Rachel Carson: The Leaders Of The Environmental Movement

Ecology became an issue thrust into the national limelight for all to see. By bringing the issue to the national spotlight, it forced the government to take action as shown in the number of laws and regulations passed in the 1970s. Gottlieb called the 1970s the “Environmental Decade.” By the late 1970s, after the Vietnam War was over and many of the sociological and political issues had subsided several environmental struggles were weakening, possibly due to less sociological interest seen in the 1960s and early 1970s. Environmental efforts in the 1980s experienced a surprising resurgence and became a strong global social undertaking. Many people did not understand some aspects of the environmental movement. One of the reasons for this lack of comprehension may have been diversity. The terms race, gender, and class were not associated with environmentalism as late as 1993. Gottlieb attempts to bring these terms into the environmental movement in Forcing the Spring. Race, gender and class became more important in the environmental movement in the 1990s. Gottlieb attempts to show this new diversity and by doing this he suggest a revised view of the environmental movement. This new view shows environmentalism as a group of "social

The concept of social justice, and the environment have always been under great threat. However is it possible to mend the two, combine them together, in order to create an equal atmosphere and a sustainable society? The majority of the population have always wanted to prevent the minority in gaining their rights in fear of losing their power, and the nature conquerors have disregarded the wilderness’ needs in fear of losing their profit. Environmental activists and advocates have sought to bridge the gap between the complicated and divisive relationship between the natural world and the advancing technological world. Rebecca Solnit, Wendell Berry, and John Muir all recognize the explicit relationship between social justice and the respect for the natural world.

As a kid who has cared about nature his entire life, and an avid modern environmentalist for four years and counting, this issue has been at the center of my psyche for quite some time. I have seen public perspective on this issue change before my eyes. From the original rejection of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth movie on “global warming” to personally marching alongside 300,000 people in our nation's capital to raise awareness on climate change. However, despite all of these avenues the issue is still spoken about as this distant idea that eventually will be a disaster. Many politicians and news networks speak of the need for slow implementation of policies and programs to right our environmental wrongs. The best way to paraphrase the common narrative of this issue would be to say, climate change is going to happen down the road, it will probably be bad and trying to fix it in the near future would be a good idea. That weak call to action shoves climate change onto the long to-do list of the leaders of our world. Not only does it not create the urgency needed to actually curb the effects of our environmental ignorance, but it does not accurately describe the threat of a changing climate. Treating this like a political issue will not allow for the rigorous changes needed to address such a problem in the timely manner that is required.

With the well-being of future generations in mind, environmental concerns have begun to establish a permanent residence atop the priority ladder for a vast array of Americans. Consequently, writers and political pundits alike are seizing this opportunity to capitalize on advocating their stance on the issue. Information, representing all positions, pours in at an unrelenting and unfathomable rate. For the average American it can be an arduous process sifting through all the rhetoric in attempt to find the real truth regarding our impact as humans on the environment; one such example is Susan Brown’s article The EPA’s Mercury Problem. In this article Brown attempts to expose hypocrisy among progressives by paralleling the Environmental Protection

The problem that the pro- global warming theorists have created is that of social standing and little else. While there may be scientific backing to support some of the theory, the media presents the problem with great sensationalism. Global warming and energy conservation has thus become a trend and losses some of its validity through this. The scare tactics used by the media to “promote awareness” are just that, a linguistic ploy to gain favor. “Awareness of this global threat reinforced public concern and environmental problems and thereby provided environmental activists, scientists, and policy makers with new momentum in their efforts to promote environmental protection.” (McCright, 2000) This statement draws line to the potential benefits that would be received if the pro-global warming theorists were to draw enough attention to the issue. Driven by social empowerment and conviction to environmental protection, these activists misrepresent the actual threat and paint it as being much more

The subject of environmentalists is one that is just asking for a series of childish bickering amongst fully grown adults. No one can ever agree to disagree because everyone wants to be right. Of course, that is impossible, but God forbid that people just come to a reasonable agreement to leave opinions as they are, opinions. Mr. Edward O. Wilson does a very good job illustrating how pointless these political arguments are. How does he do this? He simply writes his own passages, setting himself in the shoes of both of the opposing parties.

