are more bad apples than good
ones. The audience was mainly older and male, with few young people. The
sentiment from the OHV users at
the meetings was that the “bad apples” were not present. The right to
use
off-highway vehicles was taken
for granted. Many of the persons present seemed to belong to organized
ATV
or snowmobile clubs, whose
speakers emphasized how “responsible” they were. There was much talk of
the
“conservation credentials” of the
various organized OHV clubs, with members building bridges over streams,
having wardens to enforce trail
etiquette, raising money for various good causes, etc. OHV spokespersons
also emphasized and openly
lobbied for what they called “multiple use” of trails, for example the
TransCanada
Trail. The forest industry also
stresses multiple use, even though their “use” destroys the use for
others. Many
regard OHV multiple use in the
same way, when encountering an ATV or trying to navigate a deep mud
wallow created by OHVs on the
TransCanada Trail or on old logging woods trails.
What struck
me in the talk about conservation credentials, was the absence of OHV
organizations (and
organized hunters and anglers)
from any public representation in the fight against industrial forestry
(clear cutting
and spraying), mining, or for
increased wilderness areas in the province. Conservation of these
groups, was one
of narrow self interest. Those
who have been at the forefront of environmental issues in Nova Scotia
are
generally those who have sought
to enter woods and wild places non-intrusively.
Most of the
speakers at the public meetings, who often were the officers of ATV or
snowmobile clubs, spoke
of how they loved the “sport” of
OHV use. Forests, non forested areas, waterways and coastal marine
areas,
and wilderness were seen as some
kind of outdoor gymnasium for humankind. There seemed to be little
awareness of OHV impacts on other
species or the ecology. One of the serious limitations of such public
meetings is that those who
are “organized” tend to turn out, while those who oppose a
particular practice, who
can be substantial in numbers,
are unorganized and often do not turn out.
The proposed
controls in the interim report, have became the target of an organized
“right to ride” campaign
to overturn many of them. This
attack is being fostered by the industry producing these vehicles
(Motorcycle
and Moped Industry Council and
Canadian All-Terrain Vehicle Distributor’s Council) and the organized
umbrella associations of ATV and
snowmobile riders within Nova Scotia - the All Terrain Vehicle
Association,
(media reports speak of about 31
ATV clubs in Nova Scotia) and the Snowmobile Association of Nova
Scotia
(which has a reported 21
snowmobiling clubs). Petitions have been organized by user groups
denouncing the
interim report with the new
proposed regulations, with the title of this report, “Out of Control”,
being seen as
particularly inflammatory.
A few speakers
told harrowing stories of how off-highway vehicle use had transformed
their lives for the
worst. Their rural privacy was
now gone, there was no peace and quiet anymore. The smell of OHVs
“lasted
forever” said one critic.
Sometimes alcohol was involved. One person said that ATV meant for him
“alcohol
tolerated vehicle.” The
individuals who did speak up critically for the larger human and
ecological community,
if they are from rural areas
particularly, sometimes expressed fear of retribution. Some were
unwilling to speak
publicly about the negative
influences of OHVs and spoke privately to the task force members. Those
who
were critical sometimes spoke
about the futility of more regulations - that it was just “sweet talk”,
when
there
was no enforcement in what passed
for the back country in Nova Scotia. There was a clash of cultures in
the
meetings I took part in, with
strong feelings and tensions just below the surface that could easily
erupt. The
view being expressed in this
essay was very much a minority one. Many more have however spoken at the
public meetings, or written
letters to the editor in favour of greater regulation of off-highway
vehicles.
The tinkering
restrictions suggested by the task force on OHV use have been strongly
opposed by the
industry itself and the organized
rider associations. I believe that many so-called recreational OHV
users will
swell the ranks of the “Wise Use”
movement in Nova Scotia, if some additional regulations are eventually
imposed. Wise Use, a social
response in North America to the rise of radical environmentalism, in
this
context means that all of Nature
is available for HUMAN use. From such a viewpoint, Nature should not be
"locked up" in parks or
wilderness reserves, and human access to "resources" always must have
priority.
