welndmn
03-02-2001, 03:54 PM
Colorado Northwest RAC Meeting
the Northwest Colorado Resource Advisory Council will meet at the Bureau
of
Land Management Grand Junction Office, Grand Junction, Colorado.
DATES: Thursday, March 15, and Friday, March 16 , 2001.
ADDRESSES: For further information, contact Lynn Barclay, Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), 455 Emerson Street, Craig, Colorado 81625;
Telephone (970) 826-5096.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: The Northwest Resource Advisory Council (RAC)
will
meet on Thursday, March 15, 2001, and Friday, March 16, 2001, at the Bureau
of Land Management Grand Junction Office, 2815 H Road, Grand Junction,
Colorado 81506. The meeting will start at 1 p.m. on Thursday, March 15,
ending at 4:30 p.m. that same day. The meeting will reconvene Friday, March
16 at 9 a.m. ending at 4 p.m. Discussion will include
fire management and funding, Colorado Canyons National Conservation
Area/Black Ridge Wilderness, weed management, RAC operations and
general program updates.
The meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may make oral
statements at the meetings or submit written statements at the meeting.
Time for public comment will be at 4 p.m., Thursday, March 15, 2001.
Per-person time limits for oral statements may be set to allow all
interested persons an opportunity to speak.
Summary minutes of council meetings are maintained at the Bureau of
Land Management Offices in Craig and Grand Junction, Colorado. They are
available for public inspection and reproduction during regular
business hours within thirty (30) days following the meeting.
Changes in Latitudes and changes in attitudes
FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED FEB. 25, 2001
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
In two Nevada courtrooms, the good guys get their say
Land rights activists report the letters poured in to Chief U.S.
District Judge Howard McKibben in the weeks before his Feb. 21 sentencing
of Ruby Valley rancher Cliff Gardner.
(Gardner was convicted last November on charges of grazing his cattle
from time to time on government land in northeast Nevada -- acreage his
family has ranched for generations.)
One also wonders if His Honor didn't raise a finger and sense a change
in
the wind when the U.S. Forest Service -- now serving a very different
master in the person of incoming Interior Secretary Gale Norton -- last
week folded its tents entirely in the five-year struggle to close off the
Jarbidge Canyon Road (also in northeast Nevada) to all human access.
("We received threats and intimidation from the government up until
election time, and then they [federal officials] became cooperative," says
Nolan Lloyd, chairman of the Elko County Commission.)
Finally, some 75 people -- mostly ranchers rooting for the defendant --
packed McKibben's courtroom Wednesday to see if the judge would make a
sacrificial lamb of Gardner in the ongoing federal campaign to drive the
West's small, family ranchers off the land.
And suddenly, the judge's demeanor began to change.
Where Gardner had previously been told he would not be allowed to stage
his slide show in the courtroom, presenting his case that grazing cattle
on
the lands actually increases crop diversity and wildlife yields (while
challenging federal jurisdiction over the lands in question), Judge
McKibben announced at the last minute that Gardner would be given half an
hour to speak his piece.
"He told him he'd only let him run it for half an hour, but I think it
ran 45 minutes or an hour," says Gardner's son Charley, reached at the
Slash-J ranch on Friday. "They let him do the whole slide show and it came
off real well."
In the end, the judge imposed a $1,000 fine, suspended pending appeal
--
a minimal penalty -- and ordered the Forest Service to sit down and work
with Gardner. Another witness describes prosecutors and other government
agents on hand looking "stunned -- and not in a happy way."
"He said they were supposed to work with my dad, they're supposed to sit
down and have a talk, but he did order the cattle off the land," Charley
continues. "What he said is that if they get out again the Forest Service
has to notify us and then we have three days to get them off."
I asked the rodeo champion if the family's ranch can be operated at a
profit without using those federal lands, as such small ranchers have been
accustomed to do for more than a century.
"I don't think so."
So what's his father going to do?
"You'll have to get that from the horse's mouth," Charley said.
Cliff Gardner couldn't be reached for comment by deadline.
# # #
Teach your children well
This article can be found here: http://www.cei.org/UpdateReader.asp?ID=907
Too Much Fear, Too Few Facts
by Michael Sanera, Ph.D.
This article is adapted from Facts, Not Fear: Teaching Children About the
Environment (1999, Regnery Publishing), by Michael Sanera and Jane S. Shaw.
