This is the Environment Show. It's about our stewardship of the Earth and the beauty and
mystery of life in all its forms. The Environment Show is a national production made possible
by the W.R. and Jones Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Turner Foundation, the
JM Kaplan Fund, the Oliver S. and Jenny R. Donaldson Charitable Trust, Bob and Marilyn
Schumann, and Heming's Motor News, the Bible of the Collector Carhabee, 1-800-C-A-R-H-E-R-E.
Your host is Peter Burley.
Coming up on this week's Environment Show, a single-celled organism, Physdaria Piscoceda,
is killing fish and stripping their flesh in some coastal areas. Scientists still don't
know how it works. We look at the issues Clinton is wrestling with as he prepares for
the conference on global warming this December. A naturalist presents a portrait of a
creek which flows into Lake Ontario. Glaciers shaped it but salmon are changing, not by themselves
but by the people who come to fish. And in the Earth calendar, we join the Sand Hill
cranes as they pass through Indiana on their way south. These stories are more coming up
on the Environment Show.
Periodically, nature reminds us that despite all of our scientific research and well-equipped
laboratories, she has many secrets we still don't understand. Such is the case with
Physdaria Piscoceda. That's the single-celled organism that has caused an outbreak of fish
dios and lesions on the bodies of fish in some rivers which are flowing both into the
Chesapeake Bay and other estuarine areas on the Mid-Atlantic coast. Most of the time,
the organism is harmless and then for reasons not clearly understood, it changes, much as
a caterpillar changes to a butterfly. It can change in a form which released toxins
that kill fish or strip flesh from the fish's bodies causing ugly sores. Tom Simpson is
professor and coordinator of the Chesapeake Bay Agricultural Program for the University
of Maryland. He describes the process.
The organism is very complex. It has 24 life stages of which most are harmless. Most of
the time it's swimming around eating algae or bacteria and not bothering anything. There
are three or four life stages in which it lies as a cyst in the sediment. But then there
are also three or four life stages where it goes into a toxic form where it excites
a group of toxins into the water, some are neurotoxins that's done fish, others eat
away at the flesh of the fish. And it is one of the in these toxic stages that of course
we get the large fish kills. Simpson says it may be that fish themselves cause the Physdaria
to convert to a toxic form. It is not clearly understood all the elements that cause it to
go into the toxic stages. But certainly one of those says there's a large fish biomass,
fish excrete or secrete material that seem to cause the organism to go into the toxic
stage. It also requires high levels of algae, high levels of nutrient enrichment, relatively
warm water and generally shallow and sluggish or slow moving water. It prefers moderate
to linity although it has been found in fresh and oceanic water. It's only been found in
toxic stages and moderate to linity. Scientists are trying to identify the toxins which the
Physdaria generate so they can tell whether a fish kill or a lesion on a fish's body indicates
the presence of the organism. While Physdaria have existed in ecosystems for a long time,
the organism was only discovered a decade ago by University of North Carolina researcher
Joanne Bercolder. Thus the scientific knowledge base is slim. Bayman who have made their living
fishing in the Chuspeg Bay for generations, report having seen sores and fish kills before,
particularly in a species called Menn Hayden, but they've never seen anything like the
die-offs of last summer. Officials at the Maryland Department of Agriculture say eating
seafood from waters with Physdaria does not present health problems for humans. But Michael
Herschfeld, vice president for resource protection of the Chuspeg Bay Foundation, says Physdaria
contaminated water itself can be a threat to human health.
There's now documented evidence from a couple of studies at the University of Maryland at
Johns Hopkins Medical School that say that people who get water splashed on them or who
even breathe the air over an area where Physdaria is active in attacking fish can get everything
from similar kinds of sores or lesions on their bodies to having effects on memory and
learning functions.
Researchers are trying to identify causes of Physdaria outbreaks and one possible cause
is increased nitrogen and phosphorus running off the land. Suspect sources include factory
chicken farming operations in Maryland and hog farming in North Carolina which produce
large amounts of manure which is then spread on farm fields.
