Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Lodestar

(2,388 posts)
Tue Apr 21, 2015, 11:19 AM Apr 2015

In 1970, Environmentalism Was Poised to ‘Bring Us All Together'. What Happened?

The Nation
April 2015

(excerpt)

Marine and Coffey did not foresee the dismantling of campaign-finance laws and the flood of corporate money that now greases the American political system. (Indeed, the eruption of the Watergate scandal, which brought such issues to national attention, was still two years away.) Along with the rise of fact-optional right-wing media, that has had devastating implications for a movement that must “attack some mighty profit makers” (in Gene Marine’s phrase) in order to score legislative victories. Nor could they have realized how thoroughly the idea of investment in the collective good—which is what environmental action is, fundamentally—would lose political currency in the following decade. Now, however, it isn’t just the political system that is ill-equipped to deal with our most pressing ecological concerns. Most Americans still feel insulated from the slow violence of climate change, and therefore, as in 1970, care more about immediate crises. We still have trouble imagining that an economic system not dependent on endless consumption is possible, and therefore worth fighting for.

Just whose movement is this? That urgent question pervades Marine’s and Coffey’s dispatches from the front-lines of early environmentalism. For all the diverse persons, groups and interests that Marine claimed to see united in the interest of ecology, in hindsight it is easier to see that those who comprised the environmental movement in its first stage were by and large an elite group of students and educated professionals. Coffey reported that black students were boycotting the April teach-in because it was “just a ‘new toy’ that helped white middle-class students ignore the fact that fewer than 1,000 of Michigan’s 35,000 students are black.”


The question is still essential, because the answer says a lot about how much we can expect to accomplish in the name of the environment. The institutionalization of environmentalism—in think tanks, advocacy groups, corporate PR campaigns—has in fact led to the co-optation of more radical voices that Coffey warned about at the dawn of the movement 45 years ago. ...

http://www.thenation.com/blog/204681/1970-environmentalism-was-poised-bring-us-all-together-what-happened

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In 1970, Environmentalism Was Poised to ‘Bring Us All Together'. What Happened? (Original Post) Lodestar Apr 2015 OP
part money, part ideology MisterP Apr 2015 #1

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
1. part money, part ideology
Tue Apr 21, 2015, 02:32 PM
Apr 2015

for the money, it's not that admitting Love Canal or, later, CFCs and global warming would really put a dent in CEOs' profits: even the most money-addicted among them (and that's what happens, no amount can ever be enough) wouldn't even notice $10.32M a year vs. $10.31M: the point was not to avoid paying for prevention and cleanup, but to avoid any form of responsibility by

there's of course the Powell Memo, which gave us our current plague of think tanks in order to defend an Establishment that saw it as perilously threatened: this also gave us Proposition 13

the Powellites link it to the ideological approach: we have to remember that in the late 70s the neocons seized not just foreign intelligence analysts (Team B/neocons proper), economics ("trickle down" was *admitted* to being a fraud, with the only point being to make the rich richer), the NRA (it *did* used to just be a rifle club ... until the murderers took over: no, literally), fundies (Dolemite used to be a Southern Baptist before the coup), astrophysicists (SDI), media (Murdoch of course, but muckraking fell off in general--Michael Moore got radicalized when TNR insisted on running "balance" about how the Contras and mujahedeen and UNITA were just really nice chaps who only wanted freedom for their country): there's nothing that escaped this Gleichschaltung, and that includes science

the reaction to Apollo 14 was "meh," thousands in NASA faced layoffs, OPEC and Rachel Carson happened, and everything that Monsanto and Dow could pump out hadn't been able to win 'Nam; people were even questioning nuclear power and going to jungles, asking the ignorant savages what herbs their horrid witch-doctors used, and then check it out in the lab! you'll never get anything that can fight cancer from some Malagasy periwinkle! why, that's pure woo!

the fault, of course, was that "Americans had stopped respecting science" so it was time to close ranks: this was easily taken advantage of by the corporations' need to stop making contamination an issue; but the 40s-60s technocrats had mastered the art of "pet whitecoats" and the Objectivist rhetoric of "junk science": so while the corporations spread FUD, scientists complain about the hippie "academic left" that's so PoMo it takes women and ecology and Blah people seriously instead of patting them on the head and just *telling* them what the unquestionable facts are
http://www.amazon.com/Toxic-Sludge-Good-For-You/dp/1567510604
http://www.amazon.com/The-War-Against-Greens-Wise-Use/dp/1555663281

even some DUers run around trying to hold up these scientific dirty cops as epigons of liberality; that's also why so many skeptics' orgs are falling under climate denial

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»In 1970, Environmentalism...