Interview with Denis Hayes

Hayes, Denis ; McKiernan, Stephen

Denis Hayes is an environmental advocate, a proponent of solar power, attorney, educator, and founder of the Earth Day Network, which works with over 180 nations in order to build environmental democracy. He was head of the Solar Energy Research Institute and president of the Bullitt Foundation in Washington. Hayes also received many awards including the national Jefferson Awards Medal for Outstanding Public Service. Hayes received his Bachelor's degree in History from Stanford University and a Juris Doctor degree at Stanford Law School.

ND

In copyright

2018-03-29

McKiernan Interviews

88:57

McKiernan Interviews
Interview with: Denis Hayes
Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan
Transcriber: REV
Date of interview: Not Dated
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Start of Interview)

SM (00:00:00):
As I mentioned in my note that I have been working on this for a long time. I started it way back. In fact, Senator Nelson was one of my first interviews and I interviewed him when I was working at the university and we did this on the road leadership program and he had come to our campus twice to talk about Earth Day and one night we went over to the Holiday Inn and we were having a couple drinks and everything and I told him that I had been having difficulty getting a hold of William Fulbright, that I wanted to take our students down to DC to meet him. And he had just had a stroke, but he was getting recuperated and he was a close friend of the Senators. And he said, "Geez, I will get them for you." I said, "Really? Because I have been trying to secure him." And what happened is as a result of that, we ended up seeing nine senators. And I got pretty close to the Senator. He would always come into the Wilderness Society office. They would always meet in the back room there. I took maybe close to 200 different students there. In fact, that memory has stayed with so many of the students. I have a student now just became director of admissions at Southern Illinois University and Dr. Brandon Logan. And he was there with three of them, and when Senator McCarthy passed away and when Senator Musky passed away wherever he was, he sent me a note saying it was one of the greatest memories of my life. So I thank the Senator for that. Are you ready for the first question? And again, thank you again. When you think of the (19)60s and the early (19)70s, what's the first thing that comes to your mind?

DH (00:01:51):
Time of upheaval in basic American institutions.

SM (00:01:57):
Could you go a little more detail?

DH (00:01:59):
Sure. Stuff was going on in every dimension of American life in terms of political realignment. That is when Nixon launched the southern strategy initially attempted from (19)64 by Barry Goldwater, brought to fruition in (19)68, especially (19)72 by Nixon, to basically take what had been the solid Democratic South, put it into the Republican Party. Then in the course of doing that, putting the so-called Rockefeller Republicans, the Lindseys and Scrantons and Romneys into play. And you can make at least normally the argument that, at least in terms of the Senate, we were just discussing it now that group's pretty much down to one or two, maybe the two women senators from Maine. Fundamental realignment from Republican Party that in the Eisenhower years was actually better on civil rights and had the first Black senator at Brook out of Maine into one that took over the racist elements of the South and turned many of the worst from by-standpoint, progressive political figures from the South and to Republicans. It was a time when the generation that had been raised with much of the American value system close to their hearts began and cherished what was the end of the colonial empire and the independence of the great many of the states that had been subjected to European expansion. Found itself involved in a war in Southeast Asia, which many of us came to believe we were on the wrong side of. It was a war of independence and liberation by people that had been fighting off China for a long time, got off French for a long time and now we were fighting off the America. And so it led to this gigantic disillusionment carried over from the (19)50s was the overall nuclear weapons. It was amplified in the (19)60s with concerns about new weapon systems for space-based and or multiple independently targeted entry that significantly increased the destructive potential of any one missile, letting it target perhaps as many as 16 different places from one missile. And the response to that, the form of an anti-ballistic missile system called MX. Stuff was just escalating in ways that struck us as insane, was a sense of identity. Politics came into play for the first time where people began to view themselves in terms of social groups, a Christian coalition, racial identities, very strong and grew out of the civil rights movement. Began to become part of forming political bases, Black voting. And the same thing with Mexican American saying to a much lesser extent, a little with parts of the Asian communities. And then I am guessing for purposes of this conversation, this brand-new social course, first onto the scene on the form of concern for the quality of life, for sustainability, public health, protection of basic natural resources, a concern for endangered species, intactness of ecosystems, all of which had existed as issues for people who were worried the [inaudible] about pesticide, heard about air pollution. We formed the Wilderness Society of the National Wildlife Federation and the National Ottoman Society, Sierra Club decades earlier to work on nature, humans that now found themselves bound together in a movement that was concerned with human health, with energy policy, pollution, livable cities, lead paint, and lead in automobile costs. Somehow finding itself aligned with people who are worried about duck flyways but all coming to understand it or operating from a similar set of values. And they help far more powerful and it is frankly a set of groups that they had before. So the speculation of all those interests into an environmental movement.

SM (00:07:12):
How do you respond to those individuals who, over the past, well maybe 15, 20 years, continue to take shots at the boomer generation or the (19)60s and (19)70s as the reason why we have all these problems in America today? They are making reference of course to the breakup of the American family, the sexual revolution, the morays, the drug culture. Many of them will even go into the concept of the victim culture. Everybody is a victim and all these issues that they look upon as negative, they shoot right back to the (19)60s and (19)70s when boomers are young. George Willie is one of those individuals who at times will write articles and he will take his shots every so often at that generation. But I have heard other politicians do the same. What's your thoughts on that?

DH (00:08:10):
Well, George Will is of course a member of that generation and hence he knows because he was growing up at that time. That it was enormously diverse as all generations are. Certainly, the press has always tended to focus his detention upon things that were unusual, colorful. And so if you get a small sub moving out to the woods to try to live sustainably, it may involve a couple of thousand people in the nation, but it suddenly gets all of these write-ups and it makes it seem like the whole generation is doing it. Clearly, there was a fair amount of drug experimentation that went on, but there had been drug experimentation that was going on before it became more visible. What is the word I am looking for here? It became more common place in terms of people's expectations in the wake of Woodstock. But there was serious marijuana use and heroin use facing back to the earliest of the century. Be back. With regard to the breakup of family, I think something has gone on there and some of it was probably good. It was an end to a certain kind of hypocrisy and some of it was probably bad. There seems many instances now to be, in my view, to give up on relationships without putting as much effort into it. I had a friend just the other day, when he was growing up, he asked his grandfather, he'd been married to his grandmother 47 years, a few months after that he was deaf. Excuse me, sorry, one second. And he asked his grandfather, what was the secret? His grandfather said, "Well, it was a different era." And there is something to that. Some stuff did change and much of it was good. It brought us the environmental revolution. I mean, it brought us some formidable ways, the creativity that led to information.

