Briere, Norris and Munawar 1

SECTION 1

Navigating Through Clashing Worldviews: First Nations Opposition to Energy Projects in British Columbia

Intro & Case Study: Unist’ot’en Camp

The larger context

- Energy projects In BC:

- Overview of pipelines debates in BC (Enbridge, Pembina, Kinder Morgan)

- Quick analysis of environmental concerns, Indigenous rights, economical benefits.

- New controversy over fracking.

- shale gas is the natural gas equivalent of Alberta’s oil sands. The exploitation of both requires enormous quantities of water and energy (CCPA 2011, 5 )

- BC’s emission reduction target is simply incompatible with its Natural Gaz strategy. It would necessitate a reduction of 81% in all the other sectors which is not at all realistic (CCPA 2012)

- Fracking as a technological solution to climate change ( half of British Columbia’s gas is from unconventional sources) (CCPA 2012)

- Natural gas is portrayed as a “transitional fuel”…

The camp

The Unist’ot’en Camp is a resistance community established by a group of Grassroots Wet’suwet’en People (People of this Earth) in opposition to Pembina Pipelines and Enbridge Inc’s proposal to run dual oil and gas pipelines to transport bitumen and diluted condensate through unceded and occupied Unist’ot’en territory. What once was a “soft blockade” four years ago is growing to include permaculture gardens, permanent buildings and pit houses. Because the proposed pipelines would cut through two main salmon spawning channels, the community’s staple food supply, the projects pose a direct threat to the quality of life, culture and community.

Idle no More context

The movement was triggered in early January 2013 in response to Bill C-45, a omnibus budget that contained major changes to more than sixty federal acts and regulations (Wotherspoon & Hansen 2013, 23). Notably, the Bill intended to modify the Indian Act, the Navigation Protection Act and the Environmental Assessment Act. Idle no more is the latest manifestation of an historical struggle for the recognition of indigenous people’s rights to the land but also of their dignity, culture, values. It is a reawakening driven by a responsibility to protect nature and traditional practices. The recent indigenous opposition to energy projects in BC has to be understood in the larger context of the Idle no More movement.

Internal argument

Through an exposition of how the case study exemplifies a clash of discourses, we will explore how the alternative worldview driven by humility is an antidote to the ils engendered by the blindspots in the dominant worldview driven by technological hubris.

Defining Worldviews

It is important to mention that the notions of worldview, social imaginaries and discourses will be used intergeangably throughout the paper but all correspond to Charles Taylor’s definition of social imaginary which refers to the ways in which “people imagine their social existence, how they fit together with others, how things go on between them and their fellows, the expectations that are normally met and the deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations” (Taylor 2004, 18). Taylor’s definition of social imaginaries is rooted in Michel Foucault’s notion of discourse as described in The Archeology of Knowledge and in Discipline and Punish. Taylor’s social imaginaries are then horizons determined by discourses. They are more than a mere background which helps us add meaning to the foreground; rather they are an “unstructured and inarticulate understanding of our whole situation, within which particular features of our world become evident” (107). Such common understandings reify a “shared sense of legitimacy” and so, if we entertain the possibility of “multiple modernities”, it is important to consider competing claims to legitimacy or illegitimacy of actions performed in shared spaces. At the heart of this clash are competing understandings of the relationship between man and the natural world which can be traced to divergent conceptualizations of Earth itself. For the purposes of this paper, it is important to mention that each discourse has been constructed through a survey of post-modern critiques of the relationship between man, nature and technology and also, the rhetoric of anti-pipeline movements by indigenous communities in BC (in particular the Coastal Salish Nations and Wet’suwet’en People). It is important to mention that these two discourse or worldview are not polarized, homogeneous and objective entities; often, we act through the frameworks of multiple social imaginaries. Also, we intend on approaching this paper with a concern of reification as cautioned by Edward Said in Orientalism with sensitivity to the relation between discourse and reality.

