To understand the current environmental situation and to faithfully explain how it came about, it is peculiar to study in a thorough, exhaustive and chronological manner a multitude of “histories”. These encompass the history of human evolution from homo sapiens, the history of the planet’s climate and the history of energy regimes that existed and those in place today. Hence, J. R. McNeill’s chapters 1 and 10 of  “Something New Under the Sun” provide a keen and comprehensive insight on these “histories”. In the first chapter of his book, the author supports his assessments by means of astonishing figures of economic and social development throughout the years of human existence. 

The findings from the supporting evidence are solid proof of incommensurable growth in various fields, accompanied by human and lifestyle emancipation in the past century. Furthermore, through a myriad of landmarks and events that took place all over the world with a focus from 1820, McNeill narrates the evolution of energy regimes, and how the world adopted a new economic functioning, relying on what he calls “non muscular energy”. He then moves onto describing the start of oil drilling in the world, until nuclear power, while highlighting the importance of the amenities it provided humans with, enhancing in an unprecedented manner their lives. 

Also, the 2019 Annual Energy Outlook made by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, adduced the long-term projections for energy regimes up until 2050. With regards to the present and the challenges facing nowadays’ energy regimes and the Earth’s climate, David Roberts’ attempts to explain the current dilemmas and complexities. In his two articles published on Vox magazine, Roberts shows whether or not the implementation of renewable energies would prove beneficial right now, all the while drawing upon the challenges behind their introduction to the current energy regime, the pre-existing issues engendered by fossil fuels, the questions of political will, variability and dispatching of renewable energy, energy storage, pollution, feasibility on the long term and more… On the whole, this week’s readings showcase the complexity of future energy regimes. 

Right now, it is fair to say that the face-to-face with global warming and climate change holistically is a major subject of debate, as elucidated in this week’s readings. The debate arena is undoubtedly heated with different viewpoints.

In the Clapp and Dauvergne piece for instance, liberal, scientific, social and economic interpretations of the global environmental situation are meticulously highlighted and have been respectively assigned classifications. However, the authors of “Paths to a Green World” insisted on pointing out how some bioenvironmentalists, social greens, institutionalists and market liberals could be ambivalent between these “typologies” at times. Interestingly, that ambivalence is perceived among humans of all walks of life, serving as a testament of the complexity of our species and its relationships to the Earth.

Indeed, in “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math”, Bill McKibben attempts to raise awareness around three alarming figures that genuinely concern the scientific community that timelessly alerts policy-makers, law-makers, politicians, economists and corporations (to cite a few), with little success over time.

Charles C. Mann tends to focus on the evolution of Homo sapiens from its apparition 200,000 years ago, to emphasize his fascinating adaptability, what he calls “behavioral plasticity”. He communicates the history of our species, offering an acute comparative study with other species’ “pathway” on the planet, to ultimately conclude that we humans will most likely, and quite simply and similarly to other creatures before us, will go extinct (implicitly pointing out that the environmental situation is only an effect of our evolution, merely a cause).

The Darren McCauley and Raphael Heffron passage is centered around the “just transition”, an initiative pushed forward to incentivize people to shift to green jobs to ensure a smoother transition from a majoritarian fossil-fuel concentrated labor onto a climate-conscious workforce. In effect, the reading introduces a mitigation plan.

This week’s readings present a vast array of information and ideas. Each reading tackles a specific aspect of the discussion and aims at conveying direct messages that contribute critically to the debate. Overall, they are an introduction to a heavy, global, multi-faceted and convoluted situation.

Humans, the most dominant multi-celled organism on the planet, are beginning to come face to face with a bleak future. As the Earth’s natural disasters increase in size and ferocity, and the Earth reaches ever closer to a global temperature of 2 degrees celsius, we, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have little time to prevent catastrophic damage to the Earth. With perhaps a few decades left to stop this environmental disaster, a global, unified front similar to that drawn out by the Paris Climate Agreement must produce substantial action that will reduce current greenhouse emission rates and/or remove the current greenhouse gases that have already been produced. The main issue facing global unity in climate action is, for one, those who deny climate change exists or is a relevant issue, and those who benefit from the current carbon-reliant world such as the oil trusts and major corporations. With incentive and education, however, as well as the combined power of a global front, these opponents to climate action can be overcome. The main issue to tackle, however, is how to rectify the beliefs of the different ideologies of environmentalists that span the long and complex debate about the ways to solve the climate crisis. MIT professors Jennifer Clapp and Peter Dauvergne, in their research paper “Paths to a Green World, The Political Economy of the Global Environment,” identify four main ideological groups that make up most of the political/ideological spectrum in the climate debate.

The first group of environmentalists are the market liberals. They focus on the pursuit of prosperity that drives market economies as the best way to drive “sustainable development,” which can be defined as development that meets the needs of the present but provides a future for the next generations (Clapp and Dauvergne 6). By increasing economic growth, more people will have higher incomes and with the prosperity driven by the market funding and political incentive to improve and protect the environment will arise. They believe the environmental cost of a bigger, global economy will be a short-term downside which will be rectified by the ability of the wealthier, more developed world’s ability to provide tons of funding for environmental research and improvement. Poverty and poor governance are seen as the true evils in the environmental debate, as poor nations are seen by this group as unconcerned with the greater good when they must exploit their resources just to survive.

