Course:IGS585/OK2019WT2/SpeakerGregGarrard1

Greg Garrard - UBC Okanagan Faculty of Creative and Critical Studies

To add your reflection, log in using your CWL and select edit. Starting below any other material on the page, add your name using the heading style. It will appear as your name with a horizontal line. Below this, add your reflection. Your reflection should be no more than 500 words.

If you are commenting on another reflection, select edit and insert your comment after the original reflection. Use the 'Sub-heading 2' style to add your name above your comments.

Below is an example of how a reflection and a comment should be organized. You can copy the content inside the box and paste it to get the formatting right.

Name of Reflection Author This is a reflection on the presentation by the guest speaker. Name of Commenting Author This is a reflection the reflection of the author above.

The following table are the pairings for commenting on each other's reflections. These pairings are unique for each reflection.

Author - Commenter Pairs

Nicole Bamber	Aditya Shingvi Chandrakanth	Maria Correia	Madeline Donald	Stephenie Hendricks
Amarpreet Kaur	Nadia Mahmoudi	Jeffery Nishima-Miller	Ariele Parker	Ian Turner

Ariele Parker

Reflective Thinking. I have had the privilege of attending a few of Greg Garrard's lectures this past year and greatly admired how he connects both course readings and relevant topics in the news with an active dialogue that encourages class participation. I was sadly unable to attend the full lecture last week as I had to leave at the break for an appointment with a specialist I’ve been waiting to see for a few months. While I was not present for the full lecture, I can say with confidence that the material delivered was engaging and I left the class pondering how I could apply the learnings to my specific research areas.

Analysis. I immensely enjoyed the readings and how they broke down climate change and why we disagree. I had never previously thought about the interdisciplinary approach to presenting and disagreeing about climate change and how climate has a physical reality and cultural meaning. I also greatly enjoyed reading about how climate change relates to national identity. As we discussed in class, it has such a large impact on our behaviour within the context of a certain country. For example, the recent fires in Australia are vastly impacting how citizens identify with their country. I have personally had discussions with many Australians at Big White Ski Resort and many have no desire to return to the their country because they are both saddened and embarrassed by many of the events that have unfolded. Furthermore, the concept of sacrifice and how it relates to climate change is very interesting. I found the example of chlorofluorocarbons and hairspray to be especially fascinating as a solution to removing the chemical was discovered that did not force society to sacrifice on product quality or price.

Making Connections. As a Canadian citizen growing up in Alberta till the age of 16 then moving to British Columbia, I identify as a Western Canadian. I have a bachelor’s degree in business management from UBC Okanagan and nine years working in the marketing industry prior to starting my masters. Based on my professional experience, I have a strong appreciation for storytelling and how we can use stories to change consumer behaviour. While I am unsure on whether my focus will be on consumer packaged goods, fashion or social enterprise, I do know that my approach to working within one of these fields must be interdisciplinary and must be rooted in facts and engagement across a variety of fields. My hope is that throughout this course I will gain a well rounded and multi-disciplinary understanding of sustainability and knowledge mobilization that can be used to create and market products that are more sustainable on multiple levels. I strongly agree with Greg that sacrifice is the main roadblock to changing consumer behaviour so strive to pursue creating solutions similar to the chlorofluorocarbons and hairspray example. I greatly enjoyed both the readings and discussion and look forward to this week’s class.

Madeline Donald

It is a surprise for me to read the enthusiasm and illusions to novelty with which Ariele writes about this subject material. This is a classroom in which everyone, perhaps especially Ariele, has navigated worlds completely unknown to me and fields I may well have never even heard of. So, while the subject matter itself is, coming from by background, unsurprising, the interpretations and reactions of my classmates are of great interest to me. I say 'especially Ariele' because my impulse is to looking upon marketing with disdain, an activity that promotes only more unnecessary consumption. It is a world I have little interest in as a result of my pessimism. This is the second time Ariele and I have had class together though and each time I have head her say the words, "because we all have to wear clothes every day," it makes me smile. She is right and I, often, play a devil's advocate-style grouch. I am delighted that Ariele is doing the work she is doing and that she shares her interpretations of the subject material so openly and with her own flavour of curiosity.