Michael Sanera is director of CEI's Center for Environmental Education
Research. Jane S. Shaw is a senior associate at the Political Economy
Research Center.
In schools today, it is typical to see walls covered with posters depicting
endangered animals. Students hold tee-shirt sales to raise money to save
the
rain forest. Children write pleading letters to government officials to
save
the planet. In math class, students may solve word problems about
deforestation or air pollution as well as multiply fractions. Environmental
issues are part and parcel of children's education.
This emphasis could be a good thing. When taught well, environmental
education can be informative and absorbing. It can bring to life the
scientific principles and information that underlie ecology, for example.
Children can learn about how plants grow and how different kinds of
vegetation foster different ecological communities. And making children
aware of environmental problems can encourage them to think critically and
creatively.
Too often, however, environmental education skips the basics, pushing
students into complex and controversial topics such as endangered species
and global warming without establishing a scientific basis of knowledge.
Education can play second fiddle to emotionalism and political activism.
Shortly after Earth Day in 1997, for instance, a parent wrote a letter to
the New York Times: "I have noticed a disturbing trend. With each passing
school year, my children are more convinced that humans and technology are
bad for the planet....While teachers are helping to insure a 'greener'
future, I do not think they understand that children may infer a
condemnation of humanity."
And to celebrate Earth Week in 1998, the Sierra Club took a group of fourth
graders on a field trip to downtown Denver. After encouraging the children
to use sidewalk chalk to draw pictures of endangered animals, the Sierra
Club organizers gathered the children around a podium and began denouncing
the voting record of a Colorado senator.
Because environmental issues are emotional and complicated, sometimes it
is
easier for parents and teachers to let emotions, rather than facts, guide
their discussion. Sometimes it's easier to let outsiders, even those who
may
be biased, present information. And, unfortunately, many of the materials
in
schools, including textbooks published by the leading national publishers,
are unreliable. They echo the views expressed by the media or by politicians
or by an uninformed public. It is difficult for parents and teachers to
sort
the facts from the fiction.
The purpose of Facts, Not Fear is twofold: to raise some questions about
the
way environmental issues are being taught and to offer information to
balance the biased presentations that are so prevalent.
We, the authors of this book, believe we have the background to help
teachers and parents correct misinformation found in the materials. Michael
spent seventeen years as a political science professor teaching at Northern
Arizona University. He also has started two research institutes and
published two books. Jane was a journalist for many years before she began
to write and edit articles for a research institute in Montana. Our research
has been aided by people familiar with each environmental issue we write
about. In addition, we are both parents of preteens, and we know from
personal experience the conflicts between emotion and fact that crop up
in
environmental education.
First , you need to understand the nature of the problem.
Apocalypse Tomorrow
"Our Earth is getting hotter every minute and the only way we can stop it
is
to stop burning Styrofoam," wrote Catherine Mitchell, then a student at
Percy Priest Elementary School in Nashville, Tennessee. "I'm also too young
to die, might I add, so stop burning the Earth!"
Catherine worried about dying because she had learned that global warming
and a thinning ozone layer threaten her life. Never mind that the greenhouse
effect and the so-called "hole" in the ozone layer have little to do with
each other, or that burning Styrofoam has little to do with either one.
Catherine's environmental knowledge was scientifically weak but emotionally
potent.
Consider the following:
e Global warming will cause polar ice caps to melt, says one junior high
school text. "New York City would almost be covered with water. Only the
tops of very tall buildings will be above the water." But most scientists
believe that if the world gets warmer, the sea level might increase only
by
between six and forty inches.
e Rainforest, a storybook for small children, tells how a man on a bulldozer
destroys the rain forest and its animal life. Justice is done when the rains
come and wash the bulldozer over a cliff, killing the man. (A drawing shows
the man falling to his death.) "The Machine was washed away!" the book
concludes. "But the creatures of the rain forest were safe."
e The National Wildlife Federation tells students to pour highly acidic
water on potted plants to simulate acid rain. When the plants die, students
conclude that acid rain kills forests. Yet the largest scientific study
of
acid rain ever conducted (at a cost of more than $500 million) couldn't
find
convincing evidence that acid rain is destroying forests.
e An environmental supplement to the Weekly Reader states that CFCs
(chlorofluorocarbons) "break down and go directly to the ozone layer and
destroy it." These CFCs "are found in the plastic foam from which cups,
plates, and some fast food containers are made." But by 1992, when this
issue appeared, plastic foam products had been CFC-free for two years.