The Humility and hubris discourses correspond to a positionality from which we measure human existence; the former understands earth with an appreciation of finitude and the latter refers to an assumed Archimedean point outside of the confines of earth, which assumes limitlessness in human capacity to know and do. By attempting to measure human existence on earth from an Archimedean point, modern natural science has engendered a moral schizophrenia enabling earth-bound creatures to masquerade as dwellers of the universe (Arendt, 1998 3).

The Dominant Worldview: Technological Hubris

The worldview constructed in and through the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment philosophy presents a Promethean picture of the human being, as a producer, who can know, control and transform the systematic totality of the earth. This “new science” or novum organum was founded on the conceptual separation between humans and the environment and with the intended purpose of exploiting and dominating nature. Inherent to this worldview is the notion of progress, which is based on the belief that, through the power of reason (and technology), human societies can be perpetually improved upon nature (Huesemann 2011, 5). At the heart of this consequentialist vision lies the notion of technological optimism, which refers to the idea that technological innovation and economic growth are the solution to each and every problem that mankind faces.When we look at Canada’s energy sector and the exploitation of the oil sands, one can argue that the worldview initiated by the Enlightenment philosophers and the Scientific Revolution is still very much alive and dominates the public discourse. Canada’s bitumen sector has been portrayed as the world’s first step into unconventional oil extraction and the Enbridge pipelines seek the expansion of this energy source which is reported to be 17% more emissions intensive than conventional oil (Bergerson & Keith 2010, 6010). Concerns over a potential oil spill are muted by claims of assumed competency and risk-management contingency plans; however, a lesson learned from the notorious BP spill is that disasters occur because of “hubris, arrogance and indolence” (CBC 2012 ). Concerning climate change, Ottawa and Alberta’s main response has been to announce the investment of 2 billion dollars in carbon sequestration (The Tyee june 21 2012, 33). Although performed on a local scale, carbon sequestration echoes the aspirations of geoengineering: the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change (The royal Society 2009, 1). If geoengineering was ever to be attempted it would certainly represent the ultimate expression of Man’s desire to control nature.

A dominant worldview in crisis

We argue that the prevailing discourse based on technological optimism and growth renders impossible to tackle the ecological crisis.

Growth, Growth and Growth

GDP growth, the central pillar of our capitalist economies, relies on the continuous rise of the consumption of goods and services. The “iron cage of consumerism” is a term borrowed from Tim Jackson’s book Prosperity Without Growth. In using this expression, he refers to the structural and psychological forces that lock society in a race for ever-higher levels of consumption (Jackson 2011, 87). Studying capitalism, economist Joseph Schumpeter suggested that novelty, described as the process of innovation, is absolutely vital in pushing economic growth. He states that capitalism proceeds through a process of “creative destruction”, products and technologies being continuously overthrown by new technologies and products (Schumpeter cited in Jackson 2011, 96). The imperative to perpetually innovate and sell more goods stimulates rising level of consumption (Jackson 2011, 96). It is made possible because consumers have a psychological tendency to be addicted to novelty and material goods. Psychologist Russ Belk uses the term cathexis to describe this process of attachment that leads us to think and feel as if material possessions were part of our extended self (Russ Belk cited in Jackson 2011, 98). Moreover, according to psychologist Phillip Cushman, this “empty self” is in perpetual need of being filled up with new material consumption (Cushman in Jackson 2011, 100). Across the world, the lifestyle promoted by the media, Internet, and even governments, is centered on material accumulation and individualism.

The Problem of taking GDP Growth as Gospel:

- GDP growth offers an extremely narrow definition of well being that does not account for economic and social inequalities, environmental degradation or loss of cultural diversity. As paradoxical as it sounds, the cost of cleaning-up an oil spill positively contributes to GDP growth because the indicator does not account for negative environmental externalities. As noted by the United Nations’ Environmental program, «The GDP indicator on its own will always depend on rising quantities of extracted resources, especially as they are depleted and prices are pushed upwards, which, in turn, will accelerate their depletion» (UNEP 2011, 35).

