This is the Environment Show. It's about our stewardship of the Earth and the beauty
and mystery of life in all its forms. I'm Peter Burley.
Coming up, a medical researcher finds frightening correlations between people who apply pesticides
and increased birth defects in Minnesota. In our continuing series on climate change,
we hear from people who say it's a mistake to make big policy changes to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. Ranger Rick. The Rikkunu has taught kids about nature is 30 years old. The
mass bandit has to deal with computers as he reaches middle age. And to the Earth calendar,
we watch the leaves turn in Kentucky, where there are more varieties of trees in that
one state than in all of Europe.
Dr. Vincent Garri is a professor and director of Environmental Medicine and Pathology at the
University of Minnesota. He's been doing research on the correlation between certain agricultural
chemicals and birth defects. What he did was to look at the registry of births of those babies
who had a parent that was a pesticide applicator. That means either a person who applies pesticides
for a living or a farmer who puts chemicals on land or crops by himself.
Our first studies were a computer-based riccapt linked study between pesticide suppliers and their
children and their state birth registry. In that, in my particular instance, what you're able
to recover are birth defects found at birth. In general, what we find is that if we divide our
state of Minnesota up into several different areas, one involving two involving agriculture and
different types of agricultural practice in the other, in more forested areas, we find that in the
agricultural areas, the rate of birth defects is higher than in our more urban or forested areas.
In addition to that, when we look at certain kinds of crops, we find that the highest rate
of birth defects occurred in the region where we do sugarbeats, potatoes, and wheat.
And then if we have a look at the fellows who are pesticide suppliers, you find in general
the rate of birth defects is higher among them and then that is higher than the people living in
the communities where they come from. Specifically, Dr. Gary reports that birth defects among
the children of pesticide applicators are about one and a half times greater than in babies born
to people in the surrounding community. He found 20 to 30 defects out of about 35,000 applicators.
In addition, he found that birth defects among the general populists in the agricultural northern
and western portions of Minnesota were in turn about one and a half times higher than folks who
lived in forested and urban areas where pesticides are not applied. Looking further, Gary found
birth defects among children of pesticide applicators varied, both according to the time of conception
and sex. We focused then on northwestern Minnesota and when we did that, we looked at things like
when the child was conceived and we found that there's a seasonal variation
in that children that are conceived in the spring, you're more likely to find birth defects.
That's first thing. In that area, we also saw that in general among the suppliers, there's
generally more males that have birth defects anyhow, but in the suppliers, it was even more so.
Gary then looked for correlation between the increased birth defects and particular types
of pesticides that are being used. We used another database to look at what was applied where,
in terms of pesticides. In the region where we saw the highest birth defects, which also had the
highest usage of chlorophenoxy herbicides and fungicides in our state. Dr. Gary emphasizes that
what he is found is correlation and not cause. Determining causes the next phase of his research,
which will require getting out into the communities and involving families and specialized medical
studies. Many of these are focus-sefort considerable hardship last spring through the flooding of the
Red River Valley, a site which many of us saw documented on national television news. A year and
a half ago, researchers Colburn, Dumunowski and Myers published a book called Our Stolen Future.
It recounted increasing evidence of the impact of endocrine disruptors, those are chemicals that
have an effect on the reproductive system of animals and humans. While some attack the book as
hyperbole, correlations between birth defects and exposure to pesticides, such as those found by
Dr. Gary indicate that we need to know a lot more about agricultural chemicals before we ignore
those who are sounding in alarm.
The issue of global warming is receiving more media attention than probably any other topic.
Many scientists are warning of a three to four degree increase in surface temperature over
the next century, which could cause severe climate change. Meanwhile, there are others who say more
data needs to be collected and that taking enormous steps to reduce carbon emissions without
knowing all of the facts could hurt the U.S. economy. In our continuing series of reports on global
warming, the environment shows Steven Westcott reports on those who take a more conservative approach
toward the issue. Many in the scientific communities say the one degree increase in overall global
temperature is a direct result of industry, the burning of fossil fuels and automobile emissions.
This is one of the major beliefs of scientists who also say that if measures aren't taken to
reduce emissions, global climate could rise as much as four degrees by the year 2100 causing droughts,
floods, and other catastrophic weather conditions. But not everyone in the scientific community agrees
with these theories. Henry Lyndon is professor of energy and power engineering and management
at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago and director of the Energy and Power Center
at the Private University. He believes the one degree rise in temperature over the past 100 years
is attributed to a recovery from what he calls the little ice age.
