Let’s Work Together to Fight for the Environment, or Not Fight at All

By Cathy Doodnauth

Passion for the environment comes from relationships with it. According to Julia Corbett, author of Communicating Nature, “our environmental belief systems are formed and shaped by childhood experiences, a sense of place, and historical and cultural contexts.” By this, she means that the way we interact with nature while we are young can affect how we feel about it when we are older. If we are constantly in the environment as a child, chances are we will try protecting it at an age where we can change things. This is what can cause the passion that helps us fight for the earth’s rights. My parents’ lives were constantly intertwined with the environment, as they grew up on farms in Guyana. As a result, they took me to parks and camping grounds several times a year as I grew up. I believe this association with the environment as I grew up is what gave me my passion for environmentalism as a young adult. 

Corbett goes on to discuss connections between environmental belief systems and the effects of it- the opinions, behaviors, and attitudes. She believes individual beliefs are the way to have a united environmental front, in order to combat environmental issues. But the only way to make individuals believe in environmentalism is to see how they think about it and change their opinions to positive ones. I agree with this belief- I think that individuals banding together are the key to changing the future of the environment for the better. However, if there is a negative connotation to the world “environmentalist,” uniting against environmental issues would be hard. Being seen just as stereotypical “tree-huggers” and even hippies can hurt the environmentalist’s fight for solutions. Turning this stereotype around is what can help more people protest for the rights of the environment. Those against “tree-huggers” can learn to sympathize with nature more and end up helping save the environment. A positive attitude can really turn things around. This positive attitude, combined with passion for nature, can surely bring environmental justice to the twenty-first century.

Wendell Berry, like Corbett, believes that there are different individual beliefs on environment. An environmental activist and novelist, he specifically believes that there are two sides of environmentalism. In his collection of essays, Home Economics, he touches on the idea of preservation of wilderness, including the different sides of the belief. On one side are those who “believe that the biosphere is an egalitarian system, in which all creatures, including humans, are equal in value and have an equal right to live and flourish.” In Corbett’s terms, these people have an ecocentric view of the world. On the other side are the “nature conquerors,” people with a two-part view of reality; one part is human profit, comfort, and society. The other part includes natural resources and raw materials, proving an anthropogenic view of the world. I think that splitting a belief into two radically opposing sides happens to many ideas out there. Everyone wants black-and-white opinions; either you are pro-idea or con-idea. 

Unfortunately, I do not think there are many people out there who can say they are totally one-sided on some ideas. I know that there are cases where I like to believe things from both sides. Environmentalism is one of these ideas, and Berry makes the same point.  “I would prefer to stay in the middle, not to avoid taking sides, but because I think the middle is a side, as well as the real location of the problem.”  His beliefs are similar to those of Corbett, as they believe choosing one side is not going to solve any environmental issues. Instead, it would only make the problems larger and harder to resolve. Rather than believing someone to be a “tree-hugger,” or a “nature conqueror,” we should try to relate to the middle of the ideas and unite over common beliefs. A union like this, filled with passionate people who want to save the environment and help humans simultaneously, would really help solve many of the issues out there.

Rachel Carson, famous author of Silent Spring, spent her childhood “wandering the banks of the Allegheny River in the pristine village of Springdale, Pennsylvania…”. Growing up, she spent time within nature, forging a relationship with it. She was always interested in the history of the earth, and was upset when her small town of Springdale turned into a “grimy wasteland.” This pollution from the secondary wave of industrial revolution polluted the environment she had grown to love.  It is this relationship that helped her environmental beliefs grow- the pollution was one of the factors fueling her passion so much as to write a book discussing the dangerous effects of pesticides. This is the beginning of what would be a new environmental movement. As Julia Corbett says, childhood is when we connect to the environment. Carson’s closeness to her town and her days playing on the river are definitely what caused her to maintain such a love for the environment as she grew older.  

The American Experience documentary film, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, relates to the issues Carson discusses in her book. Through a series of videos from the time period (mid-twentieth century) and interviews with scientists, the film tells the story of the harmful DDT pesticide. The purpose of a film made in this way is to both frighten and convince the audience. Some of the videos, particularly of a bird squirming on the ground dying after a DDT spraying, are intense. This specific video shows the unnatural effects of a pesticide that used to help humans, despite the bad effect it would have on wildlife. It showed that animals were suffering while humans were profiting from saved crops. The videos of the sprayings, the interviews of scientists, are there to back up one main idea: DDT was being sprayed for human needs. Not the needs of the thousands of other species across the earth.

I think that the environment is a force that helps the species of the world survive. Rather than a foe to conquer, the environment helps animals and humans alike survive. Why can other species see themselves as equal to the earth, but humans see ourselves as higher powers? The environment was here first, and should come first in all respects. Bill McKibben discusses ideas similar to my belief. In The End of Nature, he questions the result humans have had on the world. In one of his paragraphs, I think he hits home to the biggest issue of them all:

                  “Instead of a world where rain had an independent and mysterious existence, the rain had become a subset of human activity; a phenomenon like smog or commerce or the noise from the skidder towing logs on Cleveland Road- all things over which I had no control, either. The rain bore a brand; it was a steer, not a deer. And that was where the loneliness came from. There’s nothing here except us. There’s no such things as nature anymore- that other world that isn’t business and art and breakfast is now not another world, and there is nothing except us alone.”