Riding a powerful machine and an
ingrained belief in the ‘right’ to go anywhere, for many seems to be
part of
the cultural definition of
“self.”
Wise Use
forces have organized in the past in the province around logging and
forest spraying issues. They
become an angry and intolerant
public presence when an environmental issue becomes highly visible and
some
significant social change seems
likely. For example, at a meeting in Nova Scotia in 1984, an alleged
Education
Seminar organized by the Atlantic
Vegetation Management Association involving the chemical industry and
government regulatory agencies
concerned by widespread citizen opposition to forest biocide
spraying,
three
ideologues of the "Wise Use"
movement spoke - Ron Arnold, Dave Dietz and Maurice Tugwell. The
essential
message was "It takes a movement
to fight a movement." (14) In other words, neither industry nor
government
according to Arnold, can by
itself successfully challenge a broadly based environmental movement. As
off-highway vehicles have started
to come under a needed critical scrutiny, the OHV industry has come
forward
to defend its economic interests.
OHV riders will become its foot soldiers. Demonization and scapegoating
of
the opponents to the alleged
recreational use of OHVs should now be expected and is already starting
to take
place.
Perhaps there
is a limited and carefully circumscribed role for OHVs in a
work-related capacity, but there
should be no role for them as
recreational vehicles. It is important that activists try to socially
isolate the large
numbers of so-called recreational
or sport off-highway vehicle riders with their communal outings, and
the use
of such vehicles for hunting,
fishing, and trapping. These are the vehicles which constitute the main
problem.
This means, I believe, not
opposing at this time, the rural person living in place who has an ATV
or a
snowmobile for chores like
bringing in the winter wood, who themselves often suffer from the
“organized”
recreational OHV use by others.
Putting a down
payment on an off-highway vehicle (for example a high-end ATV can be
upwards of
$12,000 per unit or a snowmobile
can retail for over $10,000), does not give one right of entry to
Nature.
The machines are becoming larger
and more powerful. To enter the outdoors does not require a motorized
vehicle to make oneself a
participant. What we should bring to the outdoors, are a humble and non
intrusive
attitude; plus one should be
self-propelled, using for example, skis, snowshoes, walking shoes, a
rowing
boat or canoe, or a kayak. This
means also being responsible for one’s own safety and return to the
point
of entry. Off-highway vehicles
are part of a commercial culture where any technology can be developed
and
marketed, irrespective of its
long term impact on the environment or other human beings. This has to
change.
We must live, if we want a
future, within ecological limits.
Conclusion
People reading
Off Road Rage see the necessity for a fundamental change in
popular consciousness, to move
self-definitions away from the
acquisition of consumer goods like ATVs and snowmobiles, and blindness
to the
damage done to the natural world
by such machines. We need a fundamental change in our ecopsychology, to
move to what Naess has called the
ecological Self, perhaps best expressed and taught so far in the
Councils
of All Beings inspired by deep
ecology, where people gather and try to be a voice for other life
forms,
such as
animals and plants, and for the
wind, rivers, mountains etc. The OHV discussions can be one more entry
to
such a change in human
consciousness.
Does one
accept, as one mainstream environmentalist put it, “That good or bad,
OHVs are
here to stay”?
If one accepts this, then the
“regulatory” focus becomes all-consuming. This is certainly the case
with current
OHV discussions in Nova Scotia
and perhaps elsewhere. I believe that it is an error to proceed on this
path,
because the current situation can
only get worse.
More
regulations will not bring the OHV situation under control. There will
be more off-highway vehicles,
greater populations, more urban
sprawl, and fewer wild places to invade. Highways can be policed but the
backwoods cannot be. The
prevailing economic growth, high personal consumption model of the
supposedly
good life, links the OHV industry
and governments (provincial, federal, and municipal) in Canada at the
hip,
with mutual anti-Earth interests.
Regulations
or controls, which minimize to some extent the costs to Nature or to
human society arising
from OHV stupidities or current
practice, should of course be supported. But a regulatory focus is
designed
not to call the actual industrial
capitalist system itself and its cultural assumptions into question.
