While it seems that Tarbell was clearly distanced from contemporary environmentalist groups, the decades since her death in 1944 have seen a fascinating development in the relationship between “Lady Muckraker” and environmentalism. In 1998, for example, a somewhat peculiar episode unfolded, when the Berkeley-based environmentalist group Project Underground listed Tarbell as one of their ex-officio oil campaigners and public relations contacts. The group, which was protesting the merger between the two giant oil producers, Exxon and Mobil Corporations, clearly felt that Tarbell, despite having been dead for over half a century, was an important figure to associate with their cause. This example, while entertaining, is a fascinating example of Tarbell’s significance and appeal as a historical figure. Project Underground had a distinctly environmental motivation, yet still chose to adopt Tarbell, who was primarily concerned with monopoly over-reach and hostile business practices.

Beyond this clear instance of Tarbell’s legacy being adopted by an environmental group, recent decades have seen a different kind of inclusion. Primarily, this takes the form of Tarbell being recognised as an ancestor, or pioneer, in the anti-big-oil industry rather than as an environmentalist figure. In an interview for his book Private Empire ExxonMobil and American Power, author Steve Coll described how he relates to Tarbell and her work, yet sees that his work is more rooted in questions of “globalisation, limits and environmental stresses.”

What did Ida say?

Having looked at how other environmentalist groups and individuals related to Ida Tarbell, it is also important to examine what opinions she herself espoused. Her biography, All in The Day’s Work provides some of Tarbell’s most damning assessments of the oil industry’s destruction of nature:

Here, reflecting on the environment she grew up in within the Pennsylvania oil fields, Tarbell demonstrates not only a keen awareness of how oil production destroyed nature, but also a clear moral distaste for the industry. Alongside the damage to nature, Tarbell was also familiar with the danger oil posed to local communities. In 1892, while living abroad in Paris, Tarbell received the news that her hometown had been devastated by an oil spill and subsequent fire. In her youth, she had also witnessed other accidents, including seeing men covered in burns and injuries.

 In The History of Standard Oil, however, Tarbell gives much less attention to nature, or environmental damages, and instead focuses much more on the character of Rockefeller and his business. In one quote, however, she reveals that while she may not dedicate much of her word-count to environmental concerns, she is still very aware of them:

This quote also shows how Tarbell’s attitude towards the oil industry may have developed by the time she had investigated Standard Oil. Here, Tarbell’s presents the destruction of nature as deplorable, yet still understandable or even tolerable, given the economic necessity of oil production. For Tarbell, in this quote, the biggest tragedy was not the damage of the environment, but the “inactivity,” the failure to achieve any good to justify the damage caused.

The Appeal of Tarbell

Having looked at her relationship with environmentalism, alongside the kinds of views she personally voiced about the oil industry’s impact on nature, it is fair to question why Tarbell is such a fascinating and attractive character to associate with environmentalism.

I think that one of Tarbell’s most attractive features as a potential representative of environmentalism goes back to her tremendous success and impact on the American economy. Unlike modern-day more ecologically charged groups such as Greenpeace, Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, Tarbell’s work was widely celebrated, and had immense influence on the economy. The publishing of Tarbell’s work led not only to the dismantling of Standard Oil, but also the creation of institutions such as the Federal Trade Commission, which sought to prevent such a monopoly emerging again.

Tarbell, I would argue, is also an attractive figure for environmentalist causes to attempt to adopt due to the moving nature of her writing. Perhaps we can draw a parallel, in this respect, with the similarly moving power of Greta Thunberg’s speeches. The History of Standard Oil is a truly engrossing work, as she walks us through the deplorable acts of Rockefeller and Standard Oil. 

From her autobiography, All in The Day’s Work, she gives the reader an evocative insight into the toll investigating Rockefeller and the Oil Giant took on her:

Unpacking the relationship between Tarbell and environmentalism is difficult. On one hand, during her life, and in her most impactful work, she was separate from any clear environmentalist goal or ideology. Yet at the same time, she was also keenly aware of, and disgusted by, the damage to nature that the oil production around her caused. Moreover, her work and its legacy, while not rooted in environmentalism, has been used to uphold environmentalist groups and inspire other exposés of big-oil businesses.

What is most fascinating, however, is Tarbell’s own recognition of her complex relationship with big business, environmentalism and activism. She noted that her lack of concrete positions frustrated her contemporaries:

Ultimately, what makes Tarbell such an attractive figure is the tremendously beneficial impact she had on the oil industry. As we live, now, in an increasingly environmentally-aware world, where climate anxiety perpetuates throughout society, perhaps it is valuable to consider how sometimes the most effective change can come from the middle ground – from a person or group prepared to “settle down to doing business” with the policy makers and business leaders.