Madeline Donald

Greg Garrard is one of two supervising professors for my PhD. He and I share numerous interests and, while we disagree often, in a classroom setting we seem to generally be on the same page. I have read much of his work and have come to appre­ciate his style, despite having once called him a "glorified book reviewer." When I walk into a classroom in which Greg will be speaking I know more or less what to expect: I will have to curtail the dissenting voice in my head sometimes, he will be speaking about material I am quite familiar with, and at at least one point in time I will make a joke that only he thinks is funny. Those expectations were met last Thursday.

This material is familiar to me because I have resided in the non-field of "interdisciplinary environment studies" since 2010. My first year in University I sat in a 200 person class taught by a lawyer, an economist, and a philosopher. We learned about climate change, ecosystem degradation, environ­mental philosophy, the effect language has on the way we interpret our worlds, and the greed of humans within particular and varied social structures. That was one course. It is also the reason I, to this day, do not read the news. We were asked to read William Cronon that year, "The Trouble with Wilderness." It was probably the first time an essay changed everything for me. It has happened since though never with such an impact.

While they illuminate, words obscure powerfully. They are the foundation of the systems that brought us to where we are today, in our respective living rooms, reading why we disagree about climate change. These same systems have the potential to create dark times for the residents of this planet. And it is for that reason the systems and the words that create them must be questioned, poked, and prodded. For we will not change the systems' trajectories if we do not question their foundations.

What I mean to say is, I have been trained to ask hard questions, in this specific interdisciplinary space. Years peeling away layers from this nexus of topics has left me raw enough to shake in my chair in frustration, silently or not so. Those foundational layers are philo­sophical, whether we like it or not. "What do you mean by "is"?" I asked a classmate on Thursday. "I did not answer the question because I disagree with the premise," I told Greg when he came to look at my list of the five reasons climate change is bad. It is at that level I believe we need to address these topics, and I dot not do it out of spite or malice. My reactions and interactions with the topics covered by this course are corporeal, they are embodied. My shaking in the chair is not a metaphor.

Ariele Parker

It was with great excitement that I greeted Madeline on the first day of class this term. As she mentioned in her reflection, we were in class together last semester and I have always greatly enjoyed her deep passion and insight into the subject matter. I imagine it would be extremely challenging to spend over ten years in the field of sustainability as Madeline has and to continue to persevere in her questioning of the systems on which our world operates with fresh energy and vigor. Madeline's reflection on the importance of asking hard questions is something that I think our class can learn from as it is a skill that is hard to teach, it takes confidence and a well rounded understanding of the subject matter, both of which Madeline possesses. I look forward to seeing how her academic rigour and desire to continually question both readings and presenters opinions will assist in creating an enriched classroom experience.

Stephenie Hendricks

My reflection this week has many layers. As always, I am impressed by Dr. Garrard’s pedagogy. If I ever get to teach university level again, I’ll be trying to emulate some of his lecture strategies. We are lucky to be able to receive the benefit of his great scholarly work combined with an equally deep passion for sharing it. Yet, I also find myself a bit disturbed. I can’t quite identify the exact reason for my uneasiness. But I know it has to do with my empathy and personal knowledge of people impacted right now by climate change. I am having trouble reconciling academic theory with the urgency of ameliorating reality on the ground.

The omission of corporate accountability is puzzling. Exxon knew in the 1990’s that their products were creating climate harm. Instead of innovating and fixing their products, they spent billions to attack emerging science on climate change. The rest of the fossil fuel industry went along with them.

It has occurred to me now that public backlash from industry attempts to deceive us clashes with the notion of academic freedom of discussion. Still, with perhaps 100 corporations responsible for the majority of climate emissions, it is difficult to understand why this would not be an initial part of our focus.

If you ask the average “denier” person walking down the street if they know of these theorists, theories, and arguments, I believe you might be met with blank stares. However, the “evidence” that fossil fuel industry funded politicians use to foster a widespread belief in climate denial consists of arguments from academic circles. These arguments may be theoretical, but what role do they play in the reality of harm?

