Operation Earth Day: Interview with Gaylord Nelson

Hello I'm Dave Iverson. Twenty years ago something happened called Earth Day. It was an environmental teaching and it became a signature event. One of those moments we all remember Earth Day 970 the beginning of the environmental movement. The man who came up with the idea for Earth Day was then Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson. What follows next is a biography of Nelson. The story of his environmental and political legacy when we return a conversation with the founder of Earth Day Lord Nelson about what's changed in the last 20 years. OK. Pretty good. Hello I'm Dave Iverson. Twenty years ago something happened called Earth Day. It

was a kind of environmental teaching and it became a signature event. One of those moments we all remember Earth Day 1970 the beginning in a sense of the environmental movement the man who came up with the idea for Earth Day was then Wisconsin Senator Kay Lord Nelson. What follows is a biography of Nelson. The story of his environmental and political legacy when we return a conversation with the founder of Earth Day Lord Nelson. And what's changed in the last 20 years. And now the story of Lord Nelson continues. The 1990 version. Senator Nelson

joins us for a kind of extended environmental update. Earth Day 1970 20 years ago seemed like 20 years you know it seems like before yesterday and if anybody had told me back in 19 70 that I would be running around the country speaking on campuses and all over on the 20th anniversary had said you must be the rift of your senses I wouldn't have believed that you didn't have a sense 20 years ago that this would take on this this this kind of lasting significance. Well I wasn't thinking in those terms I was thinking of one nation my demonstration to to force this issue to the attention of the politicians and leaders of the country. And as an educational event I wasn't thinking of anything beyond that and 20 million people did participate and it was a remarkable event but I wasn't thinking the thing beyond that event at the time.

You put in a great store at the time in the role of younger people I remember you said something like that this generation the generation of youth in the 1970s at least was vitally concerned about the environment. That generation is now middle aged people like me. Have they disappointed you. Well I think a lot of EVERY I'm speaking all around the country and I am running into people all the time who were either in grade school high school or college. On Earth Day and a lot of them are involved in environmental things but there aren't as many. What I'm hoping for is that we raise the age generation deeply committed in and imbued with a conservation ethic kind of thing older Leopold talked about. Because until we have a generation that's really imbued with a conservation ethic we won't be able to. We won't have the

understanding we will be able to make the tough decisions that we have to make to produce a environmentally sustainable economy. Define that phrase for me. Conservation ethic. Well it would have to be it would be an ethic that. Cause us to recognize that we are part of a whole biopics system and that that the that the. System that sustains us also sustains all kinds of other creatures birds and animals and insects and so forth and that the community is interrelated and tied together in that if we. We must understand it is we destroy part of it in the end in the end eliminate species from the planet eliminate biodiversity.

What we're really doing is destroying the system that sustains us too. And so we need a generation that will say well wait a minute before we do this. What is the what are the consequences. And now a lot of people are asking that question. We need a whole generation that end up in all the positions of authority in politics in business in teaching in every walk of life who are conscious of our. Of our part in the eco system so that we don't charge off willy nilly destroying everything in sight as we have for the past 200 years. It's part of what's change that more people now are at least talking about those terms that when you talk about the way the world is interconnected

that it's not like some words from a guy from Mars I mean we're used to talking about that now it's not just as you once called it the bird chasers and the Butterfly people. It's it's entered the common parlance you know there's no doubt about that and all kinds of events have occurred that have caused. A much larger number of people now than in 1970 to be concerned or interested in understanding of the environment and what it means to all of us so that's a tremendous step forward but we we still haven't achieved a real generation imbued with a real deep conservation ethic although though I can see the germination of that ethic among people and along a lot of people who are now in their forties or fifties and

older people who have done some studying so we're making progress. But I think it's absolutely necessary that we raise the next generation in in in. We don't have nobody knows exactly how much time but we now recognize which most people wouldn't have thought possible that the activities of human beings on the planet are significantly degrading the ecosystem that sustains all creatures including us that's a tremendous step forward in a sense I read something today that was interesting which made the point you know we always say the environment is fragile point of this article was the environment is so fragile it's man that's French. Well if you have yes Vince why you define it the environment can handle anything. It may become an environment that we can't survive in but it is an environment it could be polluted with all as it is getting to be the groundwater pollution hazardous waste dumps everything. That's