The second group of environmentalists are the Institutionalists. This group is made up of those in international relations and political science. In a similar way to market liberals, instituionalists believe that globalization is key to creating a united front to solve climate change. Intergovernmental and transnational institutions as well as strong control in the local and national governance are the key to effective environmental policy and action, as these overcome the difficulties of the self-interested sovereign state, anarchic international system by providing collective norms about the greater good and a realm for cooperation among nations (Clapp and Dauvergne 8). They also provide timely aid and technology/research sharing among all nations, allowing for all nations to be at the cutting edge of environmental action.

The third group of environmentalists are the bioenvironmentalists. This group believes that the Earth has reached a carrying capacity of humans, who have now begun an ecological disaster on the planet that will phase us out. Population growth and our overconsumption of resources are seen as the main cause of the natural disasters, habitat loss, and the complete changing of the chemistry of the Earth. They see the increased consumption caused by globalization and market economies as dangers to the Earth, and stress respect and rationing for the Earth’s environment and resources. Limiting economic expansion and population growth are keys to solving the environmental crisis (Clapp and Dauvergne 10).

The fourth group of environmentalists are the Social Greens. They believe that the environmental crisis is a social crisis. Certain populations and nations are inordinately effected by the environmental crisis, and receive less aid and resources in the current global system and global consumption. These marginalized groups suffer because of the actions of a global hierarchy dominated by the Western nations and the elites of the world. Marxist, postcolonial and feminist theories are found among this group, seeing current social and economic systems as key drivers of the environmental crisis. Similar to bioenvrionmentalists, greens believe that the Earth has limits and human consumption and growth causes these issues, but the greens focus specifically on the social injustice of the First World and the wealthy as the face and name for these scientific realities. By dismantling current norms, structures, and processes, environmental improvement can occur.

This week’s readings demonstrates a historical timeline from when homo sapiens first emerged to development into modern human species to contemporary human beings – us in the 21st century. Collectively, they not only analyze the evolution from an anthropological point of view, but also discuss reasons why we are more advanced than other species, how we became the top of the food chain, how did our latent behaviors seeking for economic prosperity exhaust resources on Earth, and what are some current solutions we implemented to avoid environmental crisis. 

According to Charles Mann’s article, the most distinctive characteristic of homo sapiens is behavioral plasticity, the change in an organism’s behavior as a result of its response to stimuli, which means, homo sapiens were able to react to the changes in the surrounding quickly and adjust own habit accordingly. Some examples of this are the invention of clothing, the formation of social system like caste, and even slavery. However, a quote from the reading indicates greediness in our human nature: “To have the imagination to see our potential end, but do not have the imagination to avoid it.” This explains the current situation of industrialization harming the Earth, but a majority of us refuse to act on it, which leads into the other readings about four main perspectives on global environmental issues, and some specific environmental goals we are aiming to achieve through policies. 

Based on Jennifer Clapp and Peter Davergne’s article, the four main perspectives on global environmental are market liberals, institutionalists, bioenvironmentalists, and social greens, each of them holds a different belief of primary driver of environmental degradation and a distinctive way of approach each believe as the most efficient. For example, market liberals believe the main driver is a lack of economic growth, which they see to create higher incomes, and therefore generate the funds and political will to improve environmental conditions. Social greens, on the other hand, oppose economic globalization, they think that inequality and domination exacerbated by it can potentially lead to unequal access to resources as well as unequal exposure to environmental harms, therefore they advocate a return to local community autonomy to rejuvenate social relations and restore the natural environment.

Darren McCauley and Raphael Heffron’s article “Just in Transition” suggests a solution tackling environmental crisis that aims to promote green jobs as a necessary component of the transition away from fossil fuels. They ask for a greater state-intervention to ensure green jobs or present a labour-based incentive for speeding up decarbonization policies, as well as implying the potential for uniting climate, energy and environmental justice to provide a more comprehensive framework for analysing and ultimately promoting fairness and equity throughout the transition away from fossil fuels.

During the first class, we covered the basic chemistry behind rising atmospheric temperatures and discussed our initial thoughts on solutions that aim to slow down the rate of carbon emissions. The articles assigned for this week’s reading gave an in-depth analysis of what the fate of humanity might look like if immediate action isn’t taken. 

Ironically, the existence of climate change is a testament to how successful the human race is. We surpassed any obstacle mother nature has swung our way and built a world that enables us to live in the most comfortable state possible. However, we have also created a world system that is reliant on carbon as the primary source of energy. 

Perhaps the most terrifying aspect of climate change is how deeply entrenched the carbon industry is in the global economy. From the way our food is produced and the way we travel to our political structures, huge parts of modern-day living are affected by the carbon industry. Additionally, it seems that economic progress and environmental degradation happen in unison; the exploitation of the Earth for fossil fuels props up companies like Exxon and Shell. The huge profit margins of this industry is incredibly enticing and many people invest their own money hoping to earn a quick buck. Even progressive governments can be drawn into this vicious cycle of greed, and “Canada… signed on to the Kyoto treaty, promising to cut its carbon emissions substantially by 2012. But the rising price of oil suddenly made the tar sands of Alberta economically attractive. In December, the Canadian government withdrew from the treaty before it faced fines for failing to meet its commitments” (“Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math”, Bill McKibben). We tend to get caught up in the short-term allure of money and forget the severity of the situation. 

• Reva Panda
• Brandon Buckley
• Shihui Hu(Sylvia)
• Pragya Jain
• Nihal Cheikh