environment

Late last week Nature.com’s Nature Reports ran a front-page story about sociologists studying climate change and why our discipline has come to study this unique social problem somewhat slowly.

Nature Reports draws upon the work of several sociologists…

“Climate change is the ultimate collective-action problem,” says Steven Brechin, a sociologist at Syracuse University in New York. “How do you get people to agree in the short term to solutions for a long-term problem?” The answer, like the problem, has to be wide-ranging and global, says Jeffrey Broadbent of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, who also studies how societies affect their environments. “Its only solution lies in a level of global cooperation that humanity has never seen before.”

More on Broadbent’s work:

Broadbent is just starting to investigate what factors contribute to this kind of cooperation at the national level. He has recently begun a project, called Comparing Climate Change Policy Networks, that aims to find out how information about climate change enters a particular country’s network of interested parties and what happens to it once it’s found its way to organizations and governments.

Broadbent is now one of a band of sociologists that has begun to turn the discipline’s tools towards climate change. In May last year, over 30 sociologists met at the US National Science Foundation’s headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, to discuss what sociology is already contributing to climate change research and what questions sociologists need to be answering next. “Purely technological ‘fixes'”, concluded the meeting report, “will not be sufficient to mitigate or successfully adapt to climate change^.”

In the context of our discipline…

Environmental sociology, which has its roots in the 1970s environmental movement, fits most naturally into a climate change research remit. But despite the field’s endurance, environmental sociologists are rather isolated from the discipline’s mainstream, featuring sparsely at the bigger conferences and publishing in different journals.

The American Sociological Review, for example, has published “literally a handful” of papers on environmental studies in the last three decades, says Thomas Dietz, director of the Environmental Science and Policy Program at Michigan State University in East Lansing. According to Dietz, who works at the boundary of environmental science, sociology and human ecology, “Sociology in the US sees environment as not unimportant — but not core.”

That traditional core of sociology has instead been “tied into just looking at people”, says Broadbent, with its focus purely on the interactions going on between people, societies or nations. “What we’ve had very often is the idea that nature is somehow a stable, unchanging background concept,” says Constance Lever-Tracy, a sociologist studying migration at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia. Lever-Tracy was compelled by these issues to write an article for the journal Current Sociology last year drawing attention to the fact that her clan have had surprisingly little to say about climate change². “Sociology tries to say something about everything, but to my surprise I found almost nothing,” she says.

Read more.

The Tampa Bay Tribune ran a story today about whether or not environmentalism and ‘green living’ have become truly mainstream. In the article, they include some interesting sociological commentary about the movement and individual behavior.

Brian Mayer, who teaches environmental sociology at the University of Florida in Gainesville, said researchers are intrigued by what makes some people embrace a sense of personal responsibility.

The economy definitely can play a role, he said. Some people might hang on to or reuse items that otherwise would have gone to the landfill, but others experience a shift in priorities. Mayer cited a recent health survey in which migrant workers in Apopka were asked to rank their most pressing issues, including the environment. No. 1 was crime. No. 2? Adequate streetlights to prevent crime.

“Environmental issues are not always of concern in populations with unmet needs, even if their working environment is unsafe,” said Mayer, author of “Blue-Green Coalitions: Fighting for Safe Workplaces and Healthy Communities” (ILR Press, 2008).

During the 1960s and 1970s, the ecology movement, with its own green flag, was one of many popular social causes. People vowed to save the planet and clean up its waters. Earth Day was founded in 1970 as an “environmental teach-in.”

Cynicism, a sense of powerlessness, a decline in social involvement and a belief that individual needs were more pressing than collective concerns contributed to the decline in interest.

Mayer said he thinks many people have substituted a sense of personal responsibility for a group effort that would prove more effective in the long haul. “We’ll buy green products or bottled water, but critics say we’re missing the larger problem,” he said. Environmental sociologists call it “inverted quarantine” – people trying to keep themselves safe while keeping out the dangerous world.

Another sociologist considers this part of a larger historical pattern…

In “Shopping Our Way to Safety: How We Changed From Protecting the Environment to Protecting Ourselves,” (University of Minnesota Press, 2009) author and sociologist Andrew Szasz argues that people are buying products that give them a sense of safety while ignoring bigger environmental dangers.

Similar behavior occurred when Americans in the early 1960s built bomb shelters in their backyards, Szasz says.

Read more.

