Growing up in a progressive household that values the outdoors, as well as caring for our public lands, I felt like I had developed a sound appreciation and understanding about how people should interact with the natural world. ENVS 160 has challenged many of my previous ideals and has deepened my understanding about the true extent to which humans can affect global ecosystems. I can now look further beyond the simple surface assumptions I previously held. Of the several lessons I’ve learned throughout the course, these three have stood out to me: that the climate change debate is as much a social phenomenon as it is scientific, the extent to which class warps classic ideas like degrowth or carrying capacity, and the importance of looking past explicit costs.
Climate change is also a social issue:
Although climate change is often thought of as a scientific phenomenon with regards to data collection and physical changes in our ecosystems, disagreements can be equally attributed to people’s cultural values. Upon viewing climate change as a physical problem for so long, it took me awhile to open up and see it through a cultural lens. However, after reading Hulme’s Why We Disagree About Climate Change, I now view ethics and belief systems to be central to the debate. Although religion can appeal as a path to mutual ethical and spiritual understanding, sentiments like “care for creation” and “respect for life” can’t easily see eye to eye (Hulme, 2009). Cultural theory further demonstrated how people’s beliefs can differ. This grid-group theory showed whether people are group or individually oriented and the extent to which people believe in government. The four groups Hulme described (fatalists, hierarchists, individualists, and egalitarians) all hold differing views on how the individual and society should interact, as well as differing views on nature (Hulme, 2009). Individual values and religious beliefs are both key points of disagreement in the ongoing debate over climate change that shouldn’t be ignored.
Class warps the classics:
Another notion I’ve been stuck with for many years is the idea of degrowth and dematerialization. I figured that if people bought and used less stuff, we could – in turn – conserve our resources. After reading Leigh Phillips’ Austerity Ecology, I’ve come to realize that my previous degrowth beliefs come from a place of privilege and are unrealistic. He points out that the “we” in the statement of “we should consume less” assumes that everyone can afford to consume less when this simply isn’t the case (Phillips, 2015). Class is also a major factor that is often overlooked by classic environmentalists with regards to the carrying capacity debate. It is not whether the Earth can support all of us, but who is actually allocated the resources. In most cases, the poor get the short end of the bargain. Phillips argues that carrying capacity ultimately depends on technological innovation, political economy, wealth distribution and what we value. It ultimately depends on what we want (Phillipps, 2015). I now agree with this notion that there is no set way to predict a carrying capacity – there are too many unknown variables.
Externality reality:
Many of our actions and decisions have consequences that reach far beyond our intentions. Many of the products we buy contain hidden negative or positive bi-products that we are often unaware of. ENVS 160 has made me a more careful and conscious consumer as I am now aware of the negative externalities (like pollution) that come with the production of fossil fuel related products. On top of becoming aware of externalities tied to goods we consume, Why We Disagree About Climate Change has also given me new perspectives on why the economics of climate change are so disagreed upon. Cost – benefit analysis can be difficult to perform with regards to building a bridge – nevertheless with regards to global climate change! It is also impossible to accurately numerically calculate possible future costs of climate change (Hulme, 2009). No matter what the possible costs or benefits of climate change are, individual awareness of externalities has helped me to look beyond explicit costs.
Works Cited
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, Leigh. Austerity Ecology & The Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence of Growth, Progress, Industry and Stuff. Winchester, UK: Zero Books, 2015.