Michael Riccard

Summer 2010 Monroe Research

The Best Environmental Policies in the Worst of Economic Times:
A Historical Analysis

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Welcome to the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. A time of
lost jobs, college students worried about their futures, housing crises, and of general
uncertainty about the future. At the same time, global climate change is an ever-pressing
issue and our reliance on fossil fuels continues to threaten our security and the world
environment. The economic recession has caused the environment to take a back seat to
the economy. In fact, while 83 percent of people rate solving economic issues as a top
priority for the United States, less than 50 percent would say the same about the
environment, and less than 30 percent about global climate change (Pew Research
Center). We are also entering a period of environmental program and incentive cuts. To
cite one example, the New Jersey Clean Energy fund, which funded solar panel rebates in
the state, lost $158 million in funding and had to shut down its rebate program
(Jonathan). Homeowners are now wary of spending money even when incentives to
reduce their environmental footprint exist. Many choose not to have home energy
retrofits even when government incentives are available (Schmit). So the real question is
how do we confront this two-pronged crisis, when the circumstances make it easiest to
solve just one.

To solve this question of what steps should we take to save our environment in
the midst of a recession we will use history as our guide. Specifically we will look to
three decades as focus areas, the 1930s, the 1960s and the 1970s. Each of these decades
offers insight into how to improve our current environmental policy. Both the 1930s and
1970s can inform our current environmental policy because they both feature
environmental crises and economic recessions, just like our society today. The 1960s is
also useful because it is seen as the birth of the environmental movement and, hence, will
offer us insight into how to create environmental concern. As we explore history, some
key themes that will repeatedly arise are issues of trust, especially in the government, and
issues of how to get in touch with the natural environment. We will also see how
comprehensive and “total” policy approaches, which respect the interconnectedness of
the environment, emerge over time. All in all, we will discover that history has a lot of
insight to offer for dealing with our current economic and environmental problems.
Looking to the environmental policies of the past will allow us to develop solutions today
that will make for a better world tomorrow.

To begin, it is important to outline the structure of this paper and more

specifically the approach we will take in exploring environmental history. This paper is
divided into sections, which describes key themes or topic areas that are very important
to the environmental field in one or more of the decades we will explore. Sometimes
discussions about other decades will be necessary for clarity, but in general the paper
focuses on only the three aforementioned decades. Moving forward from structure, it is
now necessary to give background information on each of the decades discussed in this
paper.

Historical Background

The 1930s

The nineteen-thirties is the era that is defined by a single event, the Great
Depression. While we complain about the current unemployment rate today, which
hovers around 9 percent as of May 2010, the unemployment rate then was much higher at
25 percent (Bureau of Labor Statistics) (Andrews 161). At the same time much of the
rural Midwest was incapable of farming due to the Dust Bowl, which ruined cropland for
a significant portion of the nation (Black 91). Therefore this decade, much like our own,
is defined by the convergence of economic problems with equally serious environmental
problems. While the specific problems may be different today, both job creation and
environmental protection are just as important now as then.

The key features of 1930’s policy were its large-scale public works projects that
were established in President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. These included programs
that dealt with management of watersheds as well as forest maintenance, agricultural
education, and soil maintenance (Black 91). Organizations were formed, such as the

2
Tennessee Valley Authority which was chartered to develop resources in the Tennessee
Valley through projects such as dam building. Also, the Civilian Conservation Corps was
a program created for young, unmarried men that provided food and board as well as a
small salary in return for work on federal conservation projects. Policies such as the Soil
Conservation Act were enacted to deal with the fallout from the Dust Bowl (Merchant
280). All these projects and policies combined to help alleviate some of the economic and
environmental problems of the day. This combination also helped to create, what one
author calls, a more “balanced division of authority” between society and private as well
as government interests (Jones 80). This balance will be important in our analysis of the
role of government in the 1930s, which we will discuss in chapter two.

The 1960s

The 1960s, the next decade we will explore, is what can be seen as the birth of the
modern environmental movement. A key cause of this movement was the introduction of
Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in the early 1960s. It was so important to the decade and
environmentalism as a whole that former Vice President Al Gore is quoted as saying,
“Without this book…the environmental movement might have been long delayed or
never developed at all” (Black 123). Ultimately the book fueled a discussion on the role
of chemicals and technology in our society, which in turn fueled a newfound concern for
health (Black 123) (Hays 30). Beyond just the impact of Silent Spring there was the
impact of 1960’s counterculture groups, which contributed to the large rise in NGO
membership during the decade, which added even more strength to the movement (Black
126). Awareness of environmental problems increased thanks to the rise of visible
environmental pollution, such as an oil spill which occurred off the coast of Santa
Barbara, California in 1969 (Black 132). Combined with the influence of Carson and
counterculture groups, this increased awareness helped the environmental movement to
really take off. However, the issue of environmental protection was not only limited to
citizens but also extended to issues that affected the government.

In the 1960s, the government, catching onto the environmental wave occurring at
the time, began to discuss the National Environmental Policy Act. This act created the
Council on Environmental Quality within the executive branch, and mandated “a

3
systematic interdisciplinary approach to the integrated use of natural
resources…”(Merchant 198). The act’s provisions were so wide reaching and its calls for
environmental responsibility so historic it has been called the “Magna Carta” for the
environment (Lindstrom 4). Although the Act was not technically passed until 1970, it
was passed on the very first day of that year. Hence, for our purposes we will categorize
the formation and discussion of NEPA as a 1960s event and its legacy and problems, as a
1970s event.

Beyond just the legislation that was created during the 1960s, there was also a rise
in litigation during the decade. Groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the
National Resources Defense Council came to the fore, fighting for the environment in
courts of law (Merchant 198). Some successes occurred including litigation which
stopped the construction of a dam within Grand Canyon. Yet, more important than these
individual victories was the fact that a new route for environmental protection was
established in this decade.

The 1970s

Following the 1960s our discussion moves forward ten years to the 1970s, often
called the “Environmental Decade”. To summarize the decade, this is the time where the
beliefs and concerns of the 1960s were put into action in the form of law. During these
ten years, laws were passed including the Clean Water Act, Federal Environmental
Pesticide Control Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, The Clean Air Act Extension, the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the Toxic Substance Control Act (Merchant 283,
258). We will delve into the importance of some of these acts later, but the quantity of the
legislation passed is important to note. During this decade the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) was founded, and the first Earth Day occurred, both being huge
milestones for environmentalism (Merchant 283, 293). This same decade also served as a
time of acute environmental policy discussion due to the 1973 oil crisis. This oil crisis
was caused by an Arab oil embargo on imports of oil to the United States (Black 194).
The general reaction to this was that it increased awareness of energy conservation as
well as the need for the United States to rely less on foreign fossil fuels (Merchant 199).
However, as we will see later, the crisis may not have caused enough change to

4
significantly help the environment. Regardless, having energy issues as salient as they
were then is useful to our current situation, as we too are still looking for alternative
energy sources. At the time of this writing the BP oil spill reigns dominant in the news
and the environmental fallout is still uncertain. So, we have much to reflect on when it
comes to our history of dependence on oil.

2000s

This leads us to today, a time when the word “sustainable” has moved from just a
word to a cliché. A time characterized by an enormous surge in writing on the “green”
movement and suggestions for “greening” our lives. This decade has also seen a huge rise
in the number of “green” products and businesses and calls for “green jobs” to help solve
our economic crisis. In essence, “green” is everywhere. But at the same time radical
change has not occurred, the kind of change that may be necessary to confront global
climate change in the midst of an economic recession. Hence, we need to look to a source
of guidance to assist us. In this case history serves as our best guide.

CHAPTER TWO: GOVERNMENT POLICY

The 1930s

Strategy

It is important for our historical analysis to begin with a focus on government

policy, as the government arguably has a large impact on people’s day-to-day life.
Nowhere is this more apparent then in the 1930s. In forming his environmental policy
FDR made it clear that unemployment was the first and foremost problem, with the
environment falling just behind it (Maher 19, 20). So, in effect, the policy as a whole
attempted to deal with joblessness while also realizing the needs of the environment. Part
of the reason why FDR felt the environment and economy must be linked was due to his
childhood experiences. As a child, Roosevelt lived on a farm and over time he saw what
environmental degradation could do to land (Henderson 53). Hence, he knew that in
order to protect the country’s economic assets, in the form of natural resources, the
economic value inherent in the resource must be protected. This was the overarching

5
theme of the 1930’s government environmental policy, that the environment and
economy were linked.

1930’s policymakers knew it took a lot of power to create an effective and

comprehensive ecological and economic policy plan. Therefore, actions by the
government sought to create a “government counterweight to centralized business power”
(Andrews 162). To create this effective counterweight, the government and its respective
policies had to be extremely powerful, especially against vested business interests.
Hence, in most respects all of the policies and the programs that were implemented in this
decade were large scale, which helped the government wield influence over society. The
scale of the policies and government projects were also of this size because of the large-
scale physical and non-physical environmental and economic problems that existed
(Andrews 162). These policies and projects were passed by the government because of
the necessity to try any sort of policy that had the potential of easing the weight of the
depression (Andrews 162). This illuminates a benefit of economically tough times; they
put pressure on politicians to experiment, which sometimes yields great benefits to
society. Beyond just scale, another characteristic of the 1930’s environmental policy
approach was that it was about efficiency. The goal was to make the expanding economy
more efficient to stop the effects of unrestrained environmental exploitation through what
FDR termed the “Gospel of Efficiency” (Andrews 162). This theme of efficiency was key
to the success of 1930s policy and helped to counter the effects of bureaucratic
inefficiency.

Policy Approach

The first step that Roosevelt took to address the multitude of problems that were
before him was that he owned up to the problem. In a speech he gave he referred to the
problems that industrial society had caused, “The natural and state domains have largely
been forgotten in the past few years of industrial development…” (Henderson 52). Words
like these were absolutely essential to addressing the problems of the day because one
must find, and hopefully acknowledge, the cause of a problem in order to know what to
fix. We would be apt to learn from this today, as without acknowledging who is at fault,
it is hard to develop solutions that solve environmental problems effectively. Owning up

6
to the realities of a situation may be difficult but, as FDR realized, it is the only way to
move forward.

A key principle behind 1930’s policy, as we mentioned earlier, was the “Gospel
of Efficiency”. This approach sought to reduce environmental harm by making wasteful
processes more efficient (Henderson 38). In order to achieve this efficiency the
government created policies that made it a central figure. Further, to streamline and
control effectively, the government’s role in this scheme of authority was to be the main
source of technical solutions and expertise (Henderson 38). For example, as Brian Black
writes in his book Nature and Environment in Twentieth Century American Life,
“Scientific knowledge was…largely controlled by experts – often working for the federal
government” (Black 92). But just being a central source of knowledge is not useful unless
the authority maintains the respect of the public. Hence, FDR made the government
visible through his control of New Deal projects. For example, he participated in some
way, if not physically, via telephone, at the dedication of public works projects
(Henderson 38). In this way the government not only had knowledge and expertise, it
also had control and could take credit for programs’ successes. This approach is quite
different from today in a world where scientific knowledge now comes from many
groups of scientists who are not always government affiliated. Further, in the generation
of the Internet, anyone’s expertise can be rapidly propagated throughout the world, rather
than through a limited sphere such as the government. So although we may never have a
government like that of the Great Depression, it seems that centralization of expertise is
helpful in creating and streamlining policy.

The centralization of expertise was just one of the ways the government was able
to take effective action during the Great Depression. Another way the government did
this was by using wording in statements to the public that showed the urgency of the
situation while at the same time offering specific solutions. For example in a speech
discussing the Civilian Conservation Crops (CCC), Roosevelt said “I estimate that
250,000 men can be given temporary employment if you give me authority to proceed
within two weeks” (Henderson 52). Here it is apparent that FDR was showing that the
government needed authority and trust because it had a plan and a solution for

7
confronting a major problem of the day, unemployment. By having clear solutions FDR
could get things done at the speed and scale necessary to avert further environmental
degradation before it caused irreparable damage. The lesson here is that having specific
solutions will enable people to support quick action. This is because specific solutions
give citizens a litmus test to measure the government’s effectiveness over a period of
time.

Yet another strategic theme in the implementation of Great Depression Era policy
was that projects were correctly scaled and controlled. First, we must talk about scale.
Earlier it was mentioned that this era was famous for its large scale works projects. While
that is true, projects were scaled for the most part at the necessary level needed to tackle
the problem. A particular instance where this is seen is in the area of confronting water
related environmental problems. Henry L. Henderson in FDR and the Environment
acknowledges that, at least in regards to water projects, the scale of the projects were
correct for the needs of the area (Henderson 165). Scaling is very important as
excessively large projects attract criticism due to their costs and most likely have a
negative environmental impact. At the same time too small a project means that the
policy objectives for the project will likely not be met. With this large scale the
government also needed effective control. Hence, in all planning areas there was both a
direct and indirect amount of control exerted. The President’s National Resource
Planning Board (NRPB) frequently advised the President, keeping him in a position of
indirect control. This seems to have helped, because New Deal projects were quite
effective, as we will see later. Although a direct correlation between the creation of the
NRPB and project success is impossible to confirm, it is most probable that control helps.
Especially in the case of the executive branch this level of control puts a face to the
government, allowing for its successes and failures to be blamed on a single individual,
the President. This, while risky, does work well for instilling trust in the government as
the President knowingly acts as collateral for government failures, allowing for more
leeway from both citizens and legislature in plan implementation.

Aside from maintaining a positive relation with citizens, the government also tried
to ensure its use of science was conducive towards achieving its policy goals. It did this

8
by setting a guideline for the use of scientific information at the federal level. The
guideline is that science would be used when the root of the problem could not be
addressed. To explore what this really means it is best to cite an example. In regards to
the Dust Bowl, it was seemingly difficult to cultivate an entirely new relation with the
land that would have solved the root problem of poor land husbandry by Americans.
Although this paper will later explore how the root problem should have been confronted
to prevent some environmental problems we now see today for the sake of argument it is
necessary to limit our scope. Due to the aforementioned lack of solutions to the root
problems confronting the Dust Bowl, science was brought in to offer another solution. In
this case it was what would later be known as the “Green Revolution”(Henderson 165).
Regardless of the debate over this agricultural revolution, what is important to note is that
science was consulted as a secondary solution, only after it was seen that the root of the
problem could not be addressed. This is important for current environmental strategy
because science, for all its greatness, should not always be our first line of action. This is
because of the risks associated with science’s tendency to create unnatural products,
including pesticides, such as those that were seen during the “Green Revolution”. Hence,
using science as a secondary rather than a primary solution will help us to confront our
current environmental problems, long-term, in the most effective way.

