A little quiz with BIG revelations.
Take the following quiz and
then check and review the answers that are provided afterwards. It is important
to answer all eight questions before beginning to review them.
Question #1: How many of the worldÕs countries have ratified the
Kyoto Protocol
(the international agreement
to curb the emission of greenhouse gasses)?
(a) 0-50
(b) 51-100
(c) 101-150
(d) more than 150
Question #2: Which political leader is known to have said the
following (in the recent past):
ÒWhat is now plain is that
the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialization and strong
economic growth from a world population that has increased sixfold in 200
years, is causing global warming at a rate that began as significant, has become
alarming and is simply unsustainable in the long-term. And by long-term I do
not mean centuries ahead. I mean within the lifetime of my children certainly;
and possibly within my own. And by unsustainable, I do not mean a phenomenon
causing problems of adjustment. I mean a challenge so far-reaching in its
impact and irreversible in its destructive power, that it alters radically
human existence.Ó
(a) Former President George
H.W. Bush
(b) British Prime Minister
Tony Blair
(c) President George W. Bush
(d) French President Jacques
Chirac
(e) Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez
Question #3: Who among the following people are noteworthy
contemporary environmentalists?
(a) Vandana Shiva
(b) Julia Butterfly Hill
(c) Wangari Maathai
(d) David Orr
(e) Aqella Sherrills
Question #4: Which of the following are titles of current
environmental journals?
(a) E – The
Environmental Magazine
(b) Earth Island Journal
(c) Orion Magazine
(d) World Watch Magazine
(e) Scientific American
Question #5: In the United States, how many tigers are kept as pets?
(a) less than 100
(b) 101-500
(c) 501-1,000
(d) 1,001-5,000
(e) more than 5,000
Question #6: How much native prairie still exists in Illinois (as
a percent of what was prairie in the early 1800s)?
(a) less than 1%
(b) 1-15%
(c) 16-30%
(d) more than 30%
Question #7: What percentage of children in Illinois has elevated,
and potentially dangerous, lead levels in their bodies?
(a) less than 2%
(b) 2-5%
(c) 6-10%
(d) more than 10%
Question #8: How much of the worldÕs military budget does the U.S.
government spend?
(a) less than 10%
(b) 10-20%
(c) 21-30%
(d) 31-40%
(e) more than 40%
Question
#1 Analysis: (answer, d) Believe or
not, over 150 nations have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, 161 countries
have (as of Feb. 1, 2006) ratified (or otherwise formally approved) this
important landmark in international environmental governance. Among the few
exceptions are the following countries: Kazakhstan, Crotia, Australia, and the
United States. The Protocol, which went into effect last year, after RussiaÕs
Parliament ratified it, calls for the reduction in the emission of carbon
dioxide (and five other greenhouse gasses) over the next decade. Its
requirements are a first step and it is refreshing to see that most of the worldÕs
nations recognize this and are making a commitment to reduce emissions of these
important agents in anticipated climate change. It is rather absurd that the
United States, the country that produces the most carbon dioxide (accounting
for almost a quarter of the worldÕs emissions), hasnÕt found it necessary to
debate the merits of this policy with its citizens in an active display of
democracy. Because the last two U.S. Administrations have rejected the Protocol,
our country looks very selfish and anti-science in the eyes of others. Is this
an image that we want to project? How aware are people here about how
ÒbackwardÓ the U.S. appears on the issue of climate change and global warming?
How many more environmental disasters will we have to endure before we admit
that irreversible and catastrophic climate change may actually occur this
century?
Question
#2 Analysis: (answer, b) British
Prime Minister Tony Blair said these remarks in a speech presented at the
Prince of WaleÕs Business and the Environment Programme lecture, Sept. 14, 2004.
The position presented by Blair sharply contrasts with the White HouseÕs, which
repeatedly has questioned the scientific consensus on the likelihood of future
anthropogenic (i.e., human initiated) climate change. Does it matter that a
leader of a major power broker in the world (i.e., England) feels so
drastically different from the United States on what some consider one of the
most pressing issues of the 21st century? Once again, how is the
United States perceived by others when such a sharp contrast is evident? If one
also recognizes that the United States is one of very few countries to have not
ratified the Biodiversity Treaty either, a recurrent theme becomes evident. Can
we live in opposition to (or isolation of) the other 96% of the worldÕs people?
At what cost?
