ENVS 160 has definitely been a wake-up call. Coming into the course I had the notion that while not simple, everything that I viewed as a problem had a clear and correct solution that could be attained. Of course, I did realize that the field of environmental studies was complicated and often uncertain, but I also believed that there was always a right and a wrong side, and I believe this prevented me from fulling understanding the complexity of the field.
Why We Disagree About Climate Change forced me to call many of my ideas and beliefs into question. While I grew up in a very liberal city, I also spent a lot of time in the hill country and have a decent amount of friends who identify as being very conservative. Whenever we would discuss topics like human-caused climate change I always assumed the reason our ideologies differed was because I had more exposure to information and data than they did. After discussing the almost infinite ways in which people disagree with one another, and reading about the often problematic nature of communicating one’s ideas through the deficit model (Hulme 2009), I have begun to understand that addressing disagreements about our impacts and potential solutions requires an openness to potentially change your opinion, not just a determination to change someone else’s.
The situating minerals project also taught an important lesson. I have always viewed things like mines or facilities for processing ores and minerals to be blemishes on the landscape. I always felt bad for towns and communities that found themselves near one of these locations. Learning about how many not only rely, but welcome these facilities helped teach me a new perspective. My feelings about these types of industries tend to shaped almost entirely on their negative impacts. Since the situating minerals project, I have been working on trying to see a more complete picture of industries and producers I have traditionally viewed with disdain. If I am going to oppose something I am going to do so because I have looked at the pros and cons and have a well thought out argument of why these things are more trouble than they are worth.
Much of what I learned in environmental science in high school fell into the category of classic environmental thought. The Tragedy of the Commons, not uncommonly, was a cornerstone of these lessons. Seeing how a contemporary thought analysis of Hardin’s work led the author to conclude that the Tragedy of the Commons was not necessarily the most effective model for our current situation (Ostrom 2008) led me to examine my own classic environmental thought and attempting to understand how these thoughts might be, for a lack of a better word, updated.
These lessons have shown me that my understanding of Environmental Studies is limited and that the best way to increase mu understanding and knowledge is to recognize my lack of it and approach the field with an open mind.
Works Cited
– Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
– Ostrom, Elinor. 2008. “The Challenge of Common-Pool Resources.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 50 (4): 8–21. doi:10.3200/ENVT.50.4.8-21.