The final theme in Great Depression era’s policy was the use and acceptance of
experimentation. As discussed earlier, the economic situation of the time created a
situation in which many ideas were tried to see what worked and what did not. Although
this experimentation can have a negative impact, which will be discussed when exploring
the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), even the failed experiments had
some positive impact. For example the TVA’s research, development, and demonstration
programs positively affected the Tennessee Valley (Chandler 10). Achieving these
benefits from such an authority as the TVA, a public power corporation, would have been
difficult if not for the acceptance of experimentation at the federal level (Henderson 213).
So a willingness to try new ideas in the midst of a poor economic and environmental
situation can yield positive benefits.

Creating Successful Environmental Policy

9
 Nobody likes the feeling of being left out, and policy makers in the 1930s,
particularly Roosevelt, knew that. Hence, FDR decided to make his conservation
programs extend all across the United States, which was a reason for his policy’s success.
He did this by buying up lands in the eastern portion of the United States where the
government did not have land like they did in the west (Maher 45). In today’s world
where partisanship dominates, it is important that environmental initiatives are
nationwide, with attempts to cater support from all states both “red” and “blue”.
Obviously this is easier said then done, but it is an admirable goal to aim toward.

Earlier the fact that FDR’s childhood farm experiences were influential in him
seeing the link between economic and environmental well-being was discussed. Today, it
may be hard for many city-dwellers to realize this same connection due to the fact that
most Americans do not grow up on farms anymore. In fact while today the urban to rural
population split is about 80 percent to 20 percent, back then it was about 50 percent for
each group (United States Census Bureau). Hence, it will be necessary for current policy
makers to learn from previous generations in order to develop a better “land ethic”, as
famed environmentalist Aldo Leopold would call it. This will allow us to hopefully attain
the same level of policy success as FDR.

The final area that made FDR’s environmental policies successful was that he
utilized psychology to his advantage. The reason the CCC was the most popular of his
programs, and there were virtually no scandals about it, was because it increased men’s
self-confidence by putting them to work (Hunter). A student who served at the College of
William and Mary’s CCC camp in Virginia, Charles Hunter, specifically attested to this
fact. But beyond just testimony, the reason for FDR’s success just makes logical sense.
Society makes the unemployed have low self-confidence, which takes a psychological
toll. Therefore, enabling them to have work builds their self- confidence, creating
improved citizens who could benefit society.

Learning From the Failed Policy Initiatives of the 1930s

While it is definitely important to learn from the successes of 1930s policy, in

some ways, it is probably more important to look at its failures in order to avoid repeating

10
history. We will explore two areas of policy or program failure, that of the Agriculture
Procedure Act and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Due to the fact that both these
Depression Era creations were not properly reassessed after a given period, both of these
initiatives turned from being benign to malignant over time. For example the Agricultural
Production Act helped to produce better commodity prices through its reforms, which
included managing surplus crops (Henderson 204). However, over time this act
encouraged the production of vast crop monocultures that today degrade the environment
and weaken farm prices in other countries (Henderson 201). So while this policy was
helpful to the United States before the modern paradigm of globalization, it is outdated
and harmful to the global economy. In summary the failure to reassess the Agricultural
Production Act has created an inequitable situation between the United States and crop
producers worldwide and encourages environmentally degrading farm practices. Yet, as
problematic as the Agricultural Production Act is, perhaps the most controversial and
infamous creation of the New Deal is that of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Earlier it was discussed that the TVA was an experiment of the New Deal since
while the Authority was a public power company and received government funding it had
control over its own projects and its capital budgeting (Chandler 4). Although the
Authority was created to improve the economic growth of the Tennessee Valley through
its projects, evidence does not support this. (Williams 5) According to William Chandler
in the Myth of TVA those living in TVA areas experienced slower electrification and
water development compared with those living outside of the TVA’s jurisdiction
(Chandler 5). Perhaps worse, over the course of its history the TVA has resorted to
processes such as strip mining, which are terrible for the environment, in order to keep
power prices low (Chandler 124, 125). Further, the TVA has had many instances of
overzealous expansion due to inflated calculations about power demand, which have
unnecessarily harmful impacts on the environment (Chandler 141). All this has left a poor
legacy for New Deal programs, despite the fact that much of the New Deal policy had a
positive impact on society. As well much of the New Deal’s experimentation was also
useful including the benefits that came about from groups like the CCC.

11
 The real question, in regards to the TVA, is how a well-intentioned agency
became so environmentally harmful. The reasons all come down to a lack of
accountability and, similar to agricultural policy, a lack of proper reassessment of the
program. As far as accountability is concerned, the TVA wasn’t accountable to the
marketplace since it didn’t need to be profitable or self-financing since it was government
funded (Chandler 38). Hence it could make irrational economic decisions (Chandler 38).
This can be shown by the fact that in the years following the Great Depression era, the
TVA constructed and completed a dam in the Columbia River despite the fact that it
didn’t have a return on equity (Chandler 11). Hence, although TVA did have some
successes, as has been mentioned, it is very important that with experimental government
creations that they be scrutinized to make sure they are still accountable, useful and
relevant.

Summary of Policy Lessons from the 1930s

The 1930s were a decade of conservation that is very different than the other
decades we are exploring. Modern environmentalism, unlike 1930’s conservation, does
not believe in the 1930s paradigm of an “expert administrative state” that is the
“exclusive source of public interests” (Henderson 159). The environmental movements of
later decades focus much more on policing the state, and the private interests that often
are associated with it, using judicial measures. This is partially because of the fears of
powerful government that developed post-WWII after seeing the dangerous effects of
powerful government in 1930s Germany (Henderson 159). Although many of the
successes of the 1930s may be hard to recreate in our modern government relationship
paradigm, the decade still offers invaluable environmental policy insight. In brief, we
have seen it is important to own up to environmental problems, to have concrete and
appropriate approaches and scale to projects, to make efforts nationwide, and use science
as a secondary solution to root problems. As well, from the decade’s failure, we have
seen it is important to reassess policy frequently in order to prevent bad ideas from
snowballing into major problems. All these lessons, combined with the next two decades
we will discuss, will help us in forming a solution to our current economic and
environmental predicament.

12
 The 1960’s

Policy and Political Climate Background

Quite the opposite from the 1930s, the political climate of the 1960s was founded
on distrust of the government and large organizations. According to author Joseph Sax it
is easy for organizations to degrade the environment, which can be subjectively polluted,
when faced with the concrete economic benefits of business proposals (Sax 301). Since
politicians and arguably, most people, do well in this world of black and white,
environmentalists of the 1960s felt their concerns would loose out to economic interests.
But despite this political climate, this decade was a great time for environmental
progress. The reasons for this are many, but the first concerns aesthetics.

There are a few key policy themes that led the 1960s to have such “green”
progress. The first theme is that policy was demanded to resolve issues of aesthetic
degradation, namely that of pollution (Hays 27). This was because people’s concern was
able to shift from just attaining material goods to the secondary need of a beautiful
environment as people began to attain higher standards of living following 1950’s
expansion (Hays 22). As well during this time period, ecological science became more
popular; hence people’s understandings of the synergy and interconnectedness of the
environment became more prominent (Hays 28). This helped people to see pollution as a
symptom of a larger problem and one that affected many elements of nature. Yet, as we
discussed, distrust in the government still pervaded so 1930’s policy approaches to
pollution would not work well. This was especially true because of fears of regulatory
capture, wherein interest groups “capture” and control through monetary means, a
government regulator (Andrews 219). Therefore, as we will soon see, the merger of
increased environmental awareness as well as distrust creates very different
environmental solutions than that of the decade 30 years prior. The largest solution to
1960s environmental problems was the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) in 1970.

The National Environmental Policy Act was developed during the 1960s and was
signed into law on the first day of January in the following decade, 1970. The Act

13
declared environmental values for the country’s environmental policies, had action
forcing provisions, required large amounts of disclosure, and was non-concrete in its
requirements, allowing for adaptability to different situations (Lindstrom 6, 90-100).
Many bases were covered by just one act, yet amazingly Congressional support was
largely in favor of the measure (Lindstrom 69). Looking at the history of the creation of
this act is extremely important, since a similar approach could be used today to pass
legislation involving an issue as large as climate change.

NEPA: Created out of Discussion

NEPA’s passage was the culmination of much back and forth discussion about not
only the bill but of environmental policy in general. This discussion took place in a 1968
joint House-Senate colloquium. This served as an informal study session for
environmental policy (Lindstrom 31-36). The talk first delved into questions of where the
most environmental policy control should lie, in the hands of Congress or in those of the
Executive Branch (Lindstrom 43). As well there were many discussions about the
structure of what is likely the most important part of NEPA, the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) (Lindstrom 43). The EIS is required by NEPA and involves providing a
detailed, publically available, assessment of the expected environmental impact of
government projects. The key debate over the EIS was in regards to who should
ultimately decide to approve these government projects after the EIS was released. In the
end it was decided that each agency could decide, after going through the NEPA process,
which involves many hearings and public comment, whether to go ahead with a project
(Lindstrom 43-48). This decision is a large one for environmental policy because it is a
model of self-determination. This decision tries to avoid the controversies and
bureaucratic mess that can result from the creation of another regulatory agency. Instead
it relies on the judicial process to serve as a safeguard against poor environmental
choices. Since agencies can be sued for failures to follow NEPA. Innovative solutions to
preventing environmental degradation, like this, could have only happened because of the
discussion that was fostered by the colloquium. However, at the colloquium the decision
to allow self-determination, while important, was not the most influential. The one that
was involves a simple removal of a single sentence from the final document.

14
 The compromise made in the colloquium that was so important has to do with
wording. It was decided during the colloquium that wording referring to a “right” for and
to the environment should be removed (Lindstrom 48). In fact the word “right” does not
appear in the entire whole of NEPA, not even once. In order to understand why this
decision was so important it will be necessary to explore many other areas of
environmental history. However, this paper will later argue that the decision to remove
rights to the environment may have had a massive influence on the effectiveness of our
current environmental policy.

The 1970s: The Environmental Era

The Legacy of NEPA

The National Environmental Policy Act while far from flawless, was extremely
influential. The Act caused many judicial challenges to occur in regards to the lawfulness
of actions of the federal government, given their environmental impact. As well, despite
frequent outcries from agencies, more studies of environmental impacts were demanded
than ever before (Lazarus 68). However, NEPA was not without its problems. To name a
few of the larger concerns that have arisen since its implementation we will begin with
NEPA’s high cost. NEPA cost agencies because it made them involved in a long, time-
consuming process which involved sorting through many “nonsense” public comments in
regards to a proposed project. This cost agencies because they had to take on the
monetary costs associated with such a large sorting process such as staffing the
secretarial departments (Raymond 73). Besides the high costs of NEPA, there were
concerns over knowledge expectations. A specific example of this is shown within the
atomic industry sector of the Department of Energy. In this department questions about
exactly how atomic experts could be expected to know about the environmental impacts
of their projects, given their specific field of expertise, emerged (Seaborg 85). Therefore
their concern was that the high expectations of environmental knowledge made them
vulnerable to incurring the extra costs of hiring outside experts that were knowledgeable
in other scientific areas. As well, even if all these concerns could be alleviated, others felt
that the EIS process of NEPA was a massive “paper chase” because of the detailed
requirements of the process (Lindstrom 3). Finally, since NEPA’s enforcement is done

15
through the Judicial Branch, failures in that branch can also cause problems. It shall be
shown in a later section, that indeed the Judicial Branch does have problems dealing with
NEPA related issues, especially that of enforcing the overall spirit of NEPA.

Other Acts

NEPA, while very important, was just one of many environmental bills that
became law during this decade. One of these acts was bold and had an enormous scale
similar to the acts of the 1930s. The act to which this author is referring is the Clean Air
Act. This act came in the midst of scientific uncertainty around air pollution issues, which
would normally stall legislation. However, an important decision was made which
unknowingly employs the precautionary principle, that is, choosing to err on the side of
the environment. The decision was to make the act enforceable in a very short time frame
which, as Richard Lazarus notes in his book The Making of Environmental Law, made
scientific uncertainty around the issue irrelevant (71). Further, another approach that was
taken in regards to this policy was to not declare specific national standards for air
pollution but to instead let the EPA determine those after passage of the Act (Lazarus 71).
This was important, since it helped to move the legislation forward in the government
without unnecessary technical delays. Another act, the Clean Water Act, was also non-
specific in requirements like the Clean Air Act and it too mandated technical solutions to
environmental problems. Further the Act allowed for regional approaches to solving the
water problems of each area (Henderson 165). This helped recognize that each region had
a different scale of water issues and required different remediation strategies. But both of
these acts, while having slightly different approaches, shared the fact that they had
definite mandates but allowed for flexibility over specific requirements and solutions.
This contrasts quite a bit with a very strict and rigid piece of legislation that was passed
during this decade, the Endangered Species Act.

Passed in 1973, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) confronted head-on the
problem of species extinction. This act was one of the most “far reaching” since it set an
overall goal of species protection which extended beyond federal lands (Lazarus 73). Its
wide scope was due to the fact that species protection must involve a coordinated effort
by a large number of parties. Similar to the issue of proper scale in environmental policy,

16
which was discussed earlier, we also see a new but related theme emerge with the ESA.
This theme is that of adapting to the problem at hand. While the Clean Air Act could
afford to let specific regulation be determined at a later time, it was necessary that the
ESA had strict demands to deal with the serious nature of species extinction. So as we
compare the two acts, both the ESA and the Clean Air Act, we see an important idea
emerge that there is no one solution to effective environmental policy, but rather that
each policy or action must be custom tailored in regards to the needs of the specific
problem.

In learning from the environmental policy approaches of the 1970s we definitely

see a few ideas that could inform our policy today. The first is that legislation then was
pushed through the cogs of the government at a quick pace because it kept technicalities
out of the equation. This is important for getting the speed necessary to stop our ever-
worsening environmental degradation. However, it is very important to realize that just as
with the ESA, when certain requirements were necessary, such as stringency for the ESA,
the speed did not override the importance of the needs of the environment. What can be
gained from this is that clear and definite regulation must be built in each proposed bill,
but if technical issues are too overbearing then it may be necessary for those to be
determined by the EPA at a later time. In summary, 1970s policy harkens back to the
days of Roosevelt, with solutions being adapted as necessary to the problem, just as
conservation projects were adapted and scaled to the problems they were trying to
confront.

