The Organic Machine: A Discussion of Human Relationships with Nature

By Derek Newberry, Advocacy Fellow

            As a concerned environmentalist and general lover of history, I have recently taken up reading about the dynamic relationships between humans and the natural world. Last week, I read Richard White’s 1995 book, The Organic Machine: The Remaking of the Columbia River, and I was moved by the seeming unending relevance and difficulty in establishing a clear and sustainable relationship with the natural world.

            This short yet surprisingly effective environmental history tells the story of the Columbia River from its inception in the early Miocene Epoch until 1995 BCE. White focuses his discussion on the interactions between Northwestern American peoples and their environment during the 19th and 20th centuries and describes how energy, labor, competition, and (in)justice bring people and nature together. He argues that the inevitable interactions between humans and nature have culminated in a misplaced overconfidence in human agency and ability to replace natural systems. Centuries of narrow and exploitative thinking have obfuscated healthier and more holistic interpretations of proper human-nature relationships and created the overworked and transformed Columbia of today. By viewing the Columbia and environment in general as interconnected and interdependent systems instead of as fragmented purposes and parts, society can prevent continued overuse, destruction, and pollution while reducing conflict, ethical injustice and loss of cultural heritage and social wellbeing. This message has a nearly universal application, from USGBC MA’s promotion of integrated green building and the sustainable built environment to the National Park Service’s protection of natural lands and our decisions on what we buy, where we get our food, and how we vote.


            From the beginning, White underscores how society has forgotten its close intimacy with nature, especially in regards to the Columbia River and the myriad of services it offers. Early on, he notes how the 258,200 square miles of river watershed create a dynamic energy system that constantly adjusts to “compensate for events that affect [it]”: suggesting that society should follow suit (White 6, 12). Yet many have lacked the heightened awareness necessary for effective adaptation and have experienced serious difficulties in their attempts to conquer or harness the power of the river. White provides an expansive backstory to demonstrate the foolhardy fishing and sailing journeys of newly established white settlers and entrepreneurs looking to exploit the river in the mid 19th century. Despite the many lives lost, white Americans focused on the singular aspects of the river, largely in the form of economic benefits from fishing, and ignored the natural balances and boundaries followed by all other organisms in the area for millions of years; balances understood by Native Americans for centuries were quickly forgotten.


            Unsurprisingly, the history of the Columbia has come to depict a classic example of careless environmental consumption and local destruction. As Americans moved in, Native Americans died in catastrophic smallpox and malaria epidemics, salmon were transformed from a valuable cultural symbol to an economic commodity to be canned and shipped away for profit, and the river became a haven for steamboats and small industry. As White says, “Oregonians sought to transform the river – to tame the bar, deepen the channels, and blast passages through rapids […] Humans forced the river to remove part of the sands and silt it annually deposited, and they took the rest, filling in marshes and creating new land” (37). The army corps of engineers and railroads started to reimagine the physical landscape, many pushed for more, for the contraction of dams, and expansion of farms, irrigation, and infrastructure. From the late 19th century on, increasing population size and demand for food led to overfishing that quickly spiraled out of control. Many conflicts also arose as fish started disappearing, capitalist became more powerful, and the river became more and more engineered; as some said, the rich industrialists and capitalists had “perverted work by using machines to plunder nature and displace human labor” (44).  

            In response, many people turned to the government to save their way of life. However, during the early to mid 20th century, the government had little idea of how to accurately manage natural systems. To stop fish stocks from disappearing, an intervention was targeted at enhancing the spawning process and building fish ladders or passes through dams (as pictured above at the John Day Dam) instead of preventing overfishing and blockages in the first place. The new salmon “hatcheries sought to wed technology and biology, to merge factory-like production with natural reproduction. The canners, many fishermen, and many experts on the fisheries came to regard nature as inefficient” (47). Desires to improve nature’s efficiency remain strong to this day despite their failure to actually increase salmon population sizes, improve relationships between Native Americans and others, and stop capitalist magnates from outcompeting smaller fishermen: a theme that rings true throughout much of human-environmental interaction around the world.