SM (00:10:54):
When we talk about the boomer generation, we are talking depending on statistics you read, between 70 and 74, 75 million people. And of course, we are talking about different ethnic groups and gender and everything. But when you look at this generation, what would you consider to be some of their strengths and some of their weaknesses in your opinion?

DH (00:11:19):
That was the point of before I distracted myself, I was talking about George Woo as one of those students. I mean, on any given campus you always had Greeks and factions and they tended to bound themselves a little bit around disciplines, the school of engineering and the business club or conservative with exceptions there too. The credit school must be more progressive along with arts and science. And then you have all of these overlays of different genders and racial groups. When you talk about any of those issues that you brought up before, boy that just delays in different ways and what Will is now pointing at it got the most attention when they were happening. Go back and reformulate that question?

SM (00:12:14):
Basically, in your opinion, what are some listing of some characteristics that you find very positive about the boomer generation as a whole and at the same time after the positives, some of the negative characteristics as you see it?

DH (00:12:32):
Well, of course a fair number of characteristics are in the same characteristic [inaudible] Janus faced there. It seems to me not having been around in my parents' generation, but it seems to me much less reference to authority. It perhaps came in part out of learning that we had been lied to about the Tom King, that we lied about various aspects of American intervention in the politics of other countries. Lied to about any number of things. So I am not sure the politicians were ever held on an enormous, but people, the best of them give up many opportunities including solid life, their families and privacy and what have you, to try to survey a broader publication mostly held in this repute. So on the good side, somebody because he or she managed to achieve authority was not taken at face value anymore. But on the bad side of that temporary... It tends to be presumption, that skepticism.

SM (00:14:02):
You speak up just a little bit too please?

DH (00:14:04):
Oh, okay.

SM (00:14:04):
Yep, sure. Yep.

DH (00:14:08):
Among the good characteristics, I think, I will probably get in some trouble for saying this, but it may have been the most educated generation in American history. Really took a lot of science, a lot of technology, studied extremely hard, and I think came into it with a sounder background than the World War II generation and a better background than people who are passing to today's school for all kinds of reasons. I do not know why the American educational enterprise has deteriorated, as the last few decades. I think it is a true tragedy and out of that came... And again, it is two faces often in different people. On the one hand, ordinary technologies [inaudible] to the New York Bangalore, nanosecond, and at the same time the degree of skepticism of that technological salvation, the concept that our parents would have clinged to now and those parents have survived, cling to now that the answer to climate change will be the magic bullet. That somebody will invent something to take care of them. And that is not much believed by the boomers who think answer there is going to be producing emissions, turning to it. Maybe there are technologies, energy resources, investments in conservation, but there's not the nuclear fusion to something that is going to come in over the horizon and buy cheap power that lets us continue precisely [inaudible]... I think there is a degree of identity with myriad organizations that are outside the traditional ways that Americans organize themselves. It is to say we still obviously have Republicans and Democrats, so a huge number of independence. The former community based social organization, alliances, Kiwanis, are of really strongly declining importance among baby boomers. And we tend to be... Excuse me.

SM (00:16:54):
Bless you.

DH (00:16:58):
Excuse me. That is okay. We tend to be involved in organizations that do not necessarily involve our neighbors. So if you look at the memberships of the Natural Resources Defense Council, there are no chapters in the United States. There is an identity with an organization that has a few offices in various regions that have paid staff in it, but it asks relatively little of their dollars, their affiliation, and occasionally to write a letter to Congress. There are certainly no weekly meetings or Mondays or those sorts of... Have largely generationally disappeared at length, bowling alone. I think there is really something to that in terms of the new forms of affiliation and that is becoming even more true as people's more and more online. And now often somebody will have a stronger relationship with a computer friend who shares a set of arcane interests, who has located 3000 miles away and who he or she has never met and I may not know the name of the person who lives next door to them. And that is unique in human experience. But on the other side of that, it may help the very first time to begin to build a sense of world community to the one politically accept prejudice that endures is a person born one inch on this side of a line, arbitrarily drawn on a map, inherently worth far more than a person who was born one inch on the other side of that. And with problems like climate change, protecting the world's oceans, protecting the world's endangered species, dealing with population growth and immigration, they all have to be dealt, particularly as immigration comes forced immigration as a consequence, climate change. They all have to be dealt at global basis and we have to somehow begin to develop this global consciousness. I do not think there would have been a way to do that prior to worldwide web. Still not confident we will do it, but there is at least an attempt, some of that indicating work.

SM (00:19:29):
Yeah. When you look at the (19)60s, what do you believe was the watershed moment when the (19)60s began and when was the watershed moment when it ended?

DH (00:19:41):
I suppose the beginning was the Kennedy assassination and its aftermath. You had a subsequent president of Lyndon Johnson who was a master politician and a despicable human being, but a guy who as a political figure was truly extraordinary, as the Voting Rights Act, as the Civil Rights Act, took that thing to Kennedy, gets all of the praise for putting a man on the moon and actually made it happen. Built Houston Flight Control in Huntsville and the whole NASA enterprise. Created a series of programs as part of the great society that were potentially really revolutionary and hitter over some awfully conservative voices in Congress and was so saddled with the war in Vietnam. The primary way that he has thought of today is still, "Hey, LBJ, how many could kill today?" That any case, the alienation that came out of the aftermath, the assassination sense of hope and invigoration and generational shift that so many people challenged by it wanted to go into the space race and wanted to go into the peace for and wanted to get out and do things, suddenly turned into this thing that was set pretty bleak, during escapism into Woodstock, huge number of civil rights rallies, anti-war rallies, iron metals, women's rallies. At all. I think, some large measure after the reelection of Nixon in 1972 that was sent, the hopes of that generation had [inaudible].

SM (00:22:09):
Do you think this generation was the most unique generation in American history, the boomers? Because it is a quality that some boomers stuff they possessed when they were young, that they were going to change the world, that they were going to make the world better for the human race. They were going to end, obviously racism and all the isms, bring peace to the world. Your thoughts on this feeling that many of them had that they were unique and secondly, part of this question as they have aged, because the early part of the boomers now are 62. They can now get social security and early retirement if they want to. Have you been disappointed? I know you obviously are an activist who has stayed the course and you know many in the environmental movement who have, but when you look at that generation, how many stayed the course? So it is a two-part question. And please speak up.