Problems of 1970s Policy

Exemptions

Every government and regulatory agency confronts the problem of exemptions to

laws occurring due to other issues taking precedence, usually economic issues. Nowhere
do we get a better example of this than during the 1973 oil crisis. During this time
exemptions for the Clean Air Act started to emerge as a result of the crisis (Lazarus 79).
As Richard Lazarus notes, “The trade-off between economic costs and uncertain long-
term environmental benefits has never been a popular one for the persons and entities

17
faced with justifying the economic cost” (79). This quote really summarizes the uphill
battle that all environmental policy faces in a country so defined by its economy. The
U.S. economy, at least in our current model of society, will always have advantage over
environmental policy because it can have benefits that are concrete, fast, and clear.
Therefore it will always be necessary to give nature an extra support system and
preference in the face of our economic system. As well during the 1970s we see another
theme that is symptom of all governments, that of lots of talk with little action. This
occurred in the form of bills sitting in Congress. Nixon introduced bills into Congress
about controls on coal related industries, but they just sat at bills and never moved
anywhere (Raymond 70-73). Hence, if citizens really want action taken, a lesson to learn
is that there needs to be constant pressure to move discussion and bills forward. In the
next section, this paper will explore further the role of citizen action in implementing
policy but it is important to keep in mind that watchdog groups and persons are key to
environmental success.

Suggestions for Environmental Policy Based on Our Historical Analysis

Based on history a few strategies and agenda items that should be considered can
now be suggested in order to improve our environment today in the year 2010. The
suggestions revolve around changes in both policy and perception of the government.
The first step is to enact policy that will restore trust in the government, ending the
distrust that has haunted us since WWII.

Transparency is the antidote to corruption. It is also important to protecting the

environment. As mentioned previously, since WWII there has been and is an inherent
distrust in the government. Although we may never be able to go back to a 1930’s style
trust in the government, it is important that government take steps to gain more trust from
its citizens. Therefore, more government transparency bills should be proposed and
turned into law. Such transparency should extend most especially to environmentally
related data and documents. Unlike Department of Defense issues, there is not much of
an excuse to keep environmental information secret. When excuses for it do arise it is
because vested interests want to keep their large bottom line by hiding environmental
impacts. Similarly, in order to alleviate the fears of regulatory capture and prevent

18
environmental degradation in the midst of a capitalist society greater transparency acts
must exist. As well, it is important not to forget that information, especially in regards to
environmental policy, can also be obscured by technicalities no one can understand. So
beyond just plain transparency, clear and understandable disclosures are necessary.
Throughout this document it will be shown that in order to have effective policy like the
1930s the government must be large and involved with its citizens. This can only happen
with adequate transparency and the resulting trust that can come with it.

The next suggestion for environmental policy today relates to FDR’s “gospel of
efficiency” in Depression Era policy. Simply, we need to bring this catch phrase back to
our government today. However, there is one major change that needs to be made in
order to understand this efficiency. Efficiency must be looked at as something a bit
bigger than it was in the 1930s. That is, it must be more than just ridding the costs
associated with obvious inefficiency. The efficiency needs to be seen not just from the
perspective of our society but also from the standpoint of the environment. Therefore we
need a comprehensive, or what this author would call a “total”, approach to efficiency. It
is necessary to define exactly what is meant by this type of “total” approach to best
understand how to inform our current policy using this 1930s doctrine.

A “total” approach is one that respects the fact that the environment is extremely
complex. Pardon the cliché but respect for the “web of life” is the only way to
successfully confront environmental problems. Unfortunately, science will always
struggle to understand the effects of human actions on the environment since the effects
are so complicated. It is important that “total” approaches err as much as possible on the
side of the environment. We must admit that we are flawed in our environmental
understanding, since the environment’s vast complexities limit us. This is similar to when
FDR boldly admitted that humans were to blame for Depression Era’s natural problems,
and is just as necessary. All in all, the important thing to note is that “total” approaches
acknowledge human fallibility and advocate on behalf of an Earth that cannot speak.

Returning to the discussion of the “Gospel of Efficiency”, our use of a “total”

efficiency approach will help give the environment much needed protection. In practice,
the approach does not support simplistic efficiency, such as that of harsh chemicals to

19
clean tile. This is because such choices are only efficient now. In the long run they
threaten our society and the world around us. “Total” efficiency is what is needed right
now in the face of global climate change, pollution, and overreliance on fossil fuels.
Without it future generations’ lives may be seriously degraded. Therefore we as a society
must be willing to step outside our comfort zones and demand proper efficiency in
governmental policy.

Newfound levels of efficiency call for extra care in how we implement and
regulate policy to keep our efficiency as an asset rather than a potential liability.
Therefore when bills are being worded, reassessment of programs must be mandated after
a given period of time to prevent the problems that resulted from programs like the TVA.
Such a simple step, although somewhat time consuming, will help to ensure that we
counterbalance our extra speed with more supervision. Although it will be hard to stop
programs after they have started, most programs, including the CCC, were ended after
they became no longer useful. We must remember that programs should indeed be ended
after they are no longer useful, and learn that it is possible to do this since it has been
done in the past.

With transparency, “total” efficiency, and reassessment it can be hoped that the
policy problems of the past can remain exactly where they should, in the past. None of
the suggestions add much to government costs, and in some cases, such as program
reduction via reassessment, they can actually save the government money. This is
especially important in our economically tight situation. But government policy will
simply not be enough to solve our environmental problems. For that we will need to
involve the people. We must create American pride, a pride that can help America to
become a much cleaner and greener place.

CHAPTER 3: CITIZEN, PATRIOTISM, AND CIVIC

INVOLVEMENT

Historical Analysis

The 1930’s: Proud to be an American

20
 Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew the gravity of the situation he faced when he
stepped into office. In a speech on the use of natural resources he gave in 1935 he vividly
points out, “The future of every American family everywhere will be affected by the
action we take” (Roosevelt, “Message to Congress”). The “we” in this quote is
ambiguous as to whom it exactly refers to, but it does seem that it is all encompassing. In
essence, we see that FDR knew the importance of citizen action, and implored it, long
before “It’s not what your government can do for you, but what you can do for your
country” was ever spoken. But lofty and inspiring speeches can only get you so far, what
was needed, and was fulfilled in the 1930’s, was programs that gave people American
pride. These in turn caused people to rally despite the poor situation of the day and
restore the environment in the process.

The Roosevelt administration’s programs considered both the environmental

needs of the time and that of the people who were desperate to work. The first step in
creating these programs was to make sure they weren’t looked at as “un-American” due
to the government’s rather large involvement. Traditionally Americans would not
condone this scale of involvement. The way this acceptance was achieved was by
showing that the programs not only ensured productivity of resources and restored
American beauty, but also helped to homogenize society in a positive way. This was done
by showing the political right that, and in particular with the CCC program, the New Deal
programs assimilated people (Maher 112). By directly confronting criticism by showing
the programs’ multiple benefits, the Roosevelt administration was able to make forward
progress. Beyond responding to criticism, FDR’s programs also had a few other
characteristics that really got people on board. In his wording he used positive framing
and his wording always looked at the big picture (Henderson 170). By understanding the
large impact they were having and also not being discouraged by “glass half empty” style
speaking from government officials, citizens felt encouraged to get involved. Yet, citizen
involvement was not only encouraged in the 1930s, it was also encouraged 40 years later
but in quite a different way.

The 1970’s: Bottom-Up Approaches

21
 The citizen action of the 1970s was just the opposite of the 1930s. While
Depression Era approaches were top-down, with the government encouraging citizen
participation in its programs, 1970’s approaches were bottom-up. Writers such as Joseph
Sax influenced this type of action because of their belief that the government was not
capable of resisting special interest groups (Lazarus 82) Therefore the general population
needed to act as a watchdog organization. However, the problem with this decade’s
approach to citizen action is the fact that it counters some of the suggestions mentioned in
the previous section on policy. It plays off of 1960’s distrust in government, an inherently
negative framework as it is founded on distrust rather than trust. Therefore it is important
that this type of citizen action, namely judicial action, be framed as a civic duty. Just as
the constitution is correctable by amendment; the government is correctable by the use of
judicial action. Therefore it would be best if this duty was not viewed as yet another
reason to distrust government, but rather as a duty of citizens in assisting the government.

Suggestions

A Call to American “Greenness”

Let us face it, the environment can be somewhat of a depressing subject, and
further discussions about the topic in this paper will show that fact further. In the midst of
the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl and poor management techniques likely seemed
impossible to overcome, just as climate change does today. Therefore hope and vision
must be employed to conquer this inherent problem. Just after 9/11 the amount of
patriotism in this country skyrocketed. So there is the potential to rally around American
pride, just as we did in the past. We must see that America’s beauty must be protected
and restored. The overarching themes that seem to emerge from this research in the
citizenship and patriotism area is that unified policy is key to success. Unfortunately
more recent approaches, a la the 1970’s judicial approaches, are not inherently unified
but are rather individualistic. Therefore it is important that environmental issues unite
people similar to how they did in the 1930s under the banner of becoming American. The
way we unite people in the year 2010 will be different than it was done in the 1930s as
we no longer have the same need nor desire to assimilate people into a homogenous
group. However just as music is a language shared by all, so too the people of the world

22
understand the beauty of the Earth, and this idea can always be utilized. This combined
with positive framing can move us towards what author Andrew Dobson calls a “post-
cosmopolitan society” (Dobson). This type of society recognizes a global citizenship and
the environmental and ethical responsibilities that it entails. If patriotism can be increased
by the methods just mentioned, improved global citizenship will come with it.

The Self versus Society Debate

In the course of research for this paper, a consistent theme that kept emerging was
the debate of the self versus society. This refers to the question of whether individuals are
to blame for environmental problems or if it is society. It is important to know where to
place the blame, not only because this helped FDR succeed in the 1930s, but also because
this can help us create better adapted solutions to our problems. In order to become better
citizens, Americans must know whether to divert their attention inwards, toward
themselves and their environmental habits, or outward towards government policy and
others who influence our society.

The long and short of the answer to this question is that although it is important to
mange one’s personal environmental impact, for the most part it is society who is to
blame for our problems. The reason is shown by statistics from the 1973 book by Barry
Commoner The Closing Circle. During the 1960s pollution problems came to the fore,
and the debate over where to place the blame soon ensued. Statistics simply don’t support
that it is the consumer’s fault. In fact between 1946 and 1971 American consumption
patterns, population adjusted, did not change much (Commoner 145). However, the way
that the average American consumed changed drastically thanks to the post-WWII
introduction of synthetic textiles, fertilizers, and detergents (Commoner 145). So while
one can blame the consumer for choosing these products, the fact is that it is difficult to
expect a consumer to have assessed the environmental impact of every one of these
newly introduced products.

The reason to bring this up in the discussion of patriotism and citizenship is to

enliven American’s to get involved in their government. The reason being that only the
government can regulate the production of environmentally inconsiderate technology.

23
The fact is that “…the long run… economic gain of polluting industries…” such as those
industries that manufacture the above mentioned synthetic products, will be a drop in the
bucket, monetarily speaking, compared to the costs of fixing “threatened life support
systems” that emerge because of pollution (Jones 83). Although this type of statistic may
be against our positive framing solution that was just called for, it enhances the
importance of American civic duty. Yes, it is true we live in an America where just
getting citizens to vote, a civic duty, is tough. However the environment is not a
politician, it is the great provider. It stays true to its commitments as long as we
contribute to it. So calls to increased citizenship for the benefit of the environment can be
accomplished, because unlike two-faced politicians, the environment, while complicated,
is honest and worth our time. This differs from voting where citizens may be frustrated in
the limited and poor choices they have. Environmental protection can be approached
many ways but the movement needs many people to be effective. As well it needs people
to live in societies that are conducive to an environmental respect, which we will explore
next.

CHAPTER 4: THE ROLE OF PLANNING ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Introduction

How cities and projects are planned has a huge impact on the environment. Urban
Sprawl, a common feature of 1950’s style development, causes the population to be
forced to drive everywhere, increasing the use of fossil fuels with resulting pollution. A
city that is centralized can alleviate that problem, but at the same time can cause high
concentrations of pollution in a centralized area if not properly managed. Even more
fundamentally than the physical aspect of planning, the development style the city
chooses to display showcases the relationship the city has with the environment. Cities
with lush green spaces show a commitment to pursue a different type of development,
one that improves environmental relationships. But before a discussion of city planning
can begin, we must first discuss project planning and its role in 1930’s project
development.

Historical Analysis

24
 The 1930’s

In the Depression Era we see the emergence of the sustainable development

paradigm. The impetus for this type of planning was the realization that not all
development is good (Henderson 160). Thus citizens began planning that included
expanding national parks, a positive type of development, while promoting the idea of
non-development as the best policy (Henderson 160). This trend continued to emerge,
and took some interesting forms, including the development of a trail system in western
Virginia, the Appalachian Trail.

Strategic sustainable environmental planning made forward progress, in historical

context, during the Depression Era. With construction occurring mainly in the 1930s, the
Appalachian Trail is a great example of planning that serves an environmental purpose as
well. The goal for the trail was to get people out into the wilderness so they would fall in
love with it, want to stay out in these rural areas, and develop lower impact lifestyles
because of their rural location (Gottlieb 113). So here we see a different model of
development that does not inherently create high impact and degrading lifestyles. But
while the Appalachian Trail project sought to create lifestyles with a small impact, the
next project we will discuss took a very different approach, creating a huge impact in the
area of the Tennessee Valley.

A discussion of the TVA’s project planning brings us back, yet again, to the
subject of scaling. The goal of the TVA’s massive planning projects was to fit the
massive scale of the problems in the Tennessee Valley, which included both
environmental and employment needs (Henderson 165). However, this doesn’t mean that
all of the TVA’s projects were unnecessarily massive especially in the case of the
Authority’s river projects (Henderson 165). They were scaled according to the problem
according to author Hendry Henderson, an environmental historian (165). Yet discussing
projects like these, although important at the time, is unfortunately not as useful to us as it
could be. Unfortunately these large projects were criticized even during their construction
because of fears of the government becoming socialist or communist by implementing
such large works projects (Henderson 167). This has led our society to individualize
environmental problems rather than implement the large-scale solutions we need.

25
 Problems

Our discussion of planning has so far only delved into areas that were influenced
by various projects, rather than public policy. The realm of policy has had a bigger
environmental impact than the combined impacts of the TVA and the Appalachian Trail.
The major planning policy initiative of the 1930s was that of the National Housing Act,
first passed in 1934 and subsequently amended. This act, through its price controls and
financing measures allowed many in the 1950s to live the “American Dream”. This
included the ability to live in a single-family dwelling, a huge positive for many
Americans (Andrews 197). However, by favoring single-family dwellings, the Act
created sprawled cities. This resulted in problems including traffic and pollution as well
as the need to change more and more rural land into suburbs. However this act was very
different than another act created in the same era. The other planning effort, New Deal
New Towns, encouraged centralization rather than sprawl.

