should all be aware of, that, by God, how can you sit and talk about oil on the beaches and tar on your feet when people are living in misery and living in an environment which is made degrading by the same considerations that you are mouthing words about, in the abstract; but here, you can roll up your sleeves and get right down to it, right in Santa Barbara.

So, do I make myself clear?

I think that, let's not think of ourselves as all going to perish. Let's think, "Who's going to go first? Whom are we going to allow to die first ?"

Mr. HANSEN. Really, the point I was trying to make, also, is that there is a high degree of interdependence, that we have to attack these problems of pollution on a wide and global front. It may be that some will survive longer than others. We depend on each other. As the world shrinks, we are developing the technology to pollute each other's air and water and to destroy the elements on which life has to depend. This is really the point that I attempted to make in my reference. Mr. MCGINNES. I see.

Mr. HANSEN. Let me focus on another aspect of the problem.

Coming from a rural State-And I think probably in the course of these hearings, the only one who has talked about it to any extent was Dr. Margaret Mead-even if we achieve the zero population that many have indicated is essential that does not stop the population from moving to these large urban centers.

Now, in my own State of Idaho, we have about 750,000 people. We used to say that apologetically. We don't any more. We are rather proud of that fact. But in many of the counties in the State of Idahoand this is typical of a great many States in this country-the population is going down; and I think you would find that even if the overall population in the country were to stabilize, that we would be moving out of the areas of the wide open spaces and fresh air into these large urban centers. This suggests to me and this was the point that Dr. Mead made-that we have to address ourselves to the quality of life in the rural areas. We have to develop the kind of economic portunities that will make it possible for people to stay in the countryside where there is more room and to earn a living and to live the kind of life that will discourage them from coming into the cities.

cop

There is a great interdependence between the cities and rural areas; so, as we focus on problems of population, we should look not only at overall numbers but where the people are and try to determine the kinds of programs and policies that will make it possible to disperse the people more widely, to live gently on the land, to live in peace with nature, and to avoid this enormous congestion that has been and will continue to be a big factor in the problems of deterioration of the environment.

Mr. MCGINNES. Well, I think that is a matter of adult education. There is money to be made in this environmental thing, if industry will realize it. They find themselves in the posture of being called the enemy and they are essentially reacting and coming out with ecopornography, which is the definition of advertising which purports to say that they are involved and they are concerned about the environment when, in fact, they are not.

But what about a simple expedient? Tell me if this is not a simple expedient of telling industry that they just can't come in and set up new plants in this existing urban area; as Ian McHarg said, “Think of a city named Gray Wolf in Colorado." Well, just think of it, where you go put down an industry, bring in enough people to man it. It would be high density housing in a small area, with a lot of open space. The high density housing would be designed in such a way that it would be not demeaning to live in. It would be a self-supporting community, going out in the wilds where no population has been before, whether in Idaho or Washington, the State I came from.

Population distribution probably is unconstitutional. Well, the Constitution is only what the Supreme Court says it is. This is rightly so, I think. I think that we simply have to distribute our population. Now, traditional land-use zoning has tried to do this, in a sense, where you just zone for so many people and unless the local government backs down, as they have done in Santa Barbara on this latest thing, then you can only put so many people in that community.

I think that we have to provide tax incentives and limit it to two and also to distribute our population by legislation. Just say that, "You can't-Sorry but we're full. Go there." And industry will be there because industry's going to be told, too, “You can't come, either. You go there."

Mr. HANSEN. So you are going to let us keep our Snake River water up in Idaho, not pipe it down to southern California?

Mr. MCGINNIS. Obviously-see, I see pollution control racing way ahead of the real things we need. I mean, pollution is really-pollution, to me, isn't really the problem. It's really, you know, the—oh— how do you view life? What do you value?

We can have an antiseptic society, maybe, where we just don't have any real environmental quality.

Mr. BRADEMAS. We do have, at the University of Notre Dame, in the congressional district I represent, something called Lobund, L-ob-u-n-d. It is one of the few germ-free laboratories in the world and it is, to that extent, free of pollution but not a terribly exciting place to live, I should have thought.

