Most students who have taken Professor Proctor’s ENVS 160 class know that the breadth of knowledge and material covered in the course is wide. The majority of the time, it is difficult to grasp the ideas as they fly by, let alone make connections between these ideas. But every class, the majority of us walk out of the class surprised by how much we managed to learn in the short hour period we have. We take pride in having woken up in the early hours of the day to dedicate our time to learning the extensive amount of knowledge embedded in the extensive term “Environmental Studies.” It’s not easy to identify the most significant lessons we’ve learned in the 160 class, but of course we will all disagree which lessons are the most critical. However, I believe that those versed in Why We Disagree About Climate Change (Hulme, 2015) are the most crucial pertaining to my generation and the actions that need to be taken.
The first key lesson in this text is the idea that there are two different aspects when it comes to identifying the idea of climate; the physical and the social/cultural. The social/cultural directions deal with the idea of climate change, and how it is debated by many and used in different ways. Climate is often only viewed as a physical phenomenon that can be measured and identified through data. The main point Mike Hulme makes is that climate alone is just an idea, and that to wholly understand it we need to appreciate and recognize its dual origin. We need to allow the two sides to build on and shape each other positively.
The second key lesson is that people identify risks differently, and in particular environmental risks. Risk perception varies between different individuals due to the fact that we have different recognition of and relationships with the natural world. These risks vary on our exposure to climate risk, and how our cultural identities perceives risks. This lesson by Hulme is extremely important because it helps us to better understand contradicting points of views to our own and their origins. It easy to get lost in the argument and automatically define others counter arguments as “ignorant” when, in reality, they are fully educated but perceiving the hazards of the situation differently than ourselves.
The final key lesson, and in my opinion the most important, is Hulme’s point that people give contradicting moral and spiritual worth to climate and climate change. It’s easy to identify climate change as an issue pertaining to science or economics, but the cultural and religious aspect are rarely addressed in discourse. The importances of connecting religion and climate change ties back to risk perception and constructive discussions that can be had between individuals with differing point of views. Over 85% of people in the world identify as religious, and religious beliefs shape individuals and groups ideas of risk and value (Hulme, 2015).
Hulme’s overarching lesson in his book is that we will continue to disagree about climate change until the end of time, but in order to start constructive conversation and progress we need to realize that our differences are not surface level. Rather, our differences are tied to deep rooted ideals of identity and purpose. No matter our differences, the continuance of engagements in this on going conversation will teach us about ourselves and ceaselessly bring awareness for the future on how to address anthropomorphic interaction with climate.
Citation:
Hulme, M. Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge U Press, 2015