In just the last few decades, the green or environmental movement has expanded worldwide and become predominantly concerned about climate change and its effects on nature and humans. Clearly, it is not so simple to claim whether the movement was either a success or a failure, since everyone has their own perspective and we can see both successes and failures in the various aspects of the movement. Furthermore, considering that issues like climate change are realistically irreversible, we really should be asking ourselves what we as active U.S. and global citizens can do moving forward to combat environmental issues. Nevertheless, the history of the environmental movement serves as an invaluable guide to future policies and action. As a start, when did the modern environmental movement exactly begin? Who were these initiators? What were the motivations and visions?
Last semester, during the rhetorical analysis unit of English 137H, I examined a poster created for the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. After some research, I learned about the context–how student opposition to the Vietnam War, air pollution from industries and massive vehicles, and unconstrained levels of water pollution lead to the start of the environmental movement. Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson announced a “national teach-in on the environment” to the media, hoping that he could catalyze a movement like the student anti-war movement through the unification of Republicans and Democrats, rich and poor, tycoons and low-income workers. After all, these political, social, and economic groups all shared the common interest of improving the state of the environment. The exigence to end pollution, the kairos of the anti-war movement, and the common ground between all groups sparked twenty million Americans to demonstrate on the first Earth Day in 1970 and paved the way to a global movement involving nearly 200 countries today.
As a result of this successful national demonstration, the government created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 and implemented the Clean Air Act in 1970, Clean Water Act in 1972, and the Endangered Species Act in 1973. Furthermore, in 1978, Congress banned the use chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs or Freon) in aerosol cans, which were found by scientists, including one Penn State meteorology professor I’ve talked to, to be depleting the stratospheric ozone layer in the polar regions. However, completely banning the use of CFCs was highly controversial, and there is still opposition to the complete phase-out of CFCs today because of the estimated $130 billion for CFC alternatives. Although the link between CFCs and ozone depletion is effectively indisputable, the debate over the extent to which ozone depletion is significant to warrant governmental regulations of CFCs remains. We know that the ozone hole, which shows signs of healing now, poses the threat of more ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching humans, leading to skin cancer and even death. However, considering that the ozone hole doesn’t accelerate global warming, many would argue that climate change is a much larger issue.
Pollution remains a major issue today, with about 4.6 million deaths every year directly attributable to air pollution; nonetheless, the U.S. has made great strides to regulate it and make technological advances. Just ask anyone who lived before the 1970s and they will likely tell you that we have already come a long way. In the 1990s, environmentalists became increasingly concerned with a new serious problem–climate change. It took several more years for the scientific community to come to a general consensus that the Earth is indeed warming and that as a result of copious amounts of carbon dioxide released through human activity, climate change is largely anthropogenic. However, unlike how most Americans were unified and proactively worked to end pollution starting on the first Earth day, it is evident that Americans today are more divided over climate change and largely not motivated to sacrifice significant time, effort, and money to stop climate change. Perhaps many people do not feel that they are directly impacted enough yet to worry about climate change, but do we really need to wait until our water runs out during a record-breaking drought or a Category 5 hurricane to demolish our houses? Yes, there is great uncertainty about what climate change will look like in the future, but should we just be environmentally conscious and satisfied with the current acceleration of global temperatures, or should we be active citizens and collectively act to truly transform the world? I fervently side with the latter.
We can see our past and current successes in renewable energy, alternative transportation, recycling, saving energy and water, environmental advocacy, and widespread education. On the other hand, we have failed to prevent the polar ice caps from rapidly melting, half of world’s tropical and temperate forests from disappearing, species from going extinct 1,000 times faster than normal, hundreds of miles of desertification, and hundreds of thousands of human deaths every year, to name a few. Compromise is as much progress as we can get today realistically, but it is clear that we shouldn’t settle with compromise. Recently, I helped moderate a deliberation about going green at Penn State, and I vividly remember one participant’s suggestion that we should have a environmental event like THON, a dance marathon which raises money to combat pediatric cancer. People participate in THON not because of their political affiliation, socioeconomic status, religion, or place in society; they do it because it promotes the welfare of others.
According to former Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies dean James Speth, a quintessential model we can follow to ensure the protection of our environment and the prevention of climate change is the civil rights revolution of the 1960s. Although it was confrontational and violent, all the demonstrations, marches, and protests lead to the fulfillment of a dream. Major change may not happen immediately or smoothly, considering that we have other issues and priorities today, but the green movement can achieve greater successes in the future if we all can unite and act wisely and effectively.
Ben,
I agree that evaluating the green movement is not binary; it is a spectrum of success and failure, excelling in some aspects while lacking in the others. Its progress is notable, and I believe, about to revolutionize society. The advent of electric cars into popular culture is continually rising. With the development of autonomous vehicles, electric cars are rising to the forefront of the technological sector of the automobile industry. However, for the green movement to achieve success in other climate protection measures, I believe it needs more ardent supporters. If all who agreed with the movement had it as their top priority, change would rapidly follow. This would allow a more cohesive approach from supporters across the globe to capture the ears of politicians and lobbyists.
Sean
Ben,
I think that this article is really good in that it tackles the problem of global warming on a social level, which, if we really want to enact meaningful change, must be the way we approach global warming. I think that the issue with having a THON for global warming is that people would not be able to feel the same kind of emotional connection to an abstract concept like global warming as they do with the children present at the event who suffer from various cancers. I still think that it is a great idea, but am dubious of its success. I feel like you are spot on with saying that progress towards promoting positive environmental change will not be smooth, but we will hopefully get there sooner rather than later!
Gopal