While studying and discussing our readings for this course, three key connections came to the forefront in my mind: an emphasis on the relationship of environmental action and religion, the need for institutional change in place of incrementalism, and the tragedy of the commons.
1. Religion: Both Mike Hulme and Lynn White agree that religion, specifically Christianity in White’s perspective, has an impact on the way we live our lives and experience our relationship with the natural world. However, Lynn White would argue that Christianity has hurt our relationship with plants and animals instead of helping it. “Our science and technology have grown out of Christian attitudes toward man’s relation to nature which are almost universally held not only by Christians and neo- Christians but also by those who fondly regard themselves as post-Christians.” White also goes on to claim the Zen Buddhists have a “mirror image” of Christianity in their relationship with nature as well (White, pg. 1206. 1967). Hulme, on the other hand, believes cultivating relationships through tapping into religion and spirituality as a commonality could be a viable option to work towards environmental action. Hulme refers to White’s argument in his text and disagrees with some of his claims regarding how deeply tied humans are to this Christian mindset White refers to. “A third example of where disagreement may flourish is a more doctrinal one and concerns eschatology…attitudes to climate change can be significantly influenced by whether, in the Christian tradition, one is an amillenialist, or a pre-millenialist” (Hulme, pg. 153. 2009). Both authors reflect on the impact of religion in ho the population interacts with the environment however they disagree the impact outcome. Hulme believes by tapping into religion and spirituality, there can be a commonality that could be used to bring people together within environmental issues. Whereas White believes that part of the issues with humans and their relationship with plants and animals stems from Christianity in particular.
2. Emphasis on the institution: Vaclav Smil and Paul Steinberg both reflect on the downsides surrounding recycling and an emphasis on the need for institutional action over individual change. Smil, focuses on the issues within recycling, “The lightness and dispersion of these containers will always make their near-perfect recycling challenging: it takes 20,000 PET bottles to make 1 ton of recyclable waste.” Smil, pg 111. 2014). The issue with this statistic is that it refers to a world where even if PET bottles were recycled perfectly, it would take that many bottles to create that 1 ton of recyclable waste. Sadly, the true reality is that less than 25% of PET bottles are recycled leading to an even lower amount of recyclable waste. This leads to Steinberg’s point of recycling being emphasized in the hands of the consumer rather than the industry or government policy itself. “The major current of environmental thinking today emphasizes the small changes we can make as individuals, which (we are told) will add up to something big…the responsibility for confronting these issues too often falls to individuals, acting alone, usually as consumers.” (Steinberg, pg 5. 2015). Smil’s reflection on the low amount of PET bottles being recycled in the hands of the individual and Steinberg’s reflection on the emphasis of incrementalism as the solution both display the need for an emphasis on the institution rather than the individual.
3. The tragedy of the commons: Garrett Hardin and Paul F. Steinberg both emphasize how individuals act within a large group with their own, not the group’s, interest in mind. Hardin focuses on the tragedy of the commons within society, “The individual benefits as an individual from his ability to deny the truth even though society as a whole, of which he is a part, suffers.” (Hardin, pg 1244. 1968). The idea that acting within the population itself as a collective could be beneficial is often ignored in the eyes of the individual if they believe there is individual gain. This reaction often results in situations that hurt rather than help the individual causing the group to suffer as well. Steinberg also reflects on how the collective could benefit from working together within a cooperation but individuals tend to believe they can achieve the same results on their own and reject working within the group. “Even when there is unanimous agreement in a group about the common good and the methods of achieving it…the rational, self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests unless there is some sort of special incentive to get them to do so. (Steinberg, pg 47. 2015). Both Hardin and Steinberg pose the difficulties in dealing with this individualistic mindset while trying to obtain positive results for the collective.
The relationship between our readings gives a clear understanding of what it means to be an Environmental Studies major, it’s interdisciplinary. To fully plunge into this class, the readings must be read together, compared, and synthesized for there to be a clear understanding of the concepts these authors pose.
Bibliography
Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162, no. 3859 (December 13, 1968): 1243–48. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243.
Hulme, M. Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Smil, Vaclav. Making the modern world: materials and dematerialization. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley, 2014.
Steinberg, Paul F. Who rules the earth?: how social rules shape our planet and our lives. New York, NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 2015.