Hello friends, it's the Environment Show and welcome.
The final organizing meetings before the Earth Summit have concluded without agreement
and little to show much work remains if this historic event is to be successful and significant
will have a report.
Also controlling insects and rodent pests without toxic chemicals can be more effective, cheaper,
and less of a human health threat.
And watching the federal government reverse itself on many environmental regulation policies,
many are worried that we are undoing much that has taken decades to achieve.
New York State Environment Commissioner Thomas Jorling has some thoughts.
The vision for the future says things can change, should change and with proper leadership
will change in a manner that will enhance the quality of life of even the poorest among
us.
These reports this time on the Environment Show, a national production made possible by
the J.M. Kaplan Fund of New York and this is Bruce Robertson.
The meeting was supposed to have ended in agreement and relief with the complicated work
finished.
Instead, participants came away in sharp disagreement and burdened with even more work yet to be done.
The negotiators found the longer the talks dragged on, the more there was to negotiate.
The meetings at the United Nations were the latest and last of the Preparatory Committee
meetings in advance of the June Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.
The so-called Prep Combs have been going on now for two years.
After two years, little has been settled, says Barbara Pyle.
I think it was, yeah, I really hate to say this, but I don't think that it went well.
Barbara Pyle is vice president of Environmental Policy for TBS cable television in Atlanta.
She was one of several thousand who took part in the recent meetings.
A document nearly 1,000 pages long was the center of discussions and disagreement, called
Agenda 21, the document details a plan to save the Earth in the 21st century.
However, while there is little disputing the need for action, there is little agreement
over how to pay for what will be needed.
How to pay and who will pay?
So 160 nations are slated to attend the Rio Summit.
Lines of disagreement are dividing between the developed nations of North America, Europe,
Australia, and Japan, and the developing nations, generally in South and Central America,
Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
Simply put, the developed nations are accused of overconsumption of natural resources.
The developing nations are accused of failing to manage those natural resources.
Meanwhile, international negotiations have been ongoing over three new treaties or conventions
to be ratified at the summit.
These treaties cover forests, climate change, and biodiversity.
Negotiations on these conventions have not been going well either, says Pyle, as again
sharp distinctions between developed and developing nations are drawn.
Negotiations over the three conventions will continue right down to the wire.
Negotiations on the climate convention especially are crucial, says Pyle.
If we are not able to reach an agreement on climate change, the entire Earth Summit
is in jeopardy.
It is the pivotal treaty, and it is the treaty that is really blocking progress in a lot
of other areas.
We've made progress in some areas, but in most areas we haven't made progress.
The goal of the prep comm was to come out with an Earth Charter and an Agenda 21.
The Earth Charter was defined as to be a statement of philosophy, of a new relationship between
humanity, human beings, people, and the planet.
What we've ended up with now is a 26-point set of principles that are so far away from
a charter that a lot of the NGOs, this is the non-governmental organizations that are
lobbying and working at the Earth Summit, don't even want the thing to be called an Earth Charter
anymore.
They wanted to be called the Rio Declaration.
This is admittedly a complicated sequence, but essentially what has happened is this.
The Summit in Rio de Janeiro was to have been the occasion for the signing of the three
new international treaties.
These treaties would be legally binding.
In addition, the Summit was to have ratified the Massive Document called Agenda 21, which
you might think of as the Constitution.
The preamble, if you will, of this Constitution was to have been a short, elegant, Earth Charter.
However, this too was hotly debated.
Many of the developing nations insisted on expanding the charter beyond a broad environmental
statement to include economic assistance statements as well, which is in fact what has happened,
in keeping with the official title of the Summit, the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development.
The expanded charter is now called the Rio Declaration and is laid out in 27 principles.
The text of the Declaration, the preamble, was accepted at the recently concluded Prep
Com.
However, Agenda 21, the Constitution, was accepted only with many, many brackets, that is,
members saying, well, accept this for now, we'll take up discussion on the bracketed items
again at the Summit itself.
Catherine Porter is another who attended the recently concluded Prep Com 4 at the United
Nations.
She is chief executive of the U.S. Citizens Network, a very large, non-governmental organization.
NGOs would like very much to see fundamental change, a real quantum leap in the way we
look at the issues of environment, in the way we look at global development.
And frankly, NGOs are very frustrated with the slow pace and lack of leadership we see
by the U.S. government.
The network, based in San Francisco, represents over 500 organizations, the National Law
of the Bon Society, to care, to the United Methodist Church, and the YM and YWCA.
Porter says, though the sessions did not accomplish the full agenda, there is a lot to be said
for the effort at trying.
