Though may connections can be drawn from the several books we have read this semester, I have chosen three that really stood out to me to discuss in detail.
- One connection that stood out to me between these materials, was the relationship between Why We Disagree About Climate Change and contemporary environmental thought. Contemporary environmental thought values eco modernism, is more technophilic, has more hopeful views towards the future, sees nature as hybrid, and among other things, is more institutional, while classic environmental thought includes limits to growth, tragedy of the commons, a more apocalyptic view towards the future, a pure view of nature, and values acton at the individual scale (Jim Proctor, “Ecotypes; Exploring Environmental Ideas”, accessed 2/16/17). Mike Hulme in his book Why We Disagree About Climate Change, discusses and incorporates contemporary thought into his writing. He talks about “wicked problems” and “clumsy solutions,” saying, “Wicked problems, afflict open, complex and imperfectly understood systems, and are beyond the reach of mere technical knowledge and traditional forms of governance.” (Hulme 2009, 334) Meaning, these complex issues require solutions that may come in several forms, may even put pressure on other parts of the environment, and in no way are neat and tidy.
Hulme also discusses Cultural Theory, where people can be placed into four different groups: Fatalist, Hierarchist, Individualist, or Egalitarian, based on how group/individually oriented one is, and the extent to which they believe regulation is needed to monitor people’s behavior (Hulme 2009). This is another way that contemporary environmental thought is incorporated into Hulme’s book; He recognizes the differences in how people view and value nature, while classic environmentalism tends to group people into a single category, of seeing nature as “pure” and in need of saving. Hulme incorporated contemporary environmental thought into his book, addressing issues of complexity, “wicked problems” and “clumsy solutions,” and seeing nature as hybrid, not just pure.
- Paul Steinberg’s Who Rules the Earth also incorporates contemporary environmental thought, specifically through expressing the importance of institutional regulation for effective change. Steinberg doesn’t degrade the utility of individual action on a community, however he demonstrates how institutional measures and government regulation can even promote the individual action’s effectiveness on a community on an even greater scale. One example of this was successfully demonstrated in Canada regarding the pesticide industry, where one woman, Dr. Irwin, actively worked against the use of a pesticide that was causing health side effects. She worked to ban the use of it in her town, Hudson, and quickly town after town banned the harmful pesticide as well. Eventually the case went to the Supreme Court, and strict rules were set into place regarding the use of the pesticide in suburban areas. By going through the institutional framework, Dr. Irwin managed to effectively change the rules (Steinberg 2015).
Steinberg also demonstrates the need for institutional action by using the example of a small and endangered bird called the cerulean warbler, that migrates every year from Peru up over New England. Steinberg emphasizes the need for regulation at a greater scale if we are to help and save migratory birds that fly across several states, provinces, and even countries. If each state has a different rule regarding the preservation around these birds, many of them would be killed from lack of nesting and resting spaces, shot for game or for their feathers, and other causes. Small local action would not be effective to save this species because they cross such a large area of land, there would be no use in having different policies in every area of land they cover, which is why institutional regulation and protection of these birds is crucial. Steinberg uses aspects from contemporary environmentalism throughout his book, and these were two examples of how institutional regulation could benefit and help guide local action (Steinberg 2015).
- The connections between Why We Disagree About Climate Change and Who Rules the Earth became clear as we continue to read the latter book. In Mike Hulme’s Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Hulme sets out to understand why it is that we as a population disagree about and interpret nature and environmental issues differently. In his different chapters, he discusses how factors like religion, where/how you grew up, how you value the natural world, how you evaluate risk, and how you value future generations, among several other factors, affect how one evaluates climate change and the environment.
In Who Rules the Earth, Steinberg discusses the social rules and constructs that run and shape our society today. He discusses how regulation and action at the institutional level has been successful in some places, and necessary in others to help bring about effective change. Both of these books discuss the multifaceted and complex factors that influence and shape our opinions and societies both consciously, and subconsciously.
References
- Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.