In my ENVS 160 class, we read multiple texts that discussed climate change and other modern environmental problems affecting the our world. These texts include Why We Disagree About Climate Change by Mike Hulme (2015), Austerity Ecology & The Collapse-Porn Addicts by Leigh Phillips (2015), Who Rules the Earth? by Paul Steinberg (2015), and other texts on classic versus contemporary environmental thought. Like any good course readings, the students should able to make connections between the reading to develop their understanding of the course. Here are my three main connections that I drew between the readings.
Welcoming modernization
One section in Austerity Ecology & The Collapse-Porn Addicts by Leigh Phillips (2015) discusses the use of genetic modification and how many people who see themselves as being very green and progressive are against genetic modification. Philips argues that if someone is anti-GMO then they are anti-science; “anti-GM activists are as guilty of anti-scientific thinking with regard to their pet subject as the Koch Brothers or the American Enterprise Institute are on global warming” (Phillips 2015, 159). The use of genetic modification to produce food is a form of modernization that is usually opposed by the same people who would support the use of science and progressiveness. Phillips argues that the use of genetic modification and other technological advances should not be so readily rejected.
Similar ideas are found in Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus (2011). They bring up the modernization theology which discusses that people should put more faith into modernization. Shellenberger and Nordhaus defend their argument by saying that “the solution to the unintended consequences of modernization is, and always has been, more modernity – just as the solution to the unintended consequences of our technology has always been more technology” (Shellenberger and Nordhaus 2011). Because climate change was caused by the modernization of humans, it should also be modernization to find a solution to climate change. This idea similar to that of Phillips because they are both advocating for the use of technology and modernization to help us sovle modern environmental problems.
Differing views on what development means
Mike Hulme in Why We Disagree on Climate Change (2015) discusses that we as a general population disagree on climate change because we understand development differently, meaning that we all have differing ideas on what we think is the best sustainable development framework for integrating environmental policies and develpmental ideas. Our “alternative visions of the future – expressed, for example, through the outworking of economic principles or the securing of social justice – reveal differences between these developmental paradigms” (Hulme 2015, 252). Because of these different ideas for how to go about sustainable development, as a consequence, there are varying implications for dealing with climate change.
Similar ideas are revealed in our texts on classic versus contemporary environmental thought. After examining different classic and contemporary ideas, it is clear that there are large differences that distinguish these two ways to thinking about environmentalism. A classic environmentalist would think about a more apocalyptic and conservative future instead of a hopeful and progressive future about the world and its environment. Classic thought would also believe in a pure form of nature and is against the use of technology as an option to solve problems. On the contrary to classic thought, contemporary thought hopes for a progressive future where technology is seen as a tool to solve environmental problems. These different ways of thinking is related to Hulme’s ideas reagarding sustainable development because it shows how people will have different thought on development (classical or contemporary) and this will hinder sustainable development in the long run.
Climate change does not have an easy solution
Paul Steinberg in Who Rules the Earth? (2015) asks this question about the earth because it has many answers that could all be correct. Steinberg talks about the roles of the various institutions in ruling the earth and how much of a role they should have. This problem generates a lot of other problems because there are many institutions at many different scales with no one specific goal, other than stopping the effects of climate change, which is much too broad. Steinberg labels environmental problems as being “literally un-ruly – they meander across political border and agency jurisdictions, challenging our ability to launch a coordinated response” (Steinberg 2015, 162).
This similar labeling is also seen in Why We Disagree About Climate Change by Mike Hulme (2015). Hulme refers to climate change as a ‘wicked problem’ because wicked problems “afflict open, complex and imperfectly understood systems, and are beyond the reach of mere technical knowledge and traditional forms of governance” (Hulme 2015, 334). This definition fits the problem of climate change because one idea for a solution just creates even more problems. Although the terminology is different, labeling climage change as unruly and as a wicked problem gives the same connotation that climate change is not something that can be solved by just one solution or just one institution.
Works Cited:
- Hulme, Mike. 2015. Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Phillips, Leigh. 2015. Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence of Growth, Progress, Industry and Stuff. Winchester, UK ; Washington, USA: Zero Books.
- Shellenberger, Michael, and Ted Nordhaus, eds. 2011. Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene. Breakthrough Institute.
- Steinberg, Paul. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.