In the final unit of my Contemporary Political Theory course at LSE, we discussed modern theories of addressing climate change. Some of the essential questions were: how do we decide who ought to ‘bear the burden’ of addressing climate change? How do we balance the historical accumulation of emissions with the impacts of the highest emitters today? And, ultimately, can we imagine a way of addressing climate change that exists outside of this economizing mindset? 

 

We discussed this last question in my class section in depth. One key difference between Wellesley and LSE is that Wellesley students tend to be much more open-minded to imagining futures outside of a strictly realist, legal perspective. At LSE though, many atypical or nontraditional perspectives on climate change (as well as countless other issues) are dismissed automatically as fanciful or naive. Oftentimes, this means that the works we studied by marginalized authors, whose ideas are most regularly dismissed as impractical, were seen as less legitimate. 

 

We read Kyle Whyte’s “Indigenous Environmental Movements and the Function of Governance Institutions,” a paper which advocates for a view of governance institutions which places them in a mediating role, encouraging relationships of mutual responsibility between humans and the Earth. This paper necessarily challenges the limiting ‘scientific’ perspective on climate change by arguing that both the living and non living possess the agency to engage in reciprocal connection. Furthermore, it asserts that we must build these mutually beneficial relationships for the mitigation of climate change. 

 

I bring this up, because this week’s question of ‘representations of climate change,’ reminded me of how limiting the mainstream imagery of the issue is. Climate doomerism produces an environment in which the average individual feels paralyzed with fear and indecision; they ask themselves, what can I do that really matters, when the issue is so far beyond me? Most realist perspectives on climate change would argue plainly that historical and modern emitters (such as major corporations and large countries) ought to bear the burden of ‘fixing’ climate change. While this is broadly true, escaping from this constrained view and attempting to view the world outside of such an economized mindset, can perhaps allow us to see the potential in relational, community-based initiatives such as those Kyle Whyte proposes. 

 

It reminds me of the Paulson Initiative’s effort to build individual and community connections to nature, and to a local sense of ‘place.’ By fostering those relationships, as well as a mutual understanding with nature and the resources around us, we can grow closer to the world we live in and feel responsible for its safety.