There was a period from 1400 to 1900 AD when global surface temperatures were substantially lower
than normal. And so two thirds of this one degree fair and high temperature increase since the
mid-late 1800s occurred prior to 1940 when there was hardly any emission of greenhouse gases yet.
There were much more emissions were 20 percent of what they are today or less.
While some say the centuries warmest temperatures are happening now and are a result of global warming,
professor Lyndon says statistics show the warmest period actually occurred in the 1930s.
Professor Lyndon also disagrees with those predicting a three to four degree temperature increase.
By his calculations, Lyndon says surface temperatures will rise less than three degrees
and says many scientists are over estimating the negative effects.
The problem with these higher numbers that you see floating around is that they assume a lot
of positive feedback effects as a result of some warming such as a cloud formation increased water
content in the atmosphere. One molecule of water in the stratosphere is 500 times more
effective as a greenhouse gas as a molecule near the surface.
Professor Lyndon says 97 percent of the greenhouse effect that maintains the global surface
temperature at livable levels is due to water vapor. He says increased water vapor could increase
cloud formations. Lyndon theorizes these additional clouds could help reflect many of the sun's
rays keeping temperatures cooler. He also takes issue with the predictions of severe weather.
Lyndon says there is no statistical evidence showing that such catastrophic changes will occur.
Meanwhile, there are some that believe the U.S. will benefit from overall temperature increases.
Among them is Thomas Moore, an economist and senior fellow with the Hoover Institution,
a conservative think tank at Stanford University in California. More maintains the country's
transportation systems will improve as a result of global warming.
To the less-know-it-ice on the roads and the winter would facilitate both automobile traffic and
truck traffic reducing accidents and improving delivery of goods and services and making it
life easier for people to get to work and get around. Let's shoveling us now is a good thing
for most people. And the heating bills would get down in the winter more than any increase in
summer temperatures would push up air conditioning bill. In addition, Moore believes the quality
of life in the U.S. will improve. He says people will likely live longer since, according to Moore,
residents of warmer climates live longer than those in colder areas. Moore says he is concerned
that the U.S. will take steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions while developing countries
conduct businesses usual. He has afraid the American economy might suffer as a result.
Gail McDonald, president of the Global Climate Coalition, shares Moore's concern.
GCC is an industry-oriented organization representing some 230,000 businesses.
While some say you can have both a reduction in carbon emissions and economic prosperity,
McDonald says recent studies, such as those conducted by Wharton Economics, show adverse economic
impacts if too much is done too soon. We see, you know, as I say, higher cost of living for
individuals, for some industries, devastation and imperatives to move to developing nations where
there would be no increased prices. And as I say, significant impacts that would work all the way
through the economy, much as you saw in the 1970s when oil and gas prices were so high.
Industry groups and their supporting companies are conducting huge ad campaigns warning Americans
of the potential economic effects they believe will occur. McDonald does not believe mandates from
the federal government are the way to reduce carbon emissions. She believes voluntary initiatives
and market-based efforts are the best way to reduce emission problems. Something she says many
businesses have already started. They have been able to cut both emissions and their use of energy
substantially in the last 20 years. And recently, one of our larger organizations, the Iron and
Steel Institute pledged to take an extra 10 percent off its processes in the next 10 years.
So these are businesses who believe that there will be significant economic impacts to a treaty
that requires legally binding targets and timetable. McDonald says Americans should become
involved in the debate because as she and others at GCC say, the global warming issue has
environmental and trade consequences that could impact us all and our children. I'm Stephen
Westcott for the Environment Show.
Stay with us, Ranger Rick is turning 30 and the trees are red and contact you.
The Environment Show is a national production made possible by the W. W. Alton Jones Foundation,
the Packard Foundation, the Turner Foundation, the JM Kaplan Fund, the Oliver S and Genny R.
Donaldson Charitable Trust, Bob and Marilyn Schumann and Heming's Motor news, the Bible of
the Collector Carhovy, 1-800-C-A-R-H-E-R-E.
I'm Peter Burley and the Environment Show wants to hear from you. Give us your views by telephone
at 1-888-49-Green. That's 1-888-49-Green or by email green at wamc.org. That's green at wamc.org.
