what
environmental
history might help us deal with current environmental issues?
- overpopulation--how
did countries whose population is shrinking get there?
- limited
resources--go conquer someone else doesn't work so well
any more, learn danger of using up our resources,
different kinds of solutions--recycling, finding
substitutes, don't hold resources in common, manage for
sustained yield
- global warning--hole
in ozone layer is improving as a result of an
international agreement, voluntary recycling has worked
pretty well by persuading individuals to change their
behavior
Another kind of history:
- see politics as
central
- politics is not just
elections, it is also how the government works, process
of passing new laws, government agencies, policies,
social movements, public opinion, what's going on in the
rest of the world
- framed around
environmentalism as a social movement (similar to the
civil rights movement)
- social
movement--people who organize together to push for
change
- social movements are
often people demanding rights (political assumptions are
usually phrased in terms of rights)
What is the role of government?
- democracy--government
should represent the people; republic--we elect
representatives to study the questions more carefully
and make good decisions
- vote according to
your individual interest or on your idea of what
is the greatest good for the whole society
- public interest or
public good--government can do things more fairly
or that private industry won't do to help people
- this used to be
more strongly seen as the role of government as it
is today particularly in this region
- politics is about
issues that don't have a clear right answer,
people will never agree
- what do you do
when people don't agree
- don't do
anything until we can reach agreement
- simple majority
vote
- ugly
horse-trading to come up with somewhat of a
compromise that could pass
- people are then
supposed to accept the compromise
- politicians are
supposed to accept and work with the law that
passed even if they don't like it
Rothman's ideas:
- what is the
world-view we need (what are the questions to ask) to
understand an issue
- Environmentalism is different than the conservation
movement--How?
- conservation movement focused on protecting special
places
- the environmental movement asks: What about the
rest of the environment?
- it is also a change in what people expect about
where they live
- a new American belief that we have a right to
"quality of life"
- quality of life
would be living in a pleasant environment, not getting
sick from pollution...
- not a right given by law but rather something
people came to believe
- by seeing this we can explain their behavior
- with prosperity, people's expectations rise
We have contradictory
expectations--we want prosperity but we don't like some of
the consequences
- Americans want cars and consumer goods but not
pollution, smog, and hazardous waste
- they want a pleasant environment but not at a cost to
them
- in order to help the environment are you willing:
- to pay higher
taxes
- to donate
time, volunteer
- not use your
car (ride the bus to school)
- learn
something about the environment
- drive a small
car
- recycle
- go to the
farmers market to buy food
- buy more
expensive goods at a local store instead of going
to Walmart
- with this book we
will focus more on politics, but politics starts with
public opinion
Where does the modern
environmental movement start?
- Rothman argues with
post-WWII prosperity (prosperity leads to belief that we
have a right to quality of life)
- the war showed that
technology could solve problems on a new level--a new
faith in the power of technology
- we don't have to
wait for some inventor to come up with the next new
thing, by using science we can create whatever new
technologies we want as fast as we want (lesson people
thought from radar and the proximity fuse)
- people thought
technology would allow so much prosperity that we could
have it all--nuclear power was expected to lead to
"electricity too cheap to meter"
- "That optimism was
short-lived." (p. 2)
- people were scared
of the power of technology (eg. the atomic bomb)
- people quickly
became aware of the side-effects of the new powerful
technologies
The new power of
technology came both from individual new technologies (atom
bomb) and also a new belief in the effectiveness of research
Example of the effectiveness of research: Radar and the
proximity fuse:
radar
set on airplane
Radar
- radar research had begun in the 1930s
after some scientists had observed reflections of radio
waves from objects
- by
1937 the British had a continuous chain of
stations but these used long waves and required two
large antennas
- N. L. Oliphant invented the resonant
cavity magnetron, first tube capable of sufficient power
for radar at wavelengths less than 50 cm (therefore
allowing much smaller antennas and also more accurate
results)
- this new idea was brought to the US in
1940 and a major research effort started to develop
microwave radar
- the government brought together
scientists and engineers at MIT to work on this
- the Radiation Lab at MIT designed 150
different radar systems--three generations of systems
went into use before the war ended
- invented a junction box to transmit and
receive from the same antenna
- invented Loran: a way to determine your
location by triangulating from special radio signals
- developed the Microwave Early Warning
system with a range of 200 miles
- the Radio Lab at Harvard worked on
radar countermeasures--jamming, straw
- technology no longer takes a long time
and a lot of luck, we now know how to manage research
and development to solve a problem and develop a new
technology quickly
antiaircraft
fire
The Proximity Fuse
- in 1940 anti-aircraft fire using timed
fused brought down one plane per 2500 rounds fired
- you need the shell to explode even
without a direct hit
- many possible technological
approaches for detecting when the shell is close
to the airplane--radar, sonar, passive acoustic,
photelectric...
