Hello friends, it's the Environment Show and welcome in Washington.
Politicians play a numbers game.
The 104th Congress busy changing the numbers on key environmental bills, how, why and to
what effect will have the story.
Also Ken Goddard, author of Wildfire, a frightening look at one possibility.
What I have written about is an extremist environmental group who have used the human beings
as being more of a virus than a youthful part of the environment.
And their viewers, the only way that the environment can recover, that Earth can recover, that
the animals will be back and things to be as they're supposed to be, is to have a
quenching fire.
The Environment Show and National Production made possible by Hemmings Motor News, the monthly
Bible of the Old Car Hobby, 1-800-C-A-R-H-E-R-E, and by the J.M. Kaplan Fund of New York.
This is Bruce Robertson.
Which rose is press secretary to Alaska Senator Ted Stevens.
As Republicans, repaired a takeover leadership of both houses of Congress, one of Alaska's
Republican Senators, Ted Stevens, reserved the number 39.
He will be using it to identify a piece of legislation he will be working on, Senate
Bill number 39.
The problem says Lenny Combe, director of the last Great Wilderness Project, S-39 is a
bill he has been working on.
They are not the same bill at all.
The last Great Wilderness Project has been pushing for federal action to prevent oil and
gas drilling in the coastal plain and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge of Alaska.
Combe says there were 134 co-sponsors in the house and 30 in the Senate of a bill that
would accomplish just this.
Combe says it looked good.
I felt secure in the 103rd Congress that it certainly wouldn't be opened up for drilling,
while the makeup of the Congress was as it was and certainly not while the current administration
is in office.
I felt relatively secure that there would be no development.
What did make me nervous was there didn't seem to be enough activity even on the side
of the environmental organizations or the members of Congress to really get this thing moving,
that is to get final wilderness designation for the coastal plain.
I felt that it was a great opportunity to do that and we had a timetable which would
have taken us up probably for another year and a half from now and by then we would have
hoped to have had it done.
But the Great But, the elections of 1994 kind of changed things.
What's happened?
Since the elections of 94, the 104th Congress that is the incoming Congress, of course
everyone knows has a Republican majority and that is not bad in itself, but what is bad
is that all the committee chairs changed.
First of all, in the House of Representatives, the new chair of the Natural Resources Committee
is Congressman Don Young of Alaska and Congressman Young for as long as I have been involved in
this issue has been the one that has introduced any legislation that would open it up for
oil and gas development and he is now the chair of the Natural Resources Committee.
So that's a big problem for us.
Another big problem that we have is that in the Senate, the same thing happened.
The Energy and Natural Resources Committee is one of the committees in the Senate that
would have jurisdiction over that issue, either development or wilderness and that is now
being chaired by Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska.
Senator Frank Murkowski was also the one who was the author and primary sponsor of the
development bills when they have been in Congress.
So certainly that situation with the two committee chairs that we have to face are going to
do everything they can, certainly to stop any wilderness legislation and we would imagine
will probably do what they can to open it up.
Do we understand in fact that they have already done a great deal that you would not count
it on?
Yeah, they have done some things.
Certainly they have been busy.
I understand from my friends and colleagues in Washington that the oil lobbyists are
very busy on the hill and gearing up for a big effort.
But one of the things that really bothered me and I sort of expected it but still it
is a very scurrilous action.
What happened was Senator Ted Stevens, the other senator from Alaska, the senior senator
from Alaska went in to reserve a number from the clerk of the Senate.
We have had the same numbers on our bills for as long as I can remember.
It's been HR 39 in the House and S 39 in the Senate.
And just before our champion, Senator Roth of Delaware was going in to reserve the number.
I understand it was five minutes before.
Senator Stevens went in and reserved S 39.
So that creates a very big problem for us.
Presumably to use it for some other legislative piece, some other time that may have absolutely
nothing to do with the protection of the coastal plain and the Arctic national wildlife
refuge.
Right.
In fact, it may have in mind using it for a development bill and that creates a very
big problem for us because-
House, House, House, House, House.
Well, we've worked really hard over the past seven years on building up this network of
people who care about this area across the country and they have always been writing
letters and talking about HR 39 and S 39.
And what bothers me is that these people will probably continue to write and they may ask
their Congress people to support S 39, for instance, which could very well be a development
bill.
As we heard, Mitch Rose in Senator Stevens' office says guilty as charged.
Indeed, Senator Stevens did go in and did grab number 39.
For years it's been used as kind of an anti-Alaska bill lock up and war, make it hard for
us to use our lands and our rights.
But I think the environmentalists will be happy with the outcome, however, because we're
reserving S 39 to introduce reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation Act.
And basically that is the act that deals with federal oversight of fisheries off the coast
of the United States.
And the goal of our legislation is to reduce the enormous waste and bycatch that we're seeing
in the fisheries, just off the coast of Alaska.
In fishery we waste as much as 740 million pounds of ground fish.
And Senator Stevens wants to put an end to that.
So I think the environmentalists can still put out their letters and maybe for once they'll
get behind an effort that we're doing and they can still extoll the virtues of S 39.
It won't be their bill to lock up Alaska and to take away jobs and domestic oil production.
But it will be something that they can get behind and that is the protection of our fisheries
species and hopefully they'll support us on that.
Is there something important about getting number 39 or could the Magnuson Act reauthorization
have been assigned a different number than 39?
Was 39 critical?
Was that part of the plan to get 39?
Well as I said before, 39 has always been kind of used as a bill number that has been
against the vast majority of Alaskans interests.
Here was a way to turn the tables and to show that indeed this is a bill that the vast
amount of Alaskans support and it's a bill that we think is very important.
So yes, I think we took that number because it's a number that's always been identified
with Alaska here in the halls of Congress and now it can be identified with taking some
proactive steps to help maintain our thriving fishing industry rather than locking up our
resources which was the goal of many of the environmental groups that you've spoken
with.
We've also reserved that's 49 which is obviously we're the 49th state in the union.
So we do this all the time, various numbers that have some meaning to Alaskans or to the
Senator.
It's very common in all Senate offices to make those choices.
There's always a big bidding war of course for S1.
Usually Senator Dole in this case the majority leader will have rights on that that Senator
Mitchell I'm sure had back in the beginning of the last Congress.
So it's nothing new to the Capitol to try to tie numbers to bills but the most important
thing obviously is what the bill actually achieve.
The number is secondary.
It may be secondary to those inside the hallowed halls of the Capitol but Delenny Combe changing
the number represents a dirty trick style campaign.
We think that one of the reasons they did it was they did a similar thing on the Johnson
Wallet bill.
They initially introduced it under I can't remember the number it was 741 or 714 or something
like that and then they gave that about a month and then they pulled it and re-used
it and gave it a whole new number which was number S1221 and knowing full well that
we environmentalists don't have much money and all our material had been printed and everything
had been sent out.
And so now at that point we had to go back and redo everything and now we're facing
a similar situation.
Apparently then little difference between the Democratic 103rd and the Republican 104th.
Delenny Combe director of the last Great Wilderness Project, one of many organizations active
in seeking legislative protection of the coastal plain and the wildlife refuge on the North
slope of Alaska.
Mitch Rose is press secretary to Alaska Senator Ted Stevens.
Whatever happens in the 104th Congress regarding environmental legislation it would seem the
best strategy regardless of your opinion of a bill would be to focus on the issues and
not how they are packaged.
This is Bruce Robertson.
The provincial Canadian utility Hydro Quebec has announced a major breakthrough in electric
vehicle technology long known in the news for its controversial hydroelectric generating
projects planned in the area of James Bay.
Hydro Quebec says it is found a way to make electric cars really viable.
German Harbeck is project manager for this research.
He says it's a bit like reinventing the wheel.
The motor is the wheel the wheel is the motor and by way of contrast to existing technologies
how is this different?
