The text, ‘Why We Disagree About Climate Change,’ and the article, ‘The Shallow and the Deep, Long Range Ecology Movements,’ explore spirituality as a way of combatting global environmental issues. Both Mark Hulme and Arne Naess argue that spiritual consciousness can result in significant environmental action.
In, ‘Why We Disagree About Climate Change,’ Professor Hulme discusses four myths as a way of framing potential approaches to climate change solutions pertaining to the four grid groups. He summarizes his reasoning behind this approach as “Myths are often found embedded in religious ways of looking at the world.” (Hulme 2011, 359-360). Hulme strongly advocates for the inclusion of spiritual belief in individual and institutional action, evident in his applications of the myths to varied societal actions. However, he also suggests that a better environmental consciousness be developed. Mark suggests that if we were to rely solely on “measurable and physical dimensions of our life on Earth, then we will always be at war with climate.” (Hulme 2011, 361).
Naess’s argument is not very different. He discusses spirituality in a different, but closely related context. Naess explores the veneration of nature as a way of promoting action against issues related to pollution and overconsumption. In the heading, ‘Biospherical egalitarianism-in principle,’ (Naess 2012) Naess suggests that a “deep pleasure and satisfaction we receive from close partnership with other forms of life,” would result in a stronger commitment to tackling environmental issues. (Naess 2012)
Furthermore, both texts agree that exploring the spiritual dimension of climate change is unquestionably important when considering environmental action. Hulme implies the importance of religion in climate change in its inclusion in a list of various pursuits that converge to produce effective climate change action. “If we harness the full array of human sciences, artistic and spiritual endeavors, and our civic and political pursuits we can reconcile climate change.” (Hulme 2011, 362). Naess would agree with this Hulme’s’ statement, as he affirms that “There are political potentials in this movement which should not be overlooked.” (Naess 2012)
The text, ‘Who Rules the Earth,’ and the article, ‘Individualization: Plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world?’ criticizes individual action as being ineffective to solving global environmental crises on its own. They, instead, suggest that institutions play a substantial role in the daily lives of people regardless of whether they do or do not advocate for institutional, environmental action.
In Maniates’s article, he boldly proclaims “In the end, individualizing responsibility does not work—you can’t plant a tree to save the world.” (Maniates 2001, 44). Maniates uses arguments from other scholars to reinforce his bold assertion, such as Mark Dowie, who conceptualized ‘environmental imagination.’ According to Maniates, “Individualization of responsibility in the United States is narrowing, in dangerous ways, our ‘environmental imagination,’” (Maniates 2001, 34) which he describes would undermine the human capacity to react to environmental concerns.
Steinberg, on the other hand, does not approach this issue with the same flair as Maniates; however, he does recommend less traditional individual action. Steinberg immediately begins his book by criticizing a few conventional beliefs that incorporate individual action. In fact, the chapter heading for the first chapter states “Recycling is not enough,” (Steinberg 2015, 5) which is a recurring theme in the text. Furthermore, later on in the text, Steinberg criticizes the adage, “think globally act locally,” (Steinberg 2015, 163) which mirrors Maniates’s “you can’t plant a tree to save the world.” (Maniates 2001, 44). However, it is important to point out that Steinberg does not call for the end of recycling efforts by individuals. Instead, he discusses how individual action can be applied to fulfil a larger context of environmental action, which he offers a range of suggestions, such as “acting vertically.” (Steinberg 2015, 163).
Maniates concludes that institutional action takes precedence over individual action, especially when considering that individual choice is “constrained, shaped, and framed by institutions and political forces.” (Maniates 2001, 50) His belief is mirrored to some extent by Steinberg, who concludes that “deeper social institutions” will be “shaping the outcomes you care about.” (Steinberg 2015, 278).
There is a connection that can be identified between the journal, “Planetary Opportunities: A Social Contract for Global Change Science to Contribute to a Sustainable Future,” and the text, “Why We Disagree About Climate Change.” Defries et al. discuss the “paradigmatic to a focus on planetary opportunities,” (Defries et al. 2012, 604) as a way of suggesting that humanity can overcome its “biophysical constraints” (Defries et al. 2012, 604) on planet Earth by evolving, adapting, and potentially altering Earth’s current environment. Mark Hulme discusses the potential of humanity to follow the route of “Constructing Babel,” (Hulme 2011, 351) which is an idea inspired by the Christian creation story describing the ability of humanity to create ungodly modern marvels.
Both Defries et al. and Mark Hulme seem to agree that humanity can offer geoengineering solutions that confront climate change by modifying the world. Geoengineering is described by Defries et al. as having the ability to give “a larger proportion of our species enjoys a longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality rates,” (Defries et al. 2012, 604) and other monumental achievements. According to them, this was all done “Through these and other human manipulations of the planet’s life-support systems.” (Defries et al. 2012, 604). In, “Why We Disagree,” Hulme describes how there can exist the possibility of establishing direct, human-induced climate control dictated by “human conceptual inventions and technological interventions.” (Hulme 2011, 349).
However, both texts begin to disagree about whether or not this approach to global environmental policy should be pursued in the future. In, ‘Planetary Opportunities,’ Defries et al. suggest that “societies have not fully embraced technologies, policies, and actions sufficient to avoid global climate change.” (Defries et al. 2012, 604). They recommend that “with sophisticated exploration of the synergies and tradeoffs,” (Defries et al. 2012, 604) the human species can successfully preserve the “planet’s ecological heritage.” (Defries et al. 2012, 604). Hulme, on the other hand, offers caution to this approach to solving global environmental issues, stating that “All efforts to reign in the damage using conventional human control systems deemed to be failing.” (Hulme 2011, 352). Hulme concludes the Constructing Babel heading, by highlighting the potential for the geoengineering experiment to go wrong. Hulme cites Roger Revelle, who warned that attempts at creating geoengineered solutions to climate change issues “are charged with destabilizing our naturally regulated climate.” (Hulme 2011, 352).
Works Cited