Though ENVS 160 has expanded my knowledge regarding numerous perspectives, mindsets, and teachings of environmentalism using a variety of readings, I quickly discovered that each author and each idea was connected in some way to another. After careful consideration, I settled on just three.
- Break away from individuality to make a difference (AE-WRE)
We are consistently taught that individual action can make a world of difference. This is a product of classic environmental thought and the world has outgrown such ideas. It is now time to transition into an institutionally functioning society regarding environmentalism. Leigh Phillips critiques the green-minded leftist liberals who believe that decentralized, individually focused energy proposals are the only way to save the planet. Phillips states, “actively give these vultures the eco-friendly fig leaf they need to push through deregulation, unbundling and privatisation in the face of opposition from public-sector unions and consumers” (Phillips 2015, 107). Phillips suggests that individuality could even pose a greater threat to the environment and encourage neoliberalism.
Paul F. Steinberg’s Who Rules the Earth? (2015) reveals the true ineffectiveness of individuality and all the instances in which institutional movements have been proven to be more effective. In the case of the European Union, Steinberg claims that though the Union is not perfect, they stand as one unit that has sparked similar movements across the world. Like Phillips, Steinberg writes that small, protective, individual approaches to environmentalism, or the concept of “think locally, act globally” can have no great impact on the condition of the planet (Steinberg 2015, Ch. 7).
Both authors suggest that moving away from the traditional idea of individual environmentalism may be the only way to create major changes and solve the issue of a lacking world cohesiveness.
- Internalizing the externalities (WWD-WRE)
Mike Hulme discusses the concept of the social cost of carbon. As a component of this, Hulme writes that the issue behind lack of collective action due to economic reasons can circulate around “the aspects of our lives that we value and which are associated with climate, but for which there is no market exchange” (Hulme 2009, 118.) From an economic standpoint, these aspects are useless in a trade environment. If properties, environments, and resources are damaged due to climate change, no one can be blamed. This introduces the issue of utilization of externalities.
Similarly, Steinberg addresses the issue of companies capable of inflicting immediate damage on their surroundings such as coal plants that utilize the aspects lacking monetary value to the detriment of those affected by the resulting climate damage (Steinberg 2015, Ch. 5). The externalities produced by a coal plant would be the toxic gases and particulate matter released into the air. Plants do not bear the cost of the emissions, but the people, plants and animals around them suffer from health issues and unfit living conditions. The lack of economic control of these valuable aspects of life lead to externalities and a cost that is shared amongst everyone rather than the producers themselves.
In relation to one another, the issue of externalities all relates back to the lack of economic control of free spaces such as bodies of water, the sky, the soil, and everything else that is shared as a common space. To internalize the externalities is to solve the issue of the social cost of carbon.
- Dematerialization starts with the citizen (MMW-AE)
Vaclav Smil writes in Making the Modern World (2014) of human reliance on materials and material trade in order to function. The book centers on the development of technology, the materials that have gone along with it, and the energy required to maintain a world full of so much stuff. Smil suggests that the only way to quell climate change and other issues created by production and consumption of materials is through consumer awareness and a conscious effort by everyone worldwide to dematerialize. Smil has many theories of what will finally spark the shift in citizen mindset regarding materials that is required to make a difference, but ultimately, such a shift is unpredictable (Smil 2014, Ch. 6).
Leigh Phillips, though using different words and fewer statistics than Smil, also suggests that capitalism is a vicious cycle. To Phillips, capitalism is the root of all evil regarding climate change and overall environmental degradation. Phillips proposes that society reevaluate why modernity is believed to be the cause of all things climate change and instead begin to focus our attention back on capitalism and what we can do as individuals to break the vicious cycle (Phillips 2015, 5).
Both authors identify consumerism and ultimately capitalism as the reason behind excessive desire for material consumption and possession. Both also suggest that there is no simple or quick fix to the whole which the world has dug itself into, and only time and progress will tell if worldwide mindsets of citizens as consumers will shift. To Smil and Phillips, everything begins with the citizen as a consumer and contributor to capitalism.
Citations
Phillips, Leigh. 2015. Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence of Growth, Progress, Industry and Stuff. Winchester, UK: Zero Books. Kindle Edition.
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Smil, Vaclav. 2014. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction, and Opportunity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.