It may seem intuitive to some that our local, regional, and global environments and ecosystems all share roles in a global web. This intuition can be traced broadly to various aspects of neoliberalism, post-modernity, and environmentalism. However, contemporary debates over climate change, and our own exploration and critical engagement with environmental studies, has covered many positions of contemporary discourse. While these positions often approach issues of the environment from different economic, political, and social perspectives it has become evident that each is connected through shared themes and narratives.
Though our course was largely driven and organized by the series of class texts and readings it also became apparent as the course progressed that there was much more at play. From our first book, Why We Disagree About Climate Change (Hulme 2009) to Austerity Ecology (Phillips 2014) to our last, Who Rules the Earth? (Steinberg 2015) issues of history, diversity, and action weave together otherwise unique works. This post will explore these webs of connection beginning with Where We Were, moving to Where We Are, and ending with Where We Can/Could Be. Each of these sections wrestles with the connections between history, people, and the environment. Contextualizing these broad categories in conjunction with specific support from the texts, I hope to synthesize a more holistic approach to environmental studies.
Where We Were
Each text in some way situates their specific argument or polemic in relation to the historical context and cultural history of their topic. From global religious histories, to histories of capitalism, each perspective plays a critical part in understanding the diversity and nuance of contemporary environmental discourse. For Hulme the aspect of history and the environment is uniquely human; when he says,
“the idea of climate is entangled in the human cultures which experience and talk about it. We need to understand the ways in which the idea of climate change is often called upon to act as a justification and conveyor of ideology” (Hulme 2009, 265).
Hulme goes on to describe the historical connections between the fall of empires and civilizations and the collapse of climate. This connection between history and the environment is also evident in Phillips’ Austerity Ecology, when he writes, “In many respects, it [my argument] is merely a recasting of traditional leftist arguments about industry, ambition and humanity’s relationship with the rest of nature, but updated for the 21st Century – updated, you might say, for the Anthropocene” (Phillips 2014, 5). It is clear already that history and the question of where we were is not a box or defined list of facts but a nuanced and ever changing perspective on ourselves as humans in relation to ourselves and the environment. This is no different when dealing with discourse over where we are now.
Where We Are
Much of our course reading goes to great lengths to position the environment and what it means. In doing so many readings are also arguing the current position of humanity. Both Austerity Ecology (Phillips 2015) and Who Rules the Earth (Steinberg 2015) attempt the complex endeavor of positioning the individual and structural realities of our present day world.
For Phillips this is done primarily by a critical exploration of the term Anthropocene and its recent debate primarily within the scientific community itself. The Anthropocene as argued in Austerity Ecology is a defined geological epoch characterized by humanities impact on a global scale in the form of minerals, gasses, and global temperatures. Phillips also makes sure to provide a critical perspective and mentions his skepticism of the limits of planetary boundaries (Phillips 2014, 64). This is a great example of the nuance still embedded in widely accepted terms and ideas used to understand contemporary conceptions of the environment.
Steinberg goes a step further in Who Rules the Earth and argues against the comfort and stability of current liberal notions of the environment and environmentalism. In chapter two Strings Attached, he raises questions about the social rules, laws, and policies we often take for granted that influence the physical realities of our environment. For instance, “As you take a deep breath of the ocean breeze, the physical quality of the air filling your lungs is very much a function of social rules, specifically clean air regulations that have dramatically reduced pollution levels since the 1970s” (Steinberg 2015, 22). This excerpt is another example of the complex yet interconnected webs of history, people, and the environment. Seeing the complexity of contemporary discourse leads directly into the themes of progress, development, and action that characterize our third and final connection.
Where We Can Be
Central to the polemic of this course and the various readings is the issue of action and progress. This is perhaps why so many of the authors also feel historical and contemporary context is an essential foundation for productive innovations in environmental action and the scales of feasibility (Steinberg 2015). Many of the texts use historical and contemporary examples to show the flaws inherent to ideologies like, think globally act locally.
Hulme examines the importance of scale as defined by Steinberg when he describes the Religion, Science and the Environment symposium in Greenland:
“This [Religion, Science and the Environment Symposium] is one example of a growing number of initiatives in which leaders of one or more of the world’s established religious traditions are forming alliances – either across religious divides or between religious and scientific or secular associations – to call for action…” (Hume 2009, 142).
This is perhaps an optimistic view of environmental action and progress compared to some of the perspectives we’ve engaged this semester. However, it also provides a good example of action in the face of opposition, solidarity in the face of adversity, and a concerted effort both socially, politically, and environmentally. Steinberg mentions the challenges of globalization in his chapter A Planet of Nations and here I think Hulme shows one way in which progress can be made. Progress what ever we decide that is, will not be achieved by ignoring or demonizing others for their difference in historical, social, and environmental perspectives, but by acknowledging and embracing these nuances in order to build a more inclusive and environmental global community.
Sources
Hume, Mike. Why We Disagree About Climate Change. London: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Phillips, Leigh. Austerity Ecology & The Collapse-Porn Addicts. United Kingdom: Zero Books, 2014.
Steinberg, Paul F. Who Rules the Earth: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.