(00:00:02) Good morning, and welcome to this Earth Day special on midday. I'm Mike Edgerly. Gary. Eichten has the day off Earth Day is 30 years old in 1970 Earth day was a mostly North American event 20 million Americans gathered across the country to show support for a clean environment this weekend more than 200 million people around the globe are expected to Mark Earth Day 2000 at noon today. We'll hear a speech from Dennis Hayes the chairman of the Earth Day Network and an organizer of the original Earth Day. Earth Day 2000 will also see the publication of a new book the Earth around us maintaining a livable planet this collection of 31 science. SAS is geared toward you and me the scientists who've written for this collection explain the Earth's processes and how human actions affect the planet the editor of the Earth around us is Jill Schneiderman a professor of geology at Vassar College. She joins us from Poughkeepsie, New York, good morning, and welcome to midday Professor. Good morning. Thanks very much Mike. I'm delighted to be here. Thank you for joining us and in our studio in Saint Paul is one of the books contributors Ed Buchwald is Lloyd McBride professor of Environmental Studies at Carleton College in Northfield Professor Buchwald. Thanks for making the drive up to st. (00:01:19) Paul. Well, thanks for asking (00:01:20) me. If you would like to join our conversation with professors Schneiderman and Buchwald, you can call us at 6'5 12276 thousand or outside the metro area. It's 1-800 two for two two eight two eight Jill snyderman. How does the Earth around us with its scan of the Earth's history and it's processes factor into this event. We call Earth Day. Well, I certainly think it'll be of interest to people on Earth Day. But I hope that this collection of essays will be of interest to people beyond Earth Day. I kind of think of this book is Earth science for earthlings and it could certainly be used on Earth day, but it could be used beyond that as well. How would you define the role of the non-scientist in maintaining a livable planet? (00:02:04) We get a we get a view in this book of (00:02:06) many science perspectives on on the earth its processes what works and what doesn't work in the hope and (00:02:13) the perhaps the threat posed to the to the planet by (00:02:17) humans. How do we as non-citizen on science? Non-scientist citizens factor into all of this. Well, I think the role of every person on the planet is really critical. One of the premises of the book is that science alone can't solve the environmental problems that we've created and in fact the essays in this book. It's true. Most of them are written by earth scientists. There are actually a few essays ones written by a well-known writer John McPhee. There's another written by a historian of geology. And in fact to Physicians have contributed an essay to this book one of whom used to be a geologist and now specializes in skin cancer issues and she writes eloquently she and her colleague right eloquently about the ozone depletion issue and how it affects Health, but the point of this book one of the points of This Book Is that science earth science alone can't fix the the environmental problems that we find ourselves confronting and part of that is because we have questions that are going to require ethical considerations judgments that are informed by his Three culture policy and so therefore people who are not scientists themselves must learn some of the science but also contribute with the with the kinds of backgrounds that they have and their own local concerns. For example, are we a scientifically aware public do you think well, I think yes, and no certainly we live in a technological age and people do deal with technology which derives from science on the other hand. I can tell you that less than 20% of the high schools in this country teacher earth science and therefore in some ways. We're almost in earth science illiterate population, which is really quite a grave and and startling concept to think about given that we are earthlings that we are bound to this planet and no no no matter how great the desire to pursue things like terraforming the idea that we could go to some other planet and terraformed it make it into something like the Earth. We really do live here and now and we have to do our just as we have to do our housekeeping in Holmes we have to do our Earth keeping on this planet Professor Buchwald. Let me ask you are your Carleton students are they literate when it comes to science and Earth's (00:04:31) processes? Well, I hope they are one of the requirements that Carlton is to take some distribution of courses and they're all required to take some signs in mathematics. But often times, I don't think that's enough. We really need to have more discourse about science and what it means in our lives. (00:04:50) What are you teaching your students about Earth Day or or is that a topic of discussion in your classes at Carlton? (00:04:56) So it's very much a topic of discussion. And in fact, I'd like to pick up on a thread that Jill presented and that is whether or not science can solve our problems alone. I like to draw a big square up on the board and it's probably should have more corners than just for but I draw a big square and right in the middle of it. I write environmental problems and in one corner, I right. Science another corner is ethics a third corner is politics with a small P. Meaning. How do we get together to solve problems in the fourth corner is economics and I