Synthesis Post: Lessons on environmentalism from LaDuke and Pearce

For this final blog post, I plan on analyzing the differences in environmentalism claims within the LaDuke readings from week 6, and the Pearce readings from week 7. I find that both authors discuss, either blatant or subtle, a perception of environmentalism and potential solutions to addressing environmental hazards. I find their dichotomous backgrounds to be a perfect platform for comparison.

Winona LaDuke is a member of the Anishinaabeg tribe which resides in Canada and Minnesota. In the readings for week 6, she discusses how westernized industry and exploitation of reservation lands has led to decreases in populations of vital fish like sturgeon and salmon. She gives multiple examples of tribes across the U.S. fighting in small bands against large corporations like developers on the Columbia, Hanford Nuclear in Washington, and a multitude of dam developers all across the nation. “In January 1990, the Yakama Indian Nation enacted a resolution calling for an end to the use of the chlorine bleaching process by the pulp-and-paper industry” (61). This is only one example of tribal groups demanding tighter restrictions be placed on corporate allowances. She mentions in the same reading that any allowance of pollutants should be illegal; it is not a question of threshold.

Pearce is an English author, whose interests lie in climate change and water issues. In the reading of his for week 7 (which appears to be more like a few chapters from his book) he notes the shortcomings of dams across the globe. Many of the issues are complete dam failure, less economic output than promised, and unexpected environmental harm. A shocking statistic of his was, “reservoirs produce a fifth of all man-made methane in the atmosphere and make up 7 percent of the man-made greenhouse gas effect” (144). Its hard to say that dams, while often advertised as being environmentally friendly, are a clean source of energy. Pearce, while highlighting a multitude of negatives from dams, poses little solution to them other than breaching… especially when one fifth of the world’s energy is harvested from them. Particularly, what do we do with the civilizations who are well established in areas that would be floodplains without dams?

Both Pearce and LaDuke opposed the construction of dams, LaDuke offers direct tribal action and solution in the face of disruptive river tactics (pollution, damming, overfishing). While Pearce offers an in-depth analysis of the failures of dams worldwide, little advice is given on how to combat these tactics. Is this potentially where western culture/science fails to provide solution? In the last section of the Pearce reading, he mentions an interesting tactic to rival monsoon flooding. “Proposals for the large scale diversion of the monsoon floodwaters of the Ganges into the aquifer beneath its plain could make sense” (308). It is not to say that this book by Pearce does not offer good solutions to these issues, those of which just may not have been included in the selected chapters. It is however important to recognize the wide array of proposed solutions from varied environmental demographics, who view conservation, environmentalism, and nature through a different lens.

While at first glance we would assume that native and NGO environmental groups have the same goal in mind, and they may, their approaches and perspectives differ. Winona states that the, “Sierra Club has openly opposed transfers of public land to tribes on occasion. In addition, animal rights groups have opposed traditional harvesters of seal, beaver, fish and whales” (62). There are clearly struggles between the most historic environmentalist groups (native tribes) and the emerging ‘new age’ environmentalism, that can often be elitist, or too progressive. When I say too progressive, I imply that they are looking to the future, using westernized science, instead of looking to the past at techniques that have been used successfully for decades. So successfully, that our perception of natural is often how native populations have been altering the landscape for millennia.

While differences diverse perspectives can produce unique solutions, they can also result in differing needs or wants. Tribes, based on LaDuke’s experiences, butt heads with other environmental groups on a few issues. Perspectives on the role of humans in nature can explain these differences. Tribes, who in the face of modernization still hold to their cultural values, appear more aware of their connection to the natural world than most western groups. I think of comparisons such as:
-Veganism and Whole Foods vs. native fishing and plant harvesting techniques
-“Untouched wilderness” vs. tribes living in harmony with their “wild” environment
-National Parks/Public Land vs. Indian Reservations
-Ecotourism vs. regional recreation
-Urban vs. symbiotic development

I find that often western cultures, in an attempt to be environmental, we aim to build borders between ‘human’ environments and ‘wild’ or ‘natural’ environments. These ideas often separate us further from what our role in nature is. Environmentalist groups may shame native populations for harvesting salmon, yet encourage elitist use of National Parks. We’ve been encouraged to view ‘natural’ areas as a place to temporarily recreate, as opposed to coexist with.