For the most part, we're disappointed at the substance of the documents that are coming
forward, but in fact, the process is good.
Governments are discussing the in and relatedness of environment and development issues, of
sustainable development in ways that they never have before.
What's clear, I think, is that citizen groups, not governments, are providing the vision,
the alternatives, the special opportunities that we have to make a difference.
While governments are still considering the politics of damage control, or preservation
of power, and increased access to the world's resources.
As we said, the greatest disagreements have been economic ones, not only the price tag,
but even more, on what to spend the money.
Porter says these are the real issues.
The countries in the South, of course, know that they can't spend much attention on the
kinds of environmental improvements that we'd like to have them do.
In fact, they can begin to feed and take care of their people.
And that, of course, is the critical discussion at the Earth Summit.
Barbara Pyle, who is also executive producer of the International Documentary Series at
Turner Broadcasting, has written and produced numerous documentaries and documentary series,
such as The Daily Reports, called Earth Matters, and the films The Day of 5 Billion, and
Without Borders, among others.
She describes the problem posed by logging in the tropical forests of Brazil, one scenario
representative of this struggle between developed and developing economies.
The problem is it's not fast and it's very labor intensive, and it's very easy to just
sell off logging rights and be done with it.
But the problem is, when you cut down the trees, you cut down the future.
Pyle has been watching this happen for at least five years.
Specifically with the tribe of Indians by the name of the Kayapo, and with the leader
by the name of Paulino Piacon.
And I've seen radical change happen over the past five years when I first went to make
a film about them, the film is called Without Borders.
The people were pretty much living in balance with nature with a very small desire for western
goods, a few watches, fishing hooks, flip-flops, that sort of thing.
And when I went back, I found a very rapid accolteration.
I'd say probably in a culture that you would predict would take place in maybe 50 years
happening in only five, where the much increased desire for material goods from the indigenous
people themselves.
And the reason that this is happening is the native peoples can't flee any further.
The logging words have been portrayed so deep now into their so-called demarcated land
that every tribe is being affected.
Even as some of the villagers are beginning to develop extractive reserves, harvesting
native fruits from the forest, the trees are being cut down all around them by logging
companies, at least some of the wood being shipped north to the United States and other
developed nations.
On the table at the summit is an extensive plan to reduce demand for this wood, while
also increasing the market for renewable products.
At this point no one is willing to bet on the outcome of the summit.
All are hoping for more than pomp and circumstance.
Now high are the stakes?
Pile puts it this way.
It is time to stand up and be counted.
The I had a state must know that the United States and the citizens of this country care
about the environment.
They are not, I don't believe that the people are being negotiated for.
I believe that it's business is usual.
And they've stoned wall for two years and even though there were a few slight compromises
in this last prep comm, it's not enough.
And if we're going to, we're not going to have another earth summit in time.
Any major expert gives us only 10 years to sort of mend our ways and start with a new
plan for the planet.
Basically almost a Bretton woods of the environment.
Bretton woods was one of the conferences planning the rebuilding of Europe and Asia after the
Second World War.
Out of this was established institutions such as the International Monetary Fund.
The changes within the Kaya Potrive are documented in a new film to air soon part of the series
Network Earth on TBS.
Check your local listings.
Barbara Pyle is vice president of Environmental Policy at TBS in Atlanta.
We also spoke with Catherine Porter, executive director of the U.S. Citizens Network in San
Francisco.
President Bush so far has not committed to attend the summit.
However, one final note, the U.S. Senate recently overwhelmingly passed a resolution sponsored
by Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, officially asking President Bush to attend.
This is Bruce Robertson.
All across the nation, lawsuits are pending stemming from the effects of various pesticides.
Those who manufacture the chemicals say the toxic effects result from the misuse of compounds.
Those who have suffered say the only way to avoid ill effects is to practice disuse of
the pesticides.
Whether we as human animals use or do not use chemical pesticides, in the end, for a variety
of reasons, insects and rodents remain a problem.
Entomologist Dr. Albert Greene with the General Services Administration in Washington is
pushing something new, IPM.
No, it's not some new chemical compound being tested on society.
IPM is integrated pest management.
The bottom line here is to employ the least toxic methods of pest control.
There's basically two issues.
pest control used to have only one overriding concern, and that was the elimination of
vermin.
People didn't really care very much about how it was done.
The exterminator would come up with a spray can, and that would be the end of it.
Now environmental compliance issues of health and safety, indoor air quality.
This is now the overriding concern, and therefore the challenge is to do effective pest control
in the least toxic way possible.
This isn't something that we generally consider as a problem.
Of course, unless there is a visual problem, we see the building overrun with insects or
rodents of some kind.
