(00:00:00) Well tomorrow being Earth Day. We thought we'd spend the hour today talking about some of the major environmental issues facing Society. First. Today. We're going to hear from the founder and father of Earth Day. Former, Wisconsin, Senator Gaylord Nelson later in the hour. You'll have a chance to talk with well-known Minnesota environmentalist. Dean Abramson first, they'll Gaylord Nelson who says that despite all the progress. We've made since the first Earth Day Back in 1970, despite all the governmental agencies and special interest groups and new regulations and public awareness. Despite all that. We're still heading down the road of environmental self-destruction Senator Nelson, who is now a counselor to the Wilderness Society spoke recently to the Woman's Club of Minneapolis. (00:00:44) As a society we expend. A great deal of time and energy exploring in debating wheaty issues such as War and Peace and nuclear proliferation the economy education poverty international relations, the preservation of democratic institutions health care jobs and many more as we should this is important stuff and it deserves our constant attention now having said that however, let's talk about something that is really important that something refers to the status of the habitats that which sustains all plants and animals including humans. The hard reality is that no war no Revolution or parallel in history measures up in the importance in importance. To the threat of continued Relentless environmental deterioration as a society. Our first order of business is to reverse that process the issue. We will very soon be compelled to address is already visible on the horizon that issue is identified under various titles such as sustainability sustainable development environmentally sustainable societies carrying capacity all referring to the same basic concept a society that manages to meet its needs without compromising. The ability of future generations to meet their own needs is described as a sustainable Society. If this point in history, no industrial nation on Earth his managed either by Design or accident to evolve into a sustainable Society. On the contrary they are all including the United States pursuing a self-destructive course of fueling their economies by consuming their Capital that is to say by degrading depleting their resource base in counting it on the profit side of the of The Ledger that obviously is not a sustainable situation over the long term. It is interesting to note that capitalist and communist countries alike have quite happily and uncritically shared the same philosophy respecting the utilization of their resources. The philosophy has been maximum exploitation of all Resources with little or no consideration for the environmental consequences that has been the philosophy and Guiding ethic while at approach to resource utilization is still predominant. It is finally being seriously and vigorously challenged Alfred would crutch describe the guiding cultural ethic of industrial societies all industrial societies with some biting satire in in these words. He said when someone destroys something replaceable made by mankind, he's called Vandal and somebody destroys something Irreplaceable made by God. He's called a developer nonetheless the degradation of life-sustaining ecosystems continues. Ranging from Modest too serious to disastrous throughout the whole industrial and developing world the bottom line question. The bottom line question is obvious in in critical. Can we can we Forge can we evolve into a sustainable Society during the next three or four decades that is to say is sustainable society, which we would view with approval. The answer is yes, if certain things happened to of those two of those several certain things are these strong political leadership starting at the presidential level and the support the support of an ecologically literate Society imbued with a guiding environmental ethic the evolution of An ethic within our culture is happening. I'm happy. I'm happy to say I don't accelerating piece. In my view the the public is ahead of the political system in its concern. Now, the president has a key role. He must outline a long-range program that will begin to lead us toward a sustainable Society a vigorous National dialogue is a necessary proceeded to any action and the president must lead and invigorate the dialogue a general a general understanding and consensus must evolve and understanding that the basic wealth of our nation is our life sustaining resource base in short. Our wealth is the air water soil for us minerals rivers lakes oceans wildlife habitat scene. Beauty in biodiversity take that resource base away and all that is left Is A Wasteland? Dr. Lester Brown All The worldwatch Institute Estates the same case in an in another way. As he put it. 3 3 biological systems crop lands forests and grasslands support the world economy These three biological Systems Support the whole world economy, except for fossil fuels and minerals. They supply all old raw materials for industry and except for seafood. They provide all of our food in short. That's all there is that's just all there is these three biological systems the basis for the whole economy in every nation in the world these biological systems contain the wealth of the wealth of the world accumulated over the ages all around the planet. These systems are under varying degrees of stress in almost all places including the United States, the deterioration ranges from mild to disastrous as we continue to degrade them. We are consuming our capital and in the process in the