This is the Environment Show. It's about our stewardship of the Earth and the beauty
and mystery of life in all its forms. The Environment Show's a national production
may possible by the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Turner Foundation,
the JM Kaplan Fund, and Heming's Motor News, the Bible of the Collector Carhabee,
1-800-C-A-R-H-E-R-E. Your host is Peter Burley.
Coming up on this week's Environment Show, we speak with the EPA Administrator Carol Browner.
She says human health compels the adoption of proposed new air pollution standards and the
science is sound. Listen her comments. And the U.S. and Canada are fighting over diminishing
stocks of salmon, talks are broken down, and Canada has detained U.S. ships, a portrait of the
mountains of British Columbia. And the Earth Calendar, we find stellar sea lion colonies by following
our noses. These stories and more coming up on this week's Environment Show.
Carol Browner, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, has been a busy
couple of weeks defending the proposed tightening of clean air regulations relating to both ozone and
particulate matter. She's testified before Congress and also taken on her critics in public forum.
She's clear that the debate has not raised issues about the scientific validity of EPA's proposals.
She also says that the budget deal is good news for EPA. We spoke with her in her office in
Washington. Carol, you've been in a major scrap with respect to the clean air regs in which the
industry representatives have spent a lot of time attacking the science behind EPA's proposals.
What is the strategy to deal with those attacks? I think it's important to recognize that the
Congress and every president since Richard Nixon has believed that the American people deserve
public health clean air standards based on the best available science. EPA has proposed
to update, if you will, to the public health air standards on one on ozone and one on particles.
And it is based on more science than we've had for probably any decision we've ever made.
250 peer reviewed published scientific reports.
And are they holding up pretty well as you see the opposition?
There have been any number of those in industry who oppose us, who have raised questions about
this or that study or this or that conclusion in one of the published scientific peer reviewed
studies. What we have found in each and every instance is that these were questions that were
part of the four-year scientific review. EPA looked to an outside panel of scientists,
people from industry, universities, medical health experts, toxicologists, air specialists,
and every single question that has been raised by anyone, including those who oppose us,
was a question that was thoroughly considered and debated in the four-year process.
And those panels are reached agreement that the current standards for ozone, the current
standards for particles leave far too many people at risk in this country that there's far
too much aggravated asthma, bronchitis, respiratory illness. And in the case of fine particles of
15,000 premature deaths. Politically, it's the Congress swayed by any of the
science, or do you think this is going to be determined on other matters?
Belong the Clean Air Act is very, very clear. It says a public health standard based on the best
available science. In the case of ozone, the standard hasn't been updated for 20 years. In the case
of particles, for the better part of a decade, what EPA has proposed to do is based on what Congress,
President Nixon, President Carter, President Bush, all told us to do.
Evaluate the science and update the standards if necessary to protect the health of the American people.
Let's spend a moment on your agenda. You've been administrator now for the first Clinton
administration. The second one is begun. What are you looking forward to in terms of your priorities
in the coming months? I have thought to really move the agency in a direction that recognizes the
need for tough public health and environmental standards, whether it be air pollution, water pollution,
toxic waste cleanup recognizing most particularly that when we set these kinds of standards,
let's make sure the health of our children who are frequently the most vulnerable that their
health has actually protected. Once we set a tough public health standard, then let's look for the
common sense, the cost effective ways to really reduce the problem. Let's make sure that we engage
the public in that decision-making process. For example, we want to continue to expand the public's
right to know so that they can be an active participant in making decisions about how best to
protect the health of their children, their communities, their air, their water.
I know that one of the things you're working on is setting up a separate
agency or a not agency, but division within EPA that would focus on children's health
is that necessary in order to move the bureaucracy, does one have to build these separate entities to
get things moving? I have created an office of children's health to give the agency one place out
of which we can direct a variety of efforts, whether it be our research, looking at the growing body
of science that shows us that children are affected perhaps more so than adults when it comes to
air pollution, understanding better the increase in asthma and aggravated asthma among our children,
understanding that drinking water contaminants that may not affect an adult, affect a child.
It also gives us a place to ensure that we are using all of the tools available to us,
to really do what we think needs to be done based on the science in terms of protecting the
health of our children. Last year, as you pointed out, shutting down EPA seemed to be a congressional
objective. The voters didn't seem to approve of that and things are a little better this year. Do
you anticipate smooth or going in terms of your differences with the Congress or the next?
