Hello friends, it's the Environment Show and welcome. A multi-year, four-stage process
to achieve cleaner air has been adopted by two northeastern states. Massachusetts
and New York State moved to implement the stringent California standards. As industry
officials say, not only are they unnecessary, they can't be achieved. Also this time, the
expedition on the Appalachian Trail crosses into North Carolina. And Daniel Cushland,
editor of Science Magazine, offers concern to both media and public about learning about
science through news reporting. The environment show is a national production made possible by
the J.M. Kaplan Fund of New York. And this is Bruce Robertson.
The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act requires all states to meet federal clean air standards.
States in violation of those standards must design and implement a program of air pollution
reduction to achieve compliance. Recently, the state of New York, with a third worst air
pollution problem in the nation, joined with Massachusetts to adopt the California
standard for automobile tailpipe emissions. In making the announcement, New York's Commissioner
of Environmental Conservation, Thomas Jorling, said,
It has a great effect. It has some environmental and health effects. It's economically cost
effective and it also represents sound energy policy. It is, I think, the first time where
we see the marketplace being used to induce alternate propulsion systems for vehicles that
are absolutely necessary from an environmental standpoint, but also from an energy standpoint.
The so-called California standard is actually a set of four graduated phases by which that
state will implement new technologies to achieve cleaner air. The Federal Clean Air Act
already requires the nation to achieve .25 grams of hydrocarbon emissions per mile by
1994. California has made this effective by 1993 one year earlier. The Federal standard
goes no further. However, in 1994, the year the Federal regulations kick in, California
will require standards twice as stringent to it. In 1994, 10 percent of the new cars
sold in California must emit only .125 grams of hydrocarbons emissions per mile. The second
stage begins in 1996. .125 grams of hydrocarbon emissions per mile will be the standard for
20 percent of the vehicles, up from just 10 percent. In 1997, the third stage requires
25 percent of new vehicles sold in California to meet what are called LEV or low emission
vehicle standards. .075 grams of hydrocarbon emissions per mile. Also in 1997, 2 percent
of vehicles sold in California will meet ULEV or ultra low emission vehicle standards
of .04 grams of hydrocarbon emissions per mile. The fourth stage will come in 1998. .48
percent of new cars sold in California in 1998 will have to meet the LEV standards of .075
grams of hydrocarbon emissions per mile. And that is also the year of the Zev, the electric
car. 2 percent of the new cars sold in California must emit 0. No emissions, nothing. These then
are the California standards, now required in Massachusetts and New York. Joining says the
program will be phased in just as it will be in California, with a minimum of inconvenience
or new costs to the consumer. There is substantial likelihood that the sticker price on the vehicles
beginning in model year 1995 and after will not even reflect any changes as a result of this
program. Most of the increased costs would go to installing an EHC, electrically heated catalyst.
Most of the internal combustion engine's pollution occurs in the first few minutes when the engine
and the catalytic converter are cold. Using a second battery, the EHC would heat up the converter
instantly to super hot temperatures. Dr. Marcel Halberstadt is Director of Environmental Affairs at
the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association. Assessing the potential new costs, he cites a 1991
study prepared by the Automotive Consulting Group, an independent research firm in Ann Arbor,
Michigan. They project incorporating all of the costs of the system, not just the cost of the
catalyst or an extra battery, but all of the costs of the system. They project a range of 822
to $1,045 for implementation of this technology. In fact, according to the same study, a copy of which
we have obtained, since 1968, $1,400 have been added to the sticker price of a new car to cover the
costs of federal emission requirements. The report concludes that car sales could decline up to 15%
as a direct result of the EHC requirement. Commissioner Jorling strongly disagrees.
The real story is that if you look at industry's claims before a public policy is adopted,
they are always rather horrendous, sterecony, and kinds of horror stories that they present.
In fact, once the policy is established, the industry gets on with doing it in the most cost-effective
manner possible, and I don't see any difference here. The fact is the real cost of this program
is going to be relatively low, even with the zero electric vehicle, the zero emission electric vehicle,
which we, by this program, will require 2% of the car's sold beginning in model year 1998.
That vehicle at its absolute cost and a conservative estimate will be something on the order of $1,200
additional. But because that vehicle is such an improvement in operation and maintenance,
the consumer will get that money back in the first year of operation. So everything after that
first year is going to be actually a cheaper vehicle. The argument carried by the motor vehicle
manufacturer's association is that vehicles have already improved by 96% over what they used to be.