It's difficult to believe but Ranger Rick and the magazine that bears his name are celebrating their 30th
birthday. 12-year-old Michael Roetberg is a typical Ranger Rick reader. He loves the
Dear Ranger Rick page. He enjoys the pictures and he says reading the magazine not only informs him
about the environment but it keeps him in touch with what other kids are doing.
Well I've learned that a lot of kids are participating in cleaning up the environment
or helping animals and I've learned that sometimes you shouldn't really mess with nature
just leave it the way it is. So I think you should do that.
Like Michael most Ranger Rick readers are between the ages of 7 and 12. Learning lessons about
the environment which editor Jerry Bishop hopes will leave an impression on them. According to
Bishop the decision to bring the concerns of the natural world to kids was made in the mid-1960s.
Its publisher The National Wildlife Federation already boasted a successful magazine for adults
and thought why not do the same for children. Our mission has always been the same. From the very
beginning it's been to delight children with spectacular color photographs that's put the
National Wildlife was famous for. We use a lot of charming funny illustrations, exciting reading
really good stories and they're all aimed at inspiring a greater understanding of the natural world,
a deep love of nature and wildlife and we hope a lifelong commitment to conservation.
And that's still pretty much our credo today. We've changed in several ways though. We're still
focused on the traditional aspects of nature and wildlife but I think we've expanded our editorial
range to reach out to a broader readership. Mainly into competition with television and other
distractions kids have. Bishop admits keeping up with the lore of television and the flashy
graphics of computers has been Ranger Rick's biggest challenge. He says they live in fear that kids
will put the magazine down and walk away to do something else. Kids lives are so scripted these days
so heavily scheduled. When I grew up Mike I had a hard time filling our day. We sit around saying
things like what do you want to do today? I don't know. I asked you first. And then when we did decide
do something we just walk along the stream and turn over rocks and catch sound monitors and things
like that and that was what we called fun today. I think it's soccer practice. It's karate lessons.
I guess teachers have a lot of, I mean kids have a lot of reasons for doing this to their kids
but I feel like they've been taking away some of the just leisure time that kids should have to
be able to curl up with a good book or a good magazine and enjoy themselves. I think that busy
schedule is what makes it so challenging for us to produce a magazine that has holding power.
So how does Ranger Rick manage to maintain a readership of over 700,000 kids?
Bishop says after 30 years they found that if they choose interesting subjects and write about
them in ways that are engaging and information filled the child's curiosity will do the rest.
But one key strategy he says in keeping kids interested has been to make the magazine as interactive
as possible by encouraging kids to write about what inspires them. In recent years though
several outlets of environmental education have come under attack. Some are worried kids are
being urged to take on more than they can handle or that children are being scared into becoming
activists. Bishop says so far Ranger Rick has steered clear of any attacks but as a devoted
environmentalist he believes he has an obligation to today's youth to encourage environmental advocacy.
What really burns me up about the whole thing is that there may be on some rare occasions some
teachers who push an agenda in some circumstances if you consider studying the rainforest and
thinking about the consequences of over harvesting or that kind of thing as an agenda.
But I think what's really in cities about this attack is that industry corporations have for years
just in undated our classrooms with free materials. Free materials that really doesn't take too
much imagination to see what they're trying to promote. They're trying to pay their own products.
Consumption of any kinds of goods and it's you know this is coming on for years and yet
the minute the environmental community tries to get their message across through some of the
materials that they're producing. Everyone raises a very big stink about it so I think it's kind of a
phony agenda. Ultimately Bishop says the goal is to help kids see the world as something that
should be cherished. He hopes Ranger Rick is the vehicle that inspires them to incorporate nature
into their lives. And judging from their loyal subscribers Ranger Rick will be around for yet
another generation of raccoon lovers. For the environment show I'm Stephanie Goichman.
And now it's time for the Earth calendar. Crees along the Kentucky River are now ablaze.
