Environmental studies has changed the way I view the world. Many people claim that environmental studies is a soft science and prior to this class I shared the same belief. However, my understanding of environmental studies has changed over the course of this semester and I have come to realize that environmental studies is anything but “soft.” Currently, I view environmental studies as a multidisciplinary academic field that studies human interaction with the environment in the interest of solving complex problems (e.g. climate change). The three key lessons that have altered my beliefs towards environmental studies are, society cannot continue to solve climate change with simple solutions; in order to see actual change, we must provoke change on an intuitional level; and that technology is not the problem, but rather the lack of commitment.
In the first assigned reading, Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Mike Hulme ends his book by saying “There is no single perspective or vantage point from which the kaleidoscopic idea of climate change can be understood,” (325). Climate change as we learned cannot be solved by science alone. This beast is more complicated than we originally thought, and is even deemed as more dangerous than terrorism. In fact, this problem is so great that humans cannot control it. As depressing as this may seem, Hulme suggests that, “Rather than placing ourselves in a ‘fight against climate change’, we need a more constructive and imaginative engagement with the idea of climate change,” (361). One definition of insanity is doing something over and over again, and expecting the same results. Essentially, by approaching climate change with solutions that only pertain to the measurable and physical aspects of the earth, we will continue to down the current path of destruction. By having a more imaginative engagement, new ideas and technologies will come about. While this may not “solve” the issue of climate change, society cannot afford to be complacent without current ideas and solutions toward climate change.
Similar to reaching a solution for climate change, for any major problem, society must create change on an institutional level in order to actually make a difference. While planting a tree and driving an electric car is great, it doesn’t really do anything for the environment. In, Who Rules The Earth, Paul Steinberg opens with, “To bring about lasting change requires modifying the very rules that societies live by,” (11). Steinberg uses the example of pesticides in Canada, and how a lady by the name of Dr. June Irwin noticed a problem, took her case to the Supreme Court, and eventually eliminated the use of millions of pounds of pesticides in Canada. Steinberg has showed me that if we want to transform society, whatever the problem is (e.g. climate change, sustainability, or population growth), we must first transform the rules we live by.
Finally, technology is not the problem. While it is easy to point out that problems exist such as dangerously high rates of carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles, or the amount of waste that derives from old technology, the real problem is that as a society, we have failed to foster these creations into ones that can help us tackle environmental issues. Therefore, we must not halt the production of technology, but rather, “Have the same type of patience and commitment to our creations as the God the Creator, Himself,” (Latour 285).