September 2001
How Well Informed are University Students about the Environment?
by Laura Jones
The Institute wishes to thank Dow Chemical Canada Inc. for the special grant that made this study possible.
Each year, The Fraser Institute hosts a series of free seminars for students
in cities across the country. These seminars attract some of Canada's brightest,
most motivated university students—individuals who voluntarily spend a
day (usually a Saturday) listening to speakers and engaging in debates
on a wide range of topics such as tax policy, health care, and education.
Often the seminars include a session on environmental topics. These sessions
are among the most challenging for many of the students who come armed
with a lot of opinions but not many facts to support their views. To put
it less politely: students at the seminars seem to care a lot about the
environment but know very little. To test this hypothesis, I surveyed 262
students at the 1998 student seminars.
The students we surveyed did indeed have fairly high levels of interest in environmental issues as 87 percent indicated they were "very interested" or "somewhat interested" in environmental topics. Only 9 percent of the students indicated that they were "not interested" (see figure 1). Students' top environmental concerns were air quality, water quality, and global warming. These concerns were followed closely by a concern about deforestation. Resource depletion, habitat loss, and waste management also got mentioned as problems. Some of the results of the survey are discussed below.
Air quality
When students were asked what had been happening to air quality in Canada
over the past 20 years, most (70 percent) indicated that they thought it
had been deteriorating. Roughly 16 percent thought that air quality had
stayed the same and a small minority, 13 percent, felt that air quality
in Canada had improved (see figure 2).
Evidence, however, does not support the majority view. The Canadian National Air Pollution Surveillance Network (NAPS) has been tracking air pollution since the early 1970s. The network currently includes monitoring stations located in 198 cities and towns across the country (Jones, Griggs, and Fredricksen,1999, p.7). Six pollutants are routinely measured at the monitoring stations: sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), ground level ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), total suspended particulates (TSPs), and lead (Pb).
Table 1 shows the percentage reduction in each pollutant in Canada between 1974 and 1997. The third and fourth columns of the table show the annual average for the latest year for which data are available and the strictest health standard according to Canada's National Ambient Air Quality Objectives (NAAQOs). With the exception of ground level ozone, air pollution has decreased dramatically in Canada and the annual averages for each pollutant falls well below the strictest health standards, to a point where there are no effects to human health or the environment. Although there is room to further improve on these gains, there is no question that our air is cleaner today than it was 20 years ago.
Forestry
I asked students two questions pertaining to popular environmental concerns about forestry. First, whether the students thought that acid rain is a serious threat to Canadian forests. Fifty-three percent of students answered "yes," 39 percent said "no" and 7 percent indicated that they "did not know" (see figure 3). To find out whether students felt that forestry practices were sustainable, I asked students whether the amount of wood harvested exceeds the amount of new growth in Canadian forests. While half of the students surveyed believe that the amount of wood harvested exceeds the amount of new growth in Canadian forests, 42 percent disagreed with this statement (see figure 4).
Acid rain and our forests
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) is a precursor to acid rain. In large enough amounts,
acid rain can cause the acidification of lakes and streams, cause damage
to buildings, forests, and crops. In the early 1980s, environmental groups
launched a campaign to convince people that acid rain was one of the most
critical environmental problems facing the planet. As a result, several
prominent magazines ran stories warning readers about the dangers of acid
rain: "Scourge from the Skies" (Reader's Digest), "Now, Even the Rain is
Dangerous" (International Wildlife), "Acid from the Skies" (Time), and
"Rain of Terror" (Field and Stream).
Edward Krug, a soil chemist in the United States, has published several articles questioning the science behind the apocalyptic fear surrounding these stories. One such article published in Science, co-authored by Charles Frink, looked at historical land use patterns in the United States, Canada, and Scandinavia and concluded that "it is acid in the surrounding plants and soil, not that in the rain, that causes acid lakes" (Krug, 1983, pp. 520-5. ). Krug has also argued that some lakes are becoming more acidic as a result of less human influence. He believes that slash-and-burn timber practices in the early 1900s resulted in uncontrolled erosion and, consequently, in large deposits of alkaline topsoil in nearby lakes. As modern forest practices have greatly reduced erosion, lakes have returned to their natural acidic levels (Easterbrook, 1995, p.169).
The results of a comprehensive scientific study commissioned by the US government in 1980 also indicate that the campaign against acid rain was questionable. After 10 years of investigation, the United States National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program's team of scientists concluded that acid rain has had no significant effects on wildlife, forests, crops, or human health (Bast, Hill, and Rue, 1994, pp. 74-81). The report also cites examples where acid rain has had a positive effect on soil and lakes as it can enhance vital nutrients and reduce pH levels where alkalinity is a problem.
Fortunately, as the above discussion on air quality indicates, the amount of sulphur dioxide in Canada's air is declining and thus if there is in fact a threat to Canada's forests from acid rain, that threat is now greatly diminished.
Sustainable Forestry
To put the issue of sustainable forestry in perspective, it is helpful to consider that only a small fraction of Canada's forests are harvested each year. Forests cover roughly 45 percent of the nation's land mass. Of Canada's 418 million hectares of forest land, 56 percent (234.5 million hectares) are classified as commercially viable. However, of these 234.5 million hectares, only 28 percent (119 million hectares) are being managed for logging. Only 1 million hectares, less than 0.2 percent of total forests, or 0.4 percent of commercial forests, were actually harvested in 1997. This is less that the amount of forests lost annually to natural events, as approximately 0.5 percent of Canada's total forests are lost to fire or insect breakouts each year (CFS, 1998, p. 5).
Sustainable harvest levels in Canada's commercial forests are determined by governments and set as an annual allowable cut (AAC), which is a measure of growth available for commercial harvesting. Assuming that AACs are set correctly, one indication that forests are being managed sustainably is that national harvest levels have remained below the AAC since 1970 (Environment Canada, 1997). Another indicator of sustainable forestry is the amount of harvested land that is replanted. Between 1975 and 1995, the percentage of harvested land that has been replanted in Canada has more than doubled from 18.7 percent to 43.1 percent (Statistics Canada).
Waste management
A strong majority of the students we surveyed (75 percent) believe that Canada needs to expand public recycling programs in order to control waste and prevent a "garbage crisis" (see figure 5).
There is no garbage crisis in Canada. A heavy reliance on landfills has
led to the fear that countries are running out of space for landfills,
but this popular belief is unfounded. Although many landfills are close
to capacity, this is because they are designed to have a short life span.
There is no shortage of room for landfills. Clark Wiseman of Washington
State's Gonzaga University points out that a single square of land, 114
km on each side and about 37 metres deep, could accommodate all of the
garbage generated in the United States for the next 1000 years (Wiseman,
1990). This is one tenth of one percent of the land area of the continental
US. The amount of land required to accommodate all of our garbage for the
next 1000 years would represent considerably less than one tenth of one
percent of our land base since Canada's population is roughly one tenth
of that in the US, and the country is much larger. It is not a scarcity
of land that inhibits the siting of landfills and incinerators; rather
the high price of land close to urban centres and the public's opposition
to having a landfill in their communities. When a site is chosen for garbage
disposal, it becomes unavailable for other uses, and people worry about
odour, dust, litter, and scavenging animals that have been associated with
landfills in the past. However, new landfill technology greatly reduces
these problems.
The concern about running out of landfills has made recycling an increasingly popular alternative to disposal, and recycling in Canada has increased. But this is not always the most economically feasible or environmentally desirable option for waste management. Choosing to recycle involves environmental trade-offs. For example, additional garbage trucks are required to transport recyclable material, contributing to air pollution. In order for newspapers to be recycled, they must be de-inked, a process that creates sludge which must be disposed of. In some cases, manufacturing products from recycled materials requires more resources and energy, and produces more pollution, than producing the same products from primary, raw materials. For instance, McDonald's decision to discontinue the use of polystyrene hamburger packaging has several unfortunate resource trade-offs. It requires 30 percent less energy to produce a polystyrene package than it does to produce the paperboard alternative; this means producing a polystyrene container creates 46 percent less air pollution and 42 percent less water pollution than producing a paperboard one (Scarlett, 1991).
