Stan Slaughter is the thoroughbred of the environmental educators I've hired. Second place is not even close.
If we want to address global warming, along with the other environmental problems associated with our continued rush to burn our precious fossil fuels as quickly as possible, we must learn to use our resources more wisely, kick our addiction, and quickly start turning to sources of energy that have fewer negative impacts.
It is one of the issues that will have to be worked through however let me make the point and I think anyone would accept that if you set it up properly, not only will you get better environmental outcomes, you have a chance to create more wealth with the available resource.
By seeing the otherness in that which is most unfamiliar, we can learn to see it too in that which at first seemed merely ordinary. If wilderness can do this - if it can help us perceive and respect a nature we had forgotten to recognize as natural - then it will become part of the solution to our environmental dilemmas rather than part of the problem.
I think environmentalists do no service to their cause by taking fundamentalist stances. I am not defending corporate India's track record, but for many environmental problems, there are technological solutions.
The environmental crisis is a sign that the ecosphere is now so heavily strained that its continued stability is threatened. It is a warning that we must discover the source of this suicidal drive and master it before it destroys the environment-and ourselves.
Simple determinism, whether of the genetic or environmental kind, is a depressing prospect for those with a fondness for free will.
Now our biggest environmental problems come from our own actions, our own choices, rather than pollution produced by big business.
A river is the cosiest of friends. You must love it and live with it before you can know it.
If environmental protection efforts continue to lag behind economic growth, pollution will become even more rampant.
. . . we find ourselves facing a rising tide of biologically active, synthetic organic chemicals. Some tinker with our hormones. Some attach themselves to our chromosomes and trigger mutations. Some cripple the immune system. Some light up our genes and so enhance the production of certain enzymes. If we could metabolize these chemicals into completely benign breakdown products and excrete them, they would pose less of a hazard. Instead, a good many of them accumulate.
I think the cost of energy will come down when we make this transition to renewable energy.
We have forgotten how to be good guests, how to walk lightly on the earth as its other creatures do.
Without international participation, jobs and emissions will simply shift overseas to countries that require few, if any, environmental protections, harming the global environment as well as the U. S. economy.
Society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy.
We can't just tack on environmental balance to a fundamentally imbalanced system.
Technology that pollutes can also cleanse, production that amasses can also distribute justly, on condition that the ethic of respect for life and human dignity, for the rights of today's generations and those to come, prevails.
Native communities are focal points for the excrement of industrial society.
People who minister worldwide to protect and conserve the environment are of no lower status than those who minister to plant churches.
The wrecking ball is characteristic of our way with materials. We 'cannot afford' to log a forest selectively, to mine without destroying topography, or to farm without catastrophic soil erosion. A production-oriented economy can indeed live in this way, but only so long as production lasts.