Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

educated in a society which acknowledges limitations on profit and pleasure in the name of good environmental housekeeping. Exploitation must become both unpopular and unprofitable. The costs will be high and therefore should rightly be shared by producer and consumer alike. But this is the necessary investment that must be made in the future of man.

One must wonder why, in just the past 20 or so years, there has been such a dramatic shift from the Ben Franklin concept of thrift as an admirable and respected quality to the present admiration of consumerism. This is an objectionable trend, one which seems to be contrary to traditional values. Our idea of progress as measured by gross national product can be seen today as seriously jeopardizing the very existence of future generations. How can man be so selfishly blind?

Conservation has been defined by J. F. Kennedy as being "*** in the final analysis, the highest form of material thrift ***" Similar pronouncements have also been made by her notables throughout our history. Are they to be constantly disregarded? Over one hundred years ago John Wesley Powell attempted to sell a "General Plan" for the conservation of our environment. To him science was the one discipline that might renew and enlarge all resources in the long run, and the more he saw of men blindly conquering the land, the more he became convinced of the importance of science as a tool of national progress. Yet, based on present resource projections, I would venture to guess that the conservation practices have hardly been part of the American way of life. I do not wish to advocate the demise of the frontier brand of individualism, but somehow the "cowboy" attitudes regarding our use of the earth must be replaced by a new consciousness and a new national purpose.

Improvements in the quality of the environment and of life can be achieved at a lower level of resource consumption than is the "American standard" of today. General acceptance of a new philosophy is warranted and can be attained, either by legislation or through an educational process which develops individual concern and pride. The latter method is much preferred. But what should this new philosophy be? In his book, The Meaning of the 20th Century, Kenneth Boulding applies thermodynamic concepts of entropy to man's social and economic systems. He points out that the entropy problem of a system running down manifests itself in several forms, the most obvious being the diffusion or concentration of materials. Thus he distinguishes between entropic processes which diffuse from concentration (the use and development of natural resources) and anti-entropic processes which concentrate from diffusion (conservation, reclamation and reuse of materials). It is perhaps fortunate that it is within man's capability, pending the availability of energy, to reverse entropic processes. It is therefore possible to conceive of the earth as being a stable closed-cycle spaceship dependent on our ability to concentrate from diffusion those essential resources which will ultimately be diffused again according to man's needs. The energy needed to drive the system is within the technological grasp of man. We can only hope that our educational system can ultimately divert the necessary human energies in support of the space-age philosophy that man can begin to gain harmony with nature.

(Testimony by Marshall K. Corbett, Chairman, Department of Geology, Associate Professor of Geology.)

Criticism of H.R. 14753

THE STUDENT AND THE FUTURE

The need for a congressional bill treating the problems of environmental degradation has been pressing for many years. It is somewhat disappointing that H.R. 14753 is being drafted only after public outrage at the progressively worsening condition of being alive in America has demonstrated that it is safe to do so. Being in favor of upgrading the environment has become a safe political platform now. Opposing environmental quality has become like being against motherhood or red, white and blue. Since this happens to be an election year, I am rather confident that passage of this bill will provide a most reassuring steppingstone to re-election of its proponents.

Environmental problems have been overlooked and ignored for decades because men in influential positions chose to side with a thousand little kings whose disgusting philosophy of growth for the sake of growth could not encompass an empathy for the future generations inheriting the earth. The greedy and ravenous appetite for profit inherent in these obscene gluttons has turned our once beautiful

nat.on into a succession of river sewers, deserts and hideous piles of trash. Our skies are rapidly turning brown as we bury ourselves under a sea of noxious scum. The lack of wisdom which has permitted the systematic destruction of our precious planet is inexcusable and must be dealt with harshly and in a spirit of impending immediacy.

Spurred by the increasing problems of environmental deterioration being suffered in the United States, students (most of them viewed as bums and intellectual snobs by Dick Nixon and Spiro Agnew) banded together to sponsor non-partisan teach-ins at their schools. April 22, 1970 will be remembered in America as the beginning of environmental awareness as hundreds of thousands of Americans gathered together to discuss the ramifications of our unique and very dangerous problem-potential extinction.