They're red and yellow and orange. The river cuts through limestone cliffs south of the
city of Lexington and leads to the Jim Beam nature preserve which is maintained by the nature
conservancy. Jim Aldrich is the Kentucky director of the conservancy and he says one reason there's
so much color and so much variety is there are more tree species in the Commonwealth of Kentucky
than in all of Europe. We're in in the heart of what's called the what scientists refer to as
the mix mesophytic forest which basically means that there's are lots and lots of different tree
species in the in the state of Kentucky and particularly in in central Kentucky and on the
on the limestone soils we have a large number of tree species and the middle to end of October
is our peak season in terms of fall color. It's really outstanding. We have of course the first
species to start changing color and they're already well on their way are the are the sumax
and those are more small tree or shrub species than actual victories but the the Carolina
Buckthorn and other small tree species and in Tupelo they they are those three species all turn
brilliant reds or crimson. The turning of the leaves in the forest has its own rhythm next to change
the maples. The maples the red maples the sugar maples and the less colorful is the softer silver maple
but we have those three species as well and those are just beginning to to change and mixed in with
those courses the American Beach and a number of oak species that that are later to turn than
the then the maples and beach. But by the end of October they're they're turning colors as well
and the the number of oak species that we have at the gym being preserved and in central Kentucky
along with Kentucky River is easily over 10 they include species like the burrow which is a
huge tree that occurs along bottom lands and in central Kentucky on uplands as well.
It's a favorite species of wildlife because it produces a large acorn or nut and it's a very sweet
nut. Aldrich says you can find a number of oak varieties in the preserve such as white, black,
scarlet and pin. Everything is in full color flowers like asters and shrubs like cherry by
bernum add to the display. At this season we talk of leaves turning color but in fact the color is
always there yellows and oranges and reds in the leaf are masked by chlorophyll during the growing
season. Chlorophyll is green and is dominant when present. As the leaves are preparing as a tree
are preparing to lose their leaves and what they're trying to do is capture the energy that's still
left in those leaves before they fall to the ground and the process they do that is first the chlorophyll
disappears in the leaf and there's energy in the chlorophyll or the green leaf. Of course that's
used in the photosynthesis process which gives energy to trees, trees take up carbon dioxide
and release oxygen so that's why they're great and all plants do that of course. So when the
chlorophyll leaves the leaf it's masking the other pigments that are still there and so you start
seeing those are the the carotains which are the yellow and orange colors and there's
a rithril sites as well which are the red pigments. So if you're looking somewhat green someday
perhaps because of something you ate or some other malady take heart like the blazing leaves along
the Kentucky River you are probably not green all the way through. Thanks for listening this is
the Environment Show our telephone number is 1-888-49-Green and I'm Peter Burley
this is the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley still ahead. E-magazine says Wyoming is the
worst state in the country when it comes to recycling and New Jersey is the best. We talk to
officials in charge of the effort to find out why. We talk green about pollution coming out of a
tailpipe of your vehicle. Can it be reduced? Does Detroit have its head in the sand or our
auto manufacturers producing what people want for the best price? Author Colin Fletcher presents
a supporter of a stretch of the Colorado River which pulls him from bank to bank as he makes his
way to the sea. These stories and more coming up.
Recycling has become a daily part of American life in many parts of the country but in some places
recycling is rarely practiced. An article in E the Environmental Magazine lists the states with
the best and the worst recycling habits showing a large gap between those who recycle and those
who don't. The Environment Show's Rachel Phillips reports. The figures in E-magazine show that
Wyoming has the lowest percentage of recycled materials in the United States followed by Alaska
and Mississippi. Quite an ironic distinction considering Wyoming's abundant natural resources.
Diana Gentry Hogle, Recycling Coordinator for the Department of Environmental Quality,
Solid and Hazardous Waste Division says 3% is the figure she's always heard. The article shows
a percentage of about 2.3%. Gentry Hogle believes the recycling percentage rate to be higher than
3% because there is no accurate method of measurement. She says comparing Wyoming to some other states
is like comparing apples to oranges. Some of these states the figures they give will include
scrap metal recycling for automobile dealers. They'll also include battery recycling waste oil.
They may or may not include compostable materials such as yard waste, tree trimming,
that type of thing. So comparing Wyoming to these other states I think it's interesting because
while I think it's certainly lower than someplace like Washington, Oregon, or Minnesota,
I don't know what the actual figure is and that 3% figure has been floating around for almost a decade.
Gentry Hogle says recycling is a service, one that needs resources such as people and financial
support. She says because Wyoming is the least populated state in the country, it cannot offer
the services that other states can. Recycling and composting efforts in many Wyoming communities are
a result of volunteers. She believes such efforts have increased in recent years but says collection
programs are mainly the responsibility of local governments. She says the state has set goals
for the localities. They're all voluntary of course this is Wyoming. You know the word mandatory
is not a good word. So they are voluntary goals that we are trying to encourage in local governments.