Sometimes recycling does make sense. It makes sense when recycled material is being used to make products that others want, and when the costs associated with recycling are not higher than the price people are willing to pay for the recycled product. Making new aluminum cans from old ones, for example, is cheaper than making new cans from scratch because producing aluminum from raw ore requires enormous amounts of energy (Shaw, 1999, p. 262). When recycling is the most efficient disposal solution, firms and households will face incentives to recycle voluntarily. Mandatory recycling, on the other hand, wastes resources when it is not the cheapest disposal option. These extra resources are no longer available to address other, more pressing environmental problems.
Economic growth and environmental quality
The majority of the students we surveyed (59 percent) believe that economic
growth leads to environmental degradation. Only 34 percent of students
believe that it leads to an improvement in environmental conditions (see
figure 6).
Contrary to what many of the students surveyed believe, economic growth is compatible with environmental quality. The idea that development and increased wealth contribute to the deterioration of our natural environment is directly contradicted by several academic studies. One study done by economists Gene Grossman and Alan Krueger documents an inverted "U" shaped relationship between income and pollution. This relationship, known as "the environmental kuznets curve," shows that as national per capita income increases, there is an initial increase in pollution followed by a decrease after per capita incomes reach a "turning point" (Grossman and Krueger, 1995, p. 370). Grossman and Krueger found that most indicators of pollution start to fall before a country reaches a per capita income of US$8,000. Another study done by the World Bank indicates that pollution rates for particulate matter and sulphur dioxide begin to fall at per-capita incomes of US$3,280 and US$3,670 respectively. Fecal coliform in river water declines after a per capita income of US$1,375. Access to safe drinking water and the availability of sanitation improve almost immediately as incomes rise (Goklany, 1995, p. 370).
Intuitively this makes sense because higher incomes are generally accompanied by higher expectations for quality of life. Once issues of subsistence are no longer an immediate concern, individuals can afford to demand other goods and services such as education, health care, and automobiles. Eventually, once these demands are met, and income continues to increase, "consumers" will begin to demand a healthier, more aesthetically pleasing natural environment.
This helps explain why some of the wealthiest countries, such as Canada and the United States, are among the world's cleanest. These countries are far beyond worrying about the worst environmental problems facing developing countries, such as deforestation and air pollution that is a result of burning coal and cow dung for fuel. In addition, evidence suggests that the relatively high level of environmental quality in high-income countries is improving at an impressive rate. A recent Fraser Institute publication that examined trends in air quality, water quality, land use and condition, solid waste management and natural resource use concludes that overall environmental quality improved by 18.6 percent in the United States and 18 percent in Canada relative to 1980 (Jones, 2000). Thus, contrary to what one might expect, economic prosperity and growth has led to cleaner, more sustainable choices.
Protecting endangered species
Sixty percent of the students we surveyed indicated that Canada should
pass tough endangered species legislation, even if it violates property
rights (see figure 7).
Student support for tough endangered species legislation is likely based on two false assumptions: that Canada has an endangered species problem, and that legislation is the best way to protect species at risk of extinction. Perhaps one of the clearest indications that Canadian wildlife is well protected without federal legislation is our record on extinctions. The last mammal extinction in Canada, the Queen Charlotte Island population of woodland caribou, occurred 80 years ago. The last bird extinction, the passenger pigeon, occurred 86 years ago. Most of the extinctions on the Canadian list were a result of human activities—unregulated hunting, trapping, and commercial fishing. These extinctions are grievous because these species may well have survived if it were not for their over-exploitation. But, when considering whether these extinctions represent a trend that is likely to continue, it must be remembered that the problem of overhunting, with the exception of the fisheries, has been solved.
