Looking back on the works we have read over the course of this class, I am realizing that there are more common threads than I had previously recognized. It is all too easy to read something, enjoy it (or hate it), and move on. In this post, I will illuminate the connections between the diverse ideas we have encountered in the readings for this class.
Both Vaclav Smil’s Making the Modern World and Mike Hulme’s Why We Disagree About Climate Change emphasize the use of data to inform how we should address environmental issues. Smil’s book in particular is based almost entirely on numbers. A memorable example of Smil using data as evidence for an argument is when he compares recycling rates in different countries. Smil demonstrates that the US can and should be doing a better job at recycling paper since it is still “the largest discarded material going into US landfills” at “almost 21% of the total mass” while Japan’s paper recycling is “about as complete as is practical” (Smil 2014). On the other hand, Hulme uses the example of globally averaged sea surface temperature to demonstrate how long-term data collection has been vital to understanding climate patterns over time. Hulme claims that the index “both hides and reveals” truths surrounding climate change since it is such a generalized way of approaching the phenomenon (Hulme 2009). Many of the other works that we have read also rely on empirical evidence to prove their points.
We have also addressed (and perhaps tried to disprove) the idea that we are currently experiencing or quickly approaching environmental catastrophe. Some of the older works we read, including Garrett Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons” promoted this apocalyptic idea, while many of the newer works including Leigh Phillips’s Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts, Making the Modern World, and We Disagree About Climate Change have a more hopeful perspective. Where Hardin insists that “Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all,” (Hardin 1968) Phillips says that “the predicted Malthusian catastrophe never materialized” (Phillips 2015). Hulme criticizes some environmentalists’ tendency to “[invoke] catastrophe and chaos as unguided weapons with which forlornly to threaten society into behavioral change” (Hulme 2009). Now the question is how to be productive by being concerned without jumping to the worst possible conclusions. An apocalyptic viewpoint like Hardin’s has become outdated because, as Hulme mentions, it is not particularly motivating.
Another concept that we have discussed at length during this course is what type of action is the best and/or the most effective in terms of making environmental change. Two works that address this issue directly are Paul F. Steinberg’s Who Rules the Earth? and Michael F. Maniates’s “Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?”. The two authors agree that small individual actions are not the way to go if the intention is to make significant, lasting change. Maniates argues that the “Lorax… surely would be appalled that his story is being used to justify individual acts of planting trees as the primary response to the threat of global climate change” (Maniates 2001). Steinberg, who mentions Maniates in his book, says that “To bring about lasting change requires modifying the very rules that societies live by” (Steinberg 2015). Although it is often easier to just do little things like using less paper or carrying a reusable water bottle, these actions are not going to save the world. Even a large institutional action cannot save the world alone, but many institutional actions can chip away at our collective problems. This is not to say that individuals do not matter — Steinberg shares stories of individuals who have helped to make institutional changes. One example is Dr. June Irwin, who was the catalyst for stricter pesticide standards in Canada. Refusing to spray pesticides on one lawn is not much more than a symbolic statement. Keeping pesticides away from many children across Canada obviously matters much more. Why do small, practically impotent things when it is in our power to band together to make significant institutional changes?
Whether ideas confirm or contradict each other, it is always valuable to compare and connect them. Absorbing diverse perspectives creates more a more comprehensive and dynamic understanding of any concept, but is especially important when attempting to address big issues that we must face collectively.
References
Hardin, Garrett. 2009. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research 1 (3): 243–53. doi:10.1080/19390450903037302.
Hulme, M. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maniates, Michael F. 2001. “Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?” Global Environmental Politics 1 (3): 31–52. doi:10.1162/152638001316881395.
Phillips, Leigh. 2015. Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: a Defence of Growth, Progress, Industry and Stuff. Winchester, UK: Zero Books.
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.