Throughout the years, society has had differing opinions and philosophies towards our role in the environment. For instance, are we stewards? Or, can we simply take what we wish in resources with no thought of future impending consequences to the natural environment. It is these ideas that shape society and influence the current generation, thus effect future possible change. This paper argues how a society’s mindset and information available have the ability to revolutionize how we act towards the environment, not only for the better but also for the worse.
Let’s start off with the for worse and where it began – the Industrial Revolution. By the middle of the nineteenth, Industrialism was able to feed a consumerism mindset with mass-produced goods. This would not have been so horrible on the environment if industrialism did not take land, animals, plants, fuels and minerals in enormous quantities (Stoll 2007, 4). For instance, textile factories started popping out all throughout cities to feed the insatiable desire for clothes from the public. The Industrial Revolution quickly started a new era and mindset of a race to consume goods. Where once people farmed and exchanged goods for services, factories and cities were now making way. Taking earth resources, such as coal, for economic reasons became the norm. However, no one truly knew the impact of depleting resources. Therefore, the majority of people were happily embracing the new social change. This ignorance, yet hunger to have, is what influenced a movement of doing whatever was quick and economically prosperous. The industrial revolution created a mindset to consume, thus influence a social attitude that had little to no remorse for what was happening in the environment.
However, at the time, there were other environmental ideologies taking place. In the 1850s, the concept of romanticism was created by environmentally inspired painters, poets, and writers. The artists saw “the sublime” in wilderness and depicted it in their art. The sublime was “a feeling of awe and fear at the transcendent power of God” (Stoll 2007, 6). Meanwhile, the romantics also did not see a correlation between human progress and the supremacy over nature. Instead, human progress submits to or is concord with nature (Stoll 2007, 6). Artists were proposing ideas of respect for the environment through their art. Meanwhile, the romanticism movement also brought upon major ideas and philosophies into the environmentalism movement. For example, George Perkins Marsh noticed that humans were changing and disrupting the planet on a geological scale. Therefore, he believed because people can change the Earth, they also have a moral responsibility to manage it (Stoll 2007, 9). Meanwhile, environmental economist, Herman Daly, criticized how unnatural economic growth is, thus how dangerous it can become. For example, in the natural world there are checks and balances. Products can be easily broken down into basic elements to be reused or organisms use what is available nearby to live (Stoll 2007, 12). However, the economy is none of those things and can have infinite expansion. Overall, due to the romanticism movement and its leaders, respect for the environment was formulated and a necessary criticism on the unsustainability brought upon human society was developed.
Soon these philosophical ideas were no longer ideas, but ideas put into action. A new mass green movement was initiated. During the 1960s, people started seeing the consequences of dismissing environmental degradation. For example, Rachael Carson in her book Silent Spring revealed that DDT in insecticide was impacting human health and the environment (Stoll 2007, 16). DDT was being stored in the fatty tissues of the animals we eat and entering into the water table. She was also able to reveal to the nation that the “consumption in industrial society could erode the very fabric of life” (Stoll 2007, 16). The DDT scandal was just further evidence of how over consumption and industrial manufactures care vary little for the public, much less the environment. Previous critiques made by philosophers during the romanticism movement were now being put to practice with cases of visible environmental degradation. Soon after Silent Spring, the concept of climate change was recognized. People now knew human activity, in the form of gas emissions, was contributing to the warming of the planet. Fueled by environmental philosophies of humanly and earthly interconnection and personal responsibility to the environment, activists started nation-wide rallies and movements for greener practices. For example, environmental movements, such as Earth Day, were created to help progress and inspire environmentally friendly agendas. With more scientific information and environmental philosophies, people were equipped with the necessary ammunition to spark mass movements on sustainability.
However, for every hero there is a villain. Huge corporate industries and corrupt politicians are currently the villains. They have seen the mass movement on green technology and green ideas, and have been meddling in. As I argued before, the mindset of the public is what is critical for mass movement. Therefore, huge coal and natural gas companies or massive business tycoons have been attacking the mindset of the public. They do so by calling environmentalism and green initiatives economically destructive and even religiously threatening (Stoll 2007, 20). They also fund climate change denier scientists to fabricate fake research or pursue other false conclusions on why global warming is occurring. These corporations will even go as far to dismissing influential environmental scientists and discrediting climate change. However, other villains are the corrupt politicians who are funded by giant corporate heads, like the Koch brothers. They put forth policies that only support these nonrenewable companies and assign incapable officials to department heads, like the EPA or Department of Interior. Even President Ronal Raegan, in the pockets of major corporations and nonrenewable based companies, dismissed acid rain and weakened the EPA with corrupt officials and a small budget (Stoll 2007, 20-21).
There is a massive question on whether the USA or other countries will be able to adapt on time before it is too late. This is a really hard question to answer and a question of our time. Currently, it seems like we are going to hit the 1.5 C mark way before 2050. This is a point where the IPCC assures would mean catastrophic results. I say this because, as stated, major corporations and corrupt politicians are making significant impact on how the public currently reacts to climate change, mainly due to anti-climate change remarks and false scientific news broadcasting. If that were not enough, many environmentalist and scientists also believe public policy is far too slow for the urgency of the problem (Stoll 2007, 21). It all seems very bleak. However, it is important to note that we, as individuals, are not as powerless as we may think. For instance, we elect the officials who we want to represent us. It is time for the public to start taking action and learning where our official’s loyalty truly lie, in the people or in power? If it were in the people, politicians would be doing everything they could to prevent climate change impacts from destroying the planet for the future generation. This skepticism can start at the president level.
Word Count: 1186
Question: Fred Palmer, a notorious coal industry lobbyist, stated “Every time you turn your car on and you burn fossil fuels and put CO2 in the world, you are doing the Lord’s work.” How do you argue with someone about this? Can you even do such a thing, especially on the grounds of religion?
Environmental Studies 