The final text for ENVS 160 is a satisfying read about how environmental policy can actually be implemented. After learning about all mechanisms and products of environmental thought, it is an exciting trip to incorporate these thoughts into implementation. Who Rules the Earth?, by Paul F. Steinberg makes two main points. Firstly social rules, constructs, and norms have shaped the traditions in our society. Many of these traditions have lasting environmental effects that are detrimental but overlooked because they are social norms. Second Steinberg argues that as a society, we mistake our individual contributions to change as effective implementation when true change lies in the power of institutional change (2015). These themes are tied together with the question of who has power over society, or in other words: who rules the earth?
Some traditions are so deeply rooted in culture that they are established as unquestioned norms. For example, the traditions of drinking coffee or planting a nice green front lawn are accepted traditions that create a sense of community under shared interests. Not many people ever question the effects of setting the sprinkler timer or holding a hot cup of joe in their hands; “everyone does it, why shouldn’t I?” However, these luxuries have resulting effects on the environment .“At their best, social rules protect human rights and promote long-lasting prosperity. At their worst, social rules comprise elaborate systems for the subjugation of entire peoples and promote the pursuit of the quick buck regardless of the cost to our economy and our ecology” (Steinberg 2015, 26). These environmental effects are inconvenient to recognize as a consumer or as an institution that benefits from the consumption of these resources, and therefore are often ignored. Because of the power that institutions have over these traditions, Steinberg offers the notion that they truly rule the earth. The first step to making change is to recognize that these social constructs are detrimental and to challenge the policies on an institutional level to implement change (Steinberg 2015).
It is imperative to inform the public properly about environmental issues due to our traditional habits. How can the public understand that the results of these habits impact our environment? How can the public be informed that these issues exist at all? Until they do, the traditions will be continually perpetuated by the institutions that have power over these traditions. Ideally, research would be passed to the public in an honest and factual manner to offer realistic context, but Steinberg illustrates how that very rarely happens. “Unfortunately, the flow of knowledge about the root causes of environmental problems is blocked by a mile-high partition separating the producers from the would-be consumers of research” (Steinberg 269). This partition exists as research skewed by the influence of large companies. As an example, if a coffee company were to fund research on the coffee industry’s link to deforestation, the researcher may be biased to find a lack of correlation. It’s difficult to know when research is committed to a cause, or if it has ties to an organization’s ideological agenda. Steinberg describes this difference well, “The litmus test is whether the researcher not only tolerates but actively solicits alternative points of view, and remains open to findings sharply at odds with expectations” (2015, 17).
The final step to implementing change involves changing the policies in place that control our social norms. Change done on an individual level doesn’t effectively impact the world. An individual can ignore the policies in place, and boycott certain organizations, but those institutions will always have support and will continue their detrimental habits. Therefore, institutional change is the ultimate way to make a difference (Steinberg 2015). Steinberg describes institutional change as having several steps. First, the issue has to be recognized on a local scale and be incrementally introduced to higher and higher institutions of government or policy until a general rule can be created. Several examples are shown by Steinberg in chapter 11.
To demonstrate how institutional change can make a difference, Steinberg offered a story about a Northern Californian and his garden. A man in northern California named Jim Brophy tore up his green grass in exchange for native plants to support the local ecosystem. The HOA has a tradition of only allowing green grass as a policy, and told him he was in violation. After bringing it to local government, he was able to persuade the local governmental institution that this tradition of green grass makes no sense for the natural environment of northern California, and moved on to a state level. There, his logic was recognized and the state changed the policy to no longer allow HOA’s to require a grass lawn. In this example, if Brophy had simply changed his own lawn on an individual level, he would have been making a small scale difference that would not have affected much more than only his yard and local populations of bugs, birds, and bees. However, by changing the policy on an institutional scale, he allowed the public to recognize an issue, and follow suit. (Steinberg 2015, Chapter 11).
After completing this book, I’ve gained context that is useful to apply to the concepts we’ve learned in ENVS this semester. I find it hard to believe that as a society we cannot recognize environmental issues and make change. After reading this text, I understand that change will be difficult de to the habits and traditions that we have in place. Despite this barrier, I am confident that with proper education and action, we can make a difference. By connecting research and action, we will see a sustainable future.
Steinberg, Paul. 2015. Who Rules the Earth? How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.