Dr. Simpson from the University of Maryland says that neurosurge shows that while phosphorus
was thought to bind to the soil it will run off even if there's no soil erosion when large
amounts are applied.
We really don't have enough scientific evidence to know exactly what the link between nutrients
and physdaria is. There's substantial circumstantial evidence and Dr. Joanne Burkold
at North Carolina State University has done some work indicating that Physdaria seems
to like high phosphorus levels.
We do not have conclusive scientific evidence on that. We do know in the Chesapeake Bay that
our algal growth, the eutrification or low oxygen problems that we've been fighting for
decades are tied to both phosphorus and nitrogen. In the fresher waters, in shallow
water waters, phosphorus is frequently put limits out to growth, whereas in the saltier
waters and in the deep trench of the bay, nitrogen limits out to growth.
Feastdaria on the other hand, the limited amount of current science would indicate that
phosphorus may be more important.
While scientists try to find the exact cause of the Feastdaria outbreaks, environmental
lawyers say that laws designed to prevent the runoff in the west or as in Bay's have
been underfunded and inadequately enforced. In 1990, Congress adopted a program that would
require states to take action to control runoff in coastal areas.
Tim Iconberg, program counsel for the Center for Marine Conservation and Co-Chair of
the Clean Water Network, says progress is lacking.
The program has not been completed. It's been woefully underfunded. It hasn't been funded
for the last two years, and this year, Congress and the House has only appropriated $1 million
nationwide for this program, and the Senate has not appropriated any money for it.
So there is a good program on the books in coastal areas, which is where the Fisteria has
been shown to exist, but it is not being funded properly, and states are not making progress
in submitting and completing these supposedly enforceable management plans.
In coming months, scientists expect to learn a lot more about the single-celled Feastdaria,
but today it's presented a huge challenge to a lot of multi-celled human scientists.
You can trace their progress on the University of Maryland website, find it by searching University
of Maryland Sea Grant.
Global Warming is the focus of meetings at the White House and throughout Washington.
It's all in preparation for the Climate Change Conference to be held in Kyoto, Japan this
December. During the course of the next few months, the Environment Show will air a series
of reports and discussions relating to global warming.
In our first report of the series, the Environment Show's Stephen Westcott looks at what some
at the center of the global warming debate are saying about the predicted changes in our
climate, and what they say needs to be done to slow the trend.
At the Kyoto Conference, scientists will be advising the world's governments on the issue
of global warming and the possible effects resulting from changes in the climate. Specifically,
the severity of climate's logical impacts is just one of the many issues that will be addressed.
Henry Kendall is Professor of Physics at MIT and Chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
He is one of many scientists advising the Clinton administration on the issue of global
warming.
He says carbon dioxide levels are increasing and affecting world climate.
Well, the far-ocative view and there's a broad, broad consensus among experts in the
area is that there is now a probable increase in the global surface temperature. The air
temperatures will be by about three and a half degrees Fahrenheit by the end of next century,
with a possible range of about four degrees or so.
The conclusion also is that there is a discernible human influence on the global climate.
The warming is likely to be greater than any that has been experienced on the Earth for
the last 10,000 years.
Professor Kendall says the burning of fossil fuels cutting down and burning of temperate
rainforests and the overall increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the major
contributing factors to global warming.
Kendall says there are some signs the global climate is changing but stresses these changes
will become more noticeable.
And what it can result in is increased temperatures, changes in rainfall patterns, possible drought
in continental interiors, rising sea levels throughout the world, storms of greater severity,
and following on these changes are major consequences on ecosystems, on living systems,
many of which we depend on.
Professor Kendall says both developing and technologically advanced countries need to take
responsibility for controlling emissions and the atmospheric difficulties many are predicting.
Creating automobiles with little of any carbon emissions is just one of the popular themes
in the push for reducing carbon emissions.
Volvo truck corporation is now testing a new hybrid truck that combines diesel with electric
power and Toyota is planning on putting out a hybrid fuel cell in some Corolla models
next year.
Kelly Sims, science policy director with ozone action based in Washington, D.C. says this
shows the American automakers have some catching up to do.
