water and all the rest. Now, I have forgotten the second part of your question.

Mr. REID. Just a brief comment on what is being done in California in the schools on environment and anything on the environment generally.

Mr. COHELAN. Well, I am quite proud of our State. We have been in the vanguard particularly with conservation organizations. I think the Sierra Club and many of the allied conservation organizations have been very active in this area.

Mr. REID. I agree.

Mr. COHELAN. We were able with great help from so many people in our State on a bipartisan basis to get the Redwood National Park. which is a great achievement, and recently the Point Reyes National Seashore, which has been fully funded.

Mr. REID. Thank you.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Hansen.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

May I also express my sincere appreciation for the opportunity that you helped provide for us to spend the day on this bill in the bay area. We also acknowledge a very effective leadership which you have given, not only to the effort in the subject matter of this bill, but also in the area of education that we on the Education and Labor Committee know well.

I am grateful for your constructive suggestions and emphasis on environmental studies in the schools, to consider some incentives that may lead to an adoption of some required courses.

Let me ask, in addition to identifying specific courses that we call environmental studies, would you also agree with the suggestion made by some of the witnesses in these hearings that the need is to reexamine all of our courses?

Mr. COHELAN. All of our what?

Mr. HANSEN. All of our courses of studies in our schools

Mr. COHELAN. Oh, yes.

Mr. HANSEN. To determine what environmental components should be incorporated in order to emphasize the multidisciplinary nature? Mr. COHELAN. Yes.

Mr. HANSEN. Of this course?

Mr. COHELAN. Of course I agree completely. It is a whole problem literally and it penetrates all of the disciplines. There are others here who will testify along this line. There is one great man who is in the audience who raised the rhetorical question, "What kind of landscape do you want?" And this is a moral and philosophical question.

I read an article here in the Christian Science Monitor which raised a very important question relating to your bill.

A very distinguished ecologist indicated that one of the problems with all of this thrust that now is being made in the field and in the interest that is shown in the subject of ecology is that we don't have enough teachers in ecology.

One of the functions and purposes of your bill I would hope would be to create teachers of ecology. He made the very point that you are making, Mr. Hansen.

He said that it includes mathematics and it includes the other disciplines and it should permeate the total curriculums. It should be a holistic approach.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Cohelan, we are very grateful to you for your opening statement and that you could come. The Chair would like to invite you to join us in questioning the subsequent witnesses.

Mr. COHELAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRADEMAS. The Chair would also like to express its gratitude and the gratitude of the subcommittee to all officials of the California Academy of Sciences for having made it possible for us to meet at Golden Gate Park.

For the benefit of those who come to sit in on these hearings, the Chair would like to say that we plan to conduct these hearings until about 1 o'clock, then break for lunch and then we will resume in the afternoon. We shall begin at about 2:30 with a panel of students and faculty from universities and schools in the Bay Area.

Our next witness is Dr. Kenneth Boulding.

Dr. Boulding is professor of economics and director of the Institute of Behavioral Sciences at the University of Colorado. He is as well the president of the Peace Research Society of the Association for the Study of the Economy, and in 1968 was president of the American Economic Association.

Members of this subcommittee are familiar with Dr. Boulding and with the many contributions that he has made from his vantage point as a distinguished economist in the consideration of some of the important social and public issues that face our country and we are particularly pleased, Dr. Boulding, to welcome you to our subcommittee this morning.

Go right ahead, sir.

STATEMENT OF DR. KENNETH E. BOULDING, INSTITUTE OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO

Dr. BOULDING. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity very much to testify to this distinguished subcommittee. I should say and I should represent that this year represents my 21st birthday as an American.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Happy birthday.

Dr. BOULDING. The ecological crisis which is reflected in the intense activity around "Earth Week" in April 1970, is perhaps more a reflection of a change in man's awareness of himself and his environment than of any immediate change in the environment itself. It is significant that the intense interest in the environment this year has been generated not by any dramatic ecological crisis, such as the dust bowl and the dust storms of 1934, which produced the Soil Conservation Service, but rather by a sudden increase in awareness on the part of considerable numbers of concerned people, about the dangers of the course the human race is taking and the possibility of ecological disasters in the future.

The threat to the environment is created by the fact that virtually

all human activity produces both goods and bads-that is, negative goods-in processes of joint production.

Hence, unless there are elements in the structure and organization of society to correct these processes, the increased production of goods, which is what we mean by economic development, almost inevitably produces likewise an increased production of buds.

If we want to increase agricultural productivity, we have to put artificial fertilizers on the soil, which runs off into the rivers and makes them as ecologists say-eutrophic, that is good for algae but bad for humans.

If we want the freedom, mobility and social equality which is a product of the automobile-and I have to make the awful confession that I like driving my car-we are also going to produce a large amount of atmospheric pollution. If we want the possibly illusory sense of security which a large military establishment gives us, we must also face a positive probability of nuclear war and the almost irretrievabel ecological disaster which this would produce.

Even the present excitement about the environment has produced a certain amount of nonsense-academic nonsense-along with the wisdom which might be informative.

The intelligent response to these problems is to set up a social structure and organization which will encourage those forms of human activity and processes of production which produce more goods and less bads and which particularly produce those bads-if we have to produce them—which have a short length of life and so quickly disappear, for one of the nice things is that bads do depreciate.

This can be done in many ways, through the tax system, for instance, by taxing the production of bads, through such devices as effluent taxes and taxes on automobiles, graduated according to the amount of pollution they produce.

