I always believed Environmental Studies to be learning facts about things like the effects of global warming and El Niño, and how only through solidified things like policies and knowledge can we try to change the outcome of fracking and dying coral reefs. Through Environmental Studies I have learned a lot of lessons and how Environmental Studies is not as scientific as I thought it to be, but rather does incorporate humanitarian thought.
Over the course of the last semester, a recurring theme that I have recognized across classes is the idea of whether values or policies are more effective in bringing about change. In an environmental sense, it could be used to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases and carbon emissions into the air, or to counteract loss of species. From what I understand, values affect the choices we make based on how we have been conditioned to view the world, and creates a lot of preconceived notions about new encounters. Values are a lot harder to sway than the chance that a proposed policy would get shut down, but if you were to have the same values as someone and present an idea, they will be a lot more likely to agree with that idea. Policies are the faster solution to a problem, and solutions can be reached through reason as well as persuasion. For instance, if everyone were to have the same values that global warming is real, then it would make physical changes and policy-making much easier to achieve. The phenomenon we are experiencing now it America is that your political stance mandates what environmental issues you believe to be true makes it that much harder for policies to be passed and change to actually occur to benefit everyone living on this earth. But is it efficient to try to alter everyone’s values before attempting physical changes via policies? This is a lesson that I struggle with a lot because I want to see environmental change happen soon for the sake of our wellbeing, but also I believe in the importance of having the same values, which allows us, as humans, to be a cohesive community that strives so that everyone can benefit.
The lesson that Environmental Studies has really opened my eyes to is that it is crucial to adjust the solutions you make in response to when you find out more information about the problem that you are trying to tackle. Paul F. Steinberg in his book Who Rules The Earth elaborates on this point in chapter one. He uses the example of Jane Irwin and her ability to convince almost all of Canada that pesticide use is dangerous for the health of humans, which sparked the creation of many new policies that banned the use of pesticides in certain places to preserve the health of Canadian citizens. But the important part of this lesson is not so much Canada’s success, but the outcome of anti-pesticide efforts in America. These same efforts did not work the same way they did in Canada, and that is because pesticide producers took precautions to make sure they would stay in business at the cost of the health of American citizens. Those pesticide producers understood the lesson based on what happened in Canada and made their own solution to ultimately prevent profit loss. This led me to realize that there is no one solution that will fix all of our environmental problems, and as changes are being made, it is necessary to adjust accordingly. This lesson is important to me because it applies to my personal life, the study habits that I created in high school may not work in college, and based on what I have learned about myself and how the circumstances around my have changed, I must make new resolutions to succeed.
After everything that I have experienced and learned this past semester in Environmental Studies, I felt that retaking the EcoTypes survey would be able to shed some light to see if my beliefs had changed at all and if I could figure out what it means. After comparing my results I found that the largest changes were in the sections Change, Nature, and Technology. On the Change axis, in the beginning of the year I was scored a -25, and just the other day I scored a -56. This means that I more firmly believed in incremental change rather than radical change, which could stem from my understanding that change takes time and like the creation and use of LEED (Steinberg, 41), it only takes one individual to make a change that has a greater effect than intended. On the Nature axis, I went from scoring a -31 to scoring a 0, meaning that I went from firmly believing that nature should be pure like the way it used to be, to being more open about the possibility that human impacts can and will be used to benefit the future. And lastly, on the Technology axis, I went from scoring a -31 to scoring a -63 the second time around. This survey showed that I went from being more hesitant about the beneficial role that technology plays in the future of our environment to becoming certain that technology plays a crucial role in eradicating greenhouse gases and restoring ecosystems like coral reefs to allow all species to thrive. The lesson that the EcoTypes survey has taught me is that the path I take to understand our community allows me to better understand my values and prioritize what I believe should be changed about our environment first.
Works Cited:
Hulme, Mike. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. 4th Edition edition. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.