Course readings are most beneficial to the student when there is an underlying connection between all the readings, whether complimentary or contradictory to supplement further information or offer a new view. In Environmental Studies, it is especially critical due to the broad nature of the interdisciplinary study. The first book, Why We Disagree About Climate Change written by Mike Hulme is comparable to the both the second and third books, Making the Modern World by Vaclav Smil and Who Rules the Earth? By Paul Steinberg. Hulme writes of examining the causes of climate change as Smil delves into a more numerical analysis of the same prompt, and Steinberg draws upon Hulme’s emphasis on the social complexity behind understanding climate change and environmental rights. Additionally, Smil provides quantitative examples of the phenomena described by Steinberg and how global change is necessary for sustainable progress.
Although primarily directed to more social interpretations of climate change, Hulme examines the origins of climate change understandings and discussing policy. He quotes direct science, and charts anthropogenic climate change including “the physical theory of carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect, the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the increase in world temperate,” (Hulme, 2009 [50]). He cites the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change frequently, but also relates to how the public interprets science for translation into policy changes.
The author of our second text, Vaclav Smil, also discusses the causes of climate change as through his historical description of material usage. Smil writes of the scientific and engineering advances that led to gas liquefaction, and how it translated to “the modern, high-energy society of the twentieth century created by the unprecedented combination of technical, scientific, and managerial advances that took place between 1865 and 1913,” (Smil, 2014 [35]). His primary similarity to Hulme lies in their final chapters: Stein’s material outlook reflects Hulme’s description of a complex solution for the future of climate, albeit with a more analytical breakdown. Stein emphasizes dematerialization, citing than material consumption does not make for a happier country; but “there is no easy way out of the habit of material acquisition,” (Stein, 2014 [174]) much as there is no easy way out of the climate change “wicked problem” (Hulme, 2009) of climate change. Both authors examine the cause of environmental issues and ask for dramatic shifts in society as solutions.
Steinberg, author of the third text, dedicated his book to the social rules that dictate much of Hulme’s interpretation of global climate change. Hulme introduces his book by dictating the many connotations of climate: “[Climate] has physical significance: one cannot deny that the climate of the Amazon is wetter in an absolute sense than is the climate of the Sahara. But climate also carries cultural interpretations: the climate of the Sahara means something quite different to a Bedouin than it does to a Berliner,” (Hulme, 2009 [4]). By examining the significance of culture, Hulme is acknowledging that “social rules are an indispensable and inescapable part of our existence[…] At their best, social rules protect human rights and promote long-term prosperity. At their worst, social rules comprise elaborate systems for the subjugation of entire peoples and promote the pursuit of the quick buck regardless of the cost to our economy and ecology,” (Steinberg, 2015 [27]). Hulme suggests that climate change is everywhere, “not only physically, but just as importantly the idea of climate change is now to be found active across the full parade of human endeavours, institutions, practices and stories,” (Hulme, 2009 [322]). It is no wonder that classic environmentalism is purveyed, as social rules can be so easily linked back to the individual. However, both Steinberg and Hulme relate the complex social world we live in to governance, suggesting deep-rooted social change as moving beyond the individual and supporting contemporary environmentalism.
Smil and Steinberg explore why humanities is an important aspect of the Environmental Studies breadth. Each explore international social rules in order to compare the efficiency of certain social habits. For instance, Steinberg writes of “the unprecedented move by dozens of countries to decentralize environmental rulemaking power to local levels,” (Steinberg, 2015 [33]). Smil compares material consumption with the global satisfaction/happiness ladder, and calls for “a new society where, once basic material needs are taken care of, the sense of well-being and satisfaction would be derived from experiences that are not at all, or only marginally correlated with higher energy flows and expanding material possessions,” (Smil, 2014 [173]). Smil directly suggests that a move away from dematerialization will not harm global satisfaction rates, and may improve them. Steinberg also wants to “rewrite the rules that govern the earth,” (Steinberg, 2015 [37]) and would no doubt approve of dematerialization as sustainable social change.
Works Cited
Hulme, M. 2015. Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smil, Vaclav. 2014. Making the Modern world: Materials and Dematerialization. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley.
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth? How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, NY: Oxford Univ. Press.