The connections I have identified are rooted in bigger themes of the sections we have had in ENVS 160. The first connection is founded on the basis that Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts by Leigh Phillips (2015) and Making the Modern World by Vaclav Smil (2014) look at the systems in place that harm our environment. Following the questioning of our systems is looking for solutions though Why We Disagree About Climate Change by Mike Hulme (2009) and Who Rules the Earth? by Paul F. Steinberg (2015). And finally, the third connection is the challenging of classic environmental thought in Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts by Leigh Phillips (2015) and Who Rules the Earth? by Paul F. Steinberg (2015).
In our conversation with Leigh Phillips over Skype, he time and time again referenced himself politically as a socialist. His political framework shapes his book Austerity Ecology and the Collapse-Porn Addicts through its sheer questioning of the capitalist system and the mindsets we carry in regard to capitalism (2015). This questioning gives room for exposing the environmental harm in the current system. On page 27, Phillips states, “To be clear, many of those on the green left who are concerned about the alleged problems of economic growth mean well, and for the most part, there should be no smug, sectarian derision directed their way. It’s an absence of understand of political economy that is at fault rather than conscious malevolence” (Phillips 2015, 27). In this quote, it demonstrates the misinterpretation many carry about the issues and solutions to environmental issues, and thus cause harm out of the misalignment. With regard to looking at systems in place that are causing harm, Vaclav Smil exposes our current material systems cause absurd amounts of waste, both materially and energy wise. He asserts that even in regard to recycling we are not as efficient as we should be, “An overall verdict about modern civilization’s recycling performance is easy: so far its recycling efforts have been quite inadequate even when compared to what might be labeled as a barely satisfactory effort” (Smil 2014, 113). Here, the system of recycling is not adequate enough and the failing system is not helping lower levels of dematerialization. In both of these readings, they work to look at systems, see their flaws and ultimately determine what is not working.
The second connection entails finding solutions to the problems we already have. In Why We Disagree About Climate Change by Mike Hulme, he asserts solutions are difficult to come by due to the different interpretations we have about climate change (2009). In the preface of Hulme’s book, he clearly lays out “If we are to understand climate change and if we are to use climate change constructively in our politics, we must first hear and understand these discordant voices, these multifarious human beliefs, values, attitudes, aspirations and behaviours” (Hulme 2009, xxvi). While Hulme takes a more philosophical approach to finding solutions, Steinberg looks to more concrete solutions by looking at institutional regulations. He found environmental policies implemented by the European Union are highly effective due to their ability to enforce regulations and vertical focus (Steinberg 2015, 181). In sum, these two books point to fully formed problems and either offer new insights to solutions or expose the current successful solutions.
Finally, the third connection arises in the challenging a common environmental phrase and more wholly, classic environmentalism. Both Phillips and Steinberg critique the phrase “think globally, act locally”. Steinberg’s critique goes as follows, “The old adage to think globally and act locally is just plain wrong. It is far too simplistic in its portrayal of the sources of environmental problems and the solutions at our disposal. We need to think and act at multiple levels if we are to make progress on vexing social and environmental problems” (Steinberg 2015, 163). Phillips echoes this thought in the chapter Locally-Woven Organic Carrot-Pants and summarizes his point into “But if the goal is to stop ecological degradation, and climate change in particular, then the stakes are higher” (Steinberg 2015, 129). Both of these critiques follow the same line of thought, that the phrase does not expose the multileveled solutions needed to solve large issues. The critique of “think globally, act locally” ties into a bigger framework of both of the books, each work to complicate classic environmental thought. They both achieve this goal by questioning the simplistic thoughts that classic environmentalism can evoke.
In summary, there are many connections that can be made in the different sections we have had in ENVS 160. The selection I chose speak to larger frameworks that ultimately work in conversation with the class’s agenda to complicate and mix the perceived classic environmentally based cannon that is common in environmental studies.
Works Cited
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change : Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, Leigh. 2015. Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-porn Addicts : A Defence of Growth, Progress, Industry and Stuff. Winchester, UK ; Washington, USA: 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 University Press.