What I think is remarkable is that they are going to be able to market this Corolla in
the United States for $16,000, which is almost the exact same price of a Corolla today.
And American car makers are nowhere near being able to put something like that out on the
road.
So I fear that we are in a similar situation to the one we were in the 1970s when we had
the oil shocks and European car companies and the Japanese car companies were much more
ready to capitalize on a market that was hungry for fuel efficient technology than we were.
But Sims says getting American companies to produce eco-friendly products is not going
to be easy.
She says not surprisingly the companies with direct interest are putting up the biggest
fight.
The fossil fuel industry has launched a great deal of television advertisements.
They launched a $13 million campaign last month to oppose any action on climate change.
And we just don't have the resources and the public interest community to be able to
be able to do that, something like that.
And they are spreading a lot of misinformation about the science and the cost of reducing
emissions.
And that is very hard to combat because we just can't possibly afford to spend that much
money on advertisements.
It's recently a group called Coalition for Vehicle Choice took out a three-page ad in
the Washington Post urging President Clinton not to sign the treaty.
However, there is little record of such a group's existence.
Groups on both sides of the economic issue have released their own reports on how technological
changes will impact the American economy.
While industry supporters say the Kyoto Treaty will have harmful effects, other economists
say cheaper energy cost will make the market more competitive.
The Energy Department recently released a report looking at how new energy technologies
could reduce emissions and have little impact on the economy.
Moreover, the U.S. government will not only have to persuade companies here to reduce
emissions, but encourage foreign governments and companies to join the effort.
Something the American government has not done.
According to Dr. Jane Lubchenko, a professor of zoology and marine biology at Oregon State
University.
We find the framework convention on climate change indicated our willingness, our intent
to act on that.
We have not really lived up to that promise and we need to really get on with things.
The challenge has been to move from the current dependence on fossil fuels to alternate sources
of energy.
The reality is that the technology is in hand to do that.
Professor Lubchenko says the U.S. government has been a follower more than a leader in
efforts to combat global warming.
A role she hopes will soon change.
Lubchenko also hopes people understand the potential dangers of the economic arguments
that suggest a wait until later strategy.
She says waiting to solve the problem could increase the chances of more disruptive changes
down the road.
I'm Stephen Westcott for the Environment Show.
I'm Peter Burley and the Environment Show wants to hear from you.
Call us at 1-888-49-Green.
Our email address is green at wamc.org.
You can find us on the web.
There you can hear us anytime.
We all have places that are special to us.
For some it's a city street, for others it's deep in the wilderness.
Naturalist John Weeks paints a portrait of the Oak Orchard River and tells how it is
shaped by time and people.
The Oak Orchard River cuts a slightly winding path through the western extremities of Orleans
County in western New York.
Its font is found in the northwest corner of the county and enormous expanse of shallow
marshes in Swamp Forest.
The thin veneer of mucland soils proved too unpromising to justify the cost of drainage.
The path the river follows traverses a combination of low glacial marines and flat, sildy plains
deposited by the huge lake which covered a good portion of the county during the last
glacial retreat.
In my youth the stream was known as Oak Orchard Creek, and for the first few miles of its
existence it is still cracked today.
It meanders through a flat countryside where agriculture is still the primary land use.
Flat is relative of course.
We're not talking about tabletop flatness.
There is a general role for the land, but it is still a countryside where the horizons
are defined by hedgerows, shade trees and silos, not hills.
Here's a little hamlet of Kenyonville, a stream makes a dramatic change, broadening
and slowing down.
We have to travel a few extra miles downstream to understand this.
At this point a cap of limestone prevents the gradual and orderly erosion of the sandstones
and shells which underlay the glacial till.
The result is a precipitous scarpe.
Far below this resistant cap the river has cut deeply through the underlying rocks, creating
a gorge which characterizes the riverbed from that point until it reaches the backwaters
of Lake Ontario.
Falling water is endowed with a capacity to do work, so it should not surprise us that
a local utility has seen fit to locate a hydroelectric plant there.
As is often the case in such developments, a dam was also created to provide water storage
for times of low stream flow.
This creates a large reservoir which is little more than estuary by the time it reaches
back to Kenyonville.