The budget, there's very, very good news. As the president said repeatedly over the last year and a
half, we can both balance the budget and protect our priorities, including education and the environment.
The budget agreements, the bipartisan budget agreement announced by the president and congressional
leadership in the last month does exactly that. Specifically agreed to in that arrangement is
funding for EPA's operations, specifically committed to. We're not going to find ourselves in that kind
of debate that could result in a shutdown, if you will. I think it is a recognition on the part
of the Congress that the American people continue to believe that part of what government should
do is protect the things we all share, our air, our water, our land, and that you want a strong
environmental agency able to set tough public health standards, able to take an enforcement
action when those standards are violated, able to clean up the toxic waste dumps.
That was Carol Browner, administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Joining us now with an update on our listener comments is Stephanie Goishman. Stephanie,
what do we have this week? Well, Peter, one caller spoke about our program on endocrine disruptors.
These are the chemicals that affect human and animal reproductive systems,
and his comment relates to a statement that more tests are needed.
They were talking about the book Our Stone Future, and I disprove
our way of this, whoopers, that human beings are somehow immune to what can affect animals.
We see that chemicals on the environment are affecting animals. I don't think there's any question
about that. The question seems to be, oh, but can it affect us? Well, obviously we use
laboratory animals to test things and see what their effect on humans would be. Why does
it's a funny attitude that because it's something produced by industry or big business,
it may affect animals, but it may not affect us. Well, may not isn't good enough.
That's all for this week, Peter. We hope you'll share your comments with us. Give us a call.
Our number is 1-888-49-Green.
Almost a shooting war. That's how the head of a fisherman's organization in the Pacific
Northwest described the stalemate between the US and Canada over salmon. Talks have broken off,
and Canada has confiscated US ships for failing to abide by their regulations.
The basis of the dispute stems from declining numbers of salmon as fishing is increased,
and the quality of the environment has declined. The environment shows Thomas Lally has this report.
In the Pacific Northwest, salmon is a huge industry supporting whole communities,
and salmon is a big part of many Native American cultures. A treaty exists between the US and Canada,
which is supposed to make sure both countries get their fair share of salmon.
Jim Pipkin is with the US Department of the Interior. He's been the chief US negotiator for
Pacific salmon until recently when the State Department took the lead as negotiations broke down.
There are two major issues under the Pacific salmon treaty. One has to do with conservation,
and the universally recognized need for conservation of salmon resources on the West Coast.
The other major issue under the treaty is a kind of equitable sharing of the fisheries since
fish do, in fact, migrate along the coastline and tend to stray into waters that are fished by
one country or the other that are not necessarily the country of origin.
But those goals have not been easy to achieve. Canadian officials say they are getting the
short end of the stick as US fishermen take more than their fair share of salmon.
Brian Riddle is a research scientist for the Department of Fisheries in Canada. He says the
salmon issue is complicated because when the fish leave their home river, they often migrate
north into the territory of another country. Salmon are highly migratory. The fisheries in
Canada and the United States unavoidably intercept each other's fish, which means that we catch
theirs and they catch our fish. And that, so the situation in the treaty is that both countries
recognize that the United States intercepts more Canadian fish than Canada does of the United States.
And therein lies the controversy. Canada says the US rivers they rely upon for salmon are in much
worse shape than their own rivers, which in turn provides salmon to American fishermen.
Therefore, American fishermen are taking more salmon than the Canadians, and that violates the
treaty. These assertions are reportedly backed up by the New Zealand diplomat mediating the
talks between the US and Canada. Bringing fishing levels in balance would likely mean dramatic cuts
in the number of salmon American fishermen could take. Already some American fishermen have been
forced to cut back or stop fishing altogether. Glenn Spain is the Northwest Regional Director of
the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. The US has done a lozzy job, frankly.
We've crashed the stocks in the Columbia because of hydropower mismanagement,
deliberate mismanagement for the purpose of gearing the entire Columbia River system toward
irrigation, toward barge traffic, and away from salmon protection. The Columbia River is the
once was the most abundant salmon producing river in the world, and now it's only a shadow of itself.
And it's been systematically changed to be a series of stagnant ponds for all practical purposes,
stagnant reservoirs. It is no longer functioning like a river, and this is one of our main
criticisms of the federal government in this process, is they're not fessing up to the fact that
much of the crisis has been created by the United States. And you can trace it right down to what's
been done or what's been failed to be done in the Columbia River. But the official US position
denies any inequities. Jim Pipkin says salmon populations vary from year to year for a number of
reasons. He says he'd like to see the US and Canada base the number of salmon they catch on how
many salmon are available in a given year. We have proposed that all the regimes under the
Pacific salmon treaty be based on abundance. And quite simply, that means that you would agree on
a kind of share level expressed either as a percentage or as a harvest rate that each country
would be entitled to. And then if abundance goes up or down, that is if the absolute numbers of
fish go up or down, that would be governed by the sharing level that you've agreed on.
Salmon habitat has been degraded by a wide variety of ills, like erosion caused by logging,
mining, and agriculture. But Glenn Spane says by far the biggest threat to salmon are dams
because they prevent the fish from getting down rivers to the ocean. Today the federal government
spends millions to ship salmon by truck and barge to the sea. But the results have not been
encouraging. The primary problem for the Pacific salmon treaty and this is right now pretty close
to a shooting war with Canada is the mismanagement in the Columbia River. That has been the
linchpin in the whole problem. And the more we ignore the Columbia and the more we fail from the
U.S.I. to grapple with the fundamental issues, we're never going to get anywhere. About the time
negotiations between the U.S. and Canada broke off, Canada seized four U.S. ships for violating
some of their fishing laws. The incident was reminiscent of what happened a little over two years ago
when Canada impounded a Spanish vessel at gunpoint in international waters in the Atlantic.
They said the ship was overfishing turbot. The incident prompted both countries to threaten
breaking diplomatic ties with each other. Few expect the current impasse between U.S. and Canada
to go that far. But as populations of salmon and other fish continued to decline,
controversies like these are becoming more common. Meanwhile the populations of salmon and the
life of our rivers hang in the balance. For the Environment Show, I'm Thomas Lally.
What do you think about the salmon plate? The Environment Show wants to know, call our toll-free
reaction line at 1-888-49-Green. That's 1-888-49-Green. Leave a message and one of our producers will
get back to you. Our email address is green at wamc.org. That's green at wamc.org. Tell us what's on
your mind or send us questions you have about the environment. You can visit us on the internet
and hear the Environment Show anytime. It's at www.enn.com slash ENVSHOW.
We all have places which are special to us. For some there's city streets, for others
there deep in the wilderness. In his book, Landscapes of the Interior, author Don Gaten found a
piece of himself he had never known while camping alone. He presents a portrait of the mountains in
British Columbia. I set a fast pace up the trail walking towards the first night in the mountains
of southeastern British Columbia. The trail gained altitude steadily, making a series of
switchbacks along the lower flanks of the massive Kokonee ridge. Down slope on my left lay the creek,
hidden by the trees but plainly audible when I stopped to listen.
Beyond the creek and sweeping upward again was the parallel twin of the ridge that I was on.
It's naked granic peaks, now fawn colored in the late summer sunlight.
Far up ahead these two parallel ridges converged and my destination was the high level saddle
that lay at the center of that convergence. The trail rose through one last steep switchback.
I climbed very deliberately over the last few feet and then stepped out onto the open saddle.
Here was lithosphere, the world of rock. I stood between the two jagged electric ridges
two continuous fractures of granite that were born in ancient buckling of British Columbia's crust.
The nervous energy that had propelled me up the trail switchbacks was still with me.
It was getting dark and I was alone on a mountain so I turned my attention to finding a place to camp.
A few hundred yards farther onto the saddle I saw a small lake, a lovely mons cupped between the two
converging ridges. I found a level spot for the tent almost a promontory above the lake that was
carpeted with alksedge and moss. For the next 20 minutes I busied myself arranging lantern and tent
and sleeping bag creating this odd little island of domesticity amongst a sea of rock.
My concentration in rapidly fading daylight was total.
Finally I sat down in front of the erected tent in the tension of the last several hours released.