Fundamental
assumptions, which become
reflected in OHV use, remain unquestioned, for example, the contrast
between
private property rights and the
emerging concept of ecocentric governance, where animals and plants are
our
relatives, our brothers and
sisters; where the Earth itself cannot be “owned” by humans; and where
morality
becomes spiritually based and not
rooted in self interest, material desires and economics. As we have
also seen,
increased OHV regulations are
seen as onerous and will be opposed by the “right to ride” crowd.
There are two
quotations which introduce this essay, by Andrew Dobson and Arne Naess.
Dobson’s quote
shows that an ecological non
human centered society means that there will be limitations on the
freedoms of the
consumer, which are now taken for
granted. But there will be a far better quality of life for humans and
non
human life forms, with which we
must share this planet on an equality basis. The OHV discussion, if we
avoid
the regulatory emphasis, gives
us an opportunity to explain this. If we call for a ban on the
recreational or
“sport” use of OHVs, as does this
article, then what else should be disposable from our existing
industrial
lifestyles, for long term
sustainability, as the fossil fuel economy comes to an end because of
global warming
and the exhaustion of this fuel
source?
This
discussion leads us also into considering the quote by Arne Naess, that
our lifestyles (in North America
and Western Europe) should be a
model for the rest of the world’s population, not something they cannot
attain. We need to look at OHV
use, and all the other taken-for-granted consumer goodies, from such a
perspective. Rudolf Bahro
(1935-1997), the German green philosopher and activist, who has
influenced the
theoretical tendency “left
biocentrism” within deep ecology with which I am associated, (15) said
in the 1980s
that “development” was finished
and that industrialized nations needed to reduce their impact upon the
Earth to
one-tenth of what it then was.
(16) For left biocentrists, Earth-centered societies need entirely
different
economies. These are the kind of
ideas that should become part of the off-highway vehicle debate.
How does one
change the “right to ride” mindset of many OHV riders? There are
clashing cultural definitions
of “self” in contention here.
When one sees the hostility expressed towards the “tree hugger”, it can
seem
a
hopeless task, but we must
persevere in our work. The OHV debate is a cultural clash between a
industrial
consumerist human-centered
selfishness that essentially disregards other social and ecological
interests, and
a
new Earth-centered consciousness,
informed by deep ecology and social equity considerations, that has been
spawned out of the radical
environmental movement and is now entering society at large. Cultural
“tipping
points” are, unfortunately out
of our hands, but they do occur. Our work as deep ecology-inspired
activists
contributes to them, whether it
is speaking up at public meetings or writing articles, or taking part
in necessary
body-on-the-line or in their face
activities. This is the importance of paradigm warrior work, so that the
ecocentric alternative enters
public consciousness. The OHV debate is such an arena for cultural
change work,
a step on the path to ending our
alienation from Nature and from each other.
May 2004
****************
Postscript
The Final
Report of the Task Force came out in November 2004. It contained 39
recommendations for action.
The minority Conservative
provincial government, which has a political power base in rural Nova
Scotia with a
more generally favorable attitude
towards OHV users than in urban areas, foot-dragged but ultimately
responded
to this Final Report with its own
"Off-Highway
Vehicles In Nova Scotia: Provincial Direction And Action
Plan" in October 2005.
There was considerable discussion in the media that the government was
watering down
the Task Force's final
recommendations.
The main
thrust of the Task Force to promote off-highway vehicle use, but in a
more regulated manner by the
provincial government, has
remained constant. Ecological considerations continue to remain quite
secondary to
those of a more human-centered
nature. This includes the position in the Final Report to
"develop and publish
the blueprint of a comprehensive
off-highway vehicle network of trails and areas." Yet the consciousness
among
the general public over the
off-highway vehicle issue has greatly increased in Nova Scotia because
of all the
discussions that have taken
place. Some positive regulatory changes have now been made. They are
for example:
private landowners must now give
written permission for OHV use; there is compulsory vehicle
registration; all
rallies now require mandatory
permits; drivers must complete safety courses. Also, courts in the
province have
upheld by-laws which ban
off-highway vehicles within town limits. Some doctors in Nova Scotia
specializing in
child trauma injures, also fought
a highly visible campaign in the media to ban children under the age of
sixteen
from riding OHVs because of the
very real death and injury potential for younger riders. Although not
ultimately
successful, now children younger
than 14 cannot drive OHVs except on closed supervised courses.