According to many groups concerned about the future of wildlife in Canada, the greatest new threat to wildlife is human encroachment on habitat. However, if in recent history we faced a serious problem protecting wildlife in Canada due to an increase in human encroachment on habitat, one might expect to see a dramatic increase in the number of species that have become extinct as the human population has increased. In other words, human population expansion would be a good proxy for encroachment on wildlife habitat. However, far from revealing a dramatic rise in the number of species becoming extinct in this country as human population increases, there appears to be no correlation between the growth of the human population and animal extinctions. Figure 8, which shows human population on the same graph as animal extinctions, illustrates that species extinction has been spread fairly evenly across time since 1840, despite rapid population growth. In addition, if the greatest threat to wildlife is human encroachment on habitat, Canada's small population relative to its landmass affords most of its species a high level of natural protection. With a population of just over 30 million people (0.5 percent of the world's population) and a surface area that is one of the largest in the world (7 percent of the global land mass), Canada's average population density is just 3 people per square kilometre (Environment Canada, 1996, p. 10-1). The "footprint" of Canada's population is even smaller, as 80 percent of Canadians live in urban areas covering only 0.2 percent of the total land area (Environment Canada, 1996, p. 10-1).
Despite the evidence that Canada's species are well protected, many argue that Canada needs to adopt endangered species legislation similar to that passed in the United States over 25 years ago. But the US Endangered Species Act (ESA) is highly controversial and is targeted for major revision. Its critics include environmentalists, politicians, and property owners, who charge that in addition to its high costs and heavy-handed approach, the legislation fails to accomplish its mission of protecting endangered species.
The basic problem with the American legislation is that it creates the perverse incentive for landowners to view endangered species as a liability. If evidence of endangered species are found on your property in the United States, you can be told by the Fish and Wildlife Service, under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, that you cannot build, cut down trees, plow fields, dig, or fill ditches, or in any other way alter your land. These controls have often led to substantial uncompensated reductions in property values. As a result, in order to protect themselves from the uncompensated taking of private property in the name of protecting wildlife, some in the United States have resorted to what has been called a policy of "shoot, shovel, and shut-up." In the extreme, landowners will kill endangered species and dispose of them in order to prevent their property from coming under the control of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
For those who care about wildlife and believe that more should be done to protect endangered species, there is an alternative to supporting American-style legislation: supporting the hundreds of non-profit organizations that work directly to protect wildlife in Canada. These groups directly protect wildlife through their programs of buying or leasing land and working with private landowners. Ironically, precisely because they are more concerned with direct conservation than with lobbying governments and alarming the public, their important contribution towards preserving Canada's wildlife often goes unrecognized.
Why so pessimistic?
University students are pessimistic about the current and future state of the environment. Contrary to the evidence, many believe that air quality is deteriorating, that acid rain is a serious threat to forests, that forests are overharvested, and that Canada faces a garbage crisis. Further, when asked what has happened overall to environmental quality in Canada over the past 20 years, 72 percent of the students surveyed indicated that it had deteriorated. Only 14 percent said overall environmental quality was "staying the same" and 13 percent said it was "improving" (see figure 9). Students' beliefs are not much different from those of the rest of the public. A recent Leger Marketing poll found that 77 percent of Canadians believe that environmental conditions have deteriorated since the early 1990s (Globe and Mail, August 13, 2001, p. A5).
But as the above discussion has shown, student pessimism is not warranted. While there is always room for further improvement, in most areas, environmental quality in Canada is good and improving. The disconnect between available evidence and student perceptions can, in part, be explained by looking at where students get their information. According to our survey (we allowed students to check more than one answer), 76 percent got at least some of their information about the environment from the media (see figure 10). The second largest source, at 47 percent, is information from schools.
Bad news is a good story
More students reported getting environmental information from the media than any other source. But as Gregg Easterbrook, a reporter who has covered environmental issues for Newsweek, The New Republic, and The New York Times Magazine, explains, there is an asymmetry in the way the media cover environmental stories.
