If you are interested or enrolled in ENVS 160, you probably have some kind of notion about what Environmental Studies is. In this class this past semester, we have broken down and rebuilt many of these ideas. Initially we were walked through much of it and worked together to create team posts, but by the end we were able to work independently and form our own educated opinions on the reading. We read a few books and many articles, and conducted our own research throughout the course. Through this and various discussions, (sometimes with the authors themselves!) I feel like I am leaving ENVS 160 not only with lots of new information, but in some ways a new mindset.
Why We Disagree About Climate Change
The first book that we read in class Why We Disagree About Climate Change, written by Mike Hulme in 2009, was an introduction into the broad span of environmental studies. Hulme wrote in a relatively approachable manner, and beyond delving into climate change, he also exposed us to breaking down how environmental studies involves both hard science and humanities. For instance, he spoke about climate change as both a scientific understanding as well as up for individual interpretation of meaning. Later in the class, this concept reappeared when we were taught about the dangers of “Big Words,” such as “environment” or “nature.”
Hulme additionally addressed the world of science and how it is viewed by the public and particularly policymakers. We learned that a scientific claim is backed by confidence ratings from the scientists, and how when something as dramatic as human-induced climate change is explained, oftentimes a scientific consensus is not enough to change the public’s minds. I had never been able to explain the disconnect between scientific discovery and public rejection (e.g., climate change denial) before exploring it with Hulme.
With WWDCC, we also published our first post on the DS website. At first, getting used to the website and publishing blogs was confusing and definitely required a tutorial. After we were familiar with the site, we worked in teams to survey a particular area of Portland on what the average person in Portland believes about climate change. We broke down our class results to different categories such as gender, age, and ethnicity. Though it is a small, predominantly liberal area we still received somewhat mixed results, and it prodded more questions for the different ways we can research climate change public opinion in the future.
Making the Modern World
“Making the Modern World,” written by Vaclav Smil was a tougher read than Hulme’s, especially if numbers are a lot more difficult to interpret than social sciences (like me!). However, Smil broke down material consumption of daily life and how it has grown over time. He examines the history of man-made materials for an affluent life in a growing market, and how global consumption continues to increase. He finally makes a call for dematerialization, on par with a more minimal-based society. Smil argues that we can improve innovation and decrease the amount of material consumption for a more efficient economy, and thus decrease our global environmental impact.
We wrote our second team post with Smil’s ideas in mind. We were assigned to situate a particular mineral in multiple parts of the world and study not only the mineral production and usage, but the local understandings of that particular mineral. My partner and I research mineral Nitrogen, especially as it is used in the production of fertilizer. We researched a Nitrogen processing factory in Iowa, USA and in Dammam, Saudi Arabia because we felt the cultural difference was the most drastic. Dammam’s industrial areas have contributed the port city to become the largest commercial center in eastern Saudi Arabia and have provided boosts to universities and hospitals. Although there is a slightly negative environmental impact from production, the overall boost to the economy and desire to become a top exporter on the global market negates that in the eyes of its citizens. In Iowa, exportation is significant, but nationalism is so high and the agricultural industry so huge in midwestern United States that the attitudes were slightly different. The website we use is very useful for exploring other posts as well; this post created a map locating where everyone had done research from for their mineral across the globe.
Classic and Contemporary Environmental Thought
Once we had a good grasp on the basics of Environmental Studies from the first two books and associated discussions, we explored deeper into the schools of thoughts dividing environmentalists. First, in Leigh Phillip’s Austerity Ecology, we examined capitalism as production in order to break down what radical change would require. He is skeptical of the green movement associated with classic environmentalism we were so commonly taught growing up (e.g., farmer’s markets and opting for your bicycle being the end-all to human-induced climate change). In Love Your Monsters, Michael Shellenberger collects essays to describe post-environmentalism during a human-dominated age. It encourages using technology as a public good versus something detrimental.
The post we were assigned for this section was relating to environmental thought. Each group selected an “-ism” to explore in relation to environmentalism. My partner and I researched Environmental Idealism, which turned out to be a particularly challenging -Ism as it has a lot more philosophical information. By defining it in an environmental context, its history, examples, and most importantly a scholarly critique we learned about the -ism itself as well as how to use scholarly texts to critique a study.
Who Rules the Earth?
Our final book seemed the favorite of many in the class. Who Rules the Earth? written by Paul F. Steinberg offered a slightly more hopeful perspective on environmentalism though being encouraging towards active change. Steinberg argues that a sustainable world requires changing not only the legal rules, but social rules that are harder to pinpoint. Although this seems sometimes like an impossible task, over the course of the book he describes the social rules that govern us as a society. Steinberg claims that by understanding these rules is the first step to activism with a deep purpose, and that because sustainability additionally relies on politics, he offers guidance towards making substantial change in our policies.
During this final section, we transitioned to writing four individual posts. The first post allowed us to publish our thoughts on three main ideas that we have developed from the class through discussions and reading. The second allowed us to review the readings by drawing three connections between two of the four main sections of the class. The third was specifically related to our final book and how it relates to your academic and personal life. The fourth was how ENVS160 has contributed to each of our lives, both academically and personally. I strongly recommend checking this fourth post out if you are interested in learning more about the impact of the class (or, don’t take my world for it: we have a tagged section to sort through too!).
Overall, I found this class incredibly important learning critically about our world. Regardless if you are interested in pursuing the Environmental Studies, by taking this class you will learn new ways of how science and policy interact as well as simply defining big concepts that are so commonly misunderstood. I recommend this class to anyone interested in the way the world works, physically and socially. Thanks for reading!