I enrolled in ENVS 160 because I expected to create interdisciplinary concept maps, reinforce my vegetarianism, and learn some talking points to convince climate deniers that they’re misinformed about global warming. Much of this interest came from my University of Hawaii Science of Sustainability course I took last spring. On my first day in ENVS 160, without considering the weight of his warning, I listened to Dr. Proctor explicitly mention that this wouldn’t be like any environmental studies course I’ve taken in the past. Perhaps my understanding of environmentalism has been too narrow and rooted in rigid assumptions. Now on our fourth major text, Who Rules the Earth? by Paul Steinberg (2015), I’ve approached it with a pessimistic outlook. How can we take action on environmental problems if our assumptions are incorrect? Are individual actions (like buying organic food) effective or even meaningful? To be frank, ENVS 160 has offered me new questions rather than new answers.
Up until this point, I understood environmentalism was an ideologically limited movement, normally fixated on conservation and “save the planet” bumper stickers. However, there are diverse perspectives of environmentalism that are continually emerging. One of the clear dichotomies between classic and contemporary environmental scholarship is hope for the future (Lewis & Clark College, “Ecotypes and Classic vs. Contemporary Environmental Thought”). Challenging assumptions can come with new ideas, perhaps environmental theories that aren’t as bleak. Orthodox environmentalist literature such as “The Tragedy of the Commons” condemn human nature, assume failure to steward land, and predict inevitable population crashes (Hardin 1968). Sounds apocalyptic to me. In response over 40 years later, Elinor Ostram (2012) called Hardin’s presumption of “an inevitable crash was too sweeping” (11), and cited evidence of only some overharvesting from joint-owned property (11-13). From these critiques of classic environmentalism comes contemporary environmentalism, utilizing new evidence to postulate (at first) wild ideas like postnaturalism (Wikipedia, “Postnaturalism” Accessed 4/3/17) and ecomodernism (“An Ecomodernist Manifesto”, Accessed 4/3/17). Much of environmentalism is still classic environmentalism, and rooted in grim prospects for humankind and natural resource conservation. From exposing myself to contemporary environmental scholarship, I’m inundated with more questions, such as which solutions to pursue.
Unfortunately, panacea approaches fail to recognize the particularity needed to understand and address environmental problems. Given that there are a variety of new ideas, the emphasis on specific, empirical data becomes more important in ENVS to assess the merit of new versions of environmentalism. Considering data, perhaps in the form of a life cycle analysis, doesn’t always present a clear enemy, but it can illuminate positive and negative consequences of certain practices (e.g. efficiency differences in vehicles, Smil 2013, [125]). Nuclear energy was an excellent example, because it produces energy without carbon dioxide emissions and relatively little space but creates radioactive waste that requires underground storage facilities (Schlömer 2014). There are potential negative consequences on surrounding ecosystems, but the benefits of nuclear energy can’t be ignored. However, nuclear energy won’t necessarily affect places in uniform ways, requiring more localized analyses. Recognizing complexity can make research more challenging, but the consideration is necessary.
Environmental studies is dynamic and laborious to synthesize solutions, and there’s still debate regarding whether or not widespread initiatives for individual action is useful (Maniates 2001). In my neighborhood, these individual actions meant buying local produce, biking to work or school, using recycling and compost bins, and purchasing cleaning products with abstract green certifications. Part of me recognized that it wasn’t sufficient, but individual environmental action’s ubiquity quelled any of my questions. It’s possible it was easier to purchase an eco-friendly product than advocate for institutional change in my local government. In Who Rules the Earth?, Steinberg (2015) suggests that the social rules that govern our actions must change, requiring institutional amendments, to immortalize effective environmental policy (11). Even today, I don’t know what it means to change social rules. In Environmental Studies, I’ve noticed that understanding the problem can be just as daunting as formulating solutions.
Environmental scholarship is composed of questions, which leaves me in an awkward, but riveting academic space. There are multiple possible modes of environmental thought to adopt or challenge as I move forward from this class. My uncertainty and curiosity need not be a hindrance, but rather an aid.
[Featured image found at An Ecomodernism Manifesto]
References
Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162 (3859): 1243–48. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243.
Maniates, Michael F. 2001. “Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?” Global Environmental Politics 1 (3): 31–52.
Ostrom, Elinor. 2008. “The Challenge of Common-Pool Resources.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 50 (4): 8–21. doi:10.3200/ENVT.50.4.8-21.
Schlömer S., et al. 2014. “Annex III: Technology-specific cost and performance parameters” Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smil, Vaclav. 2013. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Steinberg, Paul. 2015. Who Rules the Earth? New York: Oxford University Press.