From my frame, people are, presently, suffering directly from climate change. I imagine bringing Hulme’s text to the Yupik people on St Lawrence Island in the Bering Sea, where the 1950’s US military buried toxic barrels of chemicals and radiation, thinking they’d be frozen forever in the permafrost; how would this content be received by them? Infants born without brains, high levels of cancer, neurological impacts and infertility from contamination of their soil, air and aquifers from the toxic waste that has melted, are THEIR key issues with climate change.

How would the people of Tuvalu who fled from their island nation, begging to be let into Australia, finally accepted by New Zealand – stateless people with their land sunk under the sea, their culture in peril, respond to our class? How do these theories figure in what has happened to them?

In “Cancer Ally” between Houston, Texas and Louisiana those already sick from contamination from 96 plants there to refine dirty oil – such as Fort McMurray bitumen – then get extreme weather, rupturing tanks, creating floods and spreading more toxics into their environment. How does this relate to them?

Trying to reconcile these experiences – that of the classroom theory with an awareness of suffering - is challenging.

Ian Turner

I imagine the idea of climate change denial/skepticism would be met with incredulity by those groups that you mentioned who have directly felt the impacts of climate change. I think awareness of the suffering caused by climate change is invaluable in humanizing the impacts, making it easier for those of us who have been relatively less impacted to empathize with those who have been relatively impacted more greatly. Perhaps it is these faces, rather than the faces of climate sciences or faceless groups such as the IPCC that should be invoked when discussing the impacts climate change has on the population. Perhaps a more human connection would give those companies that are major contributors to climate change pause when choosing their future directions. Overall, I think you make a great point – we cannot continue to think of climate impacts in terms of abstract or invisible concepts, such as the atmospheric concentration of CO₂. Rather, we must re-frame our viewpoints to try and compel action.

Ian Turner

Throughout the readings, videos, and discussions this previous week, I am struck by mixed feelings of both admiration, and disappointment with regards to how sustainability is being defined throughout society. On one hand, I admire how we as a society are doing better in recognizing that sustainability as a concept does not only take into account environmental, social, or economic impacts; rather, it is a mix of all three. Such a mindset is invaluable moving forward with sustainability issues, providing one way to help ensure equitable solutions for all stakeholders involved.

However, with this recognition and admiration, I am also disappointed. Progress has undoubtedly been made in developing a societal view of sustainability, but I believe there is still significant progress to be made. To think that trade-offs, when dealing with sustainability issues, are entirely avoidable, or to equate environmental sustainability with a simple reduction of carbon dioxide/greenhouse gas emissions is not only short sighted, but also dangerous. For example, we cannot continue to adopt single-criteria definitions, such as the carbon footprint, when assessing environmental sustainability. Doing so will inevitably lead to burden-shifting from one particular impact to another, that may or may not fall into the same dimension of sustainability. There are a whole host of environmental impacts that may be just as detrimental to life as global warming is, including acidification, eutrophication, human and environmental toxicity, etc. that are largely ignored in the public discourse on environmental sustainability. It is only by instead taking a multi-criteria approach across all domains of sustainability, such as that used in life cycle assessment, that we can adequately obtain a holistic view of the sustainability challenges associated with products and services. And of course, this will undoubtedly lead to trade-offs both within and across domains of sustainability that will need to managed. Drawing from my own research, how do we reconcile that egg production in enriched cages is associated with the second lowest amount of GHG emissions, yet the highest acidifying and eutrophying emissions? What happens when we extend to the other domains of sustainability, where, in terms of animal welfare, caged systems are generally beneficial for welfare from the standpoint of biological functionality, but detrimental from the standpoints of affective state and the ability to perform natural behaviours? And from an economic perspective, where outfitting a single small enriched layer barn with enough scratch area to be compliant with the NFACC Code of Practice can cost thousands of dollars? Clearly the answer to solving this sustainability issue is not as simple as converting all egg production to enriched systems, as might be suggested by using a single criteria assessment of either environmental or hen welfare outcomes, because there are trade-offs that need to be managed. How these trade-offs are managed is a difficult question to answer. However, to do so we first need to even recognize the complete suite of environmental, social, and economic impacts that may exist.

Stephenie Hendricks

Ian, I appreciate how you identified the complexity of what we are investigating in this class. I agree that this complexity requires possibly an even more complex array of strategies.

I found it interesting how you related the reflection to your area of study with the egg production industry.

