An important part of how I will apply my ENVS knowledge in the future will lie in my increased ability to understand the differing points of view, of which there are many, to the global environmental issue. From this ability, I am able to inspect more critically political events relating to Climate Change, and the opinions of others and myself as to the solution. I have three main takeaways from ENVS 160, each of them supporting the others in a way that expands my ability to understand my world as well as acting in an educated way if I so choose. In this post I will build on concepts I discussed from my other three posts: I understand now the sheer diversity of opinions, the far-reaching impact of governments, and the problem with lumping solutions and people under one big heading of “environment,” or “climate change.”
The diversity of ideas about our common future in the face of Climate Change is a major hurdle to overcome. I think one aspect that makes this problem so large is that many people don’t even realize how differing our opinions are. We often polarize the climate change issue, with “believers” and “non-believers.” As a child, I was always told, in different words, that the reason why Climate Change is still an issue to contend with is partially due to “non-believers” not slowing down progress. In an extremely simplified perspective, this statement remains somewhat true. However, amongst both parties there is disagreement. After taking this class, I now have the critical eye to understand and apply this to my discourse: the climate change issue is not simple, and so a simple statement will not suffice. There is no group of true “believers” because many believe in a different idea of climate change than the next. Even if everyone were to agree that climate change is threatening our world, there are so many other factors to also agree upon that pave the way for a solution. Among the “believers” for instance, there is differing agreement on the up-and-rising neoliberal ideology with its farm local, eat local, buy local agenda (Phillips 2015). There is also differing opinions as to the role of the individual in climate action, versus the role of one’s government and other countries, as an example (Hulme 2009).
Another critical element of bringing my ENVS 160 knowledge into my scholarly and personal life is understanding the far-reaching impact of governments on our systems. It seems obvious that political states would affect the environment, but it’s an easy fact to forget, especially when those states are also influencing each other. Private property regulations have a direct impact on the environment; how the government chooses to allocate private property and to what extent owners can manipulate it can have cross-continental damages (see this post for reference). The EU is a great example of an intergovernmental organization that has gained a lot of power, and through this has a major say in Environmental policies. There is a widespread affect by the EU as a massive economic and political superpower — I know I personally think of the EU as one country, which under scrutiny can be broken into separate national states. The decisions of the governments involved to create and join the EU have a global impact in that they are creating a political force; additionally, they might also be inspiring change towards unity in other regions of the world. This is not necessarily bad, but it is a world-wide effect the EU has. Finally, the way a country chooses to promote and prioritize recycling has a global effect. For instance, the recent surge in China’s economy due in part to their new role the US’s manufacturing cycle definitely demonstrates this. The US is a major manufacturer and consumer of products. China plays its role by recycling most of our waste (Smil 2014). The decision of the US to export our recycling to China, thereby boosting their economy (but also giving them a role to play in the global game of production-consumption) has an intercontinental effect because it’s including two disparate nations whose actions play closely with the other.
Considering the ideas I’ve learned about political roles in Climate Change, I will practice a cautious criticism of the use of “Big Words” both in rhetoric and solutions. Thinking of Climate Change as one massive problem to be solved is paralyzing. Instead, it is necessary to consider the smaller pieces that each need their own individual solutions. In some cases, each of those solutions will differ, based on the ideas and goals of different groups, environments, and political agendas. The global environmental problem needs unique thinking, and I feel the first step is using prior knowledge of the diversity of opinions to educate solution making. No one should hide behind Climate Change Action because I’ve come to the conclusion that that statement means little. Instead, direct action needs to be taken, breaking apart the necessary issues and their personalized solutions. This class has shown me and helped me understand this difficult concept, and I’m ready to apply it to the many discussions and organizations that I’ll hopefully be involved in.
Bibliography