try to tell my students that if you sit in any one of those Corners alone, you'll never be able to help solve environmental problems. You really have to be able to understand what's in all four corners of that square before you can help so it doesn't do any good just to have scientists working on problems. I think everybody has to (00:05:53) contribute so there is an interrelationship among these various Corners as you described them in our daily (00:05:59) lives. Oh very much. So we need to be careful that we don't have blinders to the other three corners because each of us has a kind of favorite way of thinking about the world and it's usually not sufficient. Let me ask both of you. Is (00:06:14) there a point at any will there ever be a point? Do you think we're environmental issues science issues the Earth's Health will become the water cooler topic. That's a the stock market is Professor Schneiderman. Well, certainly Ed and I can hope that that will be the case and I just you know, it's really a treat to be able to speak with your listening audience today with Ed beside me in a sense because we are a group of earth scientists who have worked very hard to try and try and get people to understand that that earth science is critical to environmental problems and it's been it's been a delight to work with Ed. He has a tremendous essay in this book that deals along the line some of the things we just mentioned he has an essay called. What what should my neighbor know what else should my neighbor know and he talks about things like population as well as the hydrologic cycle Now population might not be within the traditional purview of geology. But as I was saying before it's important for people to Ordinary People your everyday citizen to In the earth science just as much as it's important for earth scientists to talk about issues like population now apropos of the the company water cooler. We have put together this collection essays as lovely as Ed's comprise make up this book. And as far as the water cooler is concerned. I think that we've undertaken this project because we want earth science be part of the everyday conversations among people at work. In fact, we know from experience that earth science is part is part of their everyday lives in the sense that people make decisions about whether or not they should make some adjustment to the physical landscape around their homes when we have right now. It's pouring rain and big hips in New York people are looking at surface water runoff at a tremendous rate when we have a drought people are wondering about where is the we live along the Hudson river which happens to be an estuary, which means that it's pretty salty water that moves North from New York Harbor well, There's a drought that salt front front pushes North so our water supply which comes from the Hudson becomes saltier and less Fresh So earth science impacts people's everyday lives. The question is are they talking about it? And will they talk about it? And I think that once people become more conversant with some of the basic ideas of how the Earth Works which is one of the objectives of this book, they'll feel more comfortable conversing about it. And I certainly hope that that these contributors to the Earth around us have set an example scientists often don't step out of their disciplines and offer their opinions on other subjects. They like people like to feel more comfortable talking about the things they know best so scientists often stick to science what we're kind of making a good-faith effort here and saying we're going to go out a limb on a limb tell you about the earth science that wrote that's relevant to different different issues the history of the culture the the ethics and we're going to ask you to make that same effort and learn a little bit of the earth science and if people do that I think There will be able to stand around the water coolers and talk about these things professor. Buckwald your essay wraps up the the collection in the book and you give us three main issues to think about number one is population growth that seems a fairly among the three issues that you've laid out for us easier to grasp perhaps then then then this notion that we need to understand the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Will that ever become a water cooler topic sitting around talking about what's going on with with on this issue? (00:09:53) Well, I certainly think that population growth is an issue that we talked about around the water cooler. We can see that in the Twin Cities area the I think fundamentally the questions about all of the suburbanization of the Twin Cities area and the questions of Transit and Light Rail and whether we should have bigger and more freeways and all of those those are questions about funding Mentally population growth and how it affects our resources how it affects the infrastructure (00:10:26) 6512276 thousand that's in the Twin Cities area outside the metro area one eight hundred two, four two two eight two eight. We'd like to hear from you this morning to talk with professor snyderman and Buchwald Professor Buchwald. What would you like us to take away from this this essay that you've written about the other things the things we should know as we go forth in our our lives on this Earth. (00:10:52) Well the other two things besides population that I write about our one is the fact that one way to think about the Earth at least is that it consists of a lot of very large kind of Geo bio cycles and the one that almost everybody knows because I think we teach it well in the middle school is the hydrologic cycle the fact that water gets evaporated out of the oceans and then it can Answers in the clouds and then into rain and it goes back onto the land and runs off or some of it goes into the ground water. Well, one of the things that we need to understand is that every time we DeForest an area where every time we cover it with pavement or do those kinds of things we grossly change that hydrologic cycle. And in fact, one of the things that we're worried about now with global warming is that we're going to change the hydrologic cycle and it's it's not that we really understand it all that well that we ought to be experimenting with it and it's not just the hydrologic cycle, which is the one that everybody I think knows so well, but there's also a carbon cycle and a nitrogen cycle and a sulfur cycle and it it just goes on and on and many of these are interlinked in ways now, that's the carbon cycle that we're worried about with global warming (00:12:16) and how does that work? Tell us a little bit about the carbon cycle? Well what how and how (00:12:21) Mike (00:12:21) contribute or have an impact (00:12:23) on well the concern that we have with the carbon cycle is that carbon? Dioxide works like a kind of window that allows ultraviolet energy from the Sun to come onto the Earth where it then Heats us up and it re-radiates out as infrared. But but this this window is opaque to infrared. It's the ultraviolet can go through but they infrared can't and so it just sort of gets reflected back onto the Earth again and that makes us warmer and the more the more carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere the more opaque it cup becomes to that infrared and so if we if we keep warming it up among other things we're going to affect the hydrologic cycle. We're going to make more of operation which has to end up with more precipitation someplace. But in fact our models are not good enough yet to tell us where specifically That's going to be let me give you an example from Minnesota the place that we know so well some of the models seem to indicate that Minnesota is going to get warmer. Well, you know, that's not yeah, that's not such a bad thing at all, except if you start seeing well what will happen if it gets warmer. Well it may get drier too. And that means that those beloved forests of ours are going to have to move north. Okay, and they would be naturally replaced with Prairie. But the trouble is there's not enough Prairie around the supply seed. So what's going to happen? Well, it should be left. Yeah, it's just going to be something that's very degraded and not not the kind of beautiful Woods that we know another issue in Minnesota is that if you go up north lots of the land up there, you know is Pete and very wet and it's not very good for agriculture. Well when we warm that up, there are two things that are going to happen. It's going to give off a lot of To which is going to make things worse, but for minnesotans, it also means that well, somebody would say well, why don't we just grow soybeans and corn up there? Well, we can't it's not the right kind of soil not the right kind of conditions for us. So we're in the middle of an experiment here that we don't know how it's going to come out but the chances are that it may not be good (00:14:42) professor Schneiderman. If we're in the middle of an experiment the outcome of which is still uncertain. What do we do as Citizens? And what do we tell our elected public officials to do? Well, gee, I you know, I'm not really sure how to answer that question. I've been having on my mind as I as I've been listening to Ed speak that I wanted to have a chance to make the point that there's a rather startling premise of this book. And and this may come back around to your question about what we should do. So bear with me as I articulate this this startling premise is actually articulated quite well in Stephen. Jay Gould is essay in this book. And the premise is that the Earth doesn't need us to protect it. Well I say that may be somewhat arresting to hear from an earth scientist somebody who supposedly appreciates the Earth particularly one before one day before Earth day. Isn't that sacrilege? Well, let me let me explain why I say the Earth doesn't need us to protect it and why I think that that premise which is the premise of this book is really should be the basis for a geologically informed environmentalism. And this is how I'd like to relate this to your question about. What should we do? Because let me just make a No comment about that. I think that the word environmentalism these days means very little or that is to say when you say environmentalist. What does that mean that one of the reasons we've done this book is because we want to have people have access to the earth science that grounds that will ground a scientifically based environmentalism one that has some kind of ground truth some kind of physical reality to the passion that often goes along with environmentalism what better than in than an informed impassioned environmentalism rather than just an environmentalism that's devoid of some physical some knowledge of the physical reality of the earth. So so then the issue of the this premise of the book and why the Earth doesn't need us to protect it one reason I say that this could be the basis for a geologically inspired environmentalism. This is something that all geologist know that is the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Well, what