By Natalie Casson
How do we begin to approach the looming anthropogenic climate issues our world is suffering from at increasing rates today? In ENVS 160 this semester, I have learned to begin to grapple with the discomfort of dealing with this overwhelming and universal problem. Though at times the problem of climate change may still feel too big, by putting issues and causes into perspective, we can see the different levels and institutions that we must work through in order to try to make a difference. Within the texts in ENVS 160 this far, I have seen many connections between both classical and contemporary writings that suggest similar ideas. I have noticed the conversations surrounding ideas like market environmentalism, materialization, and institutional- based actions are all of importance.
Different institutions exert power over different areas or industries and could reduce effects of specific climate issues. One way that is suggested by both classic and contemporary climate experts and may be favored by capitalist economies is the idea of market-based environmentalism. Within the class, in Why We Disagree About Climate Change (2009) author Mike Hulme explained the idea behind market-based environmentalism. It essentially allows for a free market to have power over pollution and waste different businesses within the market create. This creates a system where the market checks itself and keeps itself in line. Other texts we have looked at this semester also suggest a market- based approach may be beneficial; for example, the approach of a cap and trade system. Cap and trade systems involve issuing permits that companies can buy and sell that allow a certain extent of pollution. They give companies incentive to change. When used correctly, they can be very beneficial in both social and environmental change (Steinberg 2015). Though cap and trade has been an idea since classical environmental thought, it coincides well with contemporary approaches.
Another commonality I saw within the texts we’ve looked at so far in discussing what industries we need to look at when tackling climate issues is the idea of dematerialization. Dematerialization is a concept that within a Utopian society we could achieve, however, it is often unrealistic. For example, Mike Hulme again discusses in his text the idea of certain model societies like Amish communities. They use no electricity, no motorized transportation, and they grow their own food. This means the material use is incredibly low for Amish communities (Hulme 2009). Yet he explains the style of living is unrealistic for most people who are immersed in the typical day-to-day consumerism in most of societies—thus you can infer from these examples that Mike Hulme likely would have argued we cannot easily dematerialize. In the text Making of the Modern World by Vaclav Smil, Smil makes a very similar argument about absolute dematerialization on a global scale. He argues that though certain countries may be able to reduce their use in specific, the need of materials in countries still developing will cancel out this effect. He explains that this is due to the fact that industrialization and modernization requires increased material usage (Smil 2014). If we cannot effectively dematerialize, perhaps we should shift toward investing in new materials (technologies) that are beneficial.
A final theme I saw is that almost all texts discuss was the issues of scale. Many climate experts grapple with this thought because it is necessary to understand whether institutional or individual action is more effective. Though individual may be important in changing mindsets, many authors tended toward the ideas of institutional action. For example, in Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts (2015) author Leigh Phillips writes his entire text from a socialist perspective (opposing market environmentalism) and discussing the benefits of state centered environmentalism and solving environmental policies through government regulation. This idea of institutional action is supported by other contemporary environmentalists like Paul F. Steinberg in his book Who Rules the Earth?(2015). Steinberg accentuates the importance of scale and working at multiple levels to approach problems and disproves the ideal of solely acting locally. Working vertically and approaching problems at higher levels is more effective for large scale change, so many experts argue we can’t solely focus on the individual actions.
Over the course of ENVS 160, I have noticed both trends on how we approach different levels and institutions to combat climate change. There is consensus between multiple authors surrounding the ideas of taking on problems via the markets, moving away from trying to achieve absolute dematerialization, and working on the institutional level. Thus when trying to grapple with the complex and deep issues of climate change, these ideas may be a good and small place to start.
References
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Phillips, Leigh. Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence of Growth, Progress, Industry and Stuff. Winchester, UK ; Washington, USA: Zero Books, 2015. https://books.google.com/books?id=6OSOCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT30&dq=austerity+ecology&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEw5Phhq7PAhVjVWMKHYHqBn8Q6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q=austerity%20ecology&f=false.
Smil, Vaclav. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley, 2014.
Steinberg, Paul F. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2015.