Coming into ENVS 160, I had a lot of expectations. My preconceived notions of what Environmental Studies revolved around were deeply rooted in classic environmentalism. Throughout my life, I was spoon fed ideas of what it meant to be a friend of the Earth. Those ideas have been challenged this semester. The three lessons that have stuck with me thus far are: the deficit model of scientific communication, clumsy solutions, and recognizing different levels of consumption.
One of the biggest lessons that resonated with me involves the deficit model of scientific communication. Most of my experiences had led me to believe that if I spoke loudly of facts, then people would believe them and immediately be persuaded. Living in a politically conservative area of rural Ohio that proved to be difficult. People would still disagree with me even when I tried to talk about carbon footprints and methane from cow farts. I wondered why. In Why We Disagree With Climate Change, Hulme says, “If the public are resistant to these scientific messages, this implies that the public are exhibiting a lack of necessary knowledge – a deficit which needs remedying by science communication” (Hulme 2009). Hulme pointed out that this mode of communication is not effective because it fails to account for each individual’s belief in science. People are sculpted through experiences, values and education. Since people are all so different, science does not have the same effect on everybody. Therefore trying to fill someone’s mind with scientific “fact” is largely ineffective. For me, recognizing that scientific communication needs to be a dialogue between people with different beliefs (instead of just trying to overload someone with facts) opens up a more inclusive way of viewing climate change and other issues.
Another lesson that has proved to be important in ENVS 160 is that it is okay for a problem not to have one clear and easy solution. The theme of “clumsy solutions” was introduced in Why We Disagree With Climate Change, but it has been reoccurring throughout the semester. One thing I had believed before taking ENVS 160 was that there were only big solutions that could solve various ecological issues. This idea of one big solution fits all takes away from the fact that issues like Climate Change are incredibly complicated and often contradictory. Also in the article “Discursive diversity in introductory environmental studies”, Kennedy and Ho talked about the importance of teaching environmental studies courses with examples of clumsy solutions. When I decided that I was interested in environmental studies, I thought that solving the worlds problems would be a (relatively) simple solution. But with a new understanding of clumsy solutions, issues are allowed to be complex and more effectively catered to.
Most of the information I was exposed to before ENVS 160 talked a lot about the consumption of resources. The general idea that “we need to reduce our consumption” is often promoted. Through books and articles in ENVS 160, I have been pushed to question this assumption. Who is the “we” that should reduce consumption? That assumes that every person on Earth is utilizing the same amount of resources, which is grossly incorrect. As Leigh Phillips points out in Austerity Ecology and the Collapse-Porn Addicts, goods like air conditioning units are common in the United States, but in other places they are not so common. People across the world have different levels of access to materials, and therefore they have different levels of consumption. Often times by looking at consumption in the United States, it is easy to assume that other countries are similar. This does not take into account developing countries. By saying that we all need to consume less, we are not allowing developing countries to fully develop.