- “Permanent global growth is impossible in a finite system. Studies demonstrate that we already exceed the productive capacity of nature by 25 to 30 per cent, and that 60 per cent of the ecosystems are currently overused“ (Najam & al. 2007, 11).

The Dream of Decoupling and dematerialization

The worldview rooted in technological hubris entertains the dream of dematerializing the economy by decoupling growth from environmental impact. Decoupling is made possible when the growth rate of natural ressource use and environmental impact is lower then the GDP growth rate (Laurent 2011, 237). The ultimate aim, flagrant in the dominant discourse, is to reach absolute decoupling (or dematerialization) which happens when the pressure on the environment and its resources stabilizes or decreases whereas GDP growth rises (Laurent 2011, 237). This desire is glaring when one analyses Prime Minister Harper’s discourse. In a speech where he was promoting the Keystone XL pipeline and the potential of green technologies, Harpers mentions that technology "will allow us to square economic growth with emissions reduction and environmental protection", and that"if we cannot square those two things we're not going to make progress globally" (CBC 2013).

In this section we will argue that absolute decoupling is essentially a myth and will defend this with the example of CO2 emissions

1- There is no sign of absolute decoupling on a global scale

2- CO2 emissions are exported towards developing countries

3- We don’t account for hidden fluxes (importation) of CO2.

Exploring the IPAT equation

I = P x A x T

«The impact [I] of any group or nation on the environment can be viewed as the product of its population size [P] multiplied by per-capita affluence [A] as measured by consumption, in turn multiplied by a measure of the damage done by the technologies [T] employed in supplying each unit of that consumption» (Ehrlich, 1991).

- According to the dominant worldview, sustainability is a technical problem that can be overcome by infinitely reducing the technological factor [T]. Yet, according to the physical law of entropy (second law of thermodynamics), the T factor can never come down to zero (Huesemann 2011, 121). Perpetual growth is then not conceivable even from a positivist-scientific perspective.

Green technologies and the rebound effect

The concept of “rebound effect” exemplifies this limit. Stanley Jevons first presented the theory in his book The Coal Question (1865), where he demonstrates that an efficiency gain in coal use (leading to lower costs) in Scotland paradoxically generated a higher consumption of the resource. A classic example is fuel consumption efficiency in the automobile sector. If I buy a more fuel-efficient car, it will be cheaper to go from point A to point B. I will therefore be tempted to increase the use of my vehicle to cover longer distances. The environmental benefit of my fuel-efficient car will then be cancelled, if not worsened. A similar logic can be applied to so-called “transitional” energies like natural gas or even “green” energies, as long as we stay in a ever increasing growth paradigm.

The illusion of separateness:

- Barry Commoner’s First Law of ecology = the global eco-system is a connected whole, every gain is won at some cost (Huesemann 2011, 3)

- By trying to objectify nature through modern science, Man lives is an illusion of separateness whose backlash effect comes in the form of an environmental and social crisis.

- The need to challenge this dominant paradigm is urgent.

Humility: An Alternative Worldview

Unlike the dominant worldview which is driven by technological hubris, a possible alternative, echoed by Arendt, Hueseman and Eisenstein, and embodied in the Wet'suwet'en Peoples’ and Coast Salish Nations’ resistance to pipelines, is rooted in the virtue of humility. Implicit within the dominant worldview is an illusion of separatenessthat “our interests and destinies are separate from each other and from nature” (Huesemann 277). To feel intrinsically separated from nature and from alternative lived experiences paves way to justify and allow not only the exploitation of nature but also the degradation of ecosystems of unceded territories occupied by indigenous peoples. The rhetoric of anti-pipeline sentiment by the Coast Salish Nations and Wet’suwet’en Peoples invokes narratives of unity and oneness to propose that the effects of oil spills and environmental degradation will be felt beyond the borders of indigenous territory by all of humankind--especially those yet to be born. Interconnectedness, unity (with nature and each other) and shared destinies (intergenerational distributive justice) all boil down to an appreciation of living in and through the earth. The value of humility and harmony with nature is also reflected in traditional indigenous knowledge which comes fro the Creator and from Creation itself and where many teachings are gained from animals, plants, the moon, the stars, water, wind, vision, ceremony, intuitions, dreams, personal experience and the spirit of the word (McGregor 2004, 338).

