The scope of ENVS 160 is completely unlike that of the AP Environmental Science class I took my senior year of high school. Not nearly as extensive as our class, it hardly talked about what actions can be taken, described through the different philosophies of environmentalism, and instead taught what climate change is and the effects of it. The broadness yet specificness of the scope of this class has allowed for introductions into so many ways of comprehending what leading environmental viewpoints are, encompassed in those of classic and contemporary environmentalism, allowing myself and hopefully my peers to help find one’s own viewpoint within the mix.
One of the first things I learned was the ambiguity of using terms such as nature, the environment, and climate among others and the necessity to clearly define and understand words like these when attempting to present information as clearly as possible. Understanding these terms goes further than understanding their Webster’s definition, but instead takes on the role of understanding the contexts and different viewpoints that people across the globe express and experience. The concept of nature is a very modern idea, being that of such a separation between humans and the fruits of the natural world. Just like the word nature, Mike Hulme describes the human construction of climate within “Why We Disagree About Climate Change”. The main idea of anyone, including myself, taking ENVS 160 is most definitely to understand the best ways to mitigate the damages of climate change. Without a clear understanding of such critical words within the field, expressing and communicating knowledge to those who have different backgrounds, which is extremely important as this is a global issue affecting all people, is impossible.
Other than the importance of clearly using broad and vastly interpreted terms is the role that institutional action will take in reducing the impacts of climate change. The thought of institutions is something I did not have a strong grasp on until reading “Who Rules the Earth?” by Paul F. Steinberg and discussing the topic within our class. The most I had heard of institutions was regarding that of “institutional racism”, which I now have been able to better understand after participating in our class. The control that institutions have over our world is everywhere. The existence of institutions proves that we can shape our world and that we do shape our world. It seems like my improved understanding of what institutions are and the role that they play in how societies function has allowed me to more strongly question and contemplate how much of our world has been constructed and is malleable. Fixing our modern world takes understanding these institutions, manufacturing new ones, and altering old ones to coordinate as successful of a society as possible.
Even though institutional action will surely be the solution to climate change, it is no good to discredit individual action as being completely unnecessary and a waste of time. Although these actions might not significantly reduce one’s carbon footprint, living by a moral code is admirable. In taking action in one’s own life and attempting to decline participation in actions understood to be damaging to the health of our world, there at least is an attempt to diminish one’s impact on our planet. Individual action will surely not heal climate change and is not something that is possible for all people. However, people taking this stand and at least trying to make changes creates an atmosphere for the change that is so necessary.
Works Cited
Steinberg, Paul F. Who Rules the Earth? 1st Edition. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Hulme, Mike. 2009 Why We Disagree About Climate Change. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press