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.
Martin V. Melosi reflects on the past and future of environmental history, noting its broad scope but also its tendencies to prioritize social history and ecological concerns over certain “top-down” topics, such as the environmental politics of specific governments.
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.
Stephen J. Pyne argues that environmental historians can offer practical value to communities, particularly in areas such as wildfire management.
Richard Walker expresses concern over the current state of environmental history, urging it to adopt a more assertive and impactful role in addressing pressing global issues like climate change and species extinction.
Julia Adaney Thomas argues that climate collapse has fundamentally shifted the focus of historical inquiry from a quest for liberty to the challenge of ensuring survival with ecological decency.
Jane Carruthers traces the development of environmental history, showing how it emerged in the 1970s from the environmental movement with a focus on addressing urgent issues such as resource depletion, climate change, and sustainability, while aiming to bridge the sciences and humanities.
Christof Mauch highlights that environmental history provides a distinctive perspective by treating nature as an active agent and by bridging boundaries of time, space, and discipline.
