Many times in Intro to Environmental Studies 160, I feel pulled apart by contrasting opinions, each new piece of literature seeming to make its own claim on how to approach environmental thought and solutions. Although at times authors can be venomously disagreeing with each other, at other times they also seem to agree on some of the same elements. In Why We Disagree About Climate Change by Mike Hulme and in classic environment thought, both sources acknowledge the perspective that nature is pure. Making the Modern World by Vaclav Smil and contemporary environmental thought both connect to the idea that modernization and technology fuels development and can bring solutions to environmental problems. Also, in Why We Disagree About Climate Change and Who Rules the Earth by Paul Steinberg, both authors provide clumsy solutions to environmental problems.
Why We Disagree About Climate Change & Ecotopia (Classic Environmental Thought)
Nature as Pure
The idea that Nature in western dichotomy is merely a social and cultural construct was discussed in both Why We Disagree About Climate Change and environmental thought (classic and contemporary). In classic environmental thought, the natural world is considered as pure, free of human influence. This defines the word Nature as the biological and geological world which has not been affected by humans. In Ernest Callenbach’s novel Ecotopia, he writes of a utopian world where the northwestern United States has broken off from the rest of the U.S. to form an eco-friendly state. This fictional country’s “campaign [is] to return nature to a natural condition” (Callenbach 1975, 58). Ecotopia is a good example of a classic environmental definition of nature. Not only is nature considered a place untouched by humans, but also its preservation means restoring the natural world to its original state. The classic environmental construction of nature is touched on in Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Hulme, the author, divides individuals and social groups into four different categories: Fatalist, Hierarchist, Individuals, and Egalitarians. He states that Egalitarians believe that “nature is ephemeral” (Hulme 2009, 186). They believe that nature is precariously balancing before its collapse, and any human involvement could push it over the edge. Although Hulme’s defines this school of thought as Egalitarian, I believe many classic environmentalists would fall into his category. However, Mike Hulme is only observing and remarking on the Egalitarian perspective while classic environmentalist live and breathe the perspective.
Why We Disagree About Climate Change & Who Rules the Earth
Clumsy Solutions
In Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Mike Hulmes claims that climate change is a “wicked” problem and can only be reached effectively through clumsy solutions. “This idea of approaching the challenges of climate governance through a series of diverse, multi-level and almost deliberately overlapping, and partly contradictory echoed by others who appreciate the insights of Cultural Theory” (Hulme 2009, 312). Although Hulme is advocating for clumsy solutions for climate change, this approach can be implemented to solve other environmental problems, like conservation or deforestation. The book Who Rules the Earth by Paul Steinberg (2015) demonstrates clumsy solutions for the conservation of the cerulean warbler, a migrating bird, who is currently threatened because of habitat loss. Steinberg follows the bird’s migration path from Peru to West Virginia. Steinberg gives examples of different solutions for the protection of the cerulean warbler’s habitat for each country he visits: National Parks in Manu Peru, shade grown coffee in Cordillera, Colombia, nonprofits and indigenous peasants in Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia, international regulation of oil drilling in the Caribbean, and stricter mining regulation in West Virginia (Steinberg 2015). Although Steinberg labels his solutions as changes in property rights, he is effectively creating an intersectional web of clumsy solutions for the cerulean warbler, using multi-scaled, bottom-up approaches (Hulme 2009). Clumsy solutions in both Why We Disagree About Climate Change and Who Rules the Earth are not elegant or broad sweeping but involve many actors and actions that will have more of an effect. Its multi-faceted approaches are more effective in appealing to all perspectives and ways of life.
Making the Modern World & Evolve (Contemporary Environmental Thought)
Development and Technology
In Making the Modern World by Vaclav Smil and “Evolve”, a short essay in Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, the authors claim that an increase in materialization is essential for the development of less developed countries, but they also say that the destruction of the natural world does not have to coincide with this development. Smil, Shellenberger, and Nordhaus also claim that for development, countries need an influx of technology and materials, especially in less developed countries. Contemporary environmentalism can at times be technophilic, calling on human ingenuity and technological creativity to offer solutions to environmental problems. In “Evolve,” Shellenberger and Nordhaus write “it will require replacing the antiquated notion that human development is antithetical to the preservation of nature with the view that modernization is the key to saving it” (Shellenberger and Nordhaus 2011, loc. 210). Although an extreme approach, the authors reflect the view of contemporary environmentalism that technology can act as a solution to not only increase development but also protect a “planet with wild primates, old-growth forests, a living ocean” (Shellenberger and Nordhaus 2011, loc. 212). In Making the Modern World, Vaclav Smil shows that in our consumerism-driven the growth of developing countries’ GDP’s is coupled with materialization (Smil 2014, 139). Although Smil would agree with Shellenberger and Nordhaus that for rapid development of less developed countries materialization must occur, he says that relative dematerialization can occur more in developed countries (Smil 2014). Although he gives no solutions for absolute dematerialization, Smil points out that relative dematerialization can be achieved through new technology like new packaging, nanomaterials, and fly-ash (Smil 2014, 169). Although Smil is not as extremely hopeful as Shellenberger and Nordhaus, all authors point to human innovation as solutions to problems of development and materialization. The creation of better technology can help with sustainable development or at least relative dematerialization.
Works Cited
Callenbach, Ernest. 1975. Ecotopia. Berkeley: Ernest Callenbach.
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction, and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shellenberger, Michael, and Ted Nordhaus. 2011. “Evolve”. Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene. Oakland: The Breakthrough Institute.
Smil, Vaclav. 2014. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.