Bioregionalism


“A revolution is truly needed-in our values, outlooks, and economic organizations.  For the crisis of our environment stems from a legacy of economic and technical premises which have been pursued in the absence of ecological knowledge. That other revolution, the industrial one that is turning sour , needs to be replaced by a revolution of of new attitudes toward growth, goods, space and living things.”
Michael McCloskey




“Unlimited economic growth is a planetary impossibility.  It could only have been conceived by minds out of touch with natural limits.  It is dependent upon a suicidal overuse of resources and an impossible rate of commodity consumption.  It depends upon all elements of the resource-production-consumption cycle operating at an accelerated rate that cannot be maintained in the long run.”  (Mander, 1978, 145)
   
    Does the current industrial capitalist economy encourage sustainable growth?  NO!   Is it easy for business to lead a low impact existence? NO!  After weighing the pressures to be environmentally conscious against the contrasting pressures to consume and propagate in our society, are we a people encouraged to seek answers and solutions to our environmental problems?  NO! Finally, from what do we derive all our economy, our happiness, and our very  life?  The answer is, of course; The Earth. 
    Throughout our course work for Political Science 276 we’ve examined  views on implementation of environmental policy and idealistic ways of saving the environment.  Economic rationalism, administrative rationalism, and democratic pragmatism all try to implement environmental policy and protection in a way that won’t necessarily negatively impact the country.  Deep ecology, eco-feminism, and survivalism are ideologies that can be quite true to fact, but practically could not bring about some sort of unified movement towards environmental protection.  All these ideologies, both practical and romantic, are somewhat compelling, but not realistic
     The current economy is based on constant, unhindered growth.  Our government and “culture” is based on our economy.  Clearly, allowing the economy to naturally protect the environment through its own self interest is ignorant wishful thinking.  In addition, with the power of corporate economic influence in our government, it is unlikely that a policy shift could bring about the widespread environmental protection that is needed.  It isn’t merely that the corporations that have captured are government would look skeptically at any move toward true environmental policy, but our government relies on a good, strong, growth based economy to remain strong itself.  Even though the citizens of our country are concerned with environmental issues, they are more concerned with making their mortgage payments and putting their kids through college.  Their votes have reflected this reality over and over.
    Just as in the past, any policy from the current United States government now and in the future will be fundamentally symbolic.  It’s just not in this country’s collective interest to compromise economy for environment.  In this same vein, any administrative body sincerely intent on bringing about environmental regulation and protection would be undermined by the need to keep our economy strong.
    Citizens, although for the most part interested in their own personal profit (tragedy of the commons is a really sharp analogy), have been quite forward thinking when faced with the current environmental problems.  However, these hopes and solutions have spawned little influence save the current upswell of Green Party support that cost Al Gore his presidency.  The need to get out of industrial society and into the wild has fueled the environmentalist movement.  Deep ecology, eco-feminism, and survivalism encourage one to live a sustainable life, but don’t have the broad based appeal that one could base a society on.  We simply have too many people, with too much emphasis on economic status. 
    In the American pop culture apathy and ignorance reign.  Environmentalists speak of the need for sustainability education, but unless something big happens environmentally, little of the populace will listen.  Unless there is a large upswell of enlightenment on environmental issues, one cannot garner any optimistic feeling concerning the outlook for our country’s environmental future.  Loss of commercial fishing, habitat destruction, loss of keystone species, petroleum shortage, watershed destruction, and human health damage are dangers we all  face.
    While the more progressive members of our society run around searching for some miracle answer that will solve the environmental and overall societal predicament that we face, one with a bioregional view is quietly planning for the approaching change in North America’s governmental  structure.  A bioregionalist believes that society, economy, and politics should all be governed by the certain bioregions in which they inhabit.  Bioregionalist Kirkpatrick Sale writes; “The ecological law with which bioregional politics would logically begin is decentralization, centrifugal force, the spreading of power to small and widely dispersed units.” (Sale, 2000, 91)  As society is dispersed, communities could redevelop in a more sustainable manner.  These communities would develop according to the specific bioregion in which they reside.  
    Sale believes that the strength that bioregionalism holds over other green romantic and rationalistic ideologies is that it encourages people to not merely think about solving our environmental problems, but to achieve solutions.  Further, he establishes that bioregionalism satisfies all the essential conditions of an effective political project, particularly that; it is grounded in historical realities, it accords well with the apparent patterns of the present, and its visions of the future seem practical and real. (Sale, 2000, 136)