The Environmental Teach-ins have accomplished, for the most part, the goal of defining the problems and offering possible solutions to these problems. For this effort the bums and snobs are to be congratulated. H.R. 14753 has the potential of carrying on the environmental teach-in format to an effective end if certain conditions are met:

1. The issue of environment is far beyond being a partisan issue. The success of this bill depends upon equal cooperation of all factions working together and sharing knowledge. Therefore, the Commissioner of Education should be advised by the various factions before making policy decisions.

2. The educational projects relative to the bounds of this bill must be generously funded if the bill is to be effective.

3. It must be stressed very strongly that in order for environmental quality to return to the land we must decrease our burgeoning population. Environmental degradation is but a symptom; overpopulation is our greatest threat to existence. H.R. 14753 should make available vast sums of money to the service of educating the public about birth control. After all, we give millions of dollars to the socalled underdeveloped nations for this purpose.

4. From my own cursory research, I have arrived at the conclusion that it may be too late for "civilized" man to save himself. Ninety per cent of America's drinking water is below standards set by the Federal Government for water quality. Our rivers are becoming fire hazards and our land, one vast garbage dump. The American people, especially the students, are giving up hope for a liveable future. Drug abuse has spread like wildfire from coast to coast and present estimates indicate that heroin will be available in every high school in the country within the next 10 years. The spreading drug problem must be viewed in its true perspective as another symptom of the same problem, disillusionment with the destructive, spirit-killing way of life that has evolved in our nation. We have, in fact, become like an irrupting population of lemmings undergoing traumatic mental decay preparing for mass suicide which has already begun and will continue as environmental quality continues to decrease.

Time has run out! We must act to amend this long overdue bill where needed and set it in action, NOW.

(Testimony by Rick Carron, Senior Biology Student and Coordinator, EcoAlliance Committee.)

Analysis of H.R. 14753

THE STUDENT AND THE FUTURE

1. Page 1, Section 2A, Line 7:

"Nation's" should be changed to "Earth's Environment". If we are talking about ecological balance, this does not just deal with the United State's ecological balance but with the earth's environment. If we use the term "Nation", we are admitting ignorance of the totality of the meaning of ecological balance.

2. Page 1, Section 2A, Line 8:

The phrase "is in part due" is vague and also leads one to believe that there are other reasons for the deterioration of the quality of the environment other than a "poor understanding by citizens of the Nation's environment." These other reasons should be brought forth at this point if they exist because "this act may be cited as the Environmental Quality Education Act."

3. Page 2, Section 2A, Line 2:

"Resources"-Does this mean money?

4. Page 2, Section 2A, Line 3 and 4:

This section is very good with strong wording. 5. Page 2, section 2A, Line 7:

to?

"Encouraging understanding of policies."-What exact policies is this referring

6. Page 2, Section 2A, Line 9-18:

This is a very good listing of who should be educated on these problems of environment; especially important are community education programs.

7. Page 2, Section 3-lb., Line 7:

How and who will determine the effectiveness of curriculums?

8. Page 3, Section 3-lb, Line 8 and 9:

This is very good because it enables existing programs to be eligible for dissemination of their materials.

[blocks in formation]

All the power of this environmental quality act is vested in the Commissioner (United States Commissioner of Education), who is appointed by the President of the United States. The President, therefore, indirectly has all the power. For this reason, the program will be partisan and subject to the whims and wishes of the party in power.

12. Page 5, Section 4A, 3:

I don't understand this.

13. Page 5, Section 4A, b:

Why does the state educational agency need to be notified of the application and be given the opportunity to offer recommendations? It seems to me that if this section is included it gives a loophole for the state to control exactly what it wants to be taught in an environmental education. This could lead to an unbalanced understanding of the environment. This particular section should be clearer on its intent. So, if conflicts occur, they can be handled with ease.

