I’ll be honest here. I really struggled through ENVS 160… but I didn’t have to! And guess what! NEITHER. DO. YOU.
My problem stemmed from my lack of belief in myself. Right off the bat, I felt that I wasn’t smart enough to be successful in ENVS 160. This was largely due to the fact that I attended a fairly prestigious high school, so thought that I would be more-than-prepared for college classes. I quickly found out that college is a whole new ballgame. While I was completing all of the assigned readings (which really took up a lot of my time since I am a painfully slow reader), I wasn’t taking proper notes or spending enough time on the provided reading guides. Because of this, I failed to fully comprehending the material, which caused me to continuously struggle with the daily reading quizzes and class discussions. So, my first piece of advice: take notes and complete the reading guides. In addition to this, work on your skimming skills. I’ve found that not every word is important and that my comprehension level actually increased tremendously when I began skimming my books for key take-aways and overall ideas. I was spending way too much time reading every word instead of completing the reading guides, which would have infinitely helped my understanding of the material. I also advise you to go into office hours. I’ve actually never done so, which I completely regret. Don’t be like me, kids. By the time I realized that I really should attend office hours, I was so far behind in completing the reading guides (and, I’ll admit, even some readings) that I was embarrassed. I felt that I didn’t even know what to ask my professor because I was so lost. But, believe it or not, the class is actually very manageable if you stay on top of your assignments and attend office hours! I promise you, it is WORTH your time. I know that you don’t know me, but you’re just going to have to trust me on this one.
Now, let’s jump into what I learned this semester in ENVS 160.
Why We Disagree About Climate Change
We began ENVS 160 by reading and discussing Mike Hulme’s book Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Hulme delves into the many different reasons that humans cannot come to an agreement regarding climate change, as you probably could’ve guessed from the title of his book. He focuses largely on the origins of climate change: specifically on the physical versus social aspects that work together in creating the term. He also explains that climate change is interpreted in so many different ways because it is a constructed idea. The physical side of climate change can be observed and quantified while the social side of climate change is largely dependent on the culture and other social factors at hand. These different viewpoints are important components in the disagreement about climate change that Hulme examines. Hulme also spends a bit of time assessing risk perception and why it varies from person to person, based on his/her relationship with the natural world. He claims that individuals and social groups can often be placed into one of four different categories when reacting to risk, which he lists as fatalists, individualists, egalitarians, and hierarchists (Hulme 2009, 186). I think that Hulme’s main take-away is that people disagree about climate change because of their different situations. Coming from all walks of life, having experienced completely different situations, and viewing life from absolutely different and even contradicting perspectives, people cannot see eye to eye when assessing climate change because their eyes are so incredibly unique.
With a primary focus in social relations, our class was assigned a group project, titled “team assignment #1.” Our task was to survey the general public of Portland, asking people about their opinions on climate change. I thought that connecting our reading to a real-life assignment was a really cool way to conclude our discussion on social relations and differing perspectives before moving onto the numbers. Buckle up, folks. You may be in for a bumpy ride.
Making the Modern World
Our next book, Making the Modern World, by Vaclav Smil is a difficult (but not impossible) read. This book is jam-packed with numerical data that is used to analyze capital flows as well as the potential for dematerialization within certain societies. Smil emphasizes the obsession that modern and developed countries, like America, have with materials. He even goes as far as classifying consumption as an addiction, that is just as real and powerful as addictions like alcoholism. He also points out the fact that it wouldn’t be fair to ask the entire world to dematerialize because of the discrepancy in economic levels of security in the line, “Voluntary simplicity can only appeal to those who have enough to choose to live with less” (Smil 2014, 179). Smil also provides a few possible steps that we can take to begin the process of dematerializing, like co-owning/renting technologies, elongating product life, and upping our recycling game even more so than we already have (Smil 2014).
Connecting to the idea that not every country is at the same economic level, as some are still in the process of developing while others are fully developed, groups were assigned to research a mineral for our “team assignment #2.” This post focused on establishing a sense of “place,” which can be defined as the combination of an area’s culture, geography, and commerce, among many other factors, and not just a geographical area alone. While researching gypsum production, my team found that although mining can be considered detrimental because of soil erosion and loss of biodiversity that often follow the process, China relies on its gypsum production to boost its economy, since it is the number-one gypsum supplier in the world. This gave us a look at how establishing “place” can really change one’s perspective. In order to begin searching for potential solutions, an array of factors and perspectives must be taken into account while examining any environmental problem.
