of shale fracking operations [see Documents 172 and
173B] and the banning of genetically modified organ-
isms (GMOs) [see Document 155].
Despite resistance at the national level, state
and local governments have labored on [see Docu-
ments 155, 161, 162, and 163]. In addition, a host of
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) [see Docu-
ment 166] as well as regional consortiums comprised
of various governmental entities and environmental
and other NGOs [see Documents 159 and 166] have
developed effective and forward-looking programs to
lead the nation toward sustainability goals yet to be
addressed by national policy.
California, long a leader in establishing for-
ward-looking environmental policies, created the
first statewide green building standards. New York
and Los Angeles as well as a number of much smaller
cities, including Seattle, Oakland, and Boulder, have
set in motion some of the most innovative programs
to deal with such problems as how to expand mass
transportation and encourage cycling [see Document
162] and how to decrease the amount of waste going
to landfills [see Document 161].Feeding a Growing Population
In mid-2017 the population of the United States
was over 325 million, with 85 percent living in urban
areas, and it is projected to grow to nearly 390 million
by 2050. Ten U.S. cities had more than a million inhabit-
ants (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phila-
delphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, and
San Jose) and two, New York and Los Angeles, were
among the world’s 31 megacities.—urban agglomera-
tions with more than 10 million people. Twenty-four
others had more than 500,000 inhabitants.
While cities and inner suburbs with walkable
neighborhoods and good public transportation have
become increasingly attractive [see Document 171],
the outer suburbs that provide few local jobs and lit-
tle or no mass transportation have begun to lose their
appeal and have seen sharp declines in real estate val-
ues in recent years. On the other hand, there are sec-
tions of America where the rural population and the
number of small farms, after declining for more than
half a century, is now increasing.
Part of the impetus for the growth of small farms
has been increasing interest in eating local, organic
food, an interest that was sparked by people like thea planet capable of sustaining human life, but others
view such an idea as alarmist and insufficiently sup-
ported by facts.
Political Polarization and Federal
Inaction
“During the 1980s and early 1990s, party activ-
ists—and not grassroots sentiment, which was still
broadly supportive of the environmental agenda—
drove the GOP to the right and introduced a fierce
anti-environmentalism as a marker of party identity.”^1
As a consequence, no major environmental legisla-
tion has been passed at the federal level in more than
a quarter of a century. Motivated by an economic phi-
losophy that favored limited regulation, the national
government during the George W. Bush presidency put
the brakes on, and in some cases even reversed, poli-
cies and programs designed to improve air and water
quality and increase protection of wildlife and natu-
ral resources [see Document 152]. Even as evidence
of climate change accumulated [see Documents 137,
and 160], concern about the dangers of oil, gas, and
coal extractions increased [see Documents 167, 172,
and 173], recognition of the depletion of the nation’s
fisheries became more widespread [see Document
147], and worry about contaminants in water grew
[see Documents 159 and 170], politicians, especially at
the national level, were unwilling to impose new envi-
ronmental regulations. The Obama administration
attempted to create policies that would resolve some
of the competing demands on America’s resources [see
Document 173] and make the United States a leader in
the effort to slow climate change [see Document 182],
but the Trump administration is intent on undoing
much of Obama’s environmental legacy and is creat-
ing policies favorable to business interests and to oil,
gas, coal, and timber companies
The political divisiveness, fed by a pandering to
extremists on the left as well as the right, has impeded
the development of solutions to a variety of pressing
problems, including climate change. On the extreme
right you have those who claim that climate change
caused by human activity is a debatable theory [see
Document 181] or even a hoax and those who oppose
federal regulation of private property and federal con-
trol of public lands.^2 On the extreme left are anti-cap-
italists who are anti-growth and anti-big-business [see
Document 176] and demand a complete shut-down
204 The Environmental Debate