14. Page 6, Section 5A:

Because of the importance of the environment and ecology, especially at this time of no return in our Nation's history, I would like to bring forth the proposition that the Committee on Environmental Quality Education should be mora than just an advisory committee. It should have the power to implement its decisions in coordination with the United States Commissioner of Education and the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.

15. Page 6, Section 5B:

The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare appoints the "Advisory” Committee and the Chairman. The Secretary, therefore, not only controls the committee and to a greater degree, the Chairman; but also, because of this power, determines if and when they shall meet. It is not unreasonable to envision the committee never meeting.

I would also like to take exception to the terminology used in line 11, page 7"familiar with"-The committee members should be far more knowledgeable about environment than just "familiar with" the problems. With a committee of 21 members, the top persons in the nation on environment could make up a strong, useful committee.

Because I feel that the committee should be far more than advisory in nature, may I suggest that they have the power to overrule the decisions of the United States Commissioner of Education by a 1⁄2 vote to convene at not only any time that the Chairman, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and/or commissioner deem it necessary, but also if and when % of the committee call a meeting. In this way, the power which is vested in his act to educate the people can be distributed among the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, the Committee, the Commissioner and the Chairman.

The appointments of members to the committee by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare should be approved by Congress, and should be as nonpartisan as possible (being there specifically to express their opinions about the environment and not those of various interest groups).

When we as "reasoning" men are attempting to design an "Environmental Quality Education Act", we should enumerate in a rational way what we mean by Environmental Quality, decide how critical these problems are, and determine who should have the power to decide what is important to educate the people about these problems.

It is my belief that when we consider the three points mentioned above this bill, H.R. 14753, is very short sighted if not blind to how important a bill of this type is. Some may say, "But, it is a first step." Let me bring forth the proposition that

if we are to make a first step, let's make it the best step that we as men can rationally make, and not spend the next few years of this program wasting time placing band-aides and patches over our bruises but better spend our energies and resources winning this battle against time.

My future and the future of my son depend on the strength and nonpartisanness of a bill of this type. For these reasons, I am against H.R. 14753 in its present text. (Testimony by John P. O'Connor, Graduate Microbiology Student and Public Relations Man for Eco-Alliance Committee.)

THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY EDUCATION ACT AND THE PROBLEM OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION

In behalf of concerned biologists and others interested in the conservation and improvement of our environment, we would like to add our support to the Environmental Quality Education Act.

The existence of a national environmental crisis is well known. The magnitude of the problem is emphasized by the fact that even in Idaho serious and extensive degradation of our land, air and water is taking place.

Mountains and rivers are being destroyed by the short-sighted quest for additional profits. Water and air pollution threaten our health and well being. Even within the City of Pocatello, monuments to the ignorance and lack of concern of the people exist in the form of serious industrial pollution of the air and defilement of the Portneuf River. These insults are all the more serious because they exist in an area still relatively free from the pressures of a burgeoning population. Rather than being seen as the symptoms of a sock environment, they are looked upon as insignificant changes and written off as the cost of progress. With our abundance of natural resources, Idaho's citizens (as those elsewhere in the nation) tend to overlook the loss of an "occasional" stream through dredging, or construction, or other forms of pollution; the mountain that is obscured by air pollution or laid waste by open pit mining; or the field that is scarred by erosion. For there always seems to be other streams in which to fish, other mountains to enjoy, other fields to plow. They fail to realize that this will not always be the case, if we continue on our present path.

Much of the knowledge necessary to solve the present environmental crisis already exists. However, we presently lack a satisfactory and sufficient means for disseminating this information. Public awareness of the problem must be further developed. Individual and group action must be stimulated and directed along constructive pathways. Intelligent decisions cannot be made or action taken without a clear understanding of the problem and its implications. The Environmental Quality Education Act would help to fulfill these needs.

The need for public education and concern in the area of environmental quality was recognized by a number of individuals at Idaho State University even before the Environmental Quality Education Act was made public. We have already instituted new courses and redirected others toward solution of the problem. There is underway at the present time on this campus a move to develop an interdisciplinary program of Environmental Studies. Thus, we intend to lead the way in environmental quality education and we welcome the Federal Government's interest and support in this area. The recognition of Federal responsibility in the fields of environment and population is long overdue.

