Revisiting Earth Day:
Environmental Policy and Politics in
2016
Michael Kraft
Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Public
and Environmental Affairs
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
April 22, 2016
*Topics and Discussion
• First Earth Day: what it meant and what means today.
• Rise of the environmental movement, key events, esp.
adoption of core environmental policies, and increasing
party polarization today on such actions.
• Changing nature of environmental policy over time: from
command and control regulation to sustainability.
• Public opinion: how it has changed over time and its role in
politics and policymaking today.
• What Earth Day means today.
Please ask questions throughout as well as at the end.
Will take a ten-minute break at 11 a.m. or so.
* Means that the page is in the handout packet.
*Earth Day 1970 + 46: What It Was,
What It Means Today
• First Earth Day: April 22, 1970. Today, celebrated
in 192 nations via Earth Day Network.
• Initially UN effort to be on March 21, 1970.
• In U.S., Wisc. Senator Gaylord Nelson organized a
teach-in. Co-director was Rep. Pete McCloskey,
R.-CA. Made it April 22. Denis Hayes was the
national coordinator of events.
• Sen. Nelson called it the National Environmental
Teach-In. Hayes used the term “Earth Day” in
promoting events. Name stuck.
• Why April 22? Nelson wanted this to be a
campus-based teach-in, and timing mattered.
Purpose and Effects of Earth Day
• Purposes in 1970. Recognize environmental
challenges, teach about them, mobilize public,
stimulate media coverage. All to aid in solving
problems and to foster public policy actions.
• Reflected Environmental Decade of the 1970s, and
importance of public attitudes and values.
• Today? Is it now largely symbolic? Gestures rather
than substance? Should it be more than this?
• Denis Hayes in 2015: “Earth Day's heart is in the
right place, but after 45 years it's failed to achieve
its goals.” "It has been a dreadful failure, not
merely of Earth Day ... but of Homo sapiens."
What Does Earth Day Mean Today?
• How do most people think about Earth Day or
Earth Week? What do you think?
• What images are conveyed, esp. in media?
• Mixed views: Be green for a day? Celebrate Earth
and environmental values? Mount local cleanup
efforts, such as along Fox River and bay? More
than this?
• An occasion for university programs, lectures,
films, commitments. E.g., UW-Green Bay’s Green
Innovations Program/EMBI.
• Today in New York, 150 nations will sign the Paris
climate change agreement. So the day continues to
be symbolically important.
*Perspectives on Environmental Issues
• Aesthetic and recreational (water, woods,
wildlife, recreation, hunting and fishing, cleaning
up litter). The oldest view.
• Controlling pollution/health concerns. Modern
view, esp. in 1970s and 1980s. Health centered.
Air and water pollution, toxic chemicals,
hazardous waste, drinking water quality.
• Ecological/ecosystems/sustainability. Newer
view, esp. since early 1990s. Sustainable energy
and water use, sustainable forestry, sustainable
agriculture; sustainable cities; climate change.
Conservative critiques of Agenda 21, climate
change, and community sustainability initiatives.
Images We See for Environmental
Books and Actions
• One way to see how such basic ideas are
presented in U.S. and other cultures is to look
at book covers.
• The images that publishers choose to use for
environmental texts.
• The symbols that are conveyed to readers and
the public when such images suggest this is
what “the environment” means.
• Use the covers of my own texts to illustrate.
Book Cover of EPP 2010
Environmental Policy, 8th Ed., 2012
What Do They Have in Common?
• Trees, leaves, water, snow. In short, “nature.”
• Why this image for an “environmental” book?
• It is the recreational-aesthetic view. Not so
much public health or sustainability.
• Is this the way the public thinks about the
“environment”? And the media?
• What is missing? Public health, sustainable
business and communities, energy use and
climate change, use of natural resources for
economic growth.
Why Do Publishers Think This Way
about Book Covers?
• Do they believe environmental concerns
are only about “nature” or wildlife? “Birds
and bunnies” view.
• That environment is what is “outside” of
our homes, schools, and businesses. Esp.
streams, rivers, lakes, forests, air.
• A common view, and reflected in much
media coverage of the environment.
• Can see it every year on Earth Day. What is
the image that is used to cover the event?