does that mean 4.6 billion years Most people will say well that's you know, 4.6 with a lot of zeros after it. But what the heck is 4.6 billion years, how do you get that into your gut? Well, one thing that we geologist do in order to to try and have people appreciate this 4.6 billion year age of the Earth is use a metaphor for for this age and and the metaphor that we often choose as a calendar year so that if the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, then it formed on January 1st. The first rocks formed at the beginning of March the first land plants in the beginning of November and dinosaurs, right the very word dinosaur means so ancient, you know, it's that that's that's that 386 computer as a dinosaur well in this metaphor the the dinosaurs didn't occur until the middle of December and they they died out at the end of December when the Rocky Mountains were lifted up the last I say the last ice sheet last glaciers melted one minute before midnight. So Minnesota became is free and the Ming Dynasty lasted five seconds. So the point of that is human beings are at A logical afterthought basically and nature didn't prepare for us. It didn't know we were coming. It doesn't care that we're here and we in fact have a real there's a real popular misperception of our of our might. That is we and this is something as I said that Steve Gould articulates quite beautifully in his essay in the book that we think we're so powerful. We think that we have such control over the Earth. But in fact, we don't there have been many Extinction events and many organisms have come through them quite successfully our nuclear weapons what we have in our nuclear arsenals is really nothing compared to the power of the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs and other living things at the end of the Mesozoic. So so getting back to this point of the earth doesn't need us to protect us. It certainly doesn't we probably end up as a stratum of garbage sometime in the future, but the Earth will be just fine. So what we need to do then apropos of you know, what do we do about this is we need to protect the Earth not for the Earth sake but for the sake of people and other Leon resilient things living on the planet. So the motto shouldn't be saved the Earth. That should be saved the people. Well, it should be have humility have some respect take care of what lives on this planet and don't foul the waters and the air and the soils on which we depend we're talking to the editor of the Earth around us maintaining a livable planet Jill Schneiderman. She's joining us from Poughkeepsie New York buckwald is the Lloyd McBride professor of Environmental Studies at Carleton College. He's in our Studios. If you'd like to join our conversation, the number is six five one two, two seven six thousand that's in the metro area outside the Metro. It's one eight hundred two, four two two eight two eight Professor Buchwald. I'd like to return to something that we were discussing earlier and that's the state of Science Education. What are what do you think needs to be changed about the way we educate our students about the Sciences. Do we need to start earlier? Do we need to change the curricula? What what would you what do you think needs to be done to get? Kids where they ought to be intellectually on the environment. (00:19:58) Well, you know Mike there have been a number of studies comparing the math and science Knowledge and Skills that our children have with children around the world and I can say a really good thing about Minnesota Minnesota does an excellent job at teaching earth science and middle schools and our students know as much about the Earth as any students in the world. We don't do a very good job there. But if we look around the rest of the United States, we can find States and I won't name them but we can find states that are at the bottom of the list if they were countries themselves, they would be at the bottom of the list internationally in terms of the level of Education. They're getting there had been a lot of studies by the National Academy of Sciences that indicate that what we need to do is have in our science classes fewer topics with more intensity. And more activity on the part of students and if we can do that we can in certainly improve it at the kindergarten through 12th grade (00:21:02) range. And where do we start with Science Education? Where should it begin? How how basic should it be and how soon should we accelerate to some of these these theories and processes that you and Professor Schneiderman are discussing this morning. (00:21:16) Well, I like to think of Science Education is really being education about how to think about the world and it's not too soon at all to start that in kindergarten and first grade that is to help children to ask questions of Nature and figure out ways that they can get answers. That's what we really after I think particularly in the early grades. It's not until much later on that. We really want to think hard about covering material and and having students exposed to larger ideas. (00:21:49) Let's let's go to the phones now Russell you're in Minneapolis. I believe your question, please. (00:21:54) Yes, the question I have regarding the association of Science. And the environment is is one that is disturbing me for a long time science. Of course that I think is a wonderful thing and we couldn't live without science but so often we see scientists all of a sudden find that they are able to split the atom or