The Carnegie Foundation's Tom Ehrlich recently contributed an academic perspective on how education failed to address our current economic troubles in Carnegie Perspectives. In his article he notes that "During the economic boom, many in the academy expressed concern about the extent to which greed had become a dominant motive in American life. But few of us objected to increases in our retirement accounts or pressed very hard to find out why the steady rise in the value of our homes not only seemed too good to be true, but was. In retrospect, the familiar academic strengths of skepticism and an insistence on viewing issues from multiple perspectives could have helped. Both of those qualities might have encouraged us to question the notion that the U.S. economy would keep on growing and with it the global economy."

His comment is part of a commentary that argues for more liberal arts education in undergraduate business education. What can be said for business education can also be argued for the environmental sciences, which to a large degree depends on business to solve the problems of climate change by offering alternative technologies that do not disrupt the carbon cycle. The argument for cross-disciplinary education has never been more relevant. Now that business is slumping, the hopes and dreams for a new tomorrow are resting on a green jobs and a green business revolution, which seems naive since green jobs require investment capital just like other types of jobs. Is this vision incompatible with the economic downturn, and how long do we have to wait for the economy to recover before we can see implementation of the State's climate change goals?

I observed that job creation will trump environmental wisdom every time, case in point, the widening of Hwy 50 in Sacramento. In spite of community objections to the accomodation of more traffic through these freeway-impacted communities, the environmental impact studies were waived to bring workers to the task in greater haste.

In times of financial trouble, we revert back to what we know, more of the status quo. A few months ago, when gas prices were peaking, I observed what that region could do to reduce auto transportation through this corridor. The roads were flowing unusually freely, except for a short commute window. Short term thinking always seems to win in the end as the State puts people to work creating more of the wrong infrastructure just to put money in pockets in an effort to keep this consumer economy in motion. And traffic seems to have resumed to its former levels.

Perhaps, as Carnegie leaders advocate, we need environment sciences education that focuses on the role of business, or business education that mandates environmental sciences, so the two can discover solutions that are as closely linked to the cycles of the economy as to the cycles of carbon. Sure, there are the conferences and seminars where they listen to each other, but what starts by listening does not go as far as living in the same world and breathing the same air in professional culture. And that is where things ultimately get done.

You can read Tom's argument at http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/perspectives