The New Deal New Towns initiative took the opposite approach to the National
Housing Act in order to create affordable housing. It encouraged those who needed
affordable housing to move into compact cities, hence the name “New Towns”, where it
could be provided at the necessary low cost (Henderson 168). Unfortunately this plan
failed thanks to the success of acts like the National Housing Act and other post WWII
housing acts. The impact of the failure of this attempt at centralization extends even to
today, but luckily progress in changing this model of planning occurred thanks to the
reaction of 1960’s citizens. This is because people could no longer easily find respite
from city life in nearby rural areas thanks to expansion.

The 1960s

The impact of 1950s development and its resulting sprawl, while helping to fulfill
the American Dream, forever changed the landscape where Americans lived. The impact
of this development resulted in concerns that began to emerge in the 1960s. This included
the issue that while previously one could merely exit the city to find peace within the
rural countryside or nearby wilderness, due to sprawl people could no longer “get out” of
the city as suburbs became larger (Hays 32). This resulted in more travel for so called

26
“footloose” jobs, where residents dwell in the countryside, in an effort to interact with
nature, but commute to the city for work (Hays). Unfortunately, this created a positive
feedback loop of making the limits of the city expand ever outward as more people try to
find the elusive countryside. In turn this necessitates more travel and therefore more
environmental impact, by residents of the area.

Solutions

The solution to the problems created by 1950’s development and the National
Housing Act, is relatively simple and has already begun to occur. History offers a good
model of what we should aim towards, a New Deal New Towns style project which
encourages people to move to the city for affordability. The most difficult part of this
effort is showing the advantages of centralized cities, which include shorter commutes
and the ability to walk, more compared to the luxury of owning a single-family dwelling.
Further, increasing efforts to “clean up” cities will help to lessen the stigma of cities as
unsafe and dirty places. Although moving people from their large homes inward to multi-
person dwellings is an arduous task, the advantage it can have is enormous. It encourages
more social interaction, since more people are in one location, less driving, and frees up
more space for the environment to exist, all of which are huge positives. Luckily inroads
have been made thanks to 1990s New Urbanism, which is about restructuring cities in
ways that create central common areas and allow for more walkable city layouts
(Merchant 173). Yet to truly get demand for centralization and other environmental
policy initiatives we must restore our relation with nature. This is because only by
understanding the importance of the natural environment will humans be willing to
sacrifice for it.

CHAPTER 6: HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS TO NATURE: A BASIS

FOR CREATING GREEN JOBS

Historical Analysis

Depression Era

27
 Having grown up on a farm, Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew the importance of
balance in nature. His positive relationship with nature helped to impact the lives of many
during his Presidency. A good example of FDR’s views on nature is shown in a message
to Congress he gave. In the address he calls for man and nature to work “…hand in hand
[since] the throwing out of balance of the resources of nature throws out of balance the
lives of men” (Roosevelt, Message to Congress”). Thanks to his past, FDR saw that the
relationship to nature was key to restore both the natural environment as well as alleviate
high unemployment.

FDR knew that restoring our relationship with the land would take more than just
discussion on the subject. He therefore created programs that required physical
interaction with the land. This was mainly practical, as farming at the time had been
terribly affected by the Dust Bowl and thus needed physical restoration. As well he
believed “…that the long road that leads to green pastures has to begin with reasonable
prosperity” (Henderson 15). Hence, he had to start with farmers who in turn support city
dwellers to get the country back to a level of “reasonable prosperity”. The fact is that if
the government did not support the farmers there would have been more crop failure,
leading to an even worse depression (Henderson 15). We may not relate to agricultural
issues as well today, since only 2.6 percent of the work force is famers compared to 21
percent in the 1930s (Economic Research Service). But understanding why Depression
era policy chose to start with farmers is key to understanding why restoration projects
took the shape they did. This style of work had many secondary benefits beyond just the
primary goal of restoring land. It really got citizens involved in the environment,
especially in the New Deal’s Civilian Conservation Corps.

The Civilian Conservation Corps was an extremely successful New Deal program
that not only put young men to work but also, in getting the men physically involved, had
very important secondary consequences that positively affected the workers. The CCC
was a rural solution to what Roosevelt felt was an urban problem (Henderson 61). It
provided “…contact with the earth and with nature and the restful privilege of getting
away from pavements and noise” (Henderson 61). It too was part of Roosevelt’s solution
to confronting the problem that the environment had been forgotten in the previous

28
decades thanks to industrialization. But what is so special about the CCC can really be
seen from the perspective of a College of William and Mary student who worked in the
Corps, Edward Temple.

Edward Temple was involved in the CCC’s projects that occurred on the campus
of The College of William and Mary during the Great Depression. Temple worked on
conservation efforts which involved installing trails around the College’s Lake Matoaka
(Edward Temple 1-4). During his time he met people from different areas and he felt this
diversity added interest to his job (Edward Temple 4). Further, Temple acknowledges
that the workers at the CCC camp did mingle with students on the college campus
(Edward Temple 4). This is important because it opened a door for CCC workers to
discuss their views on environmental actions with those who were not directly involved.
The CCC, beyond just its ability to impact and its interesting work, was also extremely
successful due to the fact that it resolved many of the needs of the times simultaneously.
“While the national need was for employment, ‘works’ projects provided an excellent
opportunity to invigorate the minds and bodies of Americans…” (Henderson 37). The
invigoration that Henry Henderson refers to was most directly shown in the men’s
increased confidence since they had a job and were physically fit from the nature of the
work (Henderson 73) (Maher). The CCC was not the only organization that had a
positive relationship to the environment, the government as a whole formed, and spread
through its projects, its own idea of what a good relationship with nature was.

The United States government, and its respective New Deal projects, existed and
were created because of a unique understanding of the human relation with the
environment. The New Deal’s water projects show best what Roosevelt intended for his
programs as they represented, “…a demonstration that the government could not merely
preserve but effectively control, manage, and improve the workings of natural processes
for human benefit” (Andrews 165). Although this may not be exactly in line with our
current model of sustainability, it is in many ways similar. More importantly it shows that
humans can impact the environment, positively, if it is done in a responsible way. This is
important because in the face of current environmental problems we often feel powerless

29
to do much about them. But the fact is that we can have a large and lasting impact on the
environment just as the government of the 1930s did.

The 1960s

Changing pace from large public works projects, the 1960s moved to protect the
environment in a less physical way, through controls and regulation. These policies were
the result of both a negative reaction to 1950’s expansion and a positive relationship with
the environment that formed during the same period. During the 1950s being an
outdoorsman, or something like it, became quite popular (Dunlap 27). As people came to
see nature’s aesthetic beauty more, as a result of being outside, they felt moved to protect
the aesthetically pleasing aspects of nature by confronting pollution issues (Dunlap 27).
Further adding to this desire to protect the aesthetic beauty of the world was the advent of
television and cheap photographic equipment that allowed people to better see the beauty
that needed protection from the filth of air and water pollution (Hays 39). These natural
beauty protection efforts were not just limited to hippie environmentalists either. As we
will see these efforts spread like wildfire.

Unlike New Deal initiatives, it was not the government that helped to get people
to restore the environment in the 1960s. In fact, it was just the opposite. People saw the
abovementioned threats to the environment and felt compelled to stop them (Hays 55).
As well, these citizens wanted to learn about the various threats’ sources so they could
more effectively mitigate them (Hays 55). In fact, a specific problem, air pollution, was
such a big issue in the 1960s that up to 70 percent of people felt it was a major concern
(Gottlieb 177). This is very different than in our decade where, as mentioned previously,
only 30 percent of people feel climate change is a top issue. Therefore it will be difficult
to get the same level of policy success if the majority of people cannot unite around a
single environmental threat.

At the same time that pollution concerns were mounting, increased interest in
ecological science was helping citizens to better understand environmental problems. As
well ideas about the environment requiring co-integration, rather than pure preservation
or pure control, really took hold (Hays 28). Hence, understanding nature as something

30
that had inherent value beyond just monetary value came mainly during the 1960s. But
ecological science was not the only influence on Americans’ view of the environment.
Perhaps even more so was the influence of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring.

Silent Spring had the profound impact of codifying the change from
environmental protection being viewed as just a problem for the government to deal with
to one that needed citizen participation. The book’s writing on DDT showed that
environmental degradation should be everyone’s concern, not that of scientists or
governments officials (Gottlieb 125-126). The book also catalyzed the idea of a “web of
life” in nature, which further enhanced the public’s understanding of how human impacts
on the environment could affect multiple systems (Andrews 217). All this new
understanding helped to set up the situation for the passage of NEPA at the very end of
the decade.

Problems

Although encouraging a positive relationship with the environment is very

important, it is not always easily done when you do not involve all of the social classes.
Although many 1960’s citizens moved away from the seeing the environment as a just
resource, that was not true for all parties, and for good reason. For a working class person
the environment was a resource because it provided them with the foundations of their
jobs. This contrasts with the view of an upper class person who would view it as a beauty
to be explored and left untouched (Andrews 110). So in the solutions that are about to be
discussed, it is important to involve all classes, in respecting the need to both utilize the
environment and respect it at the same time.

Solutions

One may have noticed that the title of this section mentions the word “jobs”, and
the fact is that jobs are the solution to creating better environmental stewards in the
United States. Yes, these are the oft-cited “green jobs” that have emerged as the ultimate
catchphrase of this decade. But the green jobs that will be recommended have specific
guidelines, based on our historical evidence, that will help ensure their success.

31
 The creation of private sector green1 jobs will help us restore our environment
while at the same time utilizing human capital towards confronting an urgent issue. The
jobs that should be most encouraged, possibly by the form of government incentives, are
those that directly and physically interact with the environment. As seen in the CCC’s
work and the increase in outdoorsmanship in the 1950’s, interacting with the environment
has a large and direct impact on a person’s concern for the environment, much more than
is likely to occur through sustainable desk jobs. By being involved directly with nature,
the men and women of this country will reap the psychological and physical benefits that
the young men of the CCC did, and also understand more fully what they are fighting to
protect. Further, another lesson from the 1930s that can be applied to green jobs is that
they should have the potential to impact others through interaction, just as the CCC did
on William and Mary campus. Hence, green jobs like organic farming should be
promoted since the work is directly involved with the earth and relationships can develop
at farmers’ markets that can impact many others. Traditional green jobs, that are more
desk or factory based, are still very important to dealing with unemployment and creating
important green technology. However they shouldn’t be the brunt of our current green
jobs initiatives as their effectiveness is less certain, at least from a historical point of
view.

Through the encouragement of green, direct-interaction jobs we can help to put

people back to work and get multiple benefits at the same time. Although it may not be
realistic to think in our society we would be able to start a CCC style program, utilizing
the increasing interest in community service would be a start. Green community service
jobs could put people in touch with the environment, even if they did not alleviate all our
current problems, including unemployment. However, it can be hoped that over time
employers and society would recognize that jobs and community service in areas such as
organic farming should be respected for the truly important role they play in protecting
the earth. Hopefully, over time, and with government assistance, more green jobs will
emerge which can help alleviate the number one concern of this year, unemployment.
Today, we must seize the opportunity to positively change our world and at the same time

1
For the sake of simplicity, and because it is becoming more accepted to do so, the
quotation marks around “green” will be dropped for the remainder of this paper.

32
reduce unemployment. As well we must also see the year 2010 as the year to begin
improving our psychological and physical health by encouraging people to gain the
benefits of being outdoors, not just during leisure, but every day through their work.

CHAPTER 7: THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA AND INFORMATION

DISCLOSURE

Introduction

The media has a very large role to play in the ultimate success or failure of the
environmental movement in this current decade. Further, the related area of information
disclosure and propagation is also very important to not only prevent environmental
corruption but also to ensure our democratic rights. It is no surprise that the media is
extremely powerful, but an exploration of history shows just how fundamental it is that
the media be used for environmental good. Simply stated, it comes down to the fact that
there is a reason why the freedom of speech is the First Amendment, it is simply that
important to the function of democracy in the U.S. The same can be said for the
importance of proper information disclosure. Similarly, the amendment is just as vital to
the proper functioning of domestic environmental policy within our country.

The Role of the Media

The 1930’s: The Success of a Program, the Beginnings of Regulatory Capture

Concerns

Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, for all their virtue, would simply not have
succeeded without the help of the media at the time. Specifically, as Neil Maher quotes in
his book on the CCC, Nature’s New Deal, the main reason why the Corps succeeded was
because of FDR’s use of the mass media to promote it (155). Thanks to this promotion,
combined with the program’s many benefits, support for the Corps never dropped below
80 percent up to at least 1936 (Maher 163). Although the fact that advertising is powerful
may come as no surprise, it is important to realize that good publicity makes good
programs grow faster. This is useful in the midst of fast moving environmental
degradation namely because it will be essential that a snowball of environmental

33
successes occurs in order to catch up, and hopefully outpace, our current rate of
degradation.

While the media’s successful role in promotion helped the CCC, its failure to
serve as government power counterweight in the 1930s led to the continuance of
environmentally degrading programs. In the 1930s, concerns over regulatory capture
began to rise with the increasing role of the government in people’s lives (Andrews 176-
179). This is fully understandable as groups like the TVA had massive controls over their
work areas and their projects were huge. Further the power that groups like the TVA had
was enormous as, “the magical hand of federal authority gave [TVA] designers carte
blanche to make the [Tennessee] valley [sic] an ideal…” (Conan 87). Since it was the
designers that decided what “ideal” meant, they yielded enormous power. This is not to
say, as the reader should garner by now, that so called “big government” is inherently
bad, it just needs a counterweight. Further, investigative journalism, the type that could
have helped alleviate some of the bad decisions of the TVA and acts as a government
counterweight, gives journalists a news piece that is dynamic, interesting, and important.
Although in the age of the Internet it is hard to unify the population with just one news
source, as long as news is interesting it will spread and have a large impact.

The 1960s: Pictures anyone?