These are just some of the many examples found during a review of more than
130 textbooks, 170 environmental books for children, and examples of
curriculum materials from environmental and business groups. Unbiased
materials are a rare exception. Most materials either present only one side
of an issue, select worst-case examples, or omit important information.
Armageddon in the Press
These materials echo messages conveyed by the media:
e "Let there be no illusions," wrote Time magazine in its "Planet of the
Year" special issue. "Taking effective action to halt the massive injury
to
the earth's environment will require a mobilization of political will,
international cooperation and sacrifice unknown except in wartime."
Sprinkled through the issue were statements such as: "Nearly every habitat
is at risk," "Greenhouse gases could create a climatic calamity," and
"Swarms of people are running out of food and space."
e Actress Meryl Streep appeared on the Phil Donahue Show to warn mothers
about a substance called Alar, a growth regulator used on apples. CBS's
60
Minutes presented the charges, too. Both were part of a public relations
campaign conducted in 1989 for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
The group claimed that one out of every five thousand preschoolers exposed
to Alar residues was likely to get cancer. Parents were terrified. Schools
stopped selling apples in their vending machines. (The NRDC's claims were
never substantiated.)
e Captain Planet, a cartoon seen on the Cartoon Network, begins a typical
episode with this narration: "Our world is in peril. Gaia, the spirit of
the
Earth, can no longer stand the terrible destruction plaguing our planet."
One of the shows features "Hoggish Greedly" and "Dr. Blight," who are trying
to destroy the rain forest and make it into a golf course.
Reinforcing the Message
Some scientists and other prominent citizens reinforce the message conveyed
by the media. In fact, they often speak through the media. While scientists
must be objective and careful when they publish articles in scientific
journals, they can speak dramatically for popular consumption:
e Stephen Schneider, a scientist at Stanford University and the National
Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, told Good Housekeeping
readers that "world global warming would mean that food and water supplies
would be threatened (temporarily, at least), that certain diseases might
go
haywire, that numerous species of animals or plants-even whole
ecosystems-would be endangered, and that both the temperature and the level
of the oceans would rise, leading to more likelihood of severe storms and
flooding of the coastlines." Each of these statements is questioned by
equally reputable scientists.
e James E. Hansen, who directs the Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
told
Newsweek that even the deep snow blanketing the East in the winter of
1995-96 was caused by global warming. "As you get more global warming, you
should see an increase in the extremes of the hydrologic cycle-droughts
and
floods and heavy precipitation," he explained.
Since so much scientific research is funded by government grants, some
scientists often improve their access to funds if they can show politicians
that their work may "save the planet." In fact, other scientists who
downplay crises may find themselves in hot water because they are
threatening the budgets of their colleagues:
e Melvyn Shapiro, the chief of research at a laboratory of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told Insight magazine that much
of
the reason for alarm about ozone depletion was budgetary. "If there were
no
dollars attached to this game, you'd see it played on intellect and
integrity," he said. "When you say the ozone threat is a scam, you're not
only attacking people's scientific integrity, you're going after their
pocketbook as well. It's money, purely money." But soon after the article
appeared, Shapiro stopped accepting calls from the press. Word circulated
that his superiors had told him to quit talking.
Government officials recognize that environmental "crises" mean bigger
budgets, too:
e When the Superfund law, designed to clean up hazardous waste sites, was
passed in 1980, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) budget went
up
almost instantly by hundreds of millions of dollars-and ultimately by
billions. The EPA administrator at the time actively campaigned for the
Superfund law. He made sure that the EPA, not some other agency, would be
in
charge, and, in fact, the law that emerged was largely written by members
of
his agency.
But perhaps the most accomplished promoters of crises are environmental
groups. Many environmental groups were born out of genuine alarm about air
and water pollution or other issues. But advocacy has become big business.
Multimillion-dollar organizations are housed in skyscrapers and managed
by
well-paid executives who spend much of their time as Washington lobbyists.
If these organizations are to continue to exist in their comfortable style
and maintain their political power, they must keep donations coming.