DH (00:23:13):
Sorry.

SM (00:23:14):
Okay.

DH (00:23:15):
Just a second. Why do not I just do this, this way. Again, enormous, complex, multifaceted, very diverse. But among those who were at the cutting edge of change, there was certainly a sense of uniqueness and even probably a bit of metaphor rebellion there. We thought we were inheriting the world, but in the wake of World War II, enormous opportunities have been [inaudible] coming into a world in which worlds still commonplace racism, extremely progress in which feature of additional progress, public health, plummeted environment deteriorate. I think there was essentially no doubt in the minds of my friends and I at least, but we would be passing on to our children a world that was far better than the one that became inherited. At least we were committed to doing that. There were Black moments, but God, there is no chance at all. And then you get one of these sweeping victories, you drive a sitting president out of office, [inaudible] Hampshire, you pass a clean air act over the brightened opposition of automobile in petroleum and coal and steel industry. You win it essentially 99 to 1, that there was a sense that, yeah, we really can make a difference here. And I think that there's still time worth the scales to tip a bit further in terms of those changes. Clearly, we now have made fundamental changes in all kinds of laws that affect how women are treated, how minorities are treated, patients are treated, how the environment is concerned. The wave of laws that were passed between 1970 and 1974 have caused multiple trillions of dollars to be spent differently than they would have been spent, but more concerned with clean air and clean water and toxic cases and the conservation of species. And by any cost benefit analysis, it is a hugely beneficial shift of priority. It got that money spent. So I do not want to underplay the degree to which there has been some success, but where I think the real shift may yet come is the brochure, some now sign up for social security. A great many are now CEOs of companies. They're the heads of everything from labor organizations, major hospitals, elected officials to what have you and many will deep at it until their (19)70s, partly as a result of having a whole lot of trades because the retirement program get vaporized. But in part also, because they really are doing stuff that they enjoy and are reasonably good at that. And that is where I have actually had, this is anecdotal, but some disappointment. People that I thought very highly of, their younger days have come to be the CEOs of very major companies and have made choices driven by the demands of Wall Street, driven by their board of directors, driven by all sorts of things. But nonetheless, were involved with the people who were most prominently identified with some really terrible choices. So to the extent that we thought it was a generational thing that encompassed everybody, I do not know that anybody ever thought that, but if they did, it was naive, diverse. But certainly there are people who have done magnificent things and the world is a better place for that. I guess what I would say in just a nutshell that where we succeeded and failed, where we succeeded most on things that directly affected the individual families and individual communities and their health somewhat less at the state level and somewhat less still at the national level. But still even at the national level, fundamental changes in direction and regulation and laws where we were completely unsuccessful was in international relations where the only significant global victories that I think of during that era is some strengthening of international campaigns on human rights. So it is still astonishingly weak and maybe the Montreal protocol on ozone depletion. But the other big global issues, war and peace issues, the rich and war issues, climate change issues, all of those are in worse shape today than they were up 21.

SM (00:29:11):
Obviously, Earth Day was so important. When you look at these, again 70 plus million boomers, what do you think was the one issue that defined their generation? Was it Vietnam?

DH (00:29:30):
No, I do not think I can answer that. It certainly was defining for a large number of people who either went for and came back changed or went to Canada, did not think they had not have done to avoid going. And I hope that in the most part that was because they did not want to kill for an unjust war, rather they could not die. Whatever it was, they were altered by it. But there were other people who were completely consumed by... I mean, for women, I do not think that the war was as defined as it was for the people. The men who would have been directly engaged and often we were caught up and defined by feminism. But are in some cases defined by changing standards for motherhood in various racial groups, fighting for social justice and literally for their lives in various parts of it. And for some of us, it was clearly a shift that came from a recognition of a different role for mankind within the environmental movement. There was this very powerful strength that says that you have in the era of fossil fuels from the steam engine, largely defined success by subduing nature. And that has not worked out so well and accomplished prosperity. But you can lead lives of comfort, dignity, and contribution by adapting ourselves intelligently to the principles of college cities and ministries that are compatible with and ecosystems you will continue function, do not undermine nature services, of course, our needs.

SM (00:31:41):
One of the characteristics of the generation is obviously it was a movement generation because there were so many movements. The Civil Rights Movement was already going strong as boomers are reaching the age of 18, and many went to the freedom summer when they were very young. But when you look at the other movements, including the environmental movement, the Chicano, the gay and lesbian, the women's movement, the Native American movement, and the anti-war movement. Your thoughts on their links to the Earth Day and all the other environmental movements, because there seem to be a sense... And I like your thoughts on this, you had just made some comments about the international community today and how important the sense of community should be that we all need to work together as one. There was a sense of community amongst many of the boomers. That is why they worked well together. And at many protests you would see many of the movements together. When you look at the environmental movement and you see all these other movements, was there a close working relationship between the movement you were involved in and all these others?

DH (00:32:56):
At the working level where the folks really are representing large numbers of people who share their guilt and respect them and think of them as leaders? There was a high degree of pragmatic interaction. To take just the Earth Day example, as you go across the country, you will find in various rallies, all of the major leading anti-war figures were giving talk, sometimes focused exclusively upon the raping and [inaudible] of the Vietnamese environment, [inaudible] and the night palm, what have you. But one way or the other, tying their issue into it. And then similarly with civil rights leaders who would talk about the environmental, the ghettos about blood paint and rats, toxic materials as environmental issues about the dominant one at that point, freeways cutting through inner city areas, decimating what had been intact neighborhoods. And so there was that level at the extremes of each movement. I mean, they are in the extremes of the environmental movement, and I hate to characterize groups by this, but there are extremes within it that have a racist element to it, have a nationalistic, almost dramatic element to it. In the extremes of the civil rights movement, there were certainly those that were mixing up the search for Black power with the condemnation of things that were not Black and beautiful. And that basically took an organization like the SNC, the Students nonviolent Court, which had been students in mixed race and a whole lot of people, and basically kicked the white folks out. This was all about building from within Black nationalism and in the anti-war movement, I do not know that it is particularly a radical worldview, but there were folks who I think almost had psychological problems. They thought that using a brick through the window of a random florist shop somehow contribute to the movement. Basically they alienated their fellow anti-war and everybody else's, some of the prisons. But at the level that I think you are asking it, there was a broad sense that there was a new agenda that was coming. It was a generational agenda. It was in some large measure, progressive. It had a desire to have a higher degree of equality among all people and opposed to things that treated some as second class. And I think all of that was extremely widely shared. I should say that that led to condemnations from the people because you have an environmental rally, but signs are on simple rights. Signs are about war and all of the stuff. And so they would say, well... And they say the same thing about all of the others. You would go to an anti-war movement and there would be feminist's signs there and they would contend that this is all just [inaudible]. People do not really care about the environment, care about the war, care about whatever the issue is. It is all just a front to pull, a broad base liberal agenda. And it is not entirely false. I mean, most of us cared about all of those issues at a primary identification, which had been all the different events.

