Much of the recent history I’ve become interested in lately deals with the rise of environmentalism in the 1960s and 1970s, and I’m fascinated by its broad similarities with today’s heightened discourse on environmental issues.
The late 1960s/early 1970s was rife with apocalyptic environmental sentiments, like Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring or Paul Erlich’s Population Bomb, that called for a drastic shift in our resource-exploitative and consumer-oriented American Way of Life. American globalization was (and still is) fueled by this consumption ethic, and a remarkably diverse collection of people and groups in the 60s/70s rose to speak about alternative paths and issue warnings about what was (and still is?) our trajectory if we maintained the consumerist path. The environmental concerns of those days intersected deeply with ecological scientists who railed against the misuse of chemicals, with anti-war activists who were bitter about American imperialism fighting wars on the other side of the world against an “evil” force that was diametrically opposed to American Way of Life, and it found support amongst a contingent of youths who challenged the dominant culture and created a diverse and often contradictory movement inclusively labeled “counterculture.” The oil shocks and energy crises of the 1970s only seemed to elevate the importance of environmental concerns with other, negative aspects of the American Way of Life.
Today’s news and commentary is once again filled with such similar themes that it makes me wonder if someone simply cut-and-paste discussions from those years into today’s world. I’m especially interested in discussions about how overpopulation, the role oil plays in lubricating the cogs of the modern world, and climate change are all interrelated. (Speaking of which, this 6-part documentary by ABC Science called The End of Oil is amazing.)
It all makes me wonder: are we talking about all this stuff all over again because history is cyclical or because they are relevant issues that won’t go away? If they are issues that won’t go away, then what explains why the dire predictions about overpopulation and climate change from 30-40 years ago were crushed by the an expanding American economy, increased abundance in food supplies, and an earth that still seems to be able to maintain another doubling in the world population? Any thoughts?
3 comments:
I really like this post, Rog. It's a great question and observation. And I want to make it clear that my response is not an attack aimed at anyone. These are the thoughts and questions with which I grapple.
Is it cyclical or is it an issue that won't go away? Is it cut-and-paste?
How's our tap water?
How's our ocean-caught fish?
How do the plants grow in our planting beds? How does our grass grow?
Where does our food come from? Where does the lumber for our homes come from?
What about dead zones in our oceans, lakes, and rivers?
What happened to our Ohio River, Thomas Jefferson's favorite river (You could see clear to the bottom in his day)?
What happened to the countless mountain tops all over Appalachia that have literally been REMOVED so that it's easier to find coal?
I do agree that Armageddon does seem to come and go over and over BUT MOSTLY FOR US HERE IN AMERICA. Like many problems and questions though, I think we might view it differently were we living in South/Central America...in China...in Iraq. The world has never been a perfect place, but many people have paid for progress.
My other problem with whether or not this is all just cut-and-paste is this. Wouldn't it be a good thing if we all learned to live more simply? Wouldn't it be a good thing if we became less dependent on unrenewable resources? Wouldn't it be a good thing if we lived with a sense of honor and gratitude for this amazing planet? Wouldn't it be great if we lived with a sense that we were part of an incredibly diverse and beautiful chain of life? Wouldn't it be great if we all drove efficient vehicles? I'm not pointing the finger at anyone here. We're all part of this...unavoidably.
Another problem with the whole cut-and-paste thing is that there are much more nefarious cut-and-paste ideologies out there in the world which ARE actually driving governmental policy and spending. If scare tactics are at work in this talk of global warming and climate change, they're not really working. How much of our national budget is devoted to the EPA? How powerful really is the environmental lobby? Relative to the DOD, not very.
I did watch that End of Oil series...compelling stuff...doesn't bode well. For me, I'll definitely admit that I don't believe we live in a sustainable society. I don't believe there's an endless amount of oil. If that's drinking the Kool-Aid, then so be it.
I don't think it is cyclical nor do I think it's an issue that won't go away. I think it's an issue that's getting progressively worse. We might be repeatedly misjudging the end-date, but that doesn't mean it isn't out there. What I find interesting is that most of the people in the End of Oil documentary are not environmentalists, per se. Most were geologists. Granted, they were former geologists, and one started a solar power business.
I don't wish for Armageddon. I hope and pray that we can find better ways to value the gift of life on this planet for ourselves and for future generations.
Great reply, Brad. Thanks for your commentary. You pose important questions that need to asked on a personal as well as social, national, and global level.
Regarding cut-and-paste of green issues from then to now, I'm still trying to understand the contextual and structural economic, political, and cultural reasons why inflating oil prices (among other inflating prices) in the 1970s went DOWN in the 1980s, and was followed by some of the world's most expansive growth both in terms of economics and liberal democracy. If things in the 1970s were so bad that Ford's first State of the Union address in 1975 (one year before America's famed bicentenial) exclaimed that "the state of the Union is not good," then how, specifically, did it get better? The Reagan Revolution brought Morning to America again, but how? He ran up (then)unheard of Federal deficits, yet cut many wasteful govt programs, including many focused on environmental concerns. What was done in the 1980s to lower energy costs and help make the economy rise up through the late 1990s? While Reagan's optimism was certainly helpful and appealing (just as Obama's is today), hope alone won't make the substantial changes for betterment occur. I'm wondering what actually happened that allowed America to forget the troubles of the 1970s only to have them rear its head again today in the 2000s. Any thoughts?
This recent NY Times op-ed on today's oil prices NOT being a bubble is intersting: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12krugman.html?em&ex=1210737600&en=4c285a3b0ff54893&ei=5087
Post a Comment