This is the Environment Show. It's about our stewardship of the Earth and the beauty and
mystery of life in all its forms. I'm Peter Burling. Coming up, prevented from drilling
for oil in Alaska's National Wildlife Red Vue, the Arco Oil Company gets as close as
possible by trying to drill in the ocean right next to it. The U.S. Forest Service takes
steps to cancel a sale of ancient trees in Argonne. It's great news for salmon.
Protesters who engaged in civil disobedience say they made the difference. The Forest Service
says it would have done it anyway. A Pacific surfer finds passing whales touch both his
mind and his soul. And the Santa Ana Wins are making folks grumpy in Southern California.
These stories and more coming up on the Environment Show.
Nine environmental groups are urging interior secretary Bruce Bamut to stop the Arco Oil
Company from drilling for oil off the coast of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The refuge is located on the shore of the Arctic Ocean and it's rich with wildlife. Tens of
thousands of porcupine caribou cab there on the spring. It's also one of the few places where
you can find both grizzly and polar bears. Environmentalists say that drilling will threaten wildlife
inhabiting the marine environment which is extremely fragile in the Arctic. Meanwhile,
Arco officials say that drilling is only preliminary. The company maintains it's taking precautionary
measures to avoid any spills. The Environment Show's Stephen Westcott has more. Last year,
Arco Alaska incorporated obtained a federal lease allowing the company to drill for oil three
miles off the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge shoreline. Company officials now say exploratory
drilling could begin as early as mid-November or early December. This says groups like National
Autobahn Society, the Sierra Club, and Greenpeace concerned that wildlife in this pristine ecosystem
will be threatened. Just recently two Greenpeace protesters were arrested after scaling 15 floors
of Arco's headquarters in downtown Los Angeles to post a banner. The activists used suction cups
and hooks to scale the building's exterior. The banner red, Arctic oil, global warming,
chilled the drills. The wilderness society is among the groups also opposed to drilling near the
refuge. Bill Reffert, Program Director for National Parks in Alaska, Lans says,
Arco will be discharging fluids and other waste products in significant quantities into refuge
waters. Something Reffert says the company has been permitted to do. If the spill occurred,
and to some extent the discharging of the fluids is also going to affect those pollutants
are pretty severe stuff and they will affect the marine life for an extensive area around
the structure. And there'll be dumping those daily up to 50,000 gallons a day.
Reffert adds that if a spill were to occur, it could take six months to drill a relief well.
He says up to 42 million gallons of oil could be spilled and amount four times greater than
the Exxon Valdez spill. Reffert says besides wildlife populations, such as polar bears and
caribou, there's a group of Eskimos living 20 to 30 miles from the drilling site that would be
severely impacted if a spill occurred. But Arco officials say the company is doing its part to
protect the environment and the natives of Alaska. Company spokesman Ronnie Chappell says
environmental studies were conducted prior to Arco obtaining the lease. More over Chappell says
having a plan is the first step to preventing oil spills. You use good equipment.
You use state-of-the-art equipment. You use skilled crews. You design a well plan that is
conservative and which will allow you to control anything that you might find along the way.
So I think the first step is prevention. In the case of the Warthug well, we're using
a unique piece of drilling equipment called a concrete island drilling structure.
Chappell says the platform is designed to prevent ice from disrupting the drilling process.
He emphasizes that the drilling is only exploratory. Chappell says if oil was discovered,
it could take as much as 10 years before full-scale drilling operations began. He says the company
could be forced to build a pipeline to the transcontinental pipeline in order to transport the oil
if sufficient supplies are discovered. The plan is to build a subsea pipeline to
state tidalins close to shore and then in those state tidalins, bury a pipeline to
state lands located to the west of the Canning River outside of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There we would tie into a
to an above ground pipeline system that would carry the oil back to Prudobay and to
pump station one of the transolaska pipeline system.
Chappell says the buried pipeline could be 60 to 80 miles in length, but environmentalists say
the technology of such pipelines is unproven. Again, the wilderness societies bill refault.