SM (00:36:42):
I am sure that, and I think hopefully activists today, whether they be environmental activists or any of other movements we have talked about, should realize that violence gets no one anywhere and it creates a bad image for the effort that you are trying to work on. I mentioned this because you have already brought up the Black power issue, the challenge with the Black power and the Black Panthers within the Civil Rights Movement, even in the Native American movement, the aim oftentimes got involved in violence. And then of course, in the last 10 years I have read about environmental activists who were violent. I cannot remember the name of the one group. I think it is out in the far west. They are willing to confront people and with violence if they have to, it is that Malcolm X by any means necessary attitude. Have you seen any of that within the environmental movement that by any means necessary, not only in 1970, but as you have progressed through the Earth Day celebrations in 2000 and just your thoughts on that?

DH (00:37:59):
Well, once again, it is part of this vast diversity and what gets attention and what does not. When you have the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in the NAACP and Urban League and others trying to build a broad-based movement across the races to end the Jim Crow laws that had oppressed people basically from the Civil War, the immediate aftermath. They had enormous support, but the support was very broad, but people did not do very much. And certainly some did. The freedom writers went to the South, Freedom Summer was important opiate brief because of them, but almost immediately to Black power fall. But a theory of change is you build a critical mass, you reach out to as many as possible and you try to move them to a state where they become a powerful force. That was the whole theory behind Earth Day. We wanted to get everybody engaged and pull together something where for a window in time, which we thought was going to be much longer but did last for four or five years, we were effectively unstoppable. But an opposite view would say that in almost any instance, it is a very small number of people who care passionately about an issue that drive change. And most of the time, the vast majority of people cannot focus upon that many issues and maybe they will watch the evening news. But in the evening news, a three-paragraph story is a pretty long story and it is going to be dominated by whatever has pictures and colorfulness. And so although the Black Panthers were never one 10th of 1 percent of what the NAACP was in terms of membership and had essentially no white engagement at all, got an enormous amount of headlines because they were prepared to carry [inaudible] in the streets of Oakland or Chicago. And because they were confrontational and sometimes confrontational to enormously racist entities. And so they dominated the press for a period. Whereas the early stages of the movement up through Martin Luther King, even Joseph Lowery, it was led by mostly southern religious leaders who preached a Gandhi esque code of passive civil disobedience and nonviolence. It shifted over into something that was more akin to urban thugs, but they got the coverage. It became the prototype how you move. A similar thing would happen in pretty much everything, right up until... I mean, when people think about Seattle, most of them think about Boeing and Microsoft and Weyerhaeuser and Nordstrom and Starbucks, Costco and RealNetworks. I mean, for a little tiny city, we have produced a whole number of things that are fundamentally changed.

SM (00:41:22):
Yes.

DH (00:41:24):
But for some set of people, particularly those that are involved in globalization trade, there is a pretty dominant image of the battle for Seattle. When the World Trade Organization got here and were formed by the group of anarchists on the streets, that was a couple hundred people and most of them were not from Seattle, most of them were from Eugene, Oregon Group that was down there. But they triggered stuff that caused police to react in a way because of the people to become engaged. It is all of the tricks that were done throughout the (19)60s and it worked. And a couple hundred people there had had an impact that has endured in people's consciousness. There's now at least two movies out about Seattle. There have been thousands of peaceful protests about the way the World Trade Organization has excluded from its consideration a true concern for the environmental attributes of products, the amount of energy that is embedded in products, the degree to which children are employed, the degree to which unions are forced out and on and on. The amount of pollution that is generated in the course of making a product that is then exported. The pollution remains behind. I mean, they get a little bit of attention for a few moments, maybe they educate some people, but nobody remembers any of the violent confrontations that endure. And it is true about what happened under apartheid. It is true about most social insurrections that take place around the world. And as a consequence, there is this genuine tension between two alternative ways of bringing change. My hope was-

SM (00:43:19):
Mr. Hayes, let me turn my tape here. Hold on one second.

(00:43:26):
All right, go right ahead.

DH (00:43:31):
Well, there was this great pivotal point in human history but over a brief period of time. Historically, we had Gutenberg who ironically developed this stuff for the proselytization of the Bible and bringing it for God to the common man. But it led pretty directly into the distribution of information rather broadly and the age of reason and the enlightenment where scientific dispersion method logic were applied to all kinds of politics and economics. Well, it looked like we had made each gigantic leap in terms of human consciousness. We now find ourselves in an era where people, huge portions of American society just pay little attention to people who devoted their entire lives to studying issues and are extremely highly regarded by their peers. They dismissed [inaudible] using intellectuals in a term of disdain and an endorsement of political figures, the ultimate caricature of which is Sarah Palin, who seems to have no agenda other than really, really wanting to be famous and powerful. And somehow the (19)60s and the boomer generation I think played into some of that. I do not have a very clear idea of what I mean by all of that, but I think in that period where the legitimacy of authority was increased in question because the authority had been accused. We came, and I had part of this as well too, do not have much confidence in professors, some of whom had obtained tenure 40 years earlier and had fallen way behind their disciplines. But out of all of that, for some people came almost a disdain for knowledge sense that what you know and what you can calculate reasonably predict in air boundaries is not as important as a deep emotional commitment to a particular outcome. And that is reflects itself a bit from the issue that actually triggered this fast out point of words for me, is to say the emotional types tend to say. And I do not give a damn if 80 percent of the people, I will create a situation in which society has to respond to me. And often violence is a part of that. And it is not so much a Black and white thing as it is a gradation. When people went in and sat in at lunch counters and said, "You do not want to sit next to me, you go sit someplace else." But I have got a right to sit here under the public accommodation clause. They were often met with violence and they knew that they would. And in the early days, they took it and accepted in a Gandhish way on the latter dates, touch me, man, I am going to take your head off it. And among the people in the Southern best writing campaigns you have, many of them were men and women who had affection for one another. And some guy is there and may be prepared to let the police beat him. But when the police start to beat and turn the fire hoses on her, and then suddenly a whole different center of protective genes comes into play and passing civil disobedience does not look so much honorable as it looks cowardly. And suddenly you find yourself giving birth to somebody who's going to strike back at those that were striking them.

