As my knowledge of the environmental sphere expands, it is inevitable to avoid the constant trends and interconnecting thoughts. Addressing and acknowledging these connections allows for the bridging of concepts that can tie together. Amongst the readings Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Austerity Ecology, and Who Rules the World there are the following key connections that are promoted throughout the reading: the power of institutions/governance, breaking down environmental myths, and taking on different perspectives to environmental problems while acknowledging the anthropocene.
With the constant changes in society, the promotion of environmental change through institutional and political power is promoted. In Who Rules the World, Steinberg focuses on bringing to light the idea that government matters in the context of effective environmental policy and change. Bringing light to big forces such as political change can make societal changes. “The transition to sustainability requires transforming the rules we live by” (Steinberg 2015, 13). We must open the window of politics to address the idea that we can make progressive ecological impacts by changing the current laws, rules, and understanding we have on our current lifestyle and politics. We need to transition from the idea of just one person forming to make action happen but instead look to collectively reach for higher power to execute change quicker and more effectively, “Yet the ability of citizens to organize, and the tactics they deploy to bring about change, are profoundly shaped by the rules made by national governments” (Steinberg 2015, 134). Taking on the perspective of new individual thought, Maniates likewise advocates for “thinking institutionally”. This term takes on the idea that individual action can be more impactful through the help of institutions to make it more powerful and effective. Instead of separating the field of individual action, we must come together and learn to merge and ask for help from institutions to promote action (Maniates 2001).
Another drawing connection commonly seen is the aim for breaking myths of nature and common mantras that have been developed over time. In Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Hulme discusses ‘myths of nature’ a concept introduced by ecologist Buzz Holling. The four myths of nature help introduce why different perspectives depict stereotypes. Lining up to the Douglas and Wildavsky’s cultural grid-group theory (as discussed in my previous post), it helps bring understanding on how individuals come to believe the common stereotypes associated in the environmental sphere and how they are based on the type of person that carries them (Hulme 2015, 191).
Alongside in Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-porn Addicts: A defence of growth, progress, industry and stuff, Leigh Phillips goes on to break down the common myth that is carried about localism always being the best route to instill change (Phillips 2015).
“When we do look at LCAs, for some products, it turns out that yes, indeed, it does make sense to relocalise production, but for many other items, the economies of scale involved make the amount of energy employed and thus greenhouse-gas emissions per item far less than an item that is locally produced, despite the thousands of ‘food-miles (p. 119)”.
Instead of always promoting the rhetoric of ‘eating local’, Phillips introduces the idea of taking a different perspective and looking into the full Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) that takes into account the production and distribution of a product. While promoting and purchasing local goods always sounds like the best choice we must take into considerations that sometimes produce or good aren’t best grown or made locally.
These two text, Why We Disagree About Climate Change and Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-porn Addicts: A defence of growth, progress, industry and stuff, focus on drawing the connection of how there are constantly myths associated with environmental or ecological change for the better that may not always be true. But we have to learn to navigate through and bring more spotlight to myths, doing so will allow us to further educate the public and break barriers that can help individuals notice that they can take on different actions to make a change in their ecosystem.
The last connecting point often seen across the readings is the push that is made for readers to see issues and situations from different perspectives and acknowledge the anthropocene. Instead of just looking at issues in a black and white picture, we have to be open to taking into consideration our responsibility for the issues and how to move forward and learn to grow. In Love Your Monsters, a chapter by Latour in Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene by Michael Shellenberger, he focuses on understanding the human role in the anthropocene to acknowledge that we must take responsibility and care for our creations. Humans must grow apart from constantly pointing the finger and instead to learn to coexist and take responsibility for their ecological contributions or damages. Alongside, this advocates for individuals to instead of being hooked on the just setting a negative side of things become aware of the changes and learn to grow and support it to the best of our ability.
In White’s The Problem with Purity, he focuses on individuals acknowledging their entanglement in nature and how bringing to understanding why the aim for purity is constantly brought back (White 2000).
“Appeals to nature and its balance are appeals to purity, but nature is not as reliable a guide if we have been for centuries so inextricably tangled in the natural world that traces of nature are everywhere in us and traces of us have infiltrated more and more of nature (p. 216)”
People often regard our environmental problems as a transgression of boundaries, however, we must learn nature has a balance and we have both become entangled in them and lost our boundaries and priorities. It is no longer as black and white as often perceived but we need to acknowledge the fact that many residing factors come into play. “Our efforts to save nature should not lead to an attempt to disentangle it completely from the social (226)”. We must connect the ideas and acknowledge the anthropocene that has developed around the progression and understanding of nature. Both Latour and White aim to take on the idea of the anthropocene through classic and contemporary works bringing to spotlight the ideology that we, as individuals, must learn to accept and intertwine with nature in a way that allows us to progress forward and understand our position of power and support.
While we read each of these books and articles stands alone, they all come together to discuss the discourse and understanding of progressing themes in the field of environmental studies. Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Austerity Ecology, and Who Rules the World draw the key connections promoting: the power of institutions/governance, breaking down environmental myths, and taking on different perspectives to environmental problems while acknowledging the anthropocene. Moving forward with my future endeavors and environmental readings, I hope to continue bridging the many different perspectives that are presented and how they shine light on the different ideas that are important to move forward with helping make change in our ecosystem and biosphere.
References
Hulme, Mike. 2015. Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Latour, Bruno. 2011. “Love Your Monsters Why we must care for our technologies as we do our children.” In Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene, edited by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, 271–73. Breakthrough Institute. http://www.amazon.com/Love-Your-Monsters-Postenvironmentalism-ebook/dp/B006FKUJY6.
Maniates, Michael F. 2001. “Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?” Global Environmental Politics 1 (3): 31–52.
Phillips, Leigh. 2015. Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence of Growth, Progress, Industry and Stuff. Winchester, UK ; Washington, USA: Zero Books. https://books.google.com/books?id=6OSOCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT30&dq=austerity+ecology&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEw5Phhq7PAhVjVWMKHYHqBn8Q6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q=austerity%20ecology&f=false.
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
White, R. 2000. “The Problem with Purity.” Tanner Lectures on Human Values 21: 211–228.