The Greens’ War: Questioning Progress to Save the Spring

By Janelle Clausen

Nature has both captivated and catapulted humanity since its dawn. It inspired wonder and sheltered us, giving us the resources  to survive both literally and spiritually. But it has also been a battleground, subject to catastrophe by the very creatures exploiting it. Luckily though, strong voices in media exist and inspire ecological thinking. They are fighting a war to save not just the Earth, but ourselves. 

The opening scene of “A Fierce Green Fire” a documentary detailing the growth of the modern environmental movement, shows a wide span of nature for several seconds. The colors are vibrant. Birds fly and trees touch the heavens. But soon we see a small, grayish factory over the horizon, spewing pollution into the sky and invading the natural world. Before anything is even said, it’s clear that three things define nature: tranquility, transcendence, and tragedy.

This film is framed like a war- a battle for peace and balance, if you will. Many interviews likely lasted hours in their full form, but Director Mark Mitchell inserts sound bites like “rallying cry,” “pivotal battle,” “fight to the death,” “equality of extinction,” and “mass destruction of humanity,” just to name a few. There was never a question of who the heroes or enemies were either. Activists raced against loggers to try and save the forests. Lois Gibbs relentlessly fought against industry flooding her town with chemicals, and authorities that underplayed problems like poisoning and birth defects. Later, when grassroots progress came to a “screeching halt,” they immediately switched to Ronald Reagan, a symbol of pro-business views, saying activists wouldn’t be satisfied until “the White House was a bird nest.”

But this battle between human progress and peaceful nature began with Henry Thoreau- or so his diaries tell. The telegraph wire, at the time a monumental achievement of human engineering, intruded upon his silence. He later spent nearly 2 pages detailing the fall of a “noble” tree which otherwise could have “stood for a century,” a victim of humanity’s intrusion. The very idea that a tree could be warrior-like is the best kind of personification, which can draw sympathy and understanding from a reader.  “I saw them like beavers or insects gnawing at the trunk of this noble tree,” he writes. In his time he realizing the earth he walks upon is “not a dead inert mass… It is a body- has a spirit- is organic… It is more cheering than the fertility & luxuriance of vineyards.” This reflects Thoreau’s perspective that we a small part of a living nature- and we are killing it. Thus, Thoreau asserts in Walden through his cabin building, it is possible (even ideal) to live with nature. “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life,” he wrote. “I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like.”

Thoreau’s sentiment would echo through time. “If Wal-Mart has an antonym,” Bill McKibben wrote, “it’s Wendell Berry.” He is referencing the author of “The Making of a Marginal Farm,” which details how Berry created a farm and lived within his means- just like Thoreau tried to do. They used no chemical fertilizers or insecticides, cycled the soil and used horses instead of tractors. He conceded that it was hard work, but that this “reclamation project” was a matter of “self-preservation” that also made he and his family healthier. Like human progress and industrialization are the enemies in “A Fierce Green Fire” and Thoreau’s work, he condemns how society is structured: “The worst disease of the world now is probably the ideology of technological heroism… This is the ideology of the professional class of the industrial nations,,, a class whose allegiance to communities and places has been dissolved by their economic motives.”

Like Thoreau and Mitchell show, there is some sort of yearning for something simpler and more natural, but the amount of effort required for his lifestyle is underplayed- and perhaps impossible today, like Thoreau’s. There are various legal, institutional, economic, political, personal and attitudinal problems, Julia Corbett writes in Communicating Nature. We may have families to support, a society that may scorn us, taxes to pay and what not, for example. ​Nonetheless, Berry’s writing style initially reflects “the landscape of harmony” he so appreciates, ​not quite trying to overpower the reader like Mitchell or Thoreau might be tempted to. It lures in the reader. But beyond here he writes daring declarations, even, echoing the idea that there should be no compromise when it comes to helping heal nature.

The idea of intrusion strongly permeates through Bill McKibben’s “The End of Nature.” As Thoreau extensively mentioned the saw in his journals, McKibben’s ​powerful imagery plays the sound of a snarling buzzsaw in our minds. This frightening sound, introduced in one powerful sentence, lingers in our minds after. Humanity is never far away. As it was distant in “A Fierce Green Fire,” however, it was still there. People were still pursuing lumber. And as he’d later write, when the swimming in an otherwise isolated lake is interrupted, “it’s that the motorboat gets in your mind… You’re forced to think, not feel- to think of human society and of people.” McKibben paints a picture that there is no escape. Nature was once sacred. There is a certain emotional quality to it that is hard to explain, something that nearly goes beyond understanding. Unlike other works though, there seems no moment of hope.

