![]()
1 | The US Still reluctant and unreliable |
There was a time when the United States (US) had an environmental awakening that took the country by storm. Between 1968 and 1972 and through the better part of the 1970s, public opinion rallied for environmental action. Years of accumulating evidence had alerted Americans to a wide range of growing environmental problems. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), for example, presented a scathing critique of the indiscriminant use of chemicals. While employed to exterminate a limited and arbitrary array of pests, they were in fact poisoning the natural world, including humans. All across the nation there was increasing concern over acute air and water pollution and their impact on public health. Nuclear fall-out from bomb testing in the atmosphere, strip mining in regions like Appalachia and the destruction of ancient forests worried the public, as species after species, which carried with them a symbolism of America’s identity, seemed to be threatened with extinction. Population explosion,1 especially in the developing world and its repercussions on industrialized nations, captured the public’s imagination, echoing fears of ensuing resource competition and unrest. News of droughts and famine happening across the world added to these worries. Reports of shocking environmental catastrophes due to oil spills off of Cornwall and Santa Barbara and news of an insecticide spill in the Rhine River, decimating fish populations in Germany and the Netherlands, all added fuel to the flames. Populations worldwide, but principally in developed nations, began to question civilization’s accomplishments. They wondered about the fate of the planet itself.2 United Nations (UN) Secretary General U Thant’s warning that “the future of life on earth could be endangered,”3 helped crystallize a wide range of concerns into concrete demands for both new legislation and policies that would address environmental issues in the US. Registering public concerns, policy makers pledged to deal with a wide range of important environmental challenges that in turn led to unprecedented action undertaken by the US government.
In a speech which might today seem surprising, it was a Republican president, Richard Nixon, who acknowledged a worried nation’s concerns and stood up for concrete action. In his January 22, 1970 State of the Union Address which marked the beginning of a decade full of possibility, he wondered:
The great question of the seventies is, shall we surrender to our surroundings, or shall we make our peace with nature and begin to make reparations for the damage we have done to our air, to our land and to our water?
Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions … .
Clean air, clean water, open spaces-these should once again be the birthright of every American. If we act now, they can be … . The program I shall propose to Congress will be the most comprehensive and costly program in this field in America’s history … It is not a program for just one year … but 5 years or 10 years—whatever time is required to do the job … . The answer is not to abandon growth, but to redirect it.4
Nixon’s speech reaffirmed commitment to growth and prosperity but simultaneously acknowledged what today seems almost improbable to suggest, that is, that the US government would take concerted action to rectify environmental damage. He freely admitted that it would be an ongoing, long-term, and expensive project that Americans needed to pay for to make “peace with nature.” He proposed this comprehensive plan of action to benefit humanity and “enrich life itself and enhance our planet as a place hospitable to man.”
Scholars argue that the level of Nixon’s determination was short-lived, his rhetoric misleading once push-back to his efforts by the automobile industry, for instance, became more apparent. David Zwick’s criticism is biting, “The President climbed aboard the environmental bandwagon in 1970 when the fare was cheap, but quickly jumped off again as soon as the stakes began to rise.”5 Nixon’s political instincts told him that this was an issue that united a nation which was conflicted over the war in Vietnam and upheaval for the attainment of “new” social rights. He saw the possibility of putting forth a message that resonated to all Americans and took it.6 The credit for the bills passed during this period belongs to Congressional mobilization, perseverance, and leaders like Edmund Muskie (Democratic senator from Maine) who had adroitly won much bipartisan support for his bill on air pollution, for instance.7 Reactions from industry were to be expected given the extent of the proposed actions to deal with pollution and environmental degradation. They did not passively sit back to watch the tide change against their interests. Nonetheless, even if Nixon was in fact opportunistic, his words, as they were spoken at that historic moment, reflected the spirit of the wider public’s determination to rally to action that has not since been repeated in quite the same way.