The news media was not the only way that information about the environment
was spread. It began to be spread in other mediums starting in the 1960s. The 1960’s saw
the advent of cheap cameras and color television that could show in brilliant color shows
about such subjects as wildlife (Henderson 159). These shows and photographs helped to
fuel and enhance the already burgeoning environmental movement. However, during this
same time, the media failed to make environmental issues as clear as they could have
been for maximum effectiveness. Although the issue of fragmentation in the
environmental realm will be discussed at great length in the next chapter, in brief the
1960s host to a multitude of small, related, but different, environmental movements. In
this area the media did not effectively promote the general ideas of these groups, which
would have helped to provide at a minimum the appearance of unity to the environmental

34
movement, increasing its effectiveness. For both good and bad, this theme of positive and
negative media responses with regard to the environment continues into the 1970s.

The 1970’s: A Day for the Earth

The 1970s media helped to promote one event, Earth Day, that has hugely
impacted our environment in one way, while failing to promote alternative lifestyles
during the 1973 oil crisis, which impacted us in the opposite way. In regards to the
positive influence of the media, just like the CCC, the media coverage of the first Earth
Day in 1970 is more than anything else what made as success (Gottlieb 157). Although it
is impossible to say, it is probably thanks to the media that the event has been able to
continue to our current decade, some 40 years later. Yet, another major event that
occurred during the 1970s was the 1973 oil crisis, where yet again the media fell short of
what was needed to protect the environment.

The 1973 oil crisis was a time of huge lines for gas and a time when energy issues
came to the fore. It was the perfect time to spread ideas about the environment in a way
that they would stick, since the country could directly see the impact of overreliance on
foreign oil. However it appears that these efforts, where they were made, did not seem to
have much of a public impact. In a study on the public response to the oil crisis many
Americans were not convinced that their high-energy lifestyles needed to be restructured
(Murray 258). This is because they felt that the oil crisis would pass within a few years,
so such restructuring would be a waste since the lack of energy was only a temporary
phenomenon (Murray 258). Further, on a related topic, the public surveys showed the
power of advertising in the midst of the crisis. In surveys in regards to the who needed
the highest priority to receive gas, “The most significant [change in data]…[was] the
percentage of respondents favoring trucks…reflecting the well-publicized actions of
truckers…” (Murray 261). So yet again, it is important to remember that promotional
media can move people, so promoting environmental lifestyles whenever possible is
absolutely paramount. Unfortunately, overcoming advertising that is not environmentally
conscientious is only one problem the media faces; they also face a problem with regards
to communicating with scientists.

35
 The Media versus Science Problem

Scientists through their various studies and data analysis often discover important
environmental problems. Unfortunately, their findings are not always expressed in a way
the lay reader can understand. This is where the media comes in, to act as an intermediary
between scientists and the public. Unfortunately, there is an inherent tension between the
media and the scientific community. The media feels the scientific community is too
obscure, while scientists feel the media is too reactionary (Rubin 174, 175). The reason it
is important that this issue be resolved is because if the scientific community’s findings
are not utilized then that leaves just the opinions of the public and private sectors in the
news media, each with their own problems. According to David Rubin, a contributor in
Public Policy Toward the Environment: 1973, the public sector’s information is mainly
available through the Freedom of Information act which is not strong enough to
propagate all necessary environmental information. Further, the private sector isn’t
required to make statements regarding the environment, thus leaving the public at the
mercy of their own goodwill. Therefore it would be wise for both scientists and
journalists to work together to resolve their issues. Since both the 1930s and 1960s have
shown us the media fails to fully utilize its potential abilities, the solutions we will
develop, following a discussion of the role of information, will seek to remedy that
problem.

The Role of Information Disclosure

Historical Analysis: 1930s and 1960s

Information disclosure, on a Federal level, has increased much since the FDR
administration and the first disclosure acts were passed including the 1946
Administrative Procedure Act. This act made the government much more susceptible to
review and litigation and was spawned because of fears of government power that
resulted post-WWII due to the example set by Germany (Henderson 159). This level of
disclosure was precedent setting at the time and led the way for the disclosure
requirements required by NEPA in the 1960s. During that decade, NEPA was founded on
the idea of government transparency in regards to its environmental impacts. The Act

36
requires full disclosure for Federal projects’ environmental impacts and also has
requirements that allow for extensive public comment before a project can be approved
(Lindstrom 90-100). Yet, just because this measure is in place doesn’t mean it is totally
effective. As well according to the Council on Environmental Quality more community
outreach is needed to fully get the public involved in NEPA related issues, and therefore
yield more accurate and relevant disclosures (Lindstrom 113).

Why Information Disclosure and The Media Play a Vital Role

Information disclosure and media’s role in the environmental realm would be

unimportant if the public didn’t utilize the information that is spread by both processes,
but the fact is that evidence says that the public does utilize it. Barry Commoner in his
book The Closing Circle cites two examples that effectively demonstrate what can
happen when science, the media, and the disclosure of information come together to
cause environmental change. The first involves the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of
1963, which stopped certain types of nuclear testing, and the second involves the removal
of nerve gas from an unsafe location.

In regards to the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the scientific community
stepped up with important information that yielded public action precipitating policy
change. In 1953 concerns began to emerge in the scientific community over the nuclear
fallout that resulted from nuclear missiles (Commoner 199). With time these scientists
organized into groups and started a campaign to stop certain types of nuclear testing
which harmed citizens the most. As the public found out about this information and it
spread through the media, the government became flooded with letters on the issue,
helping to yield the test ban treaty (Commoner 200). But the toxic effects of nuclear
radiation were not the only hazards stopped by the spread of information, poor Army
planning was too.

As the result of various wars, the Army needed a place to store its toxic nerve gas
but chose an unsafe location that sent scientists on a mission for media assistance. The
nerve gas was located directly in the flight path of a Denver airport, just one plane crash
away from catastrophe (Commoner 200). Various scientists began to notice the

37
precarious situation that existed, and started to publish information about the risks of the
gas’ location (Commoner 201). As a result of this information the public began to
demand a change in that gas’ location (Commoner 201). However, it was important that
both scientists and the public followed through with the Army’s actions. Without this the
army would have transported the gas across the whole country, a large risk, instead of
making it inert at the present location, as was demanded by scientists (Commoner 201).
Luckily thanks to following, the Army took the scientists’ suggestion (Commoner 201).
All in all this example outlines the steps for the successful use of information to create
positive environmental change. It is discovered by scientists, confirmed and promoted by
scientific groups and the media, causes a response in the public, and is then implemented
and followed through by interest groups and citizens.

Suggestions for Improving the Use of Information and Media in the United States

A Government Media Office

This research has assuredly argued for a government that has more of a role in our
everyday lives, but this simply can’t happen without an effective media branch to the
government. Therefore a Government Media Office should be created. Although various
government offices are effective at media relations, centralizing an authority to promote,
rather than just passively post, important environmental information would help to push
us in the right direction. This office would not be one for brainwashing or of forcing an
idea of what a green “ideal life” looks like, since both characterize governments that look
more like the dystopian rule of Orwell’s government in 1984 than anything else (Gobson
159, 164). The main idea of this office would be to promote important government news
from various agencies in a centralized manner. In this way, citizens could be better
informed in a few seconds of browsing the Internet rather than browsing between sites
like whitehouse.gov and USA.gov among others. Some may disagree that this could ever
work or that effective government information promotion already exists exists, but a
creation of such an office is worth a try. This is because just like the environment, our
government needs to be better understood as a linkage of interactive systems and groups.
Further, the creation of such an office could include the promotion of simple Ad Council
style tips on how to go green. In this way, the government could both portray itself in a

38
positive light and help others at the same time. Yet, such an office cannot fix all the
problems surrounding information disclosure and the media. For that we must encourage
various groups, namely the television media, to promote eco-friendly lifestyles and ideas.

For both better and worse, nature and the government are extremely complex.
Although no simplification will do either true justice, some simplification allows ideas to
spread more easily and therefore possibly have an impact. Hence, the media has a large
role to play in both protecting our environment by the way it chooses and simplifies news
media stories. It is important that when various media choose their news stories they
remember three fundamental ideas. First, it is important take the time to promote
environmentally related stories. Although the overall environmental issue may be
complicated, just as 1950’s nuclear testing was, the media can cause effective action by
promoting the most salient and important points. Second, the media must realize that it
carries the majority of the burden for keeping the government in check and preventing
regulatory capture, an issue that has been a constant concern in all the decades we have
explored. No matter how much change is made, no government, as long as capitalist
interests have their way, can possibly avoid the lure of the immediate and definable
economic benefits that special interest groups offer. As well, if the government is to
become bigger and more involved, as it must to solve environmental issues, the agency
capture issue will become even more acute. Third, and finally, there must be a call to
corporate social responsibility within the media since they directly interact with
advertisers. As shown during the 1973 oil crisis, advertising has an enormous power to
influence people’s opinions. Hence, if the “Big Six” media companies, G.E., Disney,
News Corp., Time Warner, Viacom and CBS, agreed on a set of environmentally ethical
advertising standards, they could drastically influence the creation of products and
advertising towards more “eco-conscious” choices.

Implementing the changes just discussed can seem like a frightful road to take,
since it plays on the power of centralized groups, which can be highly bureaucratic and
unethical. However, given the small time frame we have for change in confronting issues
like climate change as well as dealing with an economy of dwindling economic
resources, centralization is our best option. This is because it will allow for fast change at

39
a low cost. The change can be implemented by just a single organization, which shares a
common message. Further, it can save money by keeping everything under one roof,
reducing the economic costs of travel and the labor costs associated with coordination
issues. Yet through all this citizens must be active, ensuring that this centralization
doesn’t take a turn for the worse. The Government Media Office and pacts between the
media’s “Big Six” must be constantly reassessed by outside individuals to make sure they
benefit both public and environmental concerns. However, centralization and
coordination is needed beyond just the media realm. It is also needed in dealing with the
issue of fragmentation in the environmental field, which has always gone hand in hand
with the blossoming of the modern environmental movement.

CHAPTER 8: THE ISSUE OF FRAGMENTATION IN THE

ENVIRONMENTAL REALM

Introduction

Throughout the course of history, the environmental movement, while in some

ways becoming more powerful, is increasingly becoming more fragmented. This
fragmentation is the result of distrust in authority, resulting in trust in ever-smaller groups
of homogenous individuals. While in some ways effective, as we will see, the splitting of
the environmental movement has caused many problems in the environmental movement,
leading to a weak message and ineffective change.

Historical Analysis

Pre-Depression and Depression Era

Coordination problems among various environmental groups have been around

for at least the past century. Before the depression began, the seeds for problems that will
emerge later down the road were being set. Before FDR ever stepped into the oval office
sub-governments in the U.S. government began to compete among one another for the
most power, causing tensions within the whole of the government (Andres 155-160). By
the time we reach the depression it is true that the government looked, superficially, like

40
a powerful central authority. Yet looking deeper we can see just how much fragmentation
within government was already starting to occur.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt seemed to have foreknowledge of the problems of

divisions within government and did his best to resolve it. But, despite his best attempts
he ultimately failed. FDR attempted to unify the planning efforts of his New Deal
programs by having them all function through the National Resource Planning Board.
Despite the power he yielded, the vested interests of mission-oriented agencies ultimately
won out (Andrews 175). Originally these same agencies were “…expert organizations
serving a common public interest…” but they eventually became “…fragmented sub-
governments allied with their primary political constituencies” (Andrews 176-179). With
this fragmentation came the expected problem of agency capture, wherein the agencies
became the puppets of vested private interests. Unfortunately all this fracturing became
more permanent and harder to resolve over time. However, FDR did not give up and took
another swing at uniting the government, but it too failed.

FDR’s final attempt at government coordination came with his so-called “Third
New Deal” which attempted to unite his conservation efforts. Also known as the
Brownlow Plan, this plan to centralize the coordination of the various conservation
departments within the Depression Era government was in line with his “Gospel of
Efficiency” (Maher 201). This was because he felt this centralization plan would help to
keep conservation efforts moving through the government, since the need for more
conservation measures was still great. However, various agencies within the government
understandably thought their interests were best served by maintaining their individual
power. Hence, when the plan ultimately failed, the agencies were very happy to see it
happen (Maher 201). Ultimately what the 1930’s era shows us is that it is the natural
tendency for interest groups to want to remain individual and that they will generally
avoid attempts at coordination, even if it is better overall for the citizens of the United
States.

The 1960s: So what’s the big picture?

41
 The trends of the 1930s became more acute in the 1960s but this time within non-
governmental organizations and counter-culture groups. The environment is such a
complex system that it is best represented by big-picture ideas, which respect the
intricacies of the whole environment best. However, this large picture was missing
because of the increase of various individual issue groups and the fact that the media did
not fill in the gaps where necessary (Hays 115). This, while already problematic, was
compounded by the rise of environmental opposition during this decade. Opposition
groups, led by industry interests, began to realize that they could use their own science to
counter science (Hays 116). This can be done because scientific certainty is the result of
many experiments, not just one study. So by selecting studies that found results contrary
to the dominant scientific view, industrial interests created enough confusion to slow
positive environmental efforts down. This shows why “Environmental opposition…[has
grown] in many respects far more extensively and effectively than the environmental
movement itself” (Hays 155). Unfortunately the lack of unity in the 1960s extended
beyond NGOs, it also extended to counterculture groups as well.

The 1960’s counterculture groups, for all their fame, failed to influence
environmental policy as much as they could have due to their lack of unity. The
counterculture groups often struggled to succeed because of, according to Robert
Gottlieb, a lack of coherence among the groups and the fact that many members would
continually rejoin and drop out of groups (Gottlieb 82). Combined with the fragmentation
of non-governmental organizations the lack of unity among different issue groups
became the environmental movement’s modus operandi (Gottlieb 82). Luckily during the
1970s there was progress made in confronting this issue but it could still be greatly
improved today.

1970s: NEPA and the EPA

During the 1970s two major events happened which began to add unity to the
environmental movement, the passage of NEPA and the founding of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). We will begin first with a discussion of NEPA’s role in
confronting environmental fragmentation. By calling for a comprehensive environmental
impact statement (EIS), policy makers made sure that NEPA respected the vastness of

42
what could be affected environmentally by each project (Lindstrom 22). Further the EIS
process allowed various interest groups to go to centralized meetings to voice their
concerns and to unite in their opposition to certain government project proposals
(Lindstrom 22). Hence, by creating a forum where the diverse environmental interest
groups could speak, the environmental impact statement required by NEPA created an
unexpected form of environmental unity. Unity was not only caused by NEPA though, in
the 1970s the EPA was also founded to create centralization in the diverse realm of
environmental policy. However it leaves much to be desired.

