Institutional over Individual!
I would like to begin by expanding on a “lesson” that I included in my previous post, which I titled, “Individual Action isn’t nearly Enough…. But, HEY, it’s a Start!” While I mentioned the idea that sometimes it takes an individual to spark an institutional change, I would like to further emphasize the fact that, at the end of the day, it is institutional-scale action that is influential enough to make a significant impact, as is exemplified in two of our readings, the book Who Rules the Earth? and the contemporary text Individualization: Plant a tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World? While individual “green” practices (i.e. reducing one’s amount of plastic waste, biking instead of driving, or lessening the amount of water used) may help to lessen one’s guilty conscience, the sum of all of these individual actions does not actually do anything of significance. “The transition to sustainability requires transforming the rules we live by” (Steinberg 2015, 15). Steinberg argues that institutional action, on the other hand, is much more effective in promoting “ecosystem health and the conservation of biological diversity” (Steinberg 2015, 237). Similarly, author Michael F. Maniates’ article titled Individualization: Plant a tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World? explores the problems with overarching themes of Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax, which stresses the fact that environmental degradation is the product of ‘individual shortcomings’. These problems are said to be, “best countered by action that is staunchly individual and typically consumer based. It embraces the notion that knotty issues of consumption, consumerism, power and responsibility can be resolved neatly and cleanly through enlightened, uncoordinated consumer choice” (Maniates 2001, 33). However, as Steinberg made clear through his arguments, this is simply not the case. Maniates goes on to critique the children’s book, adding, “When responsibility for environmental problems is individualized, there is little room to ponder institutions, the nature and exercise of political power, or ways of collectively changing the distribution of power and influence in society–to, in other words, “think institutionally’” (Maniates 2001, 33). Both of these authors make arguments that promote big-scale change over individual action.
But not like that…
The two works that I previously compared both explained why institutional, and not just individual, efforts are necessary in making significant changes. While we have learned that we should be leaning towards institutional action, we have also seen arguments that explain why our current system of governmental intervention isn’t exactly cutting it. Taking another look at Steinberg’s book, Who Rules the Earth?, it is apparent that the author doesn’t trust current international treaties, suggesting that the government is not properly handling climate change control (even though this is taking place at the favored institutional level). While focusing on the complexities of these treaties, Steinberg points out their many shortcomings, noting a common misconception that countries are often times easily able to ban together for the “greater good,” which can be translated to the health of this planet. Another major problem that Steinberg points out is the fact that, at the international level, there are rarely fully functioning court systems or police departments, meaning that it is extremely difficult to enforce law at such a large scale (Steinberg 2015). Author Mike Hulme has similar views on our current–and faulty–institutionalized methods, as he illustrates in his book Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Hulme largely focuses on the Kyoto Protocol, which, “Required industrialized nations to reduce their collective greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 percent by the period 2008-12.” (Hulme 2009, 290). While, in theory, this treaty seemed to be beneficial, many of the included countries had different agendas, as Steinberg mentioned to be a common problem with international treaties. “Considerable political prevarication, diplomacy and renegotiation then ensued, as countries felt the need to protect their national economic self-interest” (Hulme 2009, 290). In addition to this conflict, another problem arose within the treaty. Hulme points out that it was not specific enough in the ways in which the included countries should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, so, as one could imagine, conflict ensued and the Kyoto Protocol fell short on its predicted outcomes. The works of both Steinberg and Hulme shed light on the faults of our current institutional practices, suggesting a need for change if we truly want to see higher success rates.
Works Cited
Hulme, Mike. 2000. Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction, and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maniates, Michael F. “Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?” Global Environmental Politics 1, no. 3 (2001): 31-52.
Steinberg, Paul. 2015. Who Rules the Earth? How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.