The Environmental Studies introductory class here at Lewis & Clark College was designed knowing that it is important to expose students to as many credible viewpoints as possible to begin to understand the breadth of knowledge this area of study operates within. To achieve this, we alternated between studying published papers, books, podcasts, documentaries, and even surveys. The diversity of the forms of knowledge we consumed directly reflect the spirit of the course by combining seemingly conflicting or unrelated ideas into one cohesive lesson. For the remainder of this post I will draw attention to some of these connections, and analyze how they act to better our understanding of environmental studies.
To begin, I will start as we did at the beginning of the course. Mike Hulme, author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change (2009), guided us into ENVS 160 using easy to read language and thought-provoking ideas. He pressured us to challenge public opinion, proposing that climate change is a “constructed idea” in order to allow room for it to act as a “stimulus for innovation and social adaptation” (Hulme 2009, 31). Similarly, the 2017 Ecotypes survey made it possible to connect classic versus contemporary thought and Hulme’s views on climate change stances (EcoTypes and Classic vs. Contemporary Environmental Thought, accessed 04/09/17). According to Hulme, it is better to promote hopeful over apocalyptic thinking in order to facilitate change in people (Hulme, 2009). When this same idea of hope versus apocalypse is brought up in the Ecotypes survey, it is found that those who hold apocalyptic views are generally classic thinkers, while those who hold hopeful views are generally contemporary thinkers (Ecotypes survey, 2017). Hulme also states that “…there are powerful benefits for the future of the world from recognizing environmentalism as an emerging religious tradition” (Hulme 2009, 150). Comparing this thought to the Ecotypes survey, it can be found that perhaps more people from either side of classic/contemporary thought would be open to this idea, as spirituality is not defined to either side.
Continuing on, both the aforementioned Why We Disagree About Climate Change by Mike Hulme and now Who Rules The Earth? by Paul F. Steinberg (2015) analyze how humans are influenced to bring about change within their local and/or global environments. Steinberg begins his book with a story about how one woman started a movement across Canada that changed the use of pesticides throughout her country (Steinberg 2015, chapter 1). This woman, Dr. June Irwin took it upon herself to challenge the system in place in her local government that prevented local-level pesticide regulation. She proved that one person really can change things, and Steinberg is urging us to try and do the same. Hulme, on the other hand, believes that while it is important to make contributions to conservation, it will never be achieved through local influence, making a point through Smith D.M. (2006) that “no matter how many low-energy light bulbs you install or how much recycling you do, there is still a need for more systemic changes to take place in society” (Hulme 2009, 263-264). Both of these authors are calling their readers to action, but in differing ways. These disparities in advice, however, allow for readers to follow the advice they feel most productive or comfortable doing.
The final connection I will draw is between Steinberg’s Who Rules the Earth? (2015), and Vaclav Smil’s Making the Modern World (2014). Both of these texts work towards explaining how our modern society runs, and what rules and regulations are in place to maintain it on a global scale. Though they have similar messages, these texts differ greatly in their delivery. Opening to any page in Smil’s text immediately shows the reader how statistically heavy his writing is. For example,he makes a statement about container ship engines by writing that “[they] rate nearly 30g/W: the 80.1 MW 14-cylinder turbocharged Wartsila’s RT-flex96C, whose stroke length is 2.5 m, has a specific mass of 28.72 g/W” (Smil 2014, 126). As a hard science major, one may think that I should be more partial to this style of analysis. However, I greatly prefer the writing of Steinberg, previously referenced, as he has a much more anecdotal method of data illustration. This difference can directly be connected to the core philosophy of environmental studies, as it combines soft and hard methods to produce one all-encompassing idea that can further benefit the reader.
Works Cited:
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smil, Vaclav 2013. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. Wiley Publishing.
Steinberg, Paul. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.