Classic and Contemporary Environmental Thought
In the next section of ENVS 160, we examined the difference between classic and contemporary environmental thought, which are typically separated as “the old” versus “the new” way of addressing environmental issues. Naturally, we began this endeavor by analysing various viewpoints from the classic side of the debate. Of these, I found Garrett Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons” and Donella Meadows’, Jorgen Randers’, and Dennis Meadows’ “Limits to Growth” incredibly important in establishing a foundation in my understanding of classic environmental thought. These two articles shed light on the absolute necessity of human reform, further emphasizing the idea that nature is pure. Holding an apocalyptic view of the future, many classic environmentalists are technophobic and are more likely to lean towards the conservative side when searching for potential environmental solutions. Contemporary environmental thought, on the other hand, goes against many of the classical views, and often questions classical environmental thought altogether. The contemporary side sees the natural world through a hybrid lens, exploring ideas like deep ecology and the Anthropocene. Contemporary environmentalists are more likely to support the use of technology when searching for possible solutions to environmental problems and are also more progressive in their beliefs. We then read Leigh Phillips’ Austerity Ecology and the Collapse-Porn Addicts, which fell nicely into this contemporary thought category. Phillips provided me with a strong sense of hope, as he illustrated that it is possible to restore many of the negative effects of climate change. Much like the author of our final book, Phillips argues that we need to reform our government if we want to see impactful changes, instead of focusing on individual efforts as many classic environmentalists tend to do.
Wrapping up this classic versus contemporary environmental debate, we were assigned “team assignment #3,” which asked us to research an “ism,” which we defined as a large term that is often used during global environmental discourse. My group chose “deep ecology,” which can be defined as, “environmental philosophy and social movement based in the belief that humans must radically change their relationship to nature from one that values nature solely for its usefulness to human beings to one that recognizes that nature has an inherent value” (Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. 2017). After studying the history and use of this term, we evaluated its many pros and cons, seeing that differing perspectives often have conflicting opinions regarding the term.
Who Rules the Earth?
Lastly, our class examined Paul Steinberg’s, Who Rules the Earth? This book sheds light on the extent to which our lives are governed by the social rules that were largely put in place by people who have since died. Steinberg, too, gives his readers hope by declaring that the possession of power by an individual or a group is only temporary. Steinberg mainly focuses on individual versus institutional-scale action, claiming that if we want to see long-lasting and impactful environmental changes, we must reform the rules in which we live by (Steinberg 2015). Although Steinberg asserts that individual action will never successfully add up to create a large-enough change, he explains in his last chapter that we can still act individually as long as we make sure to think institutionally. He provides us with an example of when one woman, Dr. June Irwin, was able to change the pesticide policy in her hometown of Quebec, Canada by meeting with her town council to express her concerns regarding the harmful effects of these pesticides. The council voted in her favor, and successfully banned the unregulated use of dangerous pesticides (Steinberg 2015, 6). Steinberg illustrates that, instead of acting individually by simply not buying pesticide products for her personal lawn, Irwin found success by thinking big and voicing her opinion to her town council.
In concluding this section of the course, we were asked to create four individual posts to reflect on our experience in ENVS 160 and to connect many of the works that we examined to each other. “Individual post #1,” asked us to reflect on the many ways that ENVS 160 has changed us. I largely focused on forgetting much of what I was taught while growing up and in my high school environmental science class. I also touched on new skills that I have learned, like establishing place and staying away from big, meaningless words in my scholarly writing. “Individual post #2,” asked us to find significant connections between multiple works that we had spent the semester analysing. It was a great way to *try* to wrap my head around everything that I’ve learned, although I must admit that I’m still in the process of doing so and think that I will continue to be for a long time to come. “Individual post #3,” asked us to reflect on the many ideas that Paul Steinberg shared in his book Who Rules the Earth? I discussed the idea that enough people need to implement change for the right reasons if we want to make improvements for future generations. “Individual post #4,” asked us to reflect on everything that we have been learning and decide how we will move forward, beyond ENVS 160. I decided that I will continue to focus on my individual action in ways like being a conscious consumer and educating my friends, family, and peers on what I have learned throughout this course. I also discussed how I will practice institutional thinking by first participating in things like signing petitions, protesting, and attending community discussions, and then by working to change the content of today’s media sources. If we want to see change, we need to educate the masses and I think that the best, most efficient way to do so is through the media since it is such a large part of American culture.
If you haven’t figured it out already, ENVS 160 is what many would call interdisciplinary. At times, it’ll feel as though the material is all over the place and you may not know right from left or up from down. Please, please be patient–it’s a virtue, afterall. Eventually, you will begin to naturally make a connection here and a connection there and then everything will (probably) fall into place. As my professor said today in class, the process must be systematic in order to get closure. It’ll be difficult at times but use the resources provided! You CAN do this! And, believe it or not, you might actually have fun while doing so.
Well, that’s all she wrote! I’d like to thank those of you who stuck around until the end and I wish you all luck on your ENVS 160 journey.
References:
“Deep Ecology.” Britannica Online Academic Edition, 2017, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
Hardin, Garrett. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science. Accessed on December 22, 2011.
Hulme, Mike. 2000. Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction, and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meadows, Donella H. et al. 1974. The limits to growth: a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind.New York: Universe Books.
Phillips, Leigh. 2011. Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defense of Growth, Progress, Industry, and Stuff. UK: Zero Books. Kindle edition.
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Smil, Vaclav. 2014. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley.