Hello friends, this is the Environment Show and welcome.
We're getting obsessed with the notion that there can't be a dandelion or there has
to be a certain quality of green for you to have respectability on your block or in your
neighborhood.
This is total absurdity and I think more discussion, more information, I think will help in
dealing with this kind of process that has been going on.
The reason for coming here is that we are the ones who are inheriting the world and
we're the ones who are going to get dismissed that people have been creating over the years.
Testifying before the Senate subcommittee on Agriculture this week, New York State Attorney
General Robert Abrams called for federal legislation regulating and in some cases banning
the use of certain chemical pesticides we so often use.
And now Shanker, a Los Angeles area fifth grader, commenting on a huge outdoor mural depicting
environmental themes, one near the start of an intra-continental earthwalk.
These and more this week we hope you'll stay tuned.
The Environment Show is a production of WAMC and is made possible by the J. M. Kaplan Fund
of New York and this is Bruce Robertson.
Whatever since the 101st Congress reconvened we have been waiting for final passage of the
1990 Clean Air Bill.
Indeed at first we thought it would sail right through both houses of Congress.
But as we have seen over the past few months that was not to be the case.
We have actually been waiting passage of this bill for well over 13 years now.
Chris Valentine has been giving us weekly descriptions of what has been going on.
Chris Northeast Regional Director of the Sierra Club has been lobbying on Capitol Hill
low these many weeks.
And as action begins in the House of Representatives we asked him for his thoughts on the Senate
section where as the final vote was being prepared environmentalists scored a victory
in resisting yet another proposed amendment one by Oklahoma Senator Nichols and Alabama
Senator Howell Heflin.
Well it was a rather controversial and somewhat complex amendment that would have gutted
the permitting and enforcement sections of the current Clean Air Act.
It was fortunately for us outside of the bounds of the deal that had been agreed to by
the administration and the Republican and the Democratic leadership so that folks
were free to oppose that amendment.
Why was this amendment potentially more significant than some of the others that have been
proposed and defeated?
Well this amendment would have struck at the very heart of the Clean Air Act which is
permitting and enforcement without a good permit program and mechanisms to enforce those
permits once they are written into law.
It remains to be seen if you could have clean air.
Chris tell us a little bit what do you mean by permitting?
A facility that emits pollutants is required to get a permit under the current Clean Air
Act and what this proposed amendment would do would be to preclude citizen and federal
environmental protection agency involvement from some of these permit considerations.
So the proposed amendment and what's happened to it that you were telling us why this was
particularly significant because it was really calling to drawing the line in the dirt
so to speak.
It was, in fact if this amendment had been successful there is a very real chance that industry
and opponents of the current Clean Air Act and these tough provisions would come in with
literally a host of amendments to further weaken the deal.
By defeating this Nichols Heppel and amendment we were able to stem the tide and not allow
the floodgates of further weakening amendments to be opened.
Environmentalists should probably be cautious not to pop the court yet because of course
the debate on the Senate side is only 50% of what we are really looking for.
There is action awaiting now on the House of Representatives.
Can you bring us up to date on where the proceedings are going there?
Sure.
Since we last talked efforts on the House side and the House Energy and Commerce Committee
have greatly accelerated.
And in point of fact Chairman Dingell is urging members to be available on Mondays and Fridays
for Committee Markup.
Perhaps the most significant news is the fact that a near unanimous vote on stationary
non-attainment issues, the issue that we fought in the Senate and lost on the Senate floor
was accepted by the full House Energy and Commerce Committee in a deal with Henry Waxman
from California, John Dingell from Michigan and others that binds them through the conference
committee.
Briefly I'm sure it's a little bit too far in advance to speculate but I'm wondering
what might be some of the developments when the House and Senate conference committee
eventually get together with their two different views and proposals and concepts.
What likely is it to be the outcome of it with some of the amendments and defeats that
have gone on in the Senate particularly?
What if the House of Representatives comes along with something that is pretty close to
some of these amendments that were in fact already defeated?
It will be interesting to see how that shakes out.
What we're seeing in the House Energy and Commerce Committee now is negotiation rather
than confrontation and a lot of backdoor dealing but resulting in a stronger build and we
currently have in the Senate at least on the surface.
What happens in the conference committee will be really a product of what comes out of
the House Energy and Commerce Committee and floor debate subsequent to that.
Well I will certainly be keeping an eye on that as you know doubt to begin to move your
focus of attention and your operations over on that side.
Chris Valentine Northeast Regional Director of the Sierra Club lobbying and observing proceedings
on the Clean Air Bill in Washington and it's good to talk to you again Chris and we'll
look forward to some exciting news next week.
Thank you, Chris.
Chris also tells us that environmentalists had been staying away from the bird amendment.
Senator Robert Bird of West Virginia seeing his proposal to compensate coal miners for
loss of jobs should that occur as we phase out coal burning for utility plants seeing
that as more of an economic than an environmental amendment.
And bear in mind also that Senator Bird's amendment was only one of literally hundreds
pending.
This is the Environment Show and I'm Bruce Robertson.
Federal legislators have been using not all of their time debating the Clean Air Bill.
The House of Representatives voted by a wide margin to approve legislation to elevate
the Environmental Protection Agency to cabinet level status.
Past on a vote of 371 to 55 the measure would create a department of the environment and
also require the federal government to comply with toxic waste management laws the same as
industry.
The vote followed a lengthy debate over whether the measure was being weighed down by too
many controversial requirements that might threaten a veto.
For example one proposal was to create an independent statistics gathering branch of
the EPA one that would operate independently of President Bush.
President opposes this contending that everything in the executive branch is and should be
under his control.
Republicans had argued that additional provisions in the bill were designed to embarrass President
Bush and thus force a veto by the president.
President Bush has said he wants to sign the bill creating a department of the environment
on Earth Day which will be celebrated this year April 22nd.
A similar bill elevating the EPA to cabinet rank has been approved by a Senate panel but
has yet to be taken up by the full Senate which has been obviously preoccupied by clean
air legislation.
Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy held testimony this week in his Senate subcommittee on
Agriculture to craft legislation on the use of chemicals.
The Senator wants to see chemicals presently banned in the United States banned also from
export to other countries.
He says that sending out these chemicals means that often they come back to us on produce
that is grown in these other countries specifically for export back to the United States.
New York State Attorney General Robert Abrams testified before the committee taking the opportunity
to call for changes regarding chemical production and distribution here in the United States
particularly pesticides of the kind we use in lawn care.
Abrams called first of all for the outright ban on chemicals that are a known carcinogen
saying that there is no justification whatsoever for threatening our health and safety just
to have our lawns look greener.
The Attorney General also called for strengthening of the laws regulating false or misleading advertising.
Advertising that would lead the homeowner or consumer to believe that these chemicals
used are totally safe when they are actually not.
He would like to see controls placed not only those who manufacture the chemicals but those
who traffic in them the chemical lawn care companies.
Now this is not a new proposal but one already on the books under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act or Fifra.
What we need he says is a reinforcement.
Thirdly as part of Abrams plan the federal government would enact a provision to allow
a citizen to bring legal action against violators the so-called citizen suit.
This kind of citizen suit provision would also provide plaintiffs the opportunity to recover
their attorney's fees and other related costs.
So we would be able to have private attorneys general found throughout the nation who feel
that they have been aggrieved as a result of the marketing or the advertising of these
dangerous chemicals.
And to achieve all this Abrams believes we should begin by regulating the actual labeling
on the chemical products.
First I think there should be a requirement that there be simple understandable language
on every label for a pesticide that informs users that any pesticide use could pose potential
health risks.
Secondly to avoid confusing the public I think the label should clearly state that registration
is not a government guarantee that lawn pesticide use is free of risk.
That was a recommendation of the GAO, the government accounting office back in 1986 but so far
EPA has failed to adopt that recommendation.
Most people when they see on the label or in advertising that this pesticide has been
registered with the federal government they go the next step and believe oh this product
is safe because they equate registration with safety when that clearly is not the case
and we have to eliminate that ambiguity.
And thirdly Abrams is calling for a clause in the legislation that would ensure that all
who purchase or use these chemicals get a legible copy of the label and preferably
prior to the pesticide's application.
Finally he would prohibit chemical companies from burying on their own property used
containers and applicators of these pesticides.
Abrams whose New York City office places him close to the action in Washington DC made
one of his periodic trips to the state's capital where I caught up with him one afternoon
recently.
Mr. Abrams sometimes it seems we are in need of a new piece of regulatory legislation for
each scientific discovery or process that we know about.
Why do we need so much regulation?
Well we have to make sure as we move more into the area of technological advancement that
what looks like a benefit doesn't in the long run turn out to be a catastrophe in terms
of human health consequences.
And so while we want to obtain benefits from new technology, from new discoveries we
have to make sure that we are not creating greater problems and creating greater health
risks than any other of the benefits that are achieved as a result of the introduction
into the marketplace and into our society by these kinds of chemicals and pesticides.
I think we also have to increase the fountain of knowledge and information.
A lot of people are not aware of the kinds of dangers that are there.
And that's why I think public education, the program that you have now is critically
important.
The kind of seminars that have been conducted across the country I recently spoke before
NCAMP in Washington where they pull together activists from all the states in the union
to try to get the word out a lot more.
I think we need greater public education.
I think we need greater protection on the part of our federal government before we realize
that it's too late.
Before we have another report that documents how many people have actually died, how many
creatures and animals have died unnecessarily on golf courses or infants who were roaming
around a lawn or somebody who lives next door in a windy area who got cancer and got severe
health problems as a result of the constant application next door of pesticides.
We don't want to wake up when it's too late.
I think the cause for concern is there.
There is ample scientific evidence and documentation that I think necessitates now governmental action.
New York State Attorney General Robert Abrams who testified before a Senate subcommittee
this week encouraging legislation banning certain chemicals and regulating others.
He cites studies indicating maybe 20,000 extra cancer deaths a year may be caused by the
unregulated use of chemical pesticides, a figure probably conservative by some estimates.
He said he knows of industry resistance to these proposals, proposals that he calls
common sense.
But some of the resistance comes from we the consumer.
It is we who must change the way we think, we must change the way we think what we want.
We're getting obsessed with the notion that there can't be a dandelion or there has to
be a certain quality of green for you to have respectability on your block or in your
neighborhood.
This is total absurdity and I think more discussion, more information I think will help in dealing
with this kind of process that has been going on.
And with springtime growing season arriving soon in many parts of the nation something
to think about.
You're listening to the Environment Show and I'm Bruce Robertson.
This land is your land and this land is my land.
And the California is a New York island and the Redwood port is the Gulf Stream waters.
This land was made for you and me.
That's Woody Guthrie.
For most of us Earth Day will be just that a day.
In this case this year April 22nd.
It will be a day a Sunday this year full of special events.
In nearly every community the nation will market with tree plantings, poetry readings, lectures,
music and dance performances, picnics and gatherings of family and friends.
It will be a day to think about where and who we are in the late 20th century.
For many though the planning has already begun long ago and will go on long after April.
Some group in fact expects to celebrate all across the country for nine months.
From KCRW in Santa Monica California joy new has the story.
They might be somewhere close to you as you hear my voice.
No, they're not in a new Stephen King inspired white knuckle type horror flick.
They're much more benign, maybe even inspirational for some.
Because in this case the day a couple of dozen people were taking nine months to walk across
the country for the environment.
During their stops they'll meet with school groups and others who want to learn about ways
in which all of us can make thinking about the environment a part of what we do every day.
They started on the beach at Santa Monica on the kind of day that made Southern California
famous before anybody knew the word smog.
And the gathering had the distinct feel of the 60s.
One of the marchers told me she had changed her name from Lori to Hart because she's following
hers in taking the nine months for the global walk for a livable world.
Pollution is so widespread on so many levels and it's integrated in our society to a really
sickening level.
That's what scares me.
The people accept the way that we're polluting and killing our earth and ourselves.
You know, I mean until a year ago I had no idea that styrofoes are really bad thing and
you out and get a coke no problem.
Yeah, you're responsible citizens and you throw it in the trash.
But that's not true.
I mean, we shouldn't be using styrofoam at all.
Hart is from Oregon, a state in which styrofoam drinking containers have been outlawed.
She carried a water supply on her back and suggests that collapsible cups fit in brief
cases or bag lunches or for almost any lifestyle so that none of us has to use styrofoam which
is not biodegradable.
She talked in front of a five-story high painting referred to as the sea shepherd mural.
Both for the name of the group which funded a good part of the artist's work and because
the scene is a depiction of sea life facing extinction and therefore in need of shepherding.
Lots of Los Angeles city schoolchildren were putting finishing touches on the mural like
fifth grader Nell Shanker.
The reason for coming here is that we are the ones who are inheriting the world and we're
the ones who are going to get this mess that people have been creating over the years.
What do you mean when you say mess?
Well, people have been polluting and they've been destroying the world and we're the ones
who are going to inherit this.
And you don't want it that way.
What are you going to try to do to change the situation?
Well, I don't know what to do but because some people think that it's just too big of a
problem to solve but it really isn't and if all the people get together and figure something
out they can make a difference.
For Liz Walker, her husband John, Jason Seven and four-year-old Daniel, the nine-month
walk is both a personal commitment and a work assignment.
Liz was one of the people who organized the walk and we talked about things individuals
can do that multiplied have enormous effects like water usage for example.
Basically, I think the most important message is just that we need to each be looking at
our own lifestyles and seeing how we can conserve energy, how we can conserve water.
You know, a low-flow showerhead can cut way back on the amount of water that you use
every day.
80% of the water that Americans use is in the bathroom and in showers and letting the
sink water run and there are so many simple little things that each of us can take some
responsibility for.
Liz Walker says her decision to take the walk across the United States is an affirmation
in the future for her children and for children everywhere.
My decision is based on my concern for our children's future.
There will be no livable world unless everybody starts making different choices in their
lives about how we treat the earth and right now we are being so destructive to the earth
that scientists are telling us that if we don't change the current trends in about 10
years that we can expect that the world will be pretty much uninhabitable sometime in
the next century.
So I feel it's critical to act on environmental issues right now and as a mother I feel
it deeply from my heart because I really care about my kids and I want them to be able
to grow up and I want them to have a world that's worth living in and that's green and
beautiful and has wild animals still.
Maybe the ocean side start had everyone thinking about water that day but as the global
walkers make their way across the country trees will play a major part in their efforts
too.
They plan to plant 10,000 trees along the way and trees as I've been told by environmentally
active sixth graders provide shade and living space for birds.
Their natural air purifiers they absorb carbon dioxide and convert it to oxygen.
In a way if you happen to run into a caravan of walkers sometime during the next several
months wherever you are and you've been thinking about some environmental questions you
want answered don't hesitate to ask.
For instance walker yes that's really her name recommends a small book filled with big
but easy to accomplish ideas.
It's called 50 simple things you can do to save the earth.
Check with your bookstore or write to the earthworks group box 25 Berkeley California 94709.
Here's one sample from the book if we all recycled our Sunday papers we could save half
a million trees every week.
For the environment show this is Joy New Orleans Los Angeles.
There are two ways basically to deal with the solid waste in our landfills either reduce
the amount going into the landfill.
This is called source reduction.
It is an approach that only recently is receiving more press and interest on the part of industry
and the consuming public.
The other way is to reduce the amount once it is in the landfill.
Obviously this is an oversimplification of the situation but the image of the waste stream
or pipeline is apt here either reduce what goes in or what comes out.
To reduce what is in the landfill we are already employing some varying techniques,
biodegradation, incineration and of course recycling.
Recycling itself has some interesting possibilities.
We all know about bottle and can recycling and newsprint recycling but removing and recycling
other materials such as nickel or silver and zinc not only reduces the size and toxicity
of the landfill but is also a potential money maker.
At least that is what authorities hope will be the case in Southeast Wisconsin.
We are from Dave Foach at Member Station WUWM in Milwaukee.