Question
#3 Analysis: (answer, a-e, trick question, all are
true) The first four people mentioned are household names among environmental
thinkers. Vandana Shiva is physicist and philosopher from India who has written
extensively on a wide range of environmental topics and participated in many
grassroots movements. She received the Right Livelihood Award (some consider
this equivalent in magnitude to the Nobel Prize) in 1993 for Òplacing women and
ecology at the heart of modern development discourse.Ó Julia Butterfly Hill is
an environmentalist and writer who spent over two years in an old-growth
redwood tree in the west coast of the United States to draw attention to the plundering
of our nationÕs ancient treasures. Her environmentally-consciousness materialized
while traveling in our countryÕs natural areas, something she was drawn to do
while recovering from a near-fatal automobile accident. Wangari Maathai should
be a name familiar to everyone, given that she was the first environmentalist
to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 2004 (and also a carrier of the Olympic torch
last week during the opening ceremony in Italy). WangariÕs contribution to all
of humanity is much too grand to capture in a sentence, so let me recommend
that readers take the time to find out more about this gargantuan hero and all
she has accomplished despite imprisonment and state-sponsored beatings. David
Orr probably is unfamiliar to most but he is revolutionizing how we think about
environmental education in this country. A professor at Oberlin College in
Ohio, Mr. Orr, who has written books entitled, The Nature of Design:
Ecology, Culture and Human Intention
(2004) and Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect among others, was the major force behind the building of
an ecologically-friendly, energy-neutral, and state-of-the-art college building.
Aqella Sherrills (someone I introduced to Zephyr readers several years ago) is not that well-known
among environmentalists but should be. He was born and raised in South Central
Los Angeles and grew up watching many of his friends die at the hands of gang
violence. While in college on a basketball scholarship, Aqella had a personal
epiphany which began his lifelong journey to free his community of violence and
to bring a sense of hope back, especially to its innocent children. Now,
Aqella, one of the most captivating speakers I have ever heard, takes a deep
understanding of how happiness, peace, and a clean environment are interrelated,
and works with environmental thinkers from all over the world to bridge gaps of
separation and disconnection. When we donÕt have role models to draw lessons
from, we have a hard time finding paths that are secure and humane. Might all
of us have something to learn from these modern visionaries? Why is it that
they get so little coverage by the mainstream media? Are there others who
deserve our respect and admiration? Sure there are. Have we looked?
Question
#4 Analysis: (answer, a-e, all are
true) A walk through a typical grocery store check-out counter will not expose
us to environmental thinking, quite the opposite. The magazines that are sold
at mainstream grocers communicate messages, both in words and in photos, that
are utterly counterproductive to a healthy planet—focus all of your attention
on your looks, the lives of the rich and famous, and the acquisition of
material commodities. Even during a recent trip to a ÒgoodÓ national book store
chain, I found the environmental magazines (the four they carried) situated where
the eye could not see them (unless you were a snoopy two-year old). It is truly
amazing to me how hidden they were. Perhaps they are located where they were
because they donÕt sell well. Yet, whatever the reason, shouldnÕt we ask why
our culture has relegated environmental thinking to the margins of our
collective landscape (if not eliminated them altogether)? What are the short and
long-term costs to a society that chooses (or is directed) to be so blithely
ignorant of important environmental concerns—such as, clear air, clean
water, non-toxic soil, and biologically rich habitats? Fortunately, all the
journals listed are available by subscription (at very reasonable prices), so
why not pick one up for yourself or someone special? (For those that are
skeptical about Scientific American being
a prominent source of environmental thinking, check out its September 2005
issue—the one that I summarized in these pages in the September 29, 2005
issue.)
Question
#5 Analysis: (answer, e) Would you
believe that there are ~12,000 pets which are tigers in the United States? As reported
in The Economist on June 15, 2002,
we now have many more tigers in U.S. homes than exist in the wild! There are at
least 4,000 pet tigers in Texas alone. This is more than are roaming about
India! What is an environmentalist to make of this? What is anyone to make of
this? Do you want a pet tiger? Well, apparently, there are many websites that enable
people to buy one online for less than the cost of some purebred canines (and
IÕm not talking about some stuffed toy that you pick up at an amusement park).
Should it be legal to own a pet tiger? There are laws against such things but
so many loopholes exist and sufficiently strict laws banning this practice can only
be found in certain states and municipalities. So while tiger habitat is being
lost at astonishing rates and genetic variation within the species undergoes
significant decline, I guess we can seek solace in the fact that Mike Tyson (one
of the proud owners of a cub) is keeping the species alive for us. Who needs
(or has time) to think about the rapacious depletion of forested areas in other
countries when we have such a strong (some even might say Òferocious,Ó remember
the biting incident) protector of animal rights? (Sarcasm intentional)
Question
#6 Analysis: (answer, a) As much as I
love tigers, they donÕt necessarily help us breathe or maintain agriculturally
productive lands here in North America. (Our continentÕs tigers—including
the Sabertooth—are thought to have gone extinct about 10,000 years due a
combination of climate change and excessive human hunting.) However, prairies do, especially in the
Midwest. Unfortunately, due to the aggressive and poorly managed takings of
land, nearly all of the native prairies, which once covered ~60% of Illinois,
are now gone. Might prairies go the way of the Sabertooth? Will it matter if
they do? Consider the multitudinous services that prairies provide (essentially
for free), such as, reducing soil erosion, purify the air and water, supporting
pollinators, and serving as habitat for thousands of diverse species (all
activities essential to maintaining productive lands for agriculture). Can we
be so na•ve to think that our prairies are so expendable? Since there still is
some prairies (and therefore native seeds) left, all is not lost. Many
organizations are leading the fight to protect the few remaining prairies as
well as to expand opportunities for new prairie developments. I guess the
phrase, Òwhat you donÕt know canÕt hurt you,Ó needs a swift rejoinder followed
by a sustained pattern of concern and action. Care to join this effort? You
donÕt even have to look very far for places to start. How does your backyard
sound?
