The New Environmentalism Is Issues, Not Eco-Tips

Eighteen years ago today, April 22, 1990, the largest "green event" in history took place: 200 million people from 141 countries gathered to honor Earth Day's 20th anniversary.

Somewhat unexpectedly, I had a central role in that celebration. About 6 months earlier I'd written and self-published a book entitled 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth. By April, it had become the unofficial Earth Day handbook, selling millions of copies, and hitting #1 on the New York Times bestseller list. By the end of the year, it had become the bestselling environmental book of all time.

Why was it so popular? Then, as now, Earth Day gave the public a chance to voice their concern about the environment. But when people asked, "What can I do to help?" they got no simple, straightforward answer. Then 50 Simple Things came along. It was the first book to discuss environmental problems in ordinary language and provide detailed, concrete solutions. It was hopeful and accessible--anyone could do at least some of the things. And because of that, it quickly turned into a cultural phenomenon.

The "simple things" that attracted so much attention in 1990 were new to most Americans back then. But today they're commonplace "eco-tips" recommended by everyone from Oprah to the EPA to the latest "green" books: Recycle; install compact fluorescent bulbs and low-flow shower heads; bring cloth bags to the supermarket; and so on.

They're useful tips; they have an impact, and I believe we should continue making them a part of our lives. But after nearly two decades, I also think it's time we acknowledged that they won't save the Earth--or more to the point, they won't preserve our planet's life support system. We know this is true, because today the Earth is in worse shape than ever. And things aren't improving.

Consider:

• In the last 50 years, 90% of the populations of tuna, cod, halibut, and other predator fish have totally disappeared. There are now about 200 "dead zones" in the ocean; 50 have been discovered in just the last three years.

• The world is now annually losing about 25 billion tons of topsoil, the precious resource we need to grow food. In America alone, we lose 1,400 acres of prime farmland every day.

• Extinctions are happening as much as 1,000 times faster than normal. Today (and every day), between one and 100 species will go extinct.

• Global warming is melting the icecaps faster than anyone ever anticipated. At this moment, a piece of Antarctica the size of Connecticut is hanging onto the continent by a thread.

Unfortunately, there are hundreds of similar stats I could cite. They all point to the same conclusion: Contrary to what popular books and magazines might make you think, "going green" isn't just a lifestyle choice or a fashion statement any more. And it isn't optional. We have to come out of denial, and face the fact that the ecosystems we depend on for survival are on the verge of collapse.

Obviously, we all want to do something about this. But if eco-tips aren't enough of a solution, what is? What can an average American do to make a real difference...without totally disrupting his or her life? That's the question that inspired me to create a new version of 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth, published this month.

As I explain in the book, I believe the answer is that we need a "new environmentalism" which focuses on issues rather than tips--one that goes further than simple individual effort, to harness the power of cooperation and community; one that not only works to change individual personal habits, but also to change society--laws, business practices, and even values; one that inspires a sustained, committed effort to solve specific problems, rather than simply encouraging random environmental action.

The simplest, most practical way to accomplish this is for each of us to find a single environmental issue that's right for our lives--one that we really care about--and make that issue the focus of our efforts. It might be saving coral reefs, or supporting solar energy, or bringing a modern railroad system to America. Whatever it is, if we really believe in it, we'll find it a pleasure to stay involved. We'll be able to build a satisfying relationship with others who care about the issue--particularly the community of environmental groups that are already working on it--and in the long run, we'll be part of the change we want to create. It doesn't matter which issue you pick--big or small--because they're all connected. If you work to cut carbon emissions from power plants, for example, you're also helping to clean up waterways. If you clean waterways, you're improving wildlife habitat. By improving wildlife habitat, you protect trees. And when we have more trees, we clean the air...which means less climate change. This is the focus of the new 50 Simple Things, and it is explored in more detail on 50simplethings.com.

Is this approach going to be enough to turn things around? We won't know until we try. But I believe our hope for a sustainable society depends on each of us stepping up to help reinvent the concept of environmental action...starting today.

Comments

[demockracy]

Say "No" to Sprawl

The U.S. burns 70% of its petroleum on transportation (roughly 2-to-1, transportation to everything else). in the rest of the world that ratio is 1-to-2, not 2-to-1. So building our cities so every single trip of any significance *must* be in an auto is counter-productive, to say the least.

