I think it’s safe to say that it’s been a long semester in Environmental Studies, filled with novel ideas and groggy, 8:00 AM reading quizzes. The material from ENVS 160 was substantial and provocative, and hopefully will manifest itself in my personal and academic life. Considering what I’ve learned about institutional change, the constructed notion of nature, and contemporary environmental thought, I’m in a place where I can move forward (link to posts). However, I’m reticent to call myself enlightened because I’ve read sections of the ecomodernist manifesto (Asafu-Adjaye et al, “An Ecomodernist Manifesto”, Accessed 4/23/17). Institutional change is superior to individual action, but what I’ve yet to learn is the type of institutional change to move forward with. Therefore, I want to talk about my involvement with the Lewis & Clark divestment campaign, how it’s applied to my ENVS coursework, and how I’m still reckoning with the beast of where to go next.
I joined Students Engaged in Eco-Defense, delightfully abbreviated as SEED, at the beginning of the spring semester, pairing well with my introductory environmental studies course. My initial ambitions were to get involved in an environmentally conscious organization, maybe participate in invasive English ivy pulling with Portland Parks & Recreation, and call myself an environmentalist. After a couple of meetings, I found myself working with students on the LC Divest campaign, a part of a student-based movement for educational institutions to sell endowment assets connected to fossil fuels. Sometimes, students advocate to replace these assets with Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing, a more socially conscious financing strategy. With a GoFossilFree petition, we garnered over 1,000 signatures (Podobnik, “Lewis & Clark College Go Fossil Free”, Accessed 4/23/17). We gathered facts and figures (an unofficial tribute to Vaclav Smil) about MSCI portfolio simulations and other economic justifications for divestment (Smil 2014; MSCI, “Fossil Fuel Divestment: A Practical Introduction”, Accessed 4/23/17). This is what acting institutionally is, right?
I see two particular takeaways from ENVS 160 in my contribution to the divestment campaign. The first regards how I classify myself: am I a consumer or am I a citizen? Within the realm of thinking institutionally, I need to escape the comfort of consumer-based environmentalism and consider myself a citizen, as Paul Steinberg prescribes (Steinberg 2015). As a citizen, I am a member of a collective movement for mutual benefit, understanding that altering policy and updating those regulations accountably is necessary to reflect my values in my community (Steinberg 2015). The second is the domain axis of the Ecotypes axes, which considers the difference between material change or ideological change (Proctor, “Domain”, Accessed 4/23/17). Moving forward, I want to advocate for concrete changes in environmental policy, but I’m unsure if divestment provides more of a rhetorical difference than material difference. Perhaps removing Lewis & Clark’s fossil fuel stocks will be futile in damaging the stronghold of fossil fuels in the United States. Since we are merely a small institution of many, are we making as much of a difference as an individual converting to vegetarianism? However, a political statement against the fossil fuel industry may be more influential than I give it credit for.
Years ago, I would have idly called myself an environmentalist without considering my actions. I appreciate Environmental Studies for giving me the foundation to critique my actions rooted in ENVS 160 concepts. In the future, it’s not only important to act institutionally, but consider the interdisciplinary implications of environmental action. This is not to discount divestment, for I think the message it sends is significant. However, as a citizen I will need to hold myself accountable to inventively engage with environmental issues.
[Image credit to Students Engaged in Eco-Defense]
References