So their fund-raising letters are calculated to grip the reader's attention:
e "It is entirely possible that we may be the last generation of humans
to
know this wondrous earth as it was meant to be," warns the Sierra Club Legal
Defense Fund.
e "In the time it takes you to read this letter, nine hundred acres of
rainforest will have been destroyed forever," says the Rainforest Action
Network.
e "Without firing a shot, we may kill one-fifth of all species of life on
this planet in the next 20 years," shouts the World Wildlife Fund.
Ironically, fear about the environment does not mean that the environment
is
significantly worse than it used to be. As Facts, Not Fear demonstrates,
by
most measures the environment in North America has improved substantially:
e Air quality has dramatically improved in the last few decades. According
to the Environmental Protection Agency, national emissions of carbon
monoxide declined by 14.8 percent between 1975 and 1994, and emissions of
sulfur dioxide declined by 24.6 percent during the same period. These
declines occurred in spite of substantial economic growth.
e The United States has more standing timber now than it did in 1920, and
more timber grows each year than is cut.
e Many wildlife populations are greater than they were 80 or 100 years ago.
So, just as the texts are often irresponsible in predicting the future,
they
are often negligent in describing the past and present.
Saving the Planet without Scaring Kids
How can parents and teachers give students a balanced view of environmental
problems? One way is to expand the information they receive. Facts, Not
Fear
contains the facts that are not covered in textbooks and the scientific
controversies that are not explained.
Simply learning that reputable scientists often disagree with the claims
of
imminent catastrophe will keep children from blindly fearing the future.
Such information will also help them see that environmental science is a
discipline that reflects scientific uncertainty and is open to continual
discovery. Students can learn about environmental issues and develop their
critical thinking skills at the same time. As scientists do, they can
collect the facts and see whether the theories that have been advanced
actually fit the facts.
With this greater objectivity, students can begin to think critically about
why we have environmental problems and can become more aware of human
nature. They won't be so quick to accept the simplistic claims of
catastrophic global destruction. Children will probably stop pestering
parents to take up the cause of the day, or at least they will be willing
to
consider that their crusade may not be for everyone.
------------------
WELNDMN!WELNDMN!WELNDMNWELNDMN!
ahh screw it call me Mark :D
No matter what you do or say someone will take it too seriously
the Northwest Colorado Resource Advisory Council will meet at the Bureau
of
Land Management Grand Junction Office, Grand Junction, Colorado.
DATES: Thursday, March 15, and Friday, March 16 , 2001.
ADDRESSES: For further information, contact Lynn Barclay, Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), 455 Emerson Street, Craig, Colorado 81625;
Telephone (970) 826-5096.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: The Northwest Resource Advisory Council (RAC)
will
meet on Thursday, March 15, 2001, and Friday, March 16, 2001, at the Bureau
of Land Management Grand Junction Office, 2815 H Road, Grand Junction,
Colorado 81506. The meeting will start at 1 p.m. on Thursday, March 15,
ending at 4:30 p.m. that same day. The meeting will reconvene Friday, March
16 at 9 a.m. ending at 4 p.m. Discussion will include
fire management and funding, Colorado Canyons National Conservation
Area/Black Ridge Wilderness, weed management, RAC operations and
general program updates.
The meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may make oral
statements at the meetings or submit written statements at the meeting.
Time for public comment will be at 4 p.m., Thursday, March 15, 2001.
Per-person time limits for oral statements may be set to allow all
interested persons an opportunity to speak.
Summary minutes of council meetings are maintained at the Bureau of
Land Management Offices in Craig and Grand Junction, Colorado. They are
available for public inspection and reproduction during regular
business hours within thirty (30) days following the meeting.
Changes in Latitudes and changes in attitudes
FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED FEB. 25, 2001
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
In two Nevada courtrooms, the good guys get their say
Land rights activists report the letters poured in to Chief U.S.
District Judge Howard McKibben in the weeks before his Feb. 21 sentencing
of Ruby Valley rancher Cliff Gardner.
(Gardner was convicted last November on charges of grazing his cattle
from time to time on government land in northeast Nevada -- acreage his
family has ranched for generations.)
One also wonders if His Honor didn't raise a finger and sense a change
in
the wind when the U.S. Forest Service -- now serving a very different
master in the person of incoming Interior Secretary Gale Norton -- last
week folded its tents entirely in the five-year struggle to close off the
Jarbidge Canyon Road (also in northeast Nevada) to all human access.
