There is always a great deal of overlap when discussing environmental issues. In ENVS 160 we read many different books that offered differing solutions and sources of climate change. In fact, a key message that was conveyed in all the texts was the complexity of the issue and the fundamental changes we need to make with our mindset. A key message in Why We Disagree About Climate Change and Who Rules the Earth was that our current actions are not sufficient in solving climate change. Legislation will not be fast enough, nor effective enough to help create lasting change. Steinberg, author of Who Rules the Earth notes that “To bring about lasting change requires modifying the very rules that societies live by.” (Steinberg, 2015). Hulmes goes even further by stating “We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.” (Hulmes, 2009). Steinberg states that we need to change our viewpoints to create change while Hulmes tells us exactly what change we need to make. We view climate change as an issue that needs to be solved so we can revert the earth back to where we were before, and the only way we think we can do it is through our modern society and political system. However these author suggests that it requires a total shift in mindset and possibly societal system to create a ‘solution’.
Another thread that was carried through the multiple texts was how deeply our beliefs affect our actions on climate change. Hulmes gets right to the point by stating “Our beliefs have a profound influence on our attitudes, on our behavior and on our politics” (Hulme, 2009). In this statement he is referencing possible belief in a higher being and how that may change our attitude. Contrary to what most people think, having religious beliefs does not equate to a completely an anthropocentric viewpoint. As religious views are often connected to ethical views, classic environmentalism often was assumed to go better with traditional religious beliefs. However, it is possible to be more biocentric and even contemporary while still having religious beliefs. Going through the difference between classic and contemporary environmentalism and reading about the councils created by religious institutions to address climate change certainly supports that idea. As with religious beliefs, how you view the environment greatly affects the solutions you may find. Classic or contemporary views argues as to what our role is in climate change and whether or not we would be able to find a solution for it. In some ways, classic or contemporary thought is the ethical code for climate scientists and scholars. To bridge the gap between the two, commonalities must be found. This is the same for religious institutions and non religious. Climate change is an issue that affects all, despite your beliefs, therefore it is necessary to find a solution that works for all.
The most prominent thread through all the texts is the need to think outside of ourselves and the need to develop a world view. In Making the Modern World, Smil argues that material change in the upper and middle class does not create a solution and that we need to reach out to the impoverished as well. (Smil, 2013). Steinberg goes further by titling one of his chapters “Recycling is Not Enough” (Steinberg, 2015). This chapter explores and emphasizes that local change will not create a solution, and that we must look beyond ourselves to create change. Contemporary environmental thought goes beyond the individual and states that institutional change will be the only way we can make progress.
Works Cited
Paul F. Steinberg. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Smil, Vaclav. 2014. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley.
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press.