Nearly 20 years ago the Federal Clean Water Act established goals for cleaner surface water
resources.
The regulations ask states to begin setting up industrial pre-treatment programs where
industry would remove most of the hazardous waste from their discharges before it reaches
municipal sewer treatment plants.
Wisconsin has been involved in this effort since 1978 and for the most part industry has
complied willingly but compliance does not make the waste disappear.
It merely changes how the materials are disposed of.
Some of the major contributors to this waste problem are the metal plating and finishing
industries.
Each year they produce at least 8.7 million pounds of waste sludge and 1.5 million gallons
of liquid waste.
Because there are no longer any operating hazardous waste landfill sites in Wisconsin these
waste are currently going to landfills as far away as Arizona and at a cost of nearly
$4 million a year.
With fewer landfill sites the cost of getting rid of these waste is going up.
The Milwaukee area has a number of firms that produce waste containing heavy metals.
The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District is responsible for seeing that the water discharged
into Lake Michigan is as clean as possible.
Under federal and state pressure to further reduce heavy metal discharges, MMSD Executive
Director Wallace White was interested in seeing what could be done.
Last August we convened a committee to look at the feasibility of developing a centralized
toxic waste treatment facility in Milwaukee.
To serve Milwaukee and also other parts of the state of Wisconsin.
To the Excel group a consulting firm split off from Alice Chalmers in 1988 during that
firm's reorganization.
President Gerald Peterson says a $50,000 grant from the Department of Natural Resources matched
with private industry money is allowing them to determine the feasibility of establishing
a centralized metal recovery facility.
Good.
Our objective of course is to offer a service that would not cost any more than the current
cost to ship out of state and stabilize and landfill while reclaiming these materials.
And the justification for the investment in the facility would come from the service
charges to the using industries plus of course the revenues for the recycle products that
are produced.
The Department of Natural Resources got involved because it is the agency regulating hazardous
waste in Wisconsin.
The DNR must bring state industry into compliance with federal regulations.
Paul Didier is the director of the state's solid and hazardous waste management program.
Our interest comes into the picture in the preparing the plan for Wisconsin to deal with
its hazardous waste.
In other words we have to provide the governor and help the governor develop a plan to
deal with its hazardous waste.
This is more of a steep wide issue that the governor has to face for all its commercial
establishments and industries that create hazardous waste.
So the department is the focal point of all this information about hazardous waste regulation.
Having one facility that would process much of the state's heavy metal waste would go
a long way to achieving the goals the governor has promised the EPA he would work on.
The feasibility study should be completed within the next couple of months and should
the facility prove feasible it could go online as early as 1993.
Excel group president Gerald Peterson sees the central processing plant is only the beginning
of efforts to keep industrial waste from becoming a problem.
And I think the more exciting possibility is basically to move upstream in these individual
businesses and work with them to both help them minimize the waste they generated in
the first place.
And to try to capture the waste before it gets mixed with other waste.
In other words if you could move upstream and capture relatively pure nickel or relatively
pure copper form of waste it would be much more economically viable to produce copper
nickel products than if you had to go through the extra energy and chemical costs of separating
the copper and nickel once you've mixed it together.
The biggest bonus of a metal recovery facility is that what was once considered waste can
now be recycled reusing limited natural resources.
And while there will still be some material that will have to go to a landfill it will be
a much smaller percentage of what is now being buried.
And that's good for everyone concerned.
We hope you enjoyed the program before we go a very special welcome to friends and listeners
to KCRW 89.9 in Santa Monica, California.
Listening to the environment show each Thursday afternoon beginning this week along and we
hope very rich relationship.
And greetings also to listeners in North Central Kentucky where the environment show comes
to you through the top drawer facilities of WUKY.
And to all of course if you have any concerns or things you think we ought to know about feel
free to drop us a line where at WAMC 318 Central Avenue in Albany, New York 1 2 2 0 6.
The environment show is a program about the environment the air, water, soil, wildlife
and people of our common habitat.
The environment show is a production of WAMC Dr. Alan Shartock is executive producer this
is Bruce Robertson.
The environment show is made possible by the J.M. Kaplan Fund of New York.
