The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001.  Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date.  This site is not updated so external links may no longer function.  Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

Timothy E. Wirth Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Remarks at Conference on Nature and Human Society, National Academy of Sciences Washington, DC, October 30, 1997

We've now had a decade of discussion on biodiversity through this forum, starting with Ed Wilson chairing the 1987 meeting, and now, with Peter Raven as the chair of this year's conference. I thought it might be useful to look ahead to this meeting ten years from now. What do we want to have accomplished by the year 2007?

Let's start with October, 1997. Two days ago, the U.S. stock market fell dramatically, caught in a tailspin that has sent global markets reeling. The Hong Kong Market stuttered and gasped, and morning television in the U.S. quoted overnight market changes. Economies all over Southeast Asia stumbled and fell, and the international financial institutions responded with billions of dollars. This news has been on the front page everywhere in the world.

Meanwhile, the broadest fires in recent history are blazing in the Amazon, and the smoke from the fires in Indonesia have spread over an area greater than that of the continental United States. El Niño has been fingered, creating a convenient mask over the actual forces at the root of these crises. Negotiations for the climate change conference in Kyoto intensify, with the stakes greater than any such international conference ever. Yet, with a few exceptions, these stories have been back page news, when they are covered at all, and certainly no one is stepping in with billions of dollars. The contrast is sharp and significant.

These two sets of events also demonstrate the impact of globalization, which is intensifying the relationship between our economies and our environment. Consider the reaction generated when the markets crashed. The story was on the cover of every major newspaper around the world.

But does anybody smell the forests burning? Does anybody hear the forests falling? We protect fragile economies and prop up failing currencies. But what about fragile ecosystems and failing species?

Certainly, if we are to have any hope of protecting the world's biological richness, we will have to do a much better job of getting people to listen and to understand - to listen to their home, Planet Earth; and to understand the connections between the health of the world's economies and the health of the resources on which those economies rely.

Economists, financiers, businessmen, and bankers will have to begin to recognize the costs hidden in exploiting the seas, the lands, and the air for short-term wealth.

They will have to recognize that ecological systems are the very foundation of our society -- in science, in agriculture, in social and economic planning. Five essential biological systems -- croplands, forests, grasslands, oceans and fresh waterways -- support the world economy. Except for fossil fuels and minerals, they supply all the raw materials for industry and provide all our food:

Croplands supply food, feed and an endless array of raw materials for industry such as fiber and vegetable oils;

Forests are the source of fuel, lumber, paper and countless other products, and house valuable watersheds that provide drinking water for growing urban areas;

Grasslands provide meat, milk, leather and wool;

And oceans and freshwater produce food for individuals and resources for industry.

Stated in the jargon of the business world, you could say the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. But when we pollute, degrade and irretrievably compromise that ecological capital, we begin to do serious damage to the economy.

Having introduced my comments, let me now move on to presenting a few ideas for you to think about. Peter Raven asked me to try to really get your attention, so let me try by focusing on some ideas for your third conference, the one that will be held in the year 2007.

First, globalization. Ten years from now, this forum should have a much better understanding of the impacts of globalization. Today, our economists know that we are profoundly remaking international trade and markets. Globalization and international trade has become a mantra, almost an ideology, promising a radiant future for us all.

But is there a dark side? Have we looked at other impacts? For example, is globalization and trade between the developed and developing world destroying subsistence agriculture? Are we co-opting Third World farmers into production for the international marketplace, while their societies are made dependent on imported foods? The social and cultural consequences of this may be very serious.

Earlier this week, we heard that the number of languages spoken around the world has declined from 6000 to 600 in this century alone. What else are we losing -- what crops are gone? What about the knowledge of those crops? What of the indigenous people who carry this knowledge?

Ten years from now, we will be asking these questions more openly and aggressively, and the scientific community will have to be prepared to answer them.

If globalization is the first suggestion, certainly population is central as well. In ten years, we will know if we have dealt with the urgency of the question. It is not a question of what to do, but of openly asking questions of population pressure. This is not always popular, but it must be done.

