Start Here
Coming into Introduction to Environmental Studies the scope of the subject may seem daunting, and what I have found is that this overwhelming feeling may not go away in one short semester. ENVS 160 will clarify and expand specific lessons and aspects of the subject through readings, projects, discussion, and reflection. I have found skepticism to be crucial in the world of environmental studies, as there are discreditable sources, facts, and ideas out in our world today, and even more crucial in ENVS 160 as we quickly were made aware that many facts, figures, beliefs, and language we grew up with may not be sound. All four sections of the course expose some type of crucial distinction or misconception that addresses how environmental issues are communicated, viewed, understood, internalized, and solved. These lessons were for the most part introduced through the readings, recognized through the provided reading guides, absorbed through class discussions, and understood through assignments. For me, this process seemed to lead to the most complete understanding of concepts when I engaged and found ways to connect the material to other topics or interests. Environmental Studies is as interdisciplinary as it gets, and to fully embrace the beauty and depth of our discussed concepts connections must be drawn within ENVS and beyond.
Understanding Disagreement
We began our ENVS journey, as I assume you will too, by unpacking the large concept that is Climate change. We studied why we disagree about the issue in Mike Hulme’s Why We Disagree About Climate Change, and we used Hulme’s insight to understand projects we conducted outside the Lewis & Clark bubble, though still within the substantially insulated Portland community. Hulme teaches us that ultimately we disagree because we as people have different values, beliefs, and views. He makes the important distinction of big “C” Climate change, that characterizes Climate change as a constructed idea that recognizes social and cultural implications related to the concept. Hulme believes Climate change “has both physical and cultural connotations”, connotations that are not recognized in small “c” climate change because the phrase only addresses scientific evidence (Hulme 2009, 4). This idea that Climate is a constructed idea that is made up differently for people depending on how they were raised, what they value, and the things they trust calls for the reevaluation of the disagreement on Climate change, as it is longer about whether or not people accept or reject science, but rather what social differences are preventing people from agreeing. We took this new knowledge to the streets of Portland where we conducted surveys on how people in Portland viewed the issue of Climate change and used the lesson of Hulme’s work, that we disagree on Climate change because of differing views, values, and comforts to trust, to help understand our results. This assignment allowed us to see how real people interact with environmental issues and the lessons from our readings, which reinforced the idea that Climate change is not a pure issue of scientific fact, but rather the various emotions, views, and societal values associated with climate change.
Wrestling with Consumption and the Life of a Mineral
Following the section on Climate change and what the concept truly encompasses, you will move onto the idea of materials and dematerialization, reading Vaclav Smil’s Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. In this reading the main lessons are accompanied by numbers, lots and lots of numbers. We discussed the statistics associated with everyday materials and used said statistics to understand what Smil refers to as “relative” and “absolute” dematerialization. He describes relative dematerialization as the reduction in one material, but the increase in materials used overall. This dilemma is most apparent in substitution, a major cause of relative dematerialization, as there is “a substantial reduction of material used”, but not true “absolute dematerialization” (Smil 2014, 120-121). Smil makes this important distinction between “relative” and “absolute dematerialization to clarify how the reduction in consumption of one material rarely indicates dematerialization as a whole. Smil’s work also introduces idea of Jevon’s paradox, an important concept when looking at the reality of consumption. Jevon’s paradox states that with increased efficiency, comes increased consumption. In other words, “It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuels is equivalent to a diminishing consumption” (Smil 2014, 130). This paradox along with Smil’s explanation of relative and absolute dematerialization holds the truth of a harsh reality, that consumption is not as easy to cure as one might expect. We cannot simply substitute all of the bad materials for the good, and we cannot simply replace all technology with more efficient models, we must make technology that erases human actions if we want to make absolute dematerialization a reality. To accompany our Smil reading, we conducted our own research on a specific material of our choice, using the situated model of understanding to fully grasp the implications, impacts, life and use of our material. Through this project we were able to work through the idea of a situating a material, understanding the material for not just its basic physical properties, but also the full weight it carries in our world. This weight is assessed by how it interacts with people, places, and things, and from the project we were able to fully understand the idea of “place” as it pertains to our material. We learned that “place” is not simply a location, but rather the combination of “nature” or physical elements, “social relations” or the basic working of a society, and “meaning” or the struggles and conversations that occur in the area. This project in conjunction with Smil’s reading illustrated what materials truly are in our world and what the future of consumption may look like realistically.