SM (00:47:59):
What you have mentioned is maybe this quality came about from the boomer generation.

DH (00:48:07):
Well, it came up, it was there on the side of the oppressors. Bo Connors was not a boomer, but he prompted a response.

SM (00:48:18):
If we had a-

DH (00:48:18):
I think directly to the Black Panthers.

SM (00:48:21):
How important were the college students on college campuses and ending the Vietnam War? I have had different responses to this. Some say they were very important, some say not important at all.

DH (00:48:33):
Oh, I hate to utter these words, but I am confident that they are correct that the war was ended because we had a draft and part of it was a draft that reached into college campuses a bit. But mostly as long as you were in college, you were exempt. So everybody knew that it was coming as soon as they got out, unless they got into medical school or something. So there was an overhanging threat and rather than higher, but we now politely call it professional army, but some in sense can call it a mercenary army. People who are looking for a way to get an education, to get some discipline often to escape an unfortunate family environment. They go there and they go and fight our wars for us. If you were a member of Congress, you would like to be able to kick your kids out of the armed forces. There was a degree of randomness as to who was going to be called and that caused everybody in the country to think hard about that war and about its real consequences in a way that, for example, the war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan have not. They were on the news, but they were one of all of these period issues that were out there. During Vietnam, it was the war that could very well take your son or your nephew, daughter. And so although the students were the principal focal point for the demonstrations when you had the Vietnam moratorium, the march on the Pentagon fueled by people who were then my age, but what really ended the war was all of our parents and the political force that they represented that read large across the society. And then you finally got to the point for me, I think the turning point, if you were to define it, which may say more about my upbringing than anything else, but it was the day that Paul Harvey came on the radio that ultimately was convinced that this was a war that America should not be in. And that is like rush limbo coming out against a war in Afghanistan.

SM (00:50:50):
Is it Paul Harvey or Walter Cronkite?

DH (00:50:53):
No, I am talking about Paul Harvey.

SM (00:50:54):
Oh wow, Paul Harvey. Okay.

DH (00:50:57):
Yeah. No, Walter Cronkite coming back clearly is the one that got all of the attention.

SM (00:51:03):
Well, that is interesting.

DH (00:51:05):
But Paul Harvey just cut the undersides up to people that the military listened to every single time.

SM (00:51:12):
Oh wow. Yeah. I will never forget listening to that with my mom sometimes. Paul Harvey and Dave, he had that unique quality about him.

DH (00:51:22):
My dad came home from work every single noon, every day of his life for the type that I grew up with and to listen to Paul Harvey.

SM (00:51:30):
Well, he had a unique voice and yeah, that was a great show too. Before I get into some environmental questions as I really want to concentrate on and your background, I have two quick final questions here on general things about the boomers, and I want to read one of them. We took a group of students to see Senator Edmund Muskie about a year and a half before he passed away. And he had been in the hospital. He obviously was not feeling well, but he did it because Senator Nelson asked him and he was great. We had about two hours with him, and we asked this question that the students came up with because they thought he was going to respond, talk about the (19)68 convention, and he did not. And this is the question we ask, do you feel boomer generation is still having problems from healing from the divisions that tore the nation apart in their youth, divisions between Black and white, divisions between those who support authority and those who criticize it, division between those who supported the troops and those who did not? What role has the Vietnam Memorial played in healing the division says Jan Scruggs says in his book To Heal a Nation? Most importantly, do you feel that the bloomer generation will go to its grave like the Civil War generation not truly healing? And are we wrong in thinking this or has 40 years made the statement, time heals all wounds a truth? So just your thoughts and I will tell you what Senator Nelson said because it was great.

DH (00:53:03):
Muskie?

SM (00:53:05):
Yeah. Well, Senator Nelson also responded to this question, but Senator Muskie said... We thought he was going to respond by saying, "Boy, we were close to a second civil war in 1968." He did not say anything about (19)68. He said, "We have not healed since the Civil War." And then he went on for about 15 minutes to talk about the Ken Burns series and the Civil War that he had been looking at and how he lost over 400,000 men and almost an entire generation died because of that particular war and what a waste it was. And he said, "Just go to Gettysburg anytime and see the flags. And you will notice on the southern side, the flags are always there, but on the northern side you do not see any." So just your thoughts on whether we as a boomer generation have a problem with healing from all these divisions or is this not even an issue?

DH (00:53:59):
And of course, as you are in Mississippi, Alabama, there was not a civil war that was the war of Northern Aggression.

SM (00:54:07):
Right. Yes, you are right.

DH (00:54:11):
Well, in some great extent, and this runs some of our earlier questions together as well, we are trying to do with Earth Day that a couple of years after the convention. When the nation clearly had been ripped apart, and one consequence of that was Richard Nixon as president, was to bring those people with progressive views together. As long as you could buy into the agenda, there was a role for you. I mean, on our steering committee we had George Wiley of the National Welfare Rights Organization, and we had Dan Lufkin. It is worth a couple $100 million dollars when a couple $100 million meant something as the founder of Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette. And Stanley [inaudible] Wiley is this person who somebody should look at someday. I am not big on the national welfare rights organization, though he did so many things from that.

SM (00:55:19):
What is his name? His name is George Wiley.

