Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, April 17, 1990 TAG: 9004170476
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: bob willis/associate editor
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Yes and no. Much has been accomplished. Much more remains to do. Can we stick with it? Just now, the pendulum of American public interest has swung again toward environmentalism. For as long as that lasts, it's good. It might only be temporary.
Let's look back.
The wave of environmentalism that swept America 20 years ago was like a refreshing breeze. It was part of the countercultural movement that demanded all manner of change and reform, including an exit from the Vietnam War.
The cause of environmentalism stood apart. One could embrace it without, at the same time, having to hug barefoot hippies and bearded war protesters. Everyone shuddered at photographs of birds and other aquatic life dead from spilled crude oil. Everyone thrilled to the astronauts' photographs of our blue planet. Weren't we all one together on that beautiful but vulnerable orb?
The movement had about it an eager innocence, a desire to right past wrongs and to curb human recklessness with our air, water and other resources that support life. It bore the cleansing feeling of a religious revival: Hit the sawdust trail, sin no more, live right, be good to the planet and thus to your children.
Americans uneasy about the war, racism and other social ills - but not ready to defy the government or to take up the gun alongside black militants - could happily espouse environmentalism. The economy was strong; as a society, it seemed we could afford to reduce air and water pollution and all still prosper.
Politicians to a man became environmentalists. Federal and state governments passed laws mandating cleanup of streams and atmosphere, treatment of industrial and municipal sewage, and the viewing of major public works through an ecological lens: Such projects had to carry an environmental-impact statement. Along with new laws, there was put in place an army of regulators assigned to prevent new contaminants from entering the environment.
It was well that environmentalists seized the day, because the inevitable rollback was coming.
In the Middle East, the oil cartel found its strength. Motivated by desire for greater profits and in some quarters by animosity for Israel, in 1973 members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries jacked up prices to the industrial nations and imposed a temporary embargo.
The result was virtual panic.
The squeeze on oil supply and the increase in prices should have served as a useful reminder that the industrial countries - especially the United States - were profligate energy consumers; that the wasteful overuse of carbon-based fuels was adding to pollution; and that we needed to develop cleaner alternative fuels.
Instead, the crisis became a pretext for rolling back recent gains in environmental protection. Business had been hesitant to stand in the bandwagon's path. Now, industry and some in government were emboldened to warn that "excessive" restraints on pollution threatened to hurt business, destroy jobs and cripple America as a global power.
At a time when the United States was emerging from the humiliation of Vietnam, and the economy was indeed going flat, such warnings carried weight. The rollbacks were not long in coming. They began during the Ford administration and - after OPEC again flexed its muscles - gained momentum under Jimmy Carter.
America can be roused to war or to crusades, but it prefers to win them quickly. By the time Ronald Reagan came to the Oval Office, the people were weary of sacrifice, full of doubt. They wanted to believe in themselves again; they also wanted to feel that, as Americans, they still could "have it all."
Reagan's attitude dovetailed nicely with these desires. His view was that "conservation means we will all be colder in the winter and hotter in the summer." To environmentally sensitive positions, he appointed people determined to ignore or dismantle environmental protections and to renew exploitation of natural resources.
The saving grace of all this was that it went too far, and the unholy alliance of regulators with polluters and exploiters was too evident; it became so flagrant that the public was revolted, and Reagan had to get rid of some of the ideologues he had appointed and put real regulators in their places.
Meantime, reminders kept coming of the fragility of the environment. Oil spills continued. Toxic wastes mounted. Every community of any size had a landfill problem. Scientists issued warnings of new perils: acid rain, global warming, the breakup of the ozone layer. By the time Reagan's vice president ran to succeed him, he implicitly rejected his boss's do-nothing stance and announced that he wanted to be "the environmental president."
So now we have a reawakened awareness; more committed and capable people in important federal positions; a new clean-air act in the making; and a readiness, again, on the public's part to guard the environment. Community recycling is taking hold across the country. Americans tell poll-takers they are concerned about the Earth and its ability to support life.
Many obstacles remain. The president's deeds have not begun to match his rhetoric. As a nation we still are worried about our economy, about jobs and foreign competition. We have not begun to receive all the bills for cleanup and protection. Our oil consumption is again on the rise.
The late Walter Lippmann said that the American people could concentrate on only one problem at a time. He could have added that our attention span is short. As the 20th anniversary of Earth Day nears, we are concerned about our planet. History suggests that environmentalists had better seize the day again.
by CNB