I believe it's 25% recycling rate by the year 2005 and that it goes up to 35% by 2005 if the
organic fraction the composting is included. I do see recycling has definitely increased in Wyoming.
That's why that 3% figure I think is erroneous that's been floating around for so long because since
I've been on this job I've seen increases in the amount of material as well as composting
accomplishing programs that never existed before that exist now that clearly are saving materials
from you know not going into landfill. While the Environmental Protection Agency's resource
conservation and recovery act subtitle D regulates landfilling there are no mandates for recycling.
In the late 1980s the EPA announced a voluntary goal of 25% but surprisingly gentry
Hocal believes the federal government should place recycling mandates on states an opinion that
would undoubtedly fall into the category of rubbish for many Wyoming residents. Guy Watson also
disagrees he's chief of the Bureau of Recycling and Planning for New Jersey's Department of Environmental
Protection. His state has the highest recycling rates in the country with 60% new Jersey is followed
by Wisconsin and Minnesota. Watson believes states can design their own plans. What the federal
government probably could do is look very carefully at what kind of financial or tax incentives they
provide to private businesses to to invest in recycling infrastructure and if that means that there
is for example maybe not a level playing field right now between the virgin resource extraction
industry mining and logging in that and the recycling industry that knows that if there are if there
is not a level playing field it should be made a level playing field. But Watson does agree with
Diana gentry Hocal on one point and that is because New Jersey is the most densely populated state
of the nation picking up reusable materials is far easier than in Wyoming. On the other hand composting
organic materials in the neighborhoods of the garden state is not very practical. Overall he believes
New Jersey's recycling efforts have been successful. Something Watson expects will continue.
The commissioner has indicated that he would like to see the state achieve a 65% recycling rate by
the year 2000 and we believe we can achieve that if we are able to increase our recycling in those
areas I mentioned like composting and mixed paper and if we can continue the level of recycling
that we have right now in with construction and demolition materials and the curbside recycling
we should be able to achieve that 65% coal. Watson adds New Jersey is fortunate to have 60 plus paper
processors and 16 paper mills taking paper from New York and New Jersey. Saturday November 15th marks
the first annual America Recycles Day. More than 40 states in the country have officially recognized
the event to increase awareness about the importance of recycling. How popular this event will be
in Wyoming remains to be seen. For the Environment Show I'm Rachel Phillips.
We're talking green and I'm your host Peter Burley. Today we're talking about what comes out of
a tailpipe of your automobile. Recently the chiefs of the big three US automakers told President Clinton
that mandatory emissions reductions would spell disaster for their industry. My guest today are Dan Becker.
He's the director of the Global Warming and Energy Program with the Sierra Club and he was
appointed by President Clinton to a commission on auto exhaust emissions. He joins us from Washington DC.
Also with us is Dr. Richard Klemish. He's vice president of engineering affairs with the American
automobile manufacturers association and he's an expert on alternative fuels and was one of the
pioneers of the catalytic converter. He joins us from Detroit Michigan. And so to Klemish, let's start
with you. A lot of people say the American auto industry lives with its head in the sand.
They say that technological improvement is not possible and yet the next thing you know the Japanese
are selling cars in the United States which seem to do what the manufacturers have been resisting.
And just this week I note that Toyota has announced that it will be selling a hybrid car in Japan
for about $17,000. They will get 56 miles per gallon. Why doesn't Detroit get behind efforts to
dramatically reduce auto exhaust? Well we are. In fact we have a program that's part of the Clean
Air Act that's technology forcing that runs clear out past 2004. And in fact we have the big three
have introduced a whole series of cars. Now the electric vehicle activities of General Motors or
second to none. Toyota announcement on hybrid is very impressive. We all have hybrid vehicles.
The question is a couple questions. The cost issue whether the consumers will buy the
vehicles but we believe we're behind this. I think that the US auto industry dominates
industrial research and development. We have very large programs in fact.
Okay. Well Dan Becker from Sierra, do you agree that the US auto industry dominates these
programs and is on top of the power curve? I think it would be shocking to people in other countries.
If they looked at the big three US auto producers and saw how they run from technology on the shelves
in Detroit are scads of different technologies that would make our cars cleaner and more efficient.