DH (00:55:23):
He died in a boating accident in the early (19)70s, but he was an emerging civil rights leader. He was a powerfully built African American man with PhD in chemistry and a deep and abiding concern for poor people. He was one of the true intellectuals who could have emerged and played, I think a really powerful role. Unfortunately, he was moved off-stage early. But going back to the broader point, we were trying to bring people together and to the extent that an event could, I think we did just by aggressively going after any entity, any group that appeared to have potential interest in this saying, come and get engaged, going after women's magazines. And in fact, probably the most powerful constituent was married women with one or two children and single wager or households with college educations who just jumped on this movement with the passion. And we got to them through women's magazines, a huge number of which wrote articles about us and the environment. Many gave their telephone number and the street address to contact us back about that Vietnam era. Went after Boy Scouts, went after the National Science Teachers Association, went after a variety of companies that seemed to be doing something quasi green, huge amount of support from organized labor. The largest contributor by far was the United Auto Workers. Other unions with single largest block of support for us and consciously we were trying to build something that was inclusive and in which the middle class would feel comfortable because they had been so much excluded from so many of those other movements by the way that the movements had in the end clustered themselves. We thought that that was the largest block of Americans. It was the ones with the money and the education and the power and the votes, and we wanted to have something that drew them into this sort of concerns. And I think for a while that all worked, but the polarization that is out there today is really very much a right left polarization. And I do not think it has much to do with at least the early concerns, the (19)60s and (19)70s concerns of the boomer generation. It is just this visceral lack of ability of political leaders to build an encompassing vision around what they are trying to achieve. That consists of something other than condemning the other side, not a positive competition of, you said dumping as much crap as you can on the other's vision. Now there are thoughtful things that can be said about various kinds of market mechanisms called for by people on the right. And there are some really useful roles that are played by regulation and by public expenditures that are called broke by people on the left, but there is no ability to treat one another with respect. Political level, and as a consequence, we are just paralyzed. I was on a radio interview a couple days ago and somebody asked me, in all seriousness, if we are unable to get a relatively weak climate bill through the US Senate because of the threat of the filibuster and we just cannot muster 60 votes yet, how could we come up with a treaty that meet the demands of developing countries and the ambitious goals of our European and Japanese allies and get 60 votes for that? That was blown away when I had to remind him of basic civics, you need to get 67 votes to pass treaty. There was a time when we could enter into treaties, but the law of the seas has been out there for what, 35, 40 years now, get the votes to pass it. I do not know how you ever pass a climate treaty, and I do not know how you saved the world without getting us to buy into some sort of an international agreement, but part of that is that no one will pay that attention. You got the climate deniers, you got these crazy people that honestly believe that there's a conspiracy in them. Thousands of scientists and hundreds of research institutions around the world over [inaudible] people's eyes. It is hard to believe that they believe that, but they sure say enormous emphasis. And on our side, there is a tendency to say, well, we have got a complete agreement among all relevant scientists and people who publish peer reviewed articles about all the details of climate change. Because if you get into difficulties and the nuances from the other side will pick you apart. In fact, everybody agrees that the world's... Community agrees the world is warming up, but we will have horrible consequences for all kinds of things at different points. There are just some like tilting point, humans are contributing to it. But within all of that, there is a lot of stuff that is judgment. There is a lot of stuff where you have got conflicting figures depending on whether you are using tree rings or whether you are using ice course or using something else to try to measure what happened a hundred million years ago. I do not know it's just this level of tension that makes it impossible to find a common ground. And we have a country that designed it. Basically the age of reason was all about forcing people to find a common ground like creating these speeds for majorities and super majorities.

SM (01:01:14):
So in short, really the healing issue is not really the main thing here in terms of the divisions within the (19)60s, these divisions are part of the human condition more than just defining it within a generation?

DH (01:01:30):
Well, they are a consequence of shifts in the way that that public opinion is shaped. There was a time when people read learned essays and you found the Bill of Rights being debated and people eager to read the next set of learned comment that came out in the newspapers. But people would sit up in the hot sun for eight, 10 hours and listen to the Lincoln Douglas debates where we have a nation that was really designed by a group of intellect. And there's a tendency on the right to treat the founding fathers as people go out and have a beer with. But I do not think that is a very accurate view of Jefferson in Monroe and Madison. Paul, certainly not Washington.

SM (01:02:32):
Do you see a link here, because you had mentioned people do not trust each other and lack of respect that the issue of trust or lack of trust is another quality that might be within the boomer generation because of so many leaders that lied to them, whether it be Johnson with a Gulf of Tonkin, certainly Watergate with Richard Nixon, but a lot of other leaders and even back in Eisenhower in the U2 when he lied about that. But the lower generation did not seem to trust anybody that was in the position of responsibility or leadership, whether it be a senator, congressman, the university president, corporate leader, even ministers, priests, rabbis, anybody in leadership, they did not trust anybody and whether they pass it on to their kids and grandkids, is that a good thing to not trust? And then is that a quality of the boomer generation?

DH (01:03:24):
Well, I think it is a quality. In some limits, I think it is a good quality. I think the degree of skepticism emerged because skepticism was warranted. He did not trust people because they lied to us. But what is tragic has been the lies. But that said, and at that point then, because you do not trust anybody and do not trust evidence and will not pay attention to anything that anybody says, I tend to give some deference to a report of the National Academy of Sciences. And so if you have agreement among say, 15 to 20 different National Academies of Sciences from around the world, plus you throw in a bunch of professional societies and they all get to the same basic point, I tend to assign that a very high degree of credibility and a huge number of people do not give a damn, one way or the other.

SM (01:04:25):
That is bad.

DH (01:04:27):
And it is related to where I was starting to go, which is that there was a time when at least my view of the past was that leaders were prepared to pay and the public was prepared to pay attention to evidence and then to thoughtful skilled art. And today, there is much more attention paid to images, to commercials that are designed to influence you one way or the other, to the 32nd sound bite, to the emotional gushing of a radio host in an almost evidence free manner. And part of this has to do with advances in human knowledge and how they are corrupt purposes. I mean, the fascinating thing that was on the air the other night, again, it goes back to the old statement, "A dying child is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic." There is something about that. When they were doing fundraising for one of these Save the Children and they had a brother and a sister from some African country, and when they would show ad the sister in it, they would get a very good response of contributions. When they showed an ad with the brother in it, they would get a very good set of responses. When they showed the brother and sister together in the ad, the contributions went down like two thirds. And if they showed 40 kids who were all in this terrible thing or a refugee camp or something that made it a bigger issue, everything just fell off entirely because people tend to think there is something I can do to save this person. There is nothing I can do to save the world. You take those kinds of basic emotional responses and instead of fashioning arguments about what we do to save the world, you play to those basic emotional instincts and it all become a science now. It is tragic.

SM (01:06:29):
How did you become who you are? In other words, what was the magic moment in your life that turned your light bulb on in your head and said, "I am going to devote the rest of my life to this cause or that cause or I am changing the direction of my life." It's a two part question here. Who were your mentors and your role models that inspired you? Not only when you were young, but it could be Senator Nelson too? Boy, he is inspired me just from working with him in a university. And what was that magic moment when you became an activist?