    Frederick Jackson Turner wrote in his 1924 study “The significance of the section in American History;” In every state of the Union there are geographic regions, chiefly,  but not exclusively, those determined by the ancient forces of geology, which divide the state into lesser sections.  These subsections within the states often cross state lines and and connect with like areas in neighboring states and even in different sections of the larger type...There is, then, a sectionalism of regions within the larger divisions, a sectionalism of minority areas, sometimes protesting against the policies of the larger section in which they lie and finding more in common with similar regions outside of this section. (Sale, 2000, 139)  
Turner goes on to criticize the house and senate for voting along party lines rather than along the line of the “section” in which they are representing.  Lewis Mumford from 1923 to 1933 established a group called the Regional Plan Association of America (RPAA).  In 1925 he wrote;
Regional planning asks us not how wide an area can be brought under the aegis of the metropolis, but how the population and the civic facilities can be distributed so as to promote and stimulate a vivid, creative life throughout the whole region-a region being any geographic area that possesses a certain unity of climate, soil vegetation, industry and culture. It sees people, industry and the land as a single unit. (Sale, 2000, 142)  Along with others like Howard Odum and Merril Jensen, Turner and Mumford show the interest in the bioregionalist ideology that existed even in the early part of the 20th century.
    Bioregionalism’s appeal is strengthened through its parallel connection to our modern day trends.  It shows clear concern for the environment, and allows a course of action in order to reverse the damage we are causing it.  Bioregionalism also encourages the instinctual distrust for large centralized government.  With a worldwide trend towards smaller governmental structures able to truly represent the people and the ecosystem, bioregionalism offers a very good manifestation of this tendency.  Indeed, with bioregional projects around the world, the movement is creating a name and a reputation.  We are all searching for a better way to arrange and govern society, so bioregionalism is a welcome option.  With historical backing and recent trends, the bioregionalist ideology may be realized in the future.
    Bioregionalism incorporates both politically rationalistic and green romantic ideals.  The ideology relies on the the redrawing of political boundaries and the restructuring of political systems to coincide with the ecological boundaries that they inhabit.  The romantic element deals with developing a sense of place in the bioregion.  Respect and protection of the bioregion needs to be realized so that the region can in turn sustain human life. (Dryzek, 1997, 160)
    Bioregionalism bases all its principles on the fundamental existence of biomes.  In 1939 botanist Frederic Clements and animal ecologist Victor Shelford agreed that plants and animals do not live separately in the environment, but dependently.  Both plants and animals rely on each other in a complex system called a biome. (Worster, 1994, 214)  The word biome is a general description of the interconnected relationship between plant and animal.  The earth’s surface is organized not into artificial states but natural regions, these regions, while varying in size, are usually much more limited than those defined by national boundaries.  The natural region, or bioregion, is any part of the earth’s surface whose rough boundaries are dictated by natural characteristics rather than human mandates.  Bioregions are classified by the flora, fauna, water, climate, soils, and human settlements they have given rise to. (Sale, 2000, 55)
    Clearly bioregionalism is not an anthropocentric vision, but it isn’t really an acknowledgment of nature’s dominance either.  Here we see the ideological green romantic aspect of bioregionalism.  In order to live in a bioregion, and become a true bioregionalist, one must acknowledge that they are part of that bioregion.  In relying upon the area for life, one must be aware of their own place in it.  Clements and Shelford stated that “All living organisms are united in one communal bond”.  (Worster, 1994, 215) The citizenry of a bioregion must become aware of this fact and shape their life around what impact they have on the other organic members of the bioregion.
We must be part not only of the human community, but of the whole community; we must acknowledge some sort of oneness not only with our neighbors, our countrymen, and our civilization but also some respect for the natural as well as the man-made community.  Ours is not only “one world” in the sense usually implied by the term. It is also “One earth.” (Worster, 1994, 334) 
   We see everyday perfect examples of the exact opposite of what bioregionalist want.  When one doesn’t feel attached to the land one is willing to sacrifice it for immediate gain.  Target of Northfield is willing to take up an immense amount of space (145,000 sq. ft) for a one story department store and willing to pave over numerous acres of good agricultural land for a parking lot.  McDonalds is willing to purchase beef from production facilities that graze the animals on land that was once covered in precious rainforest.  Little thought of sustainability is given.  In the West Highlands of Scotland population decline has  become a problem.  A shift from an older mixed economy to one emphasized on sheep production has brought environmental and societal degradation.  Forests have been cleared, burned and eliminated in order to create more pasture.  The land was heavily grazed and without the presence of deep rooted trees to aid the renewal of surface fertility, the soil was ruined.  With increased soil acidity a bog spread and the carrying capacity for grazing was lost.  The economy based around sheep ranching was torn apart and the young moved away. (Dasmann, 1963, 238)  To end the unhindered destruction of our wilderness, our livelihood, indeed our very chance for continuation as a species we must learn to love our place, our little part of mother earth.