And if we don't produce those vehicles and create jobs in this country making vehicles that go
further on a gallon of gas, surely we will end up importing them from Japan and Europe.
And it really is our responsibility. More carbon dioxide pollution. The major pollutant that
causes global warming comes spewing out of the tailpipe so the America's cars and light trucks
than out of all sources of global warming pollution in the entire country of India.
So we have a responsibility to make reductions and we have the technology that the industry
refuses to put on its vehicles. In 1975, Congress passed a law called the corporate
average fuel economy law, the mile per gallon law. And at that time Ford Motor Company testified
that the law would never work. It would require a Ford product line consisting of all sub-pinto
size vehicles where some mix of vehicles ranging from a sub-subcompact to perhaps a maverick.
Close quote. They've always said it can't be done and we need to require that they do it for our
children's future. Okay. Well let's look at that issue because I think the magic word there was
required. And Dick, that I assume is a word which puts the manufacturers in orbit. They don't
want to be required to do this. Yeah, well why not? Well the fundamental problem is that we have a
free market and you know we can make certainly we can make cars that better fuel economy. But the
question is will the customers buy it and that gets down to the price of gasoline. You know the price
of gasoline is five dollars a gallon. I think it's like six dollars in Italy and you can put,
for example, technology like very lightweight materials that are very expensive but at a buck
a gallon it doesn't pay for the customers. And if you'll notice the importers in the US are
producing the similar kind of cars. The Japanese small cars like the cord started as a small car
and now they're mid-size. Well let's just look at that issue for a minute. If and people may not
agree with this but if one of the national objectives should be to reduce air pollution.
What is the best way to get there at least from the perspective of the auto manufacturers in the
most rapid and cost effective way? Well the program we've got is working very well. As I said the 90
amendments to the Clean Air Act haven't really run their course. We're making an incredible progress.
But when those amendments were passed isn't Dan Becker right that the auto industry just
resisted those from beginning to end? Yeah so again following Becker's are you know maybe it
ought to be done again. I guess we've tried to try to change that. The question as you mentioned is
cost effectiveness how fast you can do it and whether you can make a vehicle that anyone will buy.
The electric vehicle mandate in California is an example they had to give up on that because
the other vehicles aren't selling. We're selling the car. Wait a minute, wait a minute,
they gave up on that because of pressure from the auto and oil industry on the governor and he
caved. No no no it was technology. You hadn't introduced the cars yet. Look right now we have the
technology to make cars go further on a gallon of gas and meet the other requirements that people
want for a car. It doesn't have to change the size or the performance of the car in order to make
it go further on a gallon of gas. People will save money at the gas pump. We can thumb our nose
that's on him who's saying in his oil but the auto industry won't get off its
hell pipe and begin to make these changes. And the reason we got 50 mile per gallon cars out there
they're not selling. They're in the marketplace already. Well let me ask you something. You say
you've got 50 mile cars and they're not selling because they don't have the performance perhaps
than others. What about producing a vehicle that does have the performance? Is that technologically
impossible? Sure it is. No it's possible but then you get into the trade off as cost because
and so you have to balance these things. It's a competitive market. If we if we abandon the market
somebody else is going to take take it over. I mean this is there's as I say it's a free market.
So Dick that's the first thing you said I agree with you on Honda has introduced a vehicle
that is a Honda Civic that for $700 more than another Honda Civic you get a 55% improvement in
fuel economy. And what we need to do is we need to educate the American people that those choices
may exist but the big three should be producing those vehicles. We shouldn't have to import
them all from Japan. We are producing those vehicles. There's a number of big three vehicles that are
over 50 miles per gallon but the sales of that segment of the market is pretty small and I believe
it's primarily because of the price of fuel in this country. Well you talked about the EV1 and how
people aren't buying it. You didn't know that. The general motor is rejecting three quarters of the
people who apply to buy that vehicle. So general motor isn't doing what it should be doing if it
really wanted to make that vehicle a success. And what the American people need to do is we need to
have rules that require the auto industry to move forward. Since 1989 when the cafe standard
stopped well. Why do we have rules on what kind of cars people can buy? I mean it is free. It's
still a free country. Let me ask you both. Let me ask you both something. Hold on just a second.
