Environmentalism without the 1973 oil crisis

Thande

Donor
I think it's fair to say that when environmentalism blossomed in the 1970s, it was partly due to the fact that people were already cutting back on car journeys and petrol because of the oil shortage. When companies and governments are looking at alternatives to gas-guzzlers purely for economic reasons, it's easier for the green voice to be heard, and then other issues beyond emissions-related ones (e.g. wildlife) could be put out by the same pathway.

So how would our attitudes to the environment be different in a TL where, for whatever reason (no Yom Kippur war?) there isn't a 1973 oil crisis? Everyone can keep buying cars with high fuel consumption (one knock-on effect is that the Americans don't get into their pickup truck craze) and alternative oil sources (e.g. the North Sea) are probably not exploited to the same extent as OTL.
 
It can't last. Eventually, the oil will run down, and somebody will start a war over it. With the higher rate of consumption, perhaps a Persian Gulf War in 1980s, and Iran-Iraq war starting in late 1970s. OPEC will probably have more economic power, bearest hint of possibility of OPEC being political organization.
 
well, there was an environmental movement before the oil crisis... people worried about clean air and water early on... but the oil crisis no doubt kicked ahead R&D into fuel efficiency... without it, I'd imagine that environmentalism would be more human focused... i.e., cleaner drinking water, etc...
 
Environmentalism was going to happen one way or the other because you can't go through the 60s and 70s and not want to do something about the dying rivers, stifling smog bubbles and cancer fish. I wonder how many modern people (both environmentalists and their opponents) realise how much has been achieved in this regard.

An interesting question is the slant it would take. Coming of age as a political movement in the 1970s/early 1980s world of uncertainty and perceived decline, overloaded with images of dearth, poverty and shortage, political environmentalism soaked up the rhetoric of fear and concern because it worked. In a way that was a great misfortune because it takes a *lot* to scare people into regulating factories when they're afraid they'll end up on the dole. Environmentalism in a more benign economic environment would likely be less Malthusian and more Rooseveltian, emphasising the positive aspects of conservation, wholesome living and environmental consciousness over the looming horrors of famine, desertification and poisoning. Environmental engineering might get a much better reputation (especially if it is done by actual experts). 'Organic' could move right upmarket instead of taking decades to shed its ostentatious asceticism. Muesli might be allowed to taste of things other than cardboard. Good times make for bold experiments, bad times for shoring up defenses.
 
Perhaps without the Crisis and the need for all the posturing that goes along with it, there may have been some more rational thinking about the issue. But then again when one is in a pinch... Again I think Opec was eventually going to pull price hike, so this going to come at some point. With the instability of the Opec nations anyway..

Maybe more countries, including the U.S adopt the Brazilian aproach. Instead of GM and Ford introducing Bio-fuel cars and eventually plants to only Brazil on a massive scale. The U.S auto makers, farmers, and other technological industries come together. Make a reshaping industry in the U.S, atleast change an old one. Toyota and Honda jump on board very quickly. The Central Plains states are producing switch grass twice a year.

This would led to the use of far far less petroleum. OPEC would not like such a move at all. The middle East is now far less of a security issue.

Its funny how the Brazilian aproach to the fuel shortage issue was never really discussed in U.S with any great gusto.. The main stream media and certainly law makers never gave much attention to this idea.

Atleast until now really.
 
well, there was an environmental movement before the oil crisis... people worried about clean air and water early on... but the oil crisis no doubt kicked ahead R&D into fuel efficiency... without it, I'd imagine that environmentalism would be more human focused... i.e., cleaner drinking water, etc...

I agree. Having lived and driven my VW beetle through the period, it's my perception the 1973 oil crisis was viewed (in the US at least) as largely a political/economic issue resulting from OPEC (largely Arab) action in response to the 1973 Arab-Israeli war - ie an artificial shortage. Increased fuel efficiency and R&D into alternate energy sources was primarily as a way to minimize US dependence on OPEC, not save the planet.

And, as Dave says, the environmental movement predated the crisis. The movement's focus (as exemplified in the NEPA legislation of 1970) on air quality, water quality, and preservation of natural areas, endangered species, cultural values and sites, and human comunities would have been about the same regardless of the energy crisis. The crisis just provided another reason to reduce use of fossil fuels in addition to the obvious air quality benifits this would have.

So basically, I believe if 1973 energy crisis did not occur, there would be essentially little substantive change in the direction or influence of the environmental movement. The only probable change might have been less concern with long-term resource depletion and a search for energy efficiency.
 
