Hello friends, it's the Environment Show and welcome.
A report on the Johnston Wallop Senate Energy Bill this time, also truly biodegradable
even edible packaging foam, the kind that used to be polystyrene pellets.
Also this time a shake up at the National Audubon Society magazine, new editor Michael
Robbins wants to catch up where the readers are.
I feel very strongly that after years of being a kind of, well not exactly a peripheral
concern but certainly not a mainstream political concern.
I think the broad based environmental agenda is really moving to center, the center of
national and international concerns.
A conversation with Michael Robbins this time on the Environment Show, we hope you'll
stay with us, the Environment Show is a national production made possible by the J.M.
Kaplan Fund of New York.
This is Bruce Robertson.
The war in the Persian Gulf region brought home the realization that the United States is
still without a comprehensive energy policy.
But a new bill before Congress might bring about some change, called the Johnston Wallop
National Energy Security Act of 1991, the legislation could significantly alter both current
energy policy and regulatory oversight.
More on the story from Bob Reha.
The Senate Energy Committee has already approved the legislation, but a major fight over
the bill is expected when it reaches the Senate floor later this summer.
Upon its contend the proposal will only increase America's dependency on fossil fuels and
are considering a filibuster to kill it.
The sponsor Republican Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming concedes the National Energy Security
Act will have a difficult time.
It seems absolutely unbelievable that those who continue to pontificate about America's
lack of an energy policy would seek to stime me the process of democracy at the founding
father set up that you propose it, you debate it, you amend it and you pass it on.
I think this is a perfect example of democracy for the few.
Senator Paul Wellstone, Democrat of Minnesota.
I think the more people get to know about this bill and the more people get to know about
what the administration is proposing, the less they're going to like it, the less they're
going to like it because they're going to see it's all for the big companies and they're
going to see it's not for small businesses, it's not for consumers, it's not for environmental,
it's not for our children.
I mean it isn't at all.
Among Wellstone's concerns are provisions that will weaken auto fuel efficiency standards,
open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development and cancel $10 billion
in debt owed the government for past uranium enrichment services.
The other part of it which I think is really egregious is that some parts of the bill actually
strip away citizen participation like one step licensees a nuclear power plant.
While up dismisses Wellstone's criticisms as quote utter rubbish, he says the bill
is one of the most balanced pieces of legislation he's seen in his 13 years in the Senate.
It takes into account production needs new technology conservation and the most forward
election piece of legislation that I've ever worked on.
Gene Wurtz is a board member of the Western Organization of Resource Councils which
opposes the bill.
Wurtz farms in North Dakota's coal country.
He says there are only token efforts in the bill addressing new technology or alternative
energy.
If there are any provisions in this bill for renewable energy, it's more on a small scale
level and for export.
I think there are provisions that make it more advantageous to export that technology
than to use it right here in this country.
According to Wurtz, the proposed energy bill is a big wish list for the energy industry.
He notes the legislation contains perks or pet projects for every section of the country.
North Dakota's perk would be a program to demonstrate the feasibility of underground
coal gasification.
Wurtz says the project is reminiscent of the failed coal gasification plant the government
built near Bula, North Dakota.
That plant costs American taxpayer billions of dollars and I don't think we as taxpayers
want that to be happening all over the country.
Any more than we want it to be happening in North Dakota because it's not very sound
energy policy and it's a boondoggle.
Wurtz believes Congress must develop an energy policy that is best for the nation and not
individual states.
The Johnston Wallup National Energy Security Act is expected to come before the full
Senate in early September.
For the High Plains News Service, I'm Bob Rihaw.
The High Plains News Service is a production of the Western Organization of Resource
Councils which is based in Billings, Montana.
The idea of paying green taxes instead of income taxes has been offered as a way to generate
income for the running of the government while at the same time act as an incentive for
us to reduce our pollution and waste.
It is what economists call internalizing the externalities, that is incorporating the
environmental cost of the goods and services we produce, thus giving us a true picture of
what these goods and services are costing the earth.
Here with some thoughts is Tracy Mian, Director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
So longer can a thriving industrial society view environmental costs as mere externalities
or costs born by others not parties to a given market transaction or activity.
Peter Drucker, America's leading authority and corporate management, declared in 1989
to treat environmental impacts as externalities can no longer be justified theoretically.
