Environmentalism without the World Wars

[THE KINGFISH]

1914 to 1991 was a period of constant conflict - from the trenches in Western Europe to the guerrilla proxy conflicts in Indochina. It was during that time that scientists knew that mankind’s industry was harming the planet - be it through pollution or global warming.

But if there was no World War I, there would be no World War II, no Cold War, and all of its destruction. And keep in mind it was only after the end of the Cold War that issues like global warming/climate change were taken seriously. So how would environmentalist issues be handled in a world without the World Wars?

For the sake of the scenario (because I feel like people in this thread would focus too much on how World War I never happens, call it unrealistic/ASB and the like) lets say the POD is that the liberal German Emperor Frederick III never gets throat cancer and lives until about 1920. Germany maintains good relations with Britain, the delicate balance of power is maintained, and rising democratization and middle class make a large scale war in Europe not possible.

Thoughts?

 

[ghappy1000]

Without the World Wars and the Cold War, the impetus to study global warming, climate change and environmentalism will be less through butterflying the Cold War as a period and as a support for global warming, climate change and environmentalism research. On the other hand, more people, less war and atrocity deaths and less war and atrocity concerns means more focus on peaceful and non-war related scientific studies such as global warming, climate change and environmentalism studies, probably earlier than reality.

 

[Lalli]

Without world wars communism wouldn't rise and Russia and China not screw their own enviromnent that greatly as in OTL.

Without such risk of nuclear weapons and no Chernobyl kind disaster (probably) there might be more support for nuclear power among enviromental groups.

In other hand higher population probably means that there must put more forests down for fields and getting living room.

 

[sirjackalot]

Climate change would become more unignorable earlier on ITTL. No WWs means Europe has a significantly larger population, in particular Russia and Germany. Rich countries disproportionately omit CO2, and with more people living in developed countries climate change would be a bigger issue earlier.

 

[Dancing Fool]

Rich countries disproportionately omit CO2,

And that’s the part I find delicious, both intellectually and socially. For example, Brazil can say, Hey, you guys in the U.S. chopped down your entire Eastern Woodlands forest, and now you’re trying to tell us not to chop down the Rainforest?

Or, China can say, Hey, you guys got rich and then you got clean. And you’re telling us we can’t do the same.

I’m thinking a big part of the solution has to be offering Third World [and emerging ] economies pretty solid subsidies the more they go in the direction of renewable energy. But maybe someone knows of an even better way.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Largescale usage of nuclear power combined with orbital solar power. Basically, get off fossil fuels by moving to more effective alternatives.

 

[anotherlurker]

Largescale usage of nuclear power combined with orbital solar power. Basically, get off fossil fuels by moving to more effective alternatives.

Both nuclear and space tech are born of the world wars, both will be slowed down if there are no WWs.

While climate change was already noticed by individual scientists in the 1800s the large scale consensus to do somethign against it only came about in the 80s or so. And contrary to what's been written above no communism in Russia/China doesn't mean they'll be cleaner but instead dirtier. If they catch up with the west economically they catch up with its per capita emmissions which overall means more CO2 out in the atmosphere before consensus is reached that there needs to be something done against it.

No WWs also means that governments hesitate more to strongly regulate industries and interevene wherever they please, before ww1 governments had a whole lot less control of the economy and finances, the fighting permitted them to grab the reins and they have never let go of them since then.

 

[Dancing Fool]

Without world wars communism wouldn't rise and Russia and China not screw their own enviromnent that greatly as in OTL.

no communism in Russia/China doesn't mean they'll be cleaner but instead dirtier. If they catch up with the west economically . . .

Both are true.

During the Cold War 1945 - 1991, Eastern Europe was dirtier than Western. It’s like the mid-managers wanted to make their numbers, the heck with everything else.

But then, regarding pollution and especially carbon emissions, the size of the overall economy sure matters, too.

 

[Kalga]

Assuming there's no wars ITTL on the same levels as the world wars, then this world would be fundamentally a wealthier and more technologically advanced* one. Because it turns out that shockingly enough not lighting trillions of dollars/pounds/marks/yuan/ruble/whatever and tens of millions of lives on fire for years on end means that said resources and labor (including scientific ones) will be put into use.

If also paired with a less tense international geopolitical situation then the problem might be noticed earlier, and moreover acted upon earlier rather than being seen as a geopolitical tool to kneecap certain countries.

Also with nuclear research based on application of energy (peacetime academic/corporate research) instead of weapons (wartime emergency research) it might actually make it perceived as less threatening, thus helping it with proliferation.

*maybe not apparent at first because of fashion, aesthetics, and legacy hardware, but what's new?

 

[Dancing Fool]

with a less tense international geopolitical situation then the problem might be noticed earlier, and moreover acted upon earlier rather than being seen as a geopolitical tool

I’m assuming you’re talking about global warming / climate change, right?

For the sake of a big Hollywood movie, assume we solve this relatively easy. And assume we solve a second problem almost in passing. But then comes a 3rd problem which shakes us to our foundations. And all our good traits seem to be working against us.

And then . . . as screenwriter, do you want a happy ending or a tragic ending?

 

[THE KINGFISH]

The biggest question is if all those extra people in Russia and Germany and Europe in general would come up with new scientific inventions that would not only be more environmentally friendly but also make dirtier technology obsolete.

 

[Hayatgheibi]

In another thread, someone mentioned that had the Vietnam War not happened (and it would've been butterflied away without the world wars), the counterculture may have gravitated more towards the environment. Perhaps I am being overly optimistic, but I think there is a compelling argument that a lack of war would mean more environmental cooperation.

 

[Geekhis Khan]

In another thread, someone mentioned that had the Vietnam War not happened (and it would've been butterflied away without the world wars), the counterculture may have gravitated more towards the environment. Perhaps I am being overly optimistic, but I think there is a compelling argument that a lack of war would mean more environmental cooperation.

The counterculture of the time was heavily into environmentalism (the Hippies). That was part of the "problem" OTL: it made it too easy for politicians to conflate environmentalism with Luddism, anti-patriotism, and Communism. I think one of the biggest potential boons for the environmental movement iTTL is that no USSR and no Cold War could mean that the "Green = Red" trope is never as widespread in the West, which could help prevent it from becoming a hyper-partisan issue. "Green Toryism" and "Green Conservatism" could be viable political positions far earlier than OTL.

 

[ECavalier]

The counterculture of the time was heavily into environmentalism (the Hippies). That was part of the "problem" OTL: it made it too easy for politicians to conflate environmentalism with Luddism, anti-patriotism, and Communism. I think one of the biggest potential boons for the environmental movement iTTL is that no USSR and no Cold War could mean that the "Green = Red" trope is never as widespread in the West, which could help prevent it from becoming a hyper-partisan issue. "Green Toryism" and "Green Conservatism" could be viable political positions far earlier than OTL.

Also helps if early environmentalism avoids picking up the anti-nuclear bug from hybridising with the “peace” movement.

 

[duckie]

I think that nucular energy will be bigger than in OTL, the big anti nuke movement of the 80's was pushed/helped/funded by the KGB. No world war = no cold war