|
|
|
|
Advertisement
With the mainstream media, Congress, and international governments all focusing in on what's going wrong with the environment, author and scientist Seymour Garte has a different perspective of the state of the world. In his new book, "Where We Stand: A Surprising Look at the Real State of Our Planet," Garte takes a look back at the environmental and public health accomplishments of the last three decades. He says we have not focused enough on the positive trends and should look to the past in order to develop solutions to current and future issues. Garte explains what he believes should happen policy-wise in the next few years in order to maintain this trend of environmental accomplishments. He also responds to criticism that his outlook is too optimistic and that in order to spur action, a more pessimistic view is needed.
Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Joining me today is Seymour Garte, author of "Where We Stand", a surprising look at the real state of our planet. Seymour is also a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, School of Public Health. Seymour, thanks for coming on the show.
Seymour Garte: It's a pleasure to be here, thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: Seymour, let's start with the basic headline here, and that is that the environment is actually in better condition than we've been led to believe. All right, some might find this to be a little surprising, so explain a little here. What do you mean by that?
Seymour Garte: Well, I'm interested in trends in the environment. And there are certainly problems in the environment that we are all aware of, but the reason I wrote the book and what I'm trying to get across to people is that we've been making tremendous progress in the environment since 1970s, since 1970 with the first Earth Day and the foundation of EPA, passage of the Clean Air Act and other laws. And since that time we've had tremendous success in air pollution, combating air pollution and water pollution, protecting our national resources, especially in the United States. There have been major improvements in many indicators of world public health as well and none of this gets very well reported. For some reason we tend not to focus on our successes, but on still issues that need to be addressed. And I feel that it's time to start putting some spotlight on where we've gone right, what we've done right to help us deal with the problems that still remain.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, so let's approach this from a more pessimistic standpoint.
Seymour Garte: Sure.
Monica Trauzzi: A couple of weeks ago we saw devastating wildfires in California.
Seymour Garte: Right.
Monica Trauzzi: We're hearing from the mainstream media reports that the icebergs are receding.
Seymour Garte: Sure.
Monica Trauzzi: Also natural disasters seem to the on the rise. Obesity seems to be plaguing Americans and we're concerned about diabetes. So all these things considered, are we wrong to be concerned?
Seymour Garte: Well, no, we're not wrong to be concerned. I do mention in each chapter of the book, the first five chapters, there's a section called The Bad News. And the bad news includes those issues those issues which still remain. I'm not claiming that everything is wonderful or that everything is perfect or that we finished. Among the bad news is the obesity epidemic. In the chapter on health I include that. Global warming is the bad news of the environment. It's something we need to deal with. The purpose of my book is not to try to try to tell people that everything is fine, let's just not worry about it. In fact, it's the opposite. I'm an environmental activist and I believe in environmental activism. I think most of the improvements that have occurred have been from a combination of environmental activism, scientific research, and governmental regulation and recently business decisions to try to be more sustainable. The problem I see is that if we keep focusing on the pessimistic side of current events and where we are as a planet, people will get turned off. Instead of having the intended of fact of stimulating activity and stimulating action, it actually, I think, is starting to have a suppressive effect. And we need to focus on where we've been successful.
Monica Trauzzi: So, obviously the media plays a huge role here --
Seymour Garte: Yes.
Monica Trauzzi: -- because they're the vehicle in which the public gets its information.
Seymour Garte: Right.
Monica Trauzzi: So assess how you feel the media is doing here.
Seymour Garte: Well, I think the media is doing well. I'm not against the idea of pointing out where we have problems. I mean it's true, global warming is a major issue and I think Al Gore deserves credit for raising this to the public consciousness, as well as other people. And the media deserves credit for presenting this, however, the media I think -- for example, we just saw special on CNN called "Planet in Peril". I think that show was fine, but I would have called it "Planet in Recovery", because I think that in fact many things were presented in the show were actually quite positive, such as the fact that endangered animals, the selling and trading of endangered animals is actually illegal. The focus of the show was on the pessimistic side, namely that this is going on and there are criminals that are doing this.
Monica Trauzzi: But if we don't take a look at the pessimistic side then are people going to be spurred to act?
Seymour Garte: No.
Monica Trauzzi: Are people going to care?