an environment but the creatures who live in that ecosystem will be seriously damaged or compromised if we continue to do what we're doing including the human species as we create as we destroy our capital goods are the you know the nation's wealth the world's wealth is the oceans the lakes the rivers the minerals forests wildlife habitat scenic beauty. This is the this is the wealth of the of the world the wealth of the nation and we have been spending our capital at a rapid rate by polluting air and water eroding soil in counting it on the on the profit side of the ledger. Well every single business or corporation in history that dissipated is capital incomes and on the profit side of the ledger Ledger went bankrupt. Well we're on the way toward bankruptcy it will only take it will take us longer to get there but if we don't

reverse what we're doing that will be the result and our economy will be weaker our standard of living much lower and the quality of life. Much worse. So it's in our own self-interest in the best sense of that phrase to change. That's right. People who argue with me and I hear it all the time that we can't afford these measures to maintain a clean environment. I really don't understand what it's all about we can't afford a dirty environment. And if we're going to sustain an economy that produces you know quality living quality environment a reasonable standard of living for everybody. We've got to protect the resource resource base not dissipated as we have been doing for 200 years. We'll lose the whole ballgame and the whole economy if we do that the economy is tied to this resource base and we can't dissipated and spend it

and get rich spending our capital in farm analysts are sometimes accused of being alarmists you know as you just said we're going to lose the whole ballgame. And after a while that gets like that you know the kid who cries wolf. How how do you be an alarmist. Let's listen to it. We're in the first place the situation is alarming and anybody who takes a look at it can see that we've you know just look around this we've drained half the wetlands in this country and that's a variable resource for wildlife habitat for groundwater. We have polluted vast amounts of the ocean there are 70 million tons of proteins taken out of that the oceans every year. What happens when it gets so polluted so badly it's only 10 million tons. There's a tremendous amount of wealth gone. It isn't alarmist to point out that the ecosystem the threads of the ecosystem that the net that holds things together is

unraveling the that that isn't crazy or radical talk the real radicals are those who would like to continue exploiting the resources the public resources very water soil in and then send. Externalizing their costs and asking the public to pay for those of the real radicals. And I think the public is beginning to understand that. I guess what I'm asking is that. Even though that danger may be imminent it's still just over the horizon you know it's still 10 20 50 100 years away or whatever. And most of us in the main Don't you think are pretty focused on the short term. I'm worried about what I'm going to do next week or if you're a politician I'm worried about the next election as opposed to what the state of affairs is going to be 50 years. Well of course that's one of the problems. This is more serious the status of our resource base and its degradation is a far more daunting challenge and threat to our society than Then the Civil

War the Revolutionary War the First World War the Second World War more serious then the threat of nuclear war. The problem is damage to the environment is a kind of an incremental thing from one year to the next and it might take 10 years to discover that we've done something that you reversible such as ruining one of our great great lakes so it's easy to postpone I got a ladder not too long ago for somebody who said. Senator why do you keep talking about this. Well this is when I was still in the Senate. My family and I don't give a damn about 50 years from now. We give a damn about Wright today. Well that's one of the problems but I think that's changing and I think when people think that they don't want to leave a legacy to their children and their grandchildren their great grandchildren and a legacy of destroyed degraded environment in which they'll never be able to restore and they'll never be able to hear I would hate to

think all of us would hate to think that our grandchildren say grandpa and grandma didn't give a damn about our future or the future of the world. This is a strange question but it reminds me of something Susan Stamberg the public radio interviewer once asked. I thought the greatest interview question I've ever heard. It will take me a while to get through this. She asked that she was interviewing some famous composer whose name Of course I don't remember but she turned to the composer and said you know don't your arms ever get tired. And we the point I guess is Don't don't you ever get tired of talking about this. Don't you ever get tired of being the voice. You know I think there's there is no more fascinating subject than the environment it covers everything. It's all the animals and all the birds and all the human beings it's economy it's philosophy it's religion it covers the broadest

spectrum it covers the whole spectrum of all thought and everything so if you don't have to know it nobody knows it all. But every aspect of it is fascinating. And I give up and quit talking if in fact I thought there was no chance of doing anything but I can see a germination of concern in an ethic that's important but there is no more delightful interesting fascinating subject on earth than the status of our resources our environment and all the creatures that live in this biopic community is older Leopold called it. Give us a sense of how you used the word several times that you need to imbue people with that. How do you do that. How do parents do that with their children. How do you how do you develop that. How do you imbue them with anything every culture has it. Has ethical standards of some kind

