We humans dislike facing up to unpleasant truths

Silent Spring remains a landmark for environmentalists. It is rooted in sound science but also has vital moral and emotional dimensions. It exposes the dangers of pesticides and sets out the consequences for nature and people in clear and persuasive terms. And though dangerous chemicals are still in use and still causing harm, its publication helped avert a worse catastrophe.

In the five decades since its publication, environmental campaigners – working alone or through organisations such as Greenpeace – have had notable successes. They have formed the essential bridge between scientists and researchers on the one hand and the public, media and policy-makers on the other – a bridge that Rachel Carson had to create for herself in Silent Spring. This collaboration means that scientists can pursue evidence without being seen to be hampered by the pressures of campaigning; but also that their findings can be explained in ways that the public can assimilate.

The response to the depletion of the ozone layer shows this in action. The discovery of the ozone holes above the polar zones was the result of pure science. Environmental groups were key in alerting the wider public. When politicians realized that they had to act – a mix of a genuine understanding of the dangers and a response to public pressure – those same groups helped hold them to account. The credibility of the science was crucial, particularly in convincing Margaret Thatcher, herself a scientist, that Britain should take a leading role in building an international agreement to phase out CFCs and other dangerous chemicals.

Sadly, as with Silent Spring, the businesses with most at stake did their best to delay action, by disputing the science and by creating supposed ‘alternatives’ to CFCs that were themselves unproven or even harmful. There were honourable exceptions, but too many executives took the view that, whatever the scientific evidence, they would keep manufacturing chemicals that harmed the ozone layer until stopped by legislation.

We have seen the same response, on a far greater scale, over climate change. Here, though, opponents have seen that “lobbying” decision-makers or attacking environmental groups is not enough. So they have gone after the scientists.

And given the complexity of the science, and the way that we humans dislike facing up to unpleasant truths, it is no surprise that they have been so successful. How else could we explain the preposterous idea that climate change has been dreamt up by scientists eager for research grants – or that governments who are always ready to slash science budgets would be taken in by them?

So perhaps now, fifty years on, scientists need to reconsider the benefits of remaining in their labs while others seek to communicate their findings. The energy companies have brought the fight to them. If the conservation movement is to succeed in persuading the public to accept a carbon-free future, they must re-engage.

Rachel Carson remains a role model. She marshaled the scientific evidence, drawing on her own professional experience and those of colleagues, and on research by the agri-industrial complex itself. Though subject to a barrage of attacks then and after, her science has held up remarkably well to the passage of time.

Yet her work is not a dry treatise: it is also a call to arms in which the emotional content, though never distorting, is crucial. Her description of the loss of the robin from the lawns of American suburbia was poignant. Her warning that the bald eagle – the country’s national symbol – was heading for extinction because DDT was killing its young was all the more stark for being rooted in scientific evidence.

Throughout, she wrote with the ear of a poet, so that even her chapter titles – such as Beyond the Dreams of the Borgias, And no Bird Sings, or The Other Road – complement the hard data with an appeal to people’s imagination, even their soul.

She also understood that warnings are not enough: people want to know about the alternatives. The way she showed that spraying was futile, and that more ecologically sympathetic approaches actually worked better – her ‘other road’ – allowed the reader to take hope and prevented agri-industrialists from claiming there was no alternative.

Not every scientist could write Silent Spring. But every scientist who understands the dangers facing our planet – not just climate change, but other forms of unsustainable consumption and a vast range of forms of pollution, including pesticides – should consider how they can help reach out, past big business and campaigning groups, to reach the public. Unless they do, Rachel Carson’s warning of environmental catastrophe will still come to pass.

Recent Posts on Notebook

• Enslaved to maize: Why we need to re-think Malawi's agricultural future
• The real ghetto superstar: Why Floyd Mayweather is no Muhammad Ali
• The fight for social equality in Brazil
• Barking Blondes: Other people's dogs
• Secondary Breast Cancer: Good news but feeling blue

• Guest

  The farmers around me even spray herbicides onto the verges at
  the sides of the roads/lanes and the uncultivated banks of steams, it is almost
  a scorched earth policy….. Hardly surprising bees, hover flies and butterflies
  are in serious decline!

  These particular environmental vandals get over £80,000 in CAP subsidy from us the tax
  payers, there is an environmental element to these payments, but compliance is
  hardly policed

• ruralres62

  Caroline Lucas writes,  “Rachel Carson remains a role model. She marshalled the scientific evidence,……”
  Georgina Downs, on behalf of rural residents, did just the same in her presented evidence base and fantastic strong witness statements in her successful Judicial Review case in 2008. READ them and see the light!

  On Carson Caroline continues, “Yet her work is not a dry treatise: it is also a call to arms in which the emotional content, though never distorting, is crucial.”

  Georgina successfully answered that call to arms; that “bid to combat, gauntlet, glove, mobilize, open hostilities, rally, take up arms”; a thankless task in itself.

