This is the Environment Show. It's about our stewardship of the Earth and the beauty
and mystery of life in all its forms. The Environment Show is a national production
made possible by the W. Walton Jones Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Bullet Foundation,
the Turner Foundation, the furthermore division of the J. M. Kaplan Fund, and Heming's
Motor News, the Bible of the Collector, Car Hobby, 1-800-C-A-R-H-E-R-E.
Your host is Peter Burley.
Coming up on this week's Environment Show, citizens battle state laws which grant immunity
to polluters. We talk green about international family planning.
Another response to a listener question about genetically engineered soybeans.
And in the Earth calendar, turtles are waking up in a southeast and are looking for water.
These stories and more coming up this week on the Environment Show.
Across the country, state legislatures are passing a new type of environmental law called
Environmental Audit Statutes. These laws provide that if a company files an environmental
audit, some information it supplies becomes privilege or secret. And if it admits in the
audit to certain environmental violations, it gets immunity from prosecution.
Audit laws vary from state to state. Kevin Williams is the field organizer for the Western
Organization of Resource Councils. His group is organizing opposition to environmental
audit laws which he feels violate basic democratic principles.
This is really about people's right to know about what kind of pollutants are being dumped
in their communities. People have a right to know if corporations are violating law and
that these laws fundamentally undermine that right. Secondly, that corporations deserve
to be fined and punished if they break the law. We're talking about illegal conduct here.
Polluters cost to $0.00 billion. We all know that if we break the law, we have to pay
the price and corporations to do the same.
A particular concern has been the Environmental Audit Bill in Idaho, passed for a two-year
period and scheduled a sunset this year. Sue Duncan from Burley, Idaho has been an opponent
of the secrecy which she says environmental audit legislation provides.
We have a family farm of a thousand acres. We grow the potatoes, sugarbeats and grain.
We do a fairly good living and want to continue that. Just a few miles from our farm here where
we live, we were faced with the situation of a private developer coming in. This developer
wanted to bring in outside waste with this landfill that he was proposing to develop
just a few miles from our farm. Then I had found out just two years ago the state of Idaho
was looking at passing an environmental audit bill.
Susan Duncan and her neighbors with the Idaho Rural Council are hopeful that the current
statute will not be reenacted. Fighting the privilege and immunity provisions of state
environmental audit bills, citizens groups are asking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
to withdraw the power and the money it is given to states to enforce federal environmental
laws. Dave Altman, an environmental lawyer from Cincinnati, Ohio, explains why he is
petitioned the U.S. EPA to take action against Ohio.
The Ohio law makes secret basic factual information that would otherwise be available to the
U.S. EPA. Because the Ohio EPA has made this deal that it will allow companies to keep
this secret, this full information secret, they cannot basically do any of the things from
investigating, remediate to develop proper penalties under federal law. So it is a back
door deregulation that just simply a back door changes the federal law and gets it.
Currently the EPA is reviewing citizens' petitions against state audit legislation from Ohio,
Idaho, Colorado, Michigan and Texas. Bertram Fry, deputy regional counsel with the U.S.
EPA and Chicago has real concern over both privilege and immunity provisions of state law
because they can upset the equal application of environmental standards which federal
law requires.
It is a key federal role. Again, to set this level playing field across the country.
So the environmental protection is the same. It is a baseline of environmental protection
is the same for each citizen of this country. So they are health and welfare and the health
and welfare of the environment are protected. That is a key federal role. It also extends
to civil penalties and as far as that promotes a level playing field economically across the
country. So that a violent competitor in one state doesn't get an economic advantage
over a complying competitor in that state or another state.
State officials have differing views about audit statutes, particularly as the laws differ
from state to state.
In Colorado, Patty Schwader, who is the state director of public health and environment,
thinks their law is working well. She says the privileges and immunities which it confers
are limited.
It cannot be used as a shield for things that we would have found otherwise and it also
can't be used for things that are generally required by permit or order. So only in limited
circumstances do we give immunity from fines and penalties.
We have seen long-term benefit. We require in our law that you can't just come in and
tell us about a problem, you have to fix it and you have to work with us to fix it as quickly
as possible.
And of course we are monitoring that to see if it is going to work. I don't know of any
environmentalist, any instance where anyone, frankly, has been prevented from obtaining
information, resulting from the reports made under the audit or disclosure. So what we
are saying is watch how this thing works. Try and move aside the philosophy and the old
command and control process and look at the outcomes, look at the results and so far
from our state we've seen nothing but positive outcomes.
