In ENVS 160, I have come to learn that “Presaging Apocalypse” (Hulme 2009, 345) is not an effective way to rally public support when tackling climate change issues.
Before I had entered the ENVS class of 160, I believed that scare tactics, such as those employed by the eco-terrorist group, ‘Earth Liberation Front,’ were necessary to combat public inaction to climate change issues. After watching the movie, ‘The Day After Tomorrow,’ I felt as though I was imbued with the responsibility to protect the Earth’s global climate after I had witnessed the destruction of Earth, as a consequence of unregulated polluting practices. However, this belief existed only momentarily, and it was replaced by a thick veil of despair for the future of our global environment. Upon reading Mike Hulme’s book, ‘Why We Disagree About Climate Change,’ I had begun to understand that evoking fear doesn’t necessarily result in action. Evoking fear does quite the opposite. Hulme suggests that scare tactics, or, presaging apocalypse, demotivates and invokes scepticism amongst the public, which leads to further inaction concerning the pursuit of climate change solutions. (Hulme 2009). Hulme’s explanation revealed the hidden flaw in my previous reasoning, which not only humbled me but had also convinced me to conduct more research into pragmatic solutions addressing climate change issues. The discovery of the impacts of individual versus institutional changes to the environment was the next approach I had begun to asses.
My second discovery in ENVS 160 has led me to appreciate better the roles of institutions in creating effective legislation to combat climate change problems.
Michael Maniates’s 2001 paper, ‘Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?’ Compares contemporary, individual efforts of combating climate change to the individual act of planting a tree in the hope that it would save the global environment. Maniates made me realize that by buying an ‘eco-friendly’ car, for example, does not mean that I have made a dramatic impact on the current state of the global climate. My one, individual action has, in fact, fueled the product market and indirectly increased the demand for energy-intensive materials. I have now contributed slightly more to the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. Many people, like most egalitarians, have suggested that individual action is the be-all-and-end-all solution to climate change for a variety of reasons. This is not true. However, the consumption of an eco-friendly Prius and other well-minded individual pursuits can be adjusted to serve a greater and more impactful purpose. I have discovered that by combining individual action with institutional regulation, there could potentially be more commonly agreed-on solutions to global environmental problems.
Dr June Irwin, for example, initially acted on an individual scale but was eventually able to remove from Canada the influential presence of pesticide companies. She did this by working with the town council in her hometown of Hudson to end pesticide use. (Steinberg 2015). When the major pesticide corporations approached the Canadian Supreme Court; the court instead ruled 9-0 in favor of Hudson. (Steinberg 2015). Following the supreme court’s decision, legislation was established in 2010, stating that “three-fourths of all Canadian citizens were covered by some form of protective legislation based on the Hudson model.” (Steinberg 2015, 8-9). Dr Irwin had ultimately changed the Canadian environment for the better and pioneered the global movement opposing the use of pesticides. This example just goes to show that by combining individual action with institutional influence, through coherent communication between individuals and higher authorities, there can exist policies that dramatically improve our global environment.
My third discovery in ENVS 160 has taught me to appreciate a diversity of opinions and information and to synthesize these ideas and information thoroughly to form my own conclusions.
In the past, I would only support views and opinions that aligned with my personal beliefs. At the same time, I had shunned information and judgments I did not agree with. As a consequence, I was not a competent scholar because I did not conduct investigations seeking the truth behind my ideas. An example of my total disregard for other opinions was my stringent belief that classical environmentalism, and the pursuit of ‘pure nature,’ was the future of environmentalism. I did not wish to understand why people chose to advocate for ‘hybrid nature’, nor was I interested. My passion for classical environmentalism was born from my love of nature untouched by the human presence. As a consequence, I stubbornly disagreed with anyone who would suggest otherwise. However, in ENVS 160, I had become exposed to a variety of literature discussing the critiques of classical environmentalism, as well as literature discussing the strengths of perceiving nature as a hybrid. Hybrid nature discusses how nature is becoming interwoven with humanity, and in a world dominated by the human presence, it became difficult for me to perceive the future of environmentalism any other way. I did not agree with everything recommended by advocates of hybrid nature; however, by studying and evaluating a range of ideas and information, I have been able to form my conclusions based off of proper judgements and not purely from personal preference.