  If we are “facing up to unpleasant truths”, we must be aware it’s one task NGO’s in the UK, who claim to lead the field, haven’t even attempted;  have failed to address  and EVEN failed to fully understand; feedback suggests some leading NGOs do not publicly concede the difference between a JR and a personal Tort case, (of which Georgina’s case most definitely was not!)

  Of Carson, Caroline writes, “She also understood that warnings are not enough: ….”
    Again the parallels with Georgina’s work and efforts are stark.

  “The way she showed that spraying was futile, and that more ecologically sympathetic approaches actually worked better -her other road- allowed the reader to take hope and prevented agri-industrialists from claiming there was no alternative.”
   Last week a Monty Don comment piece elsewhere concurred with this view and supported Georgina’s approach.

  As for  …”people want to know about the alternatives.” YES, we rural residents and the public DO!
  What we, long suffering, affected  rural residents  do NOT want is the watered down, middle of the road compromise beloved of many NGOs like PAN UK and their media followers of late; with the weak manta of ” better nozzle technology from their industry planted stooge” (in the past) or currently, their “holy grail”  IPM (Integrated Pest Management); constantly dragged to the table in governmental, governance and press debate and in  public events and their recent annual conference.
  As an affected rural resident for some nearly 40 years, IPM  is far too weak a compromise, will change NOTHING and will not be an answer.

   I believe it to be  nothing short of a “sop” to unreliable, uncommunicative “un-green” current government and the industry lobbyists alike.

  It is my belief that what long suffering, affected  rural residents like me want is a “no nonsense” direct, properly informed, legally challenging approach, like the one Georgina has mounted and now lodged with the EU Court of Human Rights.

  It’s time lead NGOs recognised that the current NGO approach on these matters is nothing short of a “Bridge” between two opposing camps; informed affected  public and government/industry.

   It’s time NGOs responded to Caroline’s  appeal of  a “call to arms” , as Georgina Downs has, rather than continuing with what I perceive as a flawed alignment with the UK governmental’s “CRD” departmental approach; resulting in a sad effort to weaken and undermine the work done by the Likes of G Downs to date.

• ruralres62

  I have posted detailed comment. Where are the moderators today!!?

• ruralres62

  Second attempt at detailed posting blocked again!

• ruralres62

   Caroline Lucas writes, “Rachel Carson remains a role model. She
  marshalled the scientific evidence,……”
  Georgina Downs, on behalf of rural residents, did just the same in her
  fantastic strong evidence base and witness statements in her successful
  Judicial Review against DEFRA and the Government case in 2008.

  Caroline continues on Carson, “Yet her work is not a dry treatise: it is
  also a call to arms in which the emotional content, though never distorting,
  is crucial.”

  Georgina successfully answered that”call to arms”- that “bid
  to combat, gauntlet, glove, mobilize, open hostilities, rally, take up
  arms”; a thankless task in itself and one that none  of the  NGO’s in the
  UK who claim to lead the field have attempted; they have failed to do anything
  much effective in many of the rural residents views and EVEN fail to fully
  understand the real issue regarding public health; also feedback from the
  public who contact them suggests they do not publicly concede the difference
  between a Judicial Review case  and a personal Tort case (a Tort case which
  Georgina’s most definitely was not!)

  Of Carson, Caroline writes, “She also understood that warnings are not
  enough: ….”
  Again the parallels with Georgina’s work and efforts are stark.

  ” The way she showed that spraying was futile, and that more ecologically
  sympathetic approaches actually worked better -her other road- allowed the
  reader to take hope and prevented agri-industrialists from claiming there was
  no alternative.” . Last week a Monty Don comment piece elsewhere made a
  similar point and supported Ms Down’s approach.

• ruralres62

  ruralres part 2!
  As for  …”people want to know about the alternatives…..”. YES,
  we rural residents and the public do!

  What we, affected rural residents  do NOT want is the watered down,
  middle of the road compromise beloved of NGOs like PAN UK and
  their media followers of late; with suggestions from their former
  industry planted advisor that “an improved nozzle technology” approach  is the
  answer; or currently, their weak manta of IPM (Integrated Pest Management)
  constantly dragged to the table in EU, governmental, governance and press
  debate ; in their public events and recent annual conference.

  IPM is far too weak a compromise, will change NOTHING. It will not be an
  effective answer to the serious, public health issue of resident exposure. I
  believe it to be  nothing short of a “sop” to unreliable, uncommunicative “un=green” current  government and the industry lobbyists alike.

  NGOs and PAN UK in particular, need to be seen ” facing up to unpleasant
  truths” regarding this public health iniquity; they need to ANSWER that “call
  to arms” that “bid to combat, gauntlet, glove, mobilize, open hostilities,
  rally, take up arms”.

   Yes, Caroline Lucas summary is right (regarding public health in particular),
  “Unless they do, Rachel Carson’s warning of environmental catastrophe will
  still come to pass”.