Green Bay Press-Gazette for Earth Day
Story Last Year: 2015
•
Official Earth Day Image 2016: Trees
Some Emphasize Energy/Efficiency:
WPS Email This Morning for Earth Day
Celebrate Earth Day Today
• Choose NatureWise® Renewable Energy!
• NatureWise Renewable Energy gives you a choice in how your
electricity is produced — with earth-friendly energy from wind
and biogas, located right here in our community.
• The Power Of Renewable Energy
• Wind turbines harness the clean power of wind, generating
thousands of kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity annually.
• Gases from farm waste and landfills, known as biogas, are
harvested and turned into green electricity.
A Change in Perspective Needed
• The past year was a little different for my texts.
• I urged these two publishers not to repeat the
trees, leaves, and water theme. Or at least to add
people and cities to the image, or energy use.
• Some resistance, but they agreed to do so.
• Important to move away from trees and leaves to
people living in cities, here and around the world.
Focus on energy, transportation, food, urban
sustainability, business and environment.
• Yet one reviewer of the EPP book said she was
puzzled by the cover because it did not seem to
have an “environmental theme,” by which she
meant nature.
Latest Edition of EPP Book after
Extensive Discussion with Publisher
Environmental Policy 9th Ed. 2015
Or Could Aim for Classic View of Earth
from Space: Will Show This Again Later
Google Did So Earth Day 2015
Google 2016: Ocean Life
*Earth Day and the Environmental
Movement as Historical Events
• First Earth Day: April 1970.
• Prior to that, enormous growth in membership of
environmental groups during the 1960s.
• This growth continued in the 1970s and increased yet
again in the 1980s as a reaction to the Reagan
administration. Reagan agenda was deregulation and
defunding. Not well received by the public.
• See membership figures on next slide.
• Broad growth in all groups, including the older
“nature” group such as Audubon Society, Wilderness
Society, and National Wildlife Federation. Also Sierra
Club.
*Membership in Environmental
Groups 1960 to 2010
1960
1970
1980
1990
2010
Number of members or supporters
Sierra Club
15,000
113,000 181,000 630,000 1,400,000
Wilderness Society
10,000
54,000
Audubon Society
32,000
148,000 400,000 600,000 600,000
National Parks CA
15,000
45,999
31,000
100,000 325,000
NA
40,000
150,000 1,300,000
NRDC
NA
(Natural Resources Defense Council)
45,000
350,000 500,000
*Public Concern Grows over the
Environment, and Policy Actions Follow
• Rapid growth in public concern in late 1960s. But
why?
• Better science, and scientists speak out: Rachel
Carson to Barry Commoner, Paul Ehrlich, and others.
• Economy doing well, education levels rise, quality
of life issues emerge, including health.
• A “miracle of public opinion.” Hazel Erskine in late
1960s. Environment rose quickly in saliency.
• Broad public support and environmental policy was
supported in both parties.
• The result was an astonishing collection of national
policy actions, much the same at the state level.
*Major National Environmental
Policy Actions of the 1970s
• 1970: Clean Air Act
• 1972: Clean Water Act; Federal Environmental Pesticide
Control Act; Marine Mammal Protection Act, Coastal Zone
Management Act; Noise Control Act
• 1973: Endangered Species Act
• 1974: Safe Drinking Water Act
• 1976: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(hazardous waste); Toxic Substances Control Act; Federal
Land Policy and Management Act; National Forest
Management Act.
• 1977: Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
• 1980: CERCLA or Superfund
• More than “nature” here. But does the public see?
*Bipartisan Support in Congress and White
House for Most of these Policies
• 1970 to 1974: Richard Nixon. Declared the 1970s as the
“environmental decade.” Also created the EPA.
• 1974 to 1976: Gerald Ford. Continued support.
• 1977 to 1980: Jimmy Carter. Strong support. Created
DOE and pushed energy issues and conservation.
• Votes in Congress reflected the bipartisan support of
the environment during this political era.
• Clean Air Act in 1970: Unanimous in the Senate and
375 to 1 in the House.
• Even by 1990, with CAA expansion under George H.W.
Bush, vote was 89 to 10 in Senate and 401 to 25 in the
House. This for one of the most sweeping and
powerful environmental laws we have.
*Compare This Record to What We See
Today with Sharp Partisan Divisions
• Keystone XL Pipeline and use of Canadian tar sands oil
• Climate change; December 2016 Paris conference and
many related issues, including reality of climate change.
