Reforming Environmental Studies
ENVS 160 has lead me to rethink aspects of our physical planet and human society including Climate change, material consumption, environmentalism, influence, and power. While each of the readings in the course belonged to specified sections they all relate to one another to create more dynamic lessons of Environmental thought, connections that I worked to weave together in order to recognize the larger concepts of the course.Through studying Mike Hulme (2000), Vaclav Smil (2014), Leigh Phillips (2011), Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus (2011), Paul Steinberg (2015), and others it is evident that the science can not be taken alone in Environmental Studies. As I explain in my reflection of some of the course’s lessons, concepts of human society, culture, interaction, and ideas must be taken with the science in order to fully understand our planet and the conversations around it.
Thinking Interdisciplinary
I will use the lessons of Hulme and our discussions on classic and contemporary thought to inform my scholarly life. I have learned that I must tie in the idea that disagreement and opposition comes from differences in values and views with the science. ENVS 160 has taught me the importance in fully understanding not only how the earth is changing, but how the world interacts with that change. Moving forward I will work to understand the positivist, normal, objective and universal scientific data that Hulme insinuates as the view classic of science not alone, but rather with the “physical and cultural connotations” that I now know all Environmental science has (Hulme 2009, 77). This idea, was first brought to our attention by Hulme in his work Why We Disagree About Climate Change. He explains Climate change as a “constructed idea” full of relationships between humans and objective science, a point that has informed my academic life (Hulme 2009, 3). Scientific fact does not stand alone, and in my studies I will work to recognize the implications of the science as it pertains to communities, individuals, and the arguments surrounding Environmental Studies.
Just as Hulme and our various readings on classic and contemporary thought have lead to me to rethink how I approach the sciences, Vaclav Smil has inspired me to think more deeply about the seemingly arcane facts that underlie our world. In his work Materials and Dematerialization, Smil cites a vast amount of statistics to make claims about consumption, such that relative materialization may be possible, but absolute dematerialization is rare and unattainable through the simple substitution of materials (Smil 2014, 120-121). Smil’s purposeful use of data, such as the fact that between 1900 and 2000 steel “rose 30-fold” to “850 Mt” because of the growth of the railroad industry and that “the demand had increased for specialty steel, stainless steel, and high performance alloys for the energy industry and for the construction of even-taller buildings” reminded me that even when looking at a concept that seems rooted in social structures and individual behavior, statistics can still be one of the most useful tools in understanding human trends (Smil 2014, 60). This idea resurfaced at an appropriate time, as i just was beginning to disregard the importance of data because of Hulme’s approach of tying social sciences into the objective facts. While Smil does not not fully ignore those social implications, it was helpful to be reminded of the significance of objective science and I will know work to combine the appreciation for data with the recognition of social sciences.
Pursuing Action
Along with approaching an Environmental Studies education differently, I have come out of ENVS 160 ready to examine my personal future in Environmental Studies. Even though I entered the course with hopes of learning more about and maybe even pursuing environmental law or policy as a career path, the idea of those professions felt very far off and idealistic. I questioned, as I still do, what I would continue to find interesting, appealing, important, and attainable throughout my next four years. These questions remain, however, after ENVS 160 I feel much more confident in my potential future in those fields and in the significance of those fields in solving environmental issues, thanks to Paul Steinberg’s Who Rules The Earth? Steinberg argues that institutions and social rules are the true powerhouses behind solving environmental crises and that we must work with them in conjunction with people power to make true, long lasting change (Steinberg 2015, 163). This argument was enlightening and comforting, as I often felt discouraged when either individual or institutional action were completely discredited as plausible platforms for change. Steinberg, however, clarifies that it takes both, but that institutional action is the final step that is necessary for action to be successful (Steinberg 2015, 223). As I discuss in my post explaining how Steinberg’s work informed aspects of my life, I took this argument for effective action to heart and have used it to think more seriously about a future in environmental policy, law, or any other form of institutional work.
Works Cited
Hulme, Mike. 2000. Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction, and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, Leigh. 2011. Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defense of Growth, Progress, Industry, and Stuff. UK: Zero Books. Kindle edition.
Shellenberger, Mark, and Ted Norhous. 2011. Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene. Breakthrough Institute. Kindle edition.
Steinberg, Paul. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smil, Vaclav. 2014. Making the Modern World. Wiley & Sons.