If one were to put in generic kind of rules that were specific about emissions and perhaps miles
per gallon, is it your position that the industry simply could not produce a marketable product
in accordance with those rules? No, we already have the system. We've got both the fuel economy
and emission laws by EPA and by NITSA are based on technological feasibility. We have lots of
argument about what's technological feasible. But ultimately when that's decided we deliver and
we're meeting the laws and we take care of where technological feasibility is today. You guys have
lobby congress to freeze the mile per gallon standard so that you don't have to put the technology
that exists on those vehicles to let them go further on a gallon of gas. Since 1989 when the
cafe standards ran their course you guys have been going backward on fuel economy not forward.
And this year the average fuel economy, the average miles per gallon of the fleet of domestic
vehicles is at the 1980 level. We're getting... Yeah, inefficient as we were in back in 1980.
That's... That's not... Well what's happened? The cars in fact, the cafe law primarily was for cars
and those went up to 27 and a half miles per gallon. The customers said I need bigger, I need to
I once a year I want to tow my boat up north so I'm going to buy a truck and people are buying
trucks. What Dan's referring to is combining the cars. Sure. People are buying more and more trucks
by the station wagon as well. Isn't the next question whether if there were rules that applied to
the trucks and the suburban and the utility vehicles, those wouldn't improve performance because
the law applied to them too. Well sure, they'll they'll you could you could make laws and improve the
fuel economy. One of the reasons people buy trucks is perceptions about safety and utility and
towing capacity all those things is I say it's still a free market and I really think Congress
wouldn't pass a law because these kinds of vehicles are important to people. Vehicles we talk
often about the problems of vehicles, pollution and accidents but there are a lot of benefits
people get out of vehicles and I think you keep forgetting about those the privacy, the independence,
the freedom of mobility, it's the envy of the world. But the problem is that these emissions
that spew out of these vehicles are jeopardizing the future for our children. They're making the climate
warm, they're polluting and filling our cities with smog and in order for our kids to live in a
safer and healthier environment we need to begin to clamp down on these emissions and
if Detroit won't do it by itself then obviously the government needs to have a role here. Otherwise
our kids are going to grow up in a greenhouse and I don't think you want that either Dick. Let me ask
let me ask the technical question here. I think a lot of us have such faith in American technology
or technology in general that we assume we can do anything. Are you saying Dick that if one had
strict requirements with respect to fuel economy and so on, one could not produce with today's
technology the sport utility vehicles and the pickups that would meet the consumer demand because
from an engineering point of view it just can't be done. Well if you put in cost and performance
any individual company that tried that let's say to reduce performance or increase cost is
going to lose in the marketplace. And I gather that's a position Dan that you don't necessarily
know this is the industry that said we can't make cars with seat belts we can't make cars with
with airbags we can't make cars with catalytic converters for smog and now they say we can't get
make cars or light trucks that get over 27.5 miles per gallon. We we're America we've got technology
the auto industry won't use it but we can solve these problems if the auto industry will help
and stop looking at their short term short-sighted bottom line for this year and think about the
future. At some point it is likely that oil prices are going to rise dick and at that point you
guys are going to get caught behind the eight ball when the Japanese come in and say we're ready
we'll sell you efficient cars and trucks and the American big three say gee give us five years.
Well you know Dan I got to say something about about the the air pollution we think we made
incredible progress on air pollution and that will continue in terms of global warming that's
a big threat to this country and your story about greenhouse I don't believe is shared by science
that's a very controversial issue in spite of some claims to the controversy. Well the
back of industry still says that smoking doesn't well down that's that's that's fine but this is
bigger I mean the Senate passed a resolution 95 to nothing I mean that's that's a pretty big
statement in terms of their their view of the approach we're taking to global warming. Let me ask
both of you in our short time remaining what needs to be done to improve technology the most
rapidly dick just 20 seconds. Well the answer these problems is is clearly technology but but
part of it may be public policy as well but but we need some technological breakthroughs what I'm
really worried about is the global warming problem and that that gets to countries like China and
India if they're not going to use fossil fuels we we've got to find some way to help them
and it's an incredible technological challenge but what we can't do is in poverty America in the
bargain as an example. Okay Dan Becker your view on that. Dick is right the technology is the
answer technology already exists to make cars go further on a gallon of gas and we have both the
moral obligation to our kids and the responsibility and an opportunity to sell these technologies to China.
Okay I'm afraid our time is up and I want to thank you all for joining us my guests have been
Dan Becker from this year a club and Dick Klemish from the American Automobile Manufactures
Association. We've been talking green about auto emissions and I'm your host Peter Burley.