            Salmon population control became a particularly poignant topic of debate during the early 1920s. Over time government bodies took control of the entire salmon life cycle, from the ineffective “Frankensteinian” hatcheries to physically shipping young fish from the spawning grounds out to sea so they could avoid the dozens of dams built during the 20th century (47). Habitat destruction, deforestation, building, and overfishing have all but caused salmon to disappear today and now require humans to grow and move them from place to place so that they may mature to adulthood: all so that they may be fished by local fishermen later. White points out, “Salmon had knit together the energy of land and sea; they had knit together human and nonhuman labor; salmon had defined the river for millennia” (89). Now that they were disappearing, both native and local peoples loudly voiced their desires to save the salmon, but they rarely pushed to reduce the dams and infrastructure that caused their decline.


            The new equilibrium has decimated the salmon populations and made carp and shad the dominant fish species in the river. Meanwhile, Native Americans have desperately fought to enforce treaties “securing” their rights to fish salmon, and many other Americans in the Northwestern US argue for their rights to fish salmon. Consequently, the US government has hemorrhaged billions to breed and protect the once ubiquitous salmon population in the Columbia. These expenditures now outweigh the economic benefits from fishing the salmon, but to the locals, “Salmon are not so much a means of making a good living as symbols of the good life itself” (92). The misuse and increasing human influence have destroyed the most recognizable and culturally beloved aspect of the Columbia and encouraged an entrenched misunderstanding of healthy human-nature relationships.


            White also discusses the growth of dams and mixing of the organic and inorganic to utilize energy. During WWI, the need for centralized electrical power became an absolute necessity to reduce the coal burden on railways and make room for soldiers and supplies. However, while the “Columbia was the country’s greatest single source of hydroelectricity,” there was not enough demand to make their construction economic until FDR’s New Deal (54). FDR created thousands of local jobs and expanded jobs through dam building throughout the Columbia and facilitated the growth of heavy industry (such as the plant shown here, note the water pollution and proximity to the river). Leading into WWII, areas around the Columbia became hives of aluminum production which increased demand for additional dam building and provided an “immediate service as an outlet for human labor” (56). Interestingly, engineers viewed dams as mimicking nature since some of the largest glacial dams in the world existed in the same area during the Pleistocene epoch; in their view, they were returning it to a previous natural state (57). Nonetheless, increased damming harmed local wildlife, prevented fish from moving to spawning grounds, overstressed the landscape, and allowed for another and more harmful industry. After WWII, the plutonium industry (the Hanford site pictured here) took off with little understanding of the environmental impacts of nuclear materials and a possibility for local contamination. Eventually, nuclear power joined the mix and together these industries released large amounts of radionuclides and other toxins into the environment including arsenic, chromium, and iodine 131 to name a few (81). As with the management of salmon, after billions of dollars of cleanup, we still did not seem to understand, and we still had and have a “failed relationship with nature” (59).


            Overall, Richard White’s, The Organic Machine: The Remaking of the Columbia River, provides a distinct regional perspective on the mixing of social, economic, and cultural influences on the environment and the intense and constant relationship they share. Some of the notable and popular 19th century influences on the Columbia included Ralph Waldo Emerson and Lewis Mumford’s belief in a “utopian future” created through the mixing of machinery, labor, nature and society (58, 60). Of course, the dams and infrastructure provided power, irrigation, grew the economy and increased standards of living in the minds of most. Yet how much benefit did the industry and damming really bring when they also caused billions in toxic cleanup (Columbia river pollution pictured here) and natural management and irreplaceable losses of other natural systems and cultural pastimes such as fishing. These projects have brought about an uncompromising view of human dominance and control that has allowed salmon to transform from a once prosperous species to a “swimming genetic bank” (105). These ideals led to today’s oversimplified representation natural systems, an ignorance of our past, and belief that humans can disassemble and reassemble nature just like a machine (110).