Because of this ice that polar ice cap extends to the shoreline here in the wintertime and in
the summertime it backs off a few miles offshore. But in the wintertime in the shallower areas,
the ice actually scours the bottom and there's these huge, if you looked at it,
when the camera you would see these big huge ruts where the ice is actually moving because
the polar ice cap does move and it scours rather deeply. They will have to bury their pipeline
underneath any scouring zone.
Refault says Arco has been trying to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge since 1987,
but has not received authorization from Congress. However, it appears now the company will have
the next best thing, the waters adjacent to the refuge. In the meantime, refault says the wilderness
society will continue to fight Arco's efforts and form the public of the environmental hazards
of such drilling and persuade interior secretary Bruce Babitt to intercede in the process.
I'm Stephen Westcott for the Environment Show.
Last week, the Office of the U.S. Forest Service in Grants Pass, Argon recommended that the sale of
1.8 million board feet of old growth timber in the SISCII National Forest be cancelled.
The sale area, which covers about 60 acres, is known as China Left.
The service also recommended that a lumber company who was planning to cut the ancient forest
be paid approximately $400,000 so the trees can remain standing. The final decision will be made
by Chief of Forest Service Mike Dumback in Washington. Stopping the China Left sale marks the end
of a long battle by environmentalists to save ancient trees in the SISCII of Forest. A couple of
years ago, a group of national environmental leaders clad in their Washington power suits and ties.
Together with some more scruffily dressed local activists were arrested for engaging
in civil disobedience and blocking roads into the area. Last year in this spring and summer,
the China Left sale was blockaded. Debbie Lucas is an activist with a Citizens Group
Coalition for China Left. The Coalition for China Left started last year,
basically with a blockade of the area people moved in onto the road and blockaded the road
to keep the loggers from having access to these old-growth trees. During the winter storms last
year, the road completely washed out with 20-foot dips in the road and things like that.
They had to repair the road and so during the repair people were blockading that and
basically slowing down the logging until the coho listing the spring. That was what determined
these five units that aren't being logged right now that are proposed for a buyback. I think that
we were very effective in slowing it down. There was a lot of work for them to do this spring
repairing the roads and we were able to keep them out of the upper units which are these late
successful reserve units. People did different tactics. Some people were up in the forest talking
with the loggers and getting in between the faws and the trees and some people were on the roads
blockading the drivers from getting up into that area. Lucas says civil disobedience was necessary
because the China Left sale had been first authorized many years ago before stringent
environmental reviews were required and while originally suspended, it was reauthorized to go
forward by the timber rider which Congress appended to a budget bill a couple of years ago.
Unlike more recent sales, this one could not be challenged in court. The US Forest Service
maintains that the civil disobedience did not affect its decision and that it would have withdrawn
the sale even if there had been no protests. It does acknowledge that the extensive washouts which
occurred in the rains of last winter caused it to re-evaluate the potential damage the clear cut
could do to prime coho salmon spawning habitat in the stream below.
Liseg Panna, acting for a supervisor, describes the decision making of Mike Lund who decided to pull
the sale. He had no assuredness that we wouldn't have some possible flooding going on as a result of
those clear cuts and the fact that this is the key watershed under the Pacific Northwest plan
and an emphasis that watershed is to manage for an atomist salmon species and given that, he felt
that he could not have the confidence that nothing would happen and so he went ahead and made that
recommendation. Whether you believe the protesters who say without the delays the cut would have been
made before the washout which caused the Forest Service to change his mind or the Forest Service
which says it would have cancelled the sale in any event, it's significant that the Forest Service
is now operating under a different set of rules in the Siskiew. Agpanna says the cut level has been
dropped from 112 million board feet to 24 million or almost 90 percent. Responsible for the change
was the adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan which grew out of President Clinton's Forest Summit
held at Portland in 1994. Again, Liz Agpanna. Within the last several years, in fact the most
significant event was in April 1994 in which we had the President's Northwest plan that became
effective and affected us in Oregon, Washington and Northern California. With that plan came
significant changes to the way that we do work. It came designation of Key Watersheds or I
am hearing reserves. A number of allocations that were put in place to provide better protection
and conservation for the habitat and for species and watersheds. What Mike is one of the important
considerations that Mike had when he made this recommendation is that we were indeed dealing with
the Key Watershed under that Northwest plan that amended our RSS Siskiew Forest Plan and it's set
into play, Generous and Guides and Anfaces and Objectives for those Key Watersheds. So there is
a tool and emphasis and objectives that are now in place.
