Whatever the reasons for their decline, there are still a few Green Issues left on the newsstands this year. But even those indicate a waning interest in such projects. Take the country’s leading newsweeklies, Time and Newsweek.
Time issued bold “calls to arms” asking readers to “Be Worried, Be Very Worried” and “Win the War on Global Warming” in 2007 and 2008, respectively. This year’s plea—to save endangered species imperiled by climate change—is still passionate, but more muted by comparison. Furthermore, unlike in years past, that feature stands alone, unaccompanied by additional articles.
At least it was the cover story. Newsweek, which has fronted its Environment & Leadership section for the last two years, relegated this year’s section to second-tier status. Still, Newsweek did publish half a dozen articles, all dealing with clean-energy debate. Unfortunately, the magazine relied mostly on politicians—including energy Secretary Steven Chu, former Congressman Newt Gingrich, and Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm - to write them. These are illustrious names, but their contributions amounted to familiar stump speeches, lacking much novelty of insight.
The country’s number three newsweekly, U.S. News & World Report, put its usually superior competitors to shame, producing this year’s only truly cover-to-cover Green Issue. Its contents revolve around a central question—“Can America prosper in the new green economy?”—and feature reports on everything from green jobs to shrinking the military’s footprint.
“We’ve seen it, we’ve heard it. We’re locked in the same old debate we’ve been having at least since the ’70s … But a lot has changed very recently, and the debate is moving toward a critical mass for action,” wrote editor Brian Kelly. “What’s changed, in a word, is Obama. The president and the tide of voters who swept him into office want a change in the way we manage energy and the environment.”
As Kolbert made clear in her Earth Day column for The New Yorker, however, Kelly’s enthusiasm and optimism belies a more complicated reality. Enter The New York Times Magazine, whose Green Issue this year featured an apropos cover story about “The Green Mind” and “why eco-consciousness is so hard.” The story, by Jon Gertner, explores behavioral scientists’ research on decision-making. The social sciences produce a miniscule portion of climate studies, Gertner points out, but their insights “may be more crucial than any technological advance in combating environmental challenges.”
The issue is stacked with a couple other articles on the psychology/sociology of green. Jon Mooallem, for instance, has a quirky, intriguing story about the growing “Transition movement,” focusing on its emergence in the small town of Sandpoint, Idaho. “For a generation, the environmental movement has told us to change our lifestyles to avoid catastrophic consequences,” Mooallem wrote. “Transition tells us those consequences are now irreversibly switching on; we need to revolutionize our lives if we want to survive.”
That may be true, but some consequences, such as global warming, are still not readily apparent to most people. One that is apparent, on the other hand, is waste. In keeping with the focus on human behavior and consumers’ response to the financial crisis began, Mother Jones’s Green Issue this year (although it has never actually used the phrase or marked the special issue on the cover) focuses on all things garbage—the breakdown of plastics, zero-waste zealots, and the failure of recycling programs. The short, to-the-point articles jump right into the problems with our waste system. One highlight is an article by Elizabeth Royte on the monopoly large hauling companies have on municipal garbage systems.
“Americans have (post green fad) an economy that still generates literal oceans full of waste, and we thought we should put those wasteful practices up for examination,” Jay Harris, the magazine’s publisher, wrote in an e-mail. “In terms of the zeitgeist, I suspect there was some thought that America may be now, in the New Depression, embracing its inner thrift – waste these days just feels less acceptable.”

Elizabeth Kolbert is wrong. I've been around for '35 years', and environmental politics was never much of a response to 'the public mood', unless you mean the public mood of people in Malibu and Martha's Vineyard, eager to protect their views and the value of their property. The recent cutbacks cited in this article are just visible exposure of how negligable this issue is to the marketplace and the ballot box.
For the same 35 years that Kolbert refers to, the public has been inundated with truly cynical predictions of catastrophe unless - when it is boiled down - liberal Democrats of a certain social class are elected to positions of political authority. Kolbert's own employer, The New Yorker, was caught out by real scientists peddling the theory that electric power lines cause cancer. Beyond that, the public has heard all about over-population, 'the limits to growth', the threat to world peace of Reagan's arms buildup, the threat to ordinary Americans of AIDS, the threat of toxic chemicals per Love Canal (another astounding media myth), Sarin, avian flu . . . it's not 'science', it's the sensibility of the urban chattering classes. Media people who have hyped the threats posed by 'growth' have only themselves to blame if consumers are jaded.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 24 Apr 2009 at 12:38 PM
I happen to like this quote from the first earthday:
“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
#2 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 24 Apr 2009 at 03:49 PM
How about we all take personal responsibility for our own area(s) of influence. We personally won't litter, graffiti, will recycle, and take to task our own, family, company or organization for waste and trashing the environment. Common sense and no legislation, we can even teach it in our schools. Of course, enforcement will always have to be there, but we could start right away if for instance we only got rid of all of the marketing packaging and double packaging of products. There are a lot of personal green initiatives we could have. Then the man made global warming, excuse me, "climate change" may not be such a devisive issue. Take the money away and the crisis will pass without incident just as the predictions of the first earth day prognosticators seem ludicrous now. Man is not that powerful. Stupid, messy, ignorant, lazy, spoiled, self involved, power hungry and in many cases pure evil, but overall not that powerful at all. Obama is nothing more than a politician. When the rubber meets the road he will say anything and buddy up to who ever will vote for him. We (the people) on the other hand are the driving force in the culture and our Republic needs us now more than ever. Get to work America you won't find personal responsibility in a politician. Just flip flopping like a mackerel on dry land.
#3 Posted by paul, CJR on Fri 24 Apr 2009 at 10:49 PM