Before I took ENVS 160 I had a very narrow understanding of environmental topics and climate change in general. Broad terms like nature, environment and sustainable all had simple and understandable definitions. I associated all environmentalists with each other and lumped radicals, preservationists, conservationists etc. all in to one movement with each other. My lack of ability to analyze environmental issues and organizations with depth made me ignorant and ineffective as an environmentalist. Now however, I feel much better equipped to analyze and be a part of the environmental network. Through the course readings and lectures I have made a couple of realizations. First, I learned that people disagree about climate change for unique reasons that are drawn directly from personal experience. Second, I learned that I need to be concise if I want to have an effective conversation about climate change. Third, I learned that a place can be complex and that this is important in environmental discourse. While I learned way more than three things in ENVS 160, these are the three that stick out to me and have really benefitted my understanding of a whole slew of environmental topics.
The idea of finding a solution to climate change is not as simple as I used to idealize. People disagree about climate change for quite a few reasons, one of these reasons resides in the difference between affective and analytic reasoning systems. Affective reasoning drives the intuitive and reactionary responses to a stimulus (such as avoiding a hiking trails known for mountain lion attacks) while analytic reasoning is a more drawn out process involving much more deliberation and judgement (such as deciding on a house to buy). When debating on the threat of climate change, a majority of individuals use analytic reasoning to form an opinion and plan of action which in this case can lead to inaction or lack of effective action. Hulme sums this idea up in his book Why We Disagree About Climate Change, “While many people believe that climate change is occurring and that this is a bed thing, the issue isn’t as important to them as job security, health care or local environmental issues. The abstract and often statistical nature of the risks associated with climate change lacks the immediacy and situatedness of other risks which do evoke a strong visceral reaction” (Hulme, 200). Many environmentalists view climate change as an impending doom while a large majority of the public views it as a distant challenge to their way of life and the resulting battle of climate change preparedness teeters between these two sides. Learning this has helped me approach other topics in environmental studies with a more open mind and understand that it does no use to admonish those who aren’t a part of the environmental network. For environmentalists, the options become: educate people to build a sense of urgency or wait until the climate change effects progress far enough to kick everyone into affective reasoning mode.
Big words like nature, environment and sustainability all have a clear definition, but the true meaning of these words is much more complex than one would initially think. When talking about environmental issues I have learned that it helps to be as specific as possible. When referring to a process and labelling it as sustainable for example, it is important to denote various details like for who, how and why. If a farmer is sustainably raising cows for meat production what does that mean? The farmer may be reducing pesticides in his feed which may be sustainable for the local ecosystem, but the meat industry as a whole is very detrimental to the earth in terms of carbon emissions therefore the farm is both sustainable and not sustainable. This is confusing and can lead to conflict and difficulties when resolving environmental issues. As another example, an indigenous hunter-gatherer person will have a very different view of nature than a typical american person. The differences between these two views shouldn’t be compared and evaluated but instead understood and implemented into a solution. Being conscious of the words I use and how I use them has allowed me to become more effective at problem solving and discussions but more importantly avoiding big words allows for true understanding of the big picture issue at stake.
When researching about Zijin Mountain in China as part of the Situating Minerals assignment I really began to understand how a place can have such a distinct meaning for different people. To the people of the mining company Zijin, the mountain is a place of wealth and economic benefit while the people in nearby villages used to view it that way, after 30 years they now view it as a place of pollution, loss and sickness. Being able to ascertain the difference in meaning of a place between multiple points of view is very useful and constructive and learning to dig into both sides of the story will help me analyze problems and find effective solutions as forward into my environmental studies major. Realizing that people’s lives tie directly into a place is very important and after taking this class it is clear to me that to discount that connection as anything less than vital is a mistake.
Works Cited
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.