Since action by the Forest Service to cancel the China Left Sale, some activists and protesters
are saying good things about the service. The service does not feel as positive about the
activists. But the one thing they both now agree on is that it's good policy to manage the
forest in a way that protects the salmon streams as well and as a result a lot of ancient trees will
be left standing. We receive a variety of calls from listeners to the Environment Show.
Rachel Phillips looks at what some of you are saying.
Thanks Peter. Our first caller says he disagrees with a recent Environment Show guest about
how to preserve our national parks. You don't need to get back to it but this guy who thinks that we
can let nature just do it thing out there in Yellowstone seems to forget that we've already altered
nature. We don't have the predator base to take care of the overpopulation of the undiluted
the guys in India. And our next caller from Carson City Nevada says private use of federal
forests is a good idea and that many people just don't understand the issue.
I really take objective to the people who call in with no background experience.
If you have this flat by not attitude, there should be no lobbying in an international forest
plan. That's ridiculous. There should be intelligent longing, not clear cutting.
But selective crap is fine and we should go in and clean out the forest.
We'd love to hear from you. You can reach our comment line anytime by calling 1-888-49-Green.
That's 1-888-49-Green. For the Environment Show, I'm Rachel Phillips.
This is the Environment Show and I'm Peter Berlin. The Environment Show is made possible by the
W. Walton Jones Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Turner Foundation, the J.M. Kaplan Fund,
the Oliver & Jenny Donaldson Charitable Trust, Bob and Marilyn Schuman and Hemings Motorneurs,
the monthly Bible of the collector Carhobby 1-800-C-A-R-H-E-R-E.
The Environment Show wants to hear what's on your mind. We might even broadcast what you say.
Our email address is green at wamc.org. Our phone number is 1-888-49-Green.
And you can reach us over the web at www.enn.com-slash-env-show.
This is the Environment Show and I'm Peter Berlin. We all have places that are special to us.
For some it's a city street, for others it's deep in the wilderness. Daniel Dwayne brings
a portrait of his special place, which he shares with the waves and the whales. His book is caught
inside a surface year on the California coast, published by North Point Press.
Under the cliff I had to fight harder than usual to get my wetsuit off, like a second skin
not ready to mold. Bearback flat on the wet rock contortionist thrashing to free my left ankle.
Walking barefoot over the sand carrying my surfboard back towards the car, I turned to have that
last look at the water that nobody can resist. The sliver of reddish dusk backlit, my friends
willy-invents and a few others still out, enduring a lull in the waves, they're back slumped.
Then a few hundred yards outside the placid darkening plane of the sea shattered as a whale exploded
into the air. Its giant form hung black before the dusk, flukes spread wide like open arms.
The whale crashed back down almost slowly, so far did it have to fall. Then the water rolled on as
before, and the silhouette on my retina began fading. Mental picture already becoming stylized,
exaggerated. But fifty yards north the water parted again, and the whale surged up yet again to
fly dark and spring before the blurred sun. I waved and yelled at the surfers still in the water.
Hey, look outside, I said a whale. I couldn't believe it to be in the water near such a thing and not
know it. I dropped my board and ran south down the beach to stay in view of the whale's northward
path, dry sand slipping underfoot. A hundred gals loitering at the creek mouth swarmed into the air,
and then again it leapt, exuberance, perhaps, but only if we can take the word to have a neutral
incentient meaning as of an abundance of energy expressed in hurling ten thousand pounds of bulk
into the warm evening air. Legs cramping in the interval between jumps, long since past.
I stopped running and walked back the half mile I'd come. South in December, north in April,
these whales make the world's longest migratory round trip, twelve thousand miles.
Early accounts record gray, sperm, humpback, right, and fin whale, so numerous in the bay waters,
hugging the shore and playing in the kelp as to hinder navigation.
But while New England whalers were still harpooning by hand, 19th century Californians had canons
and exploding bomblances. In quiet shallow Baja Lagoon's deep sanctuaries for the breeding of
Iathons, thousands of calving mother grays were blown apart. Shor stations appeared all along the
north coast, little clusters of cabins occupied by a dozen Portuguese men and their families.
When shore lookout spotted whales, small open boats launched from the beach for a chase that
might take the miles to sea. If they managed not to get staved, they'd drag a gray whale back,
winch it onto the beach, and strip off the blubber in a continuous spiral as if peeling an orange,
a man on a bluff by the Pacific in a loosely held Mexican territory, waving flags to compatriots
and little wooden boats. And now and not at the end of the 20th century screaming to another group
of men in the water. But this time, the half dozen crew members in the shore lookout are,
as is perhaps the whale, at play. At the parking area, two guys in the water appeared,
friendly enough in both strong surfers. I asked if they'd seen the whale. That's what you were
flipping over asked a thick guy in a red flannel shirt, his friend chuckled. We thought you were
having a flashback. Daniel Dwayne is author of Clot Inside, a surfers year on the California coast.
It's published by North Point Press. Stay with us. The Earth Calendar is next.
And now it's time for the Earth Calendar. As we broadcast, the Santa Ana wins are blowing in
full force in Southern California. Peak season for the Santa Anas are from late September to mid-Devember.
That's according to James Mouric Coney, who is staff meteorologist in the atmospheric science
department of the University of California, at Los Angeles. Those who live in the vicinity of
Los Angeles know the Santa Ana wins, since they propel the brush fires that have been so destructive
in recent years. While the warm winds blow from the east through the mountains and hills to the
coast, Mouric Coney says conditions in Utah and Nevada get the Santa Ana win going.
It's caused by high pressure that develops in the Great Basin States, Nevada, Utah,
region, and the air flows out of a high pressure area toward lower pressure. So basically,
the air flow is blowing from Nevada, Utah, in the desert regions, and blowing out toward the coast.
At the blows out toward the coast, it is forced through various passes and canyons here
in the Los Angeles area. Through principal and physics called the Venturi effect,
it accelerates through these narrow passages, and that's where you get these very strong wind
speeds. But even in the coastal plain where it is relatively open and flat, you can still get
fairly good winds sometimes if the conditions are just right, or you get winds in around 30, 40
mile per hour winds. The real temperatures that usually occur with Santa Ana is caused by
what is called adiabatic compressional heating. What happens is the air flows from the deserts,
it goes up the mountains, the local mountains here, and then it descends on the coastal side of
the mountains, and it descends, it is warmed up by compressional heating. And through this
compressional heating, it is capable of warming up to 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit per thousand feet
of descent. So you could have air that is fairly cool at the mountain tops, but by the time it
reaches near sea level, it can warm up around 30 degrees Fahrenheit or so. This is the same kind of,
in fact, it is the same kind of wind that occurs in the rocky mountains, but both types of winds
are known as shunuk winds, where you get this wind that blows down the mountain and heats up,
and it is the same kind of wind in principle. The hot Santa Ana's, which originated the
dry basin of Nevada and Utah, pull them moisture out of everything they touch. They dry and
chap the lips of Californians, and some say they also make people more irritable.
Murakami says another big impact is caused by the spores and pollen which are picked up by the
winds. Another side effect to Santa Ana winds, it doesn't happen necessarily to be strong winds,
but just after a certain number of Santa Ana winds, they tend to kick up
pollen and spores out in the deserts and in the mountains, and then they send them out toward
the coastal plain out here, and oftentimes you'll get a gradual increase in the concentration of
these pollen and spores, so then you're aggravating people with the allergy symptoms,
and it could be as simple as just increasing hay fever,
sensitivity to people who actually are very allergic to certain types of spores in the air.
If the Santa Ana's do indeed make people more irritable as well as chapped, my estimation of my
friends in southern California increases. For some reason, many of them remain cheerful and positive,
even though they spend hours immobilized in traffic on freeways.
City immobilized in traffic on a California freeway drives a non-California in like myself in a
fits of grumpiness and irrationality. Imagine coping with both freeway traffic and the Santa Ana winds
at the same time. Those southern California commuters must have a resiliency which makes them unique
in the natural world. Thanks for listening, this is the Environment Show, and I'm Peter Burley.
It's not that easy being green.
I'm not a bad person, I'm not a bad person.
I'm not a bad person, I'm not a bad person.
Or gold or something much more colorful like that.
It's not that easy being green.
It seems you blend in with so many other ordinary things.
And people tend to pass you over.
This is the Environment Show, and I'm Peter Burley. Still ahead.
Things are tough all over for frogs, but some people are trying to make golf courses more frog-friendly.
We talk green about whether steps to reduce greenhouse gases and slow climate change will
seek the U.S. economy or salvage it.
And our ear to the ground meets folks who are making a difference.
Has runoff killed fish in the pond or frogs on the golf course?
Well if you live in Alabama, try 1-800-watchdog.
These stories are more coming up on the Environment Show.
The golf course.
A place of relaxation for many weekend warriors.
The manicured landscape gives a sense of perfection to some,
but it's not all perfect for species living on the lakes.
Frog populations are dwindling all over.
And many critics say golf courses are part of the problem.
The Environment Show's Rachel Phillips reports on research being done in Maryland.
To see how these fields of sport can be designed so amphibians can do better.
In recent years, frogs in Minnesota have been showing up with five or more legs
while their numbers seem lower than ever in the Northeast.
Scientists aren't really sure what's causing the decline in frog populations.
Some point to contaminants increases in ultraviolet radiation,
habitat loss, or a combination of conditions.
There are those who say the use of pesticides, clearing of forest areas,
loss of wetlands, and other effects of golf courses make it more difficult for frogs to survive.
Dr. Jim Howard is professor of biology at Frostburg State University in Maryland.
He recently received a grant sponsored by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
and the United States Golf Association to study the ecological impacts golf courses have on amphibians.
He says the number of golf courses has increased dramatically in recent years.
Just between 1983 and 1993, there was an increase in golf course,
new golf course development of over 400%.
So the USGA has responded to the criticism about the environmental impacts of golf courses
by developing with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation a program called Wildlife Links.
Pun intended, I think.
Professor Howard admits that golf courses do have environmental impacts.
He says the question of whether golf courses are good places for wildlife depends on what species you're talking about.
For frogs, the creation of a country club can have devastating impact,
something Howard's research could lessen.
Professor Howard says the first part of his research involves field work.
The field project is really focused on wetland design and how wetlands that are frequently accompanied,
golf course development can be designed to actually replace lost wetlands that may be lost
because of agricultural development or housing developments or whatever.
Howard believes more shallow wetland areas help to detoxify golf courses and to promote drainage
compared to large deep ponds.
He says his research also involves the effects of pesticides on amphibians,
specifically their effects on critical life stages.
There are a wide variety of pesticides available to golf course managers.
And what we hope to be able to do is to provide them with some information about which are the most toxic to aquatic life in amphibians in particular.
And also if there are stage specific toxicities, in other words we're going to be looking at everything from egg hatching to metamorphosis in amphibians.
Professor Howard stresses it's important for the general public to be aware of declining frog populations.
He says there are several reasons why frogs are good biological indicators.
Number one, they have a bifasic life cycle.
In other words most amphibians have an aquatic phase and a terrestrial phase so that they essentially are exposed to disturbances in both regimes.
In the case of frogs for example, they even feed at different levels in a food chain in their two life stages.
That is, tadpoles are primarily feeding on herbaceous material plants or detritus and the adults are strictly carnivores.
In addition, howard says that frogs have very permeable skin and eggs that absorb a lot of things they come into contact with.
Also amphibians are not very mobile creatures and it's easy for them to detect environmental disturbances.
Professor Howard expects a total of four graduate students to be working on the project. He expects the research to last about three years.
By that time he hopes his research will shed some light on how those in the world of golf can make their golf courses better places for frogs as well as humans.
For the Environment Show, I'm Rachel Phillips.
We're talking green and I'm your host Peter Burley.
Today we're considering the possible economic impacts of proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Some say that strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will shut down the U.S. economy.
Others say that unless we're more energy efficient, we'll not be able to compete in the global marketplace.
We'd like to hear your views. Our number is 1-888-49-Green.
I have two guests with me. They're Dr. Joseph Roam and he's acting assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy for the U.S. Department of Energy.
His office is recently reduced a report on how new energy technology can reduce emissions without hurting the economy and he joins us from Washington.
Hi there. Also with us is William Naskanan. He is chairman of the Cato Institute which is a conservative think tank and research institution in Washington.
He was a member of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Reagan administration and he has been a vocal critic of proposals for a climate change treaty.
Dr. Roam, let's start with you. Can we indeed cut emissions without hurting the economy and if so, how?
Yes, I think that we can indeed do that. We found with an extensive one-year study by five national laboratories that it would be possible to achieve greenhouse gas reductions without increasing the nation's energy bill principally by making use of some new low-cost natural gas and renewable technologies on the supply side of energy.
And then also using technology to help us use energy more efficiently in transportation buildings and industry.
So as I understand it, you're saying we could reduce and agree to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and in effect it would not cost us anything because technology can fill the gap.
William Naskanan from Cato, I think you probably see that somewhere differently.
Well, I think the first 10 or 20 percent of emission reductions can be achieved at a quite low cost. I wouldn't say zero.
But I think a carbon tax and the five to ten dollar a ton range would probably clean up most of the easy opportunities for reducing emissions.
We've already taken some steps in that direction in terms of by controlling CFCs and there will be a replacement of existing technology that will be affected at the margin by even small price changes.
So the theory that just before you go on is that a tax would increase the price and therefore the most inefficient uses would simply drop out because it's too expensive to keep them going.
And the first 10 or 20 percent of emissions reductions as I say can be achieved at a quite low cost.
The problem is when you try to control emissions more tightly than that to cross go up very fast.
And does that mean that from your perspective trying to reduce them any more than 10 to 20 percent is an unsound policy from a public policy perspective?
Well, the best work in this area has been done by William Northhouse at Yale and he estimates assuming that the scientists are right and that his own estimates of the costs of warming are right.
He estimates that the optimal carbon taxes and the five to ten dollar range.
But as of 1990 in any case, he did not endorse such a tax.
He thought that the issues were still too open to endorse such a tax.
So Dr. Ohm, you have said that there is technology out there or it's developing that can give us substantial savings.
I presume that that could occur without the kind of imposition of tax that that's in a scan and is advocating how would you do it?
What is the technology that would work for you?
Well, we see large opportunities through to make buildings more energy efficient and I think New York State and many other states have found that you can do it.
The state states have found that you can increase the efficiency of lighting, heating and cooling a great deal.
One of the things that we found in doing this study which might interest people to know is that the energy consumed by your electronic appliances when they're not even being used, when they're just in standby mode is equal to eight gigawatts, which is to say about ten large power plants.
What we're going to try to do is to work with the manufacturers to make sure that the energy that these devices consume when they're not being used is very low.
But you have so many devices in your home that draw energy when it's not being used, whether it's your VCR or TV.
And the difference between the best product and the worst product is significant 80 to 90%.
Let's look at the policy implications of this though. I hear you saying that we can get 10 to 20% savings just by doing some things better than to early out there.
I hear Mr. Nuskanan saying that we could achieve 10 to 20% by a slight tax increase in certain areas. Does that mean that the president could go to Kyoto and agree to a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions without having substantial effect?
I said repeatedly that he believes as Mr. Nuskanan does that about 20% can be done at quite low cost.
And I think it's important to point out that the administration's policy is to pursue international trading so that it will be possible if some countries can reduce carbon emissions at lower cost than us that we can in fact purchase those tons in a trading scheme.
Mr. Nuskanan is the leap from the technically possible or economically possible to signing a treaty, one that you're prepared to make?
No, not at all. One thing you should be recognized is that these cheap for low cost means to reduce emissions.
We'll have little or no effect on global warming even if the scientists are correct. It will take something like a 60 or 75% reduction in carbon emissions on a worldwide basis to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
And particularly if the poor countries do not participate in emissions and emissions control regime and international regime actions by the rich countries to control our emissions will have zero zip effect on global warming.
Is it your sense of knowledge?
Is it your sense that we shouldn't do anything? Just let it take its course?
We need to, I think, make some minor adjustment in our technological priorities. And we probably ought to do some things that are no... that we ought to be doing anyway.