and mores that guide our conduct. And they start learning the mores and ethics of the society and things that are acceptable for individuals to do on their mother's knee and they need their mother needs to now start teaching him the ethics of of environment conservation. And they must grow up with it. And if we raise a generation from this these grade school high school and college students now they will start. They will be living in teaching by their actions teaching their children and you'll grow up with a group of people who are normal that this is important and who will be prepared to support leadership that says this is a tough decision it's going to be inconvenient. You aren't going to be able to drive automobiles in Los Angeles or Chicago. They're a gasoline part you're going to have to come in in a solar car and there are solar tires

right now I rode one last week. I handmade in the backyard 40 miles. So what you're going to have to raise people who think of that. As an issue all the time. So you know that old phrase think think global act local It's a real small I mean occurs to me as we're sitting here that we have these plastic water cups here you know which probably aren't the greatest idea in the world right. I mean I did know it threw it out. But you know it's it's those little things as opposed to necessarily you are it's everything all people have to be willing and in participants in. In this whole enterprise that's why you have to educate from the beginning. What about your chums on Capitol Hill. You know how this government works probably better than most anyone. People like to say They're environmentalists. President likes to say he's environmentalist. You've also said that he's just

paying lip service to that. Well the when I went to Washington one thousand sixty three. I would count five members of the Senate who you would consider to be environmentalist's 95 had no understanding no interest no concern. And now all I would say that in in in in in the in 1963. After reading Rachel Carlson's book which is a dramatic book if I I had I had been concerned about the way were medicating the whole environment by spraying DDT and all kinds of things into the environment and so I what we introduced legislation to ban the use of DDT in 1963 and I tried to find somebody in the House of Representatives who would join in in it. I couldn't I couldn't find anybody today would find 200 who would join me

in that kind of enterprise so it's encouraging that the House House of Representatives the Congress now has I don't know what 15 20 30 times as many people who are addressing this issue. Knowledgeable really than they were 20 years ago that's a that's a major step forward for the president. Well I think it's important that the president did say he was an environmentalist but. We don't know that yet based upon what he has said or done. I think what he must do is come to the Congress with a special message to the Congress to the nation outlining his view of the situation and his agenda for addressing it. There are a hundred issues you can't address all of them equally and all the time the country is ready to fall. The president has to assume responsibility to lead and he must start with a message to the public because they want to follow

him if he doesn't do that really. Then you really could call him an environmentalist I hope we can and I'm hoping that he will do that. People like to talk these days about the potential of the so-called peace dividend that the changes in Eastern Europe and communist societies means that we may have more money now for things other than defense. Do you hope that then there will also be a kind of environmental dividend that there is the potential now for us to spend money and attention on the environment in a way that we might not have been able to afford. Yes it's ridiculous it has been ridiculous for years with the Soviet Union the United States has been doing. When you think about it we've been spending each of us 300 billion dollars a year on weapons systems. Now we were much more secure from any threat from the Soviet Union military thirty five years ago than we are now in the

same for them because we couldn't deliver multiple warhead missiles to all the way across the world in 20 minutes. So you sit here in the irrational conducting ourselves in a rational way and the more money we spent the more insecure we became. OK. THE PRESIDENT Mr. Gorbachev ought to formally say that the Cold War is over. This is nonsense. We're both going bankrupt in this business who needs to threaten whom the president should say to Mr. Gorbachev let's cut the middle military budget across the board 50 percent in the next decade and then another 50 percent in the decade after that. And let's take half this money and allocate it to addressing the environmental problems we face. This is the greatest threat that faces the country far greater than the Civil War or any other war. And that ought to be the peace dividend. There's no

sense to these military expenditures who is our enemy we are dollars now. If something happened. We started cutting and they started cutting and you create a situation occurred where the hardliners took over again. OK you might have to rearm. But good heavens I think the likelihood of that is remote and that we ought to proceed just as hard and fast as we can. You said many times that this is a greater problem than the threat of nuclear war greater problem than the threat of Communism in Nicaragua or wherever its center center is it also a greater threat than that facing poor people in the inner cities of this country. Of course it is. Why. Well do you. If we keep destroying the the resources of the planet you will be able to feed the poor people. This is the greatest challenge of course there are people who need to be in a hurry if we got that budget by half we'd have some resources for