DH (01:07:10):
Well, for me it actually was pretty much a precise defining moment. I grew up in a very small town of lumbering and really did not think that there were things that I could do that would be of much impact. And as I read about form work, tragic things including the threat of nuclear weapons, fermentation with chemical and biological warfare down at the south, even the beginnings of the war in Vietnam, I basically went into a world-class belt and really could not see a path forward for myself. And I took off and went to tracking around the world for three years trying to see what was going on in various of society. By then [inaudible] the of the new plant of the fires of Algeria, I would read [inaudible] and wanted to find out what truly going on in. So I took the train across Russia. I had checked all over Africa, all over the Middle East, all over the southwest Asia. Spent a lot of time in Japan. When I was a junior in high school, long before all of this, I was invited by the National Science Foundation to go to an ecology seminar and did it. Anybody who was 15 years old, mostly chased girls, had a problem, the sun. But we also were studying the ways that dragon flies operated inside a pond community. And our academic portion was based on Eugene Odom's text, principles of Ecology. And I studied that for my final exams and did okay. And a lot of the material was really pretty [inaudible] to me. And then I went back and was a senior in the [inaudible]. Well, I was out hitchhiking around the world in Libya. I had an experience one night alongside the road where the road goes from Luderitz, right, intersects the road, goes down to Cape Town. When I went up over a hill at the close of the day, rolled up my seating bag and somehow stuff just came together for me. It was a little bit like conditions in which Old Testament profits had visions. I mean I had been out very alone for a long time by then. I have been basically by myself for a couple of years. It'd been a really hot day. It was a desert cold night. I did not have any decent food, had not any for a time. Somehow what popped into my mind was that ecology seminar and some of the basic principles that I recalled, and at the heart of it all being that life on Earth was driven by energy transactions. And that much of what Darwinian evolution is about is how to make everything just as efficient as possible for individual species and for the way that ecosystems functioned. And it was all dependent upon flows of energy from the sun captured through photosynthesis, released through oxidative possible relations, stored in various ways. And making those systems function as efficiently as possible, ultimately built what we have as most of the modern world except for human beings. Because we had found ways to tap into fossil resources that were unlimited supply. And we had emerged into something that was very different that a 100 years earlier, if you had shown somebody a photograph of an office in Atlanta, Georgia, an office in Phoenix, an office in Anchorage, we could tell you instantly where they were. And now we were in something where they all looked identical and they had this cheap energy being poured into them. And the insight that I had that night that turned me around, sent me back to the United States, got me into law school and tried to affect change was this recognition that this was likely to be a brief episode and that a great many of the problems that we were facing were from our efforts to ignore and even fight against the basic principles of ecology instead of... As Ian Marc wrote about it, and I learned later with Design with Nature and that if we could really do things differently, much learning with what we would now call biomimicry to build what we would now call on principles of urban ecology and industrial ecology. All of this being a vocabulary that did not exist, but which I am intuiting that night, but we could overcome a great deal and reproducing a world in which we cherished diversity on and on those sorts of things and use at least as metaphors within ecologic principles. I got up the phone, I did not sleep at all that night. I thought that this was just this blinding inside I intended to return home and among other things, right in environmental, [inaudible] that it is plain phone in terms, which I have actually tried to do a couple of times and success. But got up the following morning having gone, rolled out the Cleveland bag, was a guy that could not even much think of any reason to go on living and got up the following morning with a pretty clear direction for what I was going to do with my life.

SM (01:13:05):
Wow. Yeah. Your whole link to Earth Day and your meeting Senator Nelson, and then being the organizer, when you look at that experience of 1970, and can you talk a little bit about the teach-ins, which is a certainly important quality of anybody. It was a boomer that lived, they had to experience or be a part of some teach-in. How important were the teach-ins? Because I know that was part of your responsibility, and what was that feeling like of, again, just that you're young, you are being given responsibility at a very early age to organize this very important birthday event that you care so deeply about in working with people who felt like you are the same way. What was just your feelings of that 1970 and working with Senator Nelson and all the young people on Earth Day?

