Lesson 1: There is not one single solution to our current environmental problems, but there is hope for the future.
In order to transition into a more environmentally conscious and less destructive culture, there will need to be significant (arguably radical) social/cultural, economic, scientific, and technological changes. It will not be sufficient for these spheres to operate individually as the issues we are facing are too intersectional. Progress will be made when large systems and groups of people work toward a common goal. Initially, I found the complexity to be daunting, disheartening and problematic as I realized how many people it would take for a successful environmental revolution given the number of issues that need to be addressed. However, over the course of the semester I realized that under each of those categories is an overwhelming amount of possibilities for individuals to get involved.
Scientific breakthroughs, technological advancements, and policy changes shed light on problematic practices and aim to reduce them or their effects (i.e. Montreal Protocol). With ever increasing scientific information and public awareness regarding climate change, more people will feel inspired/obligated to incorporate more “sustainable” practices into their lives (work and leisure). Increased awareness generally leads to increased concern, creating opportunities to change current systems and practices. As more people realize their role in the problems/solutions, this increased awareness will eventually become the new cultural norm, reshaping the future of human-earth relationships.
Lesson 2: Differences in perspective based on experience, knowledge, values, etc., influence opinions and actions regarding climate change and environmentalism.
Reading and discussing Why We Disagree About Climate Change not only reminded me of how many factors can affect a person’s opinions, it also helped me see the validity and reason in a lot of perspectives that I had previously written off. I now understand that dismissing people or their ideas based on whether not I agree with them is naïve and counterproductive. Similarly, I realized my own hypocrisy: I held my personal opinions and habits above others who did not hold similar ones without realizing the endless amount of things that one could do to make a difference (i.e. avoiding plastic and fossil fuels vs. growing your own food and composting). These are fairly simple examples, but evaluating which is more worthwhile would require much more work than a flash judgment (i.e. life cycle and cost/benefit analysis). As I became aware of more environmentally destructive practices and my unintended role in them, I realized that the problem is so engrained in world systems that even the most conscious person could not live without partaking in some of them.
This realization caused me to seriously question my opinions regarding individual responsibility. Hulme highlights the difference between personal/individual responsibility and systemic/structural responsibility (Hulme 2009, 156), which can drastically affect who someone holds accountable for climate change and their goals in addressing the problem. While I still think that personal habits are fundamental for the health of the Earth, discussions regarding scale helped me realize the potential significant impact that systemic changes can have (though they are often harder and slower to implement). As I mentioned in lesson 1, current environmental problems are too complex to assign blame on such a black and white scale. A successful revolution requires individual awareness and commitment that leads to greater structural change.
Lesson 3: Exclusivity between different environmental/political groups weakens the movement. In many cases, the end goal may be the same despite differences in motivation – work with others toward common goals as there is strength in numbers and diversity.
As mentioned in lesson 2, I was quick to judge or dismiss people and their ideas if they did not align with mine. Instead of looking for common ground, I assumed they couldn’t possibly care about the things I did and figured there was no productive way to work with them. My righteous indignation limited who I interacted with to people similar to me, who rarely challenged or found holes in my arguments. If for no other benefit, talking to people with varying values exposes you to new information that could be useful in future interactions. With an increased understanding of how and why people’s opinions vary from mine, and the knowledge that environmental issues are interdisciplinary and intersectional, I see the importance of working with people with different beliefs and opinions.
On a large scale, all environmental organizations have the common goal of mitigating or adapting to climate change (whether for humans, other species, or whole ecosystems). The interrogating isms project detailed the many different branches of environmentalism, and while differences in opinions regarding appropriate action is inevitable, these differences should not be the focus of groups. The us vs. them mentality that is prominent across environmental groups creates unnecessary divisions, essentially reducing the massive environmental movement into small, insignificant groups. Shifting the focus to common goals would allow connections to me made across groups, increasing influence. An environmental network is needed for a successful revolution: just as a forest suffers when there is no mycelium to exchange nutrients between the trees, the environmental movement will be weaker if individuals and groups are not connected to others by means of exchanging knowledge and collaboration.
Works Cited:
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.