you to start educating and assisting in giving people the qualifications they need to get into the marketplace and earn a living but there is no other issue that matches this one in terms of the importance of it to our station in status here on the planet. But again it's that question of immediacy is not I mean there's something terribly poignant and important about a baby that's a cocaine baby compared to what's happening with some wetlands somewhere. You know what I mean. Yeah of course of course there is something poignant and touching about that plus the tens of millions of people who are starving to death all over the world we're adding 90 million people a year to the planet Earth. Three years you've got more people added than the total population of the United States. We cannot feed them all. We can't feed 200 in 60 70 million people added every three years. Therefore what should we be doing about it should we be neglecting the environment in order to

try to put on more fertilizer more raise more food to send overseas to get more people. You know we ought to be launching a program and saying we'll give you assistance but you've got to have a program of planned. Family planning the world can't stay the world's got five billion eight hundred million people it's gone eight billion. There are eight maybe ten there's no way the planet can sustain that without a terrible amount of starvation there's no way we could produce enough to prevent the starvation so we need to address the heart of the matter. And that's the resource basis that feeds us all so that environmental ethic then comes first. There are all these other problems be it starvation or drugs and everything else. But but there are house of cards if you don't have that environmental That is absolutely correct if you if you the the carrying

capacity of the earth is is sacred. And if you violate its carrying capacity you lose then you're overloading the system you lose your capacity to help anybody including the people in your own country. That's why it's fundamental vital vital question. It's now April 1990 20 years from Earth Day. In these next 20 years where do you see us going. What small steps do we need to take in this coming two decades. Oh I don't really have the wisdom to say which ones ought to be lined up where you can talk to all kinds of people in they'll give compelling arguments really compelling arguments why you must say address the question of the sea the pollution of the ground water supply first in this country it's what we drink 55 percent of our water comes from there and it's being polluted in every single state in the union in tooting our own. Or they all say the threat of global warming we've got to address that are or

the management of solid wastes. There are a bunch of them that are absolute immediate Solid Waste is one of them polluted groundwater supply is another one. Air pollution is a is another one. Every place you turn there are. Vital problems to be addressed and it is that internal problem that there are so many Well sort of little dollars. Well I tried and were addressing a lot of oh well let's take a list take a simple one. Los Angeles there's barely breathe a bowl. Many parts many days of the year it is. I think Los Angeles in a few years and lots of other cities are going to have to say there will be no internal combustion engine powered bio oil and gas allowed in the city. If you're going to come in you come by mass transportation or with a solar car or an electric car. And there are ways to make Heavens what a sacrifice.

Convenience Well I rode in a solar car down in Alabama made in the guy's backyard and it's but every one of these is going to create a problem an 40 mile achievement automobile ought to be one of them. But I don't know which one first. But it's that sacrifice of convenience perhaps that we have to be with I mean whether that's a 40 mile an hour car or this old plastic cup Yeah right. I mean you know you want to you want to sacrifice a little convenience or you want to sacrifice the whole ballgame. That's what we're talking about the whole ballgame if we continue doing what we're doing. OK we've finally end up degrading you and I might get by I'm 74 years old so I can get by for whatever time I've got left in five or six or seven years or something or another and and find the hell with the rest of it. But that isn't the way we face up to this issue and that isn't an ethical thing to do. And

more and more people recognize we can't longer postpone addressing this issue. You authored a lot of environmental legislation during your years in the Senate I reviewed some of it the other night and there were things from river ways to Lake Shores pollution of this that and the other thing the marine environment restoring mines. My favorite that I came across was a constitutional amendment that you suggested which was that every American has the inalienable right to a decent environment. Well then I did propose a constitutional amendment knowing that there would be no way to define it in knowing that there would be no way to enforce it. But knowing that it gave the certain visibility to the issues seeing that it is so important that you really ought to have a constitutional environment constitutional right to a clean environment.

That resolution has been picked up by some people on the West Coast a professor who told me and so forth and it is the very practical thing I didn't do it for that purpose I did it to give visibility to the issue. Do we finally have an inalienable right to an environment. Is that really what it finally comes down to or. Or that we have no choice but to try to have it. I don't know how you define a right and how you would enforce this right but the. But if we want to survive in a decent environment and have a quality life for ourselves and our children we're going to have to be very careful what we do when we're going to have to make what a lot of people would call sacrifices mostly of superficial things we shouldn't be doing anyway and we've got to be concerned about other life at their plant and animal life because they have been a little rooster

who will don't send in oil for whom the bill tolls. And you know Nelson. Happy Earth Day One thousand. Thank you. Thank you.