that they are able to develop genetically modified seeds. Well, it never stops there. Then we proceeded to make nuclear bombs and the atomic bombs and and we proceeded were eating food from nuclear modified seeds that have never really been tested as far as conditions. And this is the thing that disturbs me. Where do we where do we find that this balance that we need between science as a development and Sciences proceeding too fast into these (00:22:53) things who would like to Tackle tackle that Professor Snyder Mentor Professor buckwald. (00:22:58) I'll give it a try. Um Russell II to him disturbed about those sorts of things, but I want to go back to something that I said earlier that when I try to teach my students about in environmental and they can be just science scientific issues of the kind that you're raising their have to be a lot of people participating in the way we use knowledge. And so we have to have people who have ethical interest in economic and political interests as well as scientists being involved in how we use the knowledge. We have I don't think it's scientists who actually tell us when to use bombs or how many to make it's not really scientists who are saying that it's important to get various seeds out into the farmers hands. There are lots of people involved in it. And what we have to do is make sure that my four corners of that square. Are considered when we make these sorts of decisions Professor snyderman? (00:23:59) Sure. I'd like to call the reader's attention to an essay in the book that I wrote with a philosopher. The book is called geology and environmental justice the example that we talked tackle in that essay actually comes from Hawaii, but I think the caller makes an important point which is a reiteration of something that I was trying to get across earlier the issue of considerations of Ethics by scientists as well as others who are perhaps more qualified to make those considerations and relates to Ed's point about education and I believe that we need to have a very very interdisciplinary education to tackle these issues and this essay in the book written by myself a geologist and a philosopher on it on a question of environmental justice. The issue is that we currently ship oil all the way across the Pacific Ocean. We all the way to Hawaii and what is that oil used for it's used mostly to fuel to provide energy for Resorts native Hawaiians. Don't really share much in the the wealth that generated by Resort development in Hawaii. If they do it all it's because they tend to have more menial jobs in in those resort areas the native Hawaiians, really they venerate Pele. In fact, they fear pillai which is the god who occupies the volcano the active volcano of Kilauea, which makes up the big island of Hawaii. Now geothermal energy would be a very reasonable thing to employ on the big island of Hawaii because of the heat source that is right there, which is the the magma the lava below the ground and so it's a question of of decisions of Justice. It's not just a question of knowing about geothermal energy or appreciating the fact that oil does not exist. Naturally in Hawaii. It's a matter of understanding the geothermal principles understanding. How oil is formed and then asking the questions what is the right thing to do? And I think it's difficult to find the answers to these questions. What's right? What's fair? How should we act scientists don't generate the problems solely, but they certain things that they discover can contribute to these problems. But I think we also need to be part of the solution trying to find some of the answers by working interdisciplinarily with people who think about these questions of justice and ethics. For example, you're listening to midday on Minnesota Public Radio. I'm Mike Edgerly sitting in today for Gary eichten will return to our Earth Day discussion in just a couple of moments, but let's get an update on the news now from Greta Cunningham Greta. Thank you Greta. You're listening to midday on Minnesota Public Radio. Good morning. I'm Mike Edgerly Gary eichten returns to work on Monday. We're talking to the editor of the Earth around us maintaining a livable planet. She's Jill Schneiderman. She joins us from Poughkeepsie New York had Buchwald is in st. Paul in our studios. Here. He is the Lord McBride professor of Environmental Studies at Carleton College were talking about the environment and about Earth day and we'll go back now to the phones and your calls and I'm sorry, it's Scott in Silver Bay. You're on the air. (00:30:06) Hi there. I apologize. It's a little scratchy here. It's want to make quick comment on something. The Schneiderman said about about the Earth having to preserve the Earth for ourselves. I'm wondering what your opinion is on the idea. That mankind is being the one of the few species that can manipulate their environment as much as we can or we kind of naturally selecting ourselves out of the picture. So, what do you think about that Professor (00:30:29) snyderman? What's our place? Well, you know, I do tend to think of Means as acting as geological agents at non geological time scales, which is to say that that that as Scott says we do have a tremendous ability to transform our landscape like no other species does that said I'd like to call your attention to an essay by a fellow named Mark Twain. He wrote many years ago called was the world made for man. And in that short essay Mark Twain Mark, Twain finishes the essay by talking about the skin of paint at the tip of the Eiffel