🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
In 1972, Newsweek published a cover story warning the world about the need to clean up the Earth. A little more than 50 years later, some of those warnings are still being issued—and ignored.
When the article was first published on June 12, 1972, the environment was at the top of many Americans' minds. The Environmental Protection Agency was not yet two years old, the third Earth Day had just been celebrated, and a slew of federal policies with promises to protect the environment were beginning to take hold. What came next was decades of progress chartered by those early labors.
President Joe Biden has a lofty aspiration of reducing U.S. emissions by up to 52 percent in 2030, achieving a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035 and a net zero emissions economy by 2050.
However, some experts argue that Biden's goals are only that—aspirational—and that more change is needed if the U.S. hopes to make a real difference.
Some Prioritize Sustainability
A half century ago, experts doubted Americans would be willing to pay more money and disrupt their lives to help save the planet, according to the 1972 Newsweek report. They also wondered if company sustainability efforts would help build brand loyalty.
"Yet even with environmentalism an established fact of American life, many experts are beginning to wonder just how far the public—not business or government—is willing to go," the Newsweek report said. "For whether he likes the notion or not, the consumer will pay the lion's share of the tab for a cleaner environment, either in higher prices, higher taxes or—more likely—both."
Time has shown that they needn't have worried on either front: modern Americans are more than willing to change their ways to save the environment.
In 2021, a study conducted by Simon-Kucher & Partners examined purchasing patterns among 10,000 people in 17 countries and found that 85 percent of people have changed their purchase patterns to more sustainable options. In the U.S., the study found that 61 percent of Americans felt that sustainability was an important factor when deciding where to purchase goods, but that number dropped when it came to spending money. According to the research, despite their good intentions, only 34 percent of people surveyed spent more money on a sustainable product.
In 2023, a survey by the Harvard Business Review found that younger generations—such as Gen Z and millennials—are 27 percent more likely to purchase goods from a brand if the company indicates it cares about the planet. The Simon-Kucher & Partners study also found that younger generations are the ones actively driving the effort to invest in eco-friendly products. Nearly a quarter of people in the older generations, such as baby boomers and Generation X, admitted to significantly adjusting their efforts toward being more sustainable, but that number rises to 32 percent for millennials. A third of millennials surveyed also said that they will purchase a sustainable alternative to a product when one is available, compared to 24 to 29 percent of older generations making the same effort.
In some ways, protecting the environment has gotten easier with time. Recycling is the norm, reusable water bottles are a $9 billion global industry according to Grand View Research, and Americans have largely adapted to the crackdown on plastic straws and single-use bags. More people are changing their diet to more environmentally friendly options, such as veganism, and companies specializing in meat alternatives, such as Beyond Meat, have seen their revenue increase by millions since 2017 according to data from Statista.
More households than ever are consciously reducing their electric use and investing in alternate energy sources, such as solar panels. Residential solar power installations jumped by 34 percent from 2020 to 2021 according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
However, despite the growth, the research found that the current rate of solar installations isn't fast enough to decarbonize America's grid by 2035. Nor is the widely touted electric vehicle industry growing fast enough to create a significant impact on climate change, with cost serving as a substantial hurdle to many Americans.
The average cost to outfit a home to solar power is $31,000 before tax incentives, according to a report by Bankrate. Most new electric vehicles cost more than $30,000 for the car, not including the upfront investment needed for infrastructure to accommodate them. The Inflation Reduction Act made some electric vehicles more affordable by enhancing regulations for tax credits, but many popular models are still far outside the parameters allowing the $7,500 rebate.
No Compromises on Quality
While some consumers are eager to spend more money with companies offering sustainable options, they aren't always willing to sacrifice quality or comfort for the cause.
Nike came out with the Considered line in 2005—a shoe made with sustainable practices—but critics weren't a fan of the design. Eventually, the product gave way to the Flyknit line, a shoe that uses recycled materials, reduces reliance on agricultural products and is much more popular with consumers today.
McDonald's swapped its plastic straws for paper ones in the United Kingdom in 2018, but consumers complained that the straws disintegrated in their beverages and circulated a petition with thousands of signatures demanding the return of plastic straws. A year later, McDonald's replaced the paper straws with a sturdier version, which continued to face backlash from the community after it was revealed that the straws couldn't be recycled because of their new thickness.
Resisting Clean Energy
Compared to 1972, though, there are more options for clean energy. In the '70s, people were protesting nuclear power with fervor, alleging that it dirtied the air and water, and posed a fatal risk should operations fail.
The mindset of the time was that nuclear plants "pose at least some hazards of radioactivity and dump excessive heat into the rivers," the 1972 Newsweek article said.
"Browns Ferry, Fort St. Vrain, Turkey Point, Diablo Canyon, Indian Point, Peach Bottom and Oyster Creek—they sound like a regimental history of battles, and well they might," Newsweek reported in 1972. "For they are the sites of nuclear power plants across the U.S., and all of them have been the targets of environmentalist coalitions that have tried to stop their construction or operation."