            However, as the title suggests, the Columbia and natural systems around the world are not regular machines, but are instead “organic machines,” and regardless of our influence they are “still tied to larger organic cycles beyond our control” (112). Nature clearly “has purposes of its own which do not readily yield to desires to maximize profit,” and society must come together and understand the mutualistic relationship of nature and human society through careful analysis of the effectiveness and non-monetary impacts of change (113). Preventative measures and increased awareness through education and advocacy will help solve many of the issues society spends so much time mitigating. Using a preventative approach will prepare society for climate change and mitigate its impacts, it will enhance renewable energy initiatives, expand net zero building policies, and reduce toxic contamination of the environment we are so wholly dependent upon. No longer shall the future be “forged amidst our inattention,” but instead be carefully and humbly prepared for through socially and environmentally responsible work: and lots of it (64).

 

References

White, Richard. The Organic Machine: The Remaking of the Columbia River. Hill and Wang, 1995.

Images Listed in Order of Appearance 

Stanley, John Mix. Scene on the Columbia River. 1852, oil on canvas, Tacoma Art Museum, Washington. Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49105028

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “Cascade Locks and Falls.” Wikimedia Commons, Oct. 2007, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2740084

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “Fish ladder at John Day Dam.” Wikimedia Commons, Nov. 2005. Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=400114

United States Department of Energy. “Hanford N Reactor adjusted.” Wikimedia Commons, Feb. 2008, Image N1D0069267, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3504581

Falconer, David. “Industrial Plant on the Upper Columbia River.” Wikimedia Commons, Oct. 2011, NARA record: 1427627, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17082005

Daniels, Gene. “Effluent From Pulp Mills Pollutes Columbia River.” Wikimedia Commons, Oct. 2011, NARA record: 8463941, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16916904

 

 

Over 100 MA Organizations Sign Petition to Protect EPA Programs

By Derek Newberry, Advocacy Fellow


In less than two weeks, over 100 Massachusetts organizations, including a number of architectural firms, construction companies, universities, and energy efficiency and renewable energy organizations have signed on to the US Green Building Council's letter to protect the EPA's ENERGY STAR, WaterSense, and Safer Choice programs from losing funding. In opposition to the recently proposed budget, MA companies have demonstrated their commitment and support for smart and proven public programs that have vastly improved US consumer safety, expanded energy efficiency, and reduced trillions of gallons of unnecessary water use. While companies from around the country continue to back the initiative, MA has established itself as a leader in sustainability and environmentally conscious development.

Among their many benefits, ENERGY STAR, WaterSense, and Safer Choice have saved consumers, businesses, and state and local governments hundreds of billions in costs while providing effective technical assistance and research data for economic growth. ENERGY STAR has saved consumers over $430 billion in utility payments since its inception in 1992 and maintains an exceptional brand awareness of almost 90%. Cutting these programs will not only increase consumer’s energy bills and prevent an effective and sustainable energy transition into the future, but it will also eliminate or endanger tens of thousands of jobs around the country (and the world).


These programs have become international standards of excellence and demonstrate the ability for government programs to work effectively with the market to produce change. The EPA's ENERGY STAR, WaterSense, and Safer Choice programs have proven themselves as economically, environmentally, and socially indispensable and cannot be allowed to disappear or lose funding. Please take a moment to sign the USGBC’s letter to demonstrate your organization’s support for these essential programs. Please send your support to your representatives in congress if you are an individual and let them know how important these programs are to our health, our environment, and our future. 

Advocacy Alert: We need your help to save EPA programs

By USGBC MA


We're sure that you've seen recent news regarding potential cuts to Environmental Protection Agency programs. The EPA is important – they're the force that's helping our environment, and their mission is our mission. Global warming isn't a hoax, and we need to step up our game to make sure that our government is taking all necessary measures to combat this risk. 

The Office of Management and Budget released its plan for the proposed 2018 budget, which includes elimination of or deep cuts to vital programs.

The Environmental Agency Energy StarWaterSense, and Safer Choice are all at risk here.  