I only mention that because it sounds to me-it seems to me a metaphor for the kind of society against which you are warning us. Well, this has been a very interesting statement, Mr. McGinnes. May I ask you just one more question, which is the question that we find everybody asking, across the country, as we discuss this issue: Will the upsurge of interest in the environment be something that simply fizzles away? Now, you, in Santa Barbara, if you lose interest, then no one is likely to be able to maintain interest. Is it your judg ment that what happened in your community made a profound enough impact on the thinking of people that the burgeoning concern which your presence represents will continue or fade away?

Mr. MCGINNES. Reserve judgment. After the January 28 conference. I mean, it became a social thing to do, for one thing. Weall Santa Barbara society turned out for this environmental program but they didn't give any money and then, we purposely kind of let

it rest for a while and Earth Day came around and we purposely again abstained from doing anything ourselves. That is, the CEC did not do anything and nobody made contact with us until about a week before and they all wanted to know, "What are you doing? What are you doing?"

We just said, "Well, we're just going to use what we can and each of us try to live environmentally."

"How do you do that?"

We have a handbook in Santa Barbara that tells you where you recycle, where you go to buy things that are biodegradable, where you can buy milk without its being in a disposable container and things like that and we found that the organizations that had called us to ask, "What are you doing," when they found out that we were only doing that, then they started turning their people on. So it looks like, in Santa Barbara, at least, that we have started something that other people are carrying along.

Nationwide, I just don't know, but I think it's really imperative that we start getting some funds here because it is terribly discouraging, as happened in Santa Barbara, our own Gordon McDonald, appointed to the Council on Environmental Quality, came and spoke to us and told us about all of the things that he was charged withthat is, the Council was charged with. And then we asked him, “Well, how much money has been allocated," and there was no money there and this is very discouraging.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Well, I share your concern. We were distressed when after some splendid speeches by Secretary Finch and Education Commissioner Allen on the importance of environmental education, the Commissioner was put in a position, to be fair to him, where he was constrained to testify in opposition to this bill, a few days ago. So, too, it is unnecessary. So, too, in your own state, you have this pioneering state legislation for conservation education but you do not have any money for it, so I thoroughly share your concern about this matter. We have got to have more than rhetoric.

Mr. MCGINNES. Congressman, how will this affect the ultimate chances of this bill if the Commissioner

Mr. BRADEMAS. We intend to pass this bill, anyway.

Mr. MCGINNES. Good.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Whether the administration wants it or not; and, hopefully, they will be thereby enabled to rise above principle and administer what is before them."

Mr. McGinnes, you have been a most helpful witness and we are very grateful to you for having come.

The Chair wants to observe that if his information is correct, we have as remaining witnesses today in Los Angeles, Mr. and Mrs. Leslie Reid, Mr. Cliff Humphrey, and Dr. John Mohr.

Sir, you are Dr. Mohr? Well, if you like, Dr. Mohr, we will hear you right now. You have been very patient, sitting here all morning. And then, we will break briefly for lunch and come back and conclude with our final witnesses.

Won't you come ahead, sir.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN MOHR, PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Dr. MOHR. I have been fascinated to listen. Perhaps, I should speak of my credentials, first. Since 1952, I have been involved in Arctic marine biology. Before that, I did pollution surveys for what was then the State Water Pollution Control Board, in southern Californian harbors. At that time, there was not much money for pushing such things.

I gather the burden here is, Why is education important? And I will try to be brief but make it very clear that I think it is tremendously important because if we are not to be in terrific trouble, we are going to have to pay a very heavy price, a price that is out of step with what we are doing. These days, convenience, comfort, self-indulgence is what we are encouraged to push by most everything we read other than the text of our newspapers and magazines.

Assume what dubious example, perhaps, is set by our Chief Executive who asks for another $100,000 on what looks like an already rather ample entertainment budget.

We need, in fact, both self-denial and self-restraint, and, these, we are not used to.

We used to say, "Waste not, want not," but that is almost unAmerican for this particular century or half-century. We have to educate people that the highest patriotism is one which provides for our grandchildren and I would like to think even as far as greatgrandchildren. We have got to get across, somehow, that the over-50 who sees nothing wrong in asking a boy to give his life for his country must also somehow be brought to see that he should be a patriot beyond his own death, that is, to be willing to pay enough taxes to support the education system, to be willing to give up, again, probably taxes enough that there will be a tomorrow for if he hasn't any children or grandchildren-those of others. To do this is going to take a most ingenious educational effort and a most vigorous one.