It's something that we just don't think about.
Most people don't until the roach drowns in their coffee cup.
That in a sense was part of the problem because traditional pest control is carried out by
an exterminator who shows up and sprays whether it's needed or not.
This is part of what we're trying to eliminate.
Is this mindless application of pesticide as if spraying was an invisible shield that somehow
conferred protection until the next time the exterminator comes?
What myth, of course.
What would be wrong with an ounce of prevention method of the game?
It isn't really a prevention.
When somebody comes in and sprays the baseboards of a room with pesticide, most of the roaches
in that room will never in their lives cross over that baseboard.
In fact, pesticide has been applied needlessly and has not really affected pest control in
that facility.
Even though the occupants may think that it does and feel unprotected if they don't see
the exterminator.
Then what you're saying is that not only is it not effective to, say in this case, roaches,
it is negatively effective to the human beings, the occupants of the building.
Well, let's say there is that potential, especially if there's a space spray, if there's any
sort of fogging involved.
This type of material can very easily get into the air handling system and be whisked
throughout the building in minutes.
It's just not necessary to put people at any risk regardless of what it might be.
The toxic effects can run a wide gamut from skin irritations and rashes to breathing disorders
and other internal organ dysfunctions.
To avoid these reactions, Dr. Green has been experimenting with IPM in 100 federal buildings
in Washington, D.C.
The first thing that we do is we eliminate spraying on schedule.
Pesticides are essential in what we do, but they are applied only as needed, not according
to schedule.
So you are advocating one part of the program would be continuing to use certain types of pesticides,
but not in the way that we have been using them in the past.
Exactly.
You can use the analogy of pesticides being used in traditional pest control programs
through a fire hose and we advocate a rapier approach.
Okay, so one program would continue to use certain types of pesticides.
What are some of the other possibilities, other tactics?
Well, in addition to modern pesticide use, which would be heavily on baits and non-sprayed
formulations, we also advocate a coordinated program of cleaning throughout the institution
of solid waste management procedures that stores the waste in a building so that it is pest
proof, a program of sealing up crevices through which pests can access.
And similar programs simply to make the indoor building environment less attractive for
pests to live in.
Dr. Green suggests we look for and use containerized baits, such as the commercial product combat,
instead of sprays or dusts.
Generally speaking, he says it is simply not necessary to use organophosphate compounds
or even the carbomate compounds such as Baygon.
Green says he is most concerned about the proper use of whatever method we might be employing.
He says most chemicals, in fact, are quite safe if they are used strictly according to their
label.
In the end though, he says it is far safer and cheaper to use the least toxic method.
Methods he is using in Washington and over the next few years, in up to 7,000 federal
buildings across the nation.
Buildings that represent a work environment for up to a million Americans.
This is Bruce Robertson.
During the Reagan and now the Bush administration, environmental protection efforts have suffered
a series of setbacks.
There was Secretary of Interior James Watt.
More recently, Vice President Dan Quayle's competitiveness council designed to reduce
government regulation and intervention in environmental protection, particularly in
modifying the Clean Air Act and redefining wetlands.
Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency itself reversed an earlier ban on certain
types of suspected carcinogenic agricultural pesticides.
Well, those who have fought for increased protection wonder where we are headed.
Here with some thoughts and concerns is Thomas Jorling, New York State Commissioner in
the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Unfortunately, the president's new deregulation policy basically says that environmental protection
is inconsistent with and counter to a thriving economy.
We do not have to relax our environmental standards in order to achieve growth.
In fact, sound environmental standards enhance economic growth and make good economic policy.
There has never been a vital economy or a healthful community in an environmentally degraded
area.
With direction and leadership, we can lead the world with the development of alternative
energy systems, most specifically in the production of cleaner, more efficient cars.
We need national leadership that encourages the private sector to do all of the tasks
that are necessary in a thriving economy, but in an environmentally sound way.
We do not need leadership that supports non-sustainable technology and wasteful energy production
and use.
Yet, the federal government has not provided that direction, and as a consequence, states
like New York and California have taken the lead in technology forcing legislation and
regulations that have established what technologies are necessary and consistent with a sustainable
future.
But I think the president's deregulation policy should alert all of us to what can be viewed
as a chink in the armor of the environmental movement.
The environmental movement had its roots in the late 60s and early 70s, a period of almost
a hundred percent achievement that resulted in very significant changes in national and
state policy.
But in some important respects, the environmental movement has not kept pace with the dynamics
and facts of our economic and environmental life.
They are making themselves an easy target for the criticism that says they are only interested
in preventing progress from occurring, and they are ignoring important yet competing public
policies.
The environmental movement must address these competing public policies, and most especially
address the problem of urban population, a population that has a high percentage of
minority and underprivileged citizens who are the most impacted by adverse environmental
conditions.
It must speak for these populations, for the interest and concerns of the communities
in the cities who are most impacted by environmental degradation, and who would benefit the most
from good sound environmental controls.
But these concerns should not mask the overall orientation of the environmental movement,
which is optimistic and premised on the notion that while we must work to limit population
growth, we can support the population of the globe in a manner that is sustainable and
produces a high quality of life.
We hear the environmentalists saying, yes, we can produce energy cleanly and efficiently.
Yes, we can change people's behavior from a throwaway society to a conserving society.
We can produce products in a chemically tight system.
Using this optimism into policy takes political leadership at local state, at national and
international levels.
The vision for the future says things can change, should change, and with proper leadership
will change in a manner that will enhance the quality of life of even the poorest among
us.
Thomas Doreling, New York State Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation,
his comments another in a series of occasional essays heard from time to time on the Environment
Show.
This is Bruce Robertson.
Well, last summer, the nation celebrated the 75th anniversary of the official formation
of our national park system, signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson in 1916.
This year, the Sierra Club, marking an anniversary of its own, has mounted a five and a half-month
hiking expedition, the length of the Appalachian Trail, from Georgia to Maine.
Along the way, the seven-member team will be holding a series of what are being called
celebrations in various towns and communities near the trail.
Keith Chandrick, on trail coordinator of the expedition, joining us now for a weekly
trail report, tells us about the first of the celebrations.
First of all, Keith, where are you?
Right now, we're in Hot Spring, North Carolina, Bruce.
We're on day 23 of this journey north.
So still in North Carolina, hidden toward that Tennessee line in another five days or
so.
Now, we should remind our listeners that this entire expedition is in celebration of the
100th anniversary of the founding of the Sierra Club in 1892.
And because of that, you are scheduling a number of special events or what you're calling
celebrations along the trail.
And you had a major one that happened just recently in Cherokee, North Carolina.
Yeah, we did.
At Smokemont Campground, which is in the Great Smokey Mountain National Park, we had our
first truly on trail celebration.
The theme was our national parks.
And it was a good turnout whether it was clear and cold, at least we didn't have any snow
that day.
So it was an enjoyable event.
We had some bluegrass music there, some Sierra Club speakers and everybody from the team
of course had a chance to talk.
So, and some good food.
So it was a very entertaining and enjoyable celebration there.
What was the theme of this presentation?
It involved the national parks because indeed we were in the Great Smokey Mountain National
Park, one of the two parks that the Appalachian Trail does go through on the way to Maine.
And looking at the importance of the national parks and the importance of preserving our national
parks and taking good stewardship of them so that they will serve as places to relax and
to enjoy nature for not only our generation but future generations.
Speaking of experiences on the trail, what have been some of your thoughts this past week?
Um, essentially, we're seeing that spring is finally starting to hit Bruce.
As you know, and as everybody knows, it's been a tough early spring in terms of weather.
We've seen the whole gamut across the Smokey.
We had lots of snow at times.
We were hiking in a foot deep of snow.
And finally we're seeing the first signs of spring.
The lawn fliers coming up, the temperatures are warming.
It looks like today, it's cloudy, but I think we're going to see temps maybe up into the
upper sixties.
So we're starting to feel that spring coming on and that's really a helpful forest and
we're excited about maybe jettishing some of this heavy clothing.
I was just going to say that's a good welcome news, especially when you're living outdoors
and having to rely or at least keep an eye on the weather.
Be that.
Alright, Keith, good to talk to you again.
We'll check you next time, Keith Tondrick on Trail Coordinator for the Sierra Club's
Centennial Appalachian Trail Expedition, speaking to us from North Carolina.
Talk to you next week, Keith.
Alright, thanks a lot, Bruce.
Bye-bye.
Bye.
The Sierra Club is celebrating 100 years of activities, founded on May 28th of 1892.
That's our report on the Environment Show this week.
We hope you enjoyed our show.
The Environment Show is a program about the environment, the air, water, soil, wildlife,
and people of our common habitat.
Tondrick has set copy of this program called 1-800-767-1929.
Ask for the Environment Show this week program number 119.
That's 1-800-767-1929 program number 119.
The Environment Show is a presentation of National Productions, which is solely responsible
for its contents.
Dr. Ellen Chartock, Executive Producer, and this is Bruce Robertson.
The Environment Show is made possible by the J.M. Kaplan Fund of New York.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0