Article by Jialu Gao

Photo by Patrick Hendry on Unsplash

Frequently, when people talk about climate change, images of burning forests and melting glaciers often come to mind. However, behind these catastrophic events, there is a deep-seated factor closely related to society. The problem is not only in the atmosphere; our economy, habits, and lifestyle also play a role, which is what the Institute of Environmental Sociology studies. This discipline discusses how our social and scientific structures influence the Earth. It examines the social structures that contribute to climate change, from energy consumption and inequality to the ideals that represent “a good life”, rather than viewing it as a strictly technical or scientific problem. The “human exemptionalist paradigm”—this illogical view that human beings and nature are separated from each other – has long dominated modern society. The limitations of this concept are manifested in climate change. Climate change is not just an environmental crisis – on the contrary, it is more like a mirror, reflecting the structure of our society.

Capitalism has been based on a simple promise since the Industrial Revolution: expansion that never stops. Allan Schnaiberg, a sociologist, called this the “treadmill of production” in 1980. It means that an economy must keep growing to stay alive. But this treadmill doesn’t just run on machines; it also runs on consumerism. In modern societies, we are pushed to purchase more, upgrade faster, and believe that happiness comes from consuming things. Every purchase makes the system work—and the planet warmer. Consumerism and capitalism work together in a loop where success means growth and failure means restraint. If it stops running, the economy will go into crisis. If it keeps running, the environment will fall apart.

A lot of scientists call this time the Anthropocene, which means that humans have become a physical force. But researchers Andreas Malm and Alf Hornborg (2014) say that this name hides a deeper truth. Not all people are equally responsible for changes to the planet. The richest 7% of people in the world make almost half of all emissions, while the poorest half make less than 10%. Consequently, they propose defining this epoch as the Sociocene — the era of society, rather than species. Environmental sociology reminds us that damage to the environment is not something that happens naturally; it is something mankind can do. It shows how production, inequality and power interact. This inequality is deeply rooted in the framework of global capitalism and is not an accidental phenomenon. Through the international supply chain, developed countries outsource pollution and manufacturing to developing countries, while they still consume their final products. In most cases, carbon emissions are exported together with cheap labor. This process, which environmental sociologists refer to as “ecological unequal exchange,” occurs when the Global South carries the ecological costs of consumption while the Global North receives the benefits. Official carbon accounting rarely accounts for the pollution, health issues, and displacement that communities close to waste dumps or mining sites frequently experience. Because those who made the least contribution to the issue are frequently the ones who suffer the most from its effects, the climate crisis reflects global injustice.

According to sociologist John Urry (2010), our lives are based on a “mobility complex”—a system of people, things, and information moving constantly. High-carbon infrastructures are necessary for everyday conveniences like quick deliveries, inexpensive flights, and streaming videos. These behaviors have emotional significance due to consumerism: Travel becomes identity, and purchasing becomes belonging. Those things bring a kind of physiological and psychological sense of identity which is very difficult to express. While modern progress produces its own dangers. The same systems that promise comfort and security now threaten the planet’s stability. Climate change is modernity turning against itself — the shadow cast by our own success.

Some contend that markets and technology will save us and that capitalism can be “greened” via innovation. According to some theories of ecological modernization, sustainability and profit may exist together (Mol & Spaargaren, 2000). However, global emissions are still increasing decades after climate pledges. Often, “green growth” is just more growth. A sobering reminder that environmental issues are social issues is provided by environmental sociology. Rethinking our values, way of life, and what we refer to as progress is necessary to address the climate crisis. Smarter production machines themselves won’t bring about significant change; a more equitable, less consumerist society that finally learns to live within its boundaries will do so.

References

Schnaiberg, A. (1980). The environment: From surplus to scarcity.

Malm, A., & Hornborg, A. (2014). The geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative. The anthropocene review, 1(1), 62-69.

Urry, J. (2010). Mobile sociology 1. The British journal of sociology, 61, 347-366.

Mol, A. P., & Spaargaren, G. (2000). Ecological modernisation theory in debate: A review. Environmental politics, 9(1), 17-49.

Related