Below the dam and waterfall the creek becomes a river.
The last six miles of its course it follows a deeply cut picturesque valley, its tree clad
embankments, soaring over 100 feet above the river.
The valley itself is narrow, still the stream is endowed with sloughs and backwaters, screened
by maples and willows.
In places beautiful enough to catch the fancy of both naturalists and artists.
It was there I had my first exposure to the wiles of Mink, Muscrat, Raccoon and Fox,
or to the nesting habits of rails, herons, red wings, marsh wands and swamp sparrows,
to mention only a few that many I observed.
I fished there with my brothers, I sketched there with my artist father, and best of all
I made many solo trips to observe and take notes.
The upper reaches of that stream seemed wild and remote in those days, with only an occasional
intrusion by someone who maintained a camp on the rim of the escarpment, and who by one
means or another arranged to get from camp down to the river.
The introduction of salmon into Lake Ontario has combined with a scarcity of good campsites
to completely revise the value of this pretty gorge.
It has occupied now in a way that many would have thought impossible forty years ago.
I don't really regret that.
It would be a futile exercise anyway, but it is time that a very careful survey of natural
as well as recreational potentials be made, so that the vigorous pursuit of the new
found does not overwhelm the important ecological roles these specialized lake tributaries
perform.
Every lake is the product, the sum total, of all the contributions from its tributary streams.
Its heritage depends upon the husbandry of its watershed.
In protecting its beauty and its wildness, we can do a great deal to maintain the quality
of the contribution which the Oak Archord River makes to Lake Ontario.
And now it's time for the Earth calendar.
As we broadcast, Sandhill Cranes are stopping over at the Jasper Polaski Fish and Wildlife
Area in northwestern Indiana.
Their journey to the south for the winter is in full swing.
Jim Bergens manages the area.
We did a count today in counted over 6,000, so the migration is well underway.
The Sandhill Crane is a large bird, at least this particular one.
These are the largest.
Their full name is the eastern population of the greater Sandhill Crane.
There are several subspecies of Sandhill Crane, and these guys are the largest.
They stand about three feet tall, have a wingspan up to seven feet and weigh 10 to 12 pounds.
Both sexes look alike, that is their plumage is the same, which is basically a grayish or
a bluish grayish color with a red cap on top of their head.
Bergens says there are 15 species of cranes in the world, seven of which are endangered.
The hooping crane is in the most danger of extinction.
Sandhill Cranes make a haunting sound.
It's one that most people never forget.
It's a loud, guttural rattling.
It doesn't have a lot of notes.
It's not a song like you would hear a robin do.
It's slightly more elaborate than a honk that you would hear a goose do.
Their shorter notes closer together.
They're relatively high-titch.
They echo.
You can hear them for miles on occasion.
For instance, we can have birds that are in migration, that are arriving here at the
property, and we can hear them long before we can see them.
They migrate by using wind and thermals, and they glide basically, but they migrate at
high altitudes.
When they get close to Jasper Plaskies, they'll start a spiral descent toward the ground.
We can hear them long before we actually can make eye contact with them.
The birds now passing through Indiana spent the summer in Michigan with continent
Minnesota.
Most of the rest of the sand ale flock was much farther north in the Arctic.
Bergen says the birds stay in the wildlife area for several weeks before continuing their
journey to southern Georgia and Florida.
They nest and roost in wetlands.
Now, nesting everybody probably pretty well understands.
The roosting is a phenomenon that cranes use for protection from predators, and they actually
stand in shallow marsh areas at night, and that's what's referred to as roosting.
Now, during the day, they'll spend a much higher percentage of time in upland areas, areas
without water.
Once they're done roosting for the night, beginning at sunrise, the cranes will lead the fish
wildlife area and go out in all four directions surrounding the property where they'll feed
in loaf during the day.
They do not eat fish like the great blue heron, although they'll eat other aquatic insects
in vertebrates frogs.
They eat roots and tubers, berries, lots of seeds, some vegetative matter, root matter that
they pick up both from wetlands and in upland fields.
In the fall, cranes travel in groups of 15 to 20.
