Over the course of ENVS 160 so far, one of the most important concepts that has been in ingrained in my mind is that most issues are much more complex than popular discourse often reveals. Issues that I had previously interpreted as fairly black and white have actually much more gray area. In accordance with this standard, many of the concepts discussed in our readings in this course are actually more complex than just one person’s interpretation of them can convey. Thus, reading a variety of works and discussing many concepts can deeply enhance our understanding of these ideas. For example, three main concepts spring to mind that have been deepened in conjunction with other texts.
First, the book Why We Disagree about Climate Change by Mike Hulme divides people into four different perspectives on nature: nature capricious, nature perverse/tolerant, nature benign, and nature ephemeral. The nature benign and nature perverse/tolerant viewpoints in juxtaposition with the nature capricious and nature ephemeral viewpoints connect to the concept of contemporary vs. classic environmental thought. Contemporary environmental thought values institutions and the integration of human technological advancement with the conservation of nature, believing nature to be more flexible and capable of adapting to change, in conjunction with the nature perverse/tolerant and benign concepts. In contrast, classic environmental thought focuses on the purity of nature and its inability to ever totally recover from human interference, as do the nature capricious and ephemeral viewpoints (Hulme 2009, 189-190).
Second, Why We Disagree about Climate Change and Who Rules the Earth by Paul F. Steinberg discuss the various factors that influence the public’s opinion regarding environmental issues. In Why We Disagree about Climate Change Hulme discusses the deficit model which stipulates that a person’s lack of action is due to inadequate understanding of the issue, and therefore advocates for raising awareness and improving education as a means of putting more people in agreement in regards to what measures should be taken and how to take them (Hulme 2009, 217-221). In Who Rules the Earth Hulme considers the efficacy of regulation and institutional-level action in bringing about change. He claims that institutional approaches to solving environmental problems have had more success than individual-level actions, and therefore advocates for the institutional model (Steinberg 2015, 5-6). Both books discuss different types of models that govern people’s decision-making and the efficacy of their actions.
Third, Hulme calls climate change a “wicked problem”, being a problem that is “essentially unique, [has] no definitive formulation,” and no clear solution as the issues of the problem are so interdependent (Hulme 2009, 334). He suggests the idea of clumsy government, a.k.a. government that synthesizes many different approaches, as a possible solution for wicked problems (Hulme 2005, 313-314). In a similar way, Steinberg discusses the complexity of environmental problems and solutions. He critiques the “old adage to think globally and act locally”, stating that this approach is far too simplistic. Instead, he suggests thinking vertically on multiple levels in order to make actual progress and see success (Steinberg 2015, 163).
Synthesizing the material from different sources in the ENVS 160 course has been an effective way to deepen my understanding of various topics as different authors have different viewpoints that shed a new light on each issue.
References
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.