There are quite it depends on what you are comparing.
If you are comparing strictly with other motor wheel projects we claim that we have a high
torque which means the motor could push very hard on the car without any addiction gear
addiction box.
So what you have here is an electric drive for each wheel as opposed to a power station
that drives all four at the same time.
That's right there is a motor in each wheel so it is continuously operating for wheel
drive.
And how is this more efficient than the technology that we otherwise have been working with up
to now most of those who build electric vehicles where you have a power house that drives
all four at the same time?
One of the major point to improve efficiency is by removing the mechanical power train.
There is no more mechanical power train because the motor is directly in the wheel.
You have only two bearings in each wheel supporting the car and all the losses in this mechanical
system are simply not there because there is no such parts.
And technically speaking how is it that you will assure that the wheels will be all turning
at the same ratio, the same rate?
The function of the central processor unit which is a simpler computer which controls
on a real time basis each wheel on a very accurate weight and that is doing the job.
How far away from mass production would you say this new vehicle with the four wheels driving
would be from being available in showrooms?
We are still developing the power train in the lab I should say.
But let's say that most likely in five years from now it could be on the road.
It's curious how is it that a provincial utility would get involved with a vehicle technology?
I'm thinking are you here in essence creating for yourselves a new market that people who would
be driving electric vehicles would need to get charged up somewhere and where better to go than
hydro-cobach?
Someone at hydro-cobach Piaquitzer though the one should give the name to the power train
at that idea more than 12 years ago you know.
And the major point is that we are not developing a new car.
We are developing a new power train and this is an electrical power train.
And as this was within our expertise in the electrical engineering power engineering
and software so that is why we concentrated on that and not on the development of a new car.
Would you have enough to supply everyone who it's probably safe to say that not every driver
would be driving an electric vehicle there will be other types of power that we will use but
those who choose the electric vehicle as their preferred choice other than gasoline or fossil fuels.
If they were to choose the electric would you have enough power to supply their needs?
This will be known in the planification for the forecast of the demand because we will see that
this technology is coming up and as I mentioned that we are in the few percent increase in the
energy demand over relatively long period of time so normally the planification could
take care of it. If you felt that in your long term planning that you would fall short of
the necessary electricity to supply this new and growing market would you foresee building new
capacity? Yes because the hydrocarbac mandate is to fulfill the electric needs for the old
promise of Quebec but it will be the same nevertheless in that state so also all public utility you
must forecast the demand and try to fulfill it. Would you see perhaps then if you got a forecast
picture that showed a new need an increased need capacity would you see the reopening the
Great Whale project for example? I don't know I can tell I'm really unsure of that it will be
within the planning and normally we have many options with quite so many projects and depending on
the forecast for the energy demand increase it will be within the portfolio project that we have
so I don't know which one could be selected. But it's a possibility? It's a project which is known
from everywhere I don't know what would be the final decision about hydrocobac. Great Whale is the
multi-billion dollar project to build a series of dams on rivers flowing into the Hudson Bay.
The project recently postponed by Quebec Premier Jacques Parizot would have resulted in the
flooding of vast tracks of land owned and used by native Cree and Inuit. Parizot said there was
no need for the electricity that would have been generated by this project. Great Whale also known
as James Bay had been opposed by environmentalist worldwide. Harbeck said should electric vehicle
use increase demand it is conceivable that Great Whale might get a green light. For now he says the
vehicle is still in the prototype testing phase. The project is called M4, four motors, four wheels.
This is Bruce Robertson.
Cousette copies of the Environment Show are available by calling 1-800-747-74-44.
Ask for this week's program number 259. That's 1-800-747-74-44. The Environment Show program number
259.
It is only a book. It is only a book. It's fiction. You keep reminding yourself this. As you read
Ken Goddard's recent book Wildfire, he calls it a novel. Director of Fish and Wildlife's Forensics Lab,
Goddard has seen enough in his real life to write a dozen more like it. The storyline is nearly
too terrible to tell. What I have written about is an extreme environmental group who
views the human beings as being more of a virus than a youthful part of the environment.
