Is environmentalism still relevant?
Over two centuries after Mary Shelley published Frankenstein, the story has inspired more than 50 film adaptations—including the latest blockbuster this fall—and endless spinoffs, spoofs, and Halloween paraphernalia.
But the “mad scientist unleashes a monster” trope isn’t Shelley’s only lasting legacy. The modern environmental movement traces its roots to the early nineteenth century circle of writers, poets, and artists she belonged to—Romantics who celebrated emotion, imagination, and the power of the natural world. This movement pushed back on the Industrial Revolution’s focus on limitless economic growth and scientific control over nature (enter Dr. Frankenstein). As the environmental costs of the Industrial Revolution became harder to ignore, Romantic works helped spark early activism and calls for Britain’s Parliament to enact protections against the soot and smog-choked landscape of England.
At the same time, conservation groups began to form in the United States. John Muir, a young Scottish immigrant, became a leading voice for preserving wilderness and championing a national park system. He worked alongside Teddy Roosevelt—often called the “conservationist president”—to preserve our natural landscapes “for the use and benefit of our people as a whole.”
By the mid-twentieth century, the rapid industrial growth that followed World War II fueled new prosperity—and new environmental risks. Growing scientific research and public awareness about pollution, pesticides, and industrial chemicals sparked a new chapter for the American environmental movement. Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring exposed the dangers of pesticides like DDT, showing how chemical pollution threatened both wildlife and human health. Her work helped drive major policy changes, including the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1972.
Against the backdrop of some major environmental disasters like the nuclear meltdowns at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, global awareness of environmental issues grew and international collaboration accelerated. Out of this moment came the alphabet soup of organizations that we hear about today. In 1988, the UNEP established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to bring together scientists to assess the growing body of climate research and inform global leaders. While the IPCC focuses on gathering and assessing climate science, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is charged with turning that science into action. Its annual Conference of the Parties meetings have become the world’s central forum for climate negotiations, and have produced agreements like the 2015 Paris Agreement, which aims to keep warming well below 2°C.
This last bit likely sounds familiar, and brings us to where we are today. Celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio and Greta Thuneberg have stepped forward as environmental leaders, demanding more be done to curb fossil fuel emissions and limit the impact of global warming on our planet. But in today’s polarized climate—where some policies move forward and others seem to move backward—it’s fair to ask, are we actually any better off now than the Romantics who once railed against the consequences of the Industrial Revolution? In other words, if we’ve had nearly 300 years of momentum behind us, why haven’t we been able to crack this nut?
Environmentalism has delivered major successes: Legislation like the Clean Air and Water Act has dramatically improved the air we breathe and the water we drink. Lead has been completely phased out of gasoline, and the Endangered Species Act has brought species like the bald eagle and gray wolf back from the edge of extinction. These victories show that coordinated action can work. But recent progress has slowed. Why?
Some argue that the environmental movement too narrowly defines problems as “environmental.” Limited, technical policy fixes like pollution controls and vehicle mileage standards are like bringing Teddy Roosevelt’s big stick to a gunfight: outdated and ineffective tools against the broader economic and social implications of climate change. Carbon emissions are literally everywhere, intertwined with every aspect of modern living—from the food we eat, to how we move and where we buy stuff around the world, to the digital and AI tools all systems now rely on. The problem is no longer simply environmental, and to untangle the feedback loops that are involved requires far more than a doubling down on traditional tactics. Instead, it’s a total-system challenge that necessitates completely rebuilding our energy economy, innovation and investment pipeline, and global policy architecture. It requires the kind of leap Mary Shelley made at 19, when—on a simple dare from friends—she wrote Frankenstein and defined a genre.
Environmentalism deserves credit for many of the wins of the postindustrial era, but perhaps it’s time to widen the lens of the movement. To create a healthy and vibrant future for our planet and its inhabitants, there needs to be room in the conversation for people from the political left and right, global north and south, and everywhere in between. We need tenacious innovators willing to take risks—people ready, like Shelley, to bet on a daring new idea.
Want to dare your students to make sense of the history of environmentalism and how it ties into our current climate reality? Here’s how:
- Start with an opener: Ask students take a few minutes to brainstorm what the term environmentalism means to them. What’s included—and not included—in their definitions? Have them share their ideas with a partner.
- Have students read the “Environmentalism” article, and then complete the Climate Timeline activity.
- Next, show the video Exploring the Grand Challenges and have students read the article “Solutions to the Grand Challenges.”
- Working independently or in pairs, have students craft a claim in response to these questions: What would a modernized, more-effective environmental movement need to include? What would you call this movement?