process. We rode living standards and competencies. Mais the about the quality of our habitat habitat. It is a dangerous and slippery slope in a dramatic and sobering joint statement in 1992 the United States National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of London two of the world's leading scientific bodies address the state of the planet in the following words quote. If current predictions of population growth proved accurate and patterns of human activity on the planet remain unchanged Science and Technology may not be able to prevent either irreversible degradation of the environment or continued poverty for much of the world end of quote. Lots of it vexing issues will need to be addressed during this long process of forging a sustainable Society for one thing. What kind of sustainable society would we like to design and like to live in The concept of sustainability are carrying capacity for the human species is flexible in the sense that it depends in part upon the standard at which we wish to live or would find acceptable for example. China and the United States are just about the same size. Geographic three million six hundred thousand square miles give or take a few thousand. The United States has a population of 250 million China 1 billion 100 million. I would guess that the United States could support just guessing could support 1 billion 100 million people at the Chinese standard of living and at their quality of life and with most of their restraints on mobility and freedom. But who Among Us would want that as part of the necessary National Education process. I hope appropriate Committees of Congress can be persuaded to undertake a series of hearings on sustainability. What is it? Can we achieve it How can any anyone think of anything more important for us as a society to understand then then what must be done to achieve a sustainable Society since the one we have certainly is not Congressional hearings on sustainability would in inform the public the Congress and the president it would give recognition to this vital issue and help force it unto our national political agenda when experts are asked to list the most critical environmental problems. They are practically unanimous. enemas in ranking at the top of the list the calamitous consequences of continued exponential population growth even by the most Optimistic scenarios world population will increase from 5.3 billion to 6.3 billion during this decade. Does anyone really believe this will be a better world with a billion more people in the year 2000 and better still? when world population doubles in a few more decades that the United States will be a better country with a hundred and fifty million or 250 million more people or or that New York Miami Chicago Detroit Los Angeles, I better cities now than they were when they were half that size and will be better still when they're twice their current size. The answer to these questions is obvious indeed the population of the United States already exceeds. Its carrying capacity capacity that is to say our current population is being sustained by continued erosion of our resource base. This is not a sustainable situation over the long term. It is the road to bankruptcy. It is irrational continue to continue to travel that road when forging an alternative is feasible when we find educated and distinguished citizens. Like Julian Simon and my friend Ben wattenberg arguing that population isn't a problem that more is better a course closer examination inevitably reveals that they are economists. No biologist or ecologist would make that foolish argument means dream economists mainstream economists think the health of the economy in the wealth of the nation are measured by the simplistic exercise of adding up the annual production of goods and services without factoring in the accumulated environmental deficit or the annual cost of environmental destruction. Or deterioration, whereas the economic profession should be at The Cutting Edge of the drive to forge a sustainable economy. They are instead in intellectual and political impediment to the process thus except for a few relatively small number of resources economists that profession is made itself. Unfortunately irrelevant to the central issue of our time the extent of their relevancy was aptly put by Amory Lovins when he said Economists are those people who lie awake nights worrying about whether what actually works in the real world could conceivably work in theory the concept of exponential population growth comes home to me rather dramatically. When I contemplate that the population of the world was only 1 billion seven hundred million in 1916 the year I was born It was three billion 700 million when I organized Earth Day in 1970 and will be about 6 billion 300 million in the year 2000 since 1916 u.s. Population is rapidly expanded from under 98 million to 260 million and still growing the numbers Boggle the mind a net increase in world population of almost 95 million a year 260,000 a day 10800 an hour after population the experts list such vital matters as the threat of global warming pollution of the oceans declining biodiversity groundwater pollution. Hazardous waste and many many more all of these issues would rank high in any list, ironically, however, An issue at least of equal importance to population is rarely noted or mentioned anywhere yet. It is the key to our environmental future the absence the absence of a pervasive guiding conservation ethic in our culture is the issue and the problem societies answer must be to focus its attention and energies on nurturing a conservation generation imbued with a conservation ethic without such a guiding cultural ethic Society will not have the understanding motivation conviction or political will to persist in addressing the truly hard questions that will confront Us in the decades to come. Fortunately, there are encouraging signs that we as a society are beginning to develop a conservation ethic that will ultimately flower into a powerful social political and economic Force. The sooner the better a committed conservation generation is crucial to the whole political process through which we will do or fail to do what is necessary to forge an environmentally sustainable economy in the next three or four decades. It cannot be said too often education and more education is the key to it all we already have extensive experience in Environmental Education in hundreds of schools Across. The Nation. My state of Wisconsin has become the first to mandate Environmental Education in every school K through 12 since 1985. You have not been able to get a teaching certificate in Wisconsin unless you qualified in a certain number of environmental courses. They did something very wise. They didn't Mandate. Of course, they didn't mandate a book. What they did is mandate that every single teacher Infuse the environmental element into their course, whether its history or economics or agriculture or whatever it may be so that these young folks starting in kindergarten all the way through 12 will every day and every year they're in school have several teachers discussing the environment withing and tying it into the course that they're teaching a well-designed Environmental Education Program will produce and informed and committed conservation generation that will provide the moral and political support necessary to move the nation to a sustained sustainable economy ecologically. Ecological literacy is the only foundation on which a successful long-term program can be built and built and sustained indeed ecology is the defining study the Revolutionary science of our time. It is a science that must become a part of the common knowledge and understanding of the general public for the first time in history. We have a science that must be understood by the man on the street. If it is to serve its purpose. This is soul because public understanding and consent and participation is necessary. If we are to politically Implement those decisions required to preserve ecosystem integrity. While the science of ecology with its endless ramifications maybe and no doubt is the most complicated of all disciplines the fundamental guiding principles underlying the science of ecology are quite simple and easily understood by children in grade school. Everything is connected to everything else and all creatures are sustained by the same ecosystem. That is all that is all one has to understand once we have nurtured a generation that understand the understands the basic nature and functioning of our life sustaining EQ ecosystem a generation that recognizes that all creatures including humans are sustained by the same ecosystem a generation that appreciates its role and impact on That system from that of necessity will evolve a guiding environmental ethic. That is the way it works and ethic evolves. When a society reaches a firm consensus that certain conduct enhances the welfare of the group and other conduct in dangers it this ethic will guide leaders in both the private and public sectors in making the hard decisions and will provide the necessary public support to implement them without such a guiding ethic. We won't make the hard decisions until necessity overwhelms us and then it's too late. Unfortunately, the two most important issues population and and Environmental Education were not not on the Agenda at Rio 2 years ago. If we are to make real progress over the long pole Environmental Education must become a priority issue then someday even the editorial writers on the Wall Street Journal will understand the issue. I have a friend who's guiding theology for all political matters is the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. He could never quite understand that there is a direct and beneficial connection between a healthy environment and a prosperous economy until I described the car the connection in the jargon. Jargon of his business world. I said to him look at it this way in the connection becomes obvious it is this The economy the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. All economic activity is dependent upon that environment with its underlying resource base when the environment is finally forced to file under chapter 11 because it's resource base has been polluted degraded dissipated irretrievably compromised, then the economy goes down into bankruptcy with it because the economy is just a subset within the ecological system. The present is the key to the whole process only the president has the prestige to step forward and capture the attention of the nation and establish an agenda for Action in provide the credibility and urgency needed to move the nation. We are dealing with a social ecological and economic challenge unlike any other in all of our history. It is a challenge that begs begs for the kind of dedicated inspirational leadership provided by Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in their pursuit of victory in the second world war. This challenge is far more serious far more serious than the military threat to the Democratic West in World War Two Nations can recover from Lost Wars witness Germany and Japan but there is no there is no recovery from a destroyed ecosystem