The current debate, they say, revolves around the last 4%, and even some of the 4% will be taken
care of under the new Clean Air Act requirements. What we are talking about, says Dr. Helberstadt,
are just a couple of percentage points. The question really is, is it really cost-effective
to build vehicles to meet the federal standards that have been promulgated in the latest Clean Air Act,
which the industry supported? Or do we want to go that extra tiny step to gain that extra
tiny additional potential improvement in air quality by adopting the California standards at what
we believe is an enormous additional cost?
Jorling says the MVMA is not really concerned about the added cost to the consumer.
In fact, I think what Detroit's real concern is that they've seen alternate
manufacturers of electric vehicles crop up in this country in abroad, and there's going to be
competition, and they're afraid of that competition. But we're going to see the real value of the
free market system applied here, and we're going to see vehicles come into the system that are
manufactured by other than the Detroit manufacturers, and that's going to produce, among other things,
a much cheaper vehicle than the ones we're seeing now.
Helberstadt counters, saying the industry does not yet have the technology required to achieve
these goals. Both he and Jorling agree, though, the law will be technology forcing, meaning
where there is a will, there will be a way. New York is just the second state after California
to make such requirements. Many others may join in coming months and years. One interesting observation
offered by a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board is that these standards are
admittedly very stringent, perhaps too stringent to achieve realistically under the hood.
This, says the spokesman, will perhaps force engineers to design cars that burn alternate fuels
instead, fuels that do not emit the hydrocarbons or nitrous oxides. Thus, achieving the same result
using different tactics, which, say environmentalists, is the real point. This is Bruce Robertson.
A seven-member team of hikers from the Sierra Club is making its way north along the Appalachian
Trail, as we speak. The expedition expects to reach Mount Catadon in Maine at the end of the trail
in September. The event is a celebration of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Sierra
Club. In a weekly phone call, Keith Tundrack, on Trail Coordinator for the expedition, joins us now
from Franklin, North Carolina. Keith says the expedition has run into some very bad weather.
The last time I talked to you, I think, was back on day three. We were a Neil's gap. That's down in
Georgia. Since then, we had a rain on day four. We went to a place called Low Gap Shelter.
And then on day five, it was pretty interesting. We ended up getting to a place called Unicoid Gap,
Georgia, and got a vicious hail storm. The hail was just helping us at hurt and covered a ground
to a depth of about a quarter-inch with hail. But we kept on schedule and made that shelter.
Two nights back, we were at a place called Standing Indian Shelter. That was our first night
in North Carolina. We'll cut that next morning to a nice one-inch of snow and hike 15 miles
that day in combination of snow that turned the rain and the rain on it all day long. So it's been
rough. Last night, we had a freeze and clothing froze, but this morning it got sunny and we're
drying some things out and hopefully the weather will get a little better. Keith, let me ask you this.
It's probably difficult at this point. You're trying to adjust to the pace of the trail and the weather
that you've been running into, the first leg here. But as you're trekking along, are you thinking,
what are your thoughts about the environment and the things that you're seeing, the mountains and
the air and the wildlife that you come across? Well, I should say, a brief first off, our time in
Georgia was excellent. We found the Blue Ridge Mountains in North Georgia to be very beautiful.
I was actually surprised with the wilderness-like quality that they had. The views from the
summits were excellent. We saw a lot of nice forested land. We saw very little trash. The trails
were really well maintained and it was a real good feeling to be down in the southern
Appalachians. And I had a pre-conceived notions that maybe they weren't going to be as pristine as
they are, but it was really nice. And the locals were very nice. We had a real good feeling
of Georgia and in the North Carolina, the same thing. It's a real nice wilderness. We've seen some
deer, some growls, things like that. So we haven't seen wildlife. It's just a good feeling to know
that here it is in 1992, but still there's wild places to be found here in the southern Appalachians.
All right, Keith Tondrick was on trail coordinator of a seven-member expedition going along the
Appalachian Trail to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Sierra Club Keith. We'll be talking
with you from time to time quite regularly. I'm good luck in the next leg. Thank you very much,
Bruce. Okay now, bye-bye. Bye. Keith Tondrick, the Sierra Club is celebrating 100 years of activism
founded by John Muir on May 28th of 1892.
The Environmental Protection Agency is grappling with a cleanup of many superfund sites throughout
the West. Some residents of one town in Colorado wish the EPA would just leave them alone.