The Environmental Protection Agency made major inroads in uniting the complex
issues of environmental regulation and policy. This is especially true in its relations with
states. However, its lack of a true mission compromises its effectiveness. Founded in
1970, this agency helped to get broad support by establishing regional offices, showing
that the environment was both a national and local concern (Andrews 230). This process
was very similar to the way FDR garnered support by buying up lands along the East
Coast, as we discussed in the first chapter. Despite garnering support, the agency’s
effectiveness is compromised by its lack of a clear mission. This is because the EPA is
just a reorganization of various agencies, rather than an entirely new agency itself
(Andrews 230). The reason it is not a new agency is because that would have required
legislation, which could have stopped the EPA’s creation entirely (Andrews 230).
However, since it was a restructuring the agency does not have a specific mission
specified for it (Andrews 230). Hence, various groups in the government have tried to
leverage control of the EPA by arguing was in their purview, especially within
Congressional groups (Lazarus 80). Although one can find a mission statement on the
EPA’s web site, “The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment”, it
is so broad that the organization would have to be massive to effectively deal with the
scale and scope of its current mission. Despite the flaws of the EPA it is somewhat
successful in its attempts to unite local and national interests.

According to Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the Environmental

Movement the characteristics of today’s environmental groups are that they are either
related to policy at the federal level or a problem at a more local level causing yet another

43
divide within the movement (Gottlieb 162). Although it may make sense to have groups
at the various different levels, this type of delegation is partially responsible for the
failure of the environmental movement against industry groups. To cite an example,
industry groups during the Carter administration garnered support at the local level and
used it to counter mainstream groups and the federal administration (Gottlieb 184). This
worked because the larger national groups could easily be portrayed as not serving the
local’s interests, since they did not take the time to work at this level as much. As well
these mainstream groups could easily be perceived as serving the elite “whose call for
individual sacrifice translated into lifestyle disruptions that forced people to be ‘hotter in
the summer and colder in the winter’ ”(Gottlieb 185). Thus it is important to unify the
environmental movement both horizontally and vertically for maximum environmental
policy effectiveness. The best part is that, in the midst of our current economic crisis,
unification initiatives can save money since they are based on streamlining organizations
so that the movement as a whole has less monetary need.

A Solution: The Office of Environmental Coordination

As we have seen the issue of fragmentation in the environmental realm has lasted
for quite a while and has severely crippled the environmental movement. Therefore it is
necessary that there be a group of individuals whose duty it is to encourage the various
environmental agencies and groups to work together. Hence, the creation of an Office of
Environmental Coordination would help in this area. This agency would be charged with
keeping frequent contact and coordinating relations with NGOs, government agencies,
and local interest groups. This would act as a safeguard against environmental opposition
groups who utilize the failure of coordination within the environmental movement.

The recommendation that we create an Office of Environmental Coordination

(OECOR) is more than just a solution by this author but the culmination of many writers’
and agencies’ calls for more unity in the area of environmentalism. To begin, the Council
on Environmental Quality has suggested that coordination within agencies is key to
making NEPA more effective (Lindstrom 133). Thus, OECOR would help NEPA to
become more effective by facilitating this necessary communication. As well, OECOR
could also help make NEPA more effective by making it easier for agencies to go

44
through the EIS process. As we mentioned earlier, scientists have criticized NEPA for
demanding too much of specialists with narrow fields of knowledge (Seaborg 85). Hence,
OECOR could help get specialists the help they need in order to make the whole process
more manageable. As well, by creating a coordinating agency, it would leave each
agency more time to hone in on its specific specialty and less time focusing on
coordination issues. This according to a document by the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development is key to creating innovative environmental solutions
(Kelp 44). Although each agency would be more specific because of this, they would be
informed of others’ work through the work of OECOR. All in all, although the creation
of a new government agency is risky, the benefits in this case outweigh the costs.

CHAPTER 9: THE ROLE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Introduction

The role of science and technology in our lives today is immeasurable and with
that comes the consequence that it also plays a large role in how we affect the
environment. In our exploration of history we will see that science has the profound
impact to alter our current direction away from ever increasing environmental
degradation by following two simple principles. Further, we will see that focusing our
efforts on certain science and technology will give us eyes to see our environmental
impact and therefore to change our course to one that supports the environment in a better
way.

Historical Analysis

The 1930s: The Emergence of the Benefits and the Flaws of Science

Science, while praised to an extent in the 1930s, was often the subject of criticism
during the decade. But before discussing the criticism we will begin with a discussion of
how science helped enhance 1930s policy goals .FDR in a message to Congress cited the
fact that science helped with the development of conservation programs because it
allowed them to see where they violated the “laws of nature” (Roosevelt, “Message to
Congress”). This will turn out to be a key role for the scientific field in regards to the

45
environment; it serves as translator by allowing environmental problems to be expressed
in a language we can understand. However, despite giving us eyes to see problems, the
negative impact of scientific assessment of the environment is what really stands out in
the course of research of 1930’s environmental history.

While science may have large eyes when it comes to seeing environmental
problems, science can also have large blinders which narrow its analysis of the world in a
big way. The first area where scientists narrowed their scope, according to 1930’s
environmentalists like Aldo Leopold, was in CCC projects and their respective impact
(Maher 165). Aldo Leopold and other environmentalists while initially supporting the
CCC came to criticize it because they felt the various projects impact were not being
reviewed by non-specialists who could understand the true, larger impacts of the projects
(Maher 165). Beyond this criticism there were criticisms of the symptomatic solutions
that science provided to confront the Dust Bowl. It has been argued by some, including
Barry Commoner, that although 1930’s soil problems were the result of poor land
husbandry, this core problem was never fixed. Instead the solution to the problem was a
technological solution, later known as the Green Revolution that provided a low cost
solution to agricultural problems but taxed the environment greatly. Science’s narrow
scope, which ignored the environment, impacted the 1930s significantly but not nearly as
it did during the 1950s.

Although we normally only explore three decades in this paper, it is necessary to

understand what happened during the 1950s to better understand how to confront
scientific problems today. This is because World War II left a legacy of technological and
scientific innovations that were put into use after the war, and have impacted our
environment ever since. As we mentioned in chapter three, during the discussion of the
self versus society debate, consumption patterns between WWII and the 1960s did not
change much, but how people consumed did (Commoner 145). The increased use of
synthetic textiles, fertilizers, and detergents all had significant environmental impact. The
creation of these products was the result of the post-WWII realization that the scientific
creations made during and before the war could continue to make money if they were
repurposed (Commoner 132). A famous example is that DDT, which was discovered in

46
1873, was taken off the shelf to be purposed for the famous use we know today, that of a
pesticide (Commoner 132). Combined, all these scientific creations became like drugs to
our society. For example pesticides began to kill off natural pest killers like wasps,
resulting in our dependence on chemicals as the only way of controlling pests
(Commoner 153). Luckily in the 1960s and 1970s we see a reaction to this, one that
utilizes science for good, and one that we can use to continue to improve our environment
today.

During the 1960s partnerships between scientists and the public began due to
fascination in ecological sciences, which helped to take off science’s blinders. The
knowledge that many gained through the study of ecological science made people care
more about specific environmental problems. At the same time they also understood the
broad scale need to protect the environment through actions such as biodiversity
protection (Hays 28). As well, persons in environmental groups, empowered by the
environmental movement, were able to more actively alert companies of ways they could
improve their technology for the benefit of our Earth. This also included the groups
alerting and adding pressure to the companies to change to these aforementioned
alternatives (Hays 171).

Our discussion now brings us to the 1970s where NEPA helped to enable
scientific knowledge for environmental benefit. NEPA utilizes the fact that science can
allow us to be cognizant of environmental problems by requiring that environmental
reports be assembled through its EIS requirement. As well, science continued to help
citizens in other ways including understanding the problems of the day such as pollution
(McNeill 264). Despite all these improvements, many of the issues of the past decade
were not resolved and it is why we need to implement solutions that make science and
asset to our society, rather than a hindrance.

Solutions

Realizing Natural Beauty

The first step that needs to be taken by scientists and innovators is to remind
themselves and their fellow co-workers that they should utilize the precautionary

47
principle in science. Therefore they should assume, given sufficient uncertainty, that their
creations could impact the environment negatively. Hence, they must exert extra caution
when releasing them. This is because of the fact is that any foreign substance introduced
into the environment runs a risk of polluting it, since it is not subject to biological decay
(Commoner 127). Social pressure from others could help to keep this precaution in use
although this will be difficult, especially if the innovation is particularly useful or
exciting. While it would be great if we could enforce this policy in a more tangible way,
we will see that it is ultimately up to scientists and innovators to be ethically responsible
in regards to the environment.

Part of creating scientific responsibility will be to learn from the “Doctrine of

Efficiency” to make innovations more efficient in order to lessen their environmental
impact. DDT and the other innovations of 1950’s era were inherently inefficient from a
larger standpoint since they cause society to waste time and effort dealing with their
secondary environmental consequences. Therefore it would be more efficient to create
environmental friendly solutions in the first place. While the fact that science can help us
to better understand the environment is praised in every decade, science and technology’s
narrow focus due to overspecialization and reductionism causes problems such as the one
we just mentioned. Ultimately these problems led to the predicament we are now in
which includes the existence of synthetic detergents whose active ingredient takes around
three times the energy to produce compared to its natural counterpart. As well, products
like these detergents have to be continually reformulated as their new environmental
impacts are discovered (Commoner, 155-158). Hence we must take steps to better utilize
science’s positive abilities to get a better understanding of the environmental impacts of
these innovations to remind us that we must pressure product makers to be greener.
However if we just utilize once simple principle, which we will now discuss, citizens will
be able to worry less about having to be a continual watchdog in the scientific field.

The principle that scientists need to better understand is that scientific

reductionism is not always best suited to environmental issues. That is, science has an
Achilles heel that must be recognized. The problem is that science focuses its attention to
a single facet of what is a complex whole, the whole being nature (Commoner 183).

48
When scientists and innovators create new technology or synthesize chemicals they
should utilize modern sustainable approaches, including Cradle-to-Cradle approaches.
Cradle-to-cradle approaches look at the impact of a product on the environment
throughout its lifetime, including the resources used to create it and the impact of its
disposal. Approaches such as these are historically based because they are just the latest
form of using the ability of science to help us understand the world around us. However,
citizen action, to ensure that sustainable choices are made, will still be important. This
includes putting pressure on companies, as groups did in the 1960s, or utilizing consumer
power by purchasing environmentally friendly products. This pressure combined with the
utilization of modern sustainable approaches that recognize the complexities of the
environment will help our society prosper in generations to come.

Science and technology, despite its one Achilles heel, must be utilized to help us
undo the impacts of our environmental degradation. The key is to first make sure the
underlying cause of the problem is addressed in the best way possible, using scientists
and innovators to create solutions to temporarily alleviate the worst of the problems.
Then, these same workers can work to figure out ways to create long-term solutions
making sure they are “derived from a scientific analysis that is appropriate [to the area]
on which the technology improves” (Commoner 189). If used responsibly, with the
aforementioned precautionary principle and the realization of the field’s shortcomings,
science can help us today to confront issues as complex as climate change. But again,
disclosure, which was so useful in NEPA, is key to making sure scientists stay on this
track.

CHAPTER 10: THE ROLE OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH

Introduction

The law has an extremely important role to play in enforcing environmental

policy and stopping environmental degradation. Coming to prominence in the 1960s, the
environmental law movement has impacted the field both directly and indirectly in such a
large way as to cause massive change such as the reduction of DDT use in the 1960s.
Despite the fact that judicial action is extremely powerful, since it is a lengthy and

49
expensive progress it is a path that should only be utilized as a backup to other
environmental policy tools.

Historical Analysis: The 1960’s and 1970’s

The Beginnings of Judicial Action in Environmental Policy

Judicial action in environmental policy began as a response to the failure of other

environmental policy approaches which often failed as a result of strong industry
opposition. These industries were successful against most policy approaches because of
the confusion amid the public over which groups were truly supporting their interests
(Dunlap 292). As well these groups profited from the division among environmental
groups, a problem that we discussed in depth earlier (Dunlap 292). But it was not only
industry that created the need for a new environmental policy approach; it was also the
inherent distrust in the government and corporations that led citizens to want to take
direct action (Lazarus 87). This finally led to people approaching environmental
problems through litigation including cases such as Scenic Hudson Preservation
Conference v. Federal Power Commission wherein the power of judicial action was
really shown (Lazarus 80). This historic case led to a proposed dam being blocked, a
huge win for concerned citizens against industry. However, a decade earlier another huge
win for environmentalists also occurred which changed our use of DDT in the U.S.
forever.

Environmental Defense Fund: An Early Success Story

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) began judicial action in the 1960s that
shows how judicial action can directly empower citizens, make immediate change
through court rulings, and also make change by creating fear among business and
industry. The issue that EDF took on was that of the use of DDT, the potent pesticide, in
agriculture. The concern over DDT began as a result of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring,
but it alone was not influential enough to cause the change necessary to stop its use. The
first reason it was not influential enough was because agricultural and agribusiness
interests were too strong (Dunlap 291). Second, support over stopping DDT use was not
universal; even some members of the Sierra Club, the prominent NGO, had problems

50
supporting a ban on DDT due to its effectiveness against pests (Gottlieb 126). Therefore
EDF, urged by the calls of various citizens, began to take on cases against the use of
DDT which were successful enough to cause a historic change in its use

EDF took on a suit in Long Island involving residents of the area wanting to stop
the use of DDT there. Fortunately for EDF, the case it brought to court resulted in a
temporary injunction against the local mosquito control commission, which used DDT
(Dunlap 294). However, the case did not go far enough to cause a ban on DDT because
the judge felt that it would take legislative action to get that to occur (Dunlap 294). But
despite this blow to EDF’s efforts, it did not seem to matter. The ruling of the case caused
enough fear among industry groups that they began to use alternatives to DDT (Dunlap
293). This case provides one example of just how beneficial judicial action can be to
protecting the environment, by creating change through verdicts and fear. However,
litigation can provide another benefit to the environment by putting a price on it.

Other Benefits of Judicial Action

In a capitalist society such as the United States the fact that goods and services
have prices gives them value. This is what the judicial system can provide to nature
through its use of restitution payments, it can put a price on environmental degradation.
Authors such as Henry Henderson have noted that part of the reason we degrade the
environment is because there is no monetary price for its degradation (302). Hence, by
providing a monetary value through fines for pollution, the judicial system gives the
environment rights through economics. However, the approach does have its drawbacks
since the true price of environmental degradation is hard to determine. Further, since the
environment has no owner and no true domain it can easily be given less respect than it
deserves. This is not the only problem with the judicial approach to environmental
protection; in regards to NEPA we see issues of the judicial branch compromising its
effectiveness.