Bergen says that Jasper Polaski is visited by 16,000 sandhill cranes every year, with
32,000 being the highest number recorded in one season.
Weather conditions often determine the number of birds that will stop at the wildlife area.
Forty to 50,000 people visit the refuge annually to view the birds.
As to the number of those people heading south for the winter, Bergen's didn't say.
Thanks for listening.
This is the Environment Show, and I'm Peter Berley.
Still ahead.
The director of the Kenyan Wildlife Service says wildlife cannot be saved with parks alone,
only when people and wildlife live together can both be saved.
We lock horns over the question of whether renewable energy sources like wind and solar really
are a good idea.
The Weather Service and the Old Farmers Almanac both called for a mild winter, but they differ
in the northern Midwest.
Our ear to the ground sails on the Hudson with folk who love the river.
These stories and more coming up.
All of us have grown up with pictures of elephants and lions in Africa.
We're also aware that the animals survive in big parks, such as those in Kenyan.
The parks themselves were established by the colonial government before it was driven
from power.
David Western is a Kenyan whose father was a big game hunting guide, killed by an elephant.
Cardly, he's a director of Kenyan Wildlife Service, the government agency in charge of all
parks and wildlife in that country.
He's just written a book called In the Dust of Kilimanjaro, published by Island Press.
He argues that parks alone cannot save wildlife in Africa, and that in the process of establishing
parks, native populations who offer the only hope for saving the animals were alienated.
That was David Western, expressions wahili, his strongly held belief that people and wildlife
can live together.
I think the traditional concept in the Western world has been the separation of humanity
and nature.
I grew up among the mass I am among other people, where in fact there was no such thing as
wilderness, there was always wildlife and people together, there were different numbers.
One intrigued me, why I set out to look into that in Amerselli, was what essentially created
that balance.
Why did the mass I live with wildlife?
And two things very quickly became evident.
Their migrations are identical, and they actually gave me cattle to try and convince me to
see Amerselli through the eyes of a cow.
And I quickly discovered that the milk heals they get from the cattle, and they live off
the milk of their cattle, essentially give them along the same migratory roots as wildlife.
So you can't untangle either wildlife or migration roots in one ecosystem.
Secondly, in generations gone past, they actually use wildlife during the drought periods
as what they call their second cattle.
So that during the good periods having recovered their own herds, they would look after wildlife
as a drought resource.
And in your book you describe a complicated and torturous road by which you tried to
get public authorities to recognize that interdependent.
Yes, it's perhaps not surprising, because the approach seen largely by the colonial governments
was that the enemy really was the local person on the ground, that person was the poacher.
So the best thing to do is establish laws which prohibit any local hunting, or on the other
hand, set aside national parks which exclude people.
And that created a very deep resentment.
So turning back the government picture of the local person on the ground as being the
potential support of wildlife, and ultimately the most important custodian was extremely
torturous.
20 years ago, Western and his colleagues convinced the Kenyan government to re-involve the
Messiah people in the Ambaselli Park, and to open up the boundaries so the migrating
animals could move outside.
Policy explicitly recognized the limitations of the national parks, the needs to open up
lands outside to wildlife, and in particular to make wildlife beneficial to local people.
And in fact that policy hasn't hasn't changed in Kenya over all years.
It's the same policy.
The reason it didn't expand beyond Ambaselli was largely the result of the decline, the
collapse of the wildlife institution of those days, the wildlife conservation and management
department.
Now as you've finished your book, you express some optimism about what locally based conservation
can bring about.
And I gather you take the view that the Dooms sares may be wrong.
How do you reflect on that circumstance?
One of the key and obviously understandable issues raised by the Doomsday Acologist is
rising human population and consumption.
And I think by localizing the opportunity to benefit from wildlife, it actually mitigates
against other forms of utilization which are more destructive to the land, because it's
genuinely sustainable.
So for example in areas just north of Masai Mara, I best know on national reserve, a number
of Masai who had put the land on the wheat then found it more profitable for wildlife
so that they have come back to wildlife and tourism income as a use of that land.
