This course, ENVS 160, was a definite eye-opener. One of the most influential things I have been exposed to, among others, has been not the topic of climate change but of the ways people and scholars can think about climate change. For instance, in the media, what we hear is “the climate is changing for the overall degradation of the environment, and we need to do something about that!” Afterwards, everyone “eco-minded” agrees, and makes a vow to themselves and their community that they will change their ways for the better. All-right! However, in ENVS 160, I have picked up the varying allocations of how scholars and the general public consider climate change important. By understanding that different groups of people interpret climate change differently, we must ask ourselves what the climate is. In order to continue to interpret climate change myself, in a way that will allow me to possibly create social change, I look to Mike Hulme for an understanding. He states, “Unlike the wind which we feel on our face or a raindrop that wets our hair, climate is a constructed idea that takes these sensory encounters and builds them into something more abstract” (Hulme 2009, 3). This gives context to my earlier point, of how there are different ways to think around climate change. Duh! Because climate is a socially constructed phenomenon, there are different ways of interpreting this event. One can measure temperature, but cannot objectively measure climate. This is an important idea that I will incorporate into my personal, subjective thought. As I have just defined what the word “climate” means, more or less, I now should intrinsically try to problematize its definition. This is another skill I have polished throughout these reflection posts; the need to understand the basis of a phenomenon before accepting it as fact.
When we see the climate change is socially constructed, we can intuitively see that climate change effects can affect people differently. Furthermore, people may view factors that are subsets of climate change discourse, such as population growth, in varying ways. In my Reflection Post #1, whilst talking about “big words,” I comment on how different viewpoints clash. I wrote:
“…a neo-Malthusianist that is pro reducing human population to a smaller number, may not be akin to a farmer in a developing country who must produce children in order to work on the family farm. The farmer in this case is creating more people to survive and the neo-Malthusianist is reducing human population to have the planet survive: Both are valid” (Milman 2017).
This realization, which came to me after a combination of reading Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts (Phillips 2015) and Why We Disagree About Climate Change (Hulme 2009), has affected me deeply in regards to how institutions must be sensitive to the needs of the people they control. To break this down, because the climate is socially constructed, and because this means different people clash ideologically in regards to climate change, such as a farmer who needs to raise children vs. a neo-Malthusianist who is against child bearing, the institutions that govern the world’s or continents’ environmental policies must operate within the abilities of people, and within people’s ideals. So where this becomes challenging is the realization that the earth has, essentially, one environment. As we should all be on the same team trying to abate climate change, it becomes increasingly difficult when there are so many varying environmental policies governing separate nations, and so much wealth disparity amongst the different nations of the world. European Union policies, mentioned in my Reflection Post #2 ,would not necessarily comply with the abilities of people in developing countries, due to lack of economic or material resources. Or, systematic civilian disabilities due to a lack of an economy as big as Europe’s. This inability for global unification on governmental policy for climate change poses a challenge for climate change activists all around the world. This issue is what I call finding the social-equilibrium, and is what I will apply henceforth to my academic and personal thought. Institutions, as we learn should rule the earth if we want to decrease the effects of climate change (Steinberg 2015), have to pursue the social-equilibrium if they want to garner the support and activity of the people. The social equilibrium is the point in between a peoples wealth and culture that dictates how able an institution of the people can operate to combat climate change. Ability, opposed to willingness, is essential. We must assume that governments, especially developing ones, will implement environmental protection policies similar to those of leading western nations. The willingness of nations to implement these policies is something I have to ask my friends Anthropology, Sociology, and Political Science to estimate. The economic or material ability of a nation or institution to implement these laws, however, is easier to estimate.
Throughout this series of reflection posts I have been able to understand more comprehensively all of the material and data covered in ENVS 160. The information I take as most important to me, however, is the pursuit of the social-equilibrium. This comes from an understanding that different factors affect people’s responses to climate change in different ways, and that all of these varying ways and viewpoints can be considered valid. In my personal and scholarly life I wish to integrate the means to looks at each person and viewpoint as a justifiable stepping stone, and work vertically to incorporate varying viewpoints into a singular perception of how climate change should be handled. I’ll need the help of other scholars with this, of course.
Citations
Hulme, Mike. Why We Disagree about Climate Change : Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Steinberg, Paul F. Who Rules the Earth? : How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Phillips, Leigh. Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-porn Addicts : A Defence of Growth, Progress, Industry and Stuff. Winchester, UK ; Washington, USA: Zero Books, 2015.