Seymour Garte: We do need to look at the pessimistic side. I agree with that, but think of the balance. Do you know any other books, there are maybe one or two, that present an optimistic side? Have there been any TV shows or any coverage of the amazing success we've had? Has the media covered the fact that bald eagles are coming off the endangered species list because they have been rescued? Is there coverage of the fact that SO2 levels have decreased 85 percent in the last three decades? Is there coverage of the fact that our blood lead has gone from 90 to 2 parts per million with the removal of lead from gasoline? Does anyone remember that the ozone hole has been repaired? We got rid of CFCs and we've had tremendous successes. The Great Lakes are recovering. They're doing better. Rivers are cleaner. There's no coverage. So, my view is don't say everything is perfect, it's not. We have problems to deal with, but I think we need to know the good stuff too because that will help us in determining how to deal with the problems that we now have.
Monica Trauzzi: And obviously a lot of these successes have been a result of policy that's been put in place --
Seymour Garte: Yes.
Monica Trauzzi: -- in the last few decades.
Seymour Garte: Right.
Monica Trauzzi: So what needs to happen on the policy front in the next few years? On the Hill we're hearing talks about emissions and climate change.
Seymour Garte: Right.
Monica Trauzzi: What needs to happen to keep us on this current track of a good trend on environment and health?
Seymour Garte: Yeah, that's a very good question. And you're right, these improvements did not happen by themselves. We know that's not the case. The improvements to our air and water were the direct result of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and enforcement of those regulations. And that's true across the board of all the positive developments that have occurred. What we need to do now is to be certain that the laws that we have are not weakened and there's been some attempt to do that under the current administration. And we need to continue the research that's needed to devise the correct way to extend those laws. For example, for health effects, do we need to change some of the standards for some of the pollutants which have now reached a very low level or not? And that requires research and technical understanding of the issue. When it comes to global warming I think it's clear that we need to pursue, aggressively, alternate forms of energy. Everyone I think is on board with that. The good news is that some of these forms of energy, such as wind power and solar power, have become very economically and technologically feasible. And we need to pursue those options the way we have in the past.
Monica Trauzzi: You don't talk about China in the book --
Seymour Garte: No.
Monica Trauzzi: --and China is a huge factor --
Seymour Garte: Right.
Monica Trauzzi: -- when you're talking about global emissions.
Seymour Garte: Sure.
Monica Trauzzi: And it's a pretty huge piece of the puzzle --
Seymour Garte: Yes.
Monica Trauzzi: --at this point. So why don't you address it in the book?
Seymour Garte: Okay, I didn't address in the book and I mentioned this in the book because it's such a huge issue and the book is focused more on the past than on predicting the future. My goal is to show people where we have been and where we now are and how we've come from the past to the present. China is a major issue for the future and I address it obliquely in the following sense. One of the themes of the book is that democracy is good for public health and good for the environment. And I have a considerable amount of effort put into showing how this would work in Eastern Europe, South America and other places. China is clearly a major problem with respect to the environment. And although the Chinese government is aware of this and may be beginning to take steps, my own view is that until real democracy arrives in China it's going to be a problem. I don't know whether they'll have the will to do the kinds of regulation that they need to do to correct some of the problems which are beginning to already show up in a severe way.
Monica Trauzzi: Why do democratic governments have more success here?
Seymour Garte: Very good question. My own view is that when people are free to vote they tend to vote not to be poisoned. The best example, for example, was in Czechoslovakia were the number one issue for the Civic Forum, the group that started the Velvet Revolution against communism, was not free speech or free elections, it was the environment. The Green Party was the leading edge in the anti-Communist revolution in Eastern Europe because the environment was so bad. I think a similar thing is starting in China today. We're beginning to see indications that the environmental issues are coming to the fore and this could be a stimulation for democracy. I mean I think that the record is clear that when you have the will of the people expressed it tends to be in favor of a clean, healthy environment.
Monica Trauzzi: So how important is technology in all this, in this discussion?
Seymour Garte: Yeah, I am very, very much in favor of technology. I know that there is a strain of philosophical belief, and I address this in the book, that is anti-technology and it says these problems are all due to human technology. What we need is less technology. I think that's a mistake. I think that in fact history has shown that advancing technology ends up helping humanity and I think all of our problems can be fixed with technology.
Monica Trauzzi: There's some concern on the Hill and beyond that new environmental policies could negatively impact economic growth.
Seymour Garte: Yes, that's an old concern. It's been around since the beginning. The original argument against regulations was that it would be bad for the economy. It turns out that's not true. Not only has it not -- initially it may seem as if it's very expensive to put scrubbers on a smokestack or to change the way you do business to make it more efficient. But time after time it's been proven that these changes are actually good for business and in fact save money. And academic studies have been done to show that countries with the most enforcement of environmental regulations also have the best economies.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. We're going to end it right there on that note. Thanks for coming on the show.
Seymour Garte: Thank you very much.
Monica Trauzzi: This is OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Thanks for watching.
[End of Audio]
Advertisement
watch video
email video
