People have been writing about ecological concepts on Earth for over a century. It is reasonable to expect that within that timeframe people have agreed and disagreed with certain ideologies. These beliefs are complex, complicated and sometimes contradictory just like the books and articles we have read in ENVS 160. There have been many ideas that connect throughout the texts used this semester. Three connections I am going to make are: defining nature, strength of governmental regulations on a global scale, and human consumption of resources.
In several of the readings for ENVS 160, there has been talk of big words. Words like environment, sustainability, and especially nature. From classical to contemporary environmentalism there has been lots of contention with the idea of nature. Nature referring to social construct loosely based in the idea of a “natural world.” Classical environmentalism focuses a lot on the purity of this idea. However, the contemporary idea is more focused on a belief in hybridity between this classic notion of “nature” and humans. One connection that I see between Why We Disagree with Nature by Mike Hulme, “Where There is No Nature” by Christine J. Walley, is that the idea of nature is biased by people’s personal beliefs. This makes it hard to connect and agree with other people. Walley discusses the difficulty she had connecting the idea of nature with the Chole people, “In KiSwahili, the word most commonly translated as nature or the environment is mazingira, a term which implies general surroundings and carries none of the connotations of nature in English” (Walley 2004). It may seem strange that the term “nature” does not exist in certain developing countries, but Hulme shows that even in developed countries like the United States the definition of nature is highly influenced by social beliefs. Hulme talks about four myths of nature that depict the concept as capricious, benign, perverse/tolerant, or ephemeral (2009). The idea that nature is not a specific idea that every person agrees with, helps to understand disagreements on ecological issues.
A large focus in ENVS 160, is steering away from the “individual action” mindset. The opposite of individual action is collective action and that requires cooperation on a much larger scale. There are many organizations dedicated to developing worldwide regulations on things like material usage, resource extraction, carbon emissions and many other ecological issues. In Why We Disagree with Climate Change by Mike Hulme and Who Rules the Earth by Paul F. Steinberg, there are passages discussing the strength of these international governing forces. One idea recognized by both authors is the fact that there is no international policing force that countries to follow rules or treaties created by the UN or other global conservation organizations. Hulme goes as far as to say, “one of the reasons we disagree about climate change is because we seek to govern in different ways” (2009). Some regulations work, like cap and trade emissions, but consensus among countries is a large part of making ideas become law. That consensus can be difficult to reach, and even then it is nearly impossible to police nations on those regulations.
Human’s resource consumption is a widely talked about issue. There is a common idea perpetrated by the classic environmentalism movement. That idea is that all people all Earth need to reduce their levels of consumption. The issue with this is that it assumes that each and every person on this planet uses the same amount of resources and energy. In Vaclav Smil’s Making the Modern World and Leigh Phillip’s Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts, that myth is questioned. People in developing countries are not using the same amount of resources as people in the United States or China. Now that there has been a push for dematerialization, and it seems unfair to expect developing nations to not experience the materialization that developed countries get to enjoy. Phillips asks the question, “How much is okay and how much is too much?” (2014). Vaclav Smil discusses how different countries use different amounts and reasons why. Reasons like materials available and infrastructure. Both books try show how little feasibility goes along with the idea of reducing consumption by individuals and countries.