Tower and he says if the skin of paint at the tip of the Eiffel Tower had a Consciousness, it would think that the Eiffel Tower was built for it. And so I think that we are in many ways like the skin of paint at the tip of the Eiffel Tower that is there's this essential tension in geology. I think we're you know, we're aware of our of geologically insignificant space in the whole big scheme of things and at the same time as Scott says we are quite able To I mean we are these powerful big mammals with with big brains and we're able to invent these things that transform our landscape. So I think we need to keep both things in mind and I think that that's why Earth scientist geologists are a tremendous resource for anybody concerned about environmental issues because we're constantly walking the line, you know having this awareness, which actually I have to say I think makes people like Ed and myself a bit mellow compared to some other kinds of scientists that is earth scientists with our geological perspective, you know in this electronic age where we're dealing with email constantly sometimes all you have to do is sit back and think well in the big picture. No, we're just this little dot at the end of 4.6 billion years and that makes us geologist a kind of mellow and I think a bunch of people who have some degree of humility in comparison to other scientists and I think I think that we are an underutilized Resource as far as environmental issues are concerned and that's why bunch of us have gotten together and written these essays because we want people to be We're of the kinds of things that you know, my response to what's God had to say. Yes, we do act as geological agents at non geological time scales, but people don't think to ask earth scientists. And of course, I say it a bit tongue-in-cheek, you know, maybe it is because we are a different kind of group of scientists. Well, we don't win Nobel prizes. You can't win a Nobel Prize in geology and we have this awareness of geological time, but we've gotten together to write these essays because we want people to know what earth science has to offer and so we've written these short essays. They're very accessible. They're fun to read they offer a little bit of earth science information that's relevant to any particular environmental issue that you would want to know about saying hey, we're here we have we can be helpful in environmental debates. You can join our conversation with professor snyderman and buckwald at 6512276 Thousand that's in the Twin Cities metro area or outside the metro area at one eight hundred two, four two two eight two eight gym in Rochester. You're on the air. Good morning. (00:33:31) Good morning. Thank you for taking my call. I just think this is a very important show in those comments that were just made regarding the time scales. I have a couple of books that I'd like to refer to and get your comments on. The first one is a wonderful book that really raised my awareness Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. Wonder if you're if you're if your guests have read that book and also I have a question about a kind of a best-seller that I haven't very skeptical of but would like to hear if there's any validity to it called the coming Global super storm that's very concerned with the shutdown of the North Atlantic current kind of based on chaos theory that this could happen very suddenly. So I wonder if if if you've read those books if you have any comments on them. (00:34:19) Well, I've read that I've read the first one I've read Ishmael. My students have recommended it to me. Hi Leah to it's a hot one on the Vassar campus and I maybe Ed could comment about it at Carlton. I don't know it Carlton but students are reading it at Vassar. I myself was not all that that Taken by it. I found it a bit indirect. I can kind of a direct person myself as for the other book that you mentioned. I have not read that but I would call your attention to one essay in the Earth around us by professor at Johns Hopkins named Steve Stanley and and that sa does deal with exactly this subject about how climate change could perturb ocean circulation Professor. Buckwald. (00:35:02) I've not read either of those books. So I'm a little hesitant to comment. Although I do know that there has been a great deal of concern among oceanographers for the fact that currents with as an example within the Atlantic the Gulf Stream is very very important in bringing heat energy from the tropical regions up north and along the coast and then it swings over to England so that Southern England even though it's far north of My understanding I haven't seen them there but my understanding is that they can even grow palm trees small ones. And one of the concerns that people have is that that may be a fairly delicate kind of setup and that if if that current is changed because of heat balances in the Atlantic then it means that northern Europe will get very very cold. And so I know that the the Dutch of all people are incredibly interested in these sorts of issues. (00:36:07) Is it possible that what we're seeing here are our natural phenomena that that changes climate changes for example would would occur with or without the human presence on the planet? I mean not denying of course that we're having some effect but isn't isn't the Earth as a natural organism going to ebb and flow in terms of temperature and so forth. (00:36:28) Yeah, of course geologists are very good at this. We have learned how to figure out what the Pitcher has been in