Classic vs. Contemporary
Next stop, Classic and Contemporary environmental thought. There are various readings used to expose the dichotomy between class and contemporary environmental thought, including Leigh Philip’s Austerity Ecology & The Collapse-Porn Addicts, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus’ Love Your Monsters, Garrett Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons, and Richard White’s Problem with Purity. All of the readings together help define the classic thought as the voice against technology and altering our pure physical environment and contemporary thought as that which places value in new technology and the understanding of nature as a hybrid entity. This distinction is instrumental in how we approached Environmental Studies in ENVS 160, as we often asked ourselves what ideas and opinions are examples of classic or contemporary environmentalism. To apply this idea of classic and contemporary to larger concepts in Environmental thought and we examined the meaning, history, and controversy of specific Isms. We used our newfound knowledge on classic and contemporary environmentalism and thought to assess the role of our ism, ours being ecocriticism. Through taking a new look at our ism in terms of classic and contemporary ideas, we were introduced to new dimensions of the concept of ecocriticism. Just as the distinction between classic and contemporary informed our research on ecocriticism, it will most probably encourage you to rethink what how ideas define and value nature and the big word you will be taught to never use in ENVS 160, “the environment”.
Rules Rule the Earth
The course’s final section focuses on what you can do moving forward. We read Who Rules the Earth? By Paul Steinberg to understand what effective action is and what/who does and does not hold power. Steinberg discredits much of what many students heard in the past when looking at action, individual action will solve our problems and the way to face issues is to “think globally and act locally” (Steinberg 2015, 163). Instead, Steinberg argues that we must act and think Institutionally, he asserts that we must “think and act at multiple levels if we are to make progress on vexing social and environmental problems”, or in other words “think vertically” (Steinberg 2015, 163). Even though he identifies Institutional power as the crucial element to change, Steinberg does not fully discourage individual action. He recognizes that institutional change is most effective and best implemented when there is public support, similar opinions among constituencies, and personal initiative to take small actions, but also acknowledges that the presence of those without cooperating institutional action will not be the source of change. These ideas will be helpful in understanding what you can do personally to make a difference in environmental issues, when individual actions seem to be discouragingly ineffective. To internalize the information on effective environmental action and all of the concepts that lead us to the discussion of action, we completed four individual blog posts that served as a platform to process reflections, connections, and what we learned over the semester and what we will take with us as we work to change, understand, and/or appreciate the environment.
What a Trip
Throughout ENVS 160 we are asked to rethink concepts and reconsider common beliefs. We learn to appreciate Climate change and nature as a multifaceted entity that includes human interactions and implications. We realize the true meaning of materialization and the trends of consumption that need to be taken into account when promoting dematerialization as well as the importance of “place” when examining the life and impact of a material. We discuss the key difference of classic and contemporary environmentalism and how it must be understood in order to recognize the various opinions and views on environmental action. And, finally we comprehend what we as global citizens can do to take action in the environmental arena. With ENVS 160 coming to a close for us, it is now apparent that while each section focuses on a distinct topic, they each build on each other to unpack some of the dense ideas in environmental studies such as action, Climate change, consumption, and policy. When going through each section, I think it is paramount to reflect on the lessons you learned previously and work to connect them to each other, other aspects of Environmental Studies, other subjects, and the larger world. It may get overwhelming, but take it one stop at a time and they will eventually connect. Enjoy the journey!
References
Callenbach, Ernest. 1975. Ecotopia: The notebooks and reports of William Weston. Berkeley, CA: Banyan Tree Books.
DeFries, Ruth S. 2012. Planetary opportunities: A social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainable future. BioScience. Accessed on June 22, 2016.
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.
Kennedy, Eric B and Jacqueline Ho. Discursive diversity in introductory environmental studies. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences. Accessed on July 24, 2015.
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.
Naess, Arne. 1973. The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range ecology Movement. Inquiry.
Ostrom, Elinor. 2008. The challenge of common-pool resources. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. Accessed on January 20, 2013.
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.
Smil, Vaclav. 2005. Limits to growth revisited: A review essay. Population & Development Review.
Smil, Vaclav. 2014. Making the Modern World. Wiley & Sons.
Spies, Thomas Allen. 2009. Old growth and a new nature: The ambivalence of science and religion. Island Press.
Steinberg, Paul. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walley, Christine J. 2004. Where There is no Nature. Princeton University Press.
White, Lynn. 1967. The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis. Science.
White, R. 2000. The Problem with Purity. Tanner Lectures on Human Values