• Obama administration EPA regulations for coal-fired
power plants: Clean Power Plan.
• Support for renewable energy sources (wind, solar)
• Restricting or promoting fossil fuel exploration and
production on public lands
• Other EPA environmental regulations (any of them)
• DOE energy research and development funding
• Even fuel economy standards for vehicles
But why do we see this partisan division today? And the
ideological issue framing that goes with it? Much of the
explanation lies in different world views and values.
Similar Divisions in Wisconsin Over
Environmental Policies
• Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program
• Support for the Department of Natural Resources
and Its Science Staff, including budgets
• Mining Regulation. Weakened to permit very large
Gogebic Taconite iron ore mine in the north
• Support for Renewable Energy/Wind Power
• Funding for Non-Point Source Water Pollution
• Impacts of large dairy operations on groundwater
• Enforcement of Environmental Laws/Permitting
• Suit against EPA Clean Power Plan, and other
climate change Issues
*Other Historical Perspective: Command
and Control to Sustainability
• First era of environmental protection or
pollution control policy was during the 1970s.
• As shown, all of the core statutes were adopted
at that time, and they all continue today. None
repealed or even significantly altered.
• All shared a common view and policy approach:
we need regulation to control unacceptable
levels of pollution, esp. by business. To do that,
we rely on the U.S. EPA and the states for
implementation and enforcement.
• See this approach in Clean Air Act, Clean Water
Act, SDWA, RCRA, TSCA, and more.
*Second Era of Criticism and Reform of
Environmental Policy: 1980s to Present
• 1980s under Reagan and continuing to this day.
• Command-and-control regulation faulted for its costs
and burdens on business & adversarial relationships,
often with little supporting evidence.
• Efficiency-based reform efforts, such as use of costbenefit analysis, and use of new strategies: information
disclosures (TRI), market incentives, flexible regulation.
• These experiments continue, but they did not replace
the foundation of 1970s policies.
• Can see this era in increasing partisanship over role of
government and regulation. Clinton v. Republican
House in 1990s, George W. Bush administration
actions, and Obama White House v. Republican
Congress today.
*A Third Era Emerges: Sustainable
Development or Sustainability
• Began in early 1990s; Earth Summit 1992 a signpost.
• Clinton efforts through his Council on Sustainable
Development.
• Sustainable cities movement from 1990s to present.
In Wisconsin, the smart growth emphasis.
• A new generation of environmental concerns: climate
change, loss of biological diversity, population growth,
energy use, transportation, agriculture/food scarcity.
• Long-term, less visible, lower salience, more difficult
• A broader, more challenging sustainability agenda.
But threatening to some. Sustainability in higher
education under attack as well. Suspected of being
anti-business, and sustainability seen as threat to
freedom and property rights.
The Environmental Movement Fragments
• During the 1990s and continuing today,
environmental groups lose some public support
(we’ll look at the polls) and compete among
themselves. Fragmented movement.
• Old mainstream groups (Sierra Club, Natural
Resources Defense Council. LCV—voting scores)
compete with more radical groups (Greenpeace)
and also new local or grassroots groups.
• Fundraising becomes more difficult.
• Recruitment/retention of members also more
difficult.
• Public opinion shifts as well. Less positive.
*Environmental Groups and
Their Opposition
• Environmental groups continue to struggle,
but some are doing very well. E.g., Alliance for
the Great Lakes, Nature Conservancy.
• But the environmental movement is now
much more controversial and less successful.
• The opposition is more numerous and much
better organized than before: Chamber of
Commerce; National Association of
Manufacturers, American Chemistry Council,
Americans for Prosperity (Koch brothers), Club
for Growth, Heritage Foundation, ALEC.
*Public Opinion
• First Earth Day primarily about educating and
mobilizing the public. It worked. Public support
responsible for passage of major legislation.
• Yet, public remains poorly informed on issues.
• Media coverage is superficial, and not only on
Earth Day. Both TV and newspaper coverage is
thin.
• Also, environmental issues low in saliency. Near
the bottom of issue lists. Other issues more
important to people.
• Low saliency makes for poor political prospects,
esp. for what we call third generation
environmental issues.
*Examine Selected Public Opinion Polls
to See Changes Over Time
• Will draw from Gallup surveys so the wording
is consistent.
• Will find these surveys at www.gallup.com
• But see also Yale/George Mason surveys that
are done regularly through Yale Project on
Climate Change Communication. Available at:
http://environment.yale.edu/climatecommunication/filtered/?action=add_filter&f
3=f3.
*Saliency Is Low: Environment Not in
the Top 11 Most Important Problems
Why Salience Is Important
• It is not just the direction or strength of
opinions that matter, e.g., on belief in
climate change or support for taking action
on drinking water.
• Salience matters much more.
• Environmental issues, energy, climate change
almost always low in salience. Third gen
issues even less salient because long-term.
• That is, other issues matter much more to
people, such as the economy.
• These are the issues on which people vote or
take action. Environment rarely competes.
*Which Environmental Problems Are of
Greatest Concern? The Most Visible Ones
A great deal, 2014%
A great deal, 2015%
A great deal, 2016%
Pollution of drinking water
60
55
61
Pollution of rivers, lakes and
53
47
56
Air pollution
46
38
43
Extinction of plant and animal species
41
36
42
The loss of tropical rain forests
41
33
39
Global warming or climate change
34
32
37
reservoirs
*Concern Is Rising Since Early 2000s
*Environment Versus Economy Over Time:
Gallup Poll 1985 to 2015
*2015 Gallup Survey of Environment
Protection v. Energy Production
*Climate Change Worry: 1990-2016: An
Eight Year High in Concern
*Increasing Majority Cite Human Causes
Such As Use of Fossil Fuels
*Partisan Divide on Climate Change
2015%
2016%
Change(pct. pts.)
Worried a great deal/fair amount about global warming
Republicans
31
40
+9
Independents
55
64
+9
Democrats
78
84
+6
Republicans
36
40
+4
Independents
55
55
0
Democrats
72
77
+5
Republicans
18
20
+2
Independents
37
43
+6
Democrats
53
58
+5
Republicans
34
38
+4
Independents
56
68
+12
Democrats
74
85
+11
Effects of global warming already begun
Will pose serious threat to you in your lifetime
Increased temperatures due to human activities
Gallup Environment/Climate Change
Survey of 2016 on Partisan Divide
• Reasons for record temperatures in 2015. Survey done
in March of 2016.
• Republicans: 27% said was human-caused climate
change, and 72% said cause was natural conditions.
• Democrats: 72% said was human-caused climate
change, and 24% said natural conditions.
• Perfectly opposite views on why we are seeing climate
change. Natural v. burning of fossil fuels by humans. But
why so partisan? And why views are so intensely held.
• My own experience: reaction to my Tribune News
Service editorial on climate change and RICO in early
April this year. Thousands of online comments,
hundreds of emails, dozens of phone calls. Mostly very
uncivil, to put it mildly.
*Partisan Divide on Other Issues: %
Worried a Great Deal: Why a Division?
2014
2015
2016
Democrats/Democratic leaners
Pollution of drinking water
67
64
71
Pollution of rivers, lakes and reservoirs
62
55
67
Air pollution
57
53
55
The loss of tropical rain forests
51
39
47
Extinction of plant and animal species
50
46
49
Global warming or climate change
53
52
53
Pollution of drinking water
50
43
48
Pollution of rivers, lakes and reservoirs
41
36
40
Air pollution
30
22
27
The loss of tropical rain forests
27
24
26
Extinction of plant and animal species
28
24
30
Global warming or climate change
16
13
18
Republicans/Republican leaners
*Congressional Voting on Environment
•
*Evaluations of How Much Gov’t. Is
Doing on the Environment
*Public Sympathetic to Environmental
Movement, But Opposition Rises
*What Conclusions to Draw?
• Public no longer quite as supportive of
environmental movement values and goals or
public policy as before.
• Strong public support continues, but also a sharp
rise in percentage of opponents.
• Partisan divide has grown substantially as well,
esp. on climate change, and it persists despite
mounting evidence and global agreements.
• Public response in polls depends on how the
issues are framed and whether people connect
these issues with their own lives and welfare.
• Yet people remain concerned about the
environment, esp. for the future. See next slide.
Environment Ranks High If Focus Is Future
• A late 2014 survey: “When asked which factor
posed the greatest long-term threat to their
health and well-being, Americans chose
climate change and environmental problems
(45%) above terrorism (35%) and global
epidemics like Ebola (21%).”
• Gallup Survey in March 2013. What will be
most important problem facing U.S. in 25 years:
Federal budget deficit (13%), the economy in
general (12%), followed by the environment
(8%), dissatisfaction with government (6%), and
unemployment (6%).
What Should Earth Day Be Today?
• Is it too superficial? Too much focus on cleanup of
litter in parks and along rivers? On recycling? On
green products? Ineffective at stimulating change?
• A focus on the new and larger agenda of
sustainability, and making a connection between
people’s lives and the larger environmental agenda.
Esp. energy use and climate change.
• Often best done at the local level even if national
and global action is imperative.
• Sustainable community movement a case in point.
Examples from Seattle to Portland to Boulder, and
many other cities.
Denis Hayes, Coordinator of First Earth Day
• Now President of Bullitt Foundation in Seattle
• Focuses on sustainable development in Pacific
Northwest
• Its six-story office building in Seattle reflects that
emphasis.
• The most energy efficient office building in the
world. Uses 1/9th the energy per square foot as
the average in Seattle, and 1/20th the water.
• 100% free of toxic materials in construction, and
net zero on energy and water.
• And built to last 250 years. Such construction is
possible. Costco featured in April 2016 Connection
Examples of City/State Actions
• Water conservation in the West: Jerry Brown/CA.
• Energy conservation and efficiency; and
renewable energy. California Energy Commission.
• Transportation initiatives, from high-speed rail in
California to urban mass transit, now more
popular than ever, esp. in cities. Milwaukee. And
vehicle fuel economy standards: 2017 to 2025.
• Climate change initiatives in cities and states.
Esp. CA and Northeast. Little federal action.
• Major cities and smaller cities adopt diverse
policies: LA, New York, Chicago; also San
Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Denver, Austin.
*Examples of City Sustainability
Action: New York
• One of the nation’s greenest cities.
• Vertical, compact, energy efficient.
• PlaNYC 2030: comprehensive plan of 2007;
132 specific program initiatives, and 400
separate goals.
• Housing, parks, public spaces, brownfield
redevelopment, waterways, transportation,
energy, food, green buildings, waterfront
development.
• 2011 update: implementation plan, including
climate change action post Sandy.
*Chicago
• Another of the nation’s greenest cities
• Department of the Environment
• Sustainable Development division encourages
green design in new construction
• Eat Local, Live Healthy program: sustainable
food
• Sustainable airport program.
• Bicycle ridership
• Green surfaces on streets and alleys to disperse
water.
• Chicago climate action plan.
*Los Angeles
• Second largest city, but sprawling rather than
dense.
• 2007 Directive 10. All city departments to create
sustainability plans.
• Mayor’s Green Agenda. Green infrastructure, air
quality, public transit, green buildings, energy, solid
and hazardous waste;, brownfield redevelopment,
water, urban habitats.
• Some 50 climate change initiatives: energy efficient
lighting, wind power.
• Goal of 20 % renewable power by 2020. CA has
state target of 33% by 2020 & 50% by 2030 (since
backed off); VT mandates 75% by 2032. MN has
25% by 2025. WI: 10% by 2015; no more, and even
that under attack.
*Seattle, Washington
• Highly ranked on sustainability/green living
• Sustainable Seattle: nonprofit organization was early
actor on the change. See Web site:
http://sustainableseattle.org/
• Sustainable indicators project
• City leaders internalize goals of sustainability. Office
of Sustainability and Environment:
www.seattle.gov/environment/
• 1994 comprehensive plan. 20-year plan.
• Land use planning, transportation, housing, utilities,
economic development
• Urban centers and villages, hub urban villages,
residential urban villages.
• A very strong climate change action plan.
*Portland, Oregon
• Much like Seattle
• Sustainability incorporated thoroughly into city
government and planning agencies.
• The city’s Bureau of Planning and Sustainability:
www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/
• Sustainability benchmarks
• Zoning and land use planning
• Mass Transit
• Urban villages
• Green Building Initiative.
• Comprehensive plan.
*Boulder, Colorado
• Boulder sustainability initiative involving city agencies
and city council. A Department of Community Planning
and Sustainability:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/planning.
• Boulder Valley comprehensive plan: regional land use
plan.
• Community sustainability at heart of local efforts:
social equity, economic vitality, environmental quality.
• Focus on energy and climate, recycling and
composting, green building and local building code that
is strong on energy efficiency, waste management,
information resource for the community.
• City’s internal sustainability efforts.
*Madison, WI
• City of Madison Sustainability:
http://www.cityofmadison.com/Sustainability/i
ndex.cfm
• Citizens: energy efficiency, renewable energy,
green buildings
• Public transportation, ride share, biking
• Recycling, parks, water conservation
• Business: brownfields loan program, solar
energy, recycling, water conservation.
• But weaker than many other comparable cites.
*Dallas, TX
• Dallas, TX: Green Dallas: Building a Sustainable
Dallas. See http://greendallas.net/sustainabledallas/
• “Dallas is working to protect the economic,
environmental, and social elements that make our
community strong, vibrant, healthy, and diverse.
• 2012: First ever sustainability plan.”
• “Protecting the environment remains one of the
most important mandates given to the City of
Dallas. Every day, City of Dallas employees work to
reduce operational impact on the environment.”
• Work includes: air quality, climate change, water
resources.
*What about Businesses?
• Businesses and sustainability
• Corporate social responsibility actions
• Sustainability principles; e.g., SmartBrief Newsletter
available at no cost.
• Examples of corporations making genuine and
meaningful changes:
• Interface carpeting, for years
• Seventh Generation, much the same
• Patagonia
• Johnson Controls, WI
• S.C. Johnson, WI
• Whole Foods, Starbucks, SolarCity.
Business Efforts II
• Johnson and Johnson, General Electric, Unilever,
and Procter and Gamble? Even if all strongly
promote a consumer culture?
• Wal-Mart? Committed to sustainability?
• Duke Energy? Esp. after coal ash pond spills.
• Georgia Pacific Corporation? Coal use and one of
largest emitters of toxic chemicals. Switching to
natural gas this year.
• And green investments and innovation. A favorite
at the moment in Silicon Valley in California: Tesla
Motors.
• But we also have cases of “greenwashing,” or less
than a sincere effort to change.
*What about Us? Values and Lifestyles
• Local food movement and organic food growth in
sales, and animal rights from eggs to chickens to
hogs.
• Smaller scale living, including homes. Large
homes continue to be built, but also smaller
homes and apartments in central cities, and even
“tiny” homes.
• More thoughtful purchases, from cars to food.
• Ecological footprint and carbon impacts.
www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/
• Wider use of green technologies.
• Hybrids and electrics, solar and wind power,
energy-efficient homes, with added insulation
and LED lights.
*Some Limits to Lifestyle Changes
• Cultural change likely to be slow. New values
conflict with well-established values/behavior.
• We live in a strongly pro-growth consumer culture,
and some environmental initiatives seen as in
conflict with that culture.
• Developing nations moving toward the western
model, so the same conflict is emerging globally.
• Imagine 9.8 billion people in 2050, all striving to
live like affluent Americans. Energy use, food,
water, clothing, housing, cars, material use.
• As a result, we will need massive changes in
technology and efficiency to compensate. Energy
use is one of the toughest problems to address.
What about Earth Day Today?
• A one-day reflection on environmental problems
and policy actions? More than this?
• In 2014, the 2,500-page IPCC report on climate
change: sweeping effects on every nation, from
rising sea levels to heat waves, intense storms,
impacts on food supply, public health, conflict
among peoples and nations.
• Much can be done, but the costs of doing little to
nothing are also very high. Sec. of State Kerry:
“Waiting is truly unaffordable. The costs of
inaction are catastrophic.”
• Explains why Obama administration is doing
much administratively via the EPA: esp. new coalplant rules and fuel economy standards.
Earth Day Today II
• When the media make environmental issues seem
trivial, respond to that.
• Call for more serious reporting. Write letters to the
editor or post comments online or on blogs or
Facebook pages. Ex.: Citizens’ Climate Lobby.
• No shortage of issues in Wisconsin: surface water
quality, iron mining in the North (ended for now),
energy sources (coal v. wind), clean air, freeze on
stewardship fund; deep DNR budget cuts, esp. in
sciences, proposed end to natural resources board
power.
• Earth Day is symbolic, but more than that.
• Need to make it count and steer society toward
the long-term goals of sustainable living.
Questions or Comments?