As I reflected on the main readings thus far, I realized that that some concepts were repeatedly brought up, and those are the connections between readings that stand out to me the most. In addition, some of the concepts were pretty new to me, so the connections in the texts between some of those concepts were clearer to me because I needed to give the new ideas more thought, and therefore I’ve spent more time thinking about the connections in this post than some other connections. However, it was difficult to just pick three connections. There were an abundance of connections between all these readings, but the following connections are the ones that were the most clear to me. The importance of considering context, the flaws in the idea of acting locally, and the idea that we must think critically before coming to a conclusion were the three major connections I found between the texts.
Context is always an important concept to consider in order to be an empathetic and understanding human being, but this is especially true in the context of environmental studies. When examining public opinion on climate change, it is important to approach the topic from different disciplines, considering the different contexts where climate change is a key idea, for different contexts create different implications in terms of how people will react to ideas (Hulme 2013). In Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Hulme recognizes the intricacies between the realm of science, belief systems, and our fears about our changing surroundings. He then uses these complexities to explain why controversy surrounds climate change. Controversy often surrounds proposed conservation actions or laws related to the environment, and Steinberg (2015, Ch. 4) addresses the ways different governments regulate property, pointing out that what works in the context of one country might not work in the context of another country.
Growing up, I believe I heard the phrase “think globally, act locally” several times, but I’ve heard that phrase more often this semester than I had heard it within my first eighteen years, prior to stepping foot in the ENVS 160 classroom. It seems that this phrase about acting locally is problematic for many environmentalists. Steinberg rejects this idea, arguing that “we need to think and act at multiple levels if we are to make progress on vexing social and environmental problems” (Steinberg 2015, pp.163). A similar view is shared by Leigh Phillips, who writes that “localism is ultimately presenting the instant gratification and easy option of ethical consumerism as a solution,” which doesn’t properly address powerful problems like climate change (Phillips 2014, pp.128). These two ideas also connect in that both authors argue we should strive to act institutionally instead of just acting as consumers.
In order for any opinion to be formed, one must think critically about concepts and challenge accepted views. This was demonstrated extremely well in Smil’s book, Making The Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization, especially when Smil mentions Life-Cycle Assessments. There are many ways of measuring the amount of resources needed to produce a product, and Smil introduces the reader to several new ways of thinking about material usage, including pointing out that what some consider dematerialization is often just material substitution (Smil 2014 ,pp.121). The value of critical thinking is also clearly demonstrated by Hulme as he thoughtfully and clearly considers climate change as more than just a biological phenomenon (Hulme 2009). In order to interpret this information for ourselves, we must take a hint from these authors and analyze our information in critical and creative ways.
Citations
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.