Through a discourse and textual analysis of the narratives, pamphlets and lectures of anti-pipeline events, it will be shown how such concepts of unity are mobilized to not only globalize the issue, but also, challenge how the issues are imagined and visualized from within the dominant worldview.

Sailing Through the Storm

- A Clash of Worldviews? Irreconcilable worldviews? Not so black and white!

For their claims to be heard, indigenous communities have to navigate through these clashing worldviews and between modernity and tradition. In his book Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto, Alfred Taiaike argues that peace is almost unattainable for First Nations inside a society that feeds on consumerism, materialism and corporate globalization which runs counter to traditional Indigenous values (Taiaike 2009, 25, 40). In his analysis, Taiaike echoes the difficulty of navigating opposing discourses when he explains that Native communities are often represented by leaders who have moved away from traditional Indigenous cultural values and internalized western values which leads them to endorse a larger political and economic system (Taiaike 2009, 28). The challenge is then to explore whether deliberative democratic institutions can process such a case of deep difference in a way that conflict is processed through the medium of talk in the arena of speech, as opposed to violence, is the crux of this dilemma.

SECTION TWO: DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

INTRODUCTION

The argument of this paper is three-fold. First, whether the prevailing institutional mechanisms of deliberative democracy are fit to process the clash of discourses and matters of deep difference that surround the expansion of Enbridge and Kinder Morgan’s pipeline projects in Northern BC. Second, I will argue that democratic dissent is marginalized to the peripheries of the space of opinion surrounding pipeline-specific policy issues by structures of domination, legitimation and signification which regulate accessibility and style of deliberation. Third, through a critique of the power dimension of deliberation and a case study of the Unist’ot’en Camp, I will present non-violent civil disobedience as a non-institutional form of deliberation which is grounded in the principles of deliberative democracy itself (as opposed to a common misconception of the form as anarchistic and non-democratic). Finally, I will suggest how activists can mobilize themes of alternative discourses in and through forms of non-violent civil disobedience and protest in order to demand weighted inclusion in policy discourse concerning the transport of diluted bitumen, hydraulic fracturing etc.

Concepts that need to be defined:

civil disobedience (violent vs non-violent), space of opinion/public sphere, habermasian deliberation (institutional vs non-institutional), agonism, democratic dissent

Part 1: In the Spirit of Habermasian Style Deliberation

In their extensive application to the National Energy Board for its Northern Gateway Project, Enbridge presented a 500 page volume on Aboriginal Engagement. The crux of the document is that the NEB’s public involvement requirements will be actualized in the form of deliberation, compensation, inclusion of traditional knowledges and capacity funding etc. In terms of deliberation, Enbridge, and the National Energy Board, will host (and have hosted prior to application) public consultations, hearings, presentations, open houses etc through which information of the project was shared with communities to be affected. The concerns voiced in public consultations prior to the filing of the application included effects on the environment, logistics, safety and energy response, effects on traditional use, process issues and community and economic development. Enbridge’s response to this was pipeline route refinements, pump station location refinements, kitimat terminal and operations refinements and project execution and operations refinements. The public consultations, hearings, open house etc. are hosted by the companies in spirit of Habermasian-style deliberation: to include those affected by the project within the planning, construction and management of the project itself.

--basic outline of Habermasian style deliberation (and how this model is institutionalized)