Addendum: Specific areas of the proposal which we feel need clarification.
Section: 4: (a): (3)

Financial support should not be solely in terms of supplementary funds. Outright grants and other support may be called for in specific cases.

Section: 5: (b)

The composition of the Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality Education is a critical issue which should be given serious consideration. The choice of participants may well determine the success or failure of the program. (Testimony by G. Wayne Minshall, Assistant Professor of Zoology; Edson Fichter, Professor of Zoology and Curator of Mammalogy, and Fred L. Rose, Assistant Professor of Biology.)

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 14753

During the three days of the student-organized Environmental Teach-in held on the Idaho State University campus, 22-24 April 1970, the indispensable role of education in a massive effort to assure our survival beyond the next few decades was frequently evident and, I think, universally acknowledged. The need

for increased emphasis on such educational undertakings was evidenced by (1) the statistics on the growth of the human population and its most obvious corollary, pollution of earth's total environment, (2) the searching nature of many of the questions asked, and (3) the frightening lack of comprehension displayed by some of the participants who occupy sensitive positions in local government and resource management.

In earlier correspondence with Representative Orval Hansen (22 January 1970), I expressed my profound concern for the quality of human life and my support for H.R. 14753; my recent observations confirm my belief that the educative process must be at the forefront in man's effort to save his environment from further and perhaps irreparable destruction. I am further convinced that much of the educational effort must allow for innovation at all levels; that it must give both students and teachers the freedom to be creative, not only in solving environmental problems, but in learning how to recognize them.

It also strikes me that the current wave of ecological consciousness and concern for the earth's ecosystems can be kept viable only by way of an educational program directed at all of our people.

In view of these imperatives, I urge all who are involved in the legislative process relative to H.R. 14753, to ponder deeply the inevitable consequences of continued ignorance of and disregard for the ecological laws to which we are inescapably subject, individually and as a species population.

(Testimony by Edson Fichter, Professor of Zoology and Curator of Mammalogy.)

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION THROUGH STATE EDUCATIONAL STRUCTURES, RECREATION AND THE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CONCEPT

1. INTRODUCTION

As presently proposed, H.R. 14753 represents a major landmark in legislation dealing with our environmental problems. The bill does so in a way most central to the solution of our environmental problems: through the education of both young and old in our society.

However, the size of our environmental education job is of such magnitude that success can come only through the most comprehensive plan imaginable. The number and variety of educational agents-both public and private non-profit-is such that only the most innovative local, statewide and national interbody planning and attack can hope to achieve success in the environmental education task before us. No fragmented and piecemeal environmental education will suffice as an approach to the problem which is truly a matter of life or death for us and our world.

II. RECOMMENDATIONS

In line with the nature of our task of environmental education and the excellent principles found in the Environmental Quality Education Act, the following major points are recommended for consideration by the Select Education Subcommittee. First, H.R. 14753 should provide an opportunity for and encourage statewide planning and attack upon environmental education. This can be achieved (1) through the guidance and leadership of each state education agency and (2) through a required state comprehensive plan for environmental education.

Second, H.R. 14753 should foster federal, state and local level inter-agency cooperation and effort through the community school concept.

And, third, H.R. 14753 should foster the development of school grounds as outdoor learning laboratories for students and as models of quality environment for urban living and general public environmental education programs. Let us now consider in detail each of these three major points.

III. STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY AND STATE PLAN FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

The Environmental Quality Education Act should require that the state educational agency be designated as the state's agent for administering the E.O.E.A. and for taking the leadership in state involvement in environmental education. This requirement should include the development of a comprehensive state plan for environmental education. In these two respects, what is being proposed closely parallels the two requirements now operating effectively in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.

However, the state educational agency structure for administering the E.Q.E.A. should also tap other key leadership. State agencies, private non-profit organizations, and professional societies having key concerns and programs in environmental

« AnteriorContinuar »