The absorption of novel information presented throughout the short semester of ENVS 160 in the form of books, articles, essays, and other scholarly publications can easily send an ENVS student into a whirlwind of confusion. Often I have asked myself: how is this new reading relevant to other scholarship we have studied? What conclusions, if any, can be made through the integration and synthesis of this diverse collection of materials? In short, what does this all mean? After sifting through old reading guides and class notes, I arrived at a few key connections which reoccur often throughout the main sections of the course. They collectively stand as critique followed by possible revision. Contemporary environmentalism evaluates the profound ideas of classical environmental scholarship which dominated the sphere of discussion from the late 19th century to the present.
The first connection is a critique of a fundamental instrumental element to classical environmental scholarship: anticonsumerism powered by the antidote of green consumerism. Green consumerism acts much as the poster child of the past and current environmental movement in the form of buying locally sourced products. The strong emphasis of decentralization is highlighted by themes present in Deep Ecology. Within this ism, local autonomy plays an important role in harmonizing oneself to one’s surroundings and caring for it in a more spiritual and beneficial way (Naess 1973). However, this theory has lead to social division through the development of elitist politics within the discussion. A common result of the rhetoric used by wealthy advocates of anticonsumerism is the condemnation of underprivileged people’s consumption habits, marking them as “wrong” and “less spiritually rewarding” (Phillips 2015, 93). This only serves to divide environmentalists further from those who prefer to not be lectured by middle-class elites who can afford to purchase more sustainable products (Phillips 2015). The issue can be seen specifically in India by green elites like Vandana Shiva, who propagated poverty and the corrosive caste system through her decentralization rhetoric aimed to protect India’s biodiversity (Shellenberger 2011). This mindset can be defined as “think(ing) globally and act(ing) locally” (Steinberg 2015, 163). However, as Steinberg defends in his book Who Rules the Earth, this logic is completely oversimplified and does not recognize the multi-faceted structure in which environmental issue are constructed (Steinberg 2015). Indeed, oversimplification is a key indicator for profound division in any social sphere.
A second key connection of course material is a critique of the limit-based approach celebrated by many classical environmental scholars and its failure to address larger-scale environmental issues. This approach is defined in terms of overshoot and collapse by Limits to Growth. Overshoot refers to the idea that the human race is consuming more resources than can be restored by the planet and is producing more waste than can be absorbed. Consequently, global environmental and economic collapse ensues. The most effective method is to therefore check this overconsumption through broad, all-encompassing limits (Meadows 1974). Soon enough, these limit-based solutions were implemented to treat problems as large as climate change. The Kyoto Protocol serves as a key piece of evidence. The protocol served as an international agreement in which industrialized nations agreed to lower their collective greenhouse emissions 5.2 percent by the period of 2008-2012 relative to 1990 levels. But given the grandiose nature of the causes, consequences, and actors involved in climate change, the agreement could never be successfully implemented (Hulme 2009). The limit-based approach may not even represent an accurate disposition of the human race. Although the planet may offer certain constraints (ie. carrying capacity) to human survival, our societies have the ability to adapt, evolve, and even change these constraints as well as fix any negative consequences through ingenuity and innovation (DeFries 2012).
The third connection I have made throughout our readings considers these critiques and offers an instrumental solution: to prioritize institutional-scale thinking over individual when evaluating environmental issues and constructing feasible solutions. I have written some commentary on this topic within my first personal reflection post in relation to lessons I have learned in this course, but it is equally applicable inside the context of course synthesis. Individual-scale thinking is a common trope of classical environmental thought with heavy scholarly influence as early as Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons. The role of the individual was emphasized in both corrupting common-pool resources as well as protecting them. Through coercion, individuals can be motivated to not abuse the commons for their own benefit (Hardin 1968). Other classical scholarship such as Deep Ecology resonates in a similar manner. Naess proposes an individual’s stronger ethical relationship with the natural world with an emphasis on autonomy and decentralization (Naess 1973). However, when the responsibility of environmental issues is individualized (consumer first, citizen second), it leaves little to no room for discussion on institutional elements that are critical to each issue’s foundation (Maniates 2001). Proctor further acknowledges that the islands which define our cultural communities are not separate but interconnected by institutions (Proctor 2010). The active agent of this interconnected condition can be defined through social rules intricately woven into our present realities. Roles, rights, and responsibilities given to every participating actor (including myself) define these social rules. As citizens, we have the power to change these social rules by thinking vertically in ordinance with the multilayered condition of institutions by which we are governed (Steinberg 2015).
When reviewing these broad connections over the large volume of course material we have covered in ENVS 160, little by little I am answering the nagging question of “What does this all mean?” Transitioning from classical to contemporary thought, critique and revision are essential proponents to the scholarly process and of my understanding of Environmental Studies. Moving forward, I will hold these understandings close to heart as they face the critical force of novel scholarship to come.
REFERENCES:
DeFries, Ruth S. et al. 2012. “Planetary Opportunities: A Social Contract for Global Change Science to Contribute to a Sustainable Future.” BioScience 62 (6): 603–6. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.6.11.
Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162 (3859): 1243–48. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243.
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge University Press.
Maniates, Michael F. 2001. “Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?” Global Environmental Politics 1 (3): 31–52.
Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens. 1974. The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books.
Naess, Arne. 1973. “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement.” Inquiry 16: 95–100.
Phillips, Leigh. 2015. Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence of Growth, Progress, Industry and Stuff. Winchester, UK ; Washington, USA: Zero Books.
Proctor, James D. 2010. “True Sustainability Means Going beyond Campus Boundaries.” Chronicle of Higher Education, December 3.
Shellenberger, Michael, and Ted Nordhaus, eds. 2011. Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene. Breakthrough Institute.
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.