Patricia Limerick argues that environmental history offers a unique opportunity to address contemporary ecological challenges while revitalizing the historical profession.
John R. McNeill emphasizes the need for environmental history to broaden its scope by addressing underexplored regions, eras, and themes.
John R. Gillis critiques the landlocked nature of environmental history, highlighting its neglect of oceans, which comprise most of Earth’s surface and are central to its ecosystems.
David Blackbourn highlights how environmental history reflects broader shifts in the historical discipline, such as the renewed focus on place, materiality, and “big history.”
Harriet Ritvo explores the intersection of environmental history and environmental concerns, emphasizing how the discipline reflects the growing awareness of global environmental challenges.
Franz Uekoetter examines the evolution of environmental history in the context of globalization, highlighting its early global focus and the more recent trend towards specialization and nuanced narratives.
Mahesh Rangarajan explores the intersection of nation-states, borders, and nature, emphasizing how human-made boundaries conflict with the natural world’s disregard for such limits.
Peter Coates analyzes the UK universities’ “impact” criterion, which emphasizes measurable contributions to public policy and the economy, and uses it to highlight the distinctive relevance of environmental history.
Zelko expresses skepticism about the transformative potential of environmental history, arguing that it is often more useful to historians than to addressing global crises.
Libby Robin argues that environmental history is well positioned to address planetary concerns through interdisciplinary collaboration with scientists and policymakers.