It can be done also by what we might call counter-organization, through the development of governmental research, through watchdog organizations which can detect and restrain pollution, and so on. You might call this the institutionalizing of Mr. Nader. [Laughter].

These structures and organizations, however, will not be created unless there is wide public awareness of the nature of the issues. This can be done most effectively through the educational system.

It is for this reason that I regard the present bill as a very important contribution to the long-run solution of these problems, problems of a gravity indeed which may even involve the whole question of human survival.

The danger of the kind of public excitement that Earth Week has produced is that it is temporary. People are aroused at the moment but soon revert into their ordinary patterns. Just as it is constant dropping that wears away the stone, so it is persistent education and organization which is the most effective means of long-run social change.

I believe this bill would create in our society an organization producing, as it were, a bias towards human survival and a better society. This may produce much more effect in the long-run than more dramatic but essentially temporary excitements.

This bill, if it is passed and funded, will provide a demand for environmental quality education. This demand may easily simply be

inflationary, however, if there is not a potentially elastic supply. Not even Congress can buy things that are not on the market, and the wise Congressman will certainly look into this question before voting for the bill.

Fortunately one can have a good deal of optimism on this point. The environmental enthusiasm of this year has created an enormous interest in these problems in the whole academic community in this country. There are large numbers of people raring to go and who are held back only by the absence of an effective demand.

Furthermore, there are a number of organizations which are already in existence which are skilled in the kind of activities which this act would require and who could easily devote capacity and skills to this problem.

The social science education consortium-that I am associated with—for instance, has already done a great deal of work in the form of curriculum in the social sciences, and constitutes a fund of experience and skills which can easily be brought to bear on this problem.

Other organizations, such as the Joint Council on Economic Education, are excellently equipped to provide the services which the act is going to call for and there are many others; I only mentioned the two that I am familiar with.

I have every confidence, therefore, that the act would produce a creative response in the academic community.

There is a dangerous tendency among some members even of the academic community to regard environmental problems as essentially insoluble and hopeless and hence to retreat into a kind of ecological eschatology, which preaches and bemoans and sits around to wait for the inevitable end.

This is not only nonsense but dangerous nonsense.

The history of the last great ecological crisis, that of the 1930's, which resulted in the Soil Conservation Act of 1936, shows that once people are aware of an ecological situation they do in fact do something about it.

Now, if you really wanted to see an ecological crisis you should have been in Chicago in 1934 as I was when the dust of Kansas and Nebraska piled up in the streets like snow. It was highly visible.

The soil of this continent is almost certainly in much better shape than it was in the 1930's, thanks to the creation of what is essentially an educational agency in the Soil Conservation Service. The kind of education that we need for the present ecological crisis is, of course, more diffuse and perhaps harder to organize than that needed for soil conservation.

Nevertheless, the historical experience points up that wise resource management is essentially an educational problem and the remarkable success of the Soil Conservation Service in achieving a technological transformation in American agriculture indicates that there are strong reasons to suppose that these problems-even the problems of today— are soluble.

The bill that is before this committee should receive widespread support from all those who are concerned with the problems of the environment. Nevertheless, it is perhaps not inappropriate to utter a certain word of warning, for with the best will in the world, the politi

cal process-like other processes of production-occasionally produces more bads than goods.

The experience with President Johnson's International Education Act has sensitized the academic community to acts of Congress which arouse great expectations and then are not funded.

The impact of the International Education Act indeed on education and research in the international system has been little short of disastrous. It aroused great expectations which were not fulfilled and these expectations furthermore led to a certain drying up of private sources of funds so that the end result is that the whole field of international systems research has suffered a severe setback precisely at the moment when it is one of the most necessary fields of research and education if we are to avoid the ecological disaster of war and the ultimate ecological disaster of nuclear war.

I would personally like to see a recognition in the present bill that the present international system is the most likely cause of ecological disaster for the human race and perhaps some provision which would make amends for the disastrous consequences of the previous International Education Act.

I would, of course, not wish to see the present bill jeopardized by any attempt to broaden it to the point where it could not succeed. Nevertheless, I would like to draw this matter to the attention of the Members of Congress.

Any serious attempt to provide education about the environment must also include education in those aspects of the social system which are most likely to create ecological and environmental disaster. If this bill can be given a broad interpretation it may do much to undo the harm which the International Education Act produced because of the unwillingness of Congress to fund it.

I feel that the experience with the International Education Act should be in the minds of the sponsors of the present bill, for if this bill also arouses great expectations which are not fulfilled and if it leads to the abandonment of this field by the private foundations and institutions, the end result could easily be negative. It would be most unfortunate if a bill which promises so much good should turn out to have these adverse consequences.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Dr. Boulding, for a most provocative statement. I would just like to say one word about the International Education Act because, as you know, I was the sponsor of that bill in Congress and the chairman of the special task force which read the bill and I share with you a profound unhappiness that Congress has not appropriated a dime for the program since President Johnson signed it into law in October of 1966.

For the benefit of those who may not know what that bill is about. it authorized Federal support for international studies and research at the undergraduate and graduate level for colleges and universities here in the United States. It was not in that respect a foreign aid bill.

Mr. Reid and I were yesterday sitting in another subcommittee of this committee discussing title VI for a program of foreign language area centers which the administration had proposed be phased out. But the President-and I was very glad to see this decided this