There are some things that we can do that we ought to be doing like cutting back on our subsidies to rice farming which admits a lot of methane or to dairy products which admit a lot of methane and uneconomic forest cutting and so forth.
The forests are quite effective in observing CO2. These are the sorts of no regret policies that we ought to be doing in any case.
And so what would you like to see the president blind up with when he goes to Tokyo? Does he go with any kind of an agenda for reducing U.S. emissions?
My preference is that he make no specific commitments to reduce emissions.
Let's get your view on that Dr. Oma. I understand that you are with the government and that the president still hasn't made up his mind but not with standing any percentage amount.
Do you see a problem in the U.S. going to Tokyo and saying no specific understanding of whatever number?
I think the president has made clear that he is very concerned about the global warming that he believes the science shows that this is a problem that we need to worry about and that we need to make some realistic and binding the goals on our emissions to greenhouse gases.
I think it's very important to say that sure the first step in any agreement, if that's all you did isn't going to have a big impact.
But the point is this is a long-term problem and we need to get started on it right now and the nations of the world need to negotiate an agreement and start to do what they can with the existing technologies that improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases.
And then we pursue the research and development to develop the next generation of technologies which can reduce greenhouse gases even more at low cost.
Let me ask you both about an argument that some are making and that is that unless the U.S. moves very aggressively toward increasing its energy efficiency, whether for greenhouse gas reasons or whatever, we're going to fall behind the power curve in international trade because we will not be able to compete with countries that are making such aggressive moves.
Mr. Nisgallon, what do you think?
I think that's absolutely foolish. Energy in fact is rather low cost. There isn't any reason particularly to conserve energy that beyond what firms and industries and households do now.
I think that if Dr. Roman and others have good ideas about how to save energy at low cost, let people know about it.
But it's not an imperative as you see it. No particular imperative.
From an economic core, from moral point of view to conserve energy.
Dr. Roman, are you a non imperative?
Oh, I think it's one of the highest imperatives. You know, people forget that associated with the production and use of energy is virtually all air pollution, not just the emission of carbon dioxide, but I'm talking about the pollution that causes acid rain,
particulate and ozone smog, those ozone alerts. And so energy efficiency is one of the most cost effective ways to reduce air pollution.
And secondly, we import $50 billion a year worth of oil. And that is projected to double to $100 billion within 10 years.
And I think everybody agrees that reducing our trade deficit and oil and reducing dependent on imported oil, particularly from the Persian Gulf, isn't imperative.
Mr. Daskhan, how do you come out on the imported energy issue? And also what I gather Dr. Roman is saying is that there are other impacts besides simply those that might be measured in terms of an income figure relating to the costs of pollution.
Well, I think we ought to address pollution problems when it's clear that there are real problems. I think it is that's far from clear yet on the greenhouse gas issue.
I don't worry about the fact that we're importing a lot of oil. We're much better off importing that oil. And if we didn't import the oil, import the oil. And so I think that that's a phony issue.
If there's a clear pollution problem, as there is with smog and with various kinds of particulates, let's address that. But the global warming issue, I think, is far from clear.
The May 16th issue of the Science Magazine, for example, let me read you a paffis sense. Many climate experts caution that it is not at all clear yet that human activities have begun to warm the planet.
Or how bad greenhouse warming will be when it arrives. That's the leading publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, how they weigh in on this issue as of this summer.
Are there greenhouse strategies which in your judgment are not worth doing in their own right?
I think any commitment to a specific reduction of greenhouse gases at this time is uncalled for and is absolutely uncalled for if other countries, the poor countries, the world are not prepared to make a similar commitment.
Dr. Ome, how do you respond?
Let me make two points. One of which is let me just quote what the chairman of the CEO of British petroleum said at Stanford University this year, one of the largest oil companies in the world.
There is now an effective consensus among the world leading scientists and serious and well-informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature.
The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are apart, we in British petroleum have reached that point.
The quote that Mr. Nascannon read from Science Magazine refers to scientists who don't like to make statements unless they have 95% certainty that they are true.
But we live in a world in which all of our policy is based on uncertainty.
And in this world we have to act when a large number of well-informed and credible people think that there is a serious and real risk and that's where we are today.
So I think it would be very imprudent and unjust to future generations.
If we, given the evidence we have today, do not take very strong action.