In honor of Earth Day yesterday, Fox News ran a story about successful efforts to clean up our planet. They write, “Cleaner air, cleaner water and cleaner-burning gasoline — which means less brain-toxic lead in our blood — are the major achievements of the modern environmental movement, but global climate change looms as the elephant in the living room, experts say.”

The experts say…

“Of course, you can see the glass as half full and half empty, because there are many significant challenges that remain,” [Eric Goldstein, a lawyer with the National Resources Defense Council] told LiveScience. “And of course global warming is first and foremost, and the most critical. And despite the progress, there has also been increasing loss of species around the world, threats to the health of our oceans; there is water scarcity in many parts of the world and haphazard development patterns.”

Call in the sociologist…

A little-discussed downside: U.S. gains in clear air and water often come at the expense of other nations, Drexel University sociologist and environmental scientist Robert Brulle said. We export our toxin-producing manufacturing to places such as Canada, Mexico and China where there are looser environmental policies. We clean up our act, their air and water gets dirtier.

And lately?

Most of the above landmarks were primarily achieved starting in the 1970s, leaving some to ask, “What have you done for me lately?”

The hold-up in progress these days is that early tree huggers tackled the low-hanging fruit first, Brulle says. Now the harder stuff — global issues like global warming, biodiversity loss, deforestation — remains to be solved. Also, the grass-roots movement is less powerful and less empowering. It’s hard to get on the board of a lot of these organizations, other than say the Sierra Club, National Audubon Society or the Center for Health, Environment & Justice.

Nowadays, a lot of organizations — there were 1,339 that operated nationally and reported to the IRS in 2003, according to Brulle — give citizens a “free ride.” Just give money. No need to write a letter, attend a rally or lecture, or change one’s lifestyle.

Meanwhile, the environmental movement has a total annual income of $2.7 billion, Brulle said. And some of the organizations do good work by focusing on buying and preserving land to protect ecological habitats, but this does nothing today for the more pressing issue of global climate change, he says.

“You can buy an ecosystem, but shifts in climate change will destroy the ecosystem as it exists,” Brulle said.

As an example, Brulle points the finger at the Nature Conservancy, which commanded about 19 percent of all environmental income dollars in 2003 by his calculation.

“Do we want to be putting 19 percent of [donations] income on a strategy that is really about buying land?” Brulle said. “That is not going to address global climate change and biodiversity losses … the strategy has failed.”

Brulle’s picks for where to put your environmental dollars — the Sierra Club (for which he is an unpaid advisor; he likes how they effectively connect individuals with national concerns), Center for Health, Environment & Justice (he likes their highly local work) and 350.org.

And another sociologist…

Ohio State University sociologist J. Craig Jenkins also is guardedly optimistic for our environmental future.

“Trying to run a transportation system based on ‘Hummers” took a long time to develop and will take equally long to restructure,” he said.

He predicts significant changes in our energy use and patterns in the areas of transportation, home heating and industrial energy use, if only due to rising energy costs. The United States currently ranges from non-competitive to among the worst in the world in these areas (especially in transportation and domestic energy use).

New housing designs, new methods of generating electricity and new transportation methods are on the horizon, he said, also due to rising costs.

“These will also have global warming benefits,” he said. “The big unknown is whether the latter benefits will be enough to matter.”

Read more.

The Australian paper, The Cannbera Times, ran a story yesterday about a sociologist who suggests that climate change may change some of our most basic hygiene habits. The paper reports that British sociologist Professor Elizabeth Shove says that in 50 years we won’t be showering every day, and maybe even not at all.  Shove notes, ”No, we won’t be dirty, smelly and unhygienic. This kind of social change isn’t about people being forced to give up showers it’s about new habits, new ideas about cleanliness that will become more acceptable, and probably even more popular and enjoyable, than standing under a hot shower.”

About Shove’s work:

Professor Shove, recently awarded a British Economic and Social Council climate change leadership fellowship, is visiting Australia for a lecture series on the challenges of tackling unsustainable consumption.

She has published academic papers on topics as diverse as how casualisation of food is driving house design (bigger kitchens) why the home office is obsolete (wireless connection, laptops and the status of portability) and the colonial origins of our fear of sweat.

In her lecture tour, she is putting a case for governments to send in the sociologists when it comes to giving advice on getting people to switch from over-consumption to greener, more sustainable habits in everyday life.

She said economists and policy wonks don’t understand how systems of social practice, everyday routines and patterns of consumption emerge, persist and disappear.