Leadville and the surrounding 16 and a half-square miles has been declared a superfund site, and the
EPA is concerned that metal contamination in the ground poses serious health threats. Becky Rumsy
reports, though, Leadville with its hard rock roots is full of hard feelings for the EPA.
When the EPA made Leadville a superfund site in the mid-1980s, it had little experience with
mining districts. To the town, the designation was a slap in the face. Leadville was already
facing huge layoffs and tough economic times. A century of miners honeycombed the Leadville district,
they extracted gold and silver, molybdenum and zinc. They left waste dumps, tailings piles,
and old smelter remains. The EPA says the town is full of heavy metals and wants to clean it up.
At the EPA Region 8 office in Denver, Project Manager Ken Wongarud explains that the agency is
especially concerned about Lead and residential soils. Over the last 100 years, a lot of activities
been done where people just moved this fine-grained sandy material. An unbeknownst to them were moving
around metal-laden materials to build driveways, grade lots, slags from one of the large smelters
here were screened out for road-sanding material. Longarud says Lead could be a health hazard to
children who live in Leadville. The agency is still gathering the data it needs from the site before
it can determine what action to take. The problem is that during last summer's field season,
only about a third of the residents the agency contacted would grant access to their property
for sampling. It's very hard to understand that there's a problem when you can't touch it,
feel it, taste it, smell it. That doesn't mean there might not be a problem. Some of the effects
may be subtle and you can't measure them very well. Recent studies have linked high-blood lead levels
in children with hearing losses and learning disabilities. In 1989, the Colorado Department of Health
studied Leadville school children. 40 percent had Lead Levels, the Federal Centers for Disease Control
considers cause for concern. But the remedy it recommends is a Lead Education program,
something Leadville already has. So while many people in Leadville are concerned about Lead,
they're also frustrated. I just really feel that over the last eight or nine years, what EPA's done
in this community is a crime. It's a really big brother. And more often than not, they really don't
know what they're doing. Carl Miller directs the National Mining Hall of Fame and Museum. A former
minor in County Commissioner as well, Miller expresses the feelings of many Leadville residents.
They say the EPA hasn't demonstrated that an actual health risk exists yet, and that the agency
has little to show for the nine years and the millions of dollars it's spent on the site so far.
I'd like people to keep in mind that on large projects like this, everything doesn't get solved
Longa Rood says that 15 major scientific studies are underway in Leadville and that a new 20 million
dollar water treatment plant will go online this spring. The plant will keep heavy metals from
hundreds of old mind drainages from going into the nearby Arkansas River. Once all the studies
are done, it could be another year before the EPA decides what to do to clean up Leadville.
In the meantime, results from another blood led study of Leadville children will be out this spring.
Becky Rumsy reporting for the High Plains News Service, a production of the Western
Organization of Resource Councils in Billings, Montana.
Whether it's coffee or carbohydrates, US industrial capacity, or science and technology,
no matter what the subject, the media are obligated to get the facts and report them both honestly and,
well, factually. Not always an easy charge. Human nature gets in the way with egos, biases,
and emotions. The story itself might also get in the way, or at least pose great challenges.
Namely, what are the facts and which ones are, if you will, more factual than others.
At stake here is not only the public's right to know, but also the credibility of the media.
Daniel Koshlin, editor of the Distinguished Journal Science, says the challenges are indeed great.
I think one of the things that I feel strongly is that reporters should start to get a little
bit behind the story. They obviously have to present something briefly, but if somebody comes
out and says, Allar is very dangerous, much more dangerous than the EPA is claiming, I think a
reporter ought to buy just natural instinct ought to say, what's your new study? What is the data
on your study that does this? Is this just a public press release? Or do you really have a new study
that your organization has sponsored? How many rats were involved? Why is your study better than
the EPA report? In other words, too often the reporters quote, just a source, and some of these
sources are very accurate and present the data very responsibly and others are sort of have an
axe to grind. I think reporters sometimes sort of know the axe to grind of industry which tends to
want to downplay any alarms, but they forget that there's an axe to play of public interest groups
who want to accelerate any alarm. They get members by having people scared. And that doesn't
mean that either group is evil. The industry wants to put out a product and would like to sell it
and the public interest groups want to alert people to problems that maybe industry is suppressing.
