ENVS 160 asks students to situate complex environmental problems and solutions in quality scholarship. Over the course of the semester I have had the opportunity to analyze, synthesize, and communicate to others the intellectual and practical difficulties of ‘making the world a better place.’ Below are three key connections I have made between and among the course readings.
Find the Root of the Problem (WWD – MMW)
In Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Mike Hulme suggests that rather than being a problem awaiting a solution, climate change is an idea that carries different meanings and implies different courses of action (Hulme 2009). Hulme examines climate change through scientific, economic, political, and religious controversy, revealing how one’s beliefs in these discourses influences their idea of climate change (Hulme 2009). Hulme illustrates a number of reasons why we disagree about climate change, including our own expectations of it (Hulme 2009, 106), the economic value we assign (Hulme 2009, 112), and the moral and spiritual values and opinions we hold on what our duty is “to others, to Nature and to our deities” (Hulme 2009, 144). By tracing back our disagreement over climate change action to its roots, the first step is taken; disagreement, Hulme says “is a form of learning (Hulme 2009, xxiv).
Similarly, in Making the Modern World, Vaclav Smil examines the consumer’s role in climate change action by analyzing environmental impact of materials during their entire lifespan (Smile 2013, 103). Smil does this by situating materials back to their sites of production and by utilizing Life Cycle Analysis, a technique in assessing environmental impacts associated with all the stages of a product’s life from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, repair and maintenance, and disposal or recycling (Smil 2013, 103). Smil argues that consumer awareness results in greater efforts to dematerialize (Smil 2013, xi). Tracing the life of material products back to their roots is the first step in addressing climate change action.
Both authors argue that before we attempt climate change action we must first understand what the basis of the problem is, be that by situating our disagreements or by tracing our material consumption back to its roots.
Recognizing Complexity (WWD – WRE)
Mike Hulme’s introduces the idea of climate change as a wicked problem with clumsy solutions in the latter part of Why We Disagree About Climate Change (Hulme 2009). Hulme defines a wicked problem as one of complex interconnectedness with no definitive solution (Hulme 2009, 334). Wicked problems usually can’t be solved with one overarching solution. Rather, Hulme suggests that clumsy government is needed, a climate change policy that combines many different approaches (Hulme 2009, 313). Clumsy solutions require multiple values and frameworks that can be contradictory.
Similarly, Paul Steinberg, in Who Rules the Earth, suggests that the complexity of environmental problems means solution must be complex as well (Steinberg 2015). In Chapter 7, “Scaling Up,” Steinberg suggests one solution is to think vertically, to “think and act on multiple levels if we are to make progress on vexing social and environmental problems” (Steinberg 2015, 163). Climate change is too complex a problem to be dealt with on one level. Steinberg uses the European Union as an example of vertical thinking, where action occurs within regional governance and are adopted by all members setting an international precedence (Steinberg 2015, 166). Although we have yet to finish Who Rules the Earth and discover Steinberg’s ultimate solution (if he offers one), thus far he has recognized the complexity of climate change and the need for equally complex action and a multitude of solutions.
Both of these authors recognize the complexity of solving climate change and support similarly complex solutions, utilizing multiple levels of government and different institutions including science, policy, and the market.
Choices in Action (Classics vs. Contemporary – WWD and MMW)
Authors of classic and contemporary environmental theory address the multitude of actions one can take regarding climate change. In Historical Roots of our Ecological Crises, Lynn White finds that anthropocentric attitudes grounded in Christianity has made it easier for people to exploit nature (White 1967, 1205). White suggests that a new religion, based on a mutually beneficial relationships between humans and the biophysical world is needed to replace Christianity (White 1967, 1206). Leigh Phillips, in Austerity Ecology and the Collapse-porn Addicts, suggests that humans can create new technologies to adequately address climate change, and that this should be paired with government reform, calling for a more socialist way of living (Phillips 2015). Richard White takes an all-encompassing approach in The Problem with Purity, suggesting humans must recognize that our values and our ways of thinking contain multiple possibilities for action (White 2000).
Like the authors of these contemporary and classic environmental theories, authors from other sections of our class also suggest a multitude of actions one can take to address climate change. In Why We Disagree About Climate Change Hulme writes that climate change is not a problem to be solved but rather is an “intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape” (Hulme 2009, 326). Hulme says we should use climate change to work for us and to rethink our social goals about how and why we live on this planet, to rethink and use political social economic and personal projects (Hulme 2009). In contrast, Vaclav Smil provides readers with smaller scale and practical actions they can take to reduce consumption, including increasing product life, designing for durability, renting instead of owning (Smil 2013, 177), choosing to live more simply, and making deliberate choices to reduce effects of consumption, such as becoming vegan (Smil 2013, 178).
These authors suggest different ways to address the complexity of climate change through various actions. Individuals can decide what courses of action work for their beliefs and lifestyles.
Citations