As we advance towards the end of the semester, the weather has been gradually getting warmer, leading students to drag their books and laptops outside so they can work while lounging in the sun. I too have been enjoying the beautiful sunshine; however, I can’t help but think about how strange it is that the weather already feels like summer in the middle of April. Sunday (4/17) and Monday (4/18) both had record-setting heat, with temperatures of 87 and 81 degrees respectively. Though I know that weird weather is sometimes just a temporary anomaly, I find myself wondering whether these record-setting temperatures are part of the larger pattern of climate change.
Climate change is a topic that we frequently consider in environmental studies, from a variety of different perspectives. Not only is a climate science class among the offerings that we can pick from to fulfill our science requirement, we also discuss climate change in political, sociological, and economic contexts. In his post about a recent Boston Globe article regarding record-breaking temperatures, Alex Groher-Jick discusses the theoretical aspects of climate. He points out some of the dichotomies that exist within discussions of climate change, most notably utopia versus dystopia and science versus values. Conversations about climate change are often framed in terms of the dystopian harm it could cause, as well as the need to listen to science in order to prevent this harm. However, Alex points out that the use of frightening environmental rhetoric can actually cause a freeze response in potential actors, wherein they do not act because they believe the situation is already hopeless. He also connects science with ethics, arguing that although science is key to understanding climate change, global warming also has tangible effects on human beings. For example, a severe drought in Syria has exacerbated the political situation there, contributing to the flow of Syrian refugees migrating to Europe. Climate science can and should inform policy, but human factors should also be taken into account.
Discussions of climate change’s human effects often segue into conversations about justice. The effects of climate change will not be evenly distributed around the globe; rather, they are likely to disproportionately affect populations that are already vulnerable due to their geographic location. For example, residents of low-lying island nations (such as the Marshall Islands) are likely to lose their homes as the islands disappear underwater due to sea level rise. Many of these vulnerable places are also impoverished, decreasing their options for mitigating the effects of climate change. Kori Groenveld’s post “A Just Future for Energy in India” details the catch-22 that many countries face when considering climate change and development. With a focus on India, she discusses how developing countries often have to choose between industrialization (which usually relies on fossil fuels) and climate action. The powers of the Global North often urge these countries to use only renewables in order to prevent climate change, despite the fact that the Global North was able to develop using fossil fuels and other resources from colonized nations such as India. Kori does an excellent job of analyzing the complex factors involved in India’s energy development, considering poverty, colonial history, and climate realities.
Both Alex and Kori’s posts shed light on the complexity of climate change as a scientific and political issue. Though climate change as an atmospheric phenomenon can be understood purely by science, dealing with its effects requires understanding of the people and groups involved with the issue and the values they hold. The type of complex thinking required to detangle issues like climate change is exactly what the Environmental Studies Program encourages in its students. Judging by Alex and Kori’s posts and our other student work, students have been successful at thinking critically about environmental studies.