The overarching theme of something I have learned so far this semester would probably be the diversity of opinion regarding how to fix, but also value and perceive our current natural world. Learning about classic and contemporary environmentalism really broadened my view on how our society’s opinion appears to have changed from the past, but it is also still currently divided. Starting out with the text “Why We Disagree about Climate Change” by Mike Hulme questions of the idea of climate change itself and how each person’s view on climate is completely different, therefore it is hard to draw assumptions about climate change (Hulme 2009). Classic environmentalism views climate change as a reality but also wishes to return the environment to its original state, as if turning back time. A common view to solving these problems is through individual change. Looking forward into the future the idea of contemporary environmentalism appears to hold the idea that as a society we should be moving forward and adapting to what the natural world has become, using methods of institutional change. These forms of environmentalism are somewhat contradictory, and appear even more so to me after I understood that each person grasps the natural world in a completely different way.
In Mike Hulme’s book “Why We Disagree about Climate Change” he discusses the idea of the climate being a constructed idea (Hulme 2009). I found this to be very interesting to give me a new perspective on what I thought had always been a simple definition of the word climate. I came to understand that our climate can not be measured directly by instruments, but “it is an environmental, cultural and political phenomenon which is reshaping the way we think about ourselves, our society and humanity’s place on Earth”(Hulme 2009, 1). After broadening my view of the concept of climate made me reconsider the idea of climate change. Climate change to me has always seemed to be a concrete concept and an issue that needs to be dealt with, but after reading this book I began to reconsider how my view that our natural world is changing because of human interference is not the opinion held by everyone. The idea that climate is a constructed idea and everyone has different views made me realize that solving the problem of global warming and our changing climate was nowhere near as simple as I had imagined.
After being confounded by the ideas of climate as a concept, I was then presented with classic environmentalism, what appeared to me to be a more comfortable idea. Classic environmentalism was what I had grown up with along with ideas of individual action. My parents has always taught me to recycle and were conscious of how much driving we did. Classic environmentalists believe that global warming and climate change is something that needs to be reversed, and that the natural world as we perceive it needs to be returned to its original state. Richard White discusses the idea of purity and how “the instincts that lead us away from such horrors toward purity are admirable. We want rules, a set of values, that can both explain why human beings cause such things to happen and prevent them from happening again.” (White 2000, 213). The idea of needing to go back to the past is comforting for many, and it is what I thought was best for most of my life, but after getting most of the way through this semester I have come to have a more critical view. I understand now that not every person on earth has the same value and idea of our natural world and therefore working towards getting back to when the natural world was not as affected by human life is an impossible goal. Classic environmentalism is a thing of the past and the small individual acts that people do are not what is going to move our natural world out of its current state.
When I understood that I no longer felt that classic environmentalism and individual change was the right call of action I learned about contemporary environmentalism with institutional change. Contemporary environmentalism still believes that the way that humans are treating our natural world is not right, but does not hold the view that we should be moving backwards to what the natural world once was. This viewpoint believes that humans should be moving forward and working with the changes that have already happened, aiming to be more conscious of how we are affecting our natural world. Michael Maniates takes a stance on how “when responsibility for environmental problems is individualized, there is little room to ponder institutions, the nature and exercise of political power, or ways of collectively changing the distribution of power and in uence in society—to, in other words, ‘think institutionally’”(Maniates 2001, 33). I believe that this is the right course of action, and that because the human race are innovators we should be looking towards how we can create a natural world that will support us as well as the physical elements of earth, and by achieving this we should be changing the institutions that we have created.
All of these diverse opinions has helped me to realize that fixing our current environment is a lot more complicated than just recycling my bottles and cans. I have come to the understanding now that there is no simple way to answer the question of what to do about climate change, because every single person living on earth and affecting our natural world has a completely different perception of what climate even is, never mind how to go about fixing it. Even though I believe that institutional action and contemporary thought are the right course to take, does not mean that these are simple solutions. Overall what I have come to the realization that the more opinions one understands, the more complicated the issue becomes.
Citations:
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, R. “The Problem with Purity.” (211–228) Tanner Lectures on Human Values 21 (2000).
Maniates, Michael F. “Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?” Global Environmental Politics 1, no. 3 (2001): 31-52.