the opportunity for a gradual but complete break with our destructive environmental history and a new beginning is at hand whatever else the president may do. During his time in office including balancing the budget reducing the national debt and establishing a workable long-term health care plan. These dramatic successes would be little noted just little noted in history compared to the mark. He would leave if he became the president who successfully set the country on a course toward an environmentally sustainable economy are three greatest presidents achieve their rank in history because they successfully Rose to lead the nation and meet the grave challenges of their time the historical events can't running confronting Washington Lincoln Roosevelt were less important than the environmental challenge is today. This is so because the status of our environment will determine for all time the viability and Melody of life on the planet for all creatures on December 5 1962 Dean Acheson in a speech at West Point observe that Britain has lost an Empire and has not found a goal that describes the current American dilemma. The Soviet superpower has disintegrated. The Communist myths Menace has dissolved in the Cold War is Over still the United States has yet to find a unifying theme a moral cause to replace it this despite the fact that a Monumental moral cause is near at hand and a far more serious challenge than the Cold War ever was it's the war against the planet. How do we bring it to an end? Where do we start? It must start in the United States? We cannot and should not. For the rest of the world, that means that must start with the president. He is the one person who could bring it all together the one person who can lay out a new environmental course for the nation to pursue over the next 30 or 40 years and clearly. He's the only one who can command the necessary attention to do that. All of this will be enormously complicated and controversial Beyond far beyond anything ever before attempted and will extend over a period of many years the debate and controversy are vital to the process of developing a public understanding and support for the making of the hard decisions and the right decisions if we fail to make the necessary decisions nature will make them for us and for all future Generations. Thank you (00:28:36) very much. Former, Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day Nelson spoke recently at the Women's Club of Minneapolis. Well joining us now in the studio is Dean Abramson who for years has been one of Minnesota's best known and most respected environmentalists. He is now in charge of the energy and environmental policy program at the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota also serves on the board of the natural resources defense Council Professor, Senator Nelson, overstate things just a bit this this whole idea of the sustainable economy economy being the biggest issue. We Face bigger than winning World War 2 and all the rest of it. What do you think? I don't think he did overstate Aloha if he'd throw it in global nuclear war is a comparison. It might have changed things a little bit, but I think he's basically right mmm, we had our first Earth Day in 1970 a lot of idealism a lot of enthusiasm as I recall have we made much progress in actually cleaning up the environment in those? What is it 24 years? Well, some issues have improved we've we've we've improved our housekeeping a good deal. There isn't as much visible trash. Defined broadly at least in most places, for example, Minnesota a lot of a lot of that has been done though at the expense of other media. We buried a lot of stuff that used to lay around and that's contaminating groundwater and and and and the aquifers and the like Urban air pollution in most places not all certainly, but in most places certainly more in the Twin Cities has improved but on the other hand, we have released large amounts of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting chemicals and are our contribution to the loop major Global environmental problems is has increased. So I guess my answer is on the on the on the Cosmetic problems. We've made some progress but things are substantially worse than they were in the 70 me from an environmental standpoint. Is that from lack of Interest lack of concern or is it just that we can only deal with so much at any given time and we're kind of pecking away at the problem how knows it's part of everything a lot of it is failure to understand lack of understanding of issues. a lot of it is due to our system which values short-term economic gain more than long-term sustainability as as Senator Nielsen had said He said in his speech that one of the real Keys here is a sound Environmental Education Program that that kids really ought to be putting words in his mouth here. But basically that would be inundated with us information from the earliest age and and be continued to get exposed to environmental education issues or right along. Are we doing any doing a good job of that? That's hard for me to tell my students are only graduate student. So they have gone through collagen and gotten their bachelor's degrees some of them. Well, they're certainly more aware and I think better informed of these things and they were a few years ago, but hasn't been dramatic. I guess I would I would expand on what the senator said a little bit. I mean if we're if he's counting on educating a bunch of kids now so that when they get into a position of authority they can change things. He's talking about a pretty long lead time and some of these problems and the