Over the course of this semester, we have been introduced to several readings regarding environmental issues. While each reading has offered something unique, there have been some underlying themes that connect all of them together. In this blog I will make an attempt to connect these readings.
The first connection that I noticed appeared in our first text – Why We Disagree About Climate Change by Mike Hulme – when Hulme quotes Anglican Bishop of Thetford, David Atkinson, “‘Climate change is… opening up for us… questions about human life and destiny, about our relationship to the planet and to each other, about altruism and selfishness, about the place of a technological mind-set in our attitude to the world, about our values, hopes and goals, and about our obligations for the present and for the future,’” (Hulme 2009, 174). The questions and solutions that derive from climate change are directly related to how we view the environment. In ENVS 160, we have learned that there are two types of environmental ideologies – classical and contemporary. Classical environmentalists portray nature as pure, and contemporary environmentalists view nature with a hybrid approach, believing that humanity and nature are interwoven. For example, in Ecotopia by Ernest Callenbach, Ecotopians claim much of their success of their lumber industry to returning nature to a natural condition (Callenbach 1975, 58). Despite these practices contradicting Western beliefs, Ecotopians are continuing to see growth as well as a healthy relationship with nature. Therefore, the connection that I made was that whether individuals are left or right, their view of nature is going to have a significant impact the way they approach environmental issues.
Another connection consisting of classic vs. contemporary approach appears in Who Rules The Earth by Paul Steinberg. Classical environmentalists believe in change on an individual scale, where as contemporary environmentalists seek change at an institutional level. Steinberg argues that in order to bring lasting change, society must change the rules that we live by rather than hoping to see a change through individual action (Steinberg 2015). Steinberg uses examples of Dr. June Irwin and how she eliminated the future use of millions of pounds of pesticides in Canada by provoking change at an institutional level. While Steinberg believes that individual action is ethically right, ultimately change will only occur when individuals take political action.
Finally, Hulme refers to climate change as “a wicked problem,” and “clumsy solutions,” (Hulme 2009, 340). Essentially, Hulme is making the statement that humans are currently failing to realize the severity of climate change as a wicked problem and because of this are proposing solutions that portray climate change as a simple problem waiting to be solved. This critique of humans underestimating complex issues sounded very familiar to Steinberg’s argument that, “The old adage to think globally and act locally is just plain wrong. It is far too simplistic in its portrayal of the sources of environmental problems and the solutions at our disposal. We need to think and act at multiple levels if we are to make progress on vexing social and environmental problems,” (Steinberg 2015, 163).
Callenbach, Ernest. 1975. Ecotopia: The Notebooks and Reports of William Weston. Berkeley, CA: Banyan Tree Books.
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge University Press.
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. Oxford University Press.