White House Chronicle

News Analysis With a Sense of Humor

Earth Day 2014: Only Two Cheers, Please

by 1 Comment

April 22 is Earth Day and you can look forward to scattered celebrations, warnings about the future and self congratulations. The environmental community regards the first Earth Day as the beginning of the modern environmental movement.
 
But the real birth of modern environmentalism may have come in 1962, with the publication of Rachel Carson's book “Silent Spring.” It was a detonation heard around the world, and it greatly affected the way a whole generation felt about nature. Its central finding was against the use of the powerful pesticide DDT.
 
The first Earth Day was the brainchild of the late Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-Wisc.). He provided leadership for a burgeoning environmental movement fed not just by a love of nature, as had earlier movements, but by a deep anger at the trashing of natural systems. DDT was killing off wild birds by altering their metabolism in a way that resulted in thin eggshells; West Virginia, and other parts of Appalachia, were being mutilated to extract coal; and the Cayuga River in Ohio had caught fire many times because it was so choked with pollutants.
 
There was an abundance of anger in the 1970s, most of it inflamed in the 1960s. That troubled decade was not just about drugs and flower power, Woodstock and free love. It was about what had become of America and where was it heading. The movements were for civil rights, against the Vietnam War and for women.
 
An environmental movement in the 1970s fit right in; it was inevitable because it was needed. Some of the anger of the decade that had just finished informed that first Earth Day and all those that followed.
 
Because the modern environmental movement was born in anger, at times it has been unruly and counterproductive. Will we quickly forget the hysteria created by the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) 1989 report on the use of the pesticide Alar in apples? Or Greenpeace's admission in 1995 that it had bullied European governments into disposing the Shell Brent Spar oil platform and reservoir on dry land when it should have been dropped into the deep ocean? Or the uncritical enthusiasm for wind power without regard to the environmental impact of wind turbines on birds and bats, or the noise they generate. In New England there are claims of adverse health effects from wind turbine, to say nothing of the adverse visual impact.
 
The modern environmental movement differed from previous conservation movements because it knew how to harness the power of the courts. Litigation was the core of this movement, and it remains so. NRDC's Web site boasts the availability of 350 lawyers.
 
The movement that flowed from Rachel Carson's book and the first Earth Day is global; it is as strong in Europe, if not stronger, than in its birthplace, the United States. It is a large part of the political fabric of Germany, and its policies have played a role in leading that country into a dependence on Russian natural gas.
 
Opposition to the Keystone Pipeline may be another error of environmental enthusiasm. No pipe means more trains carrying oil; ergo more accidents and environmental degradation.
 
To my mind the biggest error the environmental community made was the relentless, even pathological, opposition to nuclear power. It has been an act of faith since the first Earth Day and it may be the one most at odds with environmental well-being. The public has been frightened, but the math says it is the safest way to make electricity.
 
Now a new generation of young idealists is beginning to look past the orthodoxies of the anti-nuclear movement. Richard Lester, head of the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT, said this week that many of his students are studying nuclear because of its environmental advantages, and its value in generating electricity without air pollution.
 
The environmental movement of the 1970s has grown old, but it hasn't grown thoughtful. I wish it a happy birthday, but I can only muster two cheers. I hope it enters a period of introspection and comes to realize that its rigidities can be as counterproductive as those of its industrial antagonists. It remains needed. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate

Earth Day: Why It Was a Quiet Party

by 1 Comment

Forty years ago on the first Earth Day, there was the smell of revolution in the air. Metaphorically millions said aloud and to themselves, “We have fouled our nest; now we must clean it.”

The issues seemed simpler back then. They are so complex today that the world is suffering from environmental shock.

It is not that the state of the environment is not precarious, but rather that the solutions are more elusive.

There are those who believe it can all be done with a hydrogen economy; and others who believe the wind and sun alone can do the job. There are those who can see a plastic-free future, if we would just tax the plastic. Yet others believe Nirvana is just a vegetarian meal away.

Forty years ago, we were still in the throes of the upheavals of the1960s; and the 1960s were the time of The Great Accusation. This accusation was leveled by an angry populace at all institutions, both public and private, that had betrayed the citizenry. The anger of the Tea Party movement today is nothing compared to the anger on the streets in those days; the days of the Vietnam War, civil rights, gender equality and the environment.

The premise under the demonstrations on the first Earth Day, April 22, 1970, was that the only reason the Earth was going to hell in a hand basket was that big companies polluted for profit and that government covered up for them.

It was a simple, powerful premise. The road ahead was clear: Make the polluters pay and all would be well.

It also was a time when the idea of climate change was hardly known, and those who talked about it did so as an arcane curiosity.

Clean air was an issue, but not to forestall global warming. Smog and later acid rain were the air issues.

Water was a huge preoccupation, which is why the Clean Water Act —initially vetoed by President Richard Nixon but then signed after huge protests — preceded the Clean Air Act.

The critical piece of legislation was The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 which has become the bedrock of environmental law.

As time took its course, the simple premise of good guys vs. bad guys evolved into our guys vs. your guys, a wholly different equation. Virtue was less easy to establish back then as it is today.

The environmental movement found its strength not in the streets but in the law courts, testing, and expanding by precedent the scope of the new laws.
It also developed attachments to some technologies over others. It favored a European transport model with high gasoline taxes and a portfolio of electric- generating technologies that it called alternative.

But significantly, the environmental organizations en masse became technology partisans, signifying approval of the obscure (solar, wind, waves and hydrogen) over the practical (hydroelectric and nuclear).

Of the half-dozen or so really effective environmental groups, the National Resources Defense Council became the most successful litigator, dwarfing other groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace. Yet to their opponents they were a unified threat, skillful and intractable. For philosophy they had Amory Lovins (“The Path Not Taken”) and E.F. Schumacher (“Small Is Beautiful”).

Forty years on, the environmental debate is more complicated and there is less room for certainty. At some point, China and India are set to surpass the United States as the world’s largest polluter; governments promise to change the ways of their people, but not if it hurts.

Earth Day’s big birthday Thursday also was overshadowed by a natural disaster: Iceland’s volcano eruption. The economic impact was global in unexpected ways which showed, among other things, how hard it is to lay down absolutes about the environment. You can’t sue a volcano.

Who would have thought a volcano in Iceland would devastate the cut-flower industry in Kenya, and with severe consequences for that country’s economy? Who ever knew that a third of Europe’s cut flowers came from faraway Kenya on polluting aircraft?

Who needs flowers? Kenyans do. –For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate