Entering into Environmental Studies 160, I considered myself a potential conservation biologist who was a student of the hard sciences and math, relying on and expecting science to solve the problems I saw. Through books like Why We Disagree About Climate Change and Who Rules the Earth, I found that my mission to find solutions to environmental problems through science was extremely complex and convoluted. In this class, I discovered that science is not the final or end all verdict in determining what warrants the title of a problem. Science is only one social mechanism in determining the value (and the risk) of a problem. In this course my initial mission continued to change its approach when I learned that history plays vital role in shaping how economic, social, and scientific systems work to create problems today. Without understanding the history that supports these systems I am unable to critically and effectively tackle problems. Thirdly, I have come to realize that solutions do not arise from one source, in my case science, but through intersectional and interdisciplinary institutions.
In Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Mike Hulme, the author, shows the reader that the overarching institution of science is not always coherent or correct. He demonstrates that science although informative and helpful in decision-making about how to combat climate change or other environmental problems, it is not a spotlight that will shine a clear path towards the equitable or socially beneficial solutions. Hulme writes “this story about the idea of climate change is not a simple one of science progressing purposefully in a straight line from blissful ignorance to a state of confident kno
wledge” (Hulme 2009, 68). Through this class, I have come to learn that science is full of uncertainties and ambiguous conclusions. Science has an extensive history of being wrong, and although science can perform in the discovery of the function of natural world, the solutions to climate change or other environmental problems are not solely born out of science
Understanding history whether that of an institution or a place leads to a more comprehensive knowledge of why those institutions and places function. Through reading of Who Rules The Earth I have come to appreciate the value of historical significance. People and institutions that further environmental problems like climate change or deforestation function because of deeply rooted historical values and past systems. In Who Rules The Earth, the author Paul Steinberg follows the cerulean warbler, a migrating bird, who is currently threaten because of habitat loss. Although biologists can cite deforestation as the cause of decreased warblers, Steinberg showed that one must look at the history of the habitats to find the source of deforestation. In Colombia, the coffee farmers switched from shade grown coffee to sun grown coffee, and this new growing method lead to deforestation on coffee plantations decreasing the Cerulean warbler’s migratory habitat (Steinberg 2015). Looking back to the history of Colombian deforestation, the warbler’s loss of habitat is not just the lack of trees, but the change of the coffee industry. To increase warbler habitat could involve reverting back to shade grown coffee, yet this solution that would involve changes in both producers and consumers of Colombian coffee. Simple problems like a lack of trees become complex when one involves a place’s history, like the Colombian coffee industry. However, without an in depth understanding of history we can often overlook solutions that work within the function of that place. We often look at history and say what did we do wrong but we can also look at history and say how can we find a solution.
This class has replaced my pure science lenses for more multidimensional lenses. Although I still value the information that science can provide about the world, I also now realize that cultural and institutional systems can provide explanations and solutions to environmental problems as well. A lesson I wish to keep from this class is that we should act as citizens first and consumers second. In Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World? by Michael F. Maniates, he writes that we should “think institutionally” rather than individualize our responsibility (Maniates 2001, 33). Maniates claims that individuals should start “working together to change broader policy and larger
social institutions” than through individual acts like purchasing green cars or recycling plastic and glass bottles (Maniates 2001, 34). Engaging in larger social discussions of capitalism and consumerism is often more helpful in curbing environmental problems from biodiversity loss to pollution. Although I still struggle moving on from my individual environmentalist values like taking the bus and recycling, and I have learned that I should focus on impacting institutions that represent the change I want to see.
Bibliography
Hulme, M. 2015. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maniates, Michael F. 2001. “Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?” Global Environmental Politics 1, no. 3.
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, NY: Oxford Univ. Press.