In view of the heated engagement nationally and globally concerning environmental protections and the economy, I reached out to an environmental studies professor at a Christian university to seek his perspective on comprehensive health. My hope is that the cool-headed exchange in the interview that follows will help clear up some of the smog surrounding pressing issues. These issues concern human health, the well-being of our planet, and economic vitality.
Steven A. Kolmes is Director of the Environmental Studies Program, Professor of Biology, and occupant of the Rev. John Molter, C.S.C., Chair in Science at the University of Portland. Dr. Kolmes has degrees in Zoology from Ohio University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His interests are in the areas of salmon recovery planning, combining ethical and scientific analyses in environmental policy discussions, water and air quality issues, and the sub-lethal effects of pesticides. He has served on government scientific advisory panels (NOAA-Fisheries Technical Recovery Team for the Willamette and Lower Columbia Rivers; Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Toxics Technical Advisory Committee) and on the Steering Committee for the Columbia River Pastoral Letter (The Columbia River Watershed: Caring for Creation and the Common Good). Dr. Kolmes teaches courses in marine biology, invertebrate zoology, environmental science, animal behavior, and team-teaches a course entitled theology in ecological perspective with theologian Dr. Russell Butkus. Dr. Kolmes also serves as one of the science advisors for Multnomah Biblical Seminary’s grant from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Templeton Foundation on equipping pastoral studies majors to become more effective in engaging our scientific age.
Paul Louis Metzger (PLM): Dr. Kolmes, I recall you stating recently that it was a great misfortune that our government separated the work of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Why is that?
Steven A. Kolmes (SAK): We have set up a system based on the assumption that issues of environmental health and human health are different, and can reasonably be managed separately. The truth is that pollutants that are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (such as lead in drinking water, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and ozone in the air, and many others) don’t just damage the environment; they also pose very serious risks for human health. There really ought to be unified oversight that looks at the environment and human health together and seeks to find ways to protect both simultaneously; however, that is not the path our legislators followed decades ago when they established government agencies and gave them their responsibilities. A great example is pesticides. We know that various types (organophosphates, for example) cause developmental damage when exposure occurs during pregnancy, because material is passed from Mom to her unborn child across the placenta, but where are they regulated? The EPA regulates exposure to them under the clean water act (CWA) and safe drinking water act (SDWA), and oversees registering new pesticides for use. The Food and Drug Administration (part of HHS) regulates exposures through the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), and especially the food quality protection act (FQPA), which pays special attention to the health of children. But environmental exposure leads directly to in utero exposure; they are not two separate and disconnected problems. If we had approached human health and environmental health prudently from the beginning, consideration of these matters would have come under the direction of one agency, not two.
PLM: Often I find government officials and ordinary citizens pitting environmental and economic concerns against one another, as if protecting the environment automatically entails damaging the economy. How would you respond to such polarizations?
SAK: We need to believe that we are smarter than that. We need good jobs that give people the resources to raise their families and live a full life, and we need a safe environment for them to inhabit. Jobs that come with the cost of sick children aren’t good jobs or smart jobs, and environmental protection that prevents families from being able to make a decent living isn’t really protecting them. The only way to move forward is to be confident that we are smart and able enough to have both, and to proceed from that assumption rather than from antagonism and fear of one another. There will doubtless be tradeoffs, but they need to be tradeoffs that promote both environmental health and healthy economies, not one to the exclusion of the other. A great example is wind power: the wind power industry constitutes a growing segment of the US economy that has provided over 100,000 permanent new jobs in the US, and is good for both communities near wind farms and air quality.
PLM: President Trump has promised to reenergize the coal industry. EPA Director Scott Pruitt says it will be good for both the economy and the environment (Refer here to a New York Times article in which this claim is reported). How would you respond? Will a significant new investment in the coal industry decrease America’s dependence on foreign energy sources? Will it increase jobs? What would be your hope for those who have obtained their living from mining coal, if the coal industry does not increase jobs, as the Administration hopes? Along similar lines, were clean air initiatives the main reason(s) for the decrease in coal mining, or was it cheaper fuel sources?
SAK: We are not going to mine coal forever, and certainly not with any great increase in the future, if for no other reason than it no longer competes economically with the growing supply of inexpensive natural gas. Blaming air quality regulations for the decline in coal was a very unkind thing to do; it raised false hopes and promised thousands of voters a return of jobs that can’t come back in a capitalistic society based purely on the economic demand for and competitiveness of coal. An analysis by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) (available online at http://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/IEEFA-2017-US-Coal-Outlook-ShortTerm-Gains-Will-Be-Muted-by-Prevailing-Weaknesses-in-Fundamentals_JAN-2017.pdf) showed that there will be more coal worker layoffs moving forward because US coal use has declined as natural gas and wind power use have grown; moreover, the excess coal capacity that presently exists will prevent anyone from investing in new coal mining leases. Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy, the largest private U.S. coal miner, and a supporter and an advisor to Trump, has been telling him repeatedly to stop promising things he can’t deliver to people in the coal industry. Murray has said that coal employment can’t be brought back to the levels prior to the election of Obama; Murray’s hope is just that the decline would be stopped at the present level. As new industries develop, the phrase “Just Transition” has begun to emerge. It expresses the need to do more than simply invent smart new industries; it is also important to make sure that communities based on outdated or vulnerable industries and resources are not left behind as newer forms of employment are developed. That is the sort of process we need in order to have economically healthy communities in a world that promotes the health of the people living in it. Communities with economies based on coal mining will need help transitioning to new jobs rather than being discarded by society as a whole. We really are one society. We need to care for one another even as we breathe in the same atmosphere.
