The main argument underlying the text Why We Disagree About Climate Change by Paul Steinberg is that change at the institutional level is the most effective. He claims that the best way to make real change is through changing the social rules that govern society, and he discusses a variety of ways in which to accomplish this throughout the book.
Why Institutional?
Everybody knows the three R’s: reduce, reuse, and recycle. These are examples of individual actions, and this mantra has become ingrained in people’s perceptions of how they can help the planet. Steinberg argues that “these isolated individual actions are fine and well, but are simply inadequate given the size of the challenge” (Steinberg 2015, 219). He advocates for “thinking vertically”, stating that the “old adage to think globally and act locally is just plain wrong” as it is too simplistic in the face of a very complex and difficult problem (Steinberg 2015, 163). Vertical thinking involves acting on multiple levels simultaneously, rather than purely on the individual level. In his ‘8 Principles for Institutional Change’, Steinberg describes intelligence as a “social activity” in the second principle, promoting the idea of cooperation and work at the institutional level (Steinberg 2015, 267).
Further theoretical support for working at the institutional level comes from the third principle: “To go the distance, new rules must have support from multiple political parties and diverse social groups who can defend the new arrangement and prevent reversals during times of political and economic damage,” meaning that combining a variety of individual interests into an institution will create long-lasting and definitive change (Steinberg 270-271). While Steinberg does concede that there is nothing especially wrong with working at the individual level, such as personal recycling, he argues that this level of action is not sufficient enough to bring about real change (Steinberg 2015, 278).
An Institutional Change Success Story
One example of the success of institutional action is the phase-out of leaded gasoline in the United States. In the 1970s, lead use had led to the largest environmental health disaster in US history until the EPA took measures to reduce lead pollution. By allowing companies to buy and sell permits for lead emissions, this institution provided an incentive to reduce pollution and sell permits to competitors, which ultimately lead to the phase-out of leaded gasoline. This removal had a “profound impact on human health and well-being worldwide” (Steinberg 2015, 95-101).
The Importance to Me
After reading this book, I have begun to rethink the way in which I view my place in helping the planet. I had never really considered individual versus institutional change, but I now realize that most of my actions are individual-level. For example, I now see that my personal dedication to recycling, turning off lights, conserving energy, etc. is insufficient in the face of the scale of the problem. However, this book has reinforced my goals for the future. I am interested in pursuing a career in the Foreign Service or diplomacy, with a focus on environmental issues. If I am able to become involved at this scale, I will be contributing to the crucial process of institutional-level change, and my actions will be far more effective.
Bibliography
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. Oxford University Press.