Hello friends, it's the Environment Show and welcome. The Clinton administration refuels
the debate over ethanol. In calling for a new formulated gas with ethanol, the administration
apparently overlooks a crucial study from Denver indicating it won't work. We'll have
the story. Also this time commentary from Joel Macauer, the green consumer, and the environmental
musician Paul Winter, a sonata for saxophone and mousse. Music celebrates, um, anybody's
music celebrates the things they love, the people they love, and in some cases is mine, the
creatures. These stories this time on the Environment Show, a national production made possible
by Heming's MotorNews, the national bible of the old car hobby, monthly from Bennington
Vermont, 1-800-C-A-R-H-E-R-E. And by the J.M. Kaplan Fund of New York, and this is Bruce
Robertson. Is the glass half empty or half full? The Clinton administration's recent
proposal to mix ethanol with gasoline to achieve a cleaner burning fuel is being greeted
with mixed reviews. The Associated Press ran the story saying, quote, the Clinton administration
has dealt of major blow to midwestern corn growers. It has decided that a new smog-reducing
gasoline formula will not include ethanol. The following day, the New York Times ran
an article by Keith Schneider with a headline, Clinton's seeking to give greater role to
ethanol. So which is it? Less ethanol or more ethanol? David Hawkins, an attorney with
the Natural Resources Defense Council, says the answer is both less and more, less than
what would have been used under the Bush administration, but more than is called for by the
Clean Air Act. If you look at the Clinton proposal compared to the Bush administration
proposal, some sectors of the ethanol industry would say the Clinton proposal is giving them
less than the Bush administration proposal might have given them. From the standpoint of
just looking at the earlier regulatory negotiation agreement, however, the fact that the Clinton
administration is making a proposal for renewable fuels holds out the prospect of giving the
corn growers more than was agreed to in this original agreement. Hawkins, an attorney specializing
in air pollution law and energy matters, says the new proposal is somewhat complicated
and controversial. The new plan will require 30% of the new cleaner gasoline that must be
sold in the dirtiest cities in the nation. 30% of these fuels must be made up of renewable
materials, that is, not from just reformulated gasoline. Ethanol would be one of the additives,
but says Hawkins, the plan needs further analysis.
From a policy standpoint, we think the objective of getting more renewable fuels to be used
to meet our energy needs in the United States is a good policy idea and we support that as
a policy idea. We do have some concerns about whether the Environmental Protection Agency
has the legal authority to implement this program under the Clean Air Act. It is important
to get that issue resolved because if the EPA doesn't have the legal authority, then
this will simply wind up in the courts and it won't make any improvement in the real
world. In the interest of pursuing this further, not to belabor the legal point, but if the
whole thing could founder over a legal issue, what is the kernel of the legal dispute here?
Well, as we understand it, the section of the law that EPA is using to establish this proposed
rule is one which allows EPA to come up with requirements to that govern the quality
of gasoline and other fuels that are used. That provision is in the Clean Air Act, which
of course is focused on coming up with pollution, air pollution, reducing requirements. The
argument that EPA will have to deal with will be an argument that basically says from
the gasoline suppliers that says, listen, EPA, you have the ability to tell us that our
gasoline must meet certain cleanliness standards. But if we meet those cleanliness standards,
you can't tell us what it has to be made out of.
If the plan is read as a renewed commitment to use ethanol derived cheaply from corn
as Dean Kleckner reads it, this is a most favorable turn of events. Kleckner is president
of the American Farm Bureau and a corn farmer himself.
I'm very positive about the proposal. I think it's good for farmers certainly, but it's
good for the environment and the overall economy. It's going to require that, as I understand
it now, after much confusion early, 30 percent of the fuel that will be sold as a part of
the Clean Air Act programs that will clean up the environment will have to be used from
renewable additives like ethanol or MTBE is an oil based product, not renewable. So we
think this is a good news for everybody and every part of the United States.
How is this different the new Clinton administration's proposal? How does this differ from that
of the Bush administration?
Well, I think it kind of locks some things in. Remember, a lot of this started at the
end of the Bush administration. President Bush was working in this area, was moving toward
we believed more ethanol usage was making some promises that were largely reported as
political promises in the campaign. I can recall at that point, candidate Clinton moding
a hay rack in south of Des Moines, Iowa, in my home state saying, if you elect me, give
me a chance and I'll be better than George Bush on this in behalf of ethanol and corn
farmers and cleaning up the environment and all of that. We gave him the chance certainly
because we elected him in November of a year ago but we thought he'd forgotten about it until
right now because the word we were getting was that EPA where this is languishing is really
at least some of the bureaucrats in there are really motivated for whatever the reasons to
support ethanol or MTBE or the oil derivative, rather that's big oil's power or what it
is, I don't know. So we were ready, I guess, getting ourselves very upset with pros
and Clint and saying, remember when you were candidate Clinton, you made these promises.
Now we kind of want you to remember that. Now I believe it looks as though if everything
is as appears that the pros and Clint is remembering his campaign promises.
All right, that's the politics of it all but what is the science of it all say? Well,
those who sought to keep ethanol out of the mix did so claiming it was actually more polluting
than fuel that did not contain the ethanol. Dr. Larry Anderson, associate professor of chemistry
at the University of Colorado Denver says, this is true. The energy content of an alcohol
fuel, whether it's ethanol fuel or a methanol fuel, the energy content is less than the gasoline
that we are used to using. And so the fuel economy will automatically go down when you use
an alcohol fuel or an alcohol blended fuel. There just isn't as much energy in that fuel
to start with. And so it won't move the vehicle as far. The fuel is already partially oxidized,
alcohols are partially oxidized, hydrocarbon. And so it's already part of the energy content
that could have been in the fuel and that is in gasoline is gone due to that oxidation.
Anderson supervised the nation's first ever experiment with ethanol to see whether it had
any effect on reducing intense air pollution over Denver. Each winter starting in November
all gasoline sold in the Denver metro area has to have a minimum oxygen content, whether
from reformulated gas from the refinery or from additives such as ethanol. Based on
the results from Denver legislators entered this stipulation in the Federal Clean Air Act.
Anderson says the lawmakers should have stayed to watch the end of the movie, so to speak.
R&L is certainly shows that in downtown Denver there has been no decrease in carbon monoxide
during the winters that could be attributable to the use of oxygenated fuels. There's been
no increase either but there's been no decrease. At some of the outlying areas, suburban
areas around the Denver metropolitan area, there has been a decrease as big as about 10%.
The calculated effect of using oxygenated fuels in the Denver area was that there should
have been a 20 to 25% decrease in carbon monoxide by using these fuels. We don't see it and
we certainly don't see it in downtown Denver and downtown Denver is the only site in the
metropolitan area that violates the CO standard. So that's the reason we're using the fuel is
because we exceed the standard at that site. Well at this point it would seem that pretty much
the only and logical question to ask of you is why not? Why have you not been seeing this?
And if you haven't been seeing it, why are you continuing to use it if there is at least no positive effect?
Well, okay. Let me reverse the order of the questions. Why are we continuing to use it?
It's easy. It's required to the Queen Air Act. If you violate the CO standard, you will use this fuel period.
Whether it works or not, that isn't part of the Queen Air Act. Well, I was going to ask you though, even though it's not demonstrated that it works, it still is required to be used.
It's written into the law and the law doesn't say if it works, use it. The law says use it if you violate the standard.
And so it's now required in all areas that violate the carbon monoxide standard. Whether it works or not, the problem is the effectiveness wasn't assessed before it was written into the law.
We're writing control technology into law. We're legislating control procedures which we certainly should never be doing.
We should be legislating policies and guidelines and limits, but we shouldn't legislate how you get to those limits.
A classic cart before the horse. That's right.
Anderson says the data showed a strange rise in pollution in the late afternoon and evening in the city of Denver, and a corresponding rise in the suburbs in the morning.
He says this was the result of motorists driving in from the suburbs where their engines were cold in the morning and thus with catalytic converters that were not fully operational.
By the time they arrived in town, in the morning, the engines were hot and the pollution devices working at optimum performance.
At the end of the day, motorists leaving the city did so with cold engines. All the pollution was released inside the city.
By the time the commuters arrived in the suburbs, their engines were hot and working at peak performance.
The rise and fall of pollution levels, therefore, had nothing to do with the use of ethanol.
If it does not really have much of an effect in Denver, should ethanol be used, required by law, for the dirtiest cities in the nation, and deed all across the country at every fueling station?
Anderson is quite certain.
Well, I would certainly personally not recommend that.
On the other hand, consider the experience of Dean Kleckner of the American Farm Bureau. He has been driving around for years in his pickup truck fueled by ethanol mix.
Oh, it's great. I'm a farmer from Northern Iowa. I grow corn incidentally in soybeans and hogs in my farm.
And ever since it came out in a number of years ago, at a 10% mix in gasoline, I burned it in my car and my pickup in my truck.
And my pickup is 17 years old. There are 160,000 miles on it. Some fear that it's going to eat through the gaskets and things like that. No problem.
I mean, I get it's higher obtain. The price is very competitive and usually in my state, it's a two cents cheaper gallon than regular unleaded.
You don't have to worry about ice in the winter time. There's no ice freeze in the line. So I can't say enough good about it and to be honest, everybody that I talk with that uses it said great.
We're getting better performance in our vehicles.
Dean Kleckner, president of the American Farm Bureau. We also spoke with David Hawkins, a staff attorney with the Natural Sources Defense Council in Washington, and Dr. Larry Anderson at the University of Colorado Denver.
We spoke to several other players in the game, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Association, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Archer Daniels Midland Corporation, the nation's largest grower and seller of corn and corn products.
All had no comment on the newest decision by the Clinton administration. And this is Bruce Robertson.
When President Clinton gathered business leaders and members of the environmental community on the south lawn of the White House to announce his climate change action policy, Joel McCowell was looking on.
The picture of the Green Consumer Book, the Green Consumer Monthly newsletter, and several other books. McCowell was clearly pleased and full of thoughts. Namely, it's not just business and governments that cause global environmental change. We all contribute.
This is a cold, hard fact of global warming. One few of us seem willing to embrace. If you were to believe the opinion polls, the warming of the upper atmosphere and the resulting potential for crop changes flooding and other biblical calamities is a worrisome thing.
If there are kids, if not for ourselves, something must be done, we believe, and our national leaders have finally come up forth with what the bureaucrats call an action plan.
A rather timid one at that, considering that it calls for no new taxes and few sacrifices by anyone. In fact, most of the burdens called for in Clinton's plan will be placed on companies, and they're aimed at increasing profits as well as decreasing pollution.
Under the plan, companies will be asked to invest in energy-efficient motors and computers and lights, promote greater use of carpooling and telecommuting, and accelerate source reduction, pollution prevention, and recycling efforts.
Farmers will be called in action too, reducing use of fertilizers and pesticides, the construction industry, energy utilities, and foresters also are among those being drafted into this war on warming and waste.
What about us, the folks who buy and use the products from these companies? What will each of us do to play a part? Should we seek out opportunities or should we do what has become standard operating procedure for the late 20th century? Wait for someone, government, or business or technology, to find solutions to our problems.
Most of us seem pretty comfortable taking the latter role, waiting to be rescued by others. But not everyone, some would say that there is a time and a place in each of our lives to make appropriate changes, to do our part for this critical cause.
The fact is, many of the things each of us can do will reduce waste and cut costs in our own lives, much as Clinton is asking companies to do.
A lot of the things are old stories, installing energy-saving windows, light bulbs, and appliances using products made from or packaged in recycled materials, keeping our cars in furnaces tuned, driving more efficiently, perhaps even a bit less.
These are far from life-changing measures for most of us. Indeed, many of them will enhance the quality of our lives by reducing our energy bills, for example, or keeping our homes a bit toaster in winter.
The reality is that some of these things will be done whether we want them or not. For example, Clinton's global warming agenda calls for ever stiffening appliance energy standards, although it doesn't call for increased energy standards for automobiles.
It also proposes changing tax laws, so employers could give employees the cash equivalent of the cost of subsidized parking in order to encourage increased use of public transportation or carpooling.
But these things alone won't be enough, not by a long shot. Remember, we're only talking about leveling off global warming gases, not reducing them.
That means the problem won't get better, it just won't worsen at the same rate. That leaves each of us with a few questions to ponder.
Do we want to be part of the solution or wait and hope that the problem goes away? Are there things each of us can do actively to help ease the problem?
Can we afford to make a few changes, and most importantly, can we afford not to?
Joel MacCowr, editor of the Monthly Newsletter, The Green Consumer and co-author of The Green Consumer Book. His comments are heard from time to time on the Environment Show. And this is Bruce Robertson.
He calls his music, Earth Music.
Saxophoneist Paul Winter has recorded his latest album, called Prayer for the Wild Things. It was recorded in the Rocky Mountains, but not in a typical recording studio.
We created a celebration of wildlife of the Northern Rockies as a compliment to the animals that are camouflaged in this painting by Bev Doe Little called Prayer for the Wild Things.
And I went several times up into the Rockies and spent time with my recording engineer, Mickey Hullahan and my wife, Chez Lyle, who went along to assist in the recording gear setup and in the observation of wildlife and the gathering of information for the liner notes and just general moral support.
We went to initially to a wonderful place called Gates of the Mountains, which is a magnificent canyon on the Missouri River north of Helena, Montana, where there's a wonderful two-second echo.
And there are mountain goats climbing around the crags there. They're a myriad of birds. We had in the recordings during the solos that I played and recorded at various times. They're osprey, they're Canadian geese who take off at one point and encircle back overhead, honking in this wonderful chorus.
There are bald eagles, probably several dozen species of birds and ravens ubiquitous, constantly ravens.
And we had a wonderful five days there. We went then up to Glacier National Park in northern Montana with a friend named Bob Reem, who's a wolf biologist from the University of Montana, who has been studying the wolves that have come down from the Canadian Rockies in the last 20 years in this one pack called the Magic Pack.
Up there, there are now 50 wolves in Glacier. 20 years ago, 15 years ago, when I visited Bob in Missoula, there were only four wolves up there.
And they have evolved into this famous pack now called the Magic Pack. And it was that pack that I was able to get the response from.
The night we played in the rain, I played in the rain up there. Bob had driven us in his pickup truck through these remote roads in Glacier National Park that night, to an area where he thought the wolves might be.
And he was right. And as I played, they began howling. They were about maybe a half mile away.
And then we went down to Yellowstone in Spent time there in Grizzly Bear Country and Bull Elk Country. And the elk were just beginning to begin their mating calls or their territorial calls really. The bulls do to each other.
And they kind of instigate each other to fight with these buglings. And I was able to play. I kind of imitated the buglings and got some amazing responses from Bull Elk.
And there are duets with loons. And it was the most fertile series of expeditions for wildlife recording that I've ever been privileged to do.
You have been called an environmental musician. What are your values here, Paul? Your environmental ethic, if you will. In other words, what drives you out into the wilderness in this way to undertake a project like this?
I would call myself simply a musician, but I'm a person that lives in nature and considers nature my home as opposed to the world of the city.
And music celebrates, anybody's music celebrates the things they love, the people they love. And in some cases, as mine, the creatures.
And I feel an affinity toward wilderness anywhere in the earth. I think that's what happens to many people who go out in the wilderness backpacking or whatever.
You feel like you're at home anywhere in a wilderness. And more and more in this air, I think, people are becoming, coming to feel as if they're citizens of a grand magnificent home called the earth.
And I think that's what happens to many citizens of Vermont, of the United States or wherever.
Paul Winter, his new album, Prayer for the Wild Things on the Living Music Label, is due out in record stores in the spring. A limited edition is now available to accompany a print of the same title by Bev Dudel.
Paul spoke to us from Member Station WNYC in New York.
And that's our report on the environment show this week. Thanks to Deborah Lamberton at WETA in Washington and Bill O'Neill in Eileen, Della Hanting at WNYC in New York.
For a cassette copy of this program called 1-800-767-1929, ask for the environment show program number 207.
The environment show is a presentation of national productions solely responsible for its content. Dr. Ellen Chartock, executive producer, this is Bruce Robertson.
The environment show is made possible by the J.M. Kaplan Fund of New York. And by Heming's Motor News, the national Bible of the Old Car Hobby, monthly from Bennington, Vermont, 1-800-CAR-H-E-R-E.
Music
