Last semester I was told that ENVS 160 would be relatively easy because it was a “soft” science – ENVS 160 was anything but easy. Unlike most traditional science courses, ENVS 160 incorporates both the natural and social sciences in order to better understand the complexity of current environmental issues. I transferred to Lewis & Clark from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and took an ENVS course at both institutions. The main difference between the two ENVS courses was that the class at UNLV revolved around a textbook filled with information and facts; whereas at LC the main focus was on perspectives and theories. In order to evaluate these perspectives and theories, we read: Why We Disagree About Climate Change by Mike Hulme, Making The Modern World by Vaclav Smil, several Classic vs. Contemporary Thought articles, and Who Rules The Earth by Paul F. Steinberg. While the course load for ENVS 160 was more rigorous than I originally anticipated, it allowed me to build upon what my current knowledge of the environment and challenged me to go further.
The first section of ENVS 160 includes the text Why We Disagree About Climate Change by Mike Hulme. Hulme begins his book by arguing that our experiences and depictions of climate change often reflects our cultural values. Typically, as humans, we tend to disagree, a lot. Hulme argues that the reason we disagree, especially about climate change, is because “‘How [and why] climate change matters will always depend upon how society has evolved and continues to evolve, just as will the significance of those aspects of climate that remain the same,’” (Hulme 2009, 33). One way this class differentiated itself from other ENVS classes was that rather than simply reading about why we disagree about climate change, we were required to go downtown Portland and ask people about their thoughts on climate change. This process was neat because it allowed us to gain a greater insight on why individuals typically disagree about climate change, but also provided us with an opportunity to develop our people skills and connect with our community. After completing this project – Climate Change Public Opinion – we were able to analyze the data and it ultimately enabled us to gain a better understanding on the differencing of opinions towards climate change.
The second section of ENVS 160 covered the text Making The Modern World by Vaclav Smil. Smil investigates how the consumption of materials around the world are causing current environmental issues(e.g. excess consumption of materials). One way that Smil does this is through LCA’s or Life Cycle Assessments. LCA’s, “Evaluate the various burdens imposed by production, use and disposal (or reuse) of products, and by the performance of services,” (Smil 2014, 103). In this second unit of ENVS 160, we had another group project – Situating Minerals – which demanded us to choose a mineral and do some research about it (origins of occurrence, impact of the environment of the local community, and uses of the mineral). This project showed me exactly how much humans consume and the numbers were not pretty. Therefore, absolute dematerialization of all materials does not have to be the only viable solution, but we cannot keep consuming at the rates we are now.
In the third section of ENVS 160, we discussed the different views of environmentalism – Classic vs. Contemporary. Classic environmentalists typically view nature as pure, are technophobic with regards to environmental solutions, and hold a conservative mindset about returning to past realities (Proctor DS Training Site 2017). On the other hand, contemporary environmentalists view nature with a hybrid perspective, support technological movements for possible environmental solutions, and believe in progressivism or are future oriented (Proctor DS Training Site 2017). Classic and contemporary environmentalists drastically differ in their opinions about what nature should look like and how we should go about solving the current environmental issues. This lead us to our next project – Interrogating Isms – which had us take a look at different “isms” (e.g. biologism, cosmopolitanism, ecomodernism, and neoliberalism). This project allowed me to develop my analysis skills and observe how different ideas all connect to environmentalism.
The fourth and final section of ENVS 160 ended with Who Rules The Earth? by Paul F. Steinberg. Steinberg argues that, “Social rules enable societies to function. They are also the source of our most recalcitrant dysfunctions, driving us blithely down paths that no rational society would choose to follow,” (Steinberg 2015, 11). In order to see lasting change, Steinberg says that we must first become aware of these rules, and then change them on an institutional level. This book was probably the most enjoyable book to read but it was not only an easy read, but it provided me with a feeling of hope; that society can tackle these monstrous issues such as climate change. For this section, rather than another group project, we were assigned four individual posts. The first post required us to list three key lessons that we have learned in ENVS 160 and how it has changed us. The second post had us identify and describe three connections between the previous four sections mentioned. The third post was a synthesis/reflection post on our final text, Who Rules The Earth? And how this text can be applied to our personal and scholarly life. The fourth post acted as reflection post about how we can take what we have learned in ENVS 160 and apply it to our personal and scholarly lives.
ENVS 160 has almost been like a spontaneous road trip with no GPS. A lot of the times it felt as if I were driving on an unfamiliar road and somewhat lost because of all the new concepts and ideologies that were thrown at me. There were more times than I can remember where I wished I could have asked Siri to simplify these complex perspectives and theories. However, I quickly learned that this attitude of wanting a simple solution to completely answer complex problems is why we have failed to tackle monstrous issues such as climate change. Eventually, I was able to grasp some of the ideas and boy did it feel amazing; similar to that of unexpectedly arriving at a clearing that has been not been touched by man. While this class was absolutely not what I expected and the journey was definitely rough, what I have gained from this course is without a doubt worth all of the time and effort that was put into this class.
References:
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction, and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smil, Vaclav. 2014. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Steinberg, Paul. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press