The Governor of Montana vetoed an environmental audit bill last year. Some say his former role
as a prosecutor made him concerned about privilege and immunity provisions. But the bill
has been reintroduced this year. Richard Parks from Gardner, Montana, and a member of the
Northern Plains Resource Council, describes what fighting environmental audit legislation
in state houses is all about.
It's like trying to house break a grizzly bear. It gets caught up a bunch of house gets
trash and the bear just keeps on dumping in the middle of the living room.
As more and more states consider environmental audit legislation which grants, privileges,
and immunities, conflict will continue. The players, which may be differently arrayed state
by state are the governors, the legislatures, the business and environmental lobbyists,
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I'm Peter Burley.
We're talking green in the environment show and I'm your host, Peter Burley. Today we
discuss U.S. funding of international family planning programs. President Clinton has reported
that the delay of funding which was imposed by Congress has created irreversible, avoidable,
and serious harm. His report triggered a process requiring Congress to vote on whether
Mormona should be released. The house has already done so but the issue is in bitter dispute.
We want to hear from you. Our number is 1-888-49-Green.
Joining us today are three experts. Diane Billen-Rigley, who is president of a nonprofit group called
Zero Population Growth based in Washington, DC. At the moment she's in El Paso so we speak
to her from there. Also with us is Aline Gelbart, who is director of international programs
at the Population Reference Bureau. And Margaret Pollock, who is director of the Office of
Population at the United States Department of State. So Margaret Pollock, let's start with you.
What has been the impact of cutting a U.S. family planning aid?
Well, in a nutshell, what will happen is at least 17 programs administered by AID and
amounting to at least $35 million would be seriously impacted by this four month funding
delay. As a result, there will be unintended pregnancies, unintended pregnancies will
rise, maternal deaths will become more numerous and abortions will increase.
Margaret, let me ask you whether your conclusions follow that funding. When you've cut back funding,
does it indeed have an immediate impact on birth rates? Oh, absolutely. And I think even Diane and
Elaine can certainly speak more dramatically to that, but that's clearly well documented
in much of the international data. And even a four month delay for some might not seem to be that
long. We have concluded, well indeed, have a very serious impact in terms of the increase
in unintended pregnancies and the consequential maternal death. And again, back to you, Margaret,
since you run the program, how do you measure the exact impact? I mean, you know the money stops,
but how do you know that birth rates go up? Well, it's a very complicated process. I think,
actually, I'll defer that to perhaps Elaine, who has done quite a bit of research at the
population reference bureau and some of their documents and so forth that supported this.
We'd actually use quite a bit of their documentation there data to support our finding.
And Diane, you are an advocate here and I want to go directly to the questions and I have an
email message sitting in front of me and it says, why should the US spend money on programs that
offend the moral consciousness of some Americans and whose effectiveness is doubtful?
How do you respond to that question? Well, I think it's important to dissect
what is asking that question. First of all, you should understand, and I think most people should
understand that we have years of surveys that say most Americans support US efforts to expand
access to family planning abroad because the goal is, and nothing in this is or has ever been
coercive. I mean, it's really important to stress this is all in terms of voluntary
distribution of information and helping people have access to services that they want.
And they're unethemated 120 million women who do not want to become pregnant currently,
who have no access or have inadequate access to safe and effective contraception.
Our goal and I think as a bottom line as a nation has been to help people have the number
and spacing of children that they want. That is both in the, I mean, it's a humanitarian
response on our part. And it is also something that is in the long term best interest of the United
States and of everyone around the world. Could I add something to that, Diane, I agree completely
with what you said? It's also important to note that in any country in the world, regardless
of their religion or culture, more educated women have fewer and healthier children than less
educated women. So it's also an issue of equity, of giving women who have less education or less
means to carry out their own decisions. The opportunity to do so. Margaret, let's go back to you
for a moment. The US government is making funds available to private groups that
a system family planning. How do you know or how do you decide who gets the money and whether
it's effectively spent? Well, it's very complicated, but the contractional basis in which we have
with, with private organizations, what we call non-governmental organizations or private
voluntary organizations. It's one that's very, as I said, very detailed. It's clearly we monitor
it and making sure that indeed none of these funds, we are legally prohibited and have been for,
since 1973, from using any USAID funds to fund abortion-related activities. We monitor that
particular area very closely. Clearly, we don't want to be in violation of US law.
And that, indeed, is where a lot of the political dispute comes in in the US, isn't it? That's correct.
People confuse this with the issue of whether we're funding abortions, and of course the law prohibits that.
The law prohibits that in half for over 25 years. That's right. I think it's really, I really want
to underscore that for over 25 years, that has been the case, and it really is a red herring
to try and throw that into this situation. And yet, Diane, there has not been a debate in the
Congress when that issue hasn't come up, has there? And this just seems to be a perennial issue.
Well, politically. It's a perennial. I really use the term red herring,
because I must confess I'm tired of this. Okay, let's go to the phones.
I want to say, oh, okay. We've got a call from the state of Washington. Clear across the country.
John Geckler, you're talking green on the environment show. Hello?
I want to say that there are three primary reasons that I would argue for this funding. I think
the humanitarian aspect has been touched on. I would add one thing in addition to
maternal deaths and abortions. And that is the World Bank estimates something like 850,000
children under age five could be prevented from dying every year, just if couples who wanted
to avoid pregnancy had the means to do so through the family planning materials.
It's clearly an environmental issue because it's pretty basic that more people coming into the
world need more food, more water, more fuel, and that that results in deforestation and soil erosion
and greenhouse gases and loss of biodiversity. And I also say that it's really in our national
interest because of the security issue. Increasing populations of major cause of
environmental scarcity and that increases conflict. If you look around the world, there are 30 plus
wars going on several dozen internal civil and ethnic conflicts. And population increases,
increase that scarcity and those conflicts become more acute.
Well, thank you for your call. Again, Margaret Pollock as administrator or an administrator,
how much money are we really talking about here? Well, for this fiscal year, we're talking
total of $385 million or population-related activities. Now that's a slight increase from our
fiscal year 96 allocation of $356 million. However, it's approximately a 35 percent decrease
from what was at all time high of approximately $535 million in fiscal year 1995.
And before we go to one other caller, what has happened to other countries' support for family
planning programs abroad? I know the Japanese for a while made some substantial commitments.
Of other countries also dropped their foreign aid as we have or they stayed in it.
Well, your correct concerns of the Japanese increasing their commitments, I think they clearly see
what the relationships are. Likewise, there have been some of the European countries who have
increased their overall contribution to population-related programs. But what we often see
in terms of US leadership is countries watch us. And if we cut back there likely to do the same.
If we increase that also makes them more likely to try and keep up with the United States.
Okay, well, let's go back. Peter, can I just one thing because I think there are two
pointes that will be us. Sometimes when we use the total amount, those numbers are harder for people
to put in a contact. And the two things that say one, the United States has had 30 years of US
support and leadership, especially to help developing countries, provide voluntary family
planning. And as Margaret said, that leadership globally has been instrumental in making the
progress we've made. And secondly, if you make that in a context that I'm using here as a reference,
the Rockefeller Foundation information, it's 25 cents out of every dollar spent on family
planning services and developing countries that is the combined amount from the United States and
other donor countries. So we even are, I mean, the countries themselves are through those agencies
and through the countries still providing three quarters of the money that supports this. I think
it helps to give a context. Hey, Lane, your organization tracks all of those figures. Does it not?
Well, this is what we're hearing that other countries, developed countries are saying that they are
in worse economic straits than the United States. And while they want to increase their commitment,
they as Margaret and Diana both said they look to us for leadership. So if there is still some
question about whether they will maintain the commitments that they informally made at Cairo,
I can't remember that they put down specific dollar figures that they would follow through on.
They had a similar situation that we had where you had an administration saying one thing and
that has to be followed through by the rest of the government. And as we were discussing, that was not the case
following Cairo in the United States. I think the leadership issue is important not only in terms of
funding, but in terms of the kind of work that the United States government has supported. Diane
mentioned we've been involved, this country's been involved for 30 years. And that has built up a
cadre of expertise that in terms of providing technical assistance not only to developing countries.
And how to provide services that meet people's needs as they define them, which is what the
the world community has agreed is the best way to do all this.
But I want to go back to the phones because Sally Ethelson, Sally, you're talking green.
Wonderful. It sounds like the question I was asking has been answered, but there was another
point that might be worth someone commenting on is in terms of the impact of this cut. I mean, whether or not
the money is actually released to the program in March, the, they're still this roughly $200 million cut
from 1995 through 1997 in terms of annual funding. And of course, given that the U.S. is one of the
biggest contributor of population assistance funds, doesn't this have a very significant impact on overall
levels of funding on the part of donor countries? So the real question is I hear you asking is let's not
get confused about whether we release some money in March or July. The fact is that we're substantially
down from where we were two years ago. And what's going on here? What impact has had this had?
I'd like, this is allying. I'd like to say something to that effect in terms of the impact on health
and well-being overseas. A year ago, a consortium of organizations, including our own,
estimated that just the cuts alone, not that doesn't include the delays and and other funding
mechanisms that have harmed the program, just the cuts would result. We're serving about $7 million.
What effect? $7 million. Right.
We're coupled to overseas because of Diane said this is we don't provide the bulk of support for
family planning. We provide important seed money and resources to help countries do what they
couldn't do otherwise. Those and turn that those 7 million couples would experience a 4 million
unintended pregnancies. So, thank you for your question. We've been joined by Diane Dellen
Ridgley, president of zero population growth, Eileen Gelbart, who is director of international
programs at the Population Reference Bureau in Margaret Pollock, who is the director of the
Office of Population at the U.S. Department of State. We're talking green on the environment show.
I'm your host, Peter Burley. Our number is 1-888-49-Green. Let's hear from you.
This is the environment show and I'm Peter Burley. We welcome your questions. Just give us a call
on our toll-free line. It's 1-888-49-Green. You can email us at ENVSHOW at AOL.com or find us on the
web at www.enn.clm-envSHOW. Environment show producers Stephanie Goichman.
Last week, in response to a question about the safety of genetically engineered soybeans,
we spoke to one scientist who believes they can be hazardous to one's health and the environment.
Today, we hear a different point of view from Jack Whitholm, a scientist in the Department of
Crop Sciences at the University of Illinois. I don't think there's any danger from this kind of work
and in this case in particular. One thing that people do worry about is that maybe we'll pass these
genes onto other plants like weeds. Well soybean does not cross with any weeds here in the Midwest
at all so there's really no danger of that. I guess all in all, I think these kind of biotechnological
applications are useful and will actually help the farmer and improve food production. That's my
opinion. If you have a question about the environment, give us a call at 1-888-49-Green and we'll do our
best to find an answer. I'm Stephanie Goichman. Stay with us. The earth calendar is up next.
Whitter is fading fast at the southeastern US and turtles and other water creatures are coming
back to life. They spend the cold months buried in mud or soil waiting for the first warm rains
of spring. Kurt Bulman is with a Savannah River ecology lab on the South Carolina Georgia border.
Okay right now it's I mean here in mid-February we have warm spells that forget good warm rains
with and will tend to bring out some of the amphibians reptiles that have been somewhat dormant for
the the winter period. We don't get a you know real true hibernation since in terms of for the
reptiles down here they tend to come out on warm days throughout the winter and will bask and so on
but generally right at this time of the year we do get start getting breeding aggregations of
the various frog species and element species. The southeast has one of the highest concentrations of
freshwater turtles in the world. Many of them live in seasonal wetlands which are wet from now
until a fall. Bulman says many turtles move from one wetland to another spending a good portion of
their time in the dry woodland areas around the wetlands. He says many of these areas are being
filled in for development or agriculture yet they're critical to the biodiversity of the area.
Down here on a South Carolina coastal plain we have a number of seasonal wetlands we call them
Carolina Bayes. They're really kind of an uncertain origin but they're they're fairly old like 10,000
to 40,000 years old. A lot of our there are several turtle species that are also used these seasonal
wetlands and they leave the wetlands in the fall months when the water is draining down and they go
and they burrow in surrounding upland habitats and a nice warm night here in the winter you can hear
quite a few species of frogs calling from any given pond. Do turtles make any noise? Turtles are
fairly quiet. Few places could be finer than the southeast in spring. The year is mild and the land
is lush but come summer these areas will be sizzling then it'll be time to follow the turtles and
jump into the nearest Carolina pool. The life of the turtle may not sound exciting but unlike our
children when it awaits it's seen and not heard. This is the Environment Show thanks for listening I'm
Peter Burley.
This is the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley still ahead. Could your cat be a threat to wildlife?
Scientists disagree but some of us put bird kills at 3 billion each year. We continue to talk green
about bugs from the Arizona desert to the Pacific rainforest. We got a bouton where the king has
agreed that gross national happiness is more important than gross national product and the
cicadas of Borneo provide the backdrop for a new work by the Beclaim mix. The musicians
Pricilla and Barton were claimed. These stories still ahead on the Environment Show.
If you've ever owned a cat you know they sometimes give their owners gifts like dead birds
The question for scientists is are our cuddly lovable cats contributing to a decline in bird populations?
