In his book Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Professor Mike Hulme eloquently explores and explains the reasons and perspectives from which intellectuals and consequently members of the public may disagree about the issue of climate change. These reasons are based on differences in the following viewpoints which may influence our approach to problems and solutions. These include but are not limited to: the various social meanings and consequent construction of climate, how and what we ascribe value to, our religious and cultural beliefs and history and hegemonic power structures. These perspectives and their wider meanings can also be said to have bearing on other issues in environmental studies in that they are rooted in ideologies and beliefs which translate from one matter to the next. From Hulme’s book and other readings I have identified three key themes which I have found to be consistent throughout the course material.
Academic discourse regarding various issues related to climate change and its perception are often dominated by the West and the need for global downscale sometimes ignoring the plight of nations located in the ‘global south’ who according to Western standards of development are ‘underdeveloped’. However this ignores “… the power of Europe, with their early industrialisation and imperial histories, bring a different historical legacy into climate negotiations than do their former colonies, now emancipated and seeking redress for past injustices.” (Hulme 2009, pp 318) In this way”The anti-consumerist, back-to-the-land, small-is-beautiful, civilisation hating, progress questioning ideology of degrowth, limits and retreat is hegemonic…” (Phillips 2015 , pp 17) and continues to perpetuate the power structures of colonialism and can also be interpreted as a form of neocolonialism. The conversation surrounding climate change and other social, economic and environmental issues is thus literally related and confined to those who own tangible and intangible goods on earth who are also those who have historically been the most powerful. This theme strongly correlates with sociological ‘conflict theory’and the ongoing incorporation of postcolonial studies into environmental studies and situating and addressing current problems in the past in order to seek adequate solutions in the future.
In dealing with ideas as social constructs the concept and big word of ‘nature’ has been subject to semantics. Throughout the readings, and as briefly discussed in my previous post, the intetionality of words has helped construct meanings and connotations of words. This is true with ‘climate change’, ‘climate’ and ‘nature’ as “… this discourse sees climate as a repository of what is natural, something that is pure and pristine and (should be) beyond the reach of humans.” (Hulme 2009, pp 25) Thus ‘nature’ as the physical world and environment including all biological matter, abiotic or biotic, and ‘climate’ as a static and never changing thing have contributed to the fear mongering tactics of the media when trying to communicate the urgency of issues. The notion that ‘nature’ should be pristine, balanced and calm is something that shapes our perspectives. Richard White states that”Our problem with purity rises from a search for values that might give us a dependable guide to avoid the horrors that have marked the twentieth century.” (White 1999, pp 1) These horrors include wars and famines which have seen devastation ravage the earth hence current discourse surrounding climate change and other environmental issues is framed in fear (Hulme 2009, pp 178-210). These social constructs surrounding environmental issues, in some cases contrast with the views of indigenous knowledge systems as in the case of “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, pp 140) Therefore the lack of separation between people and ‘nature’ affects how people see themselves in relation to ‘nature’ and thus how they care for and help restore it. This is related to many of the other texts explored as cultural meanings helped frame and shape approaches to solving the environmental problems at hand.
Lastly, the complexities of environmental issues and theories has been demonstrated and the need for interdisciplinary approaches to education and problem solving. In his book Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence of Growth, Progress, Industry and Stuff , Leigh Phillips states: “…when someone asks what are the limits to growth, what is the maximum carrying capacity of the Earth with respect to humans, how much we can consume… It depends on the current state of technology, on the state of the environment itself, on our political economy, on the distribution of wealth, on what we value, on our aesthetics, etc… ultimately on what we want.” (Phillips 2015, pp 65) Similarly, in their paper Kennedy and Ho discuss the importance of the importance “… of diverse perspectives on environmental issues, and balance perspectives and discourses with critical counterpoints” (Kennedy et Ho 2015, pp 205) These authors clearly show the complexities of environmental issues and theories and also the need for interdisciplinary approaches to problem solving as also alluded to in other articles. This is summed up by Mike Hulme who concludes that: “… we should see how we can use the idea of climate change- the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and material flows…-to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.” (Hulme 2009, pp 362)
To conclude the three themes identified in some of the readings include the importance of power structures, social construction and meanings of words and concepts and the importance of approaching environmental problems taking into account social, economic, historic and cultural perspectives to aid in the progress of current environmental issues.
Works cited:
Hulme, Mike. 2009. ‘Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity.’ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kennedy, Eric B., and Jacqueline Ho. 2015. ‘Discursive Diversity in Introductory Environmental Studies’. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 5 (2): 200–206. doi:10.1007/s13412-015-0245-9, USA: Zero Books.
Phillips, Leigh. 2015. ‘Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence of Growth, Progress, Industry and Stuff.’ Winchester, UK ; Washington, USA: Zero Books. https://books.google.com/books?id=6OSOCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT258&lpg=PT258&dq=leigh+phillips+austerity+ecology+pdf&source=bl&ots=1GZo5DIwWJ&sig=WLxywgMJCVTbbQT6USl1bjgvoGs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8g-aUzMPSAhVE8GMKHVT5BKAQ6AEINDAF#v=onepage&q&f=false
Walley, Christine J. 2004. ‘Where There Is No Nature’. In Rough Waters: Nature and Development in an East African Marine Park, 138–44. Princeton University Press, USA: Zero Books.