In the autumn of 1992, I was struck by this headline in the New York Times: "Air Found Cleaner in U.S. Cities." The accompanying story said that in the past five years air quality had improved sufficiently that nearly half the cities once violating federal smog standards no longer did so. I was also struck by how the Times treated the article—as a small box buried on page A24. I checked the nation's other important news organizations and learned that none had given the finding prominence. Surely any news that air quality was in decline would have received front-page attention. (Easter- brook, 1995, p. xiii)
Stories regarding air quality in Canada also focus on the bad news. Both the Globe and Mail and the National Post ran reports that emphasized that air quality was deteriorating. Eighty-nine percent of the Globe and Mail's air quality coverage in 2000 focused on poor air quality while 81 percent of the National Post's stories focused on poor air quality (Miljan, 2001, pp. 17-18).
That bad news makes a better story than good news is a more generally observable phenomenon. According to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, the top 10 stories of public interest in the US during 1999 were all bad news stories. With the exception of the outcome of elections, the birth of sep- tuplets in Iowa, and the summer Olympics, the same is true for the top ten stories in each year from 1996 through 1998 (Pew Research Center, 2000).
Complex scientific debate doesn't make good headlines
Another problem with relying on the media for environmental information is that media stories are too short to do complex scientific issues justice. Chris Cragg, editor of The Financial Times Energy World, advances several explanations as to why the media coverage on global warming has been so one-sided. According to Cragg, there are 4 rules followed in journalism: 1) make things simple, 2) make things variable, 3) make things easy to read and 4) if possible, make things sensational. Several of these rules are in direct conflict with good scientific reporting. Bad news sells newspapers and complex, scientific debate does not make for catchy headlines. As a result, many caveats found in the scientific reports on climate change disappear.
Schools: A good source of environmental information?
Although media reporting of environmental stories likely contributes to students' pessimism, one likes to hope that the information provided by the schools is more balanced. Unlike the media, teachers have a guaranteed audience and a broader time frame to teach environmental topics. Unfortunately, some evidence suggests that many textbooks and teachers are not providing factually-based information on environmental topics. In a review of over 160 textbooks and 130 children's books, the authors of Facts, Not Fear: Teaching Children about the Environment, found many irresponsible claims that promoted an exaggerated, or simply false view of environmental concerns (Sanera and Shaw, 2000). For example, one textbook uses a "cancer cell" as a metaphor for human population, and claims "humanity is becoming a super-malignancy on the face of the planet." A social studies book claims "the only way to improve conditions in developing nations is for the rich to change their priorities away from economic growth" (Dunlop, 1987, p. 140). The book includes no references to research strongly supporting the idea that economic growth can be part of the solution to pollution. An earth science book states: "Most of them [geologic resources] ...especially the energy resources, are being used at an alarming rate" (Namowitz and Spaulding, 1987). The text does not discuss how rising prices of scarce resources will promote innovation and lead to discoveries of new resources. It does not tell students that known reserves of many resources are greater today than any time in the past. Of course, not all of the information that students learn from the classroom is so one-sided. But clearly, many of the negative messages that students hear in the media are reinforced by textbooks. Many textbooks are failing to provide students with the information and tools that would help them figure out for themselves how to understand and evaluate complex environmental issues.
Conclusion
Although the results of our survey suggest that university students are misinformed about the environment, there is some good news—students indicated that they care about environmental issues. We hope they care enough to engage their critical thinking skills. Following are some suggestions to help in this endeavor.
Strategies for critical thinking on environmental topics:
1. Learn to read critically. Does the author support his argument with facts or is it based entirely on opinions and emotions? Ask this question when reading or listening to any source including textbooks and teachers.
2. Read and listen to a variety of sources. Considering different perspectives on arguments can lead you to re-evaluate your own perspective.
3. Understand the way the media works. Bad news is a good story. This can lead to a distorted sense of what is happening on environmental topics. Complex scientific ideas are often simplified, eliminating important qualifiers. This can lead to a false sense of urgency about a problem.
4. Learn the difference between absolute and relative risk. Media stories often stress relative risk. For example a story will indicate that those who use product X are three times as likely to suffer harm than those who do not. While this makes product X appear dangerous, the absolute chances of harm may remain very low.
