There have been several recurring themes present throughout the readings of our ENVS 160 course. To extend upon my last post, which identified three key themes of the course, I will demonstrate the connectivity between the course’s texts in relation to three key concepts. Throughout this post I will use the term ‘environmental problem’ in reference to the debate regarding the use and misuse of natural resources. The three themes I will use to connect the readings of the course are; the evolution of ideas and values regarding technology and environment in order to respond to contemporary environmental problems, the importance of focusing on institutional level solutions, and the disparity between environmental problems of the developed and undeveloped world.
1) Ideas and values regarding technology and the environment have evolved to respond to contemporary environmental problems.
With regards to technology and its use, the difference between classic and contemporary environmentalism has been much discussed throughout the semester. Classic environmentalists like Garret Hardin generally believe that the earth is limited in the number of people it can support. Hardin even went so far as to say that “The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality” in the abstract of his famous Tragedy of the Commons (Hardin, 1968, pg. 1). The avoidance of technology is characteristic of classic environmentalists who frequently diminish the potential for technology to solve environmental problems.
Contemporary environmentalists are however, much more likely to see technology as a useful tool to achieve solutions to environmental problems (Jim Proctor, “Ecotypes; Exploring Environmental Ideas”, accessed 4/10/17). Contemporary environmentalists such as De Fries and Philips believe that technology is a necessary part of the solution to many of the world’s environmental problems. “Today, societies have not fully embraced technologies, policies, and actions sufficient to avoid global climate change, ocean acidification, and a massive loss of biodiversity.” (DeFries et al., 2012, pg. 604).
While DeFries defends the use of technology to solve environmental problems, Philips attacks the notion that “A finite world can support only a finite population” (Hardin, 1968, pg. 1). Philips sees such an interpretation of human population growth as a gross oversimplification of a rapidly evolving process. He says the true carrying capacity of humans on earth “depends on the current state of technology, on the state of the environment itself” (Philips, 2015, pg. 63). Contemporary environmentalists see the exponential improvement in technology as well as human populations as evidence that there can be a harmonious balance between technology and environmental sustainability.
2) The use of institutions is a powerful method to pursue environmental change.
Throughout the texts we’ve studied during this course, a repeated emphasis has been placed on seeking environmental change via institutions. This methodology for pursuing environmental action extends off the previously described theme of evolving environmental strategies to work in today’s world. Many of the authors that we have read place an increased emphasis on using institutions to pursue change, as opposed to the more traditional individualist method.
In his book, Who Rules the Earth? Paul Steinberg devotes an entire chapter entitled Scaling Up to demonstrate the power institutions have in economic, political and environmental realms. The successes of the European Union in influencing environmental policies around the world stem from their presence as an international coalition; “it was obvious that the European Union was capable of delivering results – economic, diplomatic, and environmental – that would be impossible for countries to achieve on their own.” (Steinberg, 2015, pg. 180). Steinberg also recognizes the importance of informal institutions in impacting the policies of local communities. His book can be interpreted as a plea for well-intentioned environmentalists to funnel their efforts into impacting the powerful institutions which face the world in which we live today.
The power of institutions in environmental policy has been analyzed throughout the course since Hulme argued that “some disagreements about climate change can be traced to different interpretations of the authority of the IPCC.” (Hulme, 2009, pg. 96). Although Hulme brings up many potential issues in placing a great deal of trust in the decision making power of international institutions such as the IPCC, he does say that “the alternatives to the IPCC style of consensus-building are even less likely to command widespread authority within the worlds of science and policy.” (Hulme, 2009, pg. 97). As such, the role of institutions cannot be underestimated in determining international environmental policy in the years to come.
3) There exists a massive gap between the environmental challenges of the developed and undeveloped countries which has significant effects in solving environmental problems.
It is difficult to discuss solutions to the many environmental problems facing our world today without first acknowledging the extreme regionality of these issues. It cannot be denied that the industrialized nations of North America and Europe have historically been the primary culprits of the atmosphere’s elevated CO2 levels. The realities of life in the United States and less developed countries are inherently different, and the goals of each country’s continued development also differ. The sustainable development goals of the global south and north are different and often oppose each other. The regionality of climate change is especially impactful for countries whose borders lie within at risk areas.
Hulme addresses this issue during his chapter entitled The Challenges of Development; “One of the reasons we disagree about climate change is because we understand development differently.” (Hulme, 2009, pg. 251). The United States, with its high standard of living is able to place a higher emphasis on sustainable development to ensure a higher quality of life for future generations than a country like Haiti, which is more focused on development in the first place. “For some, these characteristics of an unequal, unfair and unsustainable world remain serious obstacles to negotiating on climate change: they must be resolved first.” (Hulme, 2009, pg. 281).
Through his complex language of statistics and materials, Smil also discussed the importance of diminishing the equality gap between the global North and South. The over proportionate consumption of the North is evidenced throughout his text, but Smil summarizes his view best when saying; “a huge material mobilization and transformation will be needed just to narrow the gap between these two worlds. At the same time, material consumption has been a major cause of environmental pollution and degradation and further multiplication of current demand may pose a worrisome threat to the integrity of the biosphere.” (Smil, 2014, pg. x). It is imperative to address if not solve the massive economic and social equality that exists in the world before one can expect to solve major environmental challenges.
Works Cited
Smil, Vaclav. 2014. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley.
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeFries, Ruth S. et al. 2012. “Planetary Opportunities: A Social Contract for Global Change Science to Contribute to a Sustainable Future.” BioScience 62 (6): 603–6. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.6.11.
Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162 (3859): 1243–48. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243.
Phillips, Leigh. 2015. Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence of Growth, Progress, Industry and Stuff. Winchester, UK ; Washington, USA: Zero Books.