Like the field of environmental studies, the many works and topics we have covered in this course, while distinct from one another, clearly are interconnected. By nature, what we discuss is part of an elaborate web that links concepts from reflecting on how we view nature to discussing complex subjects like international material flows. However, among this tangled web of subjects, there are many trends and themes that have been prevalent over the majority if not all of the sections in ENVS 160.
One of the most prominent overarching concepts that appear throughout our sections is the idea that everything is not as it might appear. In other words, we make assumptions about certain conventions, practices, and fields of thought that might not necessary be fully accurate, and in fact could be problematic in their misuse. For example, in chapter 3 of Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Hulme discusses the common belief that science is concrete and indisputable (Hulme 2009). However, Hulme makes the argument that this is in fact not a productive way to think about science. He argues that science by nature need bias in order for people to be interested in something enough to conduct research on that subject. By taking the stance that science is a neutral absolute truth we open up the opportunity for any sort of personal bias to, in this school of thought, render scientific results unusable (Hulme 2009, Ch.3).
While not overtly stated this theme is everywhere throughout the course readings. In chapter 5 of Making the Modern World, Smil highlights this need for a more holistic understanding as he discusses the concept of apparent dematerialization (Smil 2014). Using blueprints for jetliners as an example Smil describes how a CAD system replacing paper blueprints appears to reduce the amount of materials, while in reality, it is just changing the type of materials used. While the system uses less paper new materials like servers and computer monitors are introduced. so even though at face value this change appears to reduce the amount of material used, “the reality is nothing but a complex form of material substitution” (Smil 2014, 121). Here many would see this apparent dematerialization and be happy, but in reality, the materials have not been reduced and without deeper knowledge individuals will fail to see this problem of dematerialization has not been properly addressed.
Another commonality shared across multiple works is traditional practices and beliefs viewed as environmentally friendly do not have much of an impact. Steinberg poses the most obvious opposition traditional going green ideologies. In chapter 7 of Who Rules the Earth, he states the problematic nature of the widespread motto “think globally act locally” calling it a “simplistic portrayal” and urging the reader to “think and act at multiple levels” (Steinberg 2015, 163). Here we see a saying that is constantly touted by the environmentally friendly, being pointed out as not advocating for big enough action.
Smil is another author who doesn’t think traditional small-scale action is enough. In chapter 5 of Making the Modern World, Smil discusses the concept of intensification and how intensification specifically applies to energy production and usage (Smil 2014). One of the lessons that can be taken from this chapter is even if as an individual we manage to use noticeably less energy; we are then freeing up more energy to be used by others. Theoretically, this then increases the demand for energy (Smil 2014). While both of these authors don’t say we should stop individual practices, they do urge us to try and focus more on ways to collectively institute change on a larger scale.
This leads us into the final commonality that will be discussed in this post, that is the suggestions on what we can do. All of the works that have suggestions on how to take action say the same thing. Instead of focusing in one area to change, whether that be personal, local, institutional, federal of any of the levels in between. Action has to be taken at every level. Steinberg uses the European Union as an example of addressing environmental issues head on (Steinberg 2015). Because it is a governing body with enforceable laws that focuses on many different policies across Europe, the EU can address the environmental regulations of many countries the same way that a single government can for its citizens. Environmental policy can be addressed through economic regulations, as well as enforceable pollution and production standards (Steinberg 2015). While the EU, a multinational coalition, doesn’t appear to resemble a single individual it is a good example of how to take action in many different ways on many different levels.
Why We Disagree About Climate Change also advocates for a similar concept. Hulme discusses “clumsy solutions” which he describes as “a mixture of policy styles, normative principals and ways of viewing life and the world” (Hulme 2009, 312). Both of these examples point to the understanding that there is not one area that should be focused on to bring about change, it must be addressed on all levels and in many different ways.
Works Cited
- Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Smil, Vaclav. 2014. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
- Steinberg, Paul. 2015. Who Rules the Earth. New York: Oxford University Press