("We received threats and intimidation from the government up until
election time, and then they [federal officials] became cooperative," says
Nolan Lloyd, chairman of the Elko County Commission.)
Finally, some 75 people -- mostly ranchers rooting for the defendant --
packed McKibben's courtroom Wednesday to see if the judge would make a
sacrificial lamb of Gardner in the ongoing federal campaign to drive the
West's small, family ranchers off the land.
And suddenly, the judge's demeanor began to change.
Where Gardner had previously been told he would not be allowed to stage
his slide show in the courtroom, presenting his case that grazing cattle
on
the lands actually increases crop diversity and wildlife yields (while
challenging federal jurisdiction over the lands in question), Judge
McKibben announced at the last minute that Gardner would be given half an
hour to speak his piece.
"He told him he'd only let him run it for half an hour, but I think it
ran 45 minutes or an hour," says Gardner's son Charley, reached at the
Slash-J ranch on Friday. "They let him do the whole slide show and it came
off real well."
In the end, the judge imposed a $1,000 fine, suspended pending appeal
--
a minimal penalty -- and ordered the Forest Service to sit down and work
with Gardner. Another witness describes prosecutors and other government
agents on hand looking "stunned -- and not in a happy way."
"He said they were supposed to work with my dad, they're supposed to sit
down and have a talk, but he did order the cattle off the land," Charley
continues. "What he said is that if they get out again the Forest Service
has to notify us and then we have three days to get them off."
I asked the rodeo champion if the family's ranch can be operated at a
profit without using those federal lands, as such small ranchers have been
accustomed to do for more than a century.
"I don't think so."
So what's his father going to do?
"You'll have to get that from the horse's mouth," Charley said.
Cliff Gardner couldn't be reached for comment by deadline.
# # #
Teach your children well
This article can be found here: http://www.cei.org/UpdateReader.asp?ID=907
Too Much Fear, Too Few Facts
by Michael Sanera, Ph.D.
This article is adapted from Facts, Not Fear: Teaching Children About the
Environment (1999, Regnery Publishing), by Michael Sanera and Jane S. Shaw.
Michael Sanera is director of CEI's Center for Environmental Education
Research. Jane S. Shaw is a senior associate at the Political Economy
Research Center.
In schools today, it is typical to see walls covered with posters depicting
endangered animals. Students hold tee-shirt sales to raise money to save
the
rain forest. Children write pleading letters to government officials to
save
the planet. In math class, students may solve word problems about
deforestation or air pollution as well as multiply fractions. Environmental
issues are part and parcel of children's education.
This emphasis could be a good thing. When taught well, environmental
education can be informative and absorbing. It can bring to life the
scientific principles and information that underlie ecology, for example.
Children can learn about how plants grow and how different kinds of
vegetation foster different ecological communities. And making children
aware of environmental problems can encourage them to think critically and
creatively.
Too often, however, environmental education skips the basics, pushing
students into complex and controversial topics such as endangered species
and global warming without establishing a scientific basis of knowledge.
Education can play second fiddle to emotionalism and political activism.
Shortly after Earth Day in 1997, for instance, a parent wrote a letter to
the New York Times: "I have noticed a disturbing trend. With each passing
school year, my children are more convinced that humans and technology are
bad for the planet....While teachers are helping to insure a 'greener'
future, I do not think they understand that children may infer a
condemnation of humanity."
And to celebrate Earth Week in 1998, the Sierra Club took a group of fourth
graders on a field trip to downtown Denver. After encouraging the children
to use sidewalk chalk to draw pictures of endangered animals, the Sierra
Club organizers gathered the children around a podium and began denouncing
the voting record of a Colorado senator.
Because environmental issues are emotional and complicated, sometimes it
is
easier for parents and teachers to let emotions, rather than facts, guide
their discussion. Sometimes it's easier to let outsiders, even those who
may
be biased, present information. And, unfortunately, many of the materials
in
schools, including textbooks published by the leading national publishers,
are unreliable. They echo the views expressed by the media or by politicians
or by an uninformed public. It is difficult for parents and teachers to
sort
the facts from the fiction.
The purpose of Facts, Not Fear is twofold: to raise some questions about
the
way environmental issues are being taught and to offer information to
balance the biased presentations that are so prevalent.