I think it's fair to say that when environmentalism blossomed in the 1970s, it was partly due to the fact that people were already cutting back on car journeys and petrol because of the oil shortage. When companies and governments are looking at alternatives to gas-guzzlers purely for economic reasons, it's easier for the green voice to be heard, and then other issues beyond emissions-related ones (e.g. wildlife) could be put out by the same pathway.

So how would our attitudes to the environment be different in a TL where, for whatever reason (no Yom Kippur war?) there isn't a 1973 oil crisis? Everyone can keep buying cars with high fuel consumption (one knock-on effect is that the Americans don't get into their pickup truck craze) and alternative oil sources (e.g. the North Sea) are probably not exploited to the same extent as OTL.

I'd say environmentalism really kicked off when resources in the first world began to be depleted and the only convenient, easily accessible stocks were found in third world countries with regimes unfavorable to the West which was more in the late 1970s with the closure of many Western mining concerns, especially coal and iron. The crisis over the Antarctic Ozone hole in the early 80s and the hard evidence of half-melted Swedish forests brought the stark reality of the fragility of the biosphere to the world as opposed to mere resource depletion. 1973 was a sharp reminder to everyone that we would not be able to sustain our continued economic and social growth with current reserves, that new technologies and sources would require development and that other people might "own" these sources.

Nations that were critically short of resources had recycling programmes of their own which went into high gear but the major consumers of the world - USA, France, UK, West Germany had to step up a gear.
 
If one wanted a better environmental movement (better = rational) you'd have to separate their mistaken insistence on conflating nuclear power with nuclear weapons.

It was Three Mile Island and Chernobyl that basically made the big environmental groups go crazy; change that somehow and perhaps we get a rational discussion of the best way to conserve resources and not pollute.


Incidentally the oil crisis did help to focus a little attention on mass transit and fuel efficient cars but it also caused long-term political and economic consequences for the United States; no '73 crisis and the entire future history of the US is changed far more than just some different environmental movement.
 

flaja

Banned
The EPA became operational in December 1970. The OPEC embargo wasn’t until after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. So the U.S. already had something of an environmentalist movement before the embargo. However, I do think that the embargo gave environmentalism a panic aspect that is still current. The embargo created an atmosphere where doomsday scenarios, such as mass famine and dead oceans could be proposed with little scrutiny from the press, politicians and academia.

I am a conservationist not an environmentalist. I want to preserve natural resources for future use. Environmentalism has a left-wing political component that I want no part of. The panic mongers that make up the mainstream environmentalist movement have been nothing but detrimental to the cause of environmental conservation. Everybody focuses on the worst case scenarios so nobody ever does much in terms of practical conservation measures.
 
If the Environmentalism prevails in 1960's without the 1973 oil crisis, Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE would be a poor country today like Africa since people no longer use Petroleum and the beneficiary of the environmentalism without oil crisis would be Brazil, Japan, United States and other developed and developing countries and
 

Archibald

Banned
If one wanted a better environmental movement (better = rational) you'd have to separate their mistaken insistence on conflating nuclear power with nuclear weapons.

It was Three Mile Island and Chernobyl that basically made the big environmental groups go crazy; change that somehow and perhaps we get a rational discussion of the best way to conserve resources and not pollute.

A footnote on this. I'm interested in the subject because of mission to Mars. We needed (and still need) nuclear power to achieve this goal. But as E.M noted, environmental movements tends to conflate nuclear power and nuclear weapons... I think we should develop a TL without TMI and Chernobyl
 

Thande

Donor
A footnote on this. I'm interested in the subject because of mission to Mars. We needed (and still need) nuclear power to achieve this goal. But as E.M noted, environmental movements tends to conflate nuclear power and nuclear weapons... I think we should develop a TL without TMI and Chernobyl
I don't think we 'need' it, but it would certainly make matters a lot easier.

I'm not sure if removing Chernobyl would make that much difference - people were attacking nuclear power stations as early as the 1970s, IIRC.
 
I don't think we 'need' it, but it would certainly make matters a lot easier.

I'm not sure if removing Chernobyl would make that much difference - people were attacking nuclear power stations as early as the 1970s, IIRC.

Some people opposed nuclear power from day 1, but Chernobyl and Harrisburg made a big difference in popular perception. That and the very poor handling of the publicity aspects. If the nuclear industry had been more upfront about safety issues and less reliant on heavy state support, it could have gone differently. The oil and chemical industries, too, have had a bumpy relationship with environmentalism, but they developed strategies to accommodate concerns. The nuclear industry took much longer to do that.
 
Top