When I was younger, I owned a U.S. Forest Service shirt. I wore it when my elementary school had a day that let us share what we wanted to be when we grew up. At that point, I was far too young to understand the complexities of ‘the environment’ or ‘climate change.’ All I knew was the world was getting warmer and that if we all went out on Earth Day and pulled weeds, we were helping out. While I still think that pulling weeds is beneficial to local ecology, my knowledge of environmental issues, namely those related to climate change, has morphed into a jumbled and politically charged debate. The foundations of this thinking lie primarily in social theory and government.
The assignment of people into the four major categories of Cultural Theory from Why We Disagree about Climate Change has served as a starting point in observing the distinctions surrounding environmental action and stewardship. These four categories, titled Egalitarian, Individualist, Fatalist, and Hierarchist not only give insight into the grid (degree of social regulation) and group (degree of social contact), but also to the associated perspectives of nature: capricious, tolerant, benign, and ephemeral (Hulme 2009, 186). On one hand, the simplicity of these groups allows advertising campaigns to hone in on a target audience and direct their messages in a more effective tone. On the other, this could be detrimental to the creation of a widespread movement, since people are sectioned off. There is not sufficient recognition of the fluidity of these categories, especially when an individual is taking action. This is much like biological determinism’s support of inherent behaviors, making a population seem unchangeable and unable to adapt in wake of new scientific discoveries or social norms.
Regardless of these critiques, the four categories provide an initial lens into how climate change reform may be successfully implemented. For example, an egalitarian (who has high group and low grid) will most likely support publicly endorsed movements, while remaining separate from authority figures. In this collective, ‘nature’ is fragile and easily harmed. Combining these two factors, a group of these people may be stereotyped as a tree-dwelling, share-all cult (e.g., Ecotopia). Because there is low grid, it directly contradicts the ideals of Fatalists and Hierarchists, both of whom are high grid, illustrating a fundamental aspect to disagreement in climate change arguments. The same issue stands when looking directly at any of the four groups, since they are distinguished by being high or low, there will always be an underlying disagreement between grid or group, not to mention disagreements rooted in larger institutions such as religion, ethics, and economics.
Because these groups lack consensus, invoking “clumsy governance” provides an approach suited to all four simultaneously. Finding governmental consensus on climate change policy (or even if policy is needed) has proven to be a serious challenge, with limited resources to allocate to departments like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As Mike Hulme supports policy analysts Prins and Rayner in their proposition that “governing of climate should comprise a variety of approaches, each operating in different realms, at different levels and with different types of policy instruments” (Hulme 2009, 313). Supported by six additional components, the two analysts suggest that bottom-up approaches will serve as more effective when averting climate change (distinguished by public support, rather than authoritarian enforcement), as well as “a serious expansion of public research and development into new and renewable energy technologies” (Hulme 2009, 314). This approach not only engages a larger amount of people, it can engage more disciplines; therefore, consensus on the specifics of a solution will be left to those who support them.
Despite its theoretical promise, an all-out attack may not be as effective when implemented. Most pointedly, unless explicitly established prior to action, each country, every region, potentially even different biomes could have different expectations. In this instance, expectations would mostly likely refer to stabilization of the climate at a certain temperature.
If, somehow, there were no conflicts in government and progress was being made by “clumsy governance,” there would not be, as of 2017, the sufficient technological prowess to efficiently conquer climate change. This may be a result of “imaginable worlds” that have been written into policy, referred to as “far-out fantasies of utopias and science fiction novelists” (Steinberg 2015, 37). Examples of these aspirations were the first drafts of a climate reform ordinance proposed in Bend, Oregon. These policies were not feasible because of a combination of insufficient funding and poor community involvement, making the propositions for climate neutral city operations by 2030 unattainable, despite the area being one of the fastest growing in the country (See here for more).
While Cultural Theory, clumsy governance, and possible feasible are minor concepts in the scope of environmental studies, or even ENVS-160, each concept touches on a slightly different aspect of the field. Cultural Theory begins to illustrate the varieties of viewpoints that individuals hold, for both social situations and nature. Clumsy governance, supplemented by imaginable and feasible goals, uncover the challenges of climate reform policy. Unfortunately, most individuals lack the environmental education sufficient to discuss these themes, despite them occupying a significant portion of the political agenda.
Works Cited
Hulme, Mike. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Paul F. Steinberg. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2015.