Otherwise, there is no incentive to avoid polluting.
Polluting without paying for it in Drucker's words confers a distinct competitive advantage
on those who pollute the worst.
Internalizing the externalities, a bad phrase, but one that makes good sense because it
allows prices to reflect environmental costs.
These costs may be hard to ascertain, but costs they most certainly are.
They may emerge downstream or manifest themselves only in the next generation, but they are real.
Jack Kemp once said, if you tax something, you get less of it.
If you subsidize something, you get more of it.
The same reasoning could be applied to the utilization of pollution fees or green taxes
as a mechanism for raising revenue and minimizing waste and pollution.
Due to neutral pollution fees, substitute it for existing taxes on income and productivity
could provide a vehicle for incorporating environmental costs into our goods and services.
Traditionally, America has relied on command and control regulatory techniques to establish
a minimal environmental standard.
While this standard must stay in place, the law of diminishing returns is now catching
up with state and federal agencies.
To enforcement, hold some prejudices against ever-expanding bureaucracy and limited funding.
These factors are making it difficult to achieve further gains in the quest for greater protection
for the environment.
Establishing a self-enforcing market mechanism such as pollution fees would do more to encourage
industry to minimize waste and reduce pollution.
At least two environmental groups have endorsed green taxes as an alternative to existing
taxes on productivity and enterprise.
The World Watch Institute, headed by Lester R. Brown, is one as is Project 88, a bipartisan
policy study directed by Robert Stavins at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
Pollution fees are green taxes offer a promising opportunity for the left, right, and center
to meet on neutral ground and to forge a new environmental policy for the next century.
Tracey Mehen, director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, he spoke to us from Jefferson
City, Missouri.
His comments are one of a series of environmental essays from state environmental department
executives.
Last year, the San Francisco-based Consulting firm Land or Associates published results
of an opinion survey on the National Audubon Society.
The report was not received well at Audubon headquarters.
Overall, the study said, the society is viewed by the general public as being ineffective
and narrow in its scope.
To most, the report said, Audubon conjured images of bird-watching and bird protection.
But since the founding of Audubon about a hundred years ago, environmental concerns have
expanded.
In fact, in a recent announcement of pending changes for Audubon magazine, arguably a leader
in the field of environmental reporting and photography, Peter Burley, Audubon president,
said, the whole character of environmental issues and environmental journalism has changed
in recent years.
And he said, the competition in the magazine world has also certainly changed.
In a massive shake-up that has included staff firings, a reordering of priorities, and
even the design of a new logo, Burley recently named Michael Robbins as new editor-in-chief
of the journal.
Robbins comes to Audubon as former editor of Oceans Magazine and writer for National
Geographic and the Washington Post, among others.
We reached Robbins in New York City during his first day on the job.
Congratulations to you are in order for taking on your new position.
You come to Audubon with such qualifications.
How might we see the magazine begin to change under your tenure?
What I think the direction in general terms, what I think the direction of the magazine is
going to be, is a kind of examination of the effect, the sort of fate of the environmental
agenda.
I feel very strongly that after years of being a kind of, well, not exactly a peripheral
concern, but certainly not a mainstream political concern.
I think the broad-based environmental agenda is really moving to center, the center of
our national and international concerns.
And one of my feelings about this magazine that led me to come here was that the implications
of that were not really being, of that movement towards center station effect.
We're not really being explored in this magazine.
And I think that's a sad thing because I think this magazine has been the premier magazine
in terms of environmental coverage and attention to the natural world.
And it seemed to me that that agenda really needs to be examined and explored very fully
from a lot of different points of view and international perspectives as well as national
perspectives.
Robyn says neither politics nor journalism has understood the issues.
What is needed now, he says, is a magazine that has caught up with its readers.
I think the citizenry of the country, the people of the country are generally speaking
away out ahead of the politicians on this issue.
And I think politically we move too slowly.
And I think that, you know, all of the poll, many polls indicate that this is a major
concern, number one, number two, concern of many, many people in this country.
Robyn's takes over as editor, the position left by Less Line, last March.
Line who had edited the magazine for 25 years says up to a year ago some changes had been
anticipated.
During that time says Line, the Lander study was completed and a team of experienced editors
was hired to apply results of the Lander findings.