growth rate for some of these problems are is so high that if we wait that long if we have to wait 30 40 years. Until these kids get into more senior positions. We're going to have lost an awful lot of ground and be and and many of the issues that we now see as being serious will become very very serious President Clinton came to political age during the beginnings of the environmental movement in this country. Do you see some evidence that his approach to this issue is substantially different than his predecessors his immediate predecessor to guess I the previous administrations the Reagan Bush administration's were were actually anti-environment. I don't think I don't think they've been that we've had administration's that bad since Coolidge probably but on the other hand if you look at the earlier ones the Nixon Administration wasn't bad. The Carter Administration wasn't bad at all from a standpoint of resources and environment Nixon may have done some things that we know are some of us are not entirely happy with but he did some pretty good environmental stuff as did Carter and too early to judge. But there's no evidence. There's little evidence yet that Clinton is really sensitive to environmental issues. He is in his rhetoric. And of course the vice president is but it's been a little disappointing so far Our Guest is Dean Abramson who joins us from University of Minnesota number of callers on the line was some questions and comments on this Earth Day Eve. Let's go to our first caller. Hi. All right. Yes, go ahead. My name is Mike Fox and I want to make a comment that I think that a lot of times the environmentalists are on the extreme Edge, they present things so so extremely that the average man doesn't really want to buy it case in point is this nuclear business down at Prairie Island the adds to the left against the storage were so silly. I don't think a lot of people really bought it my question for the The senator I'm sorry professor professor bester is I'd like to see more specific numbers and let so that people can really truly evaluate where we are with what we're using of our natural resources and of our crop lands and grasslands tell people what rate they're being replaced at and what rate we're using the mat. So that Intelligent Decisions can be made instead of just this a lot of sky is falling kind of chicken a little response to the environmental things that we should be doing. We think we do we get too much sky is falling rhetoric here. Well, when an issue becomes emotional as the Prairie Island one does one gets they're zealots on both sides and I was disappointed with some of the ads that I saw. Because they stretch the truth. I was disappointed with the ads on the on the power company side because many of them. Whilst not lying word addressing the issue. So but that always happens that's just part of that just part of what goes on as as to the questioners. No sure request for some numbers. I wholly I wholly agree with him and I'll just make reference to two Publications which come out every year one is called the state of the world and it's a book that's published by the world watch The worldwatch Institute in Washington lead author is usually Lester Brown and the other one is a book that comes out every two years. It's called world world resources and it's published by the World Resources Institute in Washington, and it's a compendium of exactly the statistical information that the that the questioner wants and both of them are real good. Take another caller with a question or comment. Hi. Hello. I'm calling from Sioux Falls. Happy to hear denial Abramson on the radio since I graduated from the Humphrey Institute myself a few years back. Although I was in policy analysis rather than rather than in environmental area gives you an idea of where I'm coming from when I heard the discussion from Senator Gaylord about carrying capacity. I was a little bit concerned whenever we talk about population environment and numbers there seems to be an almost natural tendency towards a almost a disguised racism since the Nations that do have the greatest population growth. Are the ones that also happen to be non-white and I guess my question is shouldn't we be worried more about the quality of a population's consumption than its rate of growth or its absolute sighs. I mean United States consumes far out of proportion to what it has to or a similar similar population Bangladesh or India or China and secondly shouldn't we also temper a concern for environmentalism with the legitimate need that many developing countries have for economic growth. I mean, it's fair to say that Africa should be concerned about its Wildlife but shouldn't we also be concerned about their industrialization and try and balance this who is somehow so that we don't have a what amounts to an almost automatic implicit any developing Nation bias in our environmentalism. Okay, couple of good questions. First of all, we Do we put enough with too much emphasis on Raw numbers when we talk population and not enough on what those people are consuming. They were good questions. If we had a couple hours really we could really get at them. I just want to make a couple of comments one on the on the carrying capacity thing. A lot of human systems have been growing very very rapidly, of course in recent in recent years. And and and that kind of growth is common in nature me lots of things grow fast, but it can continue only so long as the system that's growing is small compared with the size of its environment. That's just true for rabbits in a corn field as a TI or or yeast in a Petri dish in a