CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE RISE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT MOVEMENT

The origin of the environmental movement can be located in the 1960s when the book Silent Spring (1962), written by the American Rachel Carson, was published and aroused the greater public to take notice of the dangers of certain pesticides such as DDT. The book faced opposition by certain scientist and some chemical companies and an attempt was made to prevent its publication but, after the publication, it

became an international success. The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich (1968) and the Limits of Growth by the Club of Rome (1972) are also considered milestones of the movement. The message of these books is concretised by environmental problems that were visible and made themselves felt: the smog of Los Angeles, the Cuyahoga River fire (as the pollutants in the river caught fire) or the oil tanker disasters. According to many, a certain photo was necessary for the awakening.

The Earth was photographed from outer space for the first time in 1969 and this sight made people realise how frail and vulnerable our planet really is (Nordhaus

& Shellenberger 2007: 21). The consequence was a significant change in our values and environment, and thus, environmental protection took huge steps forward.

According to Nordhaus & Shellenberger (2007), the preconditions of the environmental ideology were improved living conditions: when the basic needs are fulfilled, there will be enough energy also for the questions concerning the living quality. Clean air, pure water and natural parks are linked to so-called post-material needs, stated the writers. The idea is connected to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: the basic human needs have to be satisfied before a human being starts to search for satisfaction of “higher” needs. This theory also explains why ecological awareness is weaker in Brazil, India and China than for example in Japan, the US and Europe.

However, the environmental movement often foregrounds environmental activists coming from the less-developed countries to point out that environmental protection is an important issue as much to the rich people as it is to the poor ones but, in a larger scale, environmental protection has never belonged to the priorities of the developing countries (Nordhaus & Shellenberger 2007:37).

One very characteristic stereotype associated to the environmental movement is that it would represent a counter-culture, an alternative. Nordhaus and Shellenberger state that it is rather a product of liberal ideologies bound with this time. The most important environmental acts of the US were accepted by liberal decision-makers and were signed by the Republican President. Therefore according to them, it was no surprise that the most important achievements of the modern environmental concept were witnessed during the most significant period of growth and prosperity, and that since then, the interest has subsided. (Nordhaus & Shellenberger 2007:

30–33).

A strong leftist youth movement with a pacifist trend preceded the environmental movement in Europe. The disappointment in the communist ideology and the end of the Cold War was partly replaced by the environmental ideology and political non-alignment that gradually found its full form in the green policy. During the 1980s, positions for environmental ministers started to open up in governments of different countries and it was very typical that these positions were given, in particular, to the representatives of the Green parties. Most likely, these responsibilities were regarded as being politically somewhat neutral, and only later the political scope of decisions and choices and, in particular, the economic consequences were fully perceived.

It was not until climate change foregrounded the environmental questions in the actual centre of political attention. The process was slow and was probably linked to the political essence and its traditions. Usually, politics have been thought of as something that happens amongst people. It has taken a long time to realise that there is also a third party at our political negotiation table. This third party does not negotiate in the way we are used to and it does not make any comprises.

It – the nature – just simply exists. Nothing guarantees that the nature would agree to bend itself to the desired centre position, right in the middle of different vantage points. Even though we make politics with it, we cannot tire it out to become a proper and flexible contracting partner, like we do with people. Politicians have had to adjust themselves permanently to the situation that ‘Nature’ will be sitting at the negotiation table from now on, and will possibly occupy more than just one chair.

Gradually, environmental policy, too, began to focus solely on climate change.

In a way, it cannibalises all the other environmental problems. Now at last, we are again approaching a time when other environmental issues will be put on the agenda. Almost all environmental questions have been overruled by climate issues for almost two decades. The reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere gained such a primary position amidst political targets that it was considered to be the mother of all problems. If this problem were just solved, other problems would be straightened out, too. In Chapter 7 “An autopsy of the solutions”, I present some examples of how the concentration on merely one political target increased other problems, for instance, by increasing air pollution – typically for a problem that can be regarded as being wicked by its nature.

Only future historiography will show what the total effect of the climate hype on the overall wellbeing of the environment will be. My own estimation is that we will then talk about a big step backwards from the point of view of environmental protection.

Although the climate hype subsided afterwards in the media, it by no means implies that the phenomenon has become any weaker since the political obligation was made during the climate hype. The concern of climate change has just undergone a metamorphosis in many ways. We have come down from the state-level to the level of practical actors. There are various projects which focus on how changes in people’s everyday life can decrease the speed of climate change. The underlying assumption is that a change in people’s behaviour at an individual level would play a decisive role – or at least, so significant that a change is regarded as imperative. Climate calculations and carbon footprint measurements are results from this: emissions ensuing from all human actions are calculated and they function as a burden of sins of each individual actor. A school meal, a trip by car to one’s grandmother, a sauna evening with friends or a new spring coat – all these have gotten a carbon footprint. In my opinion, it is possible that food, which is small and beneficial from

the point of view of its carbon footprint, will be valued at some point – and climate anorexia will then be the natural consequence.

I rather believe that there are two major issues around climate change that should be taken care of: the CO₂ emissions of energy production and the prevention of forest depletion. It would be simpler to separate the management of population growth and other promotions of sustainable development from the climate issue.

An attempt to see everything from the point of view of climate change will contort the reality conception. Insofar if only the combat against climate change legitimises actions and matters, quite many things that are important for humankind and nature will remain undone.