Cat lovers brace yourself. Environment Show producer Thomas Lally reports that some are blaming cats for
harming the environment. In the old battle between cartoon characters, Tweety Bird and Sylvester,
the dopey cat is always outsmarted by the bird but this arrangement is the exception. Nationwide
there are about 60 million cats and many of them are very good hunters.
Feline predation is a very significant problem now and of greater concern is the fact that it will
continue to increase and become a greater problem over time. Daniel Evans is the executive director
of the Point-Rays Bird Observatory north of San Francisco. He estimates that over 3 billion birds
are killed by cats every year, an astounding number that many dispute. Dr. Gary Petronik is a
professor of environmental studies at the Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine. He says
given the threats facing birds like habitat loss, pesticide poisoning and predation from other
animals, cats do not constitute much of a threat. Feline predation for the most part in the continental
US falls pretty low in the totem pole. Dr. Petronik admits some cats do kill birds and that in some
places they can be a problem but he questions how Evans arrived at his statistics.
The person that is writing it is basically sitting there and speculating he says how many cats
are in the United States? 50-60 million. He says some of these never go outside 10%. Well that's
probably not true. We know from a number of surveys that perhaps 40% of all cats are indoor only.
Then it says maybe another 10% or two older two slow to catch anything that leads 44 million
to cats hunting. Basically he is just guessing and he is saying it's impossible to know how many of
these animals actively catch birds and then comes up with his guest and says one in 10 of those
cats kills one bird a day for a daily toll of 4.4 million tomberts. Well it is shocking I agree
but what does it really mean? It is not based on any data, it is based on someone sitting there
and guessing maybe if this was the case this is what would happen. Daniel Evans says it is impossible
to fully quantify these statistics instead he points out the obvious that cats are natural killers
or predators and birds are particularly vulnerable. When you think about the numbers of cats in the
U.S. alone it doesn't take much to realize that there is a potential for cats to have a major
impact on bird populations. I would say these numbers are actually very conservative. All we have
to do is look at the fact that cats were initially domesticated because of their effectiveness as
predators. Thousands of years ago we needed some way of keeping rats out of our houses,
barns and our greeneries and cats were the ideal solution and cats were domesticated for no other
reason initially than their abilities as a predator and studies have shown that even though cats
are well fed they are still instinctively very very effective predators. One of Evans's major
concerns is the emergence of so-called feral cat colonies. These are places where communities
of stray cats live. Sometimes it is in a wooded area near a park, other times it is in a band
in house. Today some cat lovers round the animals up sterilize and vaccinate them before releasing
them back to their home. Evans says he feels for these animals but says they are doing significant
harm to the environment. Feral cat colonies are basically dumping ground for unwanted cats.
People are refusing to take the true responsibility of stopping overpopulation of cats and so the
result is that it is much easier to find a place where we can keep these cats and pretend to be
nice to them and feed them and so very well intended individuals are setting up places where these
cats can be collected and fed and kept outdoors without really taking the full responsibility of
finding them home and stopping the bigger problem which is simply over reproduction of all of our
domestic cats. To an extent Dr. Bertrona agrees he says cats do not fare very well outside instead
they should be kept inside but there are some circumstances where cat colonies can be okay.
All cats probably are better off in their owners home or supervise when they're outside. I think
you know in terms of accidents, diseases running away and never being found. Cats are domestic pets
and they probably do belong in the home. So I'm not advocating that they should be allowed out
where they can in fact damage wildlife and so again we have to realize that there are probably
situations where there may be situations let's say where these colonies can in fact be managed
appropriately where there are not wildlife around that the cat can damage certainly not wildlife
populations or populations of endangered earth-red and species. The debate over cat colonies is likely
to grow since some are located legally on public land. The controversy is more intense in other
countries specifically on island nations like Australia where no or few ground predators ever
existed and cats had a field day. One senator there called for the eradication of all cats by 2020
the proposal was not taken seriously. To be fair dogs are also considered somewhat of a
menace to society. Their feces fowls stormwater and they too are predators. For the Environment Show
I'm Thomas Lally.
Hi I'm your host Peter Burley and you're talking green on the Environment Show. Our number is 1-888-49-green
that's 1-888-49-GR-EEN and today we're talking about bugs. To some their creepy crawly things,
to biologists and etymologists they're probably the things that make nature work from pollinating plants
to disposing of waste. We have two guests with us David George Gordon whose new book is called
the Complete Cockroach. He's a nature writer and he lives in Port Towns in Washington with a group of
about 40 Madagascan hissing cockroaches and Steve Perkle who is founder and director of the Sonora
Anthropod Studies Institute in Tucson, Arizona. David Gordon let's start with you. Why do
someone live with pet Madagascan hissing cockroaches? Well you know in the north west where I live
cockroaches are kind of a novelty act. They're not the same as when I lived in Chicago or have
visited New York where they're everywhere. When I started working on my book the Complete Cockroach,
someone actually mailed me my cockroaches by federal express from Minnesota and these guys are
actually popular pets. I keep them in a nice 15-gill aquarium with a tight fitting top. There's a heater
in there because they're tropical bugs and they keep me company when I'm working late at night.
Okay and why are what are cockroaches roll in the biological scheme of things? Well you know the
Madagascan hissing cockroaches are great reminders that not all cockroaches are pests. In fact there's
really only about I don't know somewhere between 10 and maybe 30 species of cockroaches worldwide that
really plague people. Keep in mind that there are actually 3,500 different kinds of cockroaches
and you have seen each one of them I trust. I've seen as many as I can. When they're not out there
pestering us in our homes they perform a lot of important functions and you mentioned a few
in your introduction. Some are plant pollinators if they were to disappear probably the plants would
go too. Cockroaches are also food for a whole array of animals everything from really small creatures
like predatory wasps all the way up through snakes and frogs and toads and birds up to us a lot
and even humans and probably most important of all cockroaches are recyclers of dead plant and
animal material in the forest. I've seen studies that show that they can consume about 6% of the yearly
leaf fall in one part of the Amazon river basin. Wow yeah that's important. Steve Perkall or
cockroaches part of your activities in the arthropod institute. The Arthropod Studies Institute
is an environmental education organization focusing on the arthropods that occur within the
Sonoran desert which is a very rich area within the country and we've got roaches here some that
are introduced that you find in the city but we've got a roach that occurs here on our grounds
lives out in the desert instead of making a tow men human kitchens it does an enroding burrow.
The females are flightless the males have wings and what what function if we can say that
what are they what role do they play in the ecosystem of the desert? They're decomposers
feeding on rodent species and bits of food that have been dropped in leaf litter and since they
are phosphorial digging down into the ground they help loosen up top soil so that plant roots
breath and seeds germinate eat here. Let's go to the phones and uh
uh Connell I think you're in Tucson are you you're tucking green in the environment show.
Okay great yeah I had a question about insects that eat cacti. Sure. They just don't look very
edible to me and I'm just wondering what types of insects eat cacti. Okay here in uh
was it David I can assume you don't have very many cactus. I don't have strong opinions on this
object living in the right. No cactus in the beautiful rainforests of the northwest.
No wait for that. There's a number of longhorn beetles which eat cactis. There's one the longhorn
cactus beetle is the common name for it. It's a black flight with beetle you see most commonly
during the summer months and it tends to like the prickly pear and choia cactus and then you'll
find occasionally the black and orange longhorn beetle which eats cactus fruit you can see those
depending on the year they go through some interesting cycles some years there around when the
the world fruit is ripe and other times when prickly pear fruit is ripe then there's a moth
whose caterpillar eats a variety of cactus as well. And just following up on the question is the
activity of the insect important in the life cycle of the cactus either for
not um not so much not it's not a uh close relationship like the yaka moth and the yaka which
serves as a pollinator and eats a few seeds but um is responsible for other seeds which mature
on these they're just feeding on the fleshy material of the plants or on the fruit.
Cheyenne I'm kind of curious how they're able to puncture those stick cactus skins
they just chew in through them chewing mouthparts on beetles and they just munch right into them.
Okay well thanks for your call and uh do I understand that that you have somebody with you uh
canela is Dana with you who also had a question I think? Oh yeah yes he is. Okay Dana you're talking
green in the environment show. Hello. Hi there. Hi this is Dana. Sure what's your question?