We, the authors of this book, believe we have the background to help
teachers and parents correct misinformation found in the materials. Michael
spent seventeen years as a political science professor teaching at Northern
Arizona University. He also has started two research institutes and
published two books. Jane was a journalist for many years before she began
to write and edit articles for a research institute in Montana. Our research
has been aided by people familiar with each environmental issue we write
about. In addition, we are both parents of preteens, and we know from
personal experience the conflicts between emotion and fact that crop up
in
environmental education.
First , you need to understand the nature of the problem.
Apocalypse Tomorrow
"Our Earth is getting hotter every minute and the only way we can stop it
is
to stop burning Styrofoam," wrote Catherine Mitchell, then a student at
Percy Priest Elementary School in Nashville, Tennessee. "I'm also too young
to die, might I add, so stop burning the Earth!"
Catherine worried about dying because she had learned that global warming
and a thinning ozone layer threaten her life. Never mind that the greenhouse
effect and the so-called "hole" in the ozone layer have little to do with
each other, or that burning Styrofoam has little to do with either one.
Catherine's environmental knowledge was scientifically weak but emotionally
potent.
Consider the following:
e Global warming will cause polar ice caps to melt, says one junior high
school text. "New York City would almost be covered with water. Only the
tops of very tall buildings will be above the water." But most scientists
believe that if the world gets warmer, the sea level might increase only
by
between six and forty inches.
e Rainforest, a storybook for small children, tells how a man on a bulldozer
destroys the rain forest and its animal life. Justice is done when the rains
come and wash the bulldozer over a cliff, killing the man. (A drawing shows
the man falling to his death.) "The Machine was washed away!" the book
concludes. "But the creatures of the rain forest were safe."
e The National Wildlife Federation tells students to pour highly acidic
water on potted plants to simulate acid rain. When the plants die, students
conclude that acid rain kills forests. Yet the largest scientific study
of
acid rain ever conducted (at a cost of more than $500 million) couldn't
find
convincing evidence that acid rain is destroying forests.
e An environmental supplement to the Weekly Reader states that CFCs
(chlorofluorocarbons) "break down and go directly to the ozone layer and
destroy it." These CFCs "are found in the plastic foam from which cups,
plates, and some fast food containers are made." But by 1992, when this
issue appeared, plastic foam products had been CFC-free for two years.
These are just some of the many examples found during a review of more than
130 textbooks, 170 environmental books for children, and examples of
curriculum materials from environmental and business groups. Unbiased
materials are a rare exception. Most materials either present only one side
of an issue, select worst-case examples, or omit important information.
Armageddon in the Press
These materials echo messages conveyed by the media:
e "Let there be no illusions," wrote Time magazine in its "Planet of the
Year" special issue. "Taking effective action to halt the massive injury
to
the earth's environment will require a mobilization of political will,
international cooperation and sacrifice unknown except in wartime."
Sprinkled through the issue were statements such as: "Nearly every habitat
is at risk," "Greenhouse gases could create a climatic calamity," and
"Swarms of people are running out of food and space."
e Actress Meryl Streep appeared on the Phil Donahue Show to warn mothers
about a substance called Alar, a growth regulator used on apples. CBS's
60
Minutes presented the charges, too. Both were part of a public relations
campaign conducted in 1989 for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
The group claimed that one out of every five thousand preschoolers exposed
to Alar residues was likely to get cancer. Parents were terrified. Schools
stopped selling apples in their vending machines. (The NRDC's claims were
never substantiated.)
e Captain Planet, a cartoon seen on the Cartoon Network, begins a typical
episode with this narration: "Our world is in peril. Gaia, the spirit of
the
Earth, can no longer stand the terrible destruction plaguing our planet."
One of the shows features "Hoggish Greedly" and "Dr. Blight," who are trying
to destroy the rain forest and make it into a golf course.
