In honor of Earth Day, I ask you to consider the broader context of this week’s celebrations on campus. After attending the environmental forum Wednesday in Whitaker Hall, I felt it necessary to point out the more global context of today’s forum topic. Conference participants discussed the state of environmental responsibility on our campus with Chancellor Wrighton, and I believe there was a great deal of progress made in our understanding of the importance of setting a standard as an institution of higher education with regards to our stance on the environment. The presenters from various universities were well spoken and provided a context for the goal of sustainability at the university level as a model for the societal level.
I had the opportunity to register voters for Project Democracy with a friend of mine outside the lecture hall before and after the event, and I want to call attention to the essential link between voting and the state of the environment. According to a speaker I heard at the Project Democracy Alternative Spring Break, most people, when asked, will say that they are environmentalists, or that they are pro-environment. Yet, politicians continue to strip away and ignore so many of the advances that were made in environmental policy during the 1970s.
Why is this? Is it because they think their constituents don’t care enough about the environment to make it a priority when they vote? Probably. And they are right. Hardly anyone makes their decision on this issue. Or people who care about the environment, such as our generation, have dismally low turnout rates at the polls on election days. Yet, if we were to consider any number of the salient issues battled in the environmental arena today, more of us might vote, and we might vote pro-environment.
Consider the recent attacks on the Clean Air Act with regards to the high mercury levels in our waterways. According to the League of Conservation Voters, mercury from coal-fired power plants makes its way into our air and waterways, and ultimately into the fish we eat. Mercury is a hazardous neurotoxin that causes brain damage and interferes with development in fetuses, infants and small children. The Clean Air Act requires that the most effective technology be used to reduce these high levels of mercury, and such technology could reduce mercury levels by approximately 90 percent by 2008. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the current administration are thwarting the Clean Air Act and not demanding this kind of reduction. The current proposal favors business concerns over environmental responsibility. This is unacceptable, and it is just one of the many attacks on the environment we have seen in recent years.
If we were to use our votes, we could show our representatives that we do, indeed, care about our children and our health. Environmental protection is a responsibility we all share. As a voter, I am concerned that my elected officials are not representing me when it comes to my concerns about the environment. So, I will definitely be voting in November, and I will be using that vote to show my elected officials that their policies should reflect my concerns. I hope you will do the same. If we don’t vote, our issues do not become priorities. As we continue to strive for better protection of the environment on this campus, I believe we can strive on a more global level by voting and making our voices heard.
If you are unsure about the way your elected officials are voting, or you want to know that your pro-environment candidate is also leaning the right way on other issues that matter to you, you might want to check out Project Vote Smart at http://www.vote-smart.org/. This amazing project has compiled a great deal of useful information about elected officials so that all of us can be more informed when we go out to the polls on August 3 for the Missouri primaries and on November 2.