But when somebody comes out with a new report, I think it is responsible to the press to say,
what kind of data have you accumulated that you're calling a press conference and releasing
this information. But as reporters, we are charged to ask the same questions of the scientific
community holding it to the same standards. And as the science of ecology gets increasingly
complex, asking for and understanding the facts is getting harder and harder to do while at the same
time more and more important. In fact, Kaushlin says the pitfalls are even more dangerous when reporting
on science. For example, dioxin was, you know, hyped as being very, very dangerous. And a lot of
scientists write in the early beginning said it was being overdone. It was being blamed for a lot
of problems, birth defects at Love Canal, which everybody knew were just statistically
not very different from the general population. And then entire times beach was emptied out because
of so called dangers of dioxin. And nowadays it sort of is clear that it has nearly as dangerous
as people thought. So I read in one famous magazine, namely Time, that they were sort of blaming
the scientists for changing their opinion. Well, in fact, a lot of scientists said right from the
beginning, it wasn't that dangerous. But a lot of other scientists did change their opinion because
their new study came out showing, in fact, with, you know, hundreds of rats, even thousands of rats,
that in fact it wasn't as dangerous as people had previously thought. So scientists do change
their opinion if there's new data and a new exfluent experiment. What we are up against, no doubt,
is our entrenched belief from earliest elementary education that science is the study of, or at least
the quest for, provable facts, precise measurement of fluids, accurate weights, split seconds,
exact temperatures and the like. But whereas we know that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit,
zero degrees Celsius, calculating the effect on humans of man-made chemicals like dioxins,
or predicting the rate, the causes and effects of global warming is much more difficult,
if only because we have not observed the processes for as long as we have watched water freeze.
The problem, says Kaushland, is that too often scientists are extrapolating, saying something like,
well, we have watched water freeze a thousand times at zero degrees Celsius, and that must be
its freezing point. We have measured global temperatures for the last 50 years, and things are
getting warmer. Therefore, the earth must be heating up. I'll give you one example, which I think
does happen a lot in the press. A lot of these dangers are something like one in a hundred thousand,
this chance of one in a hundred thousand. If you say there's a certain kind of obscure
cancer that has one chance in a hundred thousand in the population, the population of the town of
Hanford, Washington, where nuclear power plants is about a hundred thousand. So if two people get
cancer in that town, there are frequently headlines saying all of a sudden cancer is double the
national rate, but anybody who's flipped a couple of heads in occasion gets two heads in a row,
which is very improbable, will tell you, well, of course, that will happen one out of every four times,
and the press frequently will pick up a report by a scientist who should be more cautious,
but who will say, now, look, this is very dangerous, have nuclear power around because there's
double the national cancer rate here. Well, one out of every four years, you will have something
that's double the national cancer rate, and one out of every four years, you'll have something that's
half the national cancer rate, and in between you'll have probably about the cancer rate
with those kind of statistics. And so that's the kind of thing that you're getting into in some
of these studies. You're no longer in a situation where from glass of water half full, you're running
a large experiment and trying to extrapolate into the future on very limited data. And the same
is true of global warming. You have to go back over the fossil records and things of thousands of
years to really be sure that it is caused by what things we're doing in the environment
as compared to just sort of trends in the over the centuries.
Koshlin says when reporting on a story, the media must be clear to the public about the credentials
of the so-called experts called upon to give more information. Clear not only about the credentials,
but also about the expected point of view. The record of the witness, even though both of them
have a PhD in their scientists, I think is also relevant. Is this somebody who has been telling us
consistently that this is a terrible danger or this is something we can ignore? Or is this person who
sort of takes the data in each case? So that's not easy for reporters, but I think in these highly
controversial areas, that is probably what the kind of digging the reporter really ought to do.
It's sort of like you expect to hear one view from, say, George Will and another one from
Sam Donaldson. Exactly, exactly. Daniel Koshlin, biochemist and editor of Science,
considered by many to be the nation's leading science journal. Koshlin spoke to us from the
University of Massachusetts Amherst, where he received an honorary Doctor of Science degree recently.
Dr. Koshlin is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Royal Swedish Academy
of Science among others. He leaves us with this. No, to talk to her once said, the public will always
believe a simple lie and preference to a complicated truth. And the truth in some of these matters
is really very complicated. This is Bruce Robertson. And that's our report this week on the Environment
Show for a cassette copy of this program called 1-800-767-1929. This week asked for the Environment
Show number 117-187-1929 program number 117-18. The Environment Show is a presentation of national
production solely responsible for its content. Dr. Alan Shartock, executive producer,
this is Bruce Robertson. The Environment Show is made possible by the JM Kaplan Fund of New York.
