Throughout the course of this semester, it has become apparent to me that each reading contributes to our understanding of complex connections between environmental dilemmas and their respective solutions (or lack there of). Below I will explain the connections I have found and discuss the sources from which they arose.
My first connection falls between Mike Hulme’s “wicked problems” (2009, 334) and Vaclav Smil’s discussion about the faults of relative dematerialization as a large-scale solution (2014, 5.1). Both topics explore the complexity of climate change problems and how they play into the struggle of forming potential solutions. Hulme classifies climate change as a “wicked problem”, a problem which “[defies] rational and optimal solutions…[is] essentially unique and can be considered [a symptom] of other problems.”(Hulme 2009, 334). Wicked problems like these have so many intertwining pieces that it is virtually impossible to give rise to a single plan of action for resolution. Absolute dematerialization is, in short, consuming less on a global scale, which is considered by some to be a step in the right direction as far as dealing with climate challenges. Relative dematerialization relates to small scale local dematerialization, and is sometimes thought of as the gateway to absolute dematerialization, but as Smil enforces repeatedly, absolute dematerialization does not stem from relative dematerialization due to unpredictable consequences of material substitutions (2014). It would seem logical, without considering Hulme’s idea of wicked problems, that relative dematerialization on the local level should lead to some dematerialization in an absolute sense, however, such are wicked problems, the issue is much more complex. Smil gives the example of blueprints and CAD (computer-assisted design) to help us wrestle with this concept. We always want to “save the trees!” and “reduce, reuse, recycle!” but what about the computers who will replace the paper? To this, Smil says, “it would be very difficult to come up with a net assessment of the material balances involved in such complex substitutions.” (Smile 2014, 120-121). Even the most fool-proof of solutions has underlying consequences, which is what makes issues of climate change and subsequently dematerialization so “wicked.”
I have also found an intersection between Love Your Monsters and Why We Disagree About Climate Change at the point where Hulme discusses the “four myths of climate change” (2009, Ch. 10). Hulme’s myth of “Lamenting Eden” (Hulme 2009, 342-344), agrees with the stance that Ted Nordhaus takes in Love Your Monsters. Hulme’s myth of “Lamenting Eden” points out flaws in the model that nature is a pure creation which needs to be preserved. This generally classical idea of a pure nature, and the idea of the “Anthropocene”, which Nordhaus develops in his writings rely on the same principle of future-minded environmentalism. Nordhaus says, “the history of human civilization might be characterized as a history of transgressing natural limits and thriving.” (Nordhaus 2011, 794-795). The idea behind these future-minded viewpoints is that it is counterproductive to be afraid of human impacts on climate, and we should instead be open to the possibility of thriving on human ingenuity. The Ecotypes axis refers to this anti-purity form of nature as “hybrid” and asserts that “Over the last several decades, many scholars have modified, challenged, or rejected this pure view of nature.” (Proctor 2017). Both publications reject the idea that nature is a pure entity, they conversely believe in a more hybrid version of nature, where people, instead of fearing their far-reaching impacts, use ingenuity to their advantage.
The final connection I have found is a concept discussed in both Why We Disagree and Who Rules the Earth. These both cover the topic of systemic change, and though to different degrees, recognize its importance in finding solutions. Steinberg explores this concept in a pro-con analysis of European Union, in which he delineates the strengths and limitations of institutional regulation. On a superficial level, Steinberg says, “admittedly, there is something thrilling about the idea of nations overcoming their differences even for a moment”, however, he goes on to explain that “global cooperation…[bears] little resemblance to lawmaking as you and I understand it.” (2015, 164). Large, all-encompassing treaties have big appeals, such as economic simplicity in the form of common currency and joint decisions about policies at the continent level, however cons and difficulties enforcing international law are also apparent. This is where Steinberg crosses Hulme. Hulme shows that it is unreasonable to attempt to get enough information to create these institutional scale policies. In chapter 4, Hulme discusses the “Social cost of carbon” (2009, Ch. 4), in which he points out how impossible it is to quantify the real cost of even one small aspect of climate change. To truly capture the entire social cost of carbon, we would have to dig all the way to the level of “what would be the (lost) monetary value of the experience of children playing in the snow?” (Hulme 2009, 118). Institutional changes have pros, and, as explained above in the context of relative dematerialization, are in theory, more effective than small individual-scale changes. These publications align in their recognition of institutional change as idealistic. Institutional changes are appealing in that they provide the big, shiny results which relieve an apocalypse-fearing public.
References
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nordhaus, Ted. 2011. Love Your Monsters. Breakthrough Institute.
Smil, Vaclav. 2014. Making the Modern World. United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules The Earth. New York City: Oxford University Press.