Speth Chapter 3

The Limits of Today’s Environmentalism

At first reading this chapter I was a little concerned. “Today’s Environmentalism” that Speth described seemed very much based on the past, and therefore stuck in some of the methods that have not been working. Especially with the discussion of the state of the lakes and rivers, despite the dramatic improvement due to the Clean Air and Water Acts. There has been improvement, but it has been happening gradually over 35 years. The problem with this kind of evaluation of Environmental action on the part of the U.S. is that it sets a very low precedent. Granted, this is all that we have to compare to, but it doesn’t mean that something much more drastic and helpful could happen.
This links into a concept that Speth discusses, which is that today’s environmentalism will “take what it can get.” Compromise must be an option, as economic stability cannot be abandoned. The question is, how much of a compromise? Does that mean continuing to make changes that will only happen over the next 35 years, even when evidence clearly states that there are NOT 35 years to spare?
In the end, Speth brings things back to the present however, no longer dwelling on the past, stating that “These patterns could change.” This is a very important message. It is important to understand the history of what has happened, so that we can understand why it is NOT enough, and why, although effective over a long period of time, and it is nice to congratulate ourselves o n progress, in comparison to what needs to be done now, it is not enough.

Growth Machines

“Growth Machines.”
The problem with a capitalist country dealing with the environment is that it is a capitalist country dealing with the environment. For an issue where a solution is so dependent on individual sacrifice to be solved in a culture where one of the core values is individual gain is quite a catch... The discussion of “growth machines” is at the heart of this issue.
Harvey Molotch used the term “growth machines” to describe the land stretching outside of urban areas that developers often have their sights set on. This land is appealing to developers for obvious reasons. Aside from making changes within the city, it is the next closest region that can be made a part of the city. Suburban housing has always had its appeal, being close to the city, and yet having space to spread out and let your children run around. Business owners can set up shop, and serve the rich white populations that surround cities. The land surrounding cities is at highest risk of being developed.
It is a cycle that can go either way. As noted in the reading, there is sometimes a cycle, or as Kraft says, a “growth spiral” that communities can get caught up in. They are convinced to develop land in order to create more financial support for schools and such, but there cannot be more residential areas without more schools…so the cycle continues. The good news is, that as much as these suburban households are coveted by many, established suburbs already exist around most cities, and those citizens tend to be, as Kraft notes, educated and environmentally aware, and are more likely to vote to make efforts protecting the land. So while a “growth spiral” can occur, it can also be battled because, conveniently the ones causing the problem tend to vote to stop the problem.