I am confused by this discussion — both Curtis’ post at Grist and then this one here at Lawyers, Guns & Money— and it’s not because I can’t read or know environmental history, having been part of it. (FWIW, I organized one of the very first "environmental fairs" anywhere, at the University of Washington in 1969.)
Honestly, I am not sure what Curtis is claiming but it sounds as if she is saying that environmentalists of the sixties didn’t care about transformation of the economy. Didn’t get sustainability? Right? Is that it?
Well if that is it, then she is misinformed. I can go on chapter and verse but I want to make sure I spend the time making sure I understand what she is saying. Specifically. Not just broad generalizations without any examples.
So what is she saying? And what is Loomis saying? Call me old and decrepit if you like. But I know my history and I was there and sustainability has been part of the story from the 1950s onward. Environmentalism (David Brower for example) was not just about saving charismatic species and landscapes.