Michael Golay, a professor in nuclear science and engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told Newsweek that nuclear was a popular form of energy until around 1963, when nuclear protests began to increase. However, the protests were not a critique borne out of true concern for the environment, but they were the "use of a politically important symbol as a way of advancing a different political agenda," according to Golay.
In the 1960s and early '70s, nuclear power was an "organized point" that protesters rallied around in opposition of the Vietnam War, Golay said. Rather than protest the war directly, Golay said that Americans chose to push back against the government by rallying around popular political points of the time, such as the approval of nuclear power plants. The public also voiced concern about the safety of nuclear energy given the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons.
The effects were monumental, souring the public opinion on nuclear power for decades. Those protests were more than a decade before Chernobyl, and the 1986 disaster made nuclear energy a third rail in politics.
Only two nuclear power plant licenses have been issued in the past 50 years, Golay said, and both plants became operational in the past year. However, the public's position on nuclear power could shift
dramatically in the coming years as people accept it as a cleaner form of energy.
"The reason is climate change," Golay said. "That's the thing that's come along that's changing the discussion. It's a serious consequence in choosing not to have nuclear. What you're seeing, not only in the U.S. but many places, is the public favorability of nuclear has improved and continues to get better. People are recognizing a bigger problem with climate change."
Nuclear is only one solution in a portfolio to combat climate change over the next 50 to 60 years. Jackson Ewing, the director of energy and climate policy at Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability, told Newsweek some of the policies that improved the environment in the 1970s need to be reformed, a task that's proving extremely difficult to accomplish.
'A Daunting Task'
Ewing believes that the infrastructure needed to meet the U.S. government's environmental goals needs to be built six times faster than the current pace.
"It's a daunting task when you consider the different systems of approval processes projects have to go through, in part...because of the existence of the early 1970s environmental regulatory regime," Ewing told Newsweek. "It would be naive for us to think because electricity lines and wind and solar infrastructure have this virtuous environmental effect that they are not going to face those same impediments. There's lots of evidence that they will."
Many of the regulations passed in the early 1970s—such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act—slowed or stopped projects that posed a hazard to the environment, but Ewing said those same policies are now slowing down renewable energy projects.
To change this, the U.S. needs policies that allow for different permitting processes for renewable energy projects or government needs to reduce the number of approvals infrastructure projects must obtain before beginning construction. But some politicians are resistant to reform. Wind and solar projects aren't completely innocent in their environmental impact—particularly with regards to harming wildlife—making the reform effort even more difficult.
"They see [the policies] as the only thing protecting the environment from the same sort of exploitation we saw before the early 1970s," Ewing said.
A Global Effort
One principle from the 1972 Newsweek report remains true today: decarbonizing Earth's environment cannot be a problem one country faces alone.
"Other industrialized countries are also plunging considerable fortunes into the campaign," the 1972 report said. "Great Britain has earmarked 3.5 billion [dollars] to scour its rivers, and the Soviet Union has allotted 1 billion [dollars] to the Volga and Ural alone."
Global trade has made some renewable energies infinitely more obtainable since the 1970s. China revolutionizing its manufacturing has made solar power available to more consumers in the U.S., University of California San Diego Professor of Innovation and Public Policy David Victor said.
"In the 1970s, solar power was so expensive that it could only be used in extremely niche applications," Victor said. "Now, solar is one of the cheapest ways of making electricity. A big part of that is because the technology is global."
In some ways, America has made incredible progress in cleaning up its environment and correcting its wrongs. Cities are radically cleaner than they were in the 1970s, Victor said, and other environmental threats such as lead in paint and gasoline are practically nonexistent.
"It's really impressive," Victor said of the change. "A lot of it is backed by voters and therefore by politicians. Most of the problems we were worrying about in the 1970s are radically better."
Despite America's progress, more sinister environmental concerns have arisen in the decades since as climate change worsens. Change—as much as has been made—isn't occurring at a rate fast enough to counter the damage done to the environment. Political reform continues to hit snags. Americans have shown that they support companies making sustainable products but only if those changes don't impact quality. And although people have access to eco-friendly energy options more so than in 1972 with the growing accessibility of solar panels and electric vehicles, cost is still proving to be a roadblock, further delaying any widespread change.
One thing hasn't changed with time. Warnings continue to ring in the same concerning tone that they did in 1972: If more change is not made, then the Earth will face irreversible consequences that worsen with each generation.
"It's a tragedy," Golay said. "But I won't live to see it."
That each generation's grandchildren will be the ones to bear the brunt of an environmental collapse is a belief spanning back to 1972. Only the clock is ticking down, and the global rush to remedy our wrongs has intensified as experts, politicians and laypeople alike demand action before it's too late.