It can be overwhelming to try and step back to “get the big picture,” when there are so many elements to this issue. Solving some of the problems also requires a potentially exhausting process of trying to anticipate unintended consequences – an unraveling of some other area for a focus on another. I was struck by a section in Chapter 7 of the Climate Change Skeptics reading we were assigned this week that compares efforts to project into the future with having perhaps tried that back in the 1600’s by John Adams.

Hearing about the implications for the egg industry made me realize that every single person has a piece of this puzzle. It is encouraging to know that there are many of us contributing to solutions. I have hope in particular with the younger generations bringing fresh views to these old problems.

Jeff Nishima-Miller

I can remember the day I first started learning about climate change. It was around 2005, when my class had a Green Party candidate visit, to speak to the class about the party’s platform, at which point the topic of climate change was brought up (formerly referred to as ‘global warming’).

Soon after, climate change became a topic widely portrayed as a global catastrophic risk and existential threat for both individuals and societies. For example, the topic of climate change has now been integrated into many aspects of my everyday existence. Ranging from academics/school (i.e. this class), work (i.e. forest firefighting), and mass media/the news (i.e. coverage of the Australia wildfires).

Due to the all-consuming nature of climate change, I often feel myself reaching points of fatigue on the subject. I think this is due to the overwhelmingly negative discussions surrounding climate change. Pessimistic attitudes towards finding solutions, mitigating, adapting to, and our future with climate change have been the result. From personal experience, I know that fatigue leads to inaction rather than action. This is problematic.

Dr. Garrard’s presentation and discussions of Mike Hulme’s book ‘Why We Disagree About Climate Change’ (2009), left me with a new perspective, which offers interesting solutions to pessimistic attitudes and fatigue towards climate change. When Dr. Garrard posed the question “does climate change destroy or inspire societies?”, I reflected on my position as seeing climate change as a direct threat, rather than a source of motivation/inspiration.

When examining climate change as a threat, I realize that the presence of a threat stimulates short-term thinking in favor of self-defense, which reaffirms habitual behaviors. For example, viewing climate change as a phenomenon of negative consequences (threat) such as conflict over resources, mass migration, etc., inspires action to protect one’s current quality of life. When changing my viewpoint to examine climate change as a source of progressive societal advancements, changed behaviors are incentivised by the possibility of a future state better than the current. For example, viewing climate change as inspiration (or source) for strengthened local economies, increased green spaces within cities, more efficient energy use, widespread adoption of organic agricultural methods, etc., helps paint a picture of a society with characteristics which I consider superior than the current.

I think this will be key (in part) in inspiring collective action among individuals. By changing climate change rhetoric from a future which is seemingly worse, to one which offers new, positive, and continually progressive advancements I think more people will change their behaviors.

This does leave me with a question though. How, within the world of negatively driven mass media and popular culture, do you deliver messages of progression and positivity?

Maria Correia

Jeff,

I share your feelings of fatigue and pessimism.  The existential threats of climate change are all consuming, and in my case, having a young daughter, exacerbates the stress and worry over the future.

A couple of thoughts.  First, it seems that many do not perceive the presence of threat; climate change is something distant temporally and spatially, an invisible threat, with no immediate proof of its danger.  And uncertainty about what and when the climate effects will unfold, only contribute to the lack of response.  Perhaps if people felt the presence of threat – if it were local rather than global – behariors would begin to change, although that is also not a foregone conclusion.  Second, in terms of shifting the focus from pessimism to optimism, you may be interested in the literature on regenerative sustainability, a concept that comes out of the architectural field, but that aspires to deliver enduring, net-positive benefits to social, economic and ecological systems, while considering these systems and benefits in an integrated way.  It carries the positive message that human activities have the potential to give back more than they receive. Some references are as follows:

1) du Plessis, C. (2012). Towards a regenerative paradigm for the built environment. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 7-22. doi:10.1080/09613218.2012.628548

2)  du Plessis, C., & Brandon, P. (2015). An ecological worldview as basis for a regenerative sustainability paradigm for the built environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 109, 53-61. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.098

3)  Robinson, J., & Cole, R. J. (2014). Theoretical underpinnings of regenerative sustainability. Building Research & Information, 43(2), 133-143. doi:10.1080/09613218.2014.979082