The Problem of Litigation: The Weakness of NEPA

NEPA relies heavily on litigation in order to make sure that it is being enforced;
however the courts, by only enforcing the specifics of NEPA rather than its larger goal of

51
environmental protection, cause problems. The reason that action by citizens against
agencies with NEPA violations is ineffective is first because of the courts’ respect for
federal agencies. As well Matthew Lindstrom notes in his book on the faults of NEPA,
“Deference to agency decisions…has operated to produce a judicial environment not
conductive to an ecological reading of NEPA’s substantive policy language” (101).
Beyond just the issue of too much trust in agencies is the issue that the majority of
litigation in regards to NEPA is only over a very specific part of the Act. The ligation is
normally over an agency’s failure to meet certain environmental impact statement
requirements rather than over their alignment with the substantive goals of sustainability
(Lindstrom 101). But perhaps worse then the loss of the true goals of NEPA in the
judicial system is the fact that this whole counterweight to government power can be
stopped with a pen. In fact in response to the 1973 oil crisis the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
Authorization Act was passed in congress, which barred environmental lawsuits from
occurring over the installation of an oil pipeline in Alaska (Lindstrom 88). Finally, no
matter how effective litigation is, the process is extremely lengthy and costly, which is
limiting (Lindstrom 104). Further, in regards to NEPA, there is no provision for class
action lawsuits, which limits the power of groups of voices (Lindstrom 104). So in the
end we see despite judicial action’s power to cause change, its weaknesses significantly
compromise its overall benefits.

Suggestions

Environmental litigation has and will continue to play an important part in

protecting an environment, which cannot speak for itself. However, despite the fact that
writers such as Joseph Sax call for judicial action to be fundamental to environmental
policy since it prevents agency capture by industry, it should instead be secondary
(Lazarus 82). History has shown that the judicial system can be compromised through
legislation and can be a poor way to get citizens to cause change due to the length and
cost of court proceedings. Therefore while it is extremely important that environmental
litigation groups exist to act as a check against government, citizens cannot assume that
litigation will cause enough change to really save the environment. Therefore when
creating environmental policy it is important to remember how much it matters that the

52
policy works on its own. That is, the policy should cause change without using litigation
as its primary mode of environmental protection. Therefore we need more legislation that
is like the Endangered Species Act, with specific rules and guidelines, rather than like
NEPA, which is bold in wording but relies so much on the judicial system for
implementation. In the midst of the current economic downturn, citizens and
organizations simply cannot afford to be the watchdog for weak environmental
legislation unless absolutely necessary. While it was discussed earlier that citizens should
view their watchdog role as a civic duty that does not mean that it should have to be used.
Beyond litigation, there are three other areas that need to be explored that could inform
our environmental policy, before coming to final conclusions on the best environmental
policies for our economic situation.

CHAPTER 11: THE ROLE OF HEALTH, EQUALITY AND

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

The Role of Health

Introduction

During the 1960s it was not only environmental concerns about pesticides and
chemicals that moved people, it was also the concerns over what these products could do
to human health. Heath turned out to be a double edged sword, while some of the
population was using the concern over the subject to better the environment, others were
using that same health concern to justify their use of more chemicals in order to achieve
sterile cleanliness within their homes. Anyway you look at it, the issue of health is
something very personal and it can cause outcries for change which, utilized correctly,
can help save the Earth.

Historical Analysis: The 1960s

Due to the fact that health concerns were most prominent during this decade, our
historical analysis will only be of a single decade, that of the 1960s. During this decade
health concerns changed significantly. Historically most health practices were concerned
with preventing death, but during this decade the concerns began to shift to how to

53
enhance life (Hays 29, 30). This meant that concerns shifted toward the young and old,
the two parts of our life where it is most important to take important health steps gain a
better life (Hays 29, 30). This general concern for health made it so that people began to
protest the chemicals that they could be putting in their body because of the pesticides
that were used on produce. Hence, fights over DDT and other pesticides ramped up
(Andrews 215). However, due to the pesticides high effectiveness their use remained high
despite the concerns (Andrews 215). As well harsh chemicals continued to remain in
1960’s homes because of the “distinctly American” obsession with cleanliness that had
developed in our culture (Andrews 215).

Using Health to Our Benefit to Provide Solutions

Today it is easy to associate health and the environment. This is easy to show by
the fact that Whole Foods and other environmentally conscious stores are called “health
food” stores because that is a primary concern of these stores. Further, while it is hard to
relate to environmental degradation directly, we can all relate to being sick. Thus, our
health can provide a measurement tool that can help us to measure and understand how
we impact the environment when it regards issues such as pollution. However, it is
important to remember that just like every drug, there are side effects. The American
obsession with cleanliness, as evidenced by the widespread of use of anti-bacterial
cleaning products, can cause large amounts of environmental damage in the name of
health. Hence, framing environmental problems in terms of health can help to prompt
action, and in the midst of our recession, reframing is a cheap and easy solution. Yet, it
must be understood that it is not a perfect solution due to its potential to work against
environmental protection.

The Role of Equality

Introduction

Although not strictly a huge issue in the three decades we have been exploring,
the role of equality and equity in environmentalism is so important to the success of our
previously explored solutions that it must be discussed. Many modern authors have
argued that this issue will be key to oiling the environmental progress machine, and that it

54
is an issue that can easily be forgotten. The main consideration in this area is that of
preventing environmental “apartheid” between the wealthy and the working class as well
as making sure that job creation is a part of our environmental policy planning.

Historical Analysis

The 1930s

Equality in FDR’s New Deal programs may not have seemed to be a concern to
modern scholars but, in fact, his programs were equitable in their own ways. To begin,
the Civilian Conservation Corps workers were from diverse locations but were all
working-class Americans (Maher 102). This is important because the environmental
movement is often portrayed as one of upper class involvement and the working class is
often forgotten about. By involving these workers it provided jobs while also showing
that all classes could confront the issue of environmental conservation. However over the
years tensions would begin to rise between the various economic classes over how
exactly to relate to the environment.

Problems That Have Since Developed

Since the 1930s the key tension that has emerged is the tension between the
working class and the middle class, as well as higher-level classes. As was discussed
earlier in this document, the key tension is between the working class viewing the
environment as a resource compared to the middle class viewing it as something beautiful
that is to be protected and left alone (Andrews 210). This tension though becomes more
compounded over time by the addition of race to the subject area. The issue here is that if
environmental conservation programs are not targeted to different economic classes and
races they can come across as elitist, reducing their effectiveness. As Barry Commoner
notes, when whites tell people to consume less it ignores the fact that on average African
Americans consume less than whites (Commoner 208). As well when upper and middle
class persons protest industry because of their environmentally degrading practices they
are often unaware that they are threatening the existence of many minority and lower-
income jobs (Commoner 208). Therefore it is important that we make sure that we
protect the environment while also protecting human welfare as well.

55
 Solution: Respect and Understanding

The solution to confronting the issue of inequitable environmentalism is not easily

solved by creating a program or agency. Instead citizens must work to make sure that
they understand that, especially in the midst of an economic recession, ridding of society
of jobs, even if for environmental benefit, will not work. It should be noted that the
United States is experiencing the greatest economic inequality between the wealthy and
the poor since the Great Depression (Jones 25). Therefore it does not take even the
slightest stretch of the imagination to perceive the environment as a concern of the elite
who can afford to make positive environmental changes, despite the fact that their total
environmental footprint may be huge. In order to avoid “ecological apartheid” as Van
Jones, author of The Green Collar Economy puts it, we must remember to consider the
human impact of our sustainable actions. The way we can learn how to do this is to look
back at the 1930s, when FDR set an example by providing conservation jobs to employ
those in the working class. Similarly, if we expect to shut down polluting industries, we
must make sure that similar jobs are available in the field. For example if citizens work
with the government to shut down a coal plant, training and assistance should be given to
help the workers find green energy jobs. Although this makes the government extremely
involved, and it is costly, if we don’t have a whole economic class of people onboard to
the environmental movement, we simply will fail to accomplish what we need to.
Sustainability is fundamentally about protecting the environment so we can protect our
way of life by protecting ourselves; therefore an important step to doing that is to help
others keep their jobs or find new ones.

The Role of Environmental Education

Introduction

An important part of protecting our environment, beyond just providing jobs, is

instilling an ecological consciousness into United States citizens through environmental
education programs. Begun in the 1930s, environmental education has been lacking in the
new millennium, and hence deserves our focus. It is important in our exploration of this
topic that we look to history to see what types of education work best to create

56
ecologically minded citizens, which can help us create more effective programs. By
creating effective programs we can help the next generation of Americans to be more
ecologically minded. As well the U.S. government can also save money by not wasting it
on ineffective programs as well as problems that could easily be eliminated through a
better understanding of the environment.

Historical Analysis

The 1930s

During the 1930s environmental education was listed as a goal of the Civilian
Conservation Corps. In fact the CCC was founded with the goals of education,
conservation, and restoration of man (Maher). Given the program’s popularity both
among the public and among those involved, it is safe today that including the goal of
environmental education in our sustainability programs and activities would be
beneficial. Also during this decade educational reformer John Dewey emphasized
learning by doing as well as a multidisciplinary approach to environmental education
both of which the CCC satisfied (McCrea 3). This idea remains just as important today as
it did then to environmental education because educational studies have shown that a
degree of “environmental sensitivity” must already exist in someone to make
environmental education effective (Dietz 155). This sensitivity to the environment is hard
to establish in a classroom away from the environment. Hence, similar to our call that
environmental programs get “out in the dirt” environmental education must act similarly
and get children to interact with the natural world.

Studies in Environmental Framing: Data from the New Millennium

Before recommending solutions to help environmental education improve, it is

important to look at some modern data in the field, to see exactly what issues to address.
It will become clear that overall in the current decade there are a lack of equipped
environmental educators, which must be fixed. The data on this shortage is clear, less
than fifteen percent of pre-service teachers have taken an environmental education course
(Dietz 149). This type of training is important because environmental education requires
that certain practices be emphasized. For example, it is important to give feedback on

57
students’ positive or negative environmental actions since this has shown some
effectiveness in environmental psychology studies (Fisher 268). As well, the role of
positive framing of environmental issues is just as important in education as it was to
FDR’s effectiveness in his speeches in getting citizens to act (Dietz 155). Hence,
emphasizing both positive framing and continual feedback will help with success in
improving environmental education and only proper training can show one how properly
emphasize these areas.

Solutions

Environmental education must be improved because it takes simple, cheap or free, steps
to help develop respect for the environment. The free steps that can be taken to enhance
education for our children are to take them outside their fluorescent lit classrooms and
have them explore outside. During this time teachers should be proactive in providing
feedback to children on how simple choices affect the natural environment they are
seeing and also be there to answer questions about nature the children may have. Low
cost changes that can be made include continuing to fund field trips to places like zoos
and wilderness areas. These are extremely important to developing environmental
concern and therefore should not be cut in this current recession. As well, since there is a
need for jobs, more Americans can go into training to become teachers to help in the field
of environmental education. Citizens can also take action by pressuring their school
boards to require that their teachers to have environmental training as well as demanding
more outdoor school programs. With these actions our next generation of Americans will
be well equipped to deal with the environmental challenges presented to them.

CHAPTER 12:

A CALL FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT:

THE ULTIMATE SOLTUION

Introduction

58
 We have now reached the conclusion of our historical analysis of environmental
policy and related subject areas. Before we conclude, it is necessary that we discuss a
solution that confronts many of the problems that we have seen in our historical analysis.
This solution, as we will see, can easily go into the “solution” sections of the previous
chapters. This solution is that of amending the constitution so that includes a right to the
environment. This would fix many of the flaws of NEPA and would at a minimum
prompt a necessary discussion about our relation to the environment.

Reasons for a Constitutional Amendment

Completing NEPA

The National Environmental Policy Act’s declaration of environmental values for

the country’s environmental policy was a bold step in the right direction. However, since
the removal of the “right to a healthful environment” during drafting, the Act has failed to
live up to its full potential. The problem with the removal of that simple statement is that
it makes NEPA susceptible to being overridden. As mentioned earlier, the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline Authorization Act barred environmental lawsuits from occurring over the
installation of the oil pipeline (Lindstrom 88). This was because during this time, 1973,
resolving the oil crisis was seen as an issue of national security, and therefore it had
precedent over the environment (Andrews 235-239). Unlike defense related issues, the
environment has no constitutional mention, hence moves such as the Pipeline
Authorization Act can continue to undermine our environmental policy. Further, as
discussed in Chapter Ten, even when NEPA can function it has been boiled down to just
the Environmental Impact Statement and issues of its implementation (Lindstrom 10).
Beyond that issue, which makes our country loose the true message of NEPA, the court
system will continually fail to protect an unowned entity with only abstract benefits to
offer society when pinned against owned, non-abstract economic interests. A
constitutional amendment not only would help alleviate the shortcomings of NEPA, but
would also help us fix our own bad environmental habits.

Other Benefits

59
 Establishing rights for the environment within the constitution will not only help
protect the environment from polluting industries, but it will also protect it from our own
inherent flaws. First, it will help us to deal with the issue that old, environmentally
degrading, habits really cannot be changed. During the 1973 oil crisis the EPA tried to
implement programs that dealt with driving habits to encourage reduced driving
(Andrews 235-239). This sparked a major backlash with people arguing that they had a
so-called “right to drive” (Andrews 235-239). Hence, if environmental protection is not
in our most fundamental government document, our tendency to want to maintain the
status quo of our unsustainable habits will likely win out. It is obvious however that a
constitutional amendment would be very hard to pass. However, even if the amendment
fails, the discussion that occurs during the process can still have huge benefits.

Just as the 1968 house-senate joint environmental colloquium served as an

“informal study session” for NEPA, so too the discussion that would emerge if a
constitutional amendment were proposed would serve to create a fruitful environmental
discussion. By putting the issue directly on the floor of Congress, Senators and
Congressmen will be forced to discuss exactly how the various United States
constituencies feel about environmental issues. This can help to cause issue clarity and
locate where the U.S. needs to do the most work in environmental policy. It can also
highlight groups that feel they have been left out of previous environmental discussions,
such as minorities. True, all this can happen with a normal piece of environmental
legislation moving through Congress, but due to the importance of a constitutional
amendment it would make the discussion much more acute. As Matthew J. Lindstrom
and Zachary Smith outline in their book on NEPA, an amendment proposal would allow
for a broad appraisal of environmental policy, related laws, and their shortcomings
(Lindstrom 128-129). Further, since amendments tend to be quite long lasting, these
environmental appraisals would have to involve current and expected future
environmental problems (Lindstrom 128-129). This would widen our scope to care for
future generations as well, something that is hard for us humans to do. All in all, states
should push for a right to environmental protection to be included in the Constitution
since it provides definite benefits even if it does not succeed. All that is needed is a strong
and dedicated push from citizens to get it on the floor of Congress.

