Earth Day Predictions from 1970
-
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
• New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say,
Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say,I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
There has been substantial environmental protections laws and regulations passed by various governments since 1970, lots of technological innovations invented and proliferated to help the environment, lots of education and awareness concerning environmental protection instilled in the people. It's not too bad if you consider the context that many "predictions" from the 1970 were qualified with "if we do nothing." We have done a lot to hold back global environmental catastrophes, just that we still need to do much more to not only hold the line, but hopefully to also improve the environment for our progenies.
-
I remember traveling through Trafford Park in Manchester in or around 1970, and you literally couldn't see because there was so much green, sulfurous smog in the air. It was absolutely horrendous, which is why I can remember it - I was only 6. It ain't like that now.
In 1952, 12000 Londoners died, and 150,000 were hospitalized due to the smog primarily caused by burning coal. It ain't like that now.
Fucking stupid environmentalists, eh?
-
"My pronouns are FA/FO." - Mik, 2024
-
@Mik Yes of course but it seems some just don't give a shit. Seriously, I made a point to someone IRL that cruise ships were not really that good for the planet and they looked at me like I was insane. They really love taking cruises, you see. They actually screamed at me "who cares about the planet!!!"
Um, I do.
-
@mark said in Earth Day Predictions from 1970:
@Mik Yes of course but it seems some just don't give a shit. Seriously, I made a point to someone IRL that cruise ships were not really that good for the planet and they looked at me like I was insane. They really love taking cruises, you see. They actually screamed at me "who cares about the planet!!!"
Um, I do.
Yes, and so do I. But on the other hand I know folks that are militantly environmentalist, the flip side of the coin you tossed out there. as i said - we have to strike a balance.
-
Things I never expected to see in my lifetime....
- fall of the Berlin Wall
- end of Soviet Union
- plentiful oil
- cleaner air and water
- anything like a smart phone
One should always remember the motto of the Royal Society, 'Nullius in verba' is taken to mean 'take nobody's word for it'.
-
@Mik said in Earth Day Predictions from 1970:
Yes, and so do I. But on the other hand I know folks that are militantly environmentalist, the flip side of the coin you tossed out there. as i said - we have to strike a balance.
That was, sort of, my point.
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard BiologistThat would have been 1985 or 2000.
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologistThat would have been 1980..
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth DayWhoopsie.
And several others. All of these "scientists" who demanded radical action to prevent global cooling, mass starvation, etc have been wrong - spectacularly wrong. It's not to demean the (God I hate this word) stewardship that we must exercise over our home, it's only to point out that from I time I remember well, the scientists were saying we're doomed.
-
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard BiologistIt took about 45 years but I'll still give him credit.
-
I am guessing that the people quoted in teh opening post were on the one side of the discussion, so it is not surprising that what they would say would be considered extreme.
I am guessing that somewhere, someplace, there are quotes of people in 1970 who were against Earth Day and probably had quotes like:
"Pollution never killed anyone"
"I eat fish from the Cleveland Lake and never had any problems"
"There is not any need for Clean Water Act"
"If you dont want to deal with the smog, then dont move to the city"
etc
etcI agree with Mik that there has to be a balance, but I probably more agree with Mark at the disregard for some people regarding the environment.
What surprises me is that now, the environment seems to be a Democrat vs. Republic issue. If I have read correctly my history, it never was really that before. Most of the major US environment laws passed in the past were supported by both parties. It makes me wonder if they would have been passed today.
Yo
-
@taiwan_girl said in Earth Day Predictions from 1970:
I am guessing that the people quoted in teh opening post were on the one side of the discussion, so it is not surprising that what they would say would be considered extreme.
I am guessing that somewhere, someplace, there are quotes of people in 1970 who were against Earth Day and probably had quotes like:
"Pollution never killed anyone"
"I eat fish from the Cleveland Lake and never had any problems"
"There is not any need for Clean Water Act"
"If you dont want to deal with the smog, then dont move to the city"
etc
etcI agree with Mik that there has to be a balance, but I probably more agree with Mark at the disregard for some people regarding the environment.
What surprises me is that now, the environment seems to be a Democrat vs. Republic issue. If I have read correctly my history, it never was really that before. Most of the major US environment laws passed in the past were supported by both parties. It makes me wonder if they would have been passed today.
Yo
You're absolutely right. Republicans get up every morning, make their children drink sewer sludge and take the little darlings to school in a yellow atmospheric cast of SO2...
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
I think you take me out of context!
But..... do you disagree that environmental issues seem to have become a Democrat vs. Republic issue over the last 15-20 years?
-
@taiwan_girl said in Earth Day Predictions from 1970:
I think you take me out of context!
But..... do you disagree that environmental issues seem to have become a Democrat vs. Republic issue over the last 15-20 years?
I think that some elements of the Democrat Party have staked out positions so "green" as to be ludicrous.
I think the current situation, and our inability to manufacture some essential building blocks of industry due to environmental laws, needs to be rethought, with an evaluation of cost/benefit of all factors.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
But Jolly, it goes both ways. There are those on both sides who have positions so far to one side.
I am sure there are people on the republic side (and maybe democrat side) who would prefer to eliminate any environmental laws and assume that the market place will put things in teh direction they are supposed to go.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Earth Day Predictions from 1970:
I am guessing that the people quoted in teh opening post were on the one side of the discussion, so it is not surprising that what they would say would be considered extreme.
I am guessing that somewhere, someplace, there are quotes of people in 1970 who were against Earth Day and probably had quotes like:
"Pollution never killed anyone"
"I eat fish from the Cleveland Lake and never had any problems"
"There is not any need for Clean Water Act"
"If you dont want to deal with the smog, then dont move to the city"
etc
etcI agree with Mik that there has to be a balance, but I probably more agree with Mark at the disregard for some people regarding the environment.
What surprises me is that now, the environment seems to be a Democrat vs. Republic issue. If I have read correctly my history, it never was really that before. Most of the major US environment laws passed in the past were supported by both parties. It makes me wonder if they would have been passed today.
Yo
Actually no, no one said anything like that at all.