The market actually *prefers* the alternative. Pedestrian-friendly streets, mixed-use (residences, commerce, offices, etc.) mixed-density, mixed-income neighborhoods are what we built before 1950.

So when your local government's public works standards countenance "incomplete" streets -- streets that only accommodate autos, not pedestrians. Or when they have "zoning" that demands neighborhoods be entirely residential, commercial, etc. That's what leads to sprawl.

Sprawl makes transit impossible -- who could walk to the transit stops if the streets are designed exclusively for autos?

Sprawl is also unhealthy -- Who's going to walk when walking on the street is a life-threatening event? (Gee, I wonder why the U.S. has an epidemic of diseases related to chronic inactivity... like heart disease, obesity, type II diabetes, etc.?)

Since U.S. domestic oil production peaked in 1971 ($1.75/bbl, 30% imports then, $100+/bbl, 70% imports now) -- a peak to which not even Alaskan nor offshore oil would return us. Sprawl is why we go overseas looking for more oil.

Iraq anyone?

...or less sprawl?

Pick one.

[Yuletide]

I scoffed at "50 Simple Things ..." when it came out precisely because all these little bits and pieces would not solve large-scale problems. I was annoyed with the way environmentalism played in the press at the time, and the way it was presented in the schools, as if somehow recycling one's beer cans was going to save the world. Focusing on the easy stuff, it seemed to me, took the pressure off for doing the difficult stuff, since it gave folks the "out" of saying "Well, I'm already doing MY part."
I'm older and maybe wiser now, and I see that the little things keep people interested, involved, and to some extent supportive. Without that broad interest, involvement, and support, the big, difficult efforts won't get very far.

[mamacat]

Human population on Earth in 1950: about 3 billion
2000: about 6 billion
2050: (projected) over 9 billion

[clevelandchick]

We need to change how we live bottom line. It is not just about buying special light bulbs or recycling. I belong to a group called Entrepeneurs for Sustainability and the group is dedicated to changing how we live...literally. Planning communities that are sustainable.

Implementing LEED ND which is the United States Green Building Council's standard on neighborhood development....shrinking cities, promoting urban agriculture, promoting job creation and wealth for the citizens, promoting public transportation that uses clean fuel, promoting alternative energy use etc. What good is a building that is built "green" if it's surrounded by blight and pollution?

This is a local group but I encourage anyone out there to start an organization like this. E4S (www.e4s.org) collaborates with all of the local environmental and social organizations, development groups, foundations and works with the local design community to promote sustainable communities. Right now there are 4 new LEED ND projects going on just in my city alone.

[babylonandon]

We have enough current energy resources for hundreds of years (long enough to make things like fusion, space-based solar, and core-tap geothermal a reality) if we are willing to use it.

The catastrophic problems all revolve around too many people.

There are too many of us on this globe and we are reproducing too quickly in places where there isn't enough water and food.

The developing world standard of living is improving to the point that they are overtaking our affects on the earth and they make less effort to clean up their environment than we do (visit China or India).

We are now using food to make fuel which is rapidly causing famine and uses up massive amounts of increasingly scarce fresh water that is needed for drinking and irrigation.

You want to save the earth? Get rid of man. I'm kidding.

Seriously, convince the third world that more big families are stupid, stop wasting water, use the energy we have (oil, coal, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal) in efficent ways and spend more on research for new energy tech, and stop wasting food to make ethanol.

And for God's sake start working towards exploiting the sky above us for energy, resources, and new living space. A serious committment for us to expand mankind beyond this one blue-green marble would be really beneficial.

[mamacat]

The religious interests in our country are why we are unable to talk to the third world about population control. The same people who pushed through "abstinence only" in our own schools, will allow nothing else in anything funded overseas with U.S. money. Religious dogma as it relates to population control is contributing to the global warming problem. If the Catholics, Mormons, and Evangelicals would change their attitudes on population control, it would help clean up the environment.

The quote in the Bible about "go forth and populate the Earth", or something to that effect, was accomplished a long time ago. Now we need the official spokesmen for religion to accent a passage in the Bible about treating the Earth with respect (hopefully some such thing was written in the Bible at some point), and about keeping things (like the atmosphere) clean.