Have you ever thought about how your actions or opinions affected the environment around you? We’re constantly unaware of what we do that impacts the environment’s condition. One author named Wendell Berry blames the public in his article regarding the way society and the industry has treated the environment and its natural resources. This raises concerns whether we should be putting more importance on the economy or the land that we live in for the sake of our future survival. While I agree with most of Berry’s points and perspectives I slightly disagree with a few of his opinions, but nonetheless he brings up a great matter in today’s modern society.

In the first two centuries of U.S. history was a widespread environmental destruction. In the 19th century there were four people who played a key role in protecting the environment; Henry Thoreau, John Audubon, George Marsh, and President Theodore Roosevelt. The modern environmental movement was in the 19th century Europe and North America as they exposed the cost of environmental negligence. Rachel Carson a Marie Biologist wrote a book in the 1960’s

The 1970’s represent a pivotal point in history that rewrote how America viewed its environmental policies- both on a policymaker and citizen scientist standpoint. As the public became more aware of environmental issues, concern about pollution, improper disposal, dwindling resources, radiation and poisoning enraptured a growing number of supporters. These supporters made it so that unlike the Progressive Era’s conservation movement (1890’s-1920’s), which was mainly elitists, this modern movement was pushed by “the common man.” It was an era that celebrated leaders such as John Muir, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Thomas Jefferson. One of those leaders in the forefront of these radical changes was Congressman Morris K.

The purpose of this piece is to draw awareness to the many contradictions relating environmental justice movements and to create a society more conscious of decisions by considering consequences.

A few decades ago, the notion that nature had legal standing with the same rights as people existed on the fringes of the environmental movement. But as a recent spate of legal decisions show, attitudes towards ecological systems are changing.

When thinking of the environmental movement in America, it is presumably just thought of as the effects climate change and left-winged ideas, but the history of the movement is much more complex than its current state. As Europeans began colonializing America, the wilderness was a vast and plentiful resource and new settlers quickly conquered new land. As America was created into an industrialized and urbanized nation, debates occurred on what environment of our newfound country should hold. The environmental movement started with conserving and preserving wilderness resources as an American idea, which is shown in the film Simba: King of the Beasts, and shifts to the modern environmental movement were the effects of industrialized American have effects on human health and quality of life shown in the film Blue Vinyl.

Just like the bald eagle the American way of life in the 1960s was killing America and the animal in the environment. Chemical sprayed in the air to ward off bugs like DDT was contaminating the water supply, killing the fish and harming the animals who drank from it. So in the mid 60s Congress passed a law prohibiting the use of DDT in the United States. As news of America's environmental arose the public began to organise small environment movements which played a big role in attracting the attention of the government, which passed the Clean Air and Water

During the 1950s and 1960s, Rachel Carson was a nature writer famous for educating the public on the dangers of the insecticide DDT. To protect wildlife and human health, Carson wrote a book called Silent Spring. The play, The Poison Sky by the editors of Scope recreated her story. The U.S. should create Rachel Carson Day- a national holiday to celebrate her legacy-because she helped the world learn the harmful and long-term impact of DDT, a chemical used to kill mosquitoes.

As we go along day-to-day, the use of pesticides has dramatically increased. As the author, Rachel Carson conveys readers an educational message, how “a town suddenly turns dark and secluded.” Demolished by the vitality of their inhabitants. The effect of this was how the human race did not take note of the effortless actions done, that drastically demolished the environment. Carson utilized figurative language to engage readers, to describe the “nostalgic life, along with the wistful.” She employs rhetorical devices, which persuades readers regarding the positive and negative effects from a different perspective. As well as, Caron presents imagery that has caused readers to be immersed into a whole other world, to display the urgency of the uses of pesticides. Within Rachel Carson’s short excerpt, “A Fable for Tomorrow,” Carson has the capability of captivating readers and taking use of phrases, in which she executes in distinctive tactics.