In reading responses from my peers in the first individual post, I was surprised to see so many common themes between my peers and myself: namely the influence the course had on student’s ideas of what climate change was and meant to citizens all over the world. This thread has spanned across all of the readings we have completed in the course, from discussing spiritual differences in Why We Disagree About Climate Change by Mike Hulme, to searching for social rules that influence our ideas in Who Rules the Earth? by Paul Steinburg. One of my favorite things about the Environmental Studies major is its ability to foster connections between seemingly unrelated topics. I am excited to discuss with you today some other fabulous connections I have found during my semester in ENVS 160.
Lets begin with further explanation of Why We Disagree About Climate Change and its relation to other works in the course. Mike Hulme is effective at setting the groundwork for critical thinking: He encourages his readers to think outside their own lives and see through the lens of those with different backgrounds: spiritually, ethically, economically, and socially (Hulme 2009). By developing a more worldly view, we can implement more effective ways of gaining positive change. This thread connects to the ideas presented in Vaclav Smil’s Making the Modern World. In his work, Smil emphasizes the need to care for those effected by poverty, and situating ourselves at the best possible angle to create a better world. Smil’s proposal for effective change will not be possible without the implementation of Hulme’s lesson of the need to understand others.
Other texts further Hulme’s argument to broaden our perspectives, but in a more jarring and direct way. In Who Rules the Earth, Steinberg criticizes the idea to “think globally and act locally,” (Steinberg 2015, 163) and instead argues that we should act on a global scale. He emphasizes that the little things like recycling are “not enough” (Steinberg 2015, 5). Other authors, such as Maniates, argue that “In the end, individualizing responsibility does not work—you can’t plant a tree to save the world” (Maniates 2001, 44). This harsh reality encourages individuals to again think outside of their own realities, and enter into those less fortunate than them.
Finally, the works read in class emphasize a level of communication that must occur across disciplines of scholarly research and action. Science is not always easy to digest, especially when many environmental research is un-quantifiable projections of what will most likely happen. Making the Modern World helps cross this barrier by bringing in social themes, while Steinberg ties in the economic implications of climate change to illustrate climate change. These tactics play to the diverse opinions and interests of readers, and help set climate change in the multifaceted issue that it is.
The connections in these texts are merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to connections in the environmental studies world. It is through making these connections and seeing issues from as many possible angles that a full picture of climate change will emerge, and it is then that the issue will begin to be solved as peacefully as possible.
Sources:
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
“Maniates2001CleanCopy.pdf.” 2017. Accessed April 11. https://files.zotero.net/848801268/Maniates2001CleanCopy.pdf.