On Environmentalism

This is a really short, fairly superficial book, but I quite enjoyed it. Much of the material I had already learned before, but it was good for jogging my memory. Essentially, Ramachandra Guha defines “environmentalism” as a movement that looks to implement protection of the earth (or the environment) into state policy with the hope of ultimately conserving our planet for future generations. Under Guha’s definition, “environmentalism” really never came into existence until industrialization, and even then it was a response to industrialization (much like socialism emerged as a response to deteriorating standards of living).

Relying on this definition, Guha argues that there have been two periods of environmentalism (we continue to live in the second0. The first period emerged during industrialization in Britain, when it became clear that industry had a tendency to destroy natural resources. In large part, the first wave of environmentalism emerged from the Romantic movement before spreading throughout the West and the European empires. This first period had three different—but sometimes overlapping—environmental perspective. The first was the “back to the land” perspective, which looked to the natural world as a place of leisure, much like an Edenic paradise. The second Guha calls “scientific environmentalism,” which systematically surveyed the impact that industry had on the natural world and looked to preserve the earth for utilitarian reasons. The third was the “wilderness” perspective, exemplified above all by the United States, which sought to protect untamed (and untouched) lands to preserve for future generations.

The shift to the second period, Guha argues, effectively killed a large part of post-World War II optimism. Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” diverted attention to the way that the “affluent world” systematically looted the natural world of its resources. This point of the book is significant because it is where Guha really emphasizes the “global” aspect of environmentalism. Although the “affluent” or “first” world saw the emergence of green parties, anti-nuclear protests, and environmental protection agencies, other parts of the world had different histories. Guha finds that the “second,” or socialist, world was perhaps the worst at taking advantage of the earth’s natural resources, as it sought to industrialize many times faster than the “first” world did. Finally, I thought that the most interesting part of the book was the author’s treatment of the “third” world. In the past, many scholars have written on the Third World, effectively arguing that there was (and sometimes is) no sincere environmentalist movement, given that people there are far more focused on raising themselves out of poverty than protecting the world itself. Guha finds this argument untenable, as it is often the global poor who are most deeply affected by pollution and climate change. Instead, he cites a large number of environmentalist advocates who have, at times, been more effective than Western nations or transnational organizations (e.g. the UN).

Guha concludes his book with a meditation on responsibility. Today, the Global North often points fingers at the Global South for its rate of industrialization. The Global South, in contrast, argues that the Global North did more to pollute the world than anywhere else and is more interested in keeping ahead of the Global South. Guha rightfully points out that there is a qualitative difference in the type of pollution taking place. While the Global South is often industrializing and a means of survival, countries in the Global North more often pollute as a way to maintain their affluence.

All this being said, another reviewer described this book as “colonized” history because it began with industrialization in Britain and did not take into account sustainable attitudes towards nature exhibited among aboriginal Australians, Native Americans, and indigenous Africans, among others. Perhaps this is true, but it seems to me that this reviewer did not read the introduction to try and figure out what Guha was trying to accomplish. Sustainability is a hallmark of all pre-modern societies, to some extent or another. Take the Bedouins of Arabia, for example, who managed to live in some of the most hostile deserts on the planet for thousands of years (see Ibrahim al-Koni’s The Bleeding of the Stone). European tribes did this as well. So did the peoples of the Eurasian steppe (Mongols, Uzbeks, Tajiks, etc.). As such, this doesn’t seem like quite a fair criticism, as Guha does not include these in his definition of “environmentalism.”

Anyhow, there’s a lot packed into this short piece and I recommend it.