Globalization of the Environment

• Julian Steward’s article provides an interesting viewpoint to analyze the globalization of the environment from. His article seeks to understand if societal adjustment to the environment require any specific behaviors. Looking at this from the lens of globalization, anthropologists can compare the different cultural contexts in which environmental adaptation occur, providing a more in depth look on the processes local communities go through when going through environmental shifts. Was the adaptation forced or a response to technological progress?

The Concept and Method of Cultural Ecology, Julian Steward, From Julian Steward, ed.,

•  The Concept and Method of Cultural Ecology explores different adaptations methods used by cultures in a variety of development stages. Steward seeks to explain if societal adjustment to the environment require specific types of behavior or whether there is a wide range of possible adaptations. An important concept he introduces is the culture core- and signifies the societal features that are most closely related to subsistence activities and the economy. These include patterns of social, political and religious beliefs. The main concept in this piece is adaptation and coming to understand the different ways societies adapt to their environment whether that be forced adaptation or technological progress that led the market to adapt. An example of Steward’s mindset is introducing soybeans to an area that previously never grew them. Steward then looks at the adaptations the society must go through once this new product has been introduced, and focuses on the local to global connections like the local traders and politicians. These local global connections are examples of the cultural core. Steward seeks to find patterns across cultures of how they adapt to environmental pressures and the processes they go through to achieve change.

How do we Know We Have Global Environmental Problems?: Science and the Globalization of Environmental Discourse

• In this article Peter Taylor and Fred Buttel discuss three main ideas of how mankind first realizes that global environmental problems exist and then how mankind makes sense of these issues. The main arguments  include that political and social ideology in the different courses of action regarding global environmental politics  are woven into science- not just stimulated by science, and the overarching argument that if  global environmental discourse continues to function in the same ways that mankind will likely only be spectators, rather than engaged actors in the shaping of our environmental futures. Taylor uses the example of the long term growth (LTG) study created in the 1970’s to illustrate the exclusion of the political realm when analyzing global limits to growth, The LTG study used a system model that essentially produced two defined results: a technocratic response to environmental problems (everyone must change to avert catastrophe) or a moralistic response (only a governing agency can tell us how to direct changes). These two responses work together forming an alliance, where the technocratic response can be thought of as a policy advisor whereas the moralistic response can be seen as a guide. This moral-technocratic response is still used and reinforced in global environmental discourse today, causing disproportionate issues among third world countries, including the stress placed on the third world for creating emissions, without taking into account the emissions used for survival. This article provides a sociological perspective to global environmental issues, illustrating that they are inextricably bound together. The major takeaway from this research is that current environmental discourse must change because it currently steers away from the differentiated politics and economics of socioenvironmental change.

• The lawn-chemical Economy article can be used to illustrate how globalization of what seemingly is a cultural norm of “keeping your lawn green”, could have major negative impacts on the environment. This article shows how consumer demand for the chemical lawn products has kept this industry booming, while scientific evidence has been released to show the negative environmental effects these chemicals cause. This may be a stretch, but as the US is a role model state for many smaller countries, this cultural norm of chemically altering your lawn could be spread globally, exponentially increasing the environmental damage caused.

The Lawn-Chemical Economy and Its Discontents Paul Robbins and Julie SharpFrom

• This article aims to explore the conflict of banning chemical applications that the chemical industry is fighting to maintain, and to examine whether it is the supply or the demand that drives up the application of lawn chemicals throughout the U.S. and Canada. Throughout the article Paul Robbins argues that it is now the supply of lawn chemicals that keeps the industry growing, that the post WW2 era saw a rise of the use of lawn chemicals, and this trend has continued since. Robbins argues that pressures to keep a tidy lawn are most evident at a local scale, where the economic factors of urban development assures a steady supply area that normative lawn aesthetics can be enforced. I see this in most suburban neighborhoods now, including my own, with homeowners associations’ deeming regulations on grass length and yard upkeep. Although there is increasing demand for lawn chemicals that users admit could be harmful to the environment, Robbins points out that when regulations are passed to ban or limit lawn chemicals, the chemical industry responds in protest, not the chemical users themselves. This supports the argument that supply drives the chemical lawn industry rather than demand. While although the agrochemical industry has declined greatly through the 21st century, lawn chemicals have increased and since this industry is greatly constricted in modern times, the supply of these lawn pesticides and fertilizers are driving the chemical demand. I agree with Robbins’ argument that the chemical industry has manifested itself to be profitable to middle class affluent Americans’ through the pressure to use lawn chemicals to achieve social status.

*See abstract filing cabinet for further information