Connection One: Trying to change individual people’s minds or lifestyles is not an effective course of action. Differences in opinions regarding the role and legitimacy of science, religious and political beliefs, cultural conditions etc. contribute to deeply internalized biases and habits. “Depending on who one is and where one stands — the idea of climate change carries quite different meanings and seems to imply quite different courses of action,” (Hulme 2009, xxvi). Varying perceptions of risk, interpretations of the past and visions for the future dramatically alter beliefs regarding climate change, and their deep-rooted nature makes them difficult to change on a significant scale. These beliefs manifest in different ways, ranging in extent of environmental harm.
Many problematic habits are a product of larger systemic forces acting in such a way that causes the majority of citizens to participate at least somewhat involuntarily. For example, people who are unaware of the ecological benefits to buying organic produce or are unable to afford it are not intentionally killing microbial life, pollinator habitats, and intoxicating the soil and water runoff – the problem is out of their control. The same can be said for our plastic consumption; convenience and consumerism are mantras of the United States, and our excessive dependence on (single use/disposable) plastics make that clear. By the early 1930’s, about 50,000t of plastic was being produced, but “with a greater availability of hydrocarbon feedstocks, worldwide synthesis rose rapidly by an order of magnitude, reaching 100 Mt in 1089, 200 Mt in 2002, and 265 Mt in 2010,” (Smil 2014, 42). Abstaining from plastic use at an individual level conveys an understanding of the problem, but ultimately makes little difference due to corporate consumption.
Connection Two: Climate change is too complex for anything less than intersectional efforts across all structures in our lives (i.e. education, economic, agricultural, scientific, technological, etc.) that will eventually result in a radical cultural change. Consumption has become almost synonymous with the American lifestyle. “During the process it has become closely intertwined with perceptions of class ranking and social status, it has offered opportunities for assuming various identities, it has promoted individual and inter-generational aspirations, it has become a tool of desire, passion, and gratification, and it has brought the rewards of personal indulgence,” (Smil 2014, 176). Environmental degradation has become a byproduct of most consumption and many common habits. Bill McKibben claims that, “At root, the climate crisis isn’t just political, economic or even environmental; it’s spiritual … [and requires] a simpler life that’s free of compulsive distraction allows space for awareness, friendship and deeper reflection,” (Hulme 2009, 168). As individuals realize the need for significant change, the next step is to find others with common goals to work with; collaboration and cooperation are important drivers of chance across all levels of society: communities, states, nations, etc., and successful large-scale change is dependent on smaller changes across all sectors of society. “We need to think and act at multiple levels if we are to make progress on vexing social and environmental problems,” (Steinberg 2015, 163).
Connection Three: The future of a healthier Earth depends on progressive thinking, as ecologically conscious advancements are needed within education, habits, policy, technology, etc. This kind of mentality requires and creates hope for the future, as opposed to apocalyptic visions and philosophy. “The problems are indeed very serious, and as a rhetorical strategy, an emphasis on pending catastrophe certainly grabs our attention. But it does not sufficiently motivate action. Indeed it may have the opposite effect, as a sense of despair creates psychological detachment, turning people away from politics and civic engagement,” (Steinberg 2015, 44). Dwelling on the possibility of the grim future if we continue on the trajectory we are on leaves no room for new ideas and solutions. However, considering a bright future will inspire ideas of how to achieve it.
Future planetary and human health also rely on current respect for future generations. The “argument for a low discount rate is essentially an ethical one: the welfare of a future person should matter just as much to us as the welfare of a living person. There should be no discrimination against the unborn just because they are not yet born” (Hulme 2009, 121). The tendency to put our current needs and desires above those of future people is likely do to cultural conditionings that teach self-centeredness. To live harmoniously with the world requires a shift from egocentric to biospheric thinking. In an ideal future society, “once basic material needs are taken care of, the sense of wellbeing and satisfaction would be derived from experiences that are not at all, or only marginally, correlated with higher energy flows and expanding material possessions,” (Smil 2014, 174)
Works Cited:
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Smil, Vaclav. 2014. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley.
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth? : How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.