I thought that we were in a fairly straight track, straight and fast track to make certain changes
in the magazine to reflect some of the comments on the Lander report.
In March, Peter Burley, the Audemont Society president and publisher, just simply pulled
the rug out from under me and said, sayonara.
Well, let's be a little bit more clear here.
The study, the Lander research, basically you were in agreement and you were willing to
make some changes?
Yes, I was willing to make changes.
In fact, changes in Audemont magazine are nothing new.
It's evolved.
Rementlessly since I took the book over in 1966, any magazine has to evolve to stay fresh,
to keep its readership.
Changes are not new.
I was perfectly willing to make any changes that would not jeopardize the magazine's reputation
as an independent voice for conservation and the environment as a place where people
found good journalism, good literature, excellent photography and writing.
I think, however, that based on some of the comments on the Lander report, some of the complaints
that I heard, more than regular basis from my colleagues on the National Audemont Society
senior staff, comments from certain board members that they really wanted Audemont magazine
to be more of a glorious house organ for the National Audemont Society to promote the
Audemont Society's agenda to make the Audemont Society look good in its pages and at the end
of the magazine's editorial independence was predestined.
Line says during his tenure, the mission of the organization changed greatly, moving from
strict nature conservation to developing programs on national energy policies, acid
rain, solid waste management and such.
But says line, I guess my personal concern is that perhaps the organization has gone so
far in that direction that it's lost a sense of its roots, that it's, that it's, jettisoned
its tradition of being America's number one organization in defensive nature and working
for wildlife habitat protection and concerns for endangered species like the bald eagle.
There are a lot of, a lot of young science types and lobbyist types and bureaucrats in
the organization these days that don't really have much contact with nature.
And as Peter Burrowie told me when I was called in for the dismissal speech, my, I personally
was too much concerned with traditional areas like nature and natural resources and wildlife
conservation and that, that wasn't where the society's future lay.
And no doubt that struck you as somewhat ironic that a nation, one of the nation's premier
environmental organization should be steering away from nature.
Yes, it did.
In his new position, Robbins aware that environmental action has evolved into highly complex sciences
and political thinking says he is mindful of tradition.
I think that's to the good.
I mean, I think the devotion to some of the things the Autobahn society and the magazine
have done in the past is a good thing.
And I don't, I wasn't, you know, brought on board to say, one man, you know, demolition
crew.
I'm not that.
And that's not what we have in mind.
Just because, you know, you're going to move to address some issues in some different ways
and, you know, explore some, some current ideas.
It doesn't mean that everything that's gone before is invalid and is going out the door.
That won't happen.
And the way you address those things is through a, you know, very carefully considered balancing
act.
While Robbins may feel he is riding the crest of a new wave of environmental activism,
line says the public may very well be looking for change, but not the kind Robbins expects.
I personally believe that the public's interest are concerned in so-called green issues actually
takes before the 20th-Earth Day celebration.
And that the 20th-Earth Day celebration, because there was so much hoopla, because there
was so many corporations involved, because it was really a media event, may have even succeeded
in souring a large part of the American populace against the environmental movement.
Less lines speaking to us from his home in Namini, New York.
We also spoke with Michael Robbins, the new editor of Audubon Magazine, with many environmental
organizations facing loss of revenue this year, some say in part due to the Persian Gulf
conflict, it remains to be seen what direction is charted by organized environmentalists,
and what it will take to get there.
Starting on the new and the old, this is Bruce Robertson.
If you think this crackling sounds like your breakfast cereal, you're pretty close.
It's actually ECHO foam, a biodegradable packaging material made from cornstarch.
With my laboratory assistant here, Karen Kelly, we're going to run an experiment through
the course of this piece.
Karen, we've taken a stainless steel kitchen bowl, the kind you'd find in any kitchen, and
about eight inches in diameter, filled it up with some water, and I want you to take
a handful of these packaging foam things and throw them in there.
See what happens.
Okay.
They kind of look a little bit like large seating noodles, but they have a styrofoam type
texture, the plastic texture.
I can see the ZD.
Right away, they're starting to decompose their foaming up a little bit.
We'll be coming back to this experiment throughout the course of this piece.
ECHO foam was invented by the National Starke Company, but says John Blackburn, National
Marketing Manager, its discovery was not planned.