So I think the Department of Energy believes that aggressive action on energy efficiency and renewable energy is one of those key actions that we have to move on now.
Okay, well we have 30 seconds left and Mr. Nascannon, I'm sure you've got a thought about that in 30 seconds. What do you think?
Well, I think that the state and the state of Dr. Rome reinforce my perception that we ought to eliminate the Department of Energy.
That was a mean cut. Okay, our time is up. We've been talking green about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
My guests have been Dr. Rome from the U.S. Department of Energy and William Nascannon from the K-O-S-2. And I'm your host Peter Burley.
Thank you.
The Environment Show would like to hear from you. Reach us through the net.
That's www.enn.com-env-show.
That's www.enn.com-env-showw.
I'm Linda Anderson and this is Ear to the Ground with St. John.
Ear to the Ground with stories about people affecting change in the environment. This week, Alabama's Watchdog Campaign keeping an eye on polluters.
Illegal dumps, misapplication of pesticides, overcutting of forests, stream pollution. These are just a few of the problems reported to the Watchdog Campaign.
The Watchdog was reported in 1994 by the Alabama Environmental Council. Watchdog aims to reach out to all citizens of Alabama by assisting them in solving their environmental problems through a toll-free hotline.
What we have found is that the majority of people really just don't know where to go and who to turn to. And then some of those people don't even know the extent of what the actual problem is.
That's Cursed in Gearhart, Coordinator for the Watchdog Campaign. She says since the program began, they have received over 800 calls.
These callers, she explains, aren't sure which agencies to contact or what effects the problem could have on their health or property.
When someone calls us, we give them the resources and the tools that they need to begin to get their problem solved. Some problems are much bigger than others. Some problems involve much more legwork than others do. We do get a wide variety.
Take, for example, one recent call to the hotline from a woman in Mobile, Alabama. Gearhart says the woman reported that she and her family were getting sick and couldn't figure out why.
We told them that it could have been, you know, they could have had an exposure to pesticides when we found out that they did live close to a farm.
And so we gave them different names and different numbers of organizations who specialize in herbicides and pesticides.
And so she was able to pinpoint that her sicknesses and her and her family's sicknesses were directly related to the herbicide paracopter that the farmer used.
Gearhart says watchdog members try to get out of the office and make public as many of these cases as possible.
Media coverage surrounding the woman in Mobile Gearhart says generated about 10 other calls from people in the area who feared they too might have been exposed to herbicides or pesticides.
Gearhart says that council members chart each call detailing each problem. This in part, she says, is to create a directory so that individuals or groups who have experienced similar problems can network with a new environment.
As was the case, Gearhart explains when a community in Northern Alabama became concerned about pollution problems associated with plans for a new poultry house in their town.
Well, we were able to give them a bunch of information about poultry houses and we were also able to give them a bunch of information that other people have given us about poultry houses.
We've had several phone calls from people who have said that their lives have been ruined because they lived right next door to a poultry house.
So we basically put these people in touch with other folks who have had very similar problems in dealing with poultry houses and we gave them a bunch of information.
With help from the watchdog campaign, the new poultry house was not built.
Limited to the state of Alabama, watchdog doesn't intend on staying on a short leash. They're eager to help other states set up similar programs.
Already Tennessee and Washington state have done so. If you don't have a watchdog campaign in your state,
first in Gearhart says don't give up, use your yellow pages and do your best to learn about who to contact because you don't want to waste your time barking up the wrong tree.
With ear to the ground, I'm Linda Anderson.
Thanks for being with us on this week's Environment Show. I'm Peter Burley. You can't play golf with a frog without a copy of the tape.
Call 1-888-49-Green and ask for show number 408. The Environment Show is a national production which is solely responsible for its content.
Alan Sharktalk is the executive producer, producers are Rachel Phillips and Stephen Westcock.
The show is made possible by the W. Walton Jones Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Turner Foundation, the JM Kaplan Fund,
the Oliver & Jenny Donaldson Charitable Trust and Bob and Marilyn Schumann, also Heming's Motor News, the monthly Bible of the Collector Carhabie, 1-800-CAR-HRE.
Be good to the Earth and join us next week for the Environment Show.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0