As I’ve come to understand it, being successful in environmentally-oriented discussions means that, despite the never-ending onslaught of contradictions, one must just try to hang onto the notion that there is a chance at making progress somewhere. Unfortunately, even progress is subjective. Finding a catch-all to make everyone happy when addressing large-scale, multifaceted issues such as climate change is virtually impossible. Even small-scale issues, like a species facing extinction, leads to a variety of conflicts. Understanding the roots of these issues, then communicating sufficiently, then finding some grounds for agreement is a trying and tedious process, but that’s what needs to be done.
When learning about what is ‘best’ for ‘the environment,’ it is always healthy to maintain a moderate level of skepticism. Not all theories are reputable, like Tragedy of the Commons, and not all campaigns are transparent, like organic foods (see previous post). These two examples are both instances where their facades lead them to be incorrectly supported, despite clear flaws. Questioning everything will not always lead to a complete revelation, as is the case with buildings certified by LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). These buildings “would dramatically reduce water and energy use. They would recycle demolition waste, incorporate recycled materials into furniture, and landscape with native plants friendly wildlife” (Steinberg 2015, 41). While their goal is to make buildings environmentally friendly, they could benefit from critiques that could make their construction processes or LEED certification more effective (See more on LEED here).
Once everything has been flushed out and understood as best it can, discussion begins. As mentioned in an earlier post, some approaches appeal to groups of individuals better than others, called “cultural theory” (Hulme 2009, 186) (see here for more). Much like cultural theory, there are four myths that these groups are inclined to believe, “which may bind together otherwise quite different perspectives and people.” The four are ‘lamenting Eden,’ ‘presaging apocalypse,’ ‘constructing babel,’ and ‘celebrating jubilee,’ each appealing to instinctual aspect of human nature: “nostalgia, fear, pride and justice” (Hulme 2009, 340-354). Orienting discourse to be appealing to these groups can be effective in finding a common ground, and making solutions in what they view is the most beneficial path. While these do conflict on some levels, they can all be incorporated to create agreements that invite all four viewpoints, as it is most likely they can make progress in their separate pursuits.
Creating a diverse group to discuss solutions is not limited to finding the believers in the different myths or the different categories of cultural theory. It also applies to representation the different members of political parties, different industries, and different socioeconomic backgrounds to find the best way to address climate issues. This may require some rearranging of political power to incorporate more members of less prominent parties, like the green party, to have their voices heard in the process of rulemaking (Steinberg 2015, 247-250). The contributions of as many people as possible could help promote cohesion and support from marginalized or underrepresented groups, decreasing the contention by allowing an equal opportunity to hear climate-related facts and their concerns heard.
With the better understanding of climate knowledge and wider distribution, with more voices accounted for the change will be slow, but inclusive. This is not isolated to political leaders, and can be done by individuals who choose to contribute, on large or small scales. Much like how LEED buildings could be improved for their eco-friendliness, a household has the choice to invest in solar panels and use less water; a university has the choice to use motion-sensor lights instead of the ones that burn energy all night and a city can regulate the amount of emissions from the production sites within its limits.
Works Cited