Three lessons I have learned so far from taking ENVS 160 are that individual actions are not always possible for everyone, they are not necessarily very impactful, and that the ideas and classic environmental thought and pure nature are not as effective or efficient as I, and many others, once thought.
Individual actions are not always possible for everyone. Leigh Phillips discusses this in Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts:A Defence of Growth, Progress, Industry and Stuff. For example, reducing waste or trying to live a zero waste lifestyle is not a reality for everyone. I used to think that if everyone simply lived a low waste or zero waste lifestyle, the world would be a better place and we could “recover” from climate change effects. Then I realized how ignorant this ideology is. A high percentage of people around the world are simply trying to survive. When someone is focused on just getting enough food to feed their children, they cannot afford to think about buying things that do not create waste. And closer to home, actions such as buying organic produce is really an option only for the elite. People of low socioeconomic status cannot afford to buy organic and not only is this not fair, but it also demonstrates how simply encouraging individuals to change behavior is not the solution to our environmental woes. As Paul points out in who rules the Earth, It is not fair and not plausible to use a “one-size-fits all” (Steinberg 2015,112) approach to climate change. Holding all people and communities to the same standard in terms of individual action becomes a social justice issue and brings into concern ethics and morals. I also learned to consider more deeply the broad claims that people make about climate change, and how a one singular approach to climate change is inappropriate on a more global scale as well. For example, the idea that all countries should reduce carbon emissions is untenable. We must take into account that developing countries should not be held to the same amount of carbon reduction as developed countries because they face distinct problems and many desperately feel the need to use more carbon to develop in order to reach the point where they can think about developing sustainably However, I am a little unsure of where I stand on developing countries using fossil fuels. On one hand, resist this notion, believing that instead of using carbon to help them develop that these countries could use alternative methods of energy and learn from the lessons of more developed countries.
Also, my perspective has changed on the scale access through taking 160. I Would definitely consider myself more toward the individual scale before taking this class. I truly believed that individual actions really did make a difference. I now believe that the small things we are taught to do in our daily lives in our society such as compost, buying local, biking to work, not leaving the water running while you are brushing your teeth, etc. do not, for the most part, make much of a difference in a larger sense in mitigating the effects of climate change. Institutional level changes are the true key to making a real impact. Although I do believe now that institutional level action is the only solution that will make a significant difference, I still think it is important to continue to do these small actions, for example people eating less less meat. I believe that if many people participate in small actions like these, we can make a small difference. Also, such actions can help spread awareness of the problem of climate change, and help others to do their part on various levels to effect change.
My ideas on classic environmental thought and pure nature have also changed. I would consider myself more on the pure side of the nature axis before taking ENVS 160, but now, after learning about the variety of different views of contemporary environmental thought, I find myself leaning more towards contemporary environmental thought and a little more hybrid point of view than I initially had. For example, the ideas presented in White’s Why do we want Purity? by White resonated strongly with me. It was interesting to learn that since humans are so tied up in nature and nature is so intertwined with humans, that we must not try to separate from nature or understand it in a pure sense, since it has not been so for centuries, but instead we must work and coexist together with nature. Also, I think I would probably consider myself more to the classical side of environmental thought coming into this class, but now I am a little closer to contemporary. I am going to use nuclear energy as an example, as a very contemporary institution of environmental thought. I would have not thought myself to be an advocate for nuclear energy, but now, after talking with Emma on Skype, I consider it a potential option. The idea of market environmentalism introduced by Mike Hulme in Why we Disagree About Climate Change also is something I feel a little bit more comfortable with now. I would say that I am somewhat opposed to capitalism, but I think at this point it is here to stay and I have come to the realization that perhaps it can be a feasible solution to mitigate the effects of climate change.
References
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, Leigh. 2015. Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence of Growth, Progress, Industry and Stuff. Winchester, UK ; Washington, USA: Zero Books.
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
White, R. 2000. “The Problem with Purity.” Tanner Lectures on Human Values. 211–228.