City Hippy

The diary of our struggle to live a green and fair life.

Google Search:

City Hippy

CityHippy has posted its last post now (I now work for EMP plc, run At Home magazine online and more and personally blog over at Why? Click here to find out. We might be back. Keep our RSS feeds, keep us bookmarked, sign up for the news alert on the right. You never know...

We are dedicated to exploring how to live a greener and more ethical life. City Hippy is a growing collective of writers bringing you two types of content:

ARTICLES: Enjoy real content by real people trying really hard to live a greener and fairer life. Generally in-depth with weekly updates at least. Located in main body below.Subscribe:
BOOKMARKS: Follow our web travels & explore our 1400+ links to a greener life across various categories i.e. baby, cosmetics, DIY, furniture, garden & shopping. Short, sharp and frequent updates. Located down to the right. Click here to see our latest three bookmarks.Subscribe:


Friday, April 22, 2005

SPECIAL: Happy Earth Day

The 35th anniversary of Earth Day is a sobering occasion. On previous anniversaries we have hailed this "new awakening" as millions around the world suddenly rose up and pledged their support for a new campaign to save the natural environment.

In 1993 American Heritage magazine called Earth Day "one of the most remarkable happenings in the history of democracy." There has been progress, of course, particularly in public awareness of the critical role environment plays in our lives and in the education and training of new environmental leaders. Environment has become a major political issue. The public is prepared to support those measures necessary to forge a sustainable society, if the President and the Congress have the vision to lead us to that goal.

Unfortunately, the President and the Congress have not stepped up to the challenge of providing national and world leadership on the environmental crisis.

In fact, on some key issues, they are actually resisting or reversing progress made in the past 30 to 40 years. And without strong, sustained leadership from the President and Congress the urgent challenge to protect the environment and create a sustainable society cannot succeed. Theodore Roosevelt made conservation a top priority for the Republican party, and many members of his party carried that torch over the years. Recently, however, the GOP leadership has abandoned this cause.

There are many serious environmental problems confronting us. But two current environmental issues dramatize this failure of leadership -- energy conservation, and population control. Both are critical to the sustainability of our society. In each case, there is not only a lack of wise national leadership but an apparent determination to turn back the clock. The surrender to special interests on these two issues makes a mockery of any claim to environmental awareness.

Egged on by the President, the Senate on March 16 sneaked into the annual budget resolution a scheme to allow drilling for oil in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, protected in 1960 at the urging of great environmentalists such as Sigurd Olson, Justice William O. Douglas, and Wilderness Act author Howard Zahniser. The bill was signed by President Eisenhower.

This is not just a sabotage of environmental policy. It also undermines any hope for a wise energy policy. When all the evidence calls for bold steps to conserve energy and develop alternative sources, this cynical action implies that we can burn all the oil we want and just move on to the next untapped source, no matter where it might be.

We are told it may be 10 years before a very modest amount of oil could be produced from this pristine refuge. And what would it cost in real terms?

For the President to call for oil drilling in the Artic Wildlife Refuge is like burning the furniture in the White House to keep the First Family comfortable.

Equally critical is the failure of the President and Congress to confront the issue of population control, in our own rapidly growing country and the rest of the world.

A "Rockefeller Report" in 1972, issued by the President's commission on population growth, urged the U.S. to move vigorously to stabilize our population at about 200 million as rapidly as possible. Since then our population has ballooned to 282 million, and is expected to reach 500 million between 2060 and 2070. We are heading into a century in which we will double and triple our population in a short time.

World-wide population projections are equally chilling. A series of international conferences have called for bold action to control population growth.

Yet the United States in recent years has become an aggressive opponent of family planning programs in other countries, and we are now facing efforts by some "new conservatives" to impose similar restrictions at home.

On previous Earth Days we have offered a solution: The President should set the standard by delivering a message to the Congress on the state of the environment, citing priorities that need to be addressed. Congress then should hold hearings on these issues. This would produce a "national dialogue" on the sustainability of our environment, and provide a roadmap to the future.

Without Presidential leadership and Congressional hearings, we cannot claim to be taking seriously the most compelling threats facing our society.

On environmental issues, our intelligence is reliable. Our scientists have the facts, if we will only listen. It is a "slam dunk" that we cannot continue on our present course. But without Presidential and Congressional leadership, even an enlightened public cannot cope with the greatest challenge of our time.

By Former US Senator Gaylord Nelson
Founder of Earth Day and Chairman Emeritus of Earth Day Network

Click here for more information about Earth Day.


At 10:52 PM, Blogger wawwrite said...

Yes, the U.S. is now THE "environmental disaster" among what we so smugly call the "developed" world. And, no, you're not going to reason with the bunch running the country.

At 7:26 AM, Anonymous usbusi said...

U.S. Environmentalist here, almost feeling like giving up, if it weren't for the new development of blogs, which leaves a glimmer of hope that reason may triumph after all.

After all - might be a while though, I'm afraid.

The way I feel now is, this period of selfishness may be necessary in order to provide the impetus necessary for environment to become mainstream.

How long this will take is anybody's guess. It might take 11 years - Bush II's completion of his 2nd term, plus his brothers' 2 terms = 11 years.

By then we should see some tangible consequences of global warming. And it should be obvious what stooges the previous generation has been.

My hope too is that blogs will replace mass media for a large number of citizens. There will be no humvee commercials to confuse those easily confused as to what their needs are vs. their wants.

I feel beaten, but I feel hopeful too that the level playing field of the internet will be our saving grace.

At 7:06 PM, Blogger City Hippy said...

Hi usbusi...

I think you make a wise point (and on the site) about the potential for blogs to decentralise entertainment...blogs are replacing parts of the mainstream inevitably as the net and tv did and every other media before it.

Blogs are also doing for the internet what magazines did for publishing: they are professionalising the niche.

I estimate blogs will professionalise, blog brands will develop, trust will be created and people will have an almost unlimited channel of blogs to visit.

The power remains with the people. Politics can never legislate how we spend our time or our long as that does not change things can only get better.

I also more or less agree with your point about things getting worse, politically speaking, before they get better.

Sadly...the big question is will we turn the corner in time to adjust sufficiently to the problems that may bring. Only time will tell...



At 7:50 PM, Anonymous usbusi said...

I think it's too late to curb global warming. Although hopefully we can curb it enough so that it isn't terribly bad.

I actually (and pessimistically) think that some consequences are needed in order to have environmental conservation be the mainstream.

But there has to be something to revolt against if there is to be a revolution. I'm not talking about socialism, more a revolution in terms of the majority being concerned with the planet's health, even if they only do so out of realizing the monetary sense it makes.

In other words, it might take a sea change (i.e. rising ocean levels and other accompanying problems such as droughts, air temps, floods, hurricanes, etc.) to cause a sea change.

Then hopefully if you look at the geological time frame of the Earth, it'll reverse in the end back to it's equillibrium point at which it was not too long ago. Of course this will take generations and generations to get back in balance. I think it is more empowering for environmentalists to actually "retrench" in their thinking in this way rather then beat themselves up over our lost battles. Knowing patiently that the war of opinion will be won on our side one way or the other, and eventually.

It doesn't mean give up. It means - well it's a sort of Zen approach of not being attached to the winning of battles but only to the winning of the war. And we need to define the war as a very long term war of getting the planet back in balance, on a time scale that is way beyond a human's life time. Committed but not attached to the winning of battles. Of course i've stolen that "committed but not attached" and "Zen" bit. We can be assured that the outcome of winning the war will happen in someone else's lifetime, if the human species remains on the planet at all that is.


Post a Comment

<< Home