The following is the text of the dedication speech given by Steve Berman at the dedication of the University of Washington's Berman Environmental Law Clinic.

As I walked through the law school today, many people stopped me to thank Kathy and I for our contribution. But it is Kathy and I who wish to begin by thanking a few people.

The place to start is to thank Dean Knight, Dexter Bailey, Professor Kirtley, Professor Rogers and others here at the UW, who have responded to what was originally a rather unfocused idea of mine. I came off the street so to speak with an idea, they responded with a great deal of enthusiasm, and most importantly with focus - a focus that was needed to take this vision and to make it a reality.

And I would like to thank our future Governor of this State, Christine Gregoire. A few years ago she shared a vision with me about how we could, if not stop, at least change the way tobacco companies target our kids. Without her courage and ability to reach for the seemingly impossible, and without her faith in me, Kathy and I might not have been able to make this commitment. So thank you again Madame Attorney General and future Governor.

And I would like to thank my wife Kathy, for she has an amazing capacity to support and encourage taking on new challenges, no matter how unprecedented they may be.

Why and What
As word of the clinic spread, people have consistently asked me three questions, why are you doing this, what do you hope to accomplish, and why would a staunch Michigan man go to the University of Washington for this purpose. The goal of my remarks today is to briefly answer these questions. Let me start with the why.

Some might say that the birth of environmental activism begins with Rachael Carson, who in 1963 published her famous book, Silent Spring. Carson had been a consulting biologist for the federal government's Fish and Wildlife Department when she first took note of the unregulated use of pesticides and herbicides - especially DDT - in farming. When Silent Spring was published, Carson was viciously attacked. Huge sums of money were spent to discredit her. She was called "an ignorant and hysterical woman who wanted to turn the earth over to the insects."

While her scientific methods were perhaps problematic, her message about the environment as an interrelated organic system struck a nerve. The smear campaign backfired. Silent Spring sparked a revolution in government environmental policy and became instrumental in creating a new ecological consciousness.

Now flash forward to 2002. Over the four decades following Silent Spring, environmental disasters, from Love Canal to Chernobyl and Exxon Valdez, punctuated the news. While these dramatic events made the headlines, much more damaging in the minds of many scientists is the continued creep of human influence into every ecosystem on the planet. Industrial and agricultural pollutants are traveling all the way to the seemingly pristine areas. Other pollutants are gnawing away at the earth's protective ozone layer, threatening to expose us to more of the sun' harmful ultraviolet rays. And carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is building up like a blanket in the atmosphere, trapping heat and causing global warming.

Last year a scientist paid me a visit and urged me to do something about global warming. Did you know, he asked, that virtually all countries in the world recognize that pollution is causing global warming? Virtually all scientists, except those employed by the Bush Administration and those employed by the fossil fuel industry, acknowledge the existence of global warming and its causes. But these naysayers are keeping the controversy alive and are delaying action. He demanded that I do something about it.

I was originally dumbfounded, what could I do as one person to solve global warming.

His remarks struck a chord. I did some homework, I read, I thought and the situation reminded me of tobacco. In the 1950s and 1960s only tobacco scientists denied the harm caused by tobacco. But their denials caused a debate in the scientific community that effectively delayed regulation and action.

The parallels here are striking. Just like in the case of tobacco, the denials of the causes of global warming have forestalled regulation and action. And major polluters are spending huge sums of money to discredit the relationship between fossil fuels and global warming, just like major corporations sought to discredit Rachael Carson 40 years ago.

I came home and turned to Kathy and suggested that we needed to take up the fight. She agreed. So that is a partial answer to the why of the clinic question.

And since we made the decision to launch the clinic the Bush administration has sought to relax decades old regulations setting air pollution standards. So the why has, in our minds, become more critical. If we don't take action: our government certainly won't, and it must fall to places of higher learning to use their knowledge to further this cause.

Why and the Law
There is another aspect to the why of the clinic, and that relates to the power of the rule of law. The law always has been a catalyst for social change. If you study some of the major issues in the history of our country; segregation, discrimination in the workplace, voting rights, monopolization, and many others, the law has always been a force of change.

So the why of this clinic from our perspective is to use the clinic as a vehicle to use the rule of the law as an agent of change, and to use the power of the law to fight those who would harm our environment in the name of profit. It' that simple from our perspective.

What Do We Hope to Accomplish?
We believe that with vision and purpose, no task is too big, no goal is out of reach for this clinic. Be it global warming, protecting Puget Sound, protecting streams from pesticide poison, or tackling problems of international scope. There is nothing too big for the clinic to tackle, if it' a problem that needs addressing.

What we hope to accomplish is to make the law clinic a force that becomes a major player in the area of environmental protection. With the energy that Professor Robinson and Rogers have, and with the participation of the students, this clinic can and will make a difference. We are confident of that.

Why the UW?
Lastly why are we doing this at the UW. To that I say, what better institution than the UW. This university is blessed with top-level scientists in the disciplines that matter to the environment: oceanography, fisheries, geology, forestry and many more. And it is blessed with top legal talent.

By combining the knowledge of scientists here at the UW, with the power of the law, we believe much can be accomplished and that there is no better place to do so, than here at the UW.

The Students
And of course there are the students. Kathy and I hope that the experience the clinic offers will serve as a breeding ground for a new generation of young lawyers, some of whom will march forward with a commitment to continue in careers whose purpose is to help make this planet, and certainly the Pacific Northwest, a place whose beauty and wonder will be enjoyed by the generations that follow.