Reinforcing the Message
Some scientists and other prominent citizens reinforce the message conveyed
by the media. In fact, they often speak through the media. While scientists
must be objective and careful when they publish articles in scientific
journals, they can speak dramatically for popular consumption:
e Stephen Schneider, a scientist at Stanford University and the National
Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, told Good Housekeeping
readers that "world global warming would mean that food and water supplies
would be threatened (temporarily, at least), that certain diseases might
go
haywire, that numerous species of animals or plants-even whole
ecosystems-would be endangered, and that both the temperature and the level
of the oceans would rise, leading to more likelihood of severe storms and
flooding of the coastlines." Each of these statements is questioned by
equally reputable scientists.
e James E. Hansen, who directs the Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
told
Newsweek that even the deep snow blanketing the East in the winter of
1995-96 was caused by global warming. "As you get more global warming, you
should see an increase in the extremes of the hydrologic cycle-droughts
and
floods and heavy precipitation," he explained.
Since so much scientific research is funded by government grants, some
scientists often improve their access to funds if they can show politicians
that their work may "save the planet." In fact, other scientists who
downplay crises may find themselves in hot water because they are
threatening the budgets of their colleagues:
e Melvyn Shapiro, the chief of research at a laboratory of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told Insight magazine that much
of
the reason for alarm about ozone depletion was budgetary. "If there were
no
dollars attached to this game, you'd see it played on intellect and
integrity," he said. "When you say the ozone threat is a scam, you're not
only attacking people's scientific integrity, you're going after their
pocketbook as well. It's money, purely money." But soon after the article
appeared, Shapiro stopped accepting calls from the press. Word circulated
that his superiors had told him to quit talking.
Government officials recognize that environmental "crises" mean bigger
budgets, too:
e When the Superfund law, designed to clean up hazardous waste sites, was
passed in 1980, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) budget went
up
almost instantly by hundreds of millions of dollars-and ultimately by
billions. The EPA administrator at the time actively campaigned for the
Superfund law. He made sure that the EPA, not some other agency, would be
in
charge, and, in fact, the law that emerged was largely written by members
of
his agency.
But perhaps the most accomplished promoters of crises are environmental
groups. Many environmental groups were born out of genuine alarm about air
and water pollution or other issues. But advocacy has become big business.
Multimillion-dollar organizations are housed in skyscrapers and managed
by
well-paid executives who spend much of their time as Washington lobbyists.
If these organizations are to continue to exist in their comfortable style
and maintain their political power, they must keep donations coming.
So their fund-raising letters are calculated to grip the reader's attention:
e "It is entirely possible that we may be the last generation of humans
to
know this wondrous earth as it was meant to be," warns the Sierra Club Legal
Defense Fund.
e "In the time it takes you to read this letter, nine hundred acres of
rainforest will have been destroyed forever," says the Rainforest Action
Network.
e "Without firing a shot, we may kill one-fifth of all species of life on
this planet in the next 20 years," shouts the World Wildlife Fund.
Ironically, fear about the environment does not mean that the environment
is
significantly worse than it used to be. As Facts, Not Fear demonstrates,
by
most measures the environment in North America has improved substantially:
e Air quality has dramatically improved in the last few decades. According
to the Environmental Protection Agency, national emissions of carbon
monoxide declined by 14.8 percent between 1975 and 1994, and emissions of
sulfur dioxide declined by 24.6 percent during the same period. These
declines occurred in spite of substantial economic growth.
e The United States has more standing timber now than it did in 1920, and
more timber grows each year than is cut.
e Many wildlife populations are greater than they were 80 or 100 years ago.
So, just as the texts are often irresponsible in predicting the future,
they
are often negligent in describing the past and present.
Saving the Planet without Scaring Kids
How can parents and teachers give students a balanced view of environmental
problems? One way is to expand the information they receive. Facts, Not
Fear
contains the facts that are not covered in textbooks and the scientific
controversies that are not explained.
Simply learning that reputable scientists often disagree with the claims
of
imminent catastrophe will keep children from blindly fearing the future.
Such information will also help them see that environmental science is a
discipline that reflects scientific uncertainty and is open to continual
discovery. Students can learn about environmental issues and develop their
critical thinking skills at the same time. As scientists do, they can
collect the facts and see whether the theories that have been advanced
actually fit the facts.
With this greater objectivity, students can begin to think critically about
why we have environmental problems and can become more aware of human
nature. They won't be so quick to accept the simplistic claims of
catastrophic global destruction. Children will probably stop pestering
parents to take up the cause of the day, or at least they will be willing
to
consider that their crusade may not be for everyone.
------------------
WELNDMN!WELNDMN!WELNDMNWELNDMN!
ahh screw it call me Mark :D
No matter what you do or say someone will take it too seriously