Classic vs. Contemporary, Outright vs. Underlying
Even though our intensive discussion of classic and contemporary environmentalism officially began with our study of Mark Shellenberger and Ted Norhous’ Love Your Monsters: Post Environmentalism and the Anthropocene, the distinction between classic and contemporary was first introduced through Why We Disagree About Climate Change by Mike Hulme. Hulme discusses what we as a class later identified as a distinction between classic and contemporary views of science. He discredits “the neutral outcome of a steadily advancing pursuit of an objective and universal truth”, which we interpreted as the platform for the classic view of science which believes science should be positivist, normal, objective and universal scientific data (Hulme 2009, 77). For Hulme, the idea that philosophers and sociologists have entered the conversation enlightening us on “the human dimensions of scientific practice and the different social and cultural contexts in which science is undertake” is cause for rejecting the more traditional classic view of science (Hulme 2009, 78). This enlightenment brought by philosophers and sociologists indicate what we identified as Hulme’s explanation of the contemporary view of science, acknowledging that “Where science is practiced, by whom, and in what era, affects the knowledge that science produces” and that it “has a history, a geography and a sociology” (Hulme 2009, 78). From these descriptions we, as a class, were able to devise that Hulme’s contemporary view of science places more value in constructivist, local along with universal, and “post-normal” science. While Hulme uses these distinctions to prove that we as a human population disagree on climate change because we have different beliefs, such as in what science should be, Shellenberger and Norhous use the division of classic and contemporary to explore the effectiveness and validity of certain types of environmentalism. Shellenberger and Norhous identify classic environmentalism, a model that has “rejected technology and modernization” and contemporary environmentalism, placing value in “how humans interact with ecosystems, as well as with most historical and archeological evidence” (Shellenberger and Norhous 2011, 76 and 675). While Hulme and Shellenberger and Norhous address classic and contemporary in different contexts, they relate in their illustration of the dichotomy between traditional and modern and use this division to make larger claims on disagreements of climate change and environmentalism.
Policy from Beginning to End
Together, Hulme’s work and Steinberg’s Who Rules the Earth? How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives the full life cycle of policy is examined, with Hulme exploring various models of devising policy in an effort to show that we disagree on climate change because of different opinions on how institutions should formulate strategy and Steinberg addressing the effectiveness and implementation of policy to prove the importance of thinking institutionally. Hulme first identifies the different methods by which policy is drafted, differentiating between three common models. The models include “The ‘decisionist’ model” in which the scientific experts are consulted for justification of a politician’s decision, “The ‘technocratic’ model” in which politician’s make decision based on scientific experts’ findings, and “The ‘co-production’ model” in which politicians and scientific experts come to joint decision with input from citizens and outside experts (Hulme 2009, 101-102). While Hulme discusses these different frameworks for formulating policy, Steinberg goes a different route, explaining how it is most important to think institutionally when fighting certain negative anthropogenic impacts on ecosystems and the atmosphere. He identifies the role of governments as key when thinking institutionally, claiming that whether or not effective change occurs in the movement to retract some negative effects of anthropogenic climate change is dependent on governments and institutional action (Steinberg 2015, 156). Steinberg also advocates for market based solutions as a form of thinking institutionally, using how the United States’ cap and trade policy for lead in the 20th century was extremely successful in implementation and effectiveness to promote working with markets as institutional power (Steinburg 2015, 98). Using Hulme’s description of the three models of policy conception in conjunction with Steinberg’s discussion of the importance of working institutionally through governments and markets clarifies the idea of policy, as they collaborate to illustrate the inputs and outputs associated with institutional strategies.
Voices for the Market
Steinberg’s main idea of the importance of thinking institutionally and his more specific endorsement of market based solutions is directly related to Hulme’s “grid”, “group” scale illustrated on page 186 of his work. This scale serves as a representation of Hulme’s central point that we disagree about climate change because we as people have different values and beliefs. This scale that separates people into four distinct groups based on how community oriented one is and how one perceives rules, specifically addresses the different groups and constructs people trust. The four identifications can be further assessed by the solutions they align themselves with, coming from Hulme’s three “proposed responses to climate change: the correcting of markets, the establishment of justice, and the transformation of society” (Hulme 2009, 162). Steinberg’s assertion that market based solutions, such as the lead cap and trade policy implemented by the US, are efficient and successful when handled by a functioning government fits the Hulme’s framework for the “correcting of markets”. This framework, while Hulme explains it with the example of carbon trading, also illustrates what happened with lead cap and trade in the US, because supporters of market correcting policy plans promote ideas such as the following, “Markets for tradable carbon permits and voluntary carbon offsets have to be established”. This strategy was the model for lead cap and trade, proving the likelihood that those in favor of market correcting solutions would align with Steinberg’s promotion of lead cap and trade and other forms of policy that give markets some autonomy and opportunities for self-regulation. When assessed against the “grid”, “group” scale Hulme uses, the support for the same market based solutions that Steinberg promotes can be associated with one of main identifications, “the individualist”, as they support self-regulation and policies with lower social low degrees of social regulation. Hulme’s visual for the different constructs people trust, while meant to convey differing beliefs that confuse the conversation of climate change, can also be used to understand what policy or forms of Steinberg’s adage to think institutionally people support.
Works Cited
Shellenberger, Mark, and Ted Norhous. 2011. Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene. Breakthrough Institute. Kindle edition.
Hulme, Mike. 2000. Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction, and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steinberg, Paul. 2015. Who Rules the Earth? How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.