Barry Commoner at 90

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

NY Times, June 19, 2007
A Conversation With Barry Commoner
At 90, an Environmentalist From the ’70s Still Has Hope
By THOMAS VINCIGUERRA

Before Al Gore became synonymous with global warming, Barry Commoner was 
warning the public about the delicate condition of planet Earth. Long 
associated with the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems at Queens 
College, Dr. Commoner has for decades been agitating to restore 
ecological balance to the biosphere, whether by outlawing nuclear 
testing or spreading the practice of recycling. Time magazine once 
nicknamed him “the Paul Revere of the environmental movement.”

Dr. Commoner, who turned 90 on May 28, is enjoying something of a 
resurgence. The M.I.T. Press has just published a new biography, “Barry 
Commoner and the Science of Survival,” by Michael Egan. In August, he 
will be the subject of “Science, Democracy and Environment,” a symposium 
at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in New 
York. He is also writing a book on the subject that first brought him to 
public attention almost 40 years ago: whether DNA alone is responsible 
for an organism’s traits.

Though he stepped down as director of the Center for the Biology of 
Natural Systems in 2000, Dr. Commoner still commutes to its headquarters 
from his home in Brooklyn Heights. At his house, with the Statue of 
Liberty in distant view, he recently reflected on his legacy.

Q. In 1970, around the time of the first Earth Day, you said, “We have 
the time — perhaps a generation — in which to save the environment from 
the final effects of the violence we have done to it.” What’s your 
assessment now?

A. We’ve really failed to do more than a few specific things. We don’t 
use DDT on the farm anymore. We don’t use lead in gasoline anymore. 
Environmental pollution is an incurable disease. It can only be 
prevented. And prevention can only take place at the point of 
production. If you insist on using DDT, the only thing you can do is 
stop. The rest has really been sort of forgotten about. Except that now, 
global warming has sort of consolidated the independent environmental 
hazards that many of us had been working on all of these years.

Q. So you don’t think global warming is detracting from other concerns?

A. No, it’s the other way around. If you ask what you are going to do 
about global warming, the only rational answer is to change the way in 
which we do transportation, energy production, agriculture and a good 
deal of manufacturing. The problem originates in human activity in the 
form of the production of goods.

The Chinese like to say, “Crisis means change.” It means you can get 
things done. Unfortunately, I think that most of the “greening” that we 
see so much of now has failed to look back on arguments such as my own — 
that action has to be taken on what’s produced and how it’s produced. 
That’s unfortunate, but I’m an eternal optimist, and I think eventually 
people will come around.

Q. What do you think of the debate over the extent to which humans are 
primarily responsible for global warming?

A. No one in his right mind would deny that we’re getting warmer. The 
question is, is this due to things that people have chosen? And I think 
the answer is that all of the things we have chosen to do include the 
release of materials like carbon dioxide, which affect the retention of 
heat by the planet.

You could argue that maybe this is a high point in a heating/cooling 
cycle. Well, we’re adding to the high point. There’s no question about 
it. So it seems to me the argument that there are natural ways in which 
the temperature fluctuates is a spurious one. If we accept that we’re in 
a cycle, it’s idiocy to increase the high point.

Q. There’s been some second-guessing about using nuclear power instead 
of fossil fuels. Do you agree?

A. No. This is a good example of shortsighted environmentalism. It 
superficially makes sense to say, “Here’s a way of producing energy 
without carbon dioxide.” But every activity that increases the amount of 
radioactivity to which we are exposed is idiotic. There has to be a 
life-and-death reason to do it. I mean, we haven’t solved the problem of 
waste yet. We still have used fuel sitting all over the place. I think 
the fact that some people who have established a reputation as 
environmentalists have adopted this is appalling.

Q. There’s also been some reconsideration of using DDT selectively 
against malaria, rather than as a mass-quantity pesticide. Have you 
rethought this?

A. Well, you know, I had something to do with the ban. I think there are 
situations in which you could use DDT surgically. I don’t want to put 
anybody into a position of avoiding the use of something in a particular 
life-and-death situation. But there are many ways of solving the malaria 
problem, including reparations. Malarial regions ought to be given more 
money by wealthy countries. Until we get to the point where there is no 
other way to do it, I don’t see any sense in it.

Q. Have you retreated from or reconsidered any aspects of your philosophy?

A. You mean have I made any mistakes? Well, I constantly think; I’m not 
used to rethinking. Let me think a minute. [Pause] The answer is no. I 
hate to say it. [Longer pause] What I have experienced over time is that 
environmental problems are easier to deal with in ways that don’t go 
into their interconnections to the rest of what we are.

Take recycling. You can say this is something that people ought to do. 
And you forget that a lot of people live in cramped quarters. There’s no 
way of putting extra recycling containers where they live. That problem 
of poverty will condition very much what you can accomplish. These 
people haven’t the time to do it because they’re living from day to day. 
I can think of situations in which, if I were doing it over again, I 
would have been more sensitive.

Q. How green a lifestyle do you lead?

A. Well, what suits me. I see no reason to have my shirts ironed. It’s 
irrational. My wife and I try hard to do things that are sensible. I 
reject synthetics and plastics as a kind of religion. I tell people it’s 
against my religion to wear plastic clothing. It’s uncomfortable.

Q. Do you use mass transit?

A. I never use mass transit because to get from Brooklyn Heights to 
Queens College means taking the train into Manhattan and out again to 
Queens, then a bus. My time availability can’t tolerate that. So I drove 
to work every day for a long time until a conspiracy between my wife and 
the director of the center convinced me that I should stop driving. And 
I now travel by taxi. I have never been an eco-freak. I think it’s just 
a business of trying to weigh what your aims are, what your life is 
about. To me, it’s more important to get my work done than to ride the 
subway.

Q. You ran for president as the candidate of the Citizens Party in 1980 
and finished fifth. Have you been tempted again to run for office?

A. Often. Every time Bush does anything, I feel I should have won. You 
see, if I had won, we wouldn’t have had Reagan. And if we hadn’t had 
Reagan, the entire course of the country would have been different. I 
actually think it was a mistake to run a presidential campaign. It would 
have been much more sensible for me to run in the primaries and to make 
a good showing in a few states and make a point there.

The peak of the campaign happened in Albuquerque, where a local reporter 
said to me, “Dr. Commoner, are you a serious candidate or are you just 
running on the issues?”