Environmental studies, a politically liberal field, has shown itself to be much less intersectional than I previously imagined. As a movement that requires extensive scientific knowledge about many different process in the world as well as the same amount of knowledge about social issues, environmentalism is and has historically been available to those with access to higher education. I have learned in ENVS 160 that not only is environmentalism something that a certain group of people can afford to care about, I have also learned that it is male dominated as well as white dominated.
I first began to notice this when I realized which cities are proclaimed to be the greenest cities in America: San Fransisco, Portland, Seattle, etc. These three cities specifically are 3 of the most expensive cities in America, and also boast large white affluent populations. Although they have liberal governments that are able to make the cities themselves “green,” they have a large influence of white money which does not always look out for the interests of lower income people or people of color. As a direct result of white affluent cities, gentrification and displacement of lower income people forces people out of the urban core of these cities which is claimed to be environmentally sustainable, and as an indirect result disadvantages them by not allowing them to fully comprehend how to live in accordance with a green lifestyle that is unaffordable.
Not only can a specific group of people not afford to care about environmentalism, the field itself has historically been dominated by white male scholars who although provide us with useful information are hogging the scene from people of color and women. Opinions from a white man, historically accepted as the opinions to listen to, are not everything; voices backed up by diversity have the potential to improve environmental thought as well as empower people of color and low income people that environmental knowledge is excluded from.
In ENVS 160, the books we read were all written by white men. Not only is this problematic because it is supporting patriarchal and white washed thought, but also because we discuss ecofeminism and talk about its benefits. There is a lack of diverse thinking in this intro course which should have a diverse amount of ideas since the course itself is so broad. There is a lack of emphasis on the effects of climate change on vulnerable people, which should be at the forefront of the curriculum, however, we read books that are hard for us to physically attain and therefore are practically impossible for regular people to ever set their hands on.
Environmentalism in and of itself is a movement that is seeking to change the world in a very positive way. It needs to be recognized that like many fields of study, it is dominated by white thinking which is severely detrimental to the overall movement. If we want to be intersectional and include perspective from all different walks of people, not just accomplished white men, then the books for ENVS should be chosen with diversity in mind.