USGBC is working with Congress to preserve vital funding for these and other programs, and they need everyone's help to do it. 

Sign the USGBC letter now

You can also contact your elected official directly and let your support for these programs be heard.

This is a fight we all need to take part in, and we can't lose it.

Thank you!
The Advocacy Team at USGBC Massachusetts
 

The End of ENERGY STAR?

By Derek Newberry, Advocacy Fellow


UPDATE 3/21/17: The National USGBC created a call to action for companies and organizations to support the ENERGY STAR, Safer Choice, and WaterSense programs. If you are part of an organization that supports this, please sign the letter here. USGBC MA has signed on and encourages all other organizations concerned about energy efficiency to sign on as well!

President Trump's federal budget proposal will eliminate a number of vital energy efficiency programs from ENERGY STAR to ARPA-E. ENERGY STAR, which was started in 1992 by the EPA and DOE, has had unprecedented success in reducing consumer energy use. The program has prevented 2.7 billion metric tons GHG emissions and saved Americans $430 billion on their utility bills since the program’s inception in 1992. It has seen continuous increases in energy savings, emission reductions, and has become a paragon of sustainable branding with almost 90% of people associating the label with energy efficiency and quality. The budget cuts will leave at least 18,000 American jobless and endanger the 1.9 million American workers that work for the federally supported energy efficiency industry. 

While the program may be transferred to a private company, with a transition cost of $5 million, removing the ENERGY STAR label from federal control could discredit program, will likely prevent true third-party evaluation and verification, and will reduce American prominence in the energy efficiency field around the world. It will also hinder net zero energy building and LEED compliance and expansion. 

ENERGY STAR will be one of 60 other programs and 19 agencies to lose discretionary funding. Other energy-related programs to be cut include the Clean Power Plan, the International climate change programs, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, the State Energy Program, and the Rural Business and Cooperative Service’s discretionary programs.

On the other hand, as military budgets increase (by $54 billion) they will have more opportunities to invest in renewable energy technologies. In the name of efficiency, safety, and security, the DoD doubled its renewable power generation from 2011 to 2015 to 10,534 billion BTU and supported hundreds of millions in solar power contracts. The military plans to continue investing in renewables and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 established the DoD’s voluntary goal of 25% renewable energy consumption by 2025. The military desires to expand renewables and hybrid technologies to increase security by reducing the threat of grid attacks and current dangers of explosive fuels instead of to reduce emissions and save the planet.

However, as the current Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, has repeatedly noted his support for weaning the military off its fossil fuel dependence for national security reasons the military will likely continue on its path to clean energy and national security. Still, Trumps budget cuts to the energy programs like ARPA-E will actively hinder the expansion of new safe energy systems for the military and prevent new advancements and improvements in military technology.

Overall, the loss of ENERGY STAR will seriously weaken US energy efficiency standards and slow progress to a safe and sustainable future. Some hope can be found in expanded military clean energy use but much progress will be lost unless this budget is amended and improved to protect the American people. If you think ENERGY STAR should be protected then contact your congressional representatives and tell them to stop these cuts. 

 

 

Upcoming Breakfast Session: Acting on Our Mission Through Legislation 3/14

By USGBC MA


Policy plays an essential role in our daily lives: from the streets we walk on, to the buildings we work in and the hospitals that keep us healthy. We rely on policy to guide the evolution of the built environment to provide spaces for us to live and learn, but what can happen to our infrastructure during times of political change?

How can you as a citizen get involved? How can stakeholders facilitate effective change? Join our panel of policy experts to learn about the legislative process, green building coalition building, current legislative committee discussion and more!

Register here.

Panelists include:

  • Eric Wilkerson of ELM
  • Rep. Chris Walsh of Framingham
  • Rep Marjorie Decker of Cambridge
  • Moderated by Craig Foley

Tuesday, March 14th
8:30am-10:00am
50 Milk St, 15th Floor, Aristotle Room
Boston, MA, 02109