[SuspiciousMinds3]

I think all natural habitat is important and preserving some species is of course important but when you evict a home owner from his home because he is living with a protected hedgehog or blue nosed titmouse is ridiculous, its just land grabbing. I wonder where all this pristine land and crystal clear water is coming from, obviously we haven't done anything to it or it wouldn't still be there to preserve. All future genrations are going to see is a lot of privately owned or Government land that they will not have access to, that is unconstitutional, a building code is one thing, denying people access to their own country is wrong. Already built private roads, unusable to the public are showing up on maps of maine, half of which is privately owned. Look along the waterfronts, all state parks, how many state parks to we need? anywhere there are waterways and lakes there are broken lines on the maps which means they are privately owned, by whom?

[SuspiciousMinds3]

After reading that article I have to wonder why nuclear waste wasn't mentioned as a problem, one that will never go away. Reforming business practices is a great start, no more dumping mercury in our lakes for one thing, thats what BP oil is doing now and its more than the limit, how are they getting away with that? All the underwater nuclear test explosions have a lot to do with the low sea life population not to mention China and Japans terrible fishing habits. How many legals and illegals can America carry without our resources disappearing? Anything, I mean anything,that happens to this country as far as the environment goes is 99% the Governments doing, not ours, I don't own a nuclear power plant or a biottech farm, do you? I didn't start a plastics factory which is now a blight on the landscape, did you? I have always conserved water, I have always grown veggies and taken care of my property, most people take care of their own land, I have always done my part, now its the Governments turn and I don't see any soulutions of worth coming up except to confiscate property and make us do what they think is appropriate, they have proven they don't know what that is. The bright side of this is that the arctic will be there along with the earth long after these nitwits are gone. Green is also big business. Here comes the Carbon tax.

[Javani]

Thank you. I will look at your book. The move to cleaner energies will benefit all with cleaner air and disengagement from problematic areas of the world. It will help our economy, create increased domestic jobs. The benefits are multifaceted.

However you say this,

"¢ Global warming is melting the icecaps faster than anyone ever anticipated. At this moment, a piece of Antarctica the size of Connecticut is hanging onto the continent by a thread."

Untrue. Global Warming is not melting the icecaps, nor faster than anyone anticipated. The north cap was quite low last summer, due to unusual prevailing wind patterns. Where is it now? Back to normal. As for the south cap even the IPCC admits it is experiencing net growth. Stories otherwise? They focus on the Antarctic peninsula and the reports lead one, erroneously, to believe it represents all of the continent. There is always a berg "hanging by a thread". It has always happened, it's a natural process, even when cooling. Only differrence, sometimes it's call the size of Connecticut, sometimes Rhode Island.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming fad will collapse. At that time your knee jerk detractors on all other environmental issues will proclaim themselves proven correct on everything.

[JonathanDS2U]

I have been saying this for quite some time. A drop-in-the-bucket approach may nurture the part of us that enjoys being part of a semi-spiritual, you-must-believe movement, but at this stage of the game it is almost counter-productive, when you look at what comes with it. In no time, leaving your living room light on guilts you away from screaming (when needed) at corporate scumbags, because now you have broken the code, you are no better, etc.

Semi-spiritual, you-must-believe movements were important in the '60s. But what's needed now is that we become a politically organized body, not people at a rock concert flicking our lighters.

[tommy slothrop]

If you say so.

But it seems to me that if you work to make other people change without first changing yourself you'll be laughed out of the room. If all the people who claim to be concerned about global climate change stopped flying and driving, it would make a difference. If they just "campaigned" to stop global climate change by driving and flying to meetings I don't see how they would be taken seriously.

[dannyS]

shooting the messenger doesn't make the message untrue

[JulieSA]

"By improving wildlife habitat, you protect trees." I agree with much of your post, but I have a quibble with that statement. I'm involved with ecological restoration projects on some preserves and private properties. Grasslands and the wildlife that depend on them are more endangered than forests in the US. Much of my work involves the removal of invasive tree species and the restoration of native grasses. Sorry to be so picky, but the general public is not well-informed about the value of native grasslands.

[Mels]

Yes yes yes. We have to change deep processes. I look at business as the metabolism of the human race and started an eco paper company 13 years ago to do my part. It isn't always an easy journey but super rewarding so far.