In his book, Who Rules the Earth?, Paul F. Steinberg asserts that lasting solutions for climate change and other environmental issues must come from institutional change because the world afflicted by these problems is governed by social rules. Steinberg begins the book with a commentary on why individual-scale change is often unsuccessful. Steinberg poses the question,
“Scientists tell us that one out of every five mammal species in the world are threatened with extinction, and we react by switching coffee brands…Is it any wonder that people despair that real solutions are not within their grasp?” (Steinberg 2015, 8).
In Steinberg’s eyes, the idea that an aggregate of many small solutions could bring about greater change is fantasy, because the people at the individual scale enacting these small fixes, rarely understand why they’re even making these changes in the first place. So, Steinberg prefers institutional change, but what does this look like? To answer this, Steinberg connects a Costa Rican water source manager to the European Union’s Directorate General for the Environment, Claudia Olazábal. He points out the benefits that both parties bring to ensuring water quality and sustainability of the region. Steinberg encourages us to “think and act on multiple levels if we are to make progress” (2015, 163) because “tackling these unruly problems requires a we include in our field of vision multiple levels of political organization” (2015, 162). It is easy to think that thinking on multiple levels would reach as far as the individual, and although Steinberg does not entirely dismiss individual change (2015, 278), he does recognize that any kind of permanent, impactful change must rise from a systemic shift. Although Steinberg asserts that multiple levels are essential, the multiple levels he is speaking to are in the context of political change, and therefore are applicable of a systemic level, as opposed to the individual level which he previously denounced.
Building on this previous point, Steinberg narrows in on . In the case of June Irwin, Steinberg summarizes, “To bring about lasting change is to modify the rules that society lives by.” (2015, 11). Social rules apply to all people living within a respective society, which, as Steinberg makes abundantly clear are impossible to escape. Steinberg, in my mind the king of metaphors, portrays you the reader desperately trying to escape your role as a slave to social rules and regulations. You take your car, drive off into the mountains, climb the highest peak only to realize that you are still governed by the “Wilderness Protection Act” which allows you to be out in this “pure nature” (Steinberg 2015, 24). You cannot run from the all-encompassing rules which govern even the most seemingly pristine corners of the Earth. The social rules which govern us and the world we live in are like “DNA guiding the blizzard of activity in a human cell.” (Steinberg 2015, 26), the world as we know it needs them to survive, and fundamental changes to the world we live in will be best applied to these pillars of society.
Personal Context
I generally agree with Steinberg, and I see the foundation of such an argument to target systemic changes. I do implement individual scale solutions for the sole purpose that it makes me feel good, and on some level involved in a greater cause. As a natural sciences major, I find that this dialogue helps me to understand where I should apply myself and my knowledge. Steinberg is direct in saying that the place of scientific research is to be honest, and to avoid the “litmus test” ideology, where science is made for the man who funds it (Steinberg 2015, 16-18). My understanding is better used to point out the consequences of political decisions so that policy makers may be aware and advised of potential outcomes, rather than to try and persuade policy makers one way or the other based on anyone’s (my own or my company’s) personal agenda.
In my personal life, systemic changes seem scarier than individual ones. Living in a capitalist country, I feel I have the option to substitute one environmentally-conscious choice for another, because there is very little regulation on whether I choose, for example, to recycle last week’s milk carton. I am comfortable, in that, if there came a time where recycling began to hinder my personal gain (e.g. it costs me money to drive my cans to the recycling center), I could stop without consequence. Living in this system, it is easy to see how regulations on recycling, and the idea that you have no choice is where I feel tentative towards Steinberg’s idea of policy making. Obviously, the model above is far too simplistic to capture the feelings of anyone but myself, however this is the reason I would be hesitant towards Steinberg’s ideas.
References
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules The Earth. New York City: Oxford University Press.