The sociologist’s take on the shower…

Take the shower, or ”the social history of getting wet every day”, as an illustration of how sociologists differ from economists in their approach to a climate change dilemma. It’s not about bottom lines and price signals.

”What are we really doing when we stand under hot shower? Given the time we spend, the frequency of showering, it can’t really be about getting clean. Is it about privacy, about having a moment to ourselves?” That yearning for privacy, or self-indulgence, may be the seed of a new social habit that will supersede the shower, replacing it with sleek new bathroom designs and desirable cleanliness rituals.

”It’s not a simple picture because you’re also looking at changes in housing design, the emergence of new products, the routines that develop around those changes, and new notions of what we consider to be comfort and cleanliness.”

Read more.

The Christian Science Monitor reported on a new trend in Iowa where women are poised to ‘lead a farming revolution.’ Reports indicate that as wives inherit their husbands’ farmland, they emphasize conservation above maximizing yield and profits. Today in Iowa women own nearly half of the state’s farmland, but suffer from recurring problems when, “The men they hire to farm their land often don’t treat it with the tender care they expect – and often won’t listen when they complain about it.”

The Christian Science monitor provides a sociological perspective on the issue:

Jean Eells, a sociologist who focuses on environmental education, has studied how Iowa’s large share of older women who own farmland are faring in getting their land-conservation views heard.

“As a whole,” says Ms. Eells, “these women have a strong view of land as community – as a source of food and water for animals, birds, as well as people – rather than just producing a commodity. But while that conservation ethic makes them natural allies for agricultural conservation programs, women often feel their views are out of sync [with state or federal programs].”

Partly it’s because women don’t know or use standard terminology to talk about land conservation, Eells says. Partly it’s that agricultural system representatives tend to think and talk production – even when discussing conservation, she adds.

“If a woman brings up something about farming, and a man blusters authoritatively about it, women are socialized to just clam up,” Eells says. “So to the extent that a woman landowner starts discussing conservation, there are a lot of reasons why this might not go well.”

Read more.

ScienceNews.com reports today on a recent sociological investigation into attitudes about global warming. Pollsters from Gallup asked groups of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents about whether they believe that ‘global warming poses a serious threat to the American way of life.’ The emerging results suggest that over the last 10 years, Democrats have increasingly said ‘yes’ (49% today as opposed to 31% ten years ago) while the share of Republicans saying ‘yes’ has grown more slowly (now 26% and previously 20%).

Science News reports: 

… While virtually half of Democrats currently view global warming as posing a serious threat within their lifetimes, only one-quarter of Republicans feel similarly, report Oklahoma State University sociologist Riley E. Dunlap (who’s also a Scholar for the Environment at the Gallup Organization) and sociologist Aaron M. McCright of Lyman Briggs Collegeand Michigan State University.

The pair argue that the polling data suggest Republicans and Democrats are becoming “more ideologically polarized,” at least on the issue of global warming. They attribute the increasingly divergent views on this issue to “party sorting” — that is, people choosing a party on the basis of its general views on this issue, or people within a party increasingly assuming the views on this issue that are espoused by leaders of their party.

Dunlap and McCright find that the tight correlation between party affiliation and attitudes about climate hold even after accounting statistically for other potentially confounding demographic factors such as gender, age, race, income and education. Moreover, they observe, throughout the past decade, “Republicans and Democrats who believe they understand global warming reasonably well [have been holding] more divergent views compared with their presumably less-informed counterparts.”

The bottom line? Democrats’ views about global warming have reflected scientific conclusions on climate change, while Republicans dismiss the scientific assessments.

Read on. 

The Economic Times reports on a new study from Riley Dunlap and Richard York published in the summer issue of The Sociological Quarterly. The study suggests that poor nations ARE conscious of the need to protect the environment “notwithstanding assumptions that they are too preoccupied to do so.” 

Riley E Dunlap of Oklahoma State University and Richard York of Oregon University compared results from four large cross-national surveys, each conducted in several dozen nations ranging with differing economic statuses. Results showed that citizens of poorer nations were equally if not more concerned about the environment compared to citizens in wealthier countries. The citizens of the poorer nations were supportive of efforts to solve environmental problems. The authors believe that previous studies failed to recognise that environmental problems are often a threat to material welfare and not just quality of life. 

The study’s authors assert: “Our results suggest that well-designed policies to promote sustainable development will have more appeal to citizens of poor nations than is often assumed.”