Even President Obama who, as we will see later on, brought the US back to the climate “table” in his second term, spoke almost sheepishly as he tried to explain that, although people understand that climate change poses a problem, getting them to act is another matter. In fact, in an interview to journalists Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Mark Landler and Coral Davenport of the New York Times in 2016, President Obama discussed climate action during his term in office and how it needed to be framed for the wider public.
During the course of my presidency, we’ve solidified that climate is real, it’s important, and we need to do something about it … but … translating concern into action is the challenge … what makes climate change difficult is that it is not an instantaneous catastrophic event … . So part of our goal has been to raise awareness … create frameworks, structures, rules … create economic opportunity and improve people’s well being.8
In contrast, Nixon’s 1970 speech exuded confidence and faith in the government and the people. He projected determination and the belief that America would not stay idle and that government could set its detailed plan in motion. Nixon was fortunate in that he had the help and willingness of a forward thinking Congress that pushed him to put forth a robust environmental agenda into action. Among the most important federal laws on the environment enacted during the 1970s (during Nixon’s administration and beyond) were the following: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Resources Recovery Act of 1970, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) Amendments of 1972, the Federal Environmental Pesticides Control Act of 1972, the Marine Protection Act of 1972, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, the Surface mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.9 While Nixon’s speech marks a turning point in US environmental legislation, the first Earth Day celebration in the US that took place in the spring of 1970 served as a catalyst for the rise of the environmental movement as environmental issues soared to the top of the priorities list on the nation’s policy agenda.
Senator Gaylord Nelson from Wisconsin held the strong belief rooted in liberalism that government could serve people’s needs. In the 1950s as governor of Wisconsin, he actively supported policies by which a more affluent America could invest both in society and in the future. Although he didn’t start out as a politician with an environmental agenda, his interest was first triggered by the growing sprawl of metropolitan Milwaukee and Chicago that led to a mass exodus of urban dwellers looking for opportunities to commune with nature. As a result, Nelson found the green spaces of his childhood overrun by people. In response he created the Outdoor Recreation Act Program to preserve state lakes and woods and marshes. By the time he became a senator in 1962, Nelson was a transformed conservation advocate. He worked tirelessly, and increasingly his interest revolved around issues of water pollution and extended to the wider environmental crisis he was increasingly witnessing. Nelson was inspired by the strategies of the anti-war movement and vowed to organize a nation-wide environmental teach-in in the spring of 1970.
Nelson’s call to action resulted in thousands of events taking place across the US. Adam Rome in The Genius of Earth Day (2014) attributed the birth of the first green generation of Americans to Nelson’s initiative because “roughly 1,500 colleges and 10,000 schools held teach-ins. Earth Day activities took place in hundreds of churches and temples, in city parks and in front of corporate and government buildings.”10 Thousands of people were involved in something that had never happened before. To organize it required out-of-the-box thinking, creating the first eco-infrastructure model that went on to become the kernel for lobbying efforts, environmental programs, eco-literature, environmental desks in media publications, etc. Until then, the environmental movement had been severely fragmented. Earth Day galvanized the efforts of activists and breathed real life into their endeavors. It was a time of empowerment that stayed with many of them for decades, shaping their careers and their life choices.
This was a time when the US was transitioning into a new period of political history. The New Deal that had brought the country out of the depression had served its purpose, and in the post-Second World War period of increasing affluence it gave way to a new liberalism that now included a “qualitative element.” Government was now seen as having a new and expanded role in improving the quality of peoples’ lives and protecting the environment. This was a time when Americans were comfortable enough financially to start wondering about the quality of the milk they drank, the suburban sprawl that was devouring open spaces, the smog over its cities, the repercussions of chemicals in all areas of life, the nuclear fall-out, the overcrowded schools, the growing urban waste and the pollution of the rivers and streams. They dared to question their nation’s direction and pondered whether they would prefer to pay for quality of life rather than additional consumption. In the 60s and 70s these questions (which remain pertinent today) were deeply and seriously debated, and while choices were never consistent or straightforward, ...