Nicole Bamber

After Dr. Garrard’s lecture and discussions that took place in class I was left with, if not a feeling of optimism, at least a reduced level of pessimism toward the state of the climate. With regards to environmental issues, I have a tendency to react negatively to a news story or a scientific study and start to feel an impending sense of doom. However, the way that Dr. Garrard made us question our assumptions and articulate what was really bad about climate change helped to prevent that downward spiral. Particularly, I found the exercise to write down 5 bad things about climate change to be quite effective. For my answers, I took time with each to explain the root cause of why the thing I was listing was actually a negative thing to me, or to society. For example, instead of simply listing different natural disasters that may occur as a result of climate change, I listed one (fires) as an example and explained that rampant fires are bad because they can destroy our property (homes, etc.), or things that are emotionally, spiritually or culturally important to us (forests, animals, etc.). This helped me understand that it is the loss of these fundamental things, both for myself and other sentient beings, that scares me the most about climate change. While this, in itself, is not a particularly optimistic sentiment, it helps to prevent the anxiety that comes with every event related to climate change.

These changes in my way of thinking about climate change echo some of the points made in Mike Hulme’s book. In particular, he stressed that climate cannot be viewed as simply a physical concept, but must also include cultural aspects. This resonated with me as I created my list of 5 things about climate change. As I was describing what made each thing bad, they were all linked in some way to the cultural, emotional, spiritual or economic value of an item, rather than simply its physical existence (or destruction). For example, the destruction of a habitat for an endangered charismatic species would feel more devastating than a portion of a habitat of an abundant “pest” species – even if the area of land was the same. This difference in perceived severity is not due to any physical differences, but instead is due to differences in the cultural significance of wildlife species. In addition, Hulme mentions that climate change can be viewed as a source of innovation, rather than despair and strife. After this class, I also felt a sense of optimism, that I don’t need to feel constant despair about the state of the world. Instead, we must focus on sustaining the key things that are important to the different societies that inhabit the Earth, rather than aiming to sustain everything that exists today, and feeling grief and disappointment when we fail to do this.

Amarpreet Kaur

Nicole, I agree with your points as you described physical as well as cultural destruction due to climate change. When Dr. Garrard asked for the five bad things about climate change that made me think about its negative impacts in my country(India). It was the first time when I realized the cultural devastation caused by climate change, I used to think only about the physical things but its much more than that. You listed a very important issue regarding the wild fire, and the threats of climate change can be seen across the countries. Like, in my list I put flood and droughts on the top as India is suffering with these issues. Disrupted patterns of rain falls affecting people's life style and their state of mind a lot. If we look on social media and the news it gives us the feel of constant despair and pessimism but being pessimist is not the solution to the problem. Humle has given a optimistic perspective and views it as a source of innovation, and I think its the need of the hour. We should focus on few significant things that can help to mitigate the change and here I strongly agree with you as we can not sustain everything but we surely can aim few things.

Aditya Shingvi The idea that Climate is not just physical but also has a strong cultural meaning came as a surprise to me. Being an engineer by profession, it is easy to overlook the cultural influences of climate on humans and the vast differences in the idea of climate between the rationalist thinking of the Western Countries and that of natives with deep cultural ties with their lands. If we can rally leaders from across the world and unanimously ban ozone-depleting CFCs, we can surely replicate this success to bring awareness to climate change. But Greg did point out a significant difference- People didn’t have to sacrifice their way of life as did with shunning CFCs. “Petro-culture” is deeply ingrained in how western societies work and merely blaming them for climate change has led to a state of cognitive dissonance in the minds of the people so dependent on fossil fuels. Moreover, for most people, the global climate is more of a scientific construct in the sense that no one person can fully experience or understand it. Also shunning the use of CFCs was a win-win for both the companies manufacturing it and the people as there were readily available alternatives to their use. But to ask people to sacrifice something that is a part of their identity is going to be difficult. Mike Hulme wants the readers to have a more constructive relationship with climate. Climate change is not a “problem” that can be “solved” and we need to understand how climate change will influence us as a society and as an individual.

Nadia

In my view peoples life style did have changed over time, decade to decade; and it is not something unchangeable. I think that with proper policies and purposeful advertisement, the subconscious mind-set shift can happen towards sustainability, and peoples' lifestyle can be corrected; however, I totally agree with what you have mentioned in your second paragraph that some industries and the people who are active in those industries would be impacted by the attempts towards sustainability. As an example, I am from Iran, country that its GDP is significantly is based on oil, the whole economy is oil- oriented and by taking any measure for elimination of fossil fuels from people's everyday life, the country will be broke. A great challenge for governments, in this regard, I think can be creating enough substitute jobs and industries to accommodate such substantial change .

Amarpreet Kaur

Earlier, I used to think about climate change only technically and scientifically that exhibits the physical impact of climate change on the nature around us. But Prof. Garrards’s discussions about climate change from different perspectives has broadened my vision in terms of economic, social and cultural effects of climate change. The efforts to control the GHG emissions have a deep connection with people’s behaviour, beliefs and culture as these may force them to sacrifice or change their beliefs or practices. Considering this perspective made me think about the issue of climate change and I feel it is appropriate to develop socially and culturally relevant policies in order to make our efforts successful. In addition to that, Mike Hulme’s book “Why we disagree about climate change?” demonstrates that scientific evidences are undoubtedly verify the climate change, but the information of climate change have a different perception in research laboratories and society, so the policies developed in laboratories may not succeed on ground level unless these involve the societal aspects.

Thinking of the root cause of climate change makes it clear that human behavior is the main cause of climate change as human behavior influences climate trends and climate in turns influences human behavior. Thus, climate change has a significant relation with human behavior. In my opinion, solution to this problem lies in the problem itself that is “human behavior”. But human behavior is a consequence of social and cultural practices and beliefs, developed over the decades which seems hard to change. I think the appropriate approach to tackle the problem would be to target the few practices that have least impact on human behavior. It seems very tough to harmonize the human actions with scientific solutions to mitigate the climate risks. Moreover, human behavior and cultural diversity across the regions makes it more complex. I think climate change is perceived differently by the people as some take it as a serious issue other take it as a background noise not a threat. When people take it as an individual threat, they act but their unawareness or their belief “threat is not here yet” do not add any efforts to mitigate climate change. I think when social learning is high and the combination of different social processes come together to make efforts and policies, then we may deal with this issue of climate change successfully and speedily.  

Nicole Bamber

Amarpreet,

Like you, I also come from a scientific background of viewing climate change. The comparison that Dr. Garrard made between the ozone layer depletion and climate change really illustrated the point that it is very important to also consider the cultural elements of climate change. Changing the chemicals we used to stop depleting ozone did not change any aspects of our culture or question our identity in the way that reducing GHG emissions will. So, if we can figure out methods to create changes in human behaviour without threatening their way of life, or cultural identity, we may begin to tackle the issue of climate change. I think that it makes sense to first tackle the practices that have the least impact on human behaviour based on human psychology; however, many of the most impactful changes we can make (e.g.: reducing flying, driving, meat/dairy consumption) have very large impact on our behaviour. These changes are difficult to adopt because these things are central to many cultures, however many other changes we could make are insignificant in comparison. That being said, I'm not sure how to reconcile these opposing views, but I'm hoping to gain some insight from this course.

Maria Correia

Mike Hulme’s book and Greg Gerrard’s lecture are deeply relevant to my studies and personal interest in climate change communications and societal change. I would argue that his book is essential reading for those on all sides of the issue.  Afterall how can we hope to come to any consensus if we do not understand what others are thinking and why?

Overall, Hulme’s book was enlightening in helping me understand the multi layered and complex dimensions of the climate change debate.  For example, I had always considered climate in unquestionably empirical terms but Hulme’s argument of climate having both a physical reality and cultural meaning was thought provoking. The discussion on the historical tendency for human domination over nature and climate, in particular, led me to think about geoengineering.  Hulme has argued against geoengineering as a way for humans to control runaway climate change (and I agree with his reasoning) and yet we seem destined to move in that direction given our limited collective ability to take action on climate change.  The “performance of science” chapter game me a better appreciation for the limits of scientific knowledge and the need to be transparent about our empirical knowledge. And yet, I agree that applying “Post-normal science”, which is used where "facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent", is our only option in this case.  On the economics of climate change, I feel a deep frustration that despite the immediate and existential risks to humanity and all living beings, we need to make economic arguments for action. It therefore gave me some satisfaction to know that economists themselves cannot agree on the assumptions required to reach consistent conclusions.

