Food for Thought: Having a Difficult Conversation about the Environment

By Pushpa Iyer (with contributions from Jason Buchanan)

Discussions of the environment are omnipresent—in our politics, in our media, and on our campus. It is imperative we speak about the environment and primarily climate change. The courage and passion of sixteen-year-old Greta Thunberg is a testament to the fact that the younger generation (our students included) are concerned, as those who will deal more closely with environmental changes, and want to have their voice heard.

However, as we engage in these “crisis” conversations, we need to reflect on how effective we are: for example, are we being inclusive? Are we providing an equitable platform for everyone to speak? Are we making sure diverse experiences are being considered? Many ask (see for example this, or this, or this) if these urgent conversations are happening only among those who are privileged, leaving out the experiences of those who are the victims of inequality and whose definition of the environment and their concern for it is not equally considered? We may cringe at the term “environmental elitism” but it is important to become a little uncomfortable as we reflect on our stance and views. 

The popular understanding of environmental elitism is when one’s concern for the environment is greater than the concern for the people who depend on that environment. According to University of Michigan professor Dorceta Taylor, “White people bring their experience to the discussion—that’s why they focus on the birds, trees, plants, and animals because they don’t have the experience of being barred from parks and beaches. It’s just a different frame. But overall, we want the same thing: safe places to live, work and play, clean spaces and sustainable, long-lasting communities.” A more nuanced understanding of the term environmental elitism is explained by Morrison and Dunlap as having three parts: compositional, ideological and impact. Impact elitism is the area where most criticism is leveled against environmentalists (see this and this). The argument is that the benefits of environmental reforms are more for the rich than they are for the poor because the latter’s needs are not considered.

In juxtaposing environmental elitism with environmental justice we quote the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental justice is “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Environmental justice will be possible, according to the EPA, when everyone has “the same degree of protection from environmental health hazards, and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.” Environmental justice emerged because of environmental racism, which refers to any policy, practice, or directive that differentially affects or disadvantages (whether intended or unintended) individuals, groups, or communities based on race or color.

Many would argue (see this, and this, and this) that being concerned about the environment, climate change, in particular, is not elitist. If the air quality is bad, if areas are being flooded, if greenhouse gases are increasing, if weather swings between extremes, everyone is being affected, then environmentalism is more of a human rights issue than a social justice issue.

To complicate things further, there are many nuanced conservative voices (here is an example of what a young conservative student wants to do) when discussing climate change, for example, which are unheard or simply dismissed as being irrelevant or unscientific. Inclusion certainly does not mean keeping out some voices simply because we do not agree with them.

We can all agree that any conversation about the environment is going to be difficult if not controversial. Which is why we must pay attention to how we are having these conversations. 

Here are some of the things we can do while having conversations about the environment:

  1. Move beyond the need to be “woke” to being thoroughly informed of all facts, policies, and realities.
  2. Make an effort to understand the difficulties of demanding the same kind of action from every individual without consideration for culture, race, class, and marginalization.
  3. Acknowledge that various groups of people (those who look different from us, live in different circumstances from us, and come from different cultural backgrounds) are also concerned about the environment. We need to listen to them.
  4. Work on building coalitions with those who have different experiences and therefore approaches to dealing with environmental, especially climate change.
  5. Reframe conversations–instead of creating exclusive spaces through speeches and lectures,  recenter conversations to issues that concern those who are marginalized and discriminated against. Bring them into the discussion.
  6. Be ready to challenge systems and institutions that perpetuate environmental crisis instead of focusing all energy on individual responses and reforms. Not only will that address some of the root causes but will also be a testament to our individual commitment and courage to challenge oppressive structures.
  7. Best intentions do not always lead to the best outcome. This is because we must consider the impact of our approach on others and not just argue for our intentions. Conversations that begin with a defense of our intentions will only lead to a sense of moral superiority and alienate others. 

Discussions about the environment are needed on our campus and beyond. Every one of us needs to be a part of this conversation. We can fight the label of environmental elitist by giving more thought to how we communicate when discussing issues we are passionate about. The ball is in our garden!