December 17, 2015 - 15:56
When glaciers are melting, permafrost is thawing by the second, droughts are becoming longer than before, and sea levels are rising rapidly, denying climate change becomes ridiculous. Blatant facts and overwhelming amounts of scientific evidence show that Earth is warming. Rather than debate whether or not our planet is experiencing a major temperature increase, we are at a definitive crux of history and need to move forward. At this place and time, we are in a race against time itself to determine if and how we can prevent ourselves and the Earth from destruction. In “Steps to the Recovery of Ecological Intelligence,” C.A. Chet Bowers argues that only by transitioning to an ecological form of intelligence can we address climate change. Van Jones and Naomi Klein show that ecological intelligence can and should be used to simultaneously address issues of socioeconomic discrimination and environmental destruction.
Ecological intelligence refers to a way of thinking, learning, and educating that can save us and our environment from total destruction brought by climate change. While ecological intelligence can be broadly defined, it includes the notion of interdependence, collaboration between people and governments, and the interactions between the environment and the rest of the world. To think with ecological intelligence means to not think in terms of separation. Everything is connected, and it is impossible to frame the environment or anything inside it as an isolated entity. An isolated environment in our thinking minds is not reflective of the interlaced environment in our real surroundings. Bowers believes we can transition to an ecological form of intelligence in a number of ways. He argues that much work needs to be done in the way we use and are taught language. “There needs to be wider understanding on the part of educators of how language carries forward the misconceptions and values of earlier thinkers who were unaware of environmental limits” (Page 44). The words we use to describe the events around us are inherently prejudiced against those we believe are ‘less developed’ than us, even though these people have learned to leave a smaller carbon footprint and to be resourceful. The lack of copious resources have taught these people to conserve and be efficient -- something we must learn in order to be ecologically intelligent. “The challenge today is learning how to recognize the various expressions of the linguistic colonization of the present by the past, and how to introduce educational reforms that foster ecological intelligence” (Page 1). Current language creates ways of thinking that were formed before there was an understanding of ecological limits.
These nuances of language even play an important role in schools’ course titles. It may be helpful to remove the word, “Science” out of the course name, “Environmental Science” in schools. Students should not simply be learning about science in the context of the environment. Rather, students should learn about the environment in the context of history, economics, anthropology, and sociology in addition to science. Teaching students these real-world interactions aids our quest to become ecologically intelligent. Bowers would also support simply calling the class “Environment,” because he explores an interesting paradox about scientific discoveries in relation to ecological intelligence. He introduces the deceptive “myth of progress” that many scientific breakthroughs can bring. He argues that not all discoveries are progressive and good; many set us backwards in our movement to become ecologically intelligent (Page 45). He cites Rachel Carson and her fight against the use of DDTs as an example of the “myth of progress.” People were blinded by DDT’s seemingly positive expansion of scientific progress, but ignored the resulting decline in local bird populations. For this precise reason, Bowers asserts that we need to see these connecting patterns and thus learn to be ecologically intelligent. Scientific discoveries enabled us to see that our Earth was warming in the first place -- yet scientific discoveries simultaneously shift us in reverse.
Transitioning to an ecologically intelligent state of mind has many potential ways to be successful and productive. A cap-and-trade system could be established to set a limit on carbon emissions, and to motivate companies to pollute less. On a purely economic standpoint, companies are better off innovating and finding ways to emit less carbon than they are continuing to emit carbon and paying for it. Companies could be encouraged to investigate all their products and identify what contributes most to global warming. Once discerned, these companies need to go back to the research stage and develop new, clean innovations that can substitute whatever product originally contributed most to global warming. If companies don’t have the resources to investigate all products, they can choose a single product and follow its whole production journey -- from obtaining materials, sustaining industrial processes, packing and transporting, and disposal -- and identify what phase of the journey contributes most to global warming. Once identified, this phase needs to be changed. Of course, some may find these actions limited and not nearly enough to save our environment. Perhaps it isn’t, but we must think within realistic parameters if we want to progress. This is how ecological intelligence allows us to combine varying disciplines and discourses to create feasible solutions.