    Developing sustainable industry and economy, region based politics, and a regionally aware society are all key to making bioregionalism work.  Before examining the implementation of a bioregional society one must hypothesize on what events could open the door for a bioregional vision to be realized.  The most likely instigators of a decentralization of power to a regional level would be grassroots action, the appearance of an environmental leviathan, a war, a revolution, or the loss of a resource required by our society as we know it.
    The most attractive option is most times the most impractical, and in expecting a policy shift from centralized capitalist democracy to a decentralized bioregonal system one can expect little chance of smooth transfer.  The massive change in lifestyle, social values, politics, and economy that is required could not realistically be implemented by our government.  However there is evidence pointing toward a grassroots systematic transfer as a possibility.  There seems to to be a worldwide need for transfer of power from large disorganized government to smaller more regionally based governing structure.   Small European nations like Norway or Germany have been good examples concerning environmental policy.  With less people to govern, more representation in parliament, and great attention to environmental issues, these countries could be examples for the first stage of a peaceful transfer of power from large centralized government to a small decentralized bioregionally based society. 
    Grassroots groups across the world are attempting to write up codes of conduct to make their cities “ecological cities”.  The Ecuadorian coastal city, Bahia De Caraquez has declared itself as an “ecological city” after the 1998 El Nino mudslides and earthquake.   A large group of ecologically minded citizens took it upon themselves to educate the populace, make a plan for restoring the city in an ecological manner, and follow through with beginning to restructure a population center to become a better member of the ecosystem.  San Francisco is the home base of the Green City Group, a conglomeration of 200 citizens groups working to redevelop the city through a bioregional context. In both these examples sustainable industry has been encouraged, native revegetation efforts implemented, and widespread citizen education has been conducted. (www.planetdrum.org) Self proclaimed bioregionalist groups in the American west have sprouted 800 ecological villages where region based agriculture and minimum impact on the environment have a been a driving force in development. (Sale, 2000, preface) These along with many more examples lead one to hypothesis that if all communities across the nation could adopt some sort of ecological code of conduct, our nation could become more sustainable and ultimately come closer to a bioregional form of society.  Again though, this transfer will not be enacted from the top down by our government.  Citizen action must play the key role, but not enough citizens are prepared to commit themselves to the work that is needed.
    In order for enough people to get behind a movement like bioregionalism, a threat to our well being must be very obvious.  Although at this point it is clear that environmental degradation is pulling us all in a downward spiral to catastrophe, many don’t feel that the environmental damage our industrial society is inflicting has negative outcomes that will effect humans.   In order to change these people’s view, they need to become painfully aware of an environmental leviathan.  If the polar ice caps would melt from global warming, flooding Los Angeles, and forcing a huge population center to acknowledge that irreparable damage has been done, then we would all have to rethink our lifestyles.  If more and more cities like Woburn, MA were exposed we would have to rethink industry, the basis for our economy.  The problems are clear; there is not enough media coverage of environmental issues, an environmental leviathan wouldn’t be enough for us to restructure our society, and like frogs in a pot of slowly heating water, the acknowledgement of an environmental leviathan would take time, and in this time citizens would become used to it and it effects.  After all, we’ve already become used to polluted air, water, and land.
    A destructive war or revolution that would topple our government and send our system into chaos would eventually lead to a restructuring of our society.  Revolution is very unlikely and a war that would devastate our county is unlikely as well.  Nuclear holocaust would force societal change,  but a desolate land ravaged by the evidence of massive explosions and nuclear radiation would not be conducive to developing a new system under the bioregional vision.  That is if any of us were still around.
