Among the technological, economic, and ecological lenses described in Parker and Blodgett’s report, economic and ecological lenses best characterizes the view of China. But there is another sociological lens through which climate change can be viewed and it plays a more important role.
China’s economy has developped rapidly over the past decades, but its environment condition has also worsened sharply. Because of China’a immense population base and its economic dimension, the environmental problem has become international and has a growing influence in the international society.
To some extent, China’s environmental problem is a by product of its reform and opening-up decades ago. The purpose of the reform was to liberate and develop productivity, but for a country with limited capital but abandant resource, people could only take advantages of its resource. So at the beginning of the reform, there were new established corporations everywhere which made the environment badly polluted. The foreign-funded enterprises in China at that time mostly had very severe pollution problem that they were washed out from their own countries.
The aggrevation of the problem was caused by different factors. China has the largest population pressure, owing to its thirteen hundred million people. In order to enable one fifth of the world’s population to survive, people had to ask for more and more from nature and neglected the adverse influence these actions had on it. China is also facing economic pressure. As a developing country, China’s economic development is its main mission. The environment and the economy have an inverse relationship, so people find that the better the economy is, the worse the environment is getting. Especially with the development of urbanization and industrialisation, only more pollution will be let out. But at the same time, China does not have adequate capital to control and fix the problem and to improve the environment. Moreover, Chinese people have never had a high ecological awareness. Eventually, with so many disastrous catastrophies happening in China in the past several decades, people began to realize that the problems of environment and climate change have become a threat to all mankind.
In 2005, China established the strategy of sustainable development as the country’s basic strategy. It is aiming to create a society that “satisfies its needs without jeopardizing the prospects of future generations.” (Parker and Blodgett, 22) Ever since, the government has been taking an active role in solving the problem and going towards sustainability. There are organizations being founded, reduction goals being made, and activities being held to advance people’s awareness. Climate change is not an issue for only one country, instead, every country should take up its own responsibility, and together, create a better living environment.
As the Earth continues to heat up because of global warming one must wonder if the policy decisions reached at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will be too late.
It should come as no surprise that the Earth is getting hotter. Recent scientific findings have definitively concluded that the Earth’s temperature rose by 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century, an unprecedented rate that is likely to increase in the future. Moreover, sea levels have risen 3.1 mm per year (an all-time high) and greenhouse gases have reached damaging and almost irreversible levels.
With this, it is imperative that a global policy consensus be reached at the UNFCCC. The problem is the multitude of lenses people through which people view climate change. I would argue, from a United States student perspective, that using an ecological and economic lens to develop a policy solution would be the most effective and strategic.
Within the United States, an environmental consciousness is just now developing and is therefore quite a ways from where it should be. At schools like Dickinson College, environmental consciousness is of the utmost concern. The campus is filled with recycling bins and sustainability is often built into the curriculum. However, Dickinson is a small representation of colleges and American society. When I studied at New York University for a semester, I found that recycling bins and a concern for the environment were virtually nonexistent in both the university and New York City. Concern for the environment needs to be taught in schools and households early on so that an ecological lens and connection to the Earth can be developed.
Although a connection to the planet is important, in a capitalistic society such as America, economic terms are given the most priority. From a micro-standpoint, in states like California, someone trying to recycle plastic bottles can earn at most only ten cents per bottle, meaning that it would take 100 bottles to equal ten dollars. With this limited financial benefit, there is little incentive to recycle leading many not to. This same concept can be applied to large corporations that with no tax incentives feel no need to consider external costs such as the environment.
With the development of an ecological consciousness and increased government incentives for green initiatives, I believe the United States can begin to address climate change. These two lenses should be used at the UNFCCC to develop policy solutions. However, scientists have argued that damage has already been done and in order to prevent irreversible damage CO2 levels need to be reduced to 2 percent of today’s current levels by 2050, a goal many would call unobtainable. Is this possible and if so which lens should we use to sway policy makers. This is a question that we can only wait to answer at the UNFCCC in Copenhagen in December.
My philosophy on climate change policy resembles a combination of the three lenses described by Parker and Blodgett in the CRS Report for Congress: the “technological lens,” the “economic lens,” and the “ecological lens.” Each lens has a different view of the global climate change problem. The technological lens views climate change as an opportunity to create more efficient technology; the economic lens views climate change as a global market where the solution lies within internalizing externalities associated with pollution; the ecological lens views the global climate change problem as an individual and societal behavior problem influenced by the values of materialism and industrialization.
Kyoto--wear the change you want to see.