June 2006
****************
Endnotes
1. A. Dobson, Green Political
Thought, 3rd ed. (London and New York: Routledge, 2000), p. 165.
2. A. Naess, “A European
Looks at North American Branches of the Deep Ecology Movement,”
in
Philosophical Dialogues: Arne
Naess and the Progress of Ecophilosophy, Nina Witoszek and
Andrew Brennan, eds. (Lanham,
Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1999), p. 224.
3. The task force on off-highway
vehicles was called the “Voluntary Planning Task Force on
Off-highway
Vehicles.” It made available
before the public meetings were held a background 13-page position
paper
called “Off-highway
Vehicles in Nova Scotia”, dated October 9, 2003. Several short
quotes and
facts are given in my essay from
this paper. It is important to point out something about the
organization
“Voluntary Planning”, which
organized or fronted the OHV debate. Voluntary Planning is a government-
funded and staffed, mainly
business-oriented group of chosen and self-selected volunteers bound by
a
policy of confidentiality. The
Chairman and Vice Chairman of V.P. are appointed by the provincial
government and there are four
permanent staff paid for by this government. The first meeting of the
V.P.
Board was held back in 1963. V.P.
has presented itself in Nova Scotia for over 40 years as a selfless,
self-described “non partisan” and
“moderate” public-spirited body of citizens. But the reality is that
through
V.P., the business class, the
voice of the status quo, has presented its concerns and analysis as
those of
the
average citizen. Through V.P. and
its various sector organizations e.g. forestry, mineral resources,
environment and economy,
agriculture, etc. the provincial state apparatus and public funds have
been
mobilized for private interest
groups. V.P. has been intimately involved with the promotion of the
interests
of commercial forestry right from
its beginnings justifying, for example, clear cutting and forest
spraying.
(Foresters regularly invoke the
mantra of site-specific forestry but in Nova Scotia, according to a
recent
environmental report, clear
cutting is used over 90 percent of the time.) The discussion on the
various issues
involved with the use of OHVs has
been heavily conditioned by the taken-for-granted or “of course”
assumptions of those defining the
agenda for public discussion.
4. I attended three public
meetings and gave a presentation at one of them called “Off-highway
Vehicle
Use: A Reflection of
Industrialized Society’s Alienation From the Natural World.”
This
presentation was later re-written
and published as an 800-word Opinion article in the main provincial
newspaper, The Chronicle
Herald, on February 28, 2004, under the title “OHV Use:
Alienation from
Natural World.” The
mainstream environmental movement within Nova Scotia supported the
interim
report of the task force and
rallied behind it. Thus the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Nova
Scotia Chapter, stated: “This
document represents a positive step towards a culture of
environmentally and
socially responsible OHV use in
Nova Scotia.” ( Wild East: The newsletter of CPAWS Nova Scotia, 4,
Spring 2004, p. 4.)
5. The eight-point Deep
Ecology Platform is now usually given as the common denominator
of the deep
ecology movement, plus the
distinction between “shallow” and “deep,” made by Naess in his initial
formulation of deep ecology. The
Deep Ecology Platform was worked out in 1984 by Arne Naess and
George Sessions. It has been
called "the heart of deep ecology" and has received widespread
acceptance
by supporters. It is fairly
abstract and does not tell activists what to do in specific situations.
It says
all non
human life forms have intrinsic
value, not dependent on human purpose. For Naess the term "life" can
include landscapes, streams,
mountains and wilderness. It is used to include both biocentrism and
ecocentrism. The concept of
"vital needs" is introduced in the Platform, but not defined. Naess has
written
that these vital needs give "life
its deepest meaning." The DE Platform does not mention Self-realization
or
non-violence. It emphasizes
population reduction. DE supporters stress this is to be done without
personal
coercion. There is no mechanism
for changing the Platform, or for further developing it.