DH (01:14:04):
Well, it was an extraordinary opportunity to make a leap in a direction that I was slowly trying to plot my way to work. I mean, I flew down to Washington because I had not heard anything about an environmental teacher at Harvard, or I was at that time or at all until it appeared in an article that Claman Hill wrote in the New York Times based on a talk that Gaylord given down in early house. And since I had not heard of it, I figured nobody was organizing it since they did not mention anybody except Gaylord, just with all of the arrogance of you down to Washington too, even Senator. And my hope was to get the charter to go back and organize Harvard. And what was a five- or 10-minute courtesy conversation was changed by the fact that that New York Times article had been written and mail was beginning to pour into Senator Nelson's office from mostly schools across the country. At that point, from people who had read the article or had read an article about the article and wanted to know how they could become engaged. So we talked in for an hour, hour and a half, and I left with the commission to go up and organize Boston, which was way beyond what I thought of doing when I went down to Washington. Then it turned out that Gaylord had asked Republican Congressman Pete McCloskey to be his co-chair, so that be the Democratic Senator and Republican congressman and McCloskey turned out to be the congressman that represented Stanford, right. And [inaudible] president of the student body and deeply involved in a lot of political stuff. I did not know McCloskey, but when Gaylord asked him about this kid from Stanford, McCloskey, I heard of me and called from the Friends of Banford and took their temperature and basically got back saying, "He seems like he is a pretty soft guy." So I then got a call a week later saying, "Would you consider dropping out of school and coming down and organizing the United States?" That was not a career trajectory that I had. Figured it was just a really powerful new opportunity and really did not even think about it for more than that conversation. I accepted on the spot. It just seemed like in alignment of what I wanted to do. Called a few friends, got some people from Harvard who were my classmates to come down and join me, wish on it. And shockingly, by midway through the next month, it became clear. We began calling around to every university in the country and as a college and university thing. There just was not much interest on the part of the people that we knew how to bolt us together, people with their roots and these various other movements for us. And there were some college chapters in the National Wildlife Federation, what have you. And then there were some colleges where those schools of forestry, or there were no schools of the environment, but something that had to do with natural resources would want to do something. But it was viewed as an educational venture. And it's basically not much more than a seminar with maybe a couple of displays out the court garden. I suddenly had this horrible sense. But I would set myself up for a belly flop and we did this survey of all those letters that had come in and found that... Now, in addition to the letters from the K to 12 schools, we immediately set up a K-12 school coordinator, a guy named Bryce Hamilton did a fabulous job pulling all that together. The bulk of the remaining letters were from these women that I mentioned earlier. Basically between the ages of 25 and 35, college educated, one or two children had not much been involved in anything before that was political, but had a fair amount of talent that they were in homes where the husband was breadwinner and they were around home with their kids, but now their kids were sufficiently out of their hair, that they had time to do some other stuff in this environment that really appealed to them. But also in part because of the impact that would have on their children. And the unknown story of what became was the engagement of these women. I mean, if you did a survey around through some of them are young, hit your boomer criteria of people who went on to become members of city councils, members of state legislatures, members of public service commissions, members of the United States Congress, and asked those that came of age during that period, how many of you had birthday as your first political experience, that the percentages would be staggering. And I virtually never give a talk someplace where there is a female public official when she does not come up to me and say, the first thing she ever do was my first birthday. So there was this huge unexplored thing. Our staff was all kids, and our press coverage was all this, was this youthquake, but in fact, it was this woman's thing that was going on, this slightly older women that fit basic big urban organization. So at that point, while the teachings continued, they basically shifted mostly to K to 12 and then the educational excursions in a few colleges, including a pretty good one at the University of Michigan. But we ran a big ad in the New York Times and dropped the teaching stuff from everything, including our letterhead, and embraced this new name of Earth Day and took it into public demonstrations and things that you could do in various kinds of service organizations and cities would put together, transformed into something that was much more based upon the kinds of things you would see in the civil rights era and the anti-war era in their later digs. I mean, what triggered Gaylord is in the earliest stages of both of those things, there were not college teachings that dealt with racism on campus or dealt with whether the war was a good idea or a bad idea. And then it was firstly debated, 1963, (19)64, (19)65, but by the time he got to 1970, Chen was viewed as a little bit passé on college campuses, and we needed to have a different vocabulary that we could use. That is where our birthday came from. And I want to say on Wheeler's behalf, he was just incredibly flexible about all of this stuff. He wanted to have a bunch, he gave a high degree of deference to us that were trying to actually get out there and organize things. And he embraced the new name with gusto and shifted his own remarks. Although he still did a lot of things on college campuses, he began addressing a lot of community groups. And then the final thing that made it all come together, that is an overstatement, but a final thing that was a huge benefit to us related to Nixon's southern strategy. And the fact that suddenly the future of the Republic Party and the nature of American politics was going in void. And there was a very attractive young mayor of New York, John Lindsay, who decided to inhabit that void. And he was pretty ambitious, and he really liked the environmental issue, and he just jumped into it with us. He assigned principal staff on his staff in New York to work with our organizers in New York City. They put up police protection for free. They gave us the insurance for free. They gave us porta potties around Central Park for free. It closed down 5th Avenue. So the 5th Avenue, you close it down, you got to crowd there instantly. And we had this event in New York City that had more than a million people involved in it. And it was not a teaching, it was a rally. Like most of the things around the country, there was nobody there saying, "No, pollution is a good thing." And a Larry Summers, got to send all your toxic waste to poor countries because the value of human life, poor countries was less than the value of human. It was not that debate at all. It was stop the goddamn pollution now. And that took place in the city where NBC, CBS, and ABC were located, where Time and Newsweek and the New York Times, the United Press, the Associated Press, I mean, it was at that point, New York to a greater extent than any place in the world is today, was the information communications capital. If something did not happen in New York, it is very difficult to convince people that it was happening every place else in the country. But if you have got Central Park and Fifth Avenue filled with prominent political people and celebrities of various kinds and this huge diverse thing there, then suddenly you have the images and you have got the reality that you can peg all of the other stuff that is taking place. Thousands of cities and neighborhoods, villages across the country all became part of this one story. And Lindsey really thought that this was something that he would be able to use to help drive a wedge into a new kind of political future. And he also acutely aware that Ed Muskie intended to use it on the Democratic side. When I was practicing law in San Francisco, my paralegal for a period of some years, a guy named Tom Helic, who was the son of John Helic. John Helic got out of the slammer, came down and had dinner and drinks with us, and we were reminiscing about the [inaudible]. He told me a story that serves my interest, but it also serves his interest. So probably a suspect.

SM (01:24:51):
Hold on one second.

DH (01:24:57):
This is going to be probably entirely myopic, but my sense is, if I wanted to look back at the 18th century at the time, people would be caring about the seven years’ war and all sorts of stuff that I cannot even make an intelligent comment about. And today we think of it as it is when the American Revolution took place, began to have the Industrial Revolution curve without anybody thinking of it as great. My sense historically is that the two things that I think will be remembered toward is that it is the era when the Information Revolution was launched, which I think is one of those true transformational technical revolutions. Federally changes everything from commerce to privacy but not fundamentally shaking the world. And the other will be that it is a time when human beings began to recognize that their aggregate activities had acquired the impact of a geophysical force. We can change the climate, poison the entire ocean, and eliminate species. We can do the sorts of things that you typically attribute to earthquakes and volcanoes and asteroids hitting the earth. And that we hopefully, as a result of the work of this generation began to behave more responsibly with regard to all of those things.

SM (01:26:39):
The thing I am not going to have time to do is ask list names and terms from the period for your response, but I want to end with this very last question. What does the Vietnam Memorial mean to you? And again, I am going back to that question that Jan Scruggs who wrote that great book, To Heal A Nation, it has done a great job of healing the veterans, but has it done any job of healing the nation in any way? But when you see the wall, what does it mean to you and how do you respond to Jan Scruggs's book title, To Heal a Nation?

DH (01:27:31):
Well, Myolynn is a good personal friend. We have served on a board together for several years. I think she has done a lot of things that are powerful, but as you could claim of me with birthday, I think she and I both peaked early, but we both aspired things a bit later. I mean, I think it is just most fabulous thing she has done. And I think it did a wonderful job of allowing a multiple sensory acknowledgement, banking and healing of the whole set of people, many of whom went to Vietnam against their builds and did things that were, in many cases, heroic and saved their lives. That was really important. In terms of healing around right, left tensions, Black, white tensions, environmental versus traveled growth tensions. I am not sure that it aspired to do any of that. I have never really thought of it in terms that are broad before. I do not mean that at all to demean of it, but I think it does what it is set out to do, magnificently.

SM (01:28:52):
Oh, very good.

(End of Interview)

ND

Stephen McKiernan

Denis Hayes

88:57

English

Binghamton University Libraries

audio/mp4

Sound

Audio

Environmentalism; Lawyers; Earth Day Network; Solar Energy Research Institute; Bullitt Foundation; Hayes, Denis--Interviews

Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly.