One of the main goals of Environmental Advocates is to help provide forums
for people to discuss environmental concerns.  EA helped sponsor an event
on Iowa CHILD last month. While it is true that the forum raised many
questions and basically challenged the good of the project, it is unfair to
characterize EA as "whiners." For one, I have served on the board for two
years and believe we have gone out of our way to approach issues
thoughtfully and carefully. We also have sponsored events that give people
the chance to express views of all kinds (e.g., the First Avenue Forum we
held last fall), and we help promote appropriate environmental education
(e.g., high school students' water quality project and free events for
children). Our Jan. - Feb. newsletter includes an article that raises
concerns about Iowa CHILD in a fair-minded way. The article is written by
one of our board members, a wetlands specialist who certainly understands
the importance of fact in enviromental situations.

And, yes, we are concerned about better energy use. That's why last
Thursday we sponsored a lecture on alternative sources for electrical
energy, and we made sure that legislators from the area were invited to
attend the event.

 I hope that anyone who has views on Iowa CHILD expresses them here or
wherever they wish, pro or con, but please reserve name-calling and
accusations about dogmatic thinking for the deserving.

Becky Soglin
retired Iowa City Area Group conservation chair, current club member and EA
board member

>I have been disappointed in the extreme that people who claim to care
>about the environment who have chosen to spend their valuable time
>opposing, of all things, the Iowa CHILD project.  The purpose of the
>project is to be an thinktank for the purpose of integrating ecological
>awareness into public education, K-12,  in the US and beyond. This is an
>environmentalists dream come true. The domed Rainforest is a minor part
>of the whole concept. As to the heating bill, I guess you haven't heard
>about how you can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs. (If
>enough money is raised, the project could have it's own wind generator.)
>By the heating bill logic, we wouldn't build ANY building. Schools,
>hospitals, museums, affordable housing,---they all have high heating
>bills too! Shall we stop building them? The  whiners about the CHILD
>project, including the Johnson County Greens & Environmental Advocates,
>just can't understand that life is "multiple choice", not "fill in the
>blank". There is money around that will be spent ONLY to spur Iowa's
>economy. So take your choice: Will it be spent to promote
>less-consumptive educational tourism, like the CHILD project, or to
>subsidize shopping malls, polluting industries,
>CAFOs and meat-packing plants! If you're so worried about saving energy,
>let's lobby Congress and the Legislature to implement higher fuel
>efficiency standards for cars, or to implement higher mandates for wind
>power, or any one of 1,000 other things I can think of off hand.
>By the way, the Botanical Center is Iowa's #1 tourist draw, and the
>Omaha zoo is the only thing worth beans in the whole state of Nebraska.
>Both are beloved by the populace. Critics of the CHILD project remind me
>of the people in Paris who hated the Eiffel Tower when it was built.



Note: This is a personal e-mail account held
privately through the University of Iowa. It is
not a UI work account.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]