An unexpected and curious wave of motion passed through me. I saw that I had unwittingly chosen
to camp in the center of a magnificent twilight amphitheater. In front of me amidst the rock rubble
lay a lake of darkening indigo glass. The two ridges that buttressed each side were still
phosphorescing from departed sun while the sky darkened steadily towards pure night.
High above on a vast prasinium arch rode Venus in the great wheeling moon.
A sudden unexpected spasm caught my breath held it for a brief revealing moment and then passed.
For the next few minutes I cried uncontrollably until a deep internal wellspring I had never known
or acknowledged was finally and profoundly emptied.
Author Don Gaten reading from his book Landscapes of the Interior published by new society publishers
on the North Pacific coast of the US, Canada and Russia. Small cities of stellar sea lions have formed.
It happens every year when the animals mate and give birth. Right now is about when the
breathing is taking place. Richard Merrick heads stellar sea lion research for the National
Marine's fishery service. Well biologically this is the end of their reproductive cycle in the sense
that this is the time when pups are being born and that's too much the same throughout their
range which goes from southeast California all the way up through Alaska and into Russian waters.
Beginning about the last week of May running through the first week of July pups are being born
and about a week or two after the pup is born the female breeds again with another male
and the process starts over again. Merrick says stellar sea lions spend much of their time in the water
where their graceful animals known for their playfulness. They're often seen riding waves like
a surfer but when they get down to the business of mating and birthing they head to shore.
Like other marine mammals stellar sea lions are much less graceful on land. They waddle around
clumsily and communicate by barking. Merrick says you can find a stellar's colony by following your
nose. It's a unique experience. The northern rookries are a lot different than the ones down south
where the heat makes a real difference. You know you realize that these these animals are typically
picking a place that doesn't get washed by water during the summer. So all the feces and all the
blood and all the afterbursts all these things collect and the place develops a sort of unique aroma
and you can't avoid smelling it. In the north where it's it rains more and it's wetter you don't
quite smell it so often but when the sun comes out it's very pungent. So you have that and that's
the frequently that's how we have been able to find some of the the rookries that are more
inaccessible. There are places where the the rookries are backed by steep cliffs and trees and
can't really see them but you can smell it. Other times it's this constant din sound that's
surround you. Even though the males aren't vending or trying to get territories they frequently
vocalize and they have a deep deep voice. You hear these rumbles of their voices and then the pups are
are calling for the moms they're they're going eh eh eh eh eh eh eh eh eh eh eh. And the moms
are calling back and it's always this noise that's going on and the smell and then this is this
visual turmoil that's frequently going on particularly during the popping season when there's always
during the peak a female giving birth and when a female is giving birth there's the female who's
doing her thing and then there's usually male or females around there who are stirred up by her
behavior and then there are frequently goals to fly in or eagles or foxes are waiting for the
possibility of finding something to happen something to chew on. Unfortunately scenes like that one
are becoming less common. Stellar sea lion populations have been declining for decades. Richard
Merrick says their decline is still a mystery but he has his suspicions. This is unlike a lot of
them. The endangered species were people just know exactly what's causing the decline. Here we've
had a situation where we don't have a lot of dead animals so we're not able to go out and say
yeah clearly this is the problem that they cut down to many trees. So we've worked with a
shopping list of different things that it could be and I've been able to eliminate most of them
or down to this what in some ways is the worst possible one that looks like it's a food problem
and say worst possible because trying to change the amount of food that's available in the marine
ecosystem is really difficult so we can't just go out and fix things easily. And Stellar sea lions
may not be alone. Declines in some whale populations may also be caused by a lack of food. Merrick says
fishermen have helped the situation by not fishing in Stellar's habitat but more work still will have
to be done. Meanwhile if you're planning on taking a cruise to Alaska anytime soon and if the
odor wafting up from the kitchen is like the odor wafting from the shore you better pick another
cruise line. Thanks for listening this is the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley.
This is the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley. Still ahead. Our US Environmental
Organizations part of a communist conspiracy to take over the country in the world. We speak with
an author who believes they are. We talk green about environmental education. Is it sound teaching
or brainwashing? And a Navajo song about mother earth and father sun. These stories still ahead
on the Environment Show.
For decades Americans have been forming and joining organizations to protect wildlife,
natural resources and the environment. The Sierra Club and the National Autobahn Society for
example have roots that go back before the turn of the century. Some see these environmental
organizations as purveyors of Nazi propaganda techniques vent on subjugating the country and the
world under international communism. I talked to Holly Swanson about her book on the subject called
Set Up and Sold Out. Find out what green really means. It's published by CIM in White City, Oregon.
Holly your book talks about the green movement in the United States and for people who haven't had
a chance to read it who are you referring to when you talk about the greens? Well to most people
green still means the color to most Americans. But the green movement is a political movement.
It is part of the green party. It's a combination of the environmental cause is somewhat the
basis for the green party. And the green movement to those who might not exactly understand the
movement is somewhat like if the Nazi movement in Nazi Germany it started out as a small political
party and grew into the Nazi movement. And the green party and the environmental cause is turning
into the green movement. And so what people don't understand is the green party and the green
movement are essentially one. So that includes you've got a list of some of the national
organizations in your book. Children's Defense Fund, the National Autobahn Society,
Planned Parenthood, Sierra Club, that group. Those are all part of the enterprise as you see.
They're all part of the green movement. Yes, whether or not they're all connected to the
political agenda. It seems that they are from the direction that these groups are going.
However, I'm not sure that everyone involved in each of those groups understands the entire
political agenda of the greens. Now your book focuses to a large degree on the similarities
and connections between the green movement as you describe it. And Hitler's ideology and as
political methods. So what is that connection as you see it? Well, essentially actually it's an
ingenious marketing program. My background is marketing and public relations. And quite by accident
through the research process, I investigated and researched quite thoroughly the tactics and
propaganda methods that Hitler used to promote the Proto-Protute Parole and the Nazi movement.
And what Linton and used also to create the Russian Revolution. And the green
program basically parallels that in some of the most interesting ways. For example, Hitler
used the concept that the earth was a living organism and that people would get on board to save
the sacred soil of the Fatherland. And the greens are using the concept that it is Mother Earth.
And you want to get on board with the Green Party to save the sacred living being, Gaia.
And there's many other connections. Hitler stressed community activism, volunteerism,
so do the greens. Hitler used children basically. He indoctrinated children at a very young age
through the schools to be activists in the Nazi movement. And unfortunately in our schools,
Earth Day and some of the other events that are taking place are indoctrinating a different set of
values, green values into our children. One of the things that I think you argue is that
this is also part of an effort to achieve communist control. Well, I do believe that. I didn't
intend to find that. But there are many, many connections between the goals of the Communist Party
USA and what has evolved as the Green Movement. For instance, Gus Hall, the chairman of the
National Communist Party USA said in 1972, essentially that the environmental cause, they needed to be
the leaders and the organizers of the environmental cause, because socialism was the only solution to
the environmental problem. Capitalism could not solve it. One of the things you say, and I just like
you to elaborate on it, you say the Green Movement is not about cooperation and sharing.
It's not about science, it's not about the environment, it's about communist control of America
and the world. So basically, is that what's happening here?
Well, let me answer that question this way. Just to give a few example. Karl Boise,
leading US Communist, said that the environmental movement promised to bring greater numbers into
their orbit than the peace movement ever did. The president in 1953, the president of the Ford
Foundation, H. Rowan Gather, said, we shall so use our grant making power to so alter life in the
United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union. And right now, when you look
at some of the Green Leaders, Mikhail Gorbachev is now positioned himself as a leader in the Green
Movement, and he is pushing for global environmental laws at smack of world communism.
One of the things that you also expressed some concern about was what was going on in American
entertainment. You pick out particularly the Pocahontas movie put out by Walt Disney.
What should parents be worried about when it comes to that film?
Well, I think again, children operate on emotion and it's their innocence that is at stake here.
The movie Pocahontas basically has the heroine as an eco-feminist out protecting the earth
and the story is you can say it's a cartoon and it's not real, but when children see that,
that is their historical reference. And Pocahontas was not a 20-year-old beautiful,
voluptuous young woman. She was a young Indian girl and the whole storyline is about
becoming an eco-heroine and that's what appeals to the kids and talking to trees and animals.
And any of us, whether it's seeing Bambi or many of the Disney movies,
know that that is impacting. I mean, they're very effective communication.
And I think that what we need to realize and parents need to look out for is the subliminal
green messages that are going across to your kids. One of the things I noticed and looking at a
flyer promoting Holly Swanson's book was a quote attributed to me when I was president of the
National Audubon Society. The flyer quoted me as saying, we don't believe in the concept of
private property. The flyer did not contain the complete sentence, which was, we don't believe in
the concept of private property that gives the landowner unlimited rights to destroy the property
of his neighbor. Mrs. Swanson admitted that the quote was misleading, but her excuse was that she
received it out of a newsletter. Again, we've been talking to Holly Swanson, author of the book,
set up and sold out. What do you think about our views? Our environmental organizations part of
the process by which international communism is attempting to take over the country and the world
using Nazi techniques. Give us a call. Our number is 1-888-49-Green.
We're talking green and I'm your host, Peter Burley. Today, we're talking about environmental
education. Is environmental education giving our kids an understanding of how the planet works in
the environmental choices they'll be making? Or is it anti-business greenwash and green propaganda
being foisted on a generation of students by environmental groups and ideologues? We want to hear
from you. Our number is 1-888-49-Green. I have two guests. Dr. Allen Berkowitz, he's the head of
education at the Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millburg, New York. He's written books and curriculum
guides in ecological science and education and he's currently working on a team to develop an
environmental education guidelines for the North American Association for Environmental Education.
Also with me is Michael Sinarum. He's with a Claremont Institute and he's co-author of the
book Fact Not Fear, which singles out what he believes is green ideological bias in environmental
educational programs. Michael Sinarum, let me start with you. For our listeners to have
so many understanding of this, what is your concern? The concern is that when environmental education
sticks to basic, what I call, nature studies or it wouldn't stick closely to science and
economics, it tends to be quite good and quite important for kids to get. I'm a Cub Scout leader
and I take my Cub Scout down out to a nature center here in Tucson and we learn about the
quite a bit about the environment. The three areas where there are major problems are one
when environmental education gets into issues. When it gets into global warming, acid rain,
rain forest, much of the materials, especially the textbooks that I have reviewed and I've reviewed
130 of them, give a very one-sided and biased coverage of these issues. Much of the counter-vailing
science has just completely ignored or left out. The second area is in behavior modification.
There seems within the environmental education community this absolute demand or necessity
to implement behavior modification to change children's lifestyles. This is often abused
and is not good education. The third area is in the political involvement of kids. Kids are
mobilized for political narrow self-interest by groups who want to defeat or support particular
environmental issues. So Congressman, state legislators, city council members are bombarded by kids
who are concerned about an environmental issue. When you look into this in detail, what typically
occurs is that the kids have only been presented one side so that it's not their decision to get
into this involvement. There being taught what to think, not how to think. Alan Berkowitz is someone
who has been deeply involved in environmental education for a long period of time. How do you
respond to the charges that Michael Sinera is making? Well, I think it's really essential that we
arm our children with the tools that they'll need to face the environment and the world that they
are going to live in in the 21st century. I don't think there's much debate. I think even Michael
Sinera agrees that part of that needs to be a set of skills and understandings of how the
environment works and what their place in the environment is. I think that environmental education
has done a wonderful job in starting the task ahead of us. We have a very exciting and very positive
and forward-looking vision for how that can be accomplished even better in the future. I think that
the small problem that he points out, he of course doesn't think they're small, but to the extent
that the problems that he points out might occur, it's a case of condemning an entire discipline
for the mistakes of a very small number of people. Our number is 1-888-49 Green. We want to hear
from you, Nancy, you're talking green on the environment show. Hello, how are you? Very well.
Where are you calling from? Okay, I'm Nancy Berry, Principal of Cramer Middle School of Environmental
Studies in Washington, DC. Uh-huh. What is your comment or question to our panel? Okay, just
the comment. I guess the focal point that we're taking is an awareness with our students of the
environment. We're also in the stage where we will develop our own curriculum rather than using
existing textbooks and materials as it relates to where we're very close. We're in walking
distance of the Anacostia River. So we want the children to learn about their own community that
they walk around and work in and service. We also had a boat building and the boat is very
sea worthy and so they're able to take it out and you know do their own sampling and discovering.
Well, Nancy, let me ask you a question. Yeah. You're developing your own curriculum. Yeah.
Let's suppose you get a lot of material from the Western fuels institute and I'm oversimplifying
now that basically says that global warming is not a problem and you get an equal amount of material
from many members in scientific community that says that it is. How do you put all that together?
And I'd be interested in our panelists of commenting on how you're going to deal with this.
So let's start with you. How are you going to deal with these issues, some of which are polarized,
not only on scientific issues but because of the politics and the economics behind them?
Well, rather than a coming out with being a four or a and against person,
they need to students need to start out with a definition and again I go back to the word awareness
and then they are able to form as they get older what opinions they may have. So we're not pushing
one side or the other. We just want by definition an explanation. And would you also feel compelled to
indicate the source of some of the materials that you're using so the students can evaluate it
as well? No, I don't think we're going down evaluation and where it comes from just knowledge base.
Alan Berkowitz, how is that as an approach? Does it make sense to you?
Well, I completely applaud her efforts and I'm actually aware of what they're doing in
focusing a lot of their attention to the local environment there. The schools in DC have a good
reputation for doing that. And I also agree that building on from awareness to understanding and
building based on understanding of local environment is really excellent. On the other hand,
I don't think that you've characterized two sides of an issue as if those two sides have
have the same kind of credibility and in the case of the scientific community, there is actual
consensus among the scientific community that global warming is a problem and to kind of portray
that as one side of an issue is a misstatement of our understanding of the world. And so I think
if you did present both sides without saying one side had the scientists support and the other
was from an industry source, I think you'd be doing it to service to building the students
understanding of the environment. Right, and I agree. And I think I have no problem with presenting
that. I guess what I'm saying is I would not present it and be one side is about it. I would like
for the students if they want to carry it further than it would be their decision, but we've
presented them with both sides hopefully equally. And then it is a challenge for them to take it on
and carry it however they feel. Nancy, how do you feel about the issue that Michael
Sinerra raised about kids writing their congresspeople and so on? Is that part of becoming an
environmentalist, your view or not? I guess I would look at it as a skill. If we had some children
that felt very strongly about an issue, then I'm going to look at it educationally. I mean,
there's letter writing. They want to respond. They learn how information can go out. And then when
it comes back, what you can do with it, it's like a life learning experience rather than let's
stick to the issue. Let's push the point. Let's get everyone on our wagon. I would like
for them to learn a lot of skills with that one. Great. Well, thanks for your call. And I would
go clear across the country now to Barbara in California. Welcome. You're talking green on the
environment show. Hi, this is Barbara Boehart. I go after the report that was published in the
Washington Post called Endangered Education. And it studied the attack on environmental education.
I would like to actually pose a question to Mr. Sinerra. Usually he portrays the attack as
the other speaker pointed out. Usually he comes out and brings in stories about how kids becoming
activists or changing their behaviors a bad thing. One such of these stories is his issue with
students in Arizona where they were studying nature in their school yard and had a difficult
time when the plants they were studying included, including a protected cactus were raised by
developer. The teachers who were trying to help the students cope with both sides,
cope with the issue presented both sides of the picture, the developer side, the fact that houses
were being built and also the fact that this opens the base, this land and the plant that they loved
was being destroyed. In the process of events the students wrote letters to the newspaper
for either side if they wanted to. When the teacher was written to and there was complaint that he
did not show the economic side which he had, he again went over the economic side. So your question
then is how teaching kids to participate in democracy, how is this a negative thing when the kids
learn how the process works? Okay. Well because they're not learning how the process works,
they're given a factually distorted picture that does not meet the guidelines put out by the
largest professional associate. Can I finish? And I think the story as you relate it and your
report proves my point. The issue cast to the students was one between the environment and the
developer and that is not education. The issue is not between the environment and the developer,
the issue is between basic economic principles and trade-offs that students need to consider.
The key question that your report failed to cover was whether or not the teacher ever in that
experience asked the students if they liked living in their homes and I live in Tucson not very far
from the school. Okay, Alan Berkowitz let's have you in their homes which were not very many years
before just a handful of years also living on desert land. They didn't bring it home to the students
that they perhaps were living on homes which were also living on on virgin desert land. Got it.
Okay, Alan Berkowitz to respond to that because that obviously has to do with a pedagogical
approach to the teacher as to what questions are presented. I think that we need to take a slightly
larger view here rather than focusing just on this one example and we need to answer ourselves
what kinds of understandings to children and eventually citizens need in order to act responsibly
by as defined by their own sets of values and feelings towards the environment. In order to do that
they have to have experiences like the one that's being described here and it has to be dealt with
and is from as many perspectives as possible. So if again you have one anecdote where this person
didn't do it exactly the way you would want and I suggest that this is a problem that we'll turn up
in any kind of teaching. Okay, I'm going to our time is short and we have a call from California.
I would take Barbara you're talking green in the environment Jeff. Yes, thank you.
So what we found in our report is that in fact the attack on environmental education that is
a national local media campaign that by Mr. Senera's organization and several other organizations
we found it's funded by corporate polluters. You say we found who is we?
We're there for the Center for Commercial Free Public Education. I see.
We're looking at Oakland California. And you wrote a report about Mr. Senera's book is that it?
Right and we found that it's that his research, his organization and several other organizations that
are attacking environmental education are funded by corporate polluters. Okay, I'm going to cut you
off so that Mr. Senera can respond because our time is short. Mr. Senera.
Yes, I love this report because it over and over and over again proves my point.
They point out that my organization and several other organizations have taken money from
from oil companies. But what they failed to point out is that the the largest organization of
professional environmental educators, the NAWA, which I assume Alan Berkowitz is also a member of,
takes money from Phillips 66 Chevron and Chorox. So the critics need to respond to the fact that
why is it that our research is somehow biased when other organizations take money from these
same organizations and their activities are not somehow biased? Okay, I think you make the point.
Alan, I'm going to ask you to give us a sense both of a comment on what you just heard and then
your overall view of whether environmental education is it is now practiced in the United States
is unbiased or is reasonably effective as a sound educational process?
Well, I think that the kind of debate that we're having is exactly what needs to be happening in
school. And in order to do that, children need to have repeated and a nice developmental sequence
of experiences that builds on their biological, physical, social understanding of the world,
world around them so that they can identify bias, so that they can identify perspectives,
and that they can build their own ethic and then act on it responsibly. I think environmental
education has made tremendous strides in that. I think the evidence for that is clear in the
improvements that we've made in our environment and in trying to address the building distance
between people and the environment that are increasing urbanization is posing us with.
So environmental education is essential so that we can have control over the very important
decisions that we're already making all the time from the perspectives that Michael Feneres
bringing up, the economic, ethical, biological, and social perspectives. We owe that to you.
Okay, I wish we could do it all, but our time is up. And thank you. I've been talking with
Dr. Alan Berkowitz, who is head of education at the Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook,
and Michael Sinera, who is with the Claremont Institute, an author of the book Facts Not Fear.
We want to hear from you. Our number is 1-888-49 Green. This is Talking Green on the Environment
Show, and I'm your host, Peter Berley.
Educating our children about the environment is a tough job, especially when so many of us live
lives away from the natural world. For the Navajo's of the American Southwest, there was no place
outside of nature. Everything one could teach a child was found in the environment of the Southwest.
Sharon Berch is a Navajo singer-songwriter. She performs her song, Earth and Sun, which she
wrote for her sister's wedding. It appears on her CD, Touch the Sweet Earth. The lyrics are in
Navajo and translate to Father Sun and Mother Earth in Unison They Travel, in Unison They Travel,
in Unison They Travel.
I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I
'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm your host, I'm the host, I'm with you in my
host, this place is really nice and beautiful. And with just one crust about what I love about you賀
and Birch from her album Touch the Sweet Earth on Canyon Records.
Thanks for being with us on this week's Environment Show.
I'm Peter Burley.
For cassette copy of the program called 1-888-49-Green, and asked for show number 3-88.
The Environment Show is a presentation of national productions which is solely responsible
for its contents.
Dr. Alan Shartuck has the executive producer, Thomas Lale is producer, and Stephanie
Goyceman is the associate producer.
The Environment Show is made possible by the W. W. Alton Jones Foundation, the Turner
Foundation, the JM Kaplan Fund, the Packard Foundation, and Heming's Motor News, the
monthly Bible of the collector, Karhavi, 1-800-CAR-H-E-R-E.
So long and join us next week for the Environment Show.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0