5. Question the motivations and possible biases of sources of information equally. Often, for example, I have heard students dismiss the arguments of scientists who accept funding from industry. They are not, however, critical of scientists who accept money from governments. All scientists get their funding from somewhere and the motivations and possible influence of all sources should be questioned equally. A better test of whether the research is sound is whether it has been published in peer-reviewed journals.
6. Take an introductory economics class. Environmental questions are often complex, involving costs and trade-offs. An understanding of some basic economic principles can help you think through issues in a more logical way, which will directly contribute to your ability to grapple with complex environmental topics.
References
American Chemical Society (2000). Environmental Information Pamphlets: Acid Rain. Digital Document: http://www.acs.org/government/publications/eip_acidrain.html
Bast, Joseph L., Peter J. Hill, and Richard C. Rue (1994). Eco-Sanity. Lanham, MD: Madison Books.
Butraw, Dallas, Joel Darmstadter, Karen Palmer, and James McVeigh (Spring 1999). Renewable Energy: Winner, Loser, or Innocent Victim? Washington: Resources for the Future.
Canada Yearbook (1997). Published by authority of the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Canadian Forest Service [CFS] (1998). The State of Canada's Forests: The People's Forests 1997-1998. Annual Publication. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada.
Daly, Conway (2001). "Majority believe environment has worsened, poll suggests." The Globe and Mail (August 13), p. A5.
Easterbrook, Gregg (1995). A Moment on the Earth: The Coming Age of Environmental Optimism. New York, New York: Viking.
Environment Canada (1996). The State of Canada's Environment. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada.
Goklany, Indur (1995). "Richer is Cleaner." In The True State of the Planet. Washington: The Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Green, Kenneth (2000). A Plain English Guide to Climate Change. Digital Document: http://www.rppi.org/environment/peg3.html
Grossman, Gene and Alan Krueger (1995). "Economic Growth and the Environment." The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May.
Jones, Laura (1999). Crying Wolf? Public Policy on Endangered Species in Canada. Vancouver: The Fraser Institute.
Jones, Laura, Laura Griggs, and Liv Fredricksen (2000). Environmental Indicators (4th edition). Vancouver: The Fraser Institute.
Kerr, Richard (1997). "Greenhouse forecasting still cloudy." Science (May 16).
Krug, E.C. and C.R. Frink (1983). "Acid rain on acid soil: A new perspective" Science 222 (k695).
Mani, Muthukumara and David Wheeler (1997). "In Search of Pollution Havens? Dirty Industry in the World Economy, 1960-1995," World Bank Working Paper Series, April.
Miljan, Lydia (2001). "Air Quality Improving–but You'd Never Know It from the Globe and Post." Fraser Forum (April).
Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch (1999). Air Quality in Ontario. Queen's printer for Ontario.
Pew Research Center For the People and The Press (2000). Digital Document: http://www.people-press.org/yearendrpt.htm
Scarlett, Lynn (1991). "Make Your Environment Dirtier—Recycle." Wall Street Journal (January 14).
Simon, Julian (1996). The Ultimate Resource II. Princeton: University Press. Digital Document: www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Colleges/BMGT/Faculty/JSimon/Ultimat_Resource/
Statistics Canada (1999). "Area Harvested by Harvesting Method by Province or Territory, in Hectares, Annual." CANSIM Matrix 6086. Digital Document: www.statcan.ca:80/english/CANSIM
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1994). World Agriculture: Trends & Indicators, 1961-91. Digital database: gopher://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/11/datasets/lad/89003.
"Why greens should love trade," (1999). The Economist (October 9), p. 17
Wiseman, Clark A. (1990). US Wastepaper Recycling Policies: Issues and Effects. Resources for the Future. Discussion Paper ENR 90-14.
Laura Jones (lauraj@fraserinstitute.ca) is Director of Environment and Regulatory Studies at The Fraser Institute. She received her M.A. in Economics from Simon Fraser University.
info@fraserinstitute.ca
4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6J 3G7
Tel: (604) 688-0221 Fax: (604) 688-8539 Book Orders: 1-800-665-3558 ext. 580
You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.