But one more important film remains: “Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring.” It documented the life of Rachel Carson, an ecological crusader who rekindled an environmental movement through her love of nature. Throughout the piece, we see images of birds flying through a vast blue sky and beaches, uninterrupted by human interference. The music is soothing. This does not stray far in style from Thoreau, Berry and Mitchell, who craft a serene scene of nature. Even Carson’s childhood is painted as being serene and ideal, what with its close connection to nature. At the same time, like in “A Fierce Green Fire,” “Making of a Marginal Farm,” and “The End of Nature,” the hero and villains are framed perfectly well. Carson’s struggles are noted in detail, from her ulcers and chronic pain, to trying to decipher the “puzzle” that would become “Silent Spring.” Interestingly enough, her voice also sounds timid yet filled with conviction in this period- partially underwhelming, in some ways, like Berry’s. This makes the chemical industries vehemently trying to discredit- even attack- her seem all the more malevolent, even malicious. While Carson’s book ends up a success, her near death is framed as a tragedy, as would be the case of any hero. 

Some strong people have given nature’s silent tranquility a voice in the last two centuries. But ultimately, without Thoreau, it seems the environmental movement never could have blossomed without him.

Playing Devil's Advocate: In the Heat of Climate Change, There's Reason to Keep Cool

By Janelle Clausen

It is very easy to be pessimistic about humanity’s ability to combat climate change, but analysis of many articles and lectures suggest that not all is lost. Even the darkest articles in the media seem to provide some shred of hope. 

Since America’s first surviving colony of Jamestown in 1609, America’s history was largely governed by unrestrained instrumentalism, a largely European concept where nature exists for man’s benefit. Colonists hunted down species to the brink of extinction, plowed through exuberant amounts of land, and virtually wiped out Native American ideologies that saw the planet as alive. Industrialization took over the land and became the country’s economic base, even if it meant decimating the land, polluting our drinking water and spewing greenhouse gases like there’s no tomorrow (which, they didn’t realize, could someday become literal).  As Professor Heidi Hutner, Director of Stony Brook University’s Sustainability Studies Program, noted in class, ecofeminism has a valid point: there is a strong parallel between men’s language with women and how they viewed the land (raping the land, mountains as breasts, planting his seed, etc.). It was something they felt they owned. 

As Corbett notes in Communicating Nature, conservation and preservationism, sought to preserve resources for human benefit (practical and aesthetic, respectively). A shift toward these ideas in the late 19th and early 20th centuries began reshaping the course of the United States. These ideologies were present within legislation that oversaw the protection of lands like Yellowstone Park, Yosemite National Park and others. Her writing, however, suggests a progression rather than separation. Preservation and conservation still fell within an anthropogenic viewpoint that could resonate with humanity, but were more ecological. Corbett shows that the green movement, which featured ideologies like Ecological Sensibility, Deep Ecology and Ecofeminism, take qualities from the rational, somewhat scientific conservationism, and writers’ conservationist portrayals of nature is “sacred,” even divine. The establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and legislation like the Endangered Species Act and Clear Air Act, children of the ecological movements, were based on rational numbers and ethical appeal. 

While climate change is occurring rapidly, we have technically come very far very quickly in the context of hundreds of years of land ravaging. I am not inclined to disagree that more needs to be done. Earth's average temperature has already risen 1.4°F over the last century due to humanity's mass burning of fossil fuels, leading to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas build-up that traps heat in the atmosphere, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. This has meant more floods, droughts, severe heat waves, melting ice caps and more because of the changing climate. Temperatures are projected to climb anywhere between 2 and 11.5°F in one hundred more years. 

Bill McKibben’s article in Rolling Stone, Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math, paints a fiery picture of the future. It simplifies it into three different numbers with a corresponding sections. He uses math based upon emission statistics to make it seems inevitable that we will jump 2 degrees Celsius in a matter of decades (we have already risen 0.8 degrees Celsius and will rise 0.8 more) and will be unable to, realistically, curb emissions beneath 565 gigatons of emissions that the Earth can take before reaching that turning point. Nearly 3000 gigatons of coal, oil and other fossil fuels are meanwhile ready to be burned. McKibben’s message is clearly that big business is the enemy, since they are the primary perpetrators of these greenhouse emissions. It at least notes that “Germany is one of the only big countries that has actually tried hard to change its energy mix; on one sunny Saturday in late May, that northern-latitude nation generated nearly half its power from solar panels within its borders” and that nearly two thirds of Americans cited in a poll would “back an international agreement that cut carbon emissions 90 percent by 2050 if brought to the brink. 

According to Mark Schapiro, a renowned environmental journalist and author with over 30 years of experience, the world is at a point called the "end of stationarity," the baseline at which scientists measure change. But even he said he is not a “subscriber to the apocalyptic notions.” As said in his book, Carbon Shock, and in a recent talk at Stony Brook University, companies and major government entities are acknowledge costs associated with climate change, while people are pushing for solutions.

“What’s interesting in right now, this time period we're in- thank God you guys are all studying this in one form or another- is you're in a period of enormous dynamism when it comes to the responses to climate change, which are beginning to rewrite the fundamental legal, regulatory and financial rules in response to this huge challenge we all face," Schapiro said in his presentation. This is significant because, despite there being an unknown trade war with American airlines and Europe, Schapiro is rationally approaching the “carbon shock” and climate debate. His tone is not alarmist, so much as it is narrative and engrossing.  

Charles C. Mann’s recent article in The Atlantic, “How to Talk About Climate Change So People Will Listen,” draws upon facts and concerns from both sides. He criticizes the current reality, citing how monumental legislation was once upon a time not a partisan issue- action seems difficult, but may soon become necessary. The issue of climate change was not radicalized on both sides. Citing historian Patrick Allitt, author of A Climate of Crisis, he wrote “...time and again... activists and corporate executives railed against each other. Out of this clash emerged regulatory syntheses: rules for air, water, toxins. Often enough, businesspeople then discovered that following the new rules was less expensive than they had claimed it would be; environmentalists meanwhile found out that the problems were less dire than they had claimed.” In other words, the media can often exaggerate the climate change issue. 

My dissent here is not like what is seen in Everything’s Cool. The documentary that proves by creating doubt, some people suddenly seem to stop worrying. I know there are several reasons to worry. In fact, the group of people shown in the movie give even more reason to. But Everything’s Cool (everything is, as it shows via irony, not cool) goes a little over the top. In picking the redneck, preacher and other ignorant folks, it represents a radical fringe of society. It cherry-picks the worst looking opinions and did not present more moderate examples backed with some semblance of facts, just for the sake of shock value. This would be considered a no-no journalistically. 

Earth 2100 does a good job in balancing fact, fiction and hope. The documentary, made by ABC, presents a world ravaged by climate change through the eyes of Lucy from childhood to old age. This personal narrative connects a reader to the story, thus making hard scientific facts easier to digest. It plays out hard, potential realities and how it would actually impact people. This “worst-case scenario,” based off of interviews with authors and scientists, showcases water shortages, floods, desperate migrants, crippling droughts and a hyper-lethal disease that ultimately sweeps the planet. Earth’s once bulging population plummets by billions. It seems frighteningly plausible. It showed how easily society could collapse. 

But it also shows moments of hope- things we are even beginning to see today. Humanity showed it could respond to the challenge of climate change, even while on the brink- at least for awhile. New York City was not swept underwater too early on. It lived on to be called “The Big Green Apple” in the movie, known for its lack of emissions and greenhouse-like powering. Engineers there also undertook a massive floodgate project to try and protect the city, even though it cost billions of dollars. Meanwhile, as seen through Lucy’s cross-country trip and before, green towns and cities dot the American landscape and young people are innovating to change how people live.

The floodgate something that, in reality, came into serious consideration after Hurricane Sandy, a storm ironically mirroring Earth 2100’s storm that swept in at high tide, wreaking havoc on transportation systems, infrastructure and lives. The budget is daunting, but the idea interesting. It’s also worth noting that, like in the movie, New York is a leader in going green. According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, more than 11 percent of the state is powered by alternative sources. This could expand to 40 percent by 2030. But like in the movie, New York is not alone in its green innovation. Nearly 30 cities across North America were noted for their green efforts in USA Today and towns like Greensburg, Kansas, have shown it’s possible to thrive by going green. This films optimism corresponding with reality suggests that humanity has a will to survive. 

To stay focused on the United States alone would be unfair, even though it is a large producer of the carbon that contributes to climate change. Climate change is a global issue. While many would assume conflicting interests are at odds, some breakthroughs have begun. As US News reported in late January “...two months after Obama won China’s first-ever commitment to cut its carbon emissions, the India agreements mark comparatively less ambitious but still crucial steps toward an expected international climate agreement at a U.N. summit in Paris in December.” The article, like many news reports, is simple. But it provides ample context in the first few paragraphs, as seen above, to understand the basics of a breakthrough in addressing excessive carbon emissions. 

One could argue that this post paints too rosy a picture. Perhaps it does. But nonetheless, it seemed worthy to note that amidst doomsayers, some parts of the media note that progress is slowly being made. Whether or not it’s too slow will soon be seen.