As Earth Day weeks became an annual rite of spring, however, increasing corporate buy-in fueled concerns with co-option and manipulation for marketing purposes. Environmental historian and activist Kirkpatrick Sale, in anticipation of the 20th anniversary Earth Day in 1990, expressed his misgivings in the Nation. The first of four fundamental problems, according to Sale, was the “primary emphasis . . . on individual responses.” Sure, we can all learn more about what to toss in recycling bins, pledge to bicycle more often, or even haul a bag of dirt to school, but “industry and government . . . need an Earth Day more than we do.”
Beyond the movement’s focus on individual actions, Sale also criticized Earth Day’s structure, partnerships, and anthropocentrism. It was unrealistic, he pointed out in the article, to expect a “week of media-filtered eco-hype” to produce meaningful momentum toward addressing its grandiose goals when political solutions such as environmental laws and the EPA had done so little to that point. Sale also argued that it was a “fundamental tactical as well as philosophical error” to tie efforts at substantive environmental progress to alliances with corporations, government agencies, and celebrity environmentalist showboats, all of whom seemed “totally blind to the elemental ecological truth that, at bottom, the modern industrial economy is antithetical to ecological harmony.” Sale concluded his critique by noting the movement’s anthropocentrism, writing that Earth Day organizers “seem to have no awareness of any other endangered species than the human, any other crises than those that threaten human comfort and consumption.” In just a few paragraphs, Sale explained how easy it is for a potentially transformative grassroots movement to get co-opted and transformed into just another Hallmark holiday in America.
The emphasis on individual responsibility as a means to deflect attention from the systemic roots of environmental problems, pointed out by Sale in 1990, continues to underwrite much of Earth Day’s brief capture of our attention every spring. Nor is this dilemma unique to Earth Day. For years, climate change discussions, such as Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth presentations and film, placed a significant amount of emphasis on what individuals could do to mitigate their personal impacts. For many of us, it became our “personal responsibility” over the past year of pandemic living to follow guidelines to keep ourselves and others safe. Wearing a mask and social distancing might be the right and sensible things to do, as doctors and some government officials have constantly reminded us. Yet, given an underfunded public healthcare system and a chaotic and incoherent government response at multiple levels, we have been largely relegated to individual actions (or inactions) to avoid getting infected. As with environmental issues, we conclude that it’s basically on us personally.
Earth Day is an awesome commemoration of what has been achieved in addressing environmental damage and continues to do good work in encouraging us all to keep advocating for progress. Patting ourselves on the back for our personal efforts is OK, too, but it is essential to acknowledge that individual and even many of our collective efforts to be “green” constitute small-scale impacts. Looking at things realistically, it is perhaps still true that corporations and governments need Earth Day more than we do.
Suggestions for Further Reading:
- Samuel P. Hays, Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955-1985 (Cambridge University Press, 1987). [Google Books]
- Jenny Price, Stop Saving the Planet!: An Environmentalist Manifesto (W. W. Norton, 2021). [Google Books]
- Adam Rome, The Genius of Earth Day: How a 1970 Teach-In Unexpectedly Made the First Green Generation (Hill and Wang, 2013). [Google Books]
- Kirkpatrick Sale, The Green Revolution: The American Environmental Movement, 1962-1992 (Hill and Wang, 1993). [Google Books]