6. Naess, “Response to
Peder Anker” in Philosophical Dialogues, p. 446.
7. S. Sarkar, Eco-Socialism
or Eco-Capitalism? A Critical Analysis of Humanity’s Fundamental
Choices (London and New York:
Zed Books, 1999), p. 227.
8. L. Legere, “Culture of
entitlement,” letter to the editor, The Daily News, 24
April 2004, p. 18.
9. A summary of deep ecology
given by Jack Stillwell in the internet discussion group “left bio.”
The people
in this discussion group are in
general support of the Deep
Ecology Platform and the ten-point
Left
Biocentrism Primer. Both of these documents can be viewed at
the
web site:
http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/
10. C. L. Martin, In The
Spirit of the Earth: Rethinking History and Time (London and
Baltimore:
The John Hopkins University
Press, 1992), p. 18.
11. A. Naess, Ecology,
community and lifestyle, translated and edited by D. Rothenberg
(Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press,
1989), p.175.
12. M. Wackernagel and W. Rees, Our
Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth
(Gabriola Island, BC: New Society
Publishers, 1996). There are criticisms of this important text from a DE
perspective. Although this book
has brought the concept of our ecological footprint into consciousness
for
many, it remains human-centered,
other species needs are a footnote; the authors work with the bogus
“sustainable development”
concept; they avoid the redistribution of wealth and accept the
“current material
standard of living” (p.24); they
accept world trade and globalization; and they believe that we have to
appeal to human self-interest to
bring about social change.
13. Voluntary Planning, Out
of Control: Interim report of the Voluntary Planning Off-highway
Vehicle Task Force (Province
of Nova Scotia: Communications Nova Scotia, February 2004).
14. This quote is taken from a
four-page summary of this meeting, dated October 25, 1984, sent out by
the
New Brunswick “Natural Resources
Forest Extension Service,” meant for internal distribution only. A copy
was obtained by an
environmentalist and widely circulated. The actual quote is attributed
to the Wise Use
ideologue Ron Arnold and taken
from the title of the summary: “‘Only A Movement Can Combat A
Movement’ Environmental
Campaigners Say.” Apart from misleadingly calling the Wise Use
speakers
“environmental campaigners,” this
meeting summary shows the alliance between governments and the Wise
Use coalition of forces, in order
to combat an environmentally concerned citizenry.
15. A summary of left
biocentrism, which continues to evolve, is given in the ten-point Left
Biocentrism Primer.
Left biocentrism functions as a
kind of Left wing of the deep ecology movement. Left biocentrists call
themselves “left bios” and an
internet discussion group, that has been operating for over seven
years, has
functioned as one place for
collective theoretical discussions. A personal letter to me from George
Sessions,
dated 4/19/98, also copied to
Arne Naess, Bill Devall, Andrew McLaughlin and Howard Glasser, noted in
part
about left biocentrism: "Personally,
I agree with almost everything you say in the Left Biocentric Primer...
It's a real shame that the Green
parties came under the influence of Bookchin and not your version of
Left Biocentrism - it's obvious
that's where they need to head. So, I have no necessary bones to pick
with
your idea of a Left wing of the
Deep Ecology movement, more power to you and your colleagues. I
wonder if the word ‘Left' is the
appropriate one to use (as opposed to social justice)."
16. R. Bahro, Avoiding Social
& Ecological Disaster: The Politics of World Transformation,
revised
abridged edition, translated from
the German by David Clarke (Bath: Gateway Books, 1994).
The edited version of this article, under
the title
"Off-Road Vehicles and Deep Ecology: Cultural Clash and Alienation
from the Natural World" has been
printed in
Thrillcraft: The
Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation,
2007, Foundation for Deep Ecology.
To obtain any of the Green
Web
publications, write to us at:
Green Web, R.R. #3, Saltsprings, Nova Scotia, Canada, BOK 1PO
E-mail us at: greenweb@ca.inter.net
Back
to
The Green Web
A Taste of Green Web Writings and Left Biocentrism
http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/OHV-DE.html
Last updated: December 15, 2007