PLM: Many non-scientists shrug their shoulders and say they do not know how to discern between competing claims regarding global climate change. How would you seek to help them cut through the fog or smog?
SAK: There are a lot of detailed reports available online from nonpartisan sources, and if anyone really wants to understand what is going on, and is willing to put in the time to do some reading, they can cut through that fog. The most respected nonpartisan group dedicated to scientific integrity in the US is the Union of Concerned Scientists; this group of scientists has made a serious effort to provide information online to help people tell fact from fiction. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ first report on this is a great place to start: “Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Used the Big Tobacco Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science,” January 2007 (http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf ). They followed up later with updated information, which makes sense to those who have read the first report; the update is “The Climate Deception Dossiers: Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporation Disinformation,” by the Union of Concerned Scientists, July 2015 (http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf ). Scientific American, a publication that is highly regarded and which maintains very high standards for journalistic integrity, has published two major reports on this subject: Shannon Hall, “Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 Years Ago,” in Scientific American, October 26, 2015 (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/); Douglas Fischer, “‘Dark Money’ Funds Climate Change Denial Effort,” in Scientific American, December 23, 2013 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/).
In general, a good guide to spotting fake news is to discern which organization is the original source of supposed findings. A guide to false front organizations has been published by the Washington Toxics Coalition (http://www.watoxics.org/toxicswatch/how-to-spot-a-front-group ); the publication suggests the following would let you spot a source of false information:
- The group has a nice-sounding name that almost no one could be against. Citizens for Fire Safety (CFFS) is a great example. After all, is anyone against fire safety?
- There is a lack of specific information. People are proud to be a part of legitimate nonprofit organizations, and most will have lists of things like staff members, board members, and coalition partners on their website. If a group keeps these things vague, you need to wonder why. For example, the CFFS has no board or staff lists, mentions only a few nonprofit partners, and provides very little information on their programs. There’s a reason: if you do some digging for their tax filings, you’ll see their board is made up of representatives from chemical companies.
- There is no obvious way to donate or get involved. If there’s one thing all nonprofits and charities have in common, it’s that we can always use money and people power to keep the doors open or expand our programs. Although the CFFS describes itself as a grassroots “organization seeking to educate the public on safe fire practices,” it apparently doesn’t want help doing so because there is no request for help anywhere on their website. Odd to say the least.
- Is the group a 501(c)3? The majority of charities and nonprofits (like Washington Toxics Coalition!) are 501(c)3’s, which means they are primarily charitable organizations. CFFS, on the other hand, has a 501(c)6 designation, which means it was created for the benefit of their membership. Though such groups may well engage in some charitable activities, it’s not the main purpose of the organization.
- What does Google say? If reputable sources say the organization’s a front group and the other tips mentioned here fit, don’t bother puzzling through pages of financial records. You’ve got yourself a front group! In the case of Citizens for Fire Safety, a quick Google search brings up more results denouncing them as a front group on the first page than anything else.
PLM: As a Christian who heads up the environmental studies program at a Catholic University, how would you encourage fellow Christians to approach these controversial issues in a manner that moves us beyond heated and polarized exchanges?
SAK: Take a deep breath. Recognize that we have both economic and environmental issues to deal with, and that there are a lot of simplistic solutions being offered out there from both ends of the spectrum that don’t reflect the complexity of humans living in the real world. Always remember future generations. We owe our kids and grandkids and so forth a world that can provide what it was intended to provide: good jobs, clean air, clean water, nature to refresh our spirits, a way to perhaps decide to raise a family, and to lead a fulfilling life. Do the hard work you need to understand the relationship between human aspirations and natural limitations. And, above all, be humble in your approach. We didn’t create this world and we have no right to diminish it for any reason. The Christian social ethicist Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. resonated with Mahatma Gandhi on many fronts, including Gandhi’s claim that the world is big enough to satisfy everyone’s needs, but will always be too small to satisfy everyone’s greed. This claim, along with the Golden Rule in which the Lord Jesus calls on us to do to others what we would have them do to us (Matthew 7:12), offers us a way forward in clearing the smog and providing a balanced approach.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In