When I first looked at Who Rules the Earth, I was pretty skeptical about it based on just the title. I mean, the idea of looking at all the different rulers of all the land in the world and deciding which one of those has the most power over everyone else seemed ridiculous to me. If we as a global society had just one person or organization ruling the Earth, wouldn’t we have already solved all of the world’s problems, including climate change? Isn’t the whole reason we still have problems because we disagree about the solutions to them? It turns out that the text actually was never saying there was one ruler of the Earth, and the title was being mildly deceptive. Steinberg spends his time in this book emphasizing the power that all institutions have, and states clearly the idea that there is no one organization or power to rule them all, but many organizations, politicians, corporations, and people creating and enforcing different rules in every location that shapes that region’s and the global environment, society, economy, politics, and history. The title Who Rules the Earth is really highlighting the main question of this text: What institutions, what people, are making the rules and regulations that shape our world?
The underlying idea in this text that institutions shape society, and that people/individuals influence those institutions to shape society a certain way, are developed along multiple facets. One thought the author creates throughout the book in order to emphasize this idea is the thought that acting locally and thinking globally does not and will not result in positive, lasting environmental change. Doing things such as recycling, reusing plastic bottles, and taking shorter showers will not actually do anything significant, even if every person in the world does it. We still will have regulations put in place by the institutions above us that are what is truly shaping environmental aspects such as levels of pollution or the size of the ozone layer hole. In order to make a difference as an individual, you should not just recycle, you should also look above you to institutions and hold them accountable towards making positive and lasting environmental change. As Steinberg states, “The old adage to think globally and act locally is just plain wrong. It is far too simplistic in its portrayal of the sources of environmental problems and the solutions at our disposal. We need to think and act at multiple levels if we are to make progress on vexing social and environmental problems. We need to think vertically” (Steinberg 2015, p. 163). Thinking vertically is exactly this: an individual has an idea, meets with others who have similar ideas, create their own institution and/or engage with another institution, and use this institution(s) to change the rules so that the original idea can become a reality. In order to create change, we need to start “moving beyond folksy prescriptions to ‘think globally and act locally,’ and instead think strategically about the reforms needed to promote [environmental] sustainability at multiple levels of governance” (Steinberg 2015, p. 210). This again emphasizes that while recycling is nice, really creating change on a large scale requires institutions to create rules or regulations because they themselves have a larger scale and influence than any individual, but individuals can create and persuade organizations to create positive change.
Another way the text emphasizes institutional power is by using real life examples to explain how institutions in different locations have an impact on the people/resources within their authority through property rights. As the text explains, “Property rights are social rules that specify the relationship between people and things. These ‘things’ include natural resources— birds and valleys, mountains and oil, freshwater and farmland” (Steinberg 2015, p. 65). The strongest example of different property rights in different regions affecting a natural resource in this text is the cerulean warbler example. Due to killing the warblers for their feathers by the Incas, the deforestation by Spaniards with their encomienda system in South America, the rubber boom in Peru, the no shade coffee industry in Columbia, and the political resurgence in Mexico, cerulean warblers have been declining in numbers as they migrate through South and Central America for the last couple of centuries (Steinberg 2015, p. 66-76). The institutions that rule in different regions and create different regulations that benefit themselves in their region have a serious effect on species such as the Cerulean Warbler that may not even fully reside in their region. Rules enforced by institutions in one region have an effect on everything that interacts with that region, which leads to a global or large-scale environmental effect.
One more way the text enunciates the institutional power to create environmental change is by evaluating how individuals push new institutional rules in place. When Steinberg relays his main idea that institutions rule the Earth, he is by no means saying it is easy to change the institutions or create new institutions, but he does inspire hope that it is quite possible. Social or institutional change requires two parts, both a stepping away from outdated rules and bringing in new more effective rules that are meant to last (Steinberg 2015, p. 228). This is often quite difficult to do, because institutions and humanity in general are creatures of habit and are happier when they are stuck in ruts, doing the same thing over and over again. However, Steinberg uses examples of these ruts, such as the policies of the United States Forest Service, to show that institutional change is possible when the people influence those institutions. When Americans came together against the high levels of deforestation that the USFS was allowing, it pressured the USFS to change a policy that had been a part of them since the creation of the organization (Steinberg 2015, p. 234). With a common cause among people to pressure institutions, significant environmental progress can be made. Institutions may rule the Earth, but individuals rule the institutions.
In my personal life, I know that I need to move away from the idea that if I shower less and recycle more, I am doing my part for the environment. Sure it’s good that I do this, but it just isn’t enough. Who Rules the Earth has really made me realize the potential power I and my peers have over changing society and institutional rules, and how I can do so much more than I ever thought possible. If I have an idea that can help the environment, I shouldn’t just keep it to myself. Working vertically is the only way to make significant environmental change. I plan to be part of more institutions (organizations, maybe even work with the government) to promote my own ideas and listen to others. I can help my organization create institutional change, or maybe in my future career influence the decisions of the U.S. federal government on environmental regulation. I also know that just getting educated and developing ideas about the environment are not enough for me to be environmentally conscious, I must actually do something with my ideas and education.
References
Steinberg, Paul. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.