When looking back on the text readings in the class, there are many, many connections that I can note among the works. One of the key ideas that was noted in my first individual post is that of climate change and other such issues within the environment as being considered a problem with many facets requiring many solutions. This I noticed prominently within the first text, Why We Disagree About Climate Change, where Hulme referred to climate change as a wicked problem (Hulme 2009), and the last text, Who Rules the Earth, where Steinberg mentioned environmental problems as being unruly with no easy or coordinated solutions (Steinberg 2015). The wicked environmental problem can be seen most clearly in Why We Disagree when Hulme states, “the term ‘wicked problems’ describe a category of public policy concerns [climate change] that defy rational and optimal solutions” (Hulme 2009, pg. 334). Now compare this idea to what you see here in Who Rules the Earth when Steinberg states, “Environmental problems are literally unruly— they meander across political borders and agency jurisdictions, challenging our ability to launch a coordinated response” (Steinberg 2015, pg. 162). While these two texts are not using the same terminology, their two terms, wicked problems and unruly problems, mean the same thing. Environmental challenges, according to these texts, have the ability to seep into every aspect of life, and are impossible to tackle with one simple, organized response, but require many, more messy responses, from a variety of perspectives.
Looking once again at Why We Disagree and Who Rules the Earth, but this time also at Austerity and Ecology, there is a clear emphasis noted on the idea of the power of institutions over individualism in creating positive environmental change. In recent years, there has been an environmental trend to act locally while thinking globally, meaning to do small things on one’s own such as recycle as a way of considering the well being of the global collective future. According to the previously mentioned three texts, this method is almost entirely ineffective. Acting environmentally cautious on an individual basis, even if it were true that every person in the world was doing this (which it is not the case), does not amount to true environmental change. This is because of the power that governments, organizations, and corporations have throughout the world to be much more influential over large groups of people and to develop quick and more effective environmental policy. As Who Rules the Earth states, “we reproduce our kind through biology, but our ways through institutions” (Steinberg 2015, pg. 28), which generally is saying that our rules and the institutions that create them have shaped our global society and the way we function and interact with our environmental surroundings. Who Rules the Earth is clearly institution biased, stating multiple times that institutions can either create or destroy environmental policies. The presence of favoring institutions to make a difference over individual action can be noted in Why We Disagree as well when Hulme states, “interactions between a much larger number of social actors and institutions may (either deliberately or not) amplify or attenuate particular risks [climate change]” (Hulme 2009, pg.203) and in Austerity and Ecology when Philips quotes from Rockstrom, ““Ultimately, there will need to be an institution (or institutions) operating, with authority, above the level of individual countries to ensure that the planetary boundaries are respected. In effect, such an institution, acting on behalf of humanity as a whole.” (Philipps 2015, pg. 209). Both of these quotes emphasize that institutions, if used correctly, are our best option to collectively and effectively alter environmental issues in a positive way. Because of the power that institutions hold over one another and over the people under them, regulation within those sects, whether it be a government, corporation, or nonprofit organization, can carry a larger sphere of influence and can even change the future of environmental policy. We can note an example of institutional policy affecting the environment in the long term when considering the Montreal Protocol, which brought together governmental institutions across the world to come to a consensus on pollution regulation that would actually shrink the ozone hole over the course of a few short years (Hulme 2009). Another example, this time of institutional regulation negatively affecting the environment over time, is seen with the Colombian coffee corporations enforcing no-shade varieties of coffee, requiring the deforestation of Amazonian rainforest, which has and will continue to irreversibly alter ecosystems, and are threatening species such as the Cerulean Warbler (Steinberg 2015).
Finally, a common theme to be noted across all texts in this course would be that of the idea of anthropogenic climate change. When one thinks of issues such as global climate change, it is hard not to picture a polar bear trapped on a melting ice cap in the middle of the ocean, or of a turtle with a piece of plastic wrapped around its neck. The point of the matter is, you always picture an animal or ecosystem suffering in some way when you picture environmental problems. The texts read in ENVS 160 bring forward these threats and emphasize the fact that humans caused these environmental issues such as climate change and pollution. For example, almost all of Making the Modern World is centered around the benefits and downfalls of human materials and development on the environment. As stated by Smil, “material consumption has been a major cause of environmental pollution and degradation and further multiplication of current demand may pose a worrisome threat to the integrity of the biosphere” (Vaclav 2013, loc 194). Essentially, this stated that human actions have created environmental issues, which is what is known as anthropogenic climate change. Another place we can see an anthropogenic environmental focus is in Love Your Monsters, when author Ellis states, “human systems….evolved powers beyond those of any other species…The extinction of megafauna across most of the terrestrial biosphere demonstrates the unprecedented success of early human engineering of ecosystems” (Ellis 2011, loc 693). This is yet another example of an environment centered author bringing forward the cause and effect system of human growth and power with environmental decline or loss of ecosystem. A final example from the texts of anthropogenic environmental issues is in Why We Disagree About Climate Change, which although procures a variety of perspectives on environmental issues, are all human focused, and seriously considers how to, “avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’” (Hulme 2009, pg.191). Although climate change effects all living organisms and ecosystems, the underlying roots behind the current and extraordinarily fast paced climate change event comes down to human growth, development, and actions.
References
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steinberg, Paul. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillips, Leigh. 2015. Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence Of Growth, Progress, Industry And Stuff. John Hunt Publishing.
Ellis, Erle et al. 2011. Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene. Breakthrough Institute.
Smil, Vaclav 2013. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. Wiley Publishing.