- very hard to detect anything from a
shell not just moving rapidly through the air but also
spinning at 475 RPS. During development it was
jokingly called "the world's most complicated form of
self-destroying ammunition"
- radar seemed like the best bet, but how
to make a device with vacuum tubes that would fit in a
space the size of an ice cream cone and survive a force
of 20,000 g when fired?
- at one point scientists were dropping
tubes from the roof of a 3 story building onto a
concrete driveway to test their impact resistance
- development went amazingly fast: pilot
production started in Nov. 1941, simulated combat tests
in Aug. 1942, in use by Jan. 1943
- mass production of 2 million fuses
reduced the cost to $16-23
- results: 6 times more effective than
timed fuses
But the strongest example
was the atomic bomb:
- by 1939 it was obvious and widely know
that a nuclear chain reaction might be possible using
certain radioactive elements because each atom that
fissioned released neutrons that could hit other atoms
and cause them to fission
- Refugee scientists in the U.S. feared a
German bomb. Leo Szilard
composed two letters for Einstein to sign warning
President Roosevelt of the dangers of a German atomic
bomb, one in August 1939
and the other in April 1940. Fear was widespread
enough that U.S. and British journals voluntarily
censored related scientific papers.
- Germans were indeed working on a bomb,
but got stuck in a dead end. Supporters of Werner
Heisenberg say he did this on purpose.
Difficulties setting up such a big, uncertain
research and development project
- First organized under National Defense
Research Committee (approval for project Oct. 1941) then
turned over to the army in June 1942. The army put
General Leslie
Groves in charge.
The first thing to do was prove a chain
reaction was possible. That effort was led by Enrico
Fermi , first at Columbia then at the University
of Chicago. The first successful chain reaction
took place Dec. 2, 1942 in a small reactor built in a
squash court at the Univ. of Chicago.
- Providing fuel for the bomb was a
tremendous technical challenge--must separate
uranium-235, which is less than 1% of the uranium mined
and differs in weight by only .13%. Two methods of
separation: a cyclotron and gaseous diffusion of uranium
hexaflouride (the only gaseous compound, but one that is
both poisonous and corrosive) were set up at Oak
Ridge , Tenn., using TVA power. The
other alternative is to make plutonium by chain
reactions--reactors to do this were built in Hanford,
Washington.
K-25 gaseous diffusion plant at Oak Ridg, photo from
fas.org
- Robert
Oppenheimer led the effort to design the bomb and
said he needed to bring scientists together at a single
laboratory. Los Alamos opened in March 1943.
Developed two bomb designs, one using uranium and one
using plutonium. The plutonium design was tested
in the Trinity
test near Alamogordo NM on July 16, 1945. Exploded
with the force of 20,000 tons of TNT.
Bombs used in Japan, photo from fas.org
The decision to drop the bomb
( good links on
the decision )
- Germany was clearly defeated and the
Japanese were retreating--was it necessary to use the
bomb?
- Could there have been a demonstration
and warning instead? Would it have been used in
Europe or was racism a factor?
- After spending $2 billion would the
government have been accused of wasting money if it
wasn't used?
- when Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945,
the bomb project was so secret that Vice President Harry
Truman didn't even know about it. The bomb was
used because having built it everyone assumed that
having built it they would use it.
- three B-29 bombers set out for
Hiroshima , Japan on Aug. 6, 1945. The Japanese
sounded the all-clear when they saw only 3 planes.
The Enola Gay dropped the 5 ton bomb and it exploded
with the force of 15,000 tons of TNT. 130,000
people died within 3 months, 68% of the buildings of the
city were destroyed.
- A plutonium bomb was dropped on
Nagasaki on Aug. 9, 1945. Exploded with the force
of 22,000 tons of TNT.
bomb damage in Hiroshima, photo from fas.org
So the power of technology
also raised questions, particularly in concerns about
nuclear fallout
- in the early years
improved atomic bombs were tested in New Mexico and on
uninhabited islands in the Pacific
- this put radioactive
material into the upper atmosphere, where it circled the
earth and slowly fell to earth
- the example that
particularly got people was that nursing women had
measurable radioactivity in their milk
- more people began to
ask questions about progress (as some had back to the
1920s)--is all progress good
- should we do
everything that technology makes it possible for us to
do?
- not everything the
government and corporations do is good--someone needs to
watch out for the public good
- private profit won't
always lead to a better quality of life, sometimes you
need to make decisions based on the public good
- those concerns were
turned into laws
not just wise use:
- the conservation
movement of the progressive era sought "the greatest
good for the greatest number in the long run"
- now people saw wise
use as not going far enough
- environmentalists
wanted to protect the environment at all costs
- this caught the
imagination of the public for a while, so long as the
economy was good and people thought they could have it
all
- then the economy
declined and people began to worry more about the costs
- they came to see a
tradeoff between protection of the economy and economic
opportunity (which environmentalists argue isn't
accurate)
the question for the
future is how much risk to our health and safety are we
willing to tolerate for the sake of wealth?