In this excerpt, I think McKibben is trying to make a claim that no one even wants to think about, much less talk about. The world as our ancestors first saw it is gone. What is left is a product of humankind. And I think this is an issue more people need to think about. The natural ways of life are forever changed because of what humans have done to the worlds. It is not that there aren’t any people who are aware of this- it’s that many choose to ignore it due to the guilt it brings up. McKibben’s point here should be brought up in environmental movements everywhere. If not to bring a reclaimed environmentalist to one’s fight, then to show that a truly natural world is far gone and we need to do all we can to try and reverse it. If we realize this to be true, then perhaps humankind can adopt a view between ecocentric and anthropogenic beliefs. And perhaps this view can save what is left of the natural world.

This week, we also watched A Fierce Green Fire, a documentary about the different environmental movements taken place in history, starting with efforts of conservation in the twentieth century.  This film discusses the movements through interviews of people leading them, along with footage and pictures from the actual movements. The evidence of the environmental issues is what really captivates the attention of the audience. There is information from the fight against dams in the Grand Canyon to the chemical dumping of Love Canal. 

While the style of the documentary made it somewhat hard to stay focused, the information was intriguing. The photos and videos showed the truth of these movements, making viewers uncomfortable, sympathetic, and angry. The creators were hoping for reactions like this, to open the eyes of people. Their goal was to show protests in a better light than most media does today. It also shows that you may not be the only one with a certain view on the world. By talking out on an issue, others will talk too, and together, a change can be made. Many people know about some of the bigger movements but there were smaller ones that were equally as important. For me, I have heard of some of the concerns that were mentioned but some, like Love Canal, were brand new information. It was intriguing to see how early environmental movements started and how they have progressed through the years. 

A common theme throughout the movements was the peaceful attitude the protestors had. They would sit peacefully, rally peacefully, or strike peacefully. Although many would get arrested, there was little violence involved. This theme is important as it has continued into modern day society. I believe peaceful protests can be successful in helping the environment. The idea is to change the issue; using violence for change only adds more issues to the single one from the start. Another theme present was the passion put into fighting for environmental rights. Everyone included in the documentary were fighting for their lives, their loved ones, the environment that sustains them. Despite all odds, these people did what they had to- fight for the world. Their bravery and passion are traits environmentalist have had in the past, and are traits I hope I have in the future when fighting for the earth.

While learning about the environmental issues faced today, we are told to open our eyes to the world. How do people around the world see these issues? Do they see them the same way Americans do? With these questions in mind, I chose to research environmental justice in a country I have always found interest in: Italy. 

One of the first articles that came up discusses environmental movements against waste disposal and biocide in Campania, Italy. “The ‘Raging River’ Unites Struggles Against Waste Disposal and Biocide in Campania”, is an article written by Salvatore Paolo De Rosa in November 2013, for EJOLT (Environmental Justice Organizations, Liabilities, and Trade). EJOLT’s purpose is to bring “science and society together to catalogue and analyze ecological distribution conflicts and confront environmental injustice.” This blog allows writers like De Rosa to discuss issues across the world, and how changes might be made to create solutions. He discusses what has been declared an “urban waste emergency,” the illegal trafficking and dumping of toxic wastes done by big businesses and organized crime since the 1990s. De Rosa describes the final locations of the excessive dumping: 

“Toxic materials from industrial and manufacturing  processes…and even hospital and nuclear waste, were discharged in sand quarries and unsuitable landfills, buried under agricultural fields of vegetables and fruits, mixed with cement for construction, or just abandoned in the countryside and set on fire.”

This trade has become a main source of revenue for criminal groups, groups an Italian environmental non-governmental organization has coined the “ecomafia.” This issue is hurting the environment of a beautiful country. The article goes on to talk about the protests by the activists who are reclaiming their gorgeous land. De Rosa compares and contrasts the changes of the land to show the harm that the dumping is doing. He gives a lot of information to the audience, which can be tough to read, but overall, helps readers understand the plight of the people.  

Through media, social networks, television and citizen journalism, people are fighting those who would see the land ruined. I believe that the way they are able to do this is by the united front- working together, individuals joining each other, is the way to get rid of these toxic waste issues. Connecting with Corbett’s ideas from Communicating Nature, working together with similar individual environmental beliefs can find solutions to years old problems: “But Campania’s people are experienced now, and they are becoming stronger by sharing practices and networking… a coalition of social forces is growing.” De Rosa has declared that these common beliefs are what work against the anti-environmentalists. To restore their natural lands, the lands they grew up with and grew attached to, people will come together.

Whether it is in America, or in Italy, or in anywhere else in the world, environmentalists uniting can cause change. Our passions begin as children, interacting with a foreign world, and help us grow into brave environmentalists who only want a healthier world. It is not so bad to imagine a land without pollution, extinction, and death. From Rachel Carson’s fight against DDT to De Rosa’s story against toxic waste dumping, passion fuels the fight for a better earth. I think that passion is the common theme present in every naturalist from the past, present, and future. 

And I believe that passion in environmental movements can continue to bring about necessary changes in the world. If we choose to bend on opinions, open our eyes to the other views out there, and work together, perhaps we can turn all of these environmental issues around.