Question
#7 Analysis: (answer, d) According to
the Illinois Department of Public Health (ILDPH), nationally, about 16% of
American children (under the age of 7) have lead poisoning. A large scale study
done in Chicago from 1996-1998 found that (an amazing) 22.4% of child in ILÕs
largest city had elevated levels of lead in their blood, with black (non-Hispanic)
populations exhibiting the highest percentages (nearly 30%). Closer to home, an
IL study conducted by ILDPH on over 2,000 children in Peoria found that nearly
15% have blood lead levels in excess of 10 micrograms per deciliter (mg/dl),
the threshold above which neurological impairment is expected; scientific
studies have shown detrimental cognitive impact in levels at 2 mg/dl and lower.
If 5 children (in a class of 30) are expected to exhibit mental delay (or other
cognitive impairments) because of lead in our environment, shouldnÕt this be a
front page story (nearly every day until the problem is fixed)?
Where
is the lead coming from, anyhow? WasnÕt it supposed to go Òaway,Ó once we took it
out of our gasoline in the mid-1980s? Well, heavy metals, such as mercury,
lead, and cadmium, donÕt just go Òaway.Ó They circulate through bodies,
streams, soils, and atmospheres, once we dig them up out of the ground and disseminate them. Despite awareness
of the persistent hazards of these substances for many decades, we are still
digging up more of them and spreading them throughout our environment (for
example, mercury spreads by way of coal power plants). For our children, our
homes are the primary sources via the lead based paint that we used a
generation ago (before it was banned in the 1970s in the United States, even though
it was banned in the 1920s by countries in Europe). Senator Barack Obama is
leading a campaign to rid our schools, homes, and our lives of this pernicious
substance. Might we help him in this fight? Do you want your grandchildren to
wonder why our generation was so negligent? When do you think weÕll see a cover
story on lead in this (or any other newspaper)? DonÕt count your chickens; just
make your own eggs (i.e., write the story yourself).
Question
#8 Analysis: (answer, e) The United
States spends over $400 billion dollars on military expenditures each year. This
number is between 43-49% of the worldÕs total (numbers obtained from Global
Security and Global Issues, two organizations which collect and report such
data). This is 7 times more than China spends, 8 times more than Russia, 10
times more than France, 12 times more than Germany, and 27 times more than
India. As astonishing as these figures are, one might ask, ÒWhy is this
relevant to a quiz on environmental awareness?Ó It couldnÕt be more relevant, I
am afraid. You see, almost every time IÕve hear cogent arguments about the need
to clean up our homes (of lead), our lakes (of mercury), or the atmosphere (of
sulfur dioxides or nitrogen oxides), I can anticipate the response from the
power brokers of our society—ÒDo you know how much that is going to
cost?Ó Yet, when one looks at the pot of money that we have to spend, we are
always directed to look inside the ÒsmallÓ cookie jar, rather than the ÒbigÓ
one. If we even took 25% of our military budget and spent it on making our
country (and, by extension, the entire planet) less polluted and less
vulnerable to collapse, we wouldnÕt have to spend so much time ÒworryingÓ about
(or actually) being sick or stifled by the Òit costs too muchÓ syndrome. IsnÕt
it about time to tell the human hawks to vacate the treasury nests that they have
so securely reigned over for so long, and let people with human principles and
ecological knowledge protect the eggs so that future generations may prosper?
How many more schools need to close before we realize who is stealing from our
coffers?
How
many questions did you get correct? Were you surprised by your performance?
IÕve provided some commentary here, but it would be excellent if readers shared
their views as well. Unless we begin to look squarely (i.e., face-to-face or in
the mirror) at these types of statistics, how are we going to make the changes
that are required to live in a safe, peaceful, and well-informed society? IÕd
love to hear your thoughts on this question as well.
Peter Schwartzman (email: pschwart@knox.edu) is associate professor
and chair of the Environmental Studies Program at Knox College. He is a
climatologist with publications in the area of climate change and human
population growth. A nationally-ranked Scrabble¨ player, he is also the founder
and maintainer of the website dedicated to peace and empowerment: www.onespower.org.