By Jack Kamysz
There have been four main readings in ENVS 160 that we as a class have read, these include Why We Disagree About Climate Change by Mike Hulme, Making the Modern World by Vaclav Smil, classic vs. contemporary environmental thought readings, and most recently Who Rules the Earth? By Paul F. Steinberg. Authors of all of these readings have their own perspectives and ideas about how our world understands environmental change. Even though they are all different, many connections can be made throughout these readings when discussing major themes of ENVS 160 as a whole. Three connections that will be discussed include spiritual and emotional connection to nature, contemporary institutionalism, and the effects of ideals on materials.
“Our beliefs have a profound influence on our attitudes, on our behavior and on our politics.” (Hulme 2009, 143) Mike Hulme is known for his religious take on environmental action. Hulme notes that climate change discussions usually borrow language from religion, theology and morality. (2009) Hulme also discusses how religious faith affects how responsible people are for their actions that affect the environment. He describes how all of the world’s institutionalized faiths are strong on the duty of care for the created world. Stewardship, “the idea of managing or administrating the affairs or property of another person.” (Hulme 2009, 148) The belief of those who are faithful to religion, is that they have the right and responsibility to take care for all creatures and nature of the higher power that created them. Furthermore, when discussing the topic of emotional and spiritual connection with nature, ecospirituality arises. Proctor and Berry discuss this contemporary imagination of utopias and dystopias and how nature plays a prominent role. The approach to contemporary spirituality derives from the work of Robert Wuthnow and others. “In After Heaven: Spirituality in America since the 1950s (1998), Wuthnow claimed that a profound shift in American spirituality emerged in the latter half of the twentieth century, from a dwelling- to a seeking-based emphasis.” (Proctor, Berry 2011, 147) Proctor, Berry, and Wuthnow argue that the traditional way of spirituality, has given way to a new spirituality of seeking. “The intimate connection, then, between contemporary spiritualities and geographies is suggested by this emphasis on place and landscape, whether real or imagined, idyllic or nightmarish.” (Proctor, Berry 2011, 147) Religious and non religious spirituality both have a commitment to taking care of nature. Religious spirituality has more to do with the responsibility to take care of the higher being’s creation, while non religious spirituality is looking forward, to continue to experience future connections with nature.
Another section that has been widely discussed in ENVS 160, is the idea of contemporary institutionalism. Steinberg, in his book Who Rules the Earth?, does not dismiss the importance individualism, but talks about how important individuals are for institutionalism. In Canada, Dr. June Irwin, was able to gather individuals to speak up about banning pesticides. Her movement would spread and gain the approval of the government, an institution, to create a quick and dramatic change. (Steinberg 2015) When speaking of social rules in contemporary institutionalism, Steinberg mentions the three R’s, roles, rights, and responsibilities. These three rules are the machinery that makes coordinated social activity possible. We need to look at the whole picture though when discussing social rule, aka institutionalism. “When scientists use the language of ‘institutions,’ we are trying to draw attention to these large interconnected systems as well as the individual rules that comprise them.” (Steinberg 2015, 28) Hulme, in Why We Disagree About Climate Change, mentions a contemporary institution. The most successful contemporary institution in the recent decades is the Montreal Protocol. The Montreal Protocol is the more successful than the Kyoto Protocol because of its ability to make the countries involved to follow up on their promises. “The actors involved ozone depletion (Montreal Protocol) were primarily two large multinational chemical corporations and a relatively small number of countries which housed manufacturing plants.”(Hulme 2011, 294) Contemporary institutions are able to create a more quick and dramatic change on environmental action than individualism according to Proctor, Berry and Hulme.
Early on in ENVS 160, we discussed about the four types of ideals of individuals. Hulme in Why We Disagree About Change, classifies these four types of people as fatalists, hierarchists, individualists, and egalitarians. “The classification draws upon two fundamental dimensions: the extent to which people are group-orientated or individual-orientated, and the extent to which people believe that many rules are necessary.” (Hulme 2009, 186) These different orientation of ideals describes the underlying reason behind decisions. These four different ideals explain why materials are consumed the way they are in society. Vaclav Smil, author of Making a Modern World, analyzes how we consume materials based on the four ideals portrayed by Hulme. Smil describes how materials are consumed differently by looking at the places materials are extracted, produced and sold.(2014) Both Hulme and Smil are looking at the underlying factors of why and how decisions are made when it comes to environmental action.