On the lecture itself, Greg’s pedagogical skills and his depth and breadth of knowledge on climate change make his lectures highly engaging, and last week’s was no exception. I also found the challenge of having to identify five main threats to climate change more difficult than I would have thought, which was the point of the exercise.

My biggest takeaway from the lecture and book, however, is the hypothesis that climate change will inspire creative, technological and artistic responses and new ethical thinking about the future. Hulme also suggests that climate change could lead to the development of new complex civil and social structures. As someone who worries perpetually about climate change and the future for my young daughter, I felt some relief and hope for her future in pondering these ideas. I was also able to draw a parallel between this new way of thinking and the First Nation’s knowledge-practice-belief systems of living in harmony with the natural world, which is a topic I am currently researching.

I look forward to discussing the chapter on development, which highlights some of the contradictions I have faced in my work, and the chapter on governance, which raises a unique challenge in human history, that is, “global governance of global atmosphere”.

Jeff Nishima-Miller

Maria:

Your reflection highlights the importance of using an interdisciplinary approach in living with, adapting to, or mitigating climate change. For example, if only using an approach that is grounded in science, I think the attractiveness of geoengineering increases, as climate change is viewed a ‘scientific problem’ which can only be solved by ‘science’ (post-normal or not) and the ‘control of nature’.  

When we start using an approach grounded in multiple disciplines, we are able to recognize that climate change is a problem with scientific implications, but is social at its core. If we continue to look at climate change as a scientific problem with economic consequences, we miss opportunities for “creative, technological, and artistic responses and new ethical thinking about the future”, which could lead to new complex civil and social structures –Which I also find relief and hope in.

Your reflection was a good reminder that we should not look to ‘control nature’, but instead, live in harmony with it. A relevant example of this the Western approach to wildfire management, which for years attempted to control nature through wildfire suppression, but consequently created wildfire conditions which can no longer be controlled (i.e. BC 2017 and 2018 wildfires). I look forward to learning more about how we can integrate different ways of thinking into our responses to climate change, such as the First Nation’s knowledge-practice-belief systems which emphasize harmony rather than control.

Nadia Mahmoudi

This session was very engaging for me as we were discussing climate change from different points of view. I had never thought about the relation between climate change and social subjects. Explaining the reasons why climate change alleviation plans are not working was something new to me. At first, it was very instructive to me, I was learning new pieces of knowledge, and then many questions came to my mind about what we discussed.

I am from Iran, which is among the third world countries; in this class, I was listening to the concerns of people who are mostly from developed countries. In my opinion, this is the wicked problem that was mentioned in the class that people around the world have little ideas about the needs and issues in other communities. In my perspective, people here can see the big picture while in less developed countries, there are so many more significant, more horrifying, insurmountable crises in a closer view exist that blocks the way people cannot think about a problem 70 years away. I want to point out the Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which can help depict my point of view. In less developed communities, we can see that a considerable proportion of people are fighting with the first and second levels of this hierarchy, while in developed countries major part of the people are above level three; and I think that is why the leading countries, European Union and North America, cannot help the other countries to develop towards sustainability as there is little mutual understanding.

The other area that I would like to write about is that I believe that people are teachable and governable. If countries put enough effort into leading people towards sustainability, after all these years, people’s lifestyles have had changed. To illustrate more, in the Netherlands people cycle to commute, even though they know they may sweat or get tired. The truth is that whatever the governments invest in is the area that will develop, so we should ask ourselves, why we are still exposed to publicities about fashion, buying from drive-throughs, or farmed meat.

Aditya Shingvi:

I can relate with your point of view on the fact that developing countries have very different needs and problems that make it difficult for government's of these countries to be able to formulate policies to mitigate climate change. I appreciate that you brought attention to the Maslow's hierarchy of needs that aptly describe the current stand of developing countries on climate change. Also most of the current global warming may be attributed to the Industrial Revolution that was largely a western phenomenon.