They were doing some experimenting with how to make cereal crispier and have an extended
bowl life when their milk was put on cereal, and they were using some special high-bred
starches that are not regular type starches, but a special high-bred starch, and they
have an extruder there in their laboratory.
They were extruding out this starch, and it came out very resilient and then foamed up,
and it looked a lot like polystyrene.
ECHO foam may be hardy, but it still dissolves in water, or milk.
It is edible, if tastiness is not a consideration.
But its real purpose is to replace polystyrene or styrofoam peanuts.
Those white plastic objects may still be in the landfill's 10 or 20 years hence.
They are made of cellular rigid plastic that does not decompose.
We'll check in now in the progress of our experiment.
Karen, what seems to be happening in our kitchen bowl here?
Looks awful foamy to me.
Yes, looks kind of like soap suds, although there are large pieces that still resemble
ZD in there.
They are definitely breaking down.
I also noticed a smell, a bit of a smell coming off of the water that smells a little
bit like paper when it breaks down in water.
Well, it is definitely decomposing though, and foaming up looks like the soap in your bath
water.
American Excelsior, the company that now makes ECHO foam, started producing the plastic
peanuts about 25 years ago.
Now Blackburn says 70 million tons a year are used by packaging companies and consumers.
In the market since the summer of 1990, some major corporations and packing supply stores
have started using ECHO foam.
However, those who purchase it must put environmental concerns ahead of saving money.
ECHO foam cost compared to other products is about the same as paper type products or
popcorn type products.
They all will cost an industrial user about the same.
However, ECHO foam and paper and other types of natural type products do cost maybe two
times as much as polystyrene peanuts.
Therefore, if you are using or a polystyrene, and you are not concerned about the environment,
then you are not going to change to a product like ECHO foam or a paper type product because
it is going to cost you more.
Because of this discrepancy, American Excelsior still makes polystyrene packaging materials,
but Blackburn says the two products appeal to different types of consumers.
We still make polystyrene peanuts and they don't really compete against each other.
Everybody says, well, ECHO foam competes against polystyrene.
Actually, it is just the opposite.
They do not compete against each other because if a customer is going to use polystyrene
peanuts, they are going to use it because it costs them less than half as much as they
are ECHO foam.
Then there is another segment of the marketplace that is not going to use polystyrene peanuts.
This is the area that we are looking for.
We are looking for those customers that don't want to use polystyrene peanuts because
of the environmental problems of using a plastic product.
These companies, since they are not going to use polystyrene, they are probably going
to use paper type products or some other type of an environmental friendly type of product.
This is where ECHO foam can come in.
For those concerned about waste, this filler could be ideal.
When the puffed corn is made, the germ is used for corn oil.
The hull becomes animal feed and the starch is made into ECHO foam.
So far, at least one problem is evident.
The filler only decomposes when it gets wet.
If it is covered in an airtight landfill, it will not break down.
So your best bet is to either use it again or spread it on your lawn.
Let the rain wash it away.
Karen, we have been working this experiment for the course of this piece and what is the
progress in our kitchen bowl?
Well, it pretty much looks like soap suds at this point and I think I have narrowed down
the smell.
It smells just like paper mache, the stuff you used in kindergarten.
That is it.
Exactly.
I was trying to put my finger on what that smell was, paper mache.
The soap suds which had been actually more bubbles before us.
Now almost a flat bubble.
The bubbles are very, very small.
There is hardly any chunks or any kind of solid material there at all, right?
Okay.
ECHO foam, a biodegradable packaging material for the Environment Show.
This is Bruce Robertson.
Thanks to our laboratory assistant, Karen Kelly.
Thank you.
Well, that is our show for this week.
We hope you enjoyed this edition of the Environment Show.
The cassette copy of this program can be obtained by calling 1-800-767-1929.
Ask for Environment Show number 82.
The Environment Show is a program about the environment, the air, water, soil, wildlife,
and people of our common habitat.
The Environment Show is a presentation of national productions which is solely responsible
for its contents.
Dr. Ellen Chartock, Executive Producer, this is Bruce Robertson.
The Environment Show is made possible by the James Kaplan Fund of New York.
The Environment Show is a program about the environment, the air, water, soil, wildlife, and people of our common habitat.
