I enrolled in Introduction to Environmental Studies as I was incredibly interested in pursuing this interdisciplinary area of study. My academic background thus far has incorporated both biology and sociology courses, and the Environmental Studies program incorporated both of these focuses into something cohesive. It was the overarching outlook of the Lewis & Clark College ENVS program that drew me to the program, and fathoming the critical application of the knowledge I continue to gain is what motivates me to continue with the program.
Although I have learned many things over the course of the semester, some reaffirming previous science classes and some completely changing past views, there have been three main take aways. The first defines climate change as social and physical, with no true solution. The second discusses the diverging views within environmentalism. The third relates to my personal background, investigated through the Ecotypes survey, and how my past and current surroundings drive my understanding of Environmental Studies.
Climate change cannot cleanly be solved due to its broad definition and application.
A critical aspect of ENVS 160 was the explanation of climate change as a wicked problem, one with incredible complexity, “characterized by contradictory certitudes and thus defying elegant, consensual solutions,” (Hulme, 2009 [10]). This clarified many aspects of environmental studies by broadening its definition to something with both social and scientific meanings, particularly how it affects rhetoric of a ‘solution.’ Previously, I had understood the solution to climate change as difficult but relatively straightforward. After taking this introductory class and diving into climate change through the readings and discussions, climate change has taken on a variety of implications. Solutions have been advertised and implemented, but as climate change translates into a unique meaning for each individual, the idea of such solutions are backed by misunderstandings.
My past concept of climate change related specifically to the global temperature increase due to greenhouse gases. Although this is certainly a part of it, I held the uneducated belief that by controlling carbon output through cap-and-trade to slow the rate of human-induced warming would be enough. Post-ENVS160, I think that aspects of climate change as a physical problem can be dissected for small victories. For instance, the Montreal Protocol as the pinnacle of environmental treaties worked by focusing on the erasure of ozone-depleting substances from production. By picking a specific problem (ozone depletion), and a specific solution (a large-scale protocol to reduce the production of such substances), the Montreal Protocol was deemed successful. No longer is climate change the large issue to tackle; it is a simplification of many issues contributing to a change in our world.
A large problem of environmentalists is each other; the varying methods of thought and presumed solutions create mixed understanding for the public.
I was under the impression that the environmentalists were ‘fighting the same fight,’ so to speak and did not argue in any significant way concerning scientific findings. However, with the ENVS readings, I have come to understand that oftentimes the differences between environmentalism (for instance, classic environmentalism and contemporary environmentalism) can create its own difficulties.
Logically, this debate correlates with its contradictory focus. ‘Environmentalism’ is as broad a term as any contained within Environmental Studies. Classical Environmentalists will purvey a sense of control over the environment, matching my past education concerning conservation and the importance of the individual. This has the potential of being seen as too anthropocentric, simply one critique of this approach. Contemporary Environmentalists argue for a focus based in the origin of environmental issues, perhaps controlled through government regulations and a new comprehension of what it means to be an environmentalist in a globalized market economy interconnected through technology.
Although debate is critical to the outcome of policy, the issue stems when the conclusions are muddled with differing opinions to the broad public. Is the emphasis on recycling and using energy-efficient lightbulbs now obsolete with contemporary environmentalism? One cannot change the broader world without first changing one’s own thought.
My cultural background creates a personal investment in environmental problems, and this varies with each individual. There are no wrong answers, just different perceptions.
I spent most of my life living along the Californian cost, hiking with my family or exploring the beach nearly every single day. I have been integrated in a liberal, middle-class community based around concepts of Classic Environmentalism (composting, bicycling vs. driving, etc.). Throughout this, I also had a religious upbringing. Although I no longer identify as religious, swimming in the ocean or viewing the world from atop a mountain does maintain its spiritual significance. My parents are both Irish immigrants, and particularly my father’s family rely the land for agriculture (sheep and cattle farming). Through the Ecotypes survey, I was able to see others’ views on the same issues as well as reasonably define my own. I feel deeply connected with the land I was raised on, and through my experience farming understand how important it can be for one’s livelihood.
However, particularly through the second group assignment, I have gained a new appreciation for the interpretation of environmental issues on a larger scale. I researched a fertilizer production company in a Saudi Arabian port town. There, although the production company was monitored for its environmental impact, the industrial growth was seen as positive rather than negative. Whereas if a large industrial area was added to the seaside town I grew up in there would be a huge uproar of environmental degradation, in this Saudi Arabian town it was welcomed. With industry came the establishment of schools and health centers. There is nothing wrong with this particular view; it is just a different culture in a global race for economic control.
Works Cited