Out neighbor here at UCLA, Lynn White, has pointed out that our very ethical system, the Puritan ethical system, of subduing the earth is partly at fault but there are other parts of our culture, of our tradition, which we have not used which would have gotten us to other places.

In addition to dominion of the earth, there is a psalm that says, "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof."

And there was a concept with the old Hebrews that my colleague, Rabbi Fred Krinsky tells me is still with the Jewish people, of the birthright. One has a responsibility for passing on a birthright not diminished, to those who follow.

We have a need to draw on ideas like these and ideas of Francis of Assisi rather than the ones that the Romans put into capital letters. "If you have a slave you don't want, you have a perfect right to throw him to the beasts."

So it seems to me that your bill is very necessary, that the most that can be pumped into it is hardly likely to be enough but I would like you to consider very seriously not limiting it quite so much. I will buy a first step but I hope you are not thinking just first step. The notion of encouraging cross-disciplinary research-not discipli

nary research of activities of all sorts, is not merely a good one, it is absolutely vital, and I should like to see somewhere in the fine print, some encouragement for it.

The problem that has been brought up here of need for quick information from group to group concerned with this, needs some sort of implementation.

Beyond that, I guess what I would like to say is, do all you can and I hope there will be a proper appropriation bill along with this.

Chairman BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Professor Mohr, and, without objection, a list of courses presently offered at USC relative to ecology will be included, in addition to your own prepared state

ment.

(Mr. Mohr's prepared statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN LUTHER MOHR, PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

It is encouraging that legislative action is proposed to support education in environmental matters. Education is not the only need and, in theory, not the first, but without a large, effective educational program the American people will not understand the consequences of different sets of environmental actions, and so will not have a basis in knowledge for wise decisions.

One may with cause have limited expectations for teaching efforts: We have taught loudly and long that safe driving pays and most of us drive somewhat unsafely. We have implored each other not to deface our landscape, but some of us empty ash trays onto streets or parking lots. But those who have driven in European areas know also that we drive less lethally than some others; we have gone part way in convincing ourselves not to litter. Our education has not all been wasted. We are confronted with a bigger problem: Can we wage a campaign of enlightenment—not so shrill as to deaden the hearing, but so persuasive with hard facts, alternative courses and consequences, and opportunities for a satisfying exercise of love of country and love of countrymen living and yet unborn, that self-restraint and a deep, dynamic civility may become as admired and as expected as patriotism and probity among the Romans of the Republic?

With help from H.R. 14753 and companion bills we may reasonably hope to speed up environmental education efforts and to make them much more effective. Although we need much more "hard data" and especially much more of careful analysis of what will happen if we continue to do thus with our minerals and what if we change to so; what will be required in recreational areas if we have N people in 1980 and N+X in 2000 or what with M and M+Y people in the same times; what will happen with this radioactive waste production and what with that; we do have a considerable working pool from which educational programs can be drawn at any time. The excellent American Chemical Society brief Clearing our Environment: The Chemical Basis for Action and the National Academy of Sciences brief, Resources and Man (produced by a committee led by Professor Preston Cloud) summarize well much of what is known indicating the primary sources, and spell out more than enough major causes for concern to make me want to support the purpose of H.R. 14753. Professor Cloud has pointed out, for example, that supplies in sight or retrievable of germanium, helium, mercury, and uranium 235 are all seriously, if not disastrously short. My colleague, Professor Sergio Porto has characterized our use of helium as almost frivolous. At the same time, as the Wall Street Journal noted just last week, mercury not retrieved in the production of plastics or chlorine is reaching frightening levels in food fishes of Lake Michigan: Of a somewhat similar paradox, last week the Christian Science Monitor pointed out that there is a shortage of high quality gas; on the same day newspaper advertisements occurred urging purchase of gas-air cooling systems and billboards showing that "only three chefs in a hundred" do not cook with gas-thus urging the use of more gas.

It is probably not necessary to multiply instances to convince subcommittee members that people generally meet large quantities of conflicting and confusing "evidence" and that the needs of environmental quality are not always well served. I concur most heartily with the statement "that adequate resources to educate citizens in these areas do not now exist". I support energetically the view