I entered into ENVS 160 not exactly sure what to expect. It seemed like with every reading this semester, my own environmental thought was tested. This became a constant challenge in that I didn’t always know what to think about issues such as climate change, and I found that my opinion continued to flip flop the more I read about it in Mike Hulme’s Why We Disagree About Climate Change and as I researched it more thoroughly on my own. As a whole however, I can say that I will be exiting this course satisfied with the amount of knowledge I have extracted from the highly relevant and current scholars we have read.
Three lessons I have learned from taking ENVS 160 are that our own political views have a lot to do with the way we individually think about and approach environmental issues today, resources are commonly looked at as commodities, and that the individual impact of a responsible global citizen is not as helpful in the grand scheme of things as you would think.
Political views provide a platform for all of us on which we formulate our values and motivations as global citizens. Leigh Phillips’ Austerity Ecology and the Collapse-Porn Addicts is one large example of how a leftist personality describes his opinion on growth, consumerism, development and industry. A more conservative reader however, would most likely disagree with Phillip’s take on capitalism and rational planning. A more conservative reader would not support increased government intervention and management of resource planning. Personally, I found no struggle in reading Phillips’ work due in large part to my own contemporary and progressive beliefs.
I quickly identified how naive I was in thinking that most people align their beliefs with a pure nature ecotypes axis. As much as I wanted the majority of our planet to view Mother Earth as sacred, that’s just not the case. Natural resources are often selfishly used as commodities for individual benefit, as explained in Garrett Hardin’s theory of the tragedy of the commons. Economically speaking, we begin to drain natural resources essential to the comfort standard of the 21st century anthropocentric human. While researching for the interrogating isms assignment, I found a few comments concurrent with the concept that resources are viewed as commodities and not natural splendor. Klaus Bosselmann supports the concept as he elaborates on how policymakers view the environment as natural resources. He states, “The name “Resource Management Act” (RMA) for New Zealand’s general environmental code, for example, reflects a concern for managing natural resources rather protecting them.” He then continues on explaining that, “Typically, the environment is presented as a cost factor for the economy, not as a challenge to the economy itself.” (Bosselmann, July 2010). As we are increasingly referring to our organic matter as cost factors, the beautiful, raw essence of the organic matter is dismissed.
While working on our first group assignment, climate change public opinion, my perspective on the actual impact of public voice and individual conservation efforts was changed. As I interviewed participants in urban Portlandia, I questioned whether or not they feel that one person embodying sustainable living is enough to make a serious impact. All of the participants I asked responded that they believed one person’s efforts is not enough to decrease carbon emissions or fix climate change. I became a vegetarian almost two years ago after doing research on the United States’ meat and animal agriculture industries. I used to think that I was making a difference, but as I talked to other members of the community and even classmates in ENVS 160, I have changed my mind. It is hard to not feel helpless as a global citizen: what can we do to make a lasting impact as individuals?
Phillips, Leigh. Austerity ecology & the collapse-porn addicts: a defence of growth, progress, industry and stuff. Winchester, UK: Zero Books, 2015.
Hulme, Mike. Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Bosselmann, Klaus. “Losing the Forest forthe Trees: Environmental Reductionism in the Law.” Sustainability 2, no. 8 (2010): 2424-448. doi:10.3390/su2082424.