Their view is that the only way that the environment can recover, that Earth can recover,
that the animals will be back and things to be as they're supposed to be, is to have a
quenching fire. Even more frightening says Goddard, the idea came from someone who holds this view.
Of course, there is a tremendous difference between concept and action. At least this is what
you hope as you read. This is fiction, after all. Or is it? The premise of the activist environmental
group is out there. These are people at least there's a small number that I'm aware of who
hold this view that the only way to deal with the environmental issues is ultimately to eradicate
what man has done to the Earth and start over. This is a real possibility because a technology is
getting to the point where things are possible. I dreamed up a piece of technology,
small nuclear devices made with nuclear waste that would basically design to use heat,
milk, gold out of veins. You'd basically drill and inject a number of these devices,
one of which would trigger the next one to keep the heat going and melt the gold out so it'd
be accessible. What the premise I used was that this environmental group would manage to get
their hands on these devices and set them in the forest, the next number of miles apart from each other
so that one fire would trigger the next fire and go over several thousand miles. I don't think
that technology is there at this point but certainly a doable piece of technology. That's one of
the scary parts about it. As far as the agents go, it's all perfectly real. We have covert teams.
That's exactly how they work. The lab is real. I run it. I just hope we don't have to run across
these types of characters in my career or lifetime. Yet we have seen examples percariously close to
those stories and episodes outlined in your book Wildfire that you just put a chill in most of us.
For example, during the Gulf War, the oil fires that were set, we believe were set not in the
heat of battle but quite deliberately. Is that one of the examples that you see?
An exact example. That precise thing which you can use something like an oil spill or the
wells to either hold a group of bay or to hold a country as hostage. You hope the environment
is hostage really. You can not just threaten the oil, the air, the land, water, resources,
wells, aquifers. There's a undenining list of things that you can do against larger groups of
people and all within the existing technology, biohazard, chemical hazard issues.
Why do you suppose we haven't seen more of this when we've seen many episodes on a consumer
level of tampering with medications and all of the different things that have happened as a result
as we've tried to protect ourselves from that. You've just mentioned we've got aquifers that supply
thousands of not millions of people. We've got airsheds. We've got water tables. We've got fishing
grounds. We've got just a long, long list of places where with a minimum amount of work, a great
deal of damage and great effect could be achieved. Why suppose these things have not been...
Well, my first of all is that that's such a, such a suicidal self-destructive act. One,
you've got to presume we live in the environment you're destroying. Number two, you're not going to
bring people onto your side if you're trying to convert people over to your beliefs. You're going
to do exactly the opposite. Those of survival will be completely turned against you.
It's a type of thing, from my viewpoint, that takes a almost a religious fundamentalist
fever that you've seen with some of the previous events out there that intends
to believe in what you're doing that you don't care about your own death or about the deaths of
others or about the environment. Clearly, Saddam Hussein didn't seem overwhelmingly concerned about
the environment when those wells were torched and the oil was dumped in the Gulf. It takes that
type of personality for that kind of destruction, but those personalities are out there.
Ken Goddard, a forensics expert with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Forensics Lab where he investigates
the illegal killing of protected animals with his other hat. He is a writer and author of the
recent book Wildfire, an enthralling, fictional account of what could happen with the right technology
in the wrong hands. It is available from Forge Press. This is Bruce Robertson.
That's our report on the Environment Show this week. Glad you joined us. Make a note tuning
again next week for more news on the environment. The Environment Show is a presentation of national
productions solely responsible for its content. Dr. Alan Shartak, executive producer,
our thanks this week to production assistant Linda Anderson. Next week, good news in North
Carolina, Georgia Pacific and the Nature Conservancy. We hope you'll join us. The Environment Show is
made possible by the JM Kaplan Fund of New York and by Hemings Motor News, the monthly Bible of
the Old Car Hobby, 1-800-CAR-H-E-R-E. And this is Bruce Robertson.