Stay with us we're going to float down the Colorado River next.
I'm Peter Burley and the Environment Show wants to hear from you how much exhaust is your car
spit out our email address is green at wamc.org that's green at wamc.org you can also hear us over the
web or contact us through our website www.enn.com slash ENV SHOWW
for summit to city street for others it's deep in the wilderness.
Author Colin Fletcher presents a portrait of his special place which is a stretch of the Colorado
River where the card has a rhythm of its own and his craft is tugged from shore to shore.
He pouted alone the length of the river and wrote a book entitled River one man's journey down
the Colorado River source to sea. Early in my journey I spent one long afternoon rafting down a
swift but unchallenging reach of the river. Hour after hour I seemed to be swinging in close to
one bank and swinging back out and gliding toward the other and a mirror reprise a modified
reprise. For although the day had by now developed a specific and meticulous rhythm details
were always changing only patterns persisted the river as usual was playing theme and variations
now such repetitive music can in time lull you into a dreamlike almost hallucinatory state of
timelessness theme and variations the current swings in toward a left bank meadow and I push
gently on the right or and pull gently on the left and the raf pivots broadside so that we move
on down the rafting eye with the bulging blue by bow riding close heard on the meadows fringe
fringing grasses which all I can now see except for the background strip of pale blue sky and
sailing white galleon clouds and then I had just our position with soft forward pressure on both
ores and the bow is brushing the longest of the drooping grass stems and I'm admiring a day'sy
that pushes up pink and delicate in between green tussocks and then I see a dead bush hanging out
over the water a dozen yards downstream and I pull softly on both ores and the bow eases away
from the bank and we pass the dead bush and its outermost fringe is brushing the top of the bow
and I can hear the faint ping as brittle twigs as brittle twigs flick the top tube and then the
current is swinging away from the bank and so are we and out there the river and my world are
wider and brighter and we're moving down toward a tongue that lips over a bar in a channel so narrow
that once I position this accurately above it I pivot us with a flick of the ores and float through
bow first with a narrow strip of smooth water on each side gleaming in the sunlight and broken
water glittering beyond it and also out beyond the blue bow and then the broken water is tapping
messages on the top drum of the raft floor and I'm swinging us around to face the right bank
where the current is already heading and this time the bank is green and dark with overhanging
trees and bushes and I ease us to within a foot of their outer branches and the lightest soft
and muted but the swirling water keeps drum talking to us and back in the trees and bushes the birds
are talking too deep inside the huge silence that envelops us all and then we are swinging out
and away once more and this time the river is ready to relax into a long pool and the tongue that
leads into it is deep and smooth and we move move through it broadside and I can look back and see
the whole big beautiful cottonwood grove that we have unknowingly skirted and then the tongue begins
to swirl and break and I let it swing thereafter round until we're facing the left bank which
this time is a brown bluff that curves so evenly with a current rippling serenely by that I can
hold the raft smooth blue bow with the inches of the rough brown rock and let my eye run along the
pockmark ledge and follow the escape route of a small and terrified lizard that scurries into deep
shadow below the ledge and vanishes and then we're once more swinging out and away and this time
the tongue is two tongues with white water dividing them and I choose the nearer one and we glide
smoothly through it and we as we begin to swing toward the new right bank I detect a whisper of a
breeze bearing news from the south from the sea and find myself out there in the middle of the wide
river the wide world relishing and rolling around my palate and striving to grasp and fix in
memory the cadence of the river's rhythm with its themes and variations that are echoes of wider
themes and variations Colin Fletcher is the author of river one man's journey down a Colorado river
source to sea published by Alfred A. Knath
thanks for being with us on this week's environment show I'm Peter Burley you can't make it down
the Colorado without a cassette copy of the tape it's 1 8 8 8 49 green show number 407 the
environment show is a national production which is solely responsible for its content Alan Shartock
is the executive producer producers or Rachel Phillips and Stephen Wetscock the environment show is
made possible by the W. Walton Jones Foundation the Packard Foundation the Turner Foundation the
J. M. Kaplan fund the Oliver S. and Jenny Ardonelson Charitable Trust Bob and Marilyn Schuman
and Heming's Motor news the Bible of the collector Car Hobby 1 800 C. A. R. H. E. R. E be good to the
and join us next week for the environment show