    The most likely chain of events leading to the creation of a bioregionalist nation would be those related to running out of an necessary resource.  This resource would have to be one that our current system unquestionably relies upon.  Because the stability and strength of the government relies on the stability and strength of the economy, the resource must be one required by our economy.  This resource must affect all the citizens of this country that have so far turned a blind apathetic eye to the environmental dangers we collectively face.  Finally the proverbial “resource” must be running out.  If only America relied on such a resource. 
    In as short a time as 30 years the world may have diminished its oil supply to such a point that the source will have run virtually dry.  At this point, if we have not somehow turned away from the internal combustion engine, the petrochemical industry, and the energy industry as we know it, the economy will fail, the government will begin to lose power, and private citizens will be searching for solutions.  Of course the loss of oil won’t happen overnight, but because literally nothing has been done to counteract the increasing oil use in this country (the election of George W. Bush (and many others like him) is symbolic of this fact), when oil starts to become scarce there won’t be enough time to reshape the economy around alternative industry. 
    Whatever opens up the possibility of reshaping our system to conform to the bioregional view, when that opportunity arises the bioregionalists among us will take the initiative to create an educated populace, encourage the development of sustainable industry, and reconfigure our political system to recognize the borders and needs of bioregions, as opposed to the borders and needs of states, as the deciding factor in policy making.
    The ultimate ideal goal of bioregionalists strikes me as a mix of grassroots democracy, anarchism and communism.  The perfect size for a human community within a bioregion is between 5,000 and 10,000 people, and there can be multiple communities within the bioregion.  This size is optimal because it is small enough that the people would retain their own power not needing any form of government save the system set up by citizens to aid in the development of sustainable industry and the management of city planning.  Everyone would have their own duties within the community, but would still have the ability to own their own business, property, etc.  Without oil people would be forced to come together and form communities in order to help each other reshape society. During this time scientists would be developing alternatives to petroleum.  Clean sustainable industry would grow and the bioregion would be the new form of society.  This plan is rather far fetched.  Far in the future this socialist anarchy could work, but I foresee  the selfishness of people to be a obstacle to high to overcome in my lifetime. 
    Practically, when oil runs out and the economy crashes people will be forced to come together to keep civilization from collapsing.  The power grid that powers our entire nation would be dead, and newly developing communities would have to resort to solar, wind and hydropower.  A bit of economic rationalism would shine through as industry would begin serving the need for alternative energy cars and fuels for homes.  The economy would be restructured around this new demand.  Everyone would become educated about the  issue, they wouldn’t be able to help it.   Here grassroots democracy would step in, and new leaders would step up.  A presidential candidate who has visions of how to restructure our nation in an ecological way, a bioregional way would have true chances of getting elected.  He or she would likely be elected because encouraging an economy based on ecological principles would be practical and lucrative.
    Wouldn’t it be amazing to have corporations that previously refined oil and constructed 12 mile per gallon sport utility vehicle competing over the new renewable clean fuel and the zero emission electric car?  This is what bioregionalists envision.  The perfect commune is impractical, but the restructuring of our country in an ecological manner is likely, especially if we run out of oil.
    Our place in the world is in question now more than ever.  The track we’re on, of supporting a captured government and unhindered economy, is endangering the future of the earth and our species.  Bioregionalists believe that the best way to exit this downward spiral is to restructure society around the bioregions within which we live.  Although grassroots efforts are being enacted now in “ecological cities” and communities around the world, a full scale transfer of power from centralized government to bioregionalist communities will require some divine interference.  This could come in the form of fullscale grassroots politics, an environmental leviathan, or the loss of an keystone resource like oil.  The bioregional ideology is a quite practical and compelling possibility through its historical basis, it parallels with modern day trends in progressive thinking, and is a practical vision for the future.  A bioregional nation replacing ours of states is not a farfetched idea.  Certainly a nation based in the bioregional ideology would be one I would actively participate in. 




Bibliography

Dasmann, Raymond F., The Last Horizon, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1963

Dryzek, John S., The Politics of the Earth, Oxford University Press, New York, 1997

Lester, James P., Environmental Politics and Policy, Duke University Press, Durham, 1995

Mander, Jerry, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, Quill Publishing, New York,         1978

Sale, Kirkpatrick, Dwellers in the Land, University of Georgia Press, Athens, 2000

Snyder, Gary,  A Place in Space, Counterpoint, Washington DC, 1995

Worster, Donald, Nature’s Economy, Cambridge University Press

www.planetdrum.org