While the rate of growth of the world's population has slowed, the base against which that rate applies is greater than ever before. Nearly 50% of the world's 6 billion people are 15 years of age and younger -- and they are entering their child-bearing years. The urgency is obvious - will young people have two, three, or four or more children? The answer, largely defined in the next decade, will tell us if we are going to be able to stabilize the globe's population at 8 billion (which we can probably still do if we do everything right) or if it will balloon to 10, 11, or 12 billion -- or even more.

Most of this growth will occur in the poorest areas of the world, where societies can least afford to cope with the impacts or implications. Fortunately, we have a broadly agreed upon plan of action, the Cairo Framework - an exciting and hopeful template for development, opportunities and rights for women, child survival, and reproductive health. And we have to move now.

But acting around the world is not enough. We also must focus here at home, with special reference to our own consumption, disproportional use of resources, and astonishing production of waste.

We must also better understand the concept of carrying capacity - how many of us can the earth sustain, at what level of lifestyle, with what expectations? Obviously population, like globalization, has a profound effect on biodiversity and the purposes of this conference.

Third, I would raise the issue of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). At the State Department, we have begun to explore this issue, and it has become one of our top priorities. We recently hosted an international meeting on land-based sources of marine pollution, and are starting to focus on how we can impact this important issue.

Theo Colburn, Diane Dumanowski and Pete Myers gave us a starting point in this discussion with Our Stolen Future. In ten years, we will know if this book is another Silent Spring. I believe it is, and that your research community will be deeply engaged at your next conference ten years from now. How do toxins travel? What are the impacts? Are we poisoning ourselves? What are the implications for reproductive health?

Fourth, in ten years, we will have gone a long way toward rethinking biodiversity, and perhaps we'll be calling it something new. I'm not sure "Ecosystem Services" is much better. Maybe "Nature's Services?"

The point is that we have to tell the story better. Why do we preserve snail-darters or kangaroo rats? Why do we study nematodes? How does the web of life fit together? And what does it do for the average citizen of the world?

On other issues, we have learned to tell the story:

When the Cuyahoga River caught on fire, it became the poster event for the environmental movement.

Asthma caused people to worry about their children and got us the Clean Air Act.

Lead and learning were linked, and we removed lead from gasoline.

Lakes were dying, and we understood acid rain and cleaned up our utilities.

And maybe we will learn about global warming. Is El Niño the trailer for Climate Change the movie?

For you in this room, I predict that the link of nature's services to your science will become the way to tell the story. The links with economics will give you new tools to become very loud messengers. And I can guarantee you that until we all do a better job of telling the story,

the Endangered Species Act will continue to be under attack;

the toxins inventory on the Biological survey will remain a dream;

and the Biodiversity Treaty will remain unratified, for want of a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

Finally, I predict that ten years from now, one of the signal events of this gathering will be the awarding of a new prize, awarded for Science in the Service to Society.

Perhaps we will call it the Ed Wilson Prize for Effective Individual Achievement, for that scientist who did the best job in translating his or her discipline to the public. Or the Peter Raven Award for Institutional Relevance, given to that scientific institution that best used its reach to advance public engagement in the preservation of the natural world. No matter what the name, the point is this:

For too long, those in the scientific profession who sought to take their science outside of the laboratory, to the public, to the television audience, or (Heaven forbid) to the political arena - these public spirited scientists have too often been punished. To tell the story, to popularize, to explain, has somehow been unscientific; it sullied the profession; and those who did so were suspect and unpromotable.

It is absolutely imperative that we as a society, and you as scientists, do a better job of rewarding those who translate their science, who bring it to the public's attention, and who foster broad public understanding.

My first tutor in thinking about science was Walter Roberts, a wonderful man, founder of the National Center for Atmospheric Science in Boulder. Walter taught me and others about the commitment of science in service to society, and he was right. Science is absolutely critical if our global society is going to develop sustainably.

One final prediction. You will remember Paul Ehrlich's famous bet with Julian Simon? I predict that ten years from now, Paul will have won the bet. Paul's timing was off, but he was right. Ten years from now, we will be asking Julian Simon to come forward to pay off.

Thank you.

[End of Document]

Return to the Department of State Home Page. This is an official U.S.-Government source for information on the WWW. Inclusion of non-U.S. Government links does not imply endorsement of contents.