It’s challenging to know which direction to pursue after ENVS 160, especially after reading up on multifarious environmental perspectives. In his book Who Rules The Earth?, Paul Steinberg addresses the institutional approach to environmental problems (Steinberg 2015).
In the opening of the book, Steinberg addresses individualistic approaches to environmentalism, most prevalent in opening his book with “Recycling Is Not Enough” (Steinberg 2015, 1). However, Who Rules The Earth? Is less of a critique and more of an optimistic proposition: what if we just change the rules that are detrimental to natural systems (Steinberg 2015)? These rules are known as social rules, and can be enforced by multiple institutions (11). Some examples of social rules are property, economic markets, and governments (Steinberg 2015). Steinberg argues that acting along vertical structures of institutions, advocating for environmental protection in multiple social structures, to change social rules is the most effective way for environmentalism to move forward (Steinberg 2015, 11-12, 163). One successful example that Steinberg cites is the cap-and-trade program to reduce lead content in gasoline, which was a government market-based environmental regulation (99-100). He also critical of the phrase “think globally, act locally”, since it undermines the need for “multiple levels of governance” (Steinberg 2015, 210). It brings up the concern of relying on municipal governments for environmental policy, as is prevalent in many South American countries and beyond (Steinberg 2015, 183-185).
Initially, Who Rules The Earth? made me feel helpless because it didn’t seem possible for an individual to make an impact on the institutional level. However, Steinberg’s point is clear that we must act as citizens to promote environmentalist agenda (Steinberg 2015). Considering classic environmentalism, which tends to act on the individual level, it should be publicly critiqued (Proctor, “Ecotypes and Classic vs. Contemporary Environmental Thought”, Accessed 4/16/17). Steinberg outlines conceptions that do not facilitate change in environmental action, which I will think of when analyzing solutions to environmental problems. Two of which are the false assumptions that the scientific process doesn’t rely on public attitudes (and funding) and that environmental protection expands as societies become affluent. The others ideas that Steinberg critiques are free market environmental solutions without regulation and consumer choices (Steinberg 2015, 215-220). It’s tempting to believe that I do my part to aid natural resource and biodiversity protection by purchasing environmentally friendly-certified products. However, besides aligning with my morality, individual solutions are insufficient to address complex problems (Proctor, “Individual or Institutional (or both)?”, Accessed 4/16/17; Steinberg 2015, 219). This recommendation has practical applications in my academic and civic life. First of all, assumptions are inadequate explanations to substantiate my actions. Even if I participate in civic engagement, misguided or inappropriate action is just as rooted in false information as individual action. Attending municipal town halls and testifying for policy requires intense research and attention to actor networks.
The need for research puts me, a busy college student, in a predicament. The more I learn about what I should be doing, the more it seems that I don’t have the time for it. However, that’s likely another false assumption.
[Image from Ban The Bag PDX]
References
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.