This course has a deep and varied basis of information. The purpose of the course is to provide the frameworks on which to build upon with more and more information. It is also to develop a deeper knowledge into what to expect in ENVS, specifically in regard to its interdisciplinary basis. ENVS 160 gave me an overview into many aspects of environmental studies. Each aspect of this course taught me a different perspective and/or aspect to which to view both the general idea of the environment and climate change.
The first unit of our course, guided by the text “Why We Disagree About Climate Change” gave me a strong understanding of the various reasons we disagree about many different ideas, mostly pertaining to the environment and climate science (Hulme 2009). The text covered such points of contention such as the social meaning of climate, how we communicate risk, cultural and societal values, religious concerns, and governmental control. With this text, we did a group project, linked here, in which we asked Portlanders about their view on climate change. It gave me a more personalized view of the disagreements surrounding the controversial concept of climate change. While in Portland, most people agree with my personal views on the importance of climate change, we did find some people who did not find climate change to be a major problem. This made the debate of climate change seem much more personal, as it demonstrated the ways in which this debate is close to me, and not only something we see in more conservative or religious areas.
The second unit, led by the text “Making the Modern World,” was one that most students found difficult and complex. This text gives a demonstration of the more complex quantitative aspects to climate change, as well as a more economically-focused point of view (Smil 2013). It is focused on the material involved in climate change, and the exchange of materials around the world. While the concepts presented in this text were often confusing and complex, I found the quantitative and numeric aspects to be extremely helpful in solidifying many of the problems I had heard of regarding the types of material we use, and the life cycles that regulate their ability for recycling. Along with this unit, we did a project that involved the transfer of materials, shown here. In this project, each group chose a mineral, and each member of the group studied a specific location where the material is produced. I studied iodine production in Japan. This, like the first project, gave me a more in-depth look into a specific instance in which this material is produced, and how it is used around the world. It gave me a deeper understanding of the economic aspect to climate change, and how this may influence the ways that certain governments and institutions may act regarding changing their practices for environmental reasons. In the investigating minerals project, we also looked into the sense of place, and the aspects that surround it, including both physical location as well as culture and people who live within it.
In the third unit, we discussed the differences and ideas surrounding both classic and contemporary environmental thought. This topic was hard to study, as it directly challenged most of the ideas and concepts I had learned regarding environmental thought and action. I had previously taken the ecotypes survey, which provided a basis for the beliefs that I had originally had, and then took the survey once more at the end of the semester. I found that this section of the course altered a lot of the beliefs I had regarding environmentalism and climate change action. One example is the idea of nature as pure. I had always imagined nature as a pure, beautiful thing we had in the past, and that we needed to attain again in order to save the planet. While I wouldn’t have worded it this way, looking back on it now I understand the impracticality of this idea. Richard White’s paper “the Problem with Purity” demonstrates the dangers of this perspective, one that definitely altered the ways I think about nature, and the purity of concepts in general (White 2000). In this portion of the course, we did another project, this time involving a major idea or philosophy. In this “interrogating –isms” project, each group chose a philosophy regarding environmental thought, or ism, and viewed how it was used, how it has changed, and the history behind it. My group worked on the idea of conservatism, specifically in a temporal sense, linked here. This was also one of the axes on the ecotypes survey. This project gave us a chance to study in depth this one idea, to further understand the complexity of major –isms in general. It also gave me a stronger idea into my own views on this particular topic, another axis I noticed a change in after completing the ecotypes survey for the second time. I had originally adopted the idea of temporal conservatism regarding environment, thinking that we need to go back to a past time to fix the issues we have, rather than attempt to change the future, in the category of progressivism. The second time I took the survey, I found that I believed much stronger in the temporal aspect of progressivism. This also tied in to my view of nature, as viewing nature as hybrid, incorporating human attributions and technology, is something to look forward to, rather than backward at. All in all, this unit provided me with new and conflicting information regarding my past beliefs, and allowed me to create new and more informed personal opinions.
The fourth and final unit was guided by the text “Who Rules the Earth?” (WRE), that surrounds the idea of institutional action, rather than individual (Steinberg 2015). Like the previous texts, it challenged many of the preconceived notions and ideas I attained from the media and others around me. One major thing that surprised me was Steinberg’s lack of agreement with the “old adage” of “think globally, act locally” and its replacement with “think vertically,” adopting a much larger scale for reform. In response to this unit, I posted four separate blog posts. The first one involved three key lessons that we learned throughout ENVS 160. The second post was a synthesis describing the connections between the first three texts; the third post was more specific to this unit, where I summarized the text and how it applies to my life. Lastly, the final post was about how I will practice what I have learned in this course. All in all, these apply to the action that we take with the information and knowledge that we have gained throughout this course.
In conclusion, each of these units taught me lessons that challenged what I came into the course with, and replaced my preconceived notions with new, more informed opinions. These units gave me different ways to think about climate change, see climate change, discuss climate change, and finally act upon it.
Works Cited
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. 4th Edition edition. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smil, Vaclav. 2013. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. 1 edition. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley.
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. 1 edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
White, R. 2000. “The Problem with Purity.” Tanner Lectures on Human Values 21: 211–228.