the past by looking at and measuring various sedimentary rocks and deposits and and we clearly understand that there have been major fluctuations there been times when they entire Earth was really quite quite warm in other times when it's been very very cold and and these variations occur on lots of different scales. Sometimes it takes a million tens of millions of years to have the changes occur. Sometimes the changes occur in as few as a few thousand years sometimes in short a time as a few hundreds of years and we've done a really good job, for example looking at the ice in Greenland and Antarctica. It works as a very nice record for what temperatures have been and what the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has been like and so we can do that and you're absolutely right Mike that The world has undergone lots and lots of natural shifts in temperature and climate. The issue is are human beings right now. Somehow making that accelerate or making it worse than it might have been and that's the concern. We don't want to sort of mess up the place that we live. It's going to be too expensive. If we do. (00:37:59) Let's go back to the I'm sorry. Go ahead, please. I was just going to jump in on that and point out one thing which is as Ed says from the geologic record by studying ice cores. We can see how quickly temperatures have changed in the past one good approximation of going in and coming out of these interglacial periods. The temperature may have increased on the order of 1 degree per thousand years, but in the last hundred years, we've changed the temperature by one degree. So it's an order of magnitude greater the rate at which we're making these changes and and actually we do know that carbon dioxide levels fluctuate. With with temperature we see this from looking at gasps inclusions in ice cores since 1860 carbon dioxide's the beginning of the Industrial Revolution carbon. Dioxide levels have been going up and we have warmed the we have warmed our planet by 1 degree. So we do have some measures that we can we can use geological change as a yardstick against which to measure the changes that have occurred since you know, since we've landed on the planet, basically, let's go back to the phone stale in Minneapolis. You're on the air with our (00:39:02) guests. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for taking my call as good as you indicate. Some subjects are being taught in science subjects are being taught in our schools. One of them has one subject has been diminished or even eliminated from from most School textbooks in F subject is population growth. I say that especially regarding population growth in the US. And if and if you for example few of our students know that are the u.s. Population is just burgeoning it just growing growing very rapidly right now and it's headed for heading for the level of China I guess is what the Census Bureau says in the same thing is on the on the world level population growth seems to be its immensity has been diminished considerably and what troubles me is they they stopped into integrating the role of population in any number of other areas such as habitat loss. They won't say anything about that part of the world population plays in that or such things that sprawl or any number of other things what and I say this because I have two kids in public schools and I'm familiar with their books and how they treat the role of population in most of the times it's not treated at all what I find disturbing. Is when I was in school not so many years ago. There were there were the virtually always that parabolic chart you remember that don't you the parabolic chart of population growth and then there'd be several Pages discussing it or maybe even a whole chapter and today the kids are not being informed at all. So (00:40:46) Professor Plum, let me interrupt here (00:40:48) hurdle. I'll hang up and I thank you very (00:40:50) much. Sure. So Professor buckwald. How do we how do we talk about population growth as a as a part of a course? I mean as an educational course without stepping on toes both religious and political. (00:41:05) Well, I'm not do you I'm not sure that it's possible to talk about population without treading on some toes. But certainly what we can do is at least look at what the issues are in terms of growth and one of my favorite ones and I've written about it in my essay is that you can go to the United States Census Bureau on the web now and they have a population clock that you can watch for both the US and the world is a hole and I did that in September 9th last last year and found out that the population of the United States at that day was 273 million four hundred fifty nine thousand one hundred fifty five people. And and the nice thing there is that they break it down into the component parts and they show you that there's a birth every 8 seconds and one death every 15 seconds, and there's a gain of one person. We 31 seconds when immigration and emigration are balanced out and a gain of one person every forty eight hundred seconds who comes back from living abroad. Okay, and the net result is an increase in the population of the United States of one person every 10 seconds. And you know, you have to think about that. How long have we been on the air in seconds? Because the, you know would divide that by 10 that's how many new people there are and and one of the issues and has Dale has said in his conversation that one of the things that we have to think about is all of the resources for those people. Where are they going to live there going to be enough sewers for them or they're going to be enough movies or they're going to be all of the things that they want have to be supplied and so it's not just a matter of increasing population, but it's also all of the things that come with it and then if you go back to this pop clock at the the bureau at the The Census Bureau. You can also find out about the world population. And that one that one's even for me is a little bit scarier because we had just in September past the six billion Mark. Okay, six billion people. That's a number so large that even as a scientist, I can't I can't really tell you what that number means it just so big and but we were still growing at a rate that is fast enough that by the year 2050 which I won't see but my students will see and I try to remind them of that at that growth. We will be up to about 9 billion people. So that means you think about it. If we want those nine billion people to eat the same way that we eat and if they are if they should have a car like you and I have a car in the nice place to live and I mean isn't that fair that everybody should have that? Well, we not only have to make up for all the people that are having. College now with resources, but we're going to have 3 billion more that's 50% of what we have now, we have to add to the system. So it's not just population growth by itself. That's not so much the issue in my mind. It's all of the things that it takes to keep those people happy and healthy and to make things just fair (00:44:25) Professor Schneiderman. Is it possible that globally we in fact do have the resources to sustain this this pace of growth in population. If we were to look to some of the area's say the areas of the former Soviet Union or to public lands in the United States for for resources to help sustain these this populate these new people. I don't know. I mean I suppose it's possible. There are certainly people who have been in the minerals industry for a long time who would say that we're going to find oil and Minister oil and minerals Industries who will say we're going to be able to suck out more oil from the pores between sediments and we're going to find there are plenty Of probable reserves of certain minerals and we can find more and more. But personally I'm not about that. You know, I think that we really need to reorient ourselves and that we need to live in this way that I've described earlier with a sense of respect and humility in our proper place. I mean, I suppose we can keep trying to design our way out of the fix that we're getting ourselves into to innovate our way out of it. But but that doesn't appeal to me. I'm much more drawn to considerations not of what's technologically feasible. But what what is right and what is just and as I was listening to the conversation I was thinking about Ian's ends essay, which is in the same section of the book as Professor buchwald's essay is in and and Ians n is member of the National Academy of Sciences a Chinese man long lived in the United States worked for the US Geological Survey was president of the Geological Society of America. This is a man who knows quite a bit and he questioned he he asked questions about human dignity and social justice because in discussions of population, certainly we need to be concerned in the United States. We need to be concerned all over the place. But we also need to be very aware that the footprint that an American leaves is much larger than the footprint of somebody in Africa, you're listening to midday on Minnesota Public Radio. We're talking to the editor of the Earth around us Jill Schneiderman. She's joining us from Poughkeepsie New York at buckwald is here. He's the Lloyd McBride professor of Environmental Studies at Carleton College folks. We have just a couple of minutes left actually just about a minute or so left. I'm wondering if I could just get a capsule thought from each of you about your sense of optimism versus pessimism as we head into this 30th anniversary of Earth Day Professor. Buckwald first, perhaps, are you optimistic at all about what what (00:47:04) Going on (00:47:04) with our planet and our awareness of (00:47:07) it. Well the great population biologist Paul Ehrlich said that that you ought to be optimistic because pessimism has no survival value. I'd like to go a little bit beyond that, you know, if if you want to fly then you get worried about the law of gravity, but actually it turns out that without gravity you can't fly and it's the way we understand gravity that allows us to do that. And I think that what science can provide for us as an understanding of how the earth works and with that understanding I think we can have optimism for the (00:47:44) future. Thank you professor buckwald professor snyderman a couple of quick words from you. Yes sure. I mean II to M and an optimist and and enthusiastic Optimist, I guess Educators such as Professor Buchwald of myself have no choice but to be optimistic. What why would we be in the business that were in if we weren't optimistic? Rachel Carson quoted writer EB white in an epigraph to Silent Spring white said I am pessimistic about the human race because it is too ingenious for its own good our Approach To Nature is to beat it into submission. We would stand a better chance of survival if we accommodated ourselves to this planet Professor Stein appreciatively. Thank you very much. We're out of time. Oh, you're welcome. Okay, you're listening to midday on Minnesota Public Radio.