laboratory or people and what's happening now is the human Enterprise Has gotten large compared with the whole world and now environmental problems are no longer local housekeeping or one River Basin. It's that we are exceeding the capacity of the very the Earth's atmosphere as a whole and we're building up toxic chemicals in the world's freshwater as a whole etcetera. That is the whole system is being is being stressed is other comment about the population versus consumption. They're both very serious as he pointed out it is it is just plain impact would be just plain impossible for the world's population that as it now exists to consume on a per capita basis at the level of the oecd countries United States western Europe, Japan. and it's not a question of either or population per se population growth per se is causing some very very serious problems in a lot of places and per capita consumption is causing some very very serious problems. I happen to think that per capita consumption in the industrialized country is a more serious issue than than with a population growth per se but there are those that argue that isn't it unrealistic though to assume that we're going back to a level like live. We want to live like the people in Bangladesh. Nobody suggested that I mean that sets up a straw man that you know, that's just that's really silly and you'll occasionally see it. I saw an ad not long gone when the airplane magazines it was from one of the it was from one of the The energy industry and I talked about the talked about going back and so forth and the and the picture was a guy sitting with a skin on crouched in front of a fire. I mean, the implication was that we had to that we had to retreat to the Neolithic period that's not true. But on the other hand, we can't continue the the put the pressure and drain on natural resources that we have been now, the other question that the gentleman had was whether or not we sometimes are too hard on the developing nations insisting that they adhere to fairly rigid environmental standards when in fact what they really need is economic development and into the extent that those two are sometimes conflict. Maybe we're being too hard on them. Well again, it's not it's not it's not either or I happen to think that there are many people in this country who speak of the not industrialized country simply to remove to change the focus away from what will the impact that the United States is doing. It's a diversion from our own problems also in your in your your comment about Economic Development. I think it's really important to differentiate sharply between growth and development and I and that term development is being used in a way now that I find very disturbing as it's being used to mean growth as if growth were development growth is increasing the size of something and development is increasing the quality of something and very very different Let's take another caller with some questions comments on this Earth Day Eve. Hello. Hello, good afternoon. I wanted to applaud NPR for raising environmental awareness. You know, it's really nice to hear discussion of issues like carrying capacity sustainability and the difference between growth and development, but I was curious about the origins of Earth Day. Just dr. Abramson know where or how or they started. Okay, take us back in history. Well, I was involved a little bit in those days. I wrote one of the books that were circulated on Earth Day a book, by the way on about the environmentally environmental costs of electricity production. It was very much a creature of Gaylord Nelson and he was he was in the Senate then add a dedicated environmentalist and he and his friends and colleagues came up with the idea of having a of having an earth day and it was largely funded through a contributions from from the senator he gave speeches and he'd get out of our area and fees in it would be support the support the Earth Day staff. He hired a young fella named Dennis Hayes. Who was the first and for a long time the only staff member organizing Earth day, he went on to a distinguished career and in doing many things, but it was very much Gaylord Nelson's and it it just resonated with the country and there were celebrations. At or about Earth Day on at virtually every school campus and and communities throughout the country and it spread to Europe to it was a big deal was a very big deal not after a while to load it works and there's some criticism that that we were putting all our eggs in the Earth Day basket and then we'd ignore it the environmental issues for the rest of the year. Now, the criticism that I remember was that it was a diversion from the concerns about Vietnam. Oh, yes, that is there were those that were charging that that this environmental stuff was just a device to to remove attention from Southeast Asia. Let's take another caller. Hi. Hello, I would like to commend you on your topic today and it was nice to hear Senator Nelson and Dean Abramson. I would just like to address this do we have the right if we own a piece of property to do with it anything as we so see fit for example do our is it are we do we have the right to allow that soil that took generations to build up to erode off in a short time cut down 200 year old trees that took generations to build pollute the water without any recriminations from society and our legal system and I think we are so pervasive in allowing this to happen. What's your feeling on this? Once again a question that's really loaded this the property rights and the extent to which X infringement of the of the freedom to exercise those property rights is a major issue always has been in this country. It was an issue that played a part in keeping the US Environmental Protection Agency from achieving cabinet status last year. I personally think that we do not have the right to destroy our resources. Wantonly even though we happen to own little pieces of them interesting. I was helped in thinking about this. Well this year reading a little book that I got from one of my students called free market environmentalism was just was published within the last year or so. but I think we have to infringe on what have been historic rights much more it is as we grow as we become more highly technological as we begin to as the stresses associated with our impact on natural systems becomes more clear. I think we have to have more government involvement rather than less and also it's evident that it has to be done now at an international level slippery slope though, isn't it the slippery slope, but it's I think it's one of the I think it's one of the prices that comes with the the the global economy and the well the globalization of many things and the and the impacts that we're now putting on all of our Natural systems it's part of what what the senator meant was sustainability. Should we be prepared as a nation to give up some of our sovereignty to some International body which would decide that whether or not we were using our resources properly. I think it's already happening. There's there have been a number of treaties will go through them all but the Montreal protocol 41 on ozone depleting substances, which is essentially creating an international Machinery to ban these compounds that are destroying stratospheric ozone. More recently two years ago was the climate the framework climate convention which deals with greenhouse gases whether us something like a hundred sixty or so countries have signed that and enough. I have not ratified so that it's gone into Force as part of international law the u.s. Is part of it and again there it it's not spelled out in detail yet, but there will be an international enforcement Machinery associated with that. It's simply inevitable that this happen. We've got time for at least one more caller. Let's let's hear from another listener. Hi. Yes prattle on the topic. I'm the mother of a soon-to-be college graduate interested in this field. I'm curious what combinations of degrees and skills are needed out there to be effective in these areas for the for a career for Lifetime great good question. I get I get students that come to me with that question in one form or another and I usually give them the same answer and that is to get a good sound training. In something physics medicine law will get your PhD or whatever the degree that you that you think you want and then go out and apply what you've learned to these kinds of to the issues that concern you including environmental ones. I'm not terribly enamored with some of these. Oh ranged programs things where you take a little of this and a little of that and so forth. I think a good sound education. And then apply it to the issues that you're whether you're interested in tomorrow, of course is Earth Day and presumably at least some people will get all fired up tomorrow and decide well by golly. I'm going to I want to make a difference and what can the couple to couple of hints for people couple suggestions for people who really do want to make have some kind of an impact least in their own little circle on the healthy environment. What should they or should they start? What should they focus on a couple of tips for people? Well a couple it is to read and vote Reed find out what's going on inform yourself and then take part actively take part in the political process. It's also helpful to send off a dollar to noun again, too. to The Proven environmental and natural resource organizations anything that they in terms of recycling efforts double those recycling efforts change the lightbulb thing like that that of course that goes without saying I mean that is I forget who it was but but a couple of years ago to little books were published but was 99 ways to help save the planet or something and then there was there was a version of it published for children, and those were really very cleverly done and very wise Just you know list of stuff like things you should do in your ordinary life that you can do to reduce your impact on the environment and resources, but which don't require you to sacrifice any of the services that you're accustomed to lighting isn't it is it would be a very good example put in efficient light bulbs. They give as much light they only use about 15 or 20 percent as much energy and therefore reduce pollution from electricity production by about 85% and you save money mean there's a there's there's literally thousands of things that like that that can be done at the individual level the institutional in level in industrial practices and it does make a difference you bet. It makes a difference. Thanks a lot. We're out of time, but I'm sure glad you could come in our well. We've had two guests today really on tape former, Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson. You heard him speak in the first part of the hour. Out to the need to develop a sustainable economy and the need for Environmental Education and then joining us for the second half hour here Dean Abramson from the University of Minnesota. He is the head of the energy and environmental policy program at the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota also serves on the board of natural or the natural resources defense Council.