I believe the collaboration of these lenses will bring about change in our society. New, more efficient technology will be necessary to continue an industrialized lifestyle and to help the world adapt to the changes associated with global warming. The world must recognize the practicality in involving economic incentives to reduce carbon emissions. Not every individual will make green decisions without these incentives. Not every nation will make green investments without an economic return. But most importantly, the ecological lens advocates for environmental education to help societies and individuals make responsible choices in favor of reducing emissions.
The problem is multi-lateral. Global warming affects the industrial sector, economics, and behavioral patterns. Each lens has something to contribute to the efforts to hinder and to adapt to the changes happening to our environment. Only through collaboration of engineers, economists and ecologists will the environmental movement have enough leverage to create the necessary changes to our greenhouse gas emissions.
Tags: climate change education, ecological lens, Grace Lange, US Energy Policy
Climate change is not an issue to be fixed by entire populations; it won’t require an inspiring montage of an entire community pitching in, bicycling instead of driving cars and turning off lights when they aren’t in use (with the help of their animal friends à la Snow White). It cannot require a change in our value systems towards an ecological conscience because people are, for the most part, self-interested.
And rightly so. While it is in humanity’s self-interest to preserve the environment under which it has flourished, it is not in the self-interest of individuals (who will die before they see major ecological changes) and so individuals find ecological morality to be a hard set of values to take up. The question we ask ourselves as Americans are: how does this benefit me? And changing that ingrained value may be impossible.
But luckily we can use this value to combat global warming. As Parker and Blodgett suggest in their CRS Report for Congress, climate change can be countered through technological ingenuity — creating more cost-effective technologies that are also environmentally beneficial. Since it is in the best interest of the consumer to purchase a car with better mileage or an energy efficient washer/dryer (he will pay less to sustain their operation) the consumer not only serves his own interests, but also the interests of the environment.
It should thus be the goal of governments to set emissions standards that companies can meet with technological advances. Such an approach is far-sighted because it is consistently sustainable, and also serves the needs of the people. The technological and economic approaches also mitigates fears that environmental issues come at extreme cost to the economy — the approach may reduce carbon emissions at no net cost to the economy whatsoever, according to Parker and Blodgett.
Climate change is an issue to be fixed by creative governments and individuals. By approaching old technologies in new ways (see the chapter “Curitiba” ) we can keep a value system of self-interest while simultaneously serving ecological ends. We can’t change individuals, but don’t have to — after all, history has always been just the tale of the great men (and women).
ead all articles by Brett Shollenberger on this blog!
Read articles by Brett Shollenberger in Dickinson Magazine!
Read Brett Shollenberger‘s blog!
Tags: Brett Shollenberger, climate
My viewpoint on climate change most closely resembles the “ecological lens” described by Parker and Blodgett. I grew up chasing frogs in muddy streams and burying walnuts for the squirrels to eat in the winter. Yup, I was that kid: the one with mulch in her pockets, who never owned a white shirt because they couldn’t keep me out of the red Virginia clay. Needless to say, I developed a sense of belonging outside, and my passion for environmental action comes from a powerful feeling of moral obligation.
At times, it’s an angry approach. Often, it’s a fearful one. The climate crisis to me doesn’t feel like a great opportunity for new technologies, for human creativity to triumph again. Let’s not forget that it was our own technological brilliance that got us into this mess. While it will certainly be a major part of combating climate change, it seems to me that technological progress has proved itself dangerous as a dominant philosophy of humankind. The cautious little voice inside me murmurs nervously that we cannot just keep living the wasteful, everyday lives that we lead and trust technology to clean up after us. It’s too late for that to be enough, and we have too much to lose.
And there is the heart of the problem: our increasing disconnection, this perceived “distance” from the natural world. Now that so many people live in high-rise, concrete apartments on 
wide expanses of asphalt, of course the earth feels far away! If your water comes from a pipe in your kitchen and your food comes from a cold, white grocery store, of course nature doesn’t seem like an active member or influence over your life. It’s too distant to inspire a personal appreciation for the soil that grew your tomatoes, or the chicken that laid your eggs. Even if you know where your food is from, and even if you know all the dangers and potential, consequences of global climate change, without some personal attachment to the earth, making changes to your lifestyle to protect it may seem abstract and forced. To really inspire effective changes on an everyday level, you have to know the issues, but more importantly, you have to care about them on a personal level. Sadly, it’s a smaller number of people who grew up playing tag behind the stalls of the farmer’s market, for whom the earth is an integral, obvious member of our lives everyday.
The success of the environmental movement is hinged upon inspiring governments, business, and individuals to care about the earth, and to make choices everyday to limit their impact on the planet. The technological and economical lenses are means to an end, but first, everyone has to know, and everyone has to care.
Your Comments