Van Jones is a living example of someone trying to implement feasible solutions through ecological intelligence. He depicts how we can work our way to a healthy new economy built by an inclusive alliance deeply rooted in the lives and struggles of the urban poor. Coal, natural gas, and oil are all rapidly-depleting nonrenewable resources that our economy depends on. As resources diminish, the cost of energy increases exponentially and the low-income urban poor are more harshly impacted than the wealthy. Everything becomes ludicrously expensive, and greenhouse gases damage our atmosphere at the same time -- more impactfully in certain areas than others. Rather than separate these highly complex issues of economics, poverty, and race from the environment, Van Jones uses ecological intelligence to combine these normally distinct strains of thinking. He elaborates on his thought process, “Your goal has to be to get the greenest solutions to the poorest people. That’s the only goal that’s morally compelling enough to generate enough energy to pull this transition off” (Page 2). Van Jones’ ecological intelligence allows him to create a dual solution to two disasters facing the nation: environmental destruction and socioeconomic inequality. Jones clarifies, “The best way to fight both global warming and urban poverty is by creating millions of “green jobs” -- weatherizing buildings, installing solar panels, and constructing mass-transit systems” (Page 4). Our economy needs to be restructured to allow equal opportunity for the poor while protecting the Earth. Ecological intelligence can create a campaign that includes more and more people, thus increasing the pool of talent actively fighting for the development of new and innovative solutions to our environmental dilemma. Jones offers urban youth a meaningful, dignified pathway out of poverty, further stating, “Let us connect the people who most need work with the work that most needs to be done” (Page 5).
Naomi Klein uses ecological intelligence to make a parallel argument to Van Jones’ in her article, “What’s Really at Stake at the Paris Climate Conference now Marches are Banned.” Klein refuses to separate issues of social discrimination from the environment when they are so clearly interconnected. In her article, Klein points out how absurd it is that those people most damaged by climate change are the people who are banned from rallying during the Paris Climate Summit. This ban was instituted because there weren’t enough security forces to protect both the protesters outside the summit and the politicians inside the summit. So by default, security forces were designated to protect the politicians. This way of thinking about protection carries a glaring flaw -- wealthy politicians who aren’t as harshly affected by climate change take precedence over the ordinary people who are most affected. Social discrimination plays an undeniable role in environmental security, and Klein’s ecological intelligence allows her to see this environmental discrimination.
Ecological intelligence condemns the idea of separating oneself from the “Other”, or creating dichotomies between “us” and “them”. The ban Klein is arguing against perpetuates the exact separation Bowers warns us of. Klein states, “...people facing the worst impacts of climate change have virtually no voice in western debates about whether to do anything serious to prevent catastrophic global warming….voices of the people who are getting hit first and worst get a little bit of space to be heard at the place where fateful decisions are made. That’s why Pacific islanders and Inuit hunters and low-income people of colour from places like New Orleans travel for thousands of miles to attend.” These two interlacing issues of social discrimination and the environment are significant, and Klein knows she cannot ignore the relationship they play.
Van Jones and Naomi Klein demonstrate Bowers’ concept of ecological intelligence in practice. We do not have to separate present-day issues of social justice and economics from the environment and try combatting them one at a time. Instead, working to solve them together is a more effective strategy in this powerful, culminating movement. It’s a long journey for us all, and transitioning to an ecological intelligent state of mind is harder than it seems. For now, we can look to the key elements of ecological intelligence and strive to incorporate them into our lives. We can collaborate, we can make connections, we can work together -- and surely, we can rise.
Bowers, C.A. "Steps to the Recovery of Ecological Intelligence." OMETECA. 14-15. 43.
Naomi Klein, What’s really at stake at the Paris climate conference now marches are banned, The Guardian (November 20, 2015).
Elizabeth Kolbert, Greening the Ghetto: Can a Remedy Serve for both Global Warming and Poverty? The New Yorker (January 12, 2009).