Butler 1

Grace Butler

Becky Hsu

R1A

3 September 2019

Two Approaches to Climate Change: Top-Down v. Bottom-Up

In an age dominated by more than seven billion humans and excessive carbon footprints,

Elizabeth Kolbert gives insight to the ominous fate of our planet throughout her essay, “Man in

the Anthropocene” from ​Field Notes from a Catastrophe.​ This “Anthropocenic” era, according

to chemist Paul Crutzen, is characterized by humans becoming so powerful and influential that

they are capable of altering earth on a geological scale. Kolbert provides details on the

larger-scale actions and advancements that we can take combat climate change, although I

perceive smaller changes as the key to bettering our current environmental state.

According to Kolbert, the introduction of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) into

mass-produced items started the initial effects of climate change, more specifically, the ozone

hole. CFCs cause stratospheric ozone to break down into oxygen which led to the “hole” over

Antarctica being discovered in the 1980’s. However, it wasn’t until 1987 that the Montreal

Protocol was signed and began phasing out CFCs. She argues that although action was

eventually taken, havoc continues to take place around the globe. From the retreat of arctic sea

ice to warming of oceans to the thawing of permafrost, climate change is approaching a threshold

to which Kolbert thinks will become impossible to reverse. She then shares potential solutions to

climate change, advocating for new politics, new technology, and new consumption patterns on a

larger, manufacturing scale.

 Butler 2

While I concur with Kolbert in the sense of government intervention and technology, I

contradict her views on consumption. She advocates for changing consumption patterns from the

top-down, whereas I perceive bottom-up changes as a more compelling and effective way to

approach this issue. In fact, nine years after “Man in the Anthropocene” was published, Kolbert

published another edition of her book adding a chapter called “Island in the Wind.” In this new

chapter, Kolbert clearly shifted her preference from larger change to my preference for local

change. In the new essay, she talks about the 2,000-Watt Society project - an initiative for a

2,000 watt yearly energy consumption for an individual. According to the director of the project,

Roland Stulz, this project is realistic with “societal decisions… technical innovation, and the

resolve of every individual to act in an energy-conscious way” (Kolbert 272). If every person

were to start their own modified version of this life by continuously turning off lights, using

reusable water bottles, and walking, carpooling, or using mass transit, then this could lead to a

chain reaction of communities around the globe becoming more energy efficient. As a result,

these communities would be more susceptible to investing in renewable energy or new

technologies and then pressure companies to limit their impact on climate change too.

In addition, as Kolbert mentioned in her original essay, governments are often reluctant to take

action in matters of global warming. Kolbert added President Reagan’s secretary’s statement,

“...if CFCs were indeed destroying the ozone layer, then people should simply wear sunglasses

and buy hats” (Kolbert 185). President Reagan only ratified the Montreal Protocol after

constituency pressures. Using this as an example, the “domino effect” of energy consumption

proves to work its way from the people to corporations to the government, enabling for policies

to be put in place to fight climate change.

 Butler 3

Although Kolbert and I see any change as a step in the right direction to saving our

world, others may argue that global warming is just a test of innovation and will be something

we work through naturally. Kolbert explicitly addresses this counter-argument by stating how

some may believe that “Luck and resourcefulness are… essential human qualities. This capacity

has allowed us... to overcome any number of threats in the past… It could be argued… that

global warming will turn out to be just one more test in a sequence...” (187). Even though

climate change has pushed for more technological advancement, nothing is close to saving the

planet as fast as we need it too. If we all sit back and watch our world collapse before our eyes,

at what point do we demand for change and take an active instead of passive approach? Day by

day, our timeline becomes more restricted as oceans continue to rise, glaciers melt and we see

that a “technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself...” (189).

In “Man in the Anthropocene,” Kolbert gives a broad overview on the development of

our industrialized world heading in the direction of self-destruction. She analyzes the shocking

effects of global warming and what larger scale changes we can make. Although a valid

standpoint, I see a more realistic and evident solution coming from individualized, smaller

changes. These smaller changes can then lead to the bigger changes that can ultimately save our

earth and fastrack us out of our current road to demise.

 Butler 4

Works Cited

Kolbert, Elizabeth. “Island in the Wind,” ​Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and

Climate Change​. Bloomsbury, 2015.

Kolbert, Elizabeth. “Man in the Anthropocene,” ​Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature,

and Climate Change.​ Bloomsbury, 2015.