Um I'm wanting to know if there's any kind of non toxic uh methods of keeping insects out of your
house I'm allergic to all kinds of chemicals but uh I live out in the desert and
okay so you're another another uh dry country person we've heard about boric acid for cockroaches
uh what else is useful? Well you know in my book the complete cockroach I talk a lot about modifying
the environment but before you do it lay down anything the first thing you should do is look at
your home and ask why it's so attractive to bugs and you know in the case of cockroaches it's
because you have heat and probably moisture in the form of maybe a leaky pipe or something
but also lots of cracks and crevices for them to hide so even going around with cockroaches and
sealing some of those cracks and crevices with cocks or a masking tape or what have you will help a
lot a lot of times the insects that we find in our homes are actually ones that are moving into the
home from outside when the environment gets tough for them so looking for ways that they're getting
in and out is probably a good start and um I think uh well you mentioned you have an allergy to
insects which would certainly make that a little more serious um there's also always going to be
a certain level of life in your house I think you'd I'd be suspicious if there wasn't some form of
life moving around besides you or me so you know again the notion isn't to uh to completely
eliminate but to keep things in control okay well thanks for your call let me ask uh let's get
back to cockroaches for a moment sure we don't have much time and I know that a lot of people are
familiar with cockroaches how broad is their range worldwide their cockroaches everywhere you know
because of our own travels we've managed to spread cockroaches very far north and south that they're
even in the steam tunnels and fair banks Alaska you can imagine that but traditionally or typically
their range really is in what we kind of call the banana belt they're equatorial animals and they
really need heat and plenty of moisture so you know once we start getting kind of out of the southern
states in the US uh the number of species diminishes so people are concerned about cockroaches in
their houses is only have to shut off the heat if they live in the northern climbs for a winter or
two and shut off the water and their problems are solved is that interesting when I was researching my
book I discovered I thought my initial thought was boy they must have really been a problem in the
day of Victorian England for example and days before they invented those whopping pesticides but
I learned that actually a lot of homes were so poorly heated that they weren't a big problem they
actually hung around things like fireplaces so that the heat day of cockroaches has only been
more recently as we've been able to develop more pleasant homes well this is particularly good
advice I know that parts of the center of the country have just been clobbered with these cold
spells uh if you're renting a home and uh the uh heat goes off and you call up your landlord he can
simply say listen this is part of my cockroach control program and uh you'll feel better
okay so basically what you're saying I guess is that at least within the American experience
to the extent that you find cockroaches in the colder parts of the world
by the country that's because they got there and then are living in our habitats in shorthand
for the most part there are some native cockroaches species there's one uh that here in the
northwest it's actually kind of an old growth uh cockroach if you will live in uh rotting tree
stumps of old growth forests and it's a very termite like cockroaches so I'm not talking about
that that can actually digest solulose and utilize the nutrients in that um that's a native and
there are a lot of native what we call wood roaches one final question is our time runs out
sure uh you have both spoken about how um these creatures play a very important role in consuming
various forms of organic waste uh you've described the fact that they chew it up and so on
that presumes that something then happens to it they actually reduce its mass do they
does their digestive process then reduce the bulk or what happens to it after they eat it and
digest it but it's just like the food that we eat it's digested reduced in bulk and goes back
into the soil and then um continue to be uh broken down by various bacteria and microbes
and so there are really massive amounts of bulk that go through these creatures as part of the
working of our biological system am I right about that? Oh yeah especially things like leaf cutter
ants which um like David was saying with the the roaches as far as leaf litter leaf cutter ants
are very important for uh taking in leaf litter termites although they're um this through a
couple of species are destructive to houses there's still many termites that are not passed and they're
all forming are performing as uh decomposers taking dead plant material and recycling it and
building top soil great well I want to thank you both my guest has been David George Gordon who is
a nature writer and author of a complete cockroach a book which um all of you must read after having
heard him and Steve Perkall who is founder and director of the Sonora Arthropod Study Institute
in Tucson, Arizona we're talking green in the environment show I'm your host Peter Burley our number
is 1-888-49 green let's hear from you
the
the tiny mountain kingdom of Bhutan is a model of environmental sustainability that's according to
Lee Talbot senior professor in the program and environmental science and public policy at George
Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia he traveled there on behalf of the government of Bhutan the
United Nations and the global environment facility to help develop a national biodiversity action plan
Bhutan hopes to avoid the development pressures which have ruined parts of the environment in some
other Asian countries Talbot says we can all learn a lesson from the Bhutanese Bhutan is a most
remarkable country and the for a number of reasons and it's probably the country that has the
biodiversity most intact certainly of any part of Asia and one of the most if not the most anywhere
in the world I think most of us think about rocky Himalayan peaks and uh interspersed with
valleys is this a fair characterization actually it's a fairly charitable one from a topographic
point of view Bhutan is the most vertical country I have ever seen the top part of it is
is rocks and Arctic uh very very high cold country and then as it runs down from there there are
whole series of very steep valleys with magnificent forest cover virtually over the whole country
except for the valley sides and valley bottoms where the rather small population lives population's
only about 1.6 million at this stage and so what are the kinds of threats to biodiversity that are
the most acute at this point well one threat is the population increase of course but
the threats have been rather uh blunted or put off by what I regard is the extraordinary wisdom
of the leadership of this country Bhutan's absolutely unique in my experience of working in
about 127 countries among other things the the leadership is um an absolute monarchy with
uh a government of a number of ministries and so forth the king has stated and made it policy
that gross national happiness is more important than gross national product that sounds like the
only chief of state of the world puts ever said anything like that I'm convinced it is
would that our country had that kind of wisdom but it isn't just uh oratory uh he's made it stick
and and the government has they for example have stopped most uh commercial logging
and they've stopped a great deal of exploitation of other uh living resources and natural resources
there pending their ability to do it in a in a sustainable way what happened is they've watched
Nepal next door and India um turn their countries into well lose most of the natural resources in
terms of soil forests water and so forth wildlife they've seen um unlimited tourism do
destructive things to the culture and they've decided they don't want that to happen
and so what sort of a plan do you hope to see put together to protect the biological diversity
that you saw there the government's plan or the plan that would be coming out of this
would involve both uh some of the traditional things like protected areas and they have already set
aside a very high percentage of their country um nearly 25% as uh strictly protected areas
and then they want to manage the areas in between in a sustainable way rather than in effect clear
cutting and losing it uh they're trying to control all sorts of development not the least of which
is tourism they're limiting tourists they plan to limit tourists to a maximum of maybe five thousand a year
and they're aiming for in effect high end tourism so that they get the maximum income and benefit
to the country from this the interesting thing about what you say is that our conventional wisdom is
that we need to be pushing capitalism and democracy as a tenant of US foreign policy and what I
think I hear you saying is here's a place that uh operates under neither of those theories and it
may be more sustainable than the folk that do well that certainly is my impression and uh it it does
pose some really very interesting philosophical uh enigma doesn't it?
Lee Talbot senior professor in the program on environmental science and public policy at
George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia traveled to baton as a consultant to develop a
national biodiversity action plan.
Waterfalls rustling leaves bird calls and waves breaking on a shore are nature's music
Composers Priscilla and Barton McClain known as the McClain mix take these sounds and incorporate
them into their music their most recent release is called Rainforest Images available on Capstone
Records last week they told us of a recent trip to the Rainforest of Borneo where cicadas
fill the forest with noises unlike any they'd ever heard today we air the second half of that
interview with Environment Show Producer Thomas Lally but first we hear a part of the composition
which came for the trip most of the sound you'll hear will be made by cicadas
I've never I've heard cicadas here of course but not like these cicadas they sing it dusk for one
hour and that is it and the natives are afraid of them they believe that these cicadas are the voices
of their dead ancestors and they stay away from any spot that they're singing but the insects the
other cicadas also there are many many different kinds but just shrill shrieking all day also and
different ones in different places the I guess the insects are the most tremendous the sound at six
o'clock in the morning it just rise you out of your cot about half a foot we did we did actually in
one place and on the Yulong River Yulong I River we we were literally raised out of our out of our
sleeping but like this one cicada that made the most unbelievable loud sound I've ever heard I mean
much more much more loud than any any bird I've ever heard just unbelievable sound but I would
say that one of the biggest differences is the there's more insect sounds and less bird sounds
right and I think the reason is the insects drown out the birds and it's it's continuous all day long
and it changes from hour to hour it's like listen to a 12 hour symphony and so you had never heard
this before I mean this differs significantly from other rain force absolutely yes very
single although every rain force that I've ever been in around the world is different from every
other rain force oh yeah I mean radically different so an Australian rain force is extremely
different from New Zealand rain force which is totally different from the Borneo rain force so
I assume that they're all quite different but this one has the most powerful
strident sounds I've heard
thanks for being with us on this week's Environment Show I'm Peter Burley
for cassette copy of the program called 1-888-49-Green and asked for show number 374
the Environment Show is a presentation of national productions which is solely responsible for
its content Dr. Ellen Shartock is the executive producer Thomas Lally is producer and Stephanie
Goyceman is the associate producer the Environment Show is made possible by the W.
Alton Jones Foundation the Bullet Foundation the Turner Foundation the furthermore division of
the Kaplan Fund and the Packard Foundation also Heming's Motor Doors the monthly Bible of the
collector car hobby 1-800-CAR-HRE so long and join us next week for the Environment Show
