ENVS-160 has required to us to examine different texts throughout the semester. There has been a significant and distinct thread of common concepts that have been apparent in many of the texts. It is possible to make visible and clear connections between many of the author’s ideas and views, despite the differences in their scholarly background.
One key recurrent idea that has appeared throughout the experience of ENVS-160 is the fact that finding a “solution” to climate change is rooted in completely altering our very ideas and conceptions of even the very meaning of climate. Right from the very first pages of Why We Disagree About Climate Change the idea that we cannot even begin to disentangle the web of environmental problems when we cannot even agree on the very meaning of climate. However Hulme is keen to stress that this disagreement is not necessarily disastrous and we should use it to our advantage when searching for and discussing viable solutions because in the end disagreement is a form of learning.” (Hulme, 2009, xxiv). This idea is also stressed in Who Rules the Earth when Steinberg states that environmental problems are so complex that we cannot expect the solution to be simple. Both texts are slightly dissatisfying in the sense that they suggest that there is no one solution that is ultimately right, nor will solutions be easy.
Not only has my very idea of the meaning of climate and the environment been called into question but indeed the classic opinion of the classic first-year environmental studies student of the power and importance of individual action. Many of the ideas we have explored in the texts this semester have stressed the need to make environmental change through institutions. There has been the (ever-so slightly depressing) news that individual action alone will not save the world, especially emphasised. Indeed Who Rules the Earth is just one example of this. Steinberg strongly suggests the power of pursuing change through influencing institutions for example in his chapter Scaling Up, he focuses on the influence that institutions have on environmental, political, social and economic realms of our world. As someone who is from Europe and has been party to complying with EU regulations, it was interesting to read Steinberg’s support of the European Union stating that “it was obvious that the European Union was capable of delivering resutls-economic, diplomatic and environmental-that would be impossible for countries to achieve on their own.” (Steinberg, 2015, page 180). This was especially interesting in light of the recent referendum vote in the UK to leave the EU after a multitude of discontent from many UK residents.
Steinberg was not the author who stressed the idea the extent of the impact that appealing to institutions could have on climate change. Mike Hulme in his book: Why We Disagree About Climate Change does criticise the IPCC and the extent of their authority yet suggests that institutions like the IPCC will be almost indispensable in the future, stating that “the alternatives to the IPCC style of consensus-building are even less likely to command widespread authority within the worlds of science and policy.” (Hulme, 2009, page 97). There has been a recurrent theme throughout this courses that the role of institutions in the creation of environmental policy in the future.
Finally, one key message that has been apparent throughout the entire course is the issue of anthropogenic climate change and the knock-on effect that these consequences cause us. Vaclav Smil is a prime example of this, when his entire book is based around the idea that “material consumpltion has been a mahor cause of environmental pollution adn degradation and further multiplication of current demand may pose a worrisome threat to the integrity of the biosphere.” (Smil, 2013, 194). Another author that stressed the devastating effect of human growth and development is Ellis. Ellis in Love Your Monsters is very clear-cut in his opinion that “human systems…evolved powers beyond those of any other species… The extinction of megafuana across most of the terrestial biosphere demonstrates the unprecendented success of early human engineering of ecosystems” (Ellis, 2011, page 693). Essentially our species desire to grow and develop is hugely altering and changing our climate at paces and levels that we cannot even begin to imagine.
Works Cited:
Ellis, Erle et al. 2011. Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene. Breakthrough Institute.
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smil, Vaclav. 2013. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. Wiley Publishing.
Steinberg, Paul. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press