60
 CHAPTER 13: CONCLUSIONS

This paper has explored many aspects of environmental policy and has shown that
indeed history offers quite a resource for us to use in developing environmental policy.
Overall it can be seen that the majority of the suggestions given based on this historical
analysis are low cost, which is very useful to our government in confronting its large
deficit. However, the issues we confront today, including global climate change, are
important and require immediate action. Therefore, some of the suggestions that were
developed involve more than just reorganization or a change in philosophy. The fact is
money will still have to be spent to confront our environmental problems, but by using
history as a guide we can be much more assured that the money will be well spent. The
best way to show this is by looking at a hypothetical future government that took all our
policy suggestions.

In such a government, citizens from all groups both lower and upper class, and of
all races would call for environmental legislation, reflecting better equity among groups.
Luckily their chances of success would be high because of the fact that in the midst of an
economic recession there are fewer companies and industries that need to be regulated, as
many have gone out of business. Further, citizens would be more prone to push for
environmental legislation because of the actions of the Government Media office and
because of the utilization of positive speeches with clear goals by government officials.
Further, as the Big Six media companies had agreed to increased sustainability efforts,
Americans would feel that it was truly important to be green. The next step for our
hypothetical citizens would be to move their legislative efforts into law.

The government in our hypothetical situation would learn from the past by
utilizing the “Gospel of Efficiency”. Hence, during the legislative development process
efforts to get bills through efficiently would be utilized. Legislation would no longer have
to rely on NEPA to ensure policy enforcement, because, if the constitutional amendment
to the environment was passed, it could instead rely on that as a method of enforcement.

Finally, our hypothetical green America would have increased persons involved in
various sustainable industries. Yet, the majority of those involved would be involved with

61
actions that got them outdoors, into the environment they work to protect. These jobs
would include those who install wind farms and solar panels, organic farmers, and green
construction workers among others. Further, for those not involved in getting outside
there would be more green opportunities for them as well including sustainable education
professions, jobs in the Government Media Office and OECOR, as well as a variety of
green consulting jobs that would assist polluting industries in finding new ways to
comply with government regulation.

Undoubtedly, our perfect Green America will simply never exist, however it
gives us an admirable goal to aim towards. The fact is that “going green” will not be
painless, nor will it be easy given our current desire to find the cheapest, but not always
most environmentally friendly, way to restart our economy. Yet, if there is anything that
is to be taken away from this author’s research it is that even in the midst of our difficult
situation, simply having respect for the environment can make a huge difference. All of
our historical analysis has shown us that streamlining and efficiency is key to positive
environmental change. Yet, to achieve this “total” efficiency we must better understand
our environment. The only way to do that is to go outside and get involved with nature.
Hopefully over time such interaction, be it in elementary education, or in the new green
jobs we suggest, will foster enough desire for a right to a healthful environment to be
written in the constitution. So if someone asks you what the best environmental policy in
our current economic times is, the answer is first, to aim towards granting rights the
environment in the constitution, or at least attempting to. Second, it is to try to develop a
new idea of what the word “efficiency” really means, given that the environment should
be considered, and to implement that type of efficiency. Third, it is to develop
environmental policy solutions that consider the needs of all socioeconomic classes and
all races, in order for us to get the support needed around the environmental movement.
Finally, and most importantly, the best environmental policy in the worst of economic
times is simply to encourage citizens to, in the words of Royal Caribbean, “get out there”
in order to develop the relationship with the environment needed to guide us out of our
current problems.

62
 Works Cited and Works Referenced
(Works Cited in Boldface Type)
Andrews, Richard N. L. Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: a History

of American Environmental Policy. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale UP, 2006. Print.

Asongu, J. J. "Chapter Two." Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility in Practice.

Lawrenceville, GA: Greenview Pub Co, 2007. 27-38. Print.

Black, Brian. Nature and the Environment in Twentieth-century American Life.

Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2006. Print.

Blanco, Sebastian. "It's Official: Congress Passes 35 Mpg CAFE Standard — Autoblog

Green." Autoblog Green — We Obsessively Cover The Green Scene. AutoBlog

Green, 18 Dec. 2007. Web. 22 July 2010.

<http://green.autoblog.com/2007/12/18/its-official-congress-passes-35-mpg-cafe-

standard/>.

Bleischwitz, Raimund. Corporate Governance of Sustainability: a Co-evolutionary View

on Resource Management. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2007. Print.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross

Domestic Product. 25 June 2010. Raw data. Washington, D.C. Table 1.1.1.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unemployment Rate, Seasonally Adjusted. June 2010.

Raw data. Washington, D.C. Series ID: LNS14000000. Filed under "Labor

Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey".

63
Chandler, J.A.C. President J.A.C. Chandler Papers. President J.A.C. Chandler Papers.

Williamsburg: Office of the President: The College of William and Mary, 1933-

1934. Print. Article Title: Civilian Conservation Corps- Camp Matoaka- 1933-

1934

Chandler, William U. The Myth of TVA: Conservation and Development in the

Tennessee Valley, 1933-1983. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Pub., 1984. Print.

Clark, Kenneth B. and Lawrence Plotkin. Identification and Development of Human

Potential. Public Policy toward Environment 1973: a Review and Appraisal. New

York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1973. 167-170. Print.

Coase, Ronald H. "The Problem of Social Cost (1960)." Law and the Environment

(1997): 291-305. Print. Eds. Robert Percival and Dorothy Alevizatos

Commoner, Barry. The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and Technology. New York:

Alfred A. Knopf, 1971. Print.

Dietz, Thomas, and Paul C. Stern. New Tools for Environmental Protection:

Education, Information, and Voluntary Measures. Washington, DC: National

Academy, 2002. Print.

Dobson, Andrew. Citizenship and the Environment. New York: Oxford UP, 2003.

Print.

Dunlap, Riley E., and Angela G. Mertig. American Environmentalism: the U.S.

Environmental Movement, 1970-1990. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis, 1992.

Print.

64
Dunlap, Thomas R. "DDT: Scientists, Citizens and Public Policy." Law and the

Environment (1997): 291-99. Print. Eds. Robert Percival and Dorothy Alevizatos

Edward Temple, T. "T-Edward Temple." Interview by Emily Williams. Oral

History Collection of SWEM Special Collections, The College of William and

Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. 2 Mar. 1976. Print. Location: President's

Office, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond

Ekins, P. "The Kuznets Curve for the Environment and Economic Growth, Examining

the Evidence." Environment and Planning A 29 (1997): 805-30. Print.

Fisher, Jeffrey D., Paul A. Bell, Andrew Baum, and Paul A. Bell. Environmental

Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1984. Print.

Gottlieb, Robert. Forcing the Spring: the Transformation of the American

Environmental Movement. Revised and Updated ed. Washington, DC: Island,

2005. Print.

Hays, Samuel P. A History of Environmental Politics since 1945. Pittsburgh:

University of Pittsburgh, 2000. Print.

Henderson, Henry L., and David B. Woolner, eds. FDR and the Environment.

Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Print.

Hunter, Charles. "The Civilian Conservation Corps in Williamsburg, 1933-1942."

Lecture. Williamsburg Area Historical Society. Williamsburg, Williamsburg.

6 May 1988. Notes for Charles Hunter Talk to the Williamsburg Area

Historical Society on the Subject of "The Civilian Conservation Corps in

65
 Williamsburg, 1933-1942" Williamsburg: Earl Greg Swem Library, Special

Collections. Print.

Jackson, Tim. Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet. London:

Earthscan, 2009. Print.

Jonathan, Daniel. "Popular NJ Solar Energy Rebate Program: We're out of Money!

| MNN - Mother Nature Network." Environmental News and Information |

MNN - Mother Nature Network. Mother Nature Network, 13 Mar. 2010. Web.

22 July 2010. <http://www.mnn.com/local-reports/new-jersey/local-

blog/popular-nj-solar-energy-rebate-program-were-out-of-money>.

Jones, Van, and Ariane Conrad. The Green-collar Economy: How One Solution Can

Fix Our Two Biggest Problems. New York: HarperOne, 2008. Print.

Kelp, René. "Technology and Environmental Policy: Innovation Effects of past

Policies and Suggestions for Improvement." Innovation and the Environment.

Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,

2000. Chapter 3. Print.

Lazarus, Richard J. The Making of Environmental Law. Chicago: University of

Chicago, 2004. Print.

Lindstrom, Matthew J., and Zachary A. Smith. The National Environmental Policy

Act: Judicial Misconstruction, Legislative Indifference & Executive Neglect.

College Station: Texas A & M UP, 2001. Print.

66
MacKay, David J. C. Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air. Cambridge, England: UIT

Cambridge, 2009. Print. Version 3.5.2. November 3, 2008

Maher, Neil M. Nature's New Deal: the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Roots of

the American Environmental Movement. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Print.

McCrea, Edward. The Roots of Environmental Education: How the Past Supports the

Future. Publication. North American Association for Environmental

Education. Web. 12 July 2010. <www.naaee.org>.

McNeill, J. R. The Environment, Environmentalism, and International Society in the

Long 1970s. Ed. Charles S. Maier, Erez Manela, and Daniel J. Sargent. The

Shock of the Global: the 1970s in Perspective. Ed. Niall Ferguson. Cambridge,

Mass.: Belknap of Harvard UP, 2010. 263-78. Print.

Merchant, Carolyn. American Environmental History: an Introduction. New York:

Columbia UP, 2007. Print.

Mudd, Emily H., John N. Moore and Robert Cancro. Population, Health and Family.

Public Policy toward Environment 1973: a Review and Appraisal. New York:

New York Academy of Sciences, 1973. 145-151. Print.

Murray, James R., Michael J. Minor, Norman M. Bradburn, Robert F. Cotterman,

Martin Frankel, and Alan E. Pisarski. "Evolution of Public Response to the

Energy Crisis." Science 184.No. 4134 (1974): 257-63. Print.

National Park Service. "Shenandoah National Park - Appalachian Trail History (U.S.

National Park Service)." U.S. National Park Service - Experience Your America.

67
 10 Feb. 2009. Web. 20 July 2010.

<http://www.nps.gov/shen/historyculture/at.htm>.

Obama, Barack H. "Obama Speech: January 8th, 2009." Obama Speech: January 8th,

2009. Washington. 8 Jan. 2009. Speech.

Obama, Barack. "Remarks by the President in Holland, Michigan on Investing in Clean

Energy." Remarks by the President in Holland, Michigan on Investing in Clean

Energy. Compact Power, Inc, Holland. 15 July 2010. Speech.

Obama, Barack. "Remarks by the President on the Economy at the University of Nevada,

Las Vegas." University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 9 July 2010. Speech.

Obama, Barack. "Remarks by the President to the Nation on the BP Oil Spill." Oval

Office, Washington. 15 June 2010. Speech.

Obama, President. "Energy & Environment." The White House. Web. 12 July 2010.

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/energy-and-environment>.

Orr, David W. The Last Refuge: Patriotism, Politics, and the Environment in an Age of

Terror. Washington DC: Island, 2005. Print.

Owens, Susan. "Engaging the Public: Information and Deliberation in Environmental

Policy." Environment and Planning A 32 (2000): 1141-148. Print.

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Survey Research. Energy

Concerns Fall, Deficit Concerns Rise: Public's Priorities for 2010: Economy,

Jobs, Terrorism. The Pew Research Center for People and the Press. Pew

Research Center, 25 Jan. 2010. Web. 9 July 2010.

68
Proposition 65’s Effect on Small Businesses, 106th Cong., House of Representatives

(1999) (testimony of Jeffrey B. Margulies.). Print. Given October 28th, 1999

Purvis, Martin, and Alan Grainger. Exploring Sustainable Development: Geographical

Perspectives. London: Earthscan Publications, 2004. Print.

Raymond, Jordan A., Mason Willrich, John J. Schanz, Raymond L. Lowrie, and

John D. Haun. Fossil Energy. Public Policy toward Environment 1973: a

Review and Appraisal. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1973. 63-

78. Print.

Roosevelt, Franklin D. "Message to Congress on the Use of Our National

Resources." Address. Message to Congress on the Use of Our National

Resources. 24 Jan. 1935. Http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu. The American

Presidency Project. Web. 28 June 2010.

Roosevelt, Franklin D. "Roosevelt's Nomination Address." Address. Democratic National

Convention. Chicago. 2 July 1932. New Deal Network. New Deal Network. Web.

9 July 2010.

Rubin, David M., Thomas H. Harris, David W. Jones Jr., David Peter Sachs, and

Clarence A. Schoenfeld. Environmental Information. Public Policy toward

Environment 1973: a Review and Appraisal. New York: New York Academy

of Sciences, 1973. 171-177. Print.

69
Sax, Joseph L. "Defending the Environment: A Strategy for Citizen Action (1971)."

Law and the Environment(1997): 291-305. Print.Eds. Robert Percival and

Dorothy Alevizatos

Scenic Hudson. "Our History | Scenic Hudson." Scenic Hudson | Saving the Land That

Matters Most. Scenic Hudson. Web. 22 July 2010.

<http://www.scenichudson.org/aboutus/ourhistory>.

Schmit, Julie. "Demand for Upgraded Energy Efficiency at Home Is Weak -

USATODAY.com." USATODAY.com. USA Today, 6 Jan. 2010. Web. 22 July

2010.

<http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2010-01-

05-home-energy-efficiency-demand_N.htm>.

Seaborg, Glenn T. and Justin L Bloom. Nuclear and Other Energy. Public Policy

toward Environment 1973: a Review and Appraisal. New York: New York

Academy of Sciences, 1973. 63-78. Print.

Senge, Peter M. The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations Are

Working Together to Create a Sustainable World. New York: Doubleday, 2008.

Print.

Stone, Christopher D. "Should Trees Have Standing?-Toward Legal Rights for Natural

Objects (1972)." Law and the Environment (1997): 291-305. Print. Eds. Robert

Percival and Dorothy Alevizatos

70
United States. Cong. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Clean Energy

and "green" Jobs : Hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Tenth Congress, Second Session,

to Receive Testimony regarding Investments in Clean Energy and Natural

Resources Projects and Programs to Crate Green Jobs and to Stimulate the

Economy, December 10, 2008. 110 Cong., 2nd sess. S. Rept. HRG. 110–685.

Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 2008. Print.

71