So I think making that benefit available to them can put the choice in their hands to
involve wildlife for the benefit.
I think that's honestly the only way I see going in many areas outside national parks.
Western was an organizer of a campaign to ban the sale of ivory in international trade
to reduce the poaching of elephants.
He thinks controls are not in place to stop poaching if trade is resumed, even if restricted
to countries where the elephant is not endangered.
Given the pressures on wildlife in Africa, I asked him if he was optimistic.
Yes I am because as I detail on the book, I grew up during the colonial days.
When there was no hope for wildlife or so it seemed and the only way to do it to conserve
wildlife was to set aside parks in a big rush before independence.
Well independence came and went and surprisingly more national parks were established.
And I think the national governments have become very dedicated to conserving wildlife,
but simply haven't understood the resentment that created on the ground.
But now with the switch around, with the local benefits coming through, the movement
of conservation towards grassroots involvement is willing local support and in turn reinforcing
government policies in this direction.
So having seen the absolute disparate independence and the turnaround now, I remain fairly optimistic.
Western has specific advice for Americans who want to go to Africa to see wildlife.
He says don't just visit the national parks.
What we're saying is visit the areas outside national parks as well.
We can't cultural diversity, historical diversity, the variety of different habitats.
Because in essence what that does is not only give the tourists a very different and more
appealing type of safari, much more diverse, but it also engages them with local communities
using local guides, staying in very pleasant local cottages.
And that money goes directly back to the local communities who ultimately are the custodians
of wildlife.
David Weston is director of the Kenya Wildlife Service and his new book in the Dust of Kilimanjaro
is published by Island Press.
Conversion to renewable energy sources, wind power, solar and biomass, which includes,
of course, wood and agricultural residue, has been high on the agenda of environmental
us for years.
The issue is a particular significance now as we debate the policies which the nation
should be adopting to deal with global warming and an anticipation of the conference in Kyoto.
Robert Bradley is president of the Institute for Energy Research.
He's based in Houston, Texas and is a scholar for the Kato Institute.
And he has written to the effect that green fuels really don't make any sense.
He locks horns with Paul Jefferiff.
He's director of energy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and Lecture on Sustainable Development
at Tufts University.
So welcome, gentlemen.
And the question is, is renewable energy expensive, environmentally counterproductive and unsustainable?
Mr. Bradley?
Interestingly, the environmental movement has rejected the most feasible renewable energy
source to address alleged air pollution problems such as global warming.
And that is hydroelectricity, which accounts for about 80 percent of the nation's renewable
energy generation in consumption.
This leaves other sources such as biomass, which is an air emission renewable, the burning
of wood.
Geothermal, which is attracted a lot of opposition, including from Interior Secretary Bruce
Fabbet, because it's in protected areas, the national parks and the like.
So we're really down to wind and solar, which accounts for only one tenth of one percent
of U.S. electricity consumption.
And when you look closely at wind and solar, they have significant environmental problems.
Mr. Jeffress in response.
Well, it's sudden to me that Mr. Bradley and certain parts of the gas industry, although
not all parts, should suddenly have become anti-environment.
And I think it reveals more than anything else that they see renewable energy as a threat
to their competitive advantage, which is a position that they need and take.
In order to argue that renewables are either not cost effective or are environmentally damaging,
Mr. Bradley has to take the worst examples of renewable energy performance, exaggerate and
distort the amount of oil proportion, and then extrapolate to the whole industry and to
the future.
Whereas for fossil fuels, he does exactly the opposite.
He glosses over massive embedded environmental problems in the whole infrastructure of the
industry, and at no stage does he directly compare the overall effects of fossil with renewable
energy.
Okay, Mr. Bradley in response.
Well, we have a little bit of schizophrenia here.
I can say our favor renewable energy in the sense that I think hydroelectricity, which accounts
for 80 percent of U.S. production, is something that should be counted on to address air
mission problems.
That's the one tenth of one percent, the solar and wind that is so radically un-economic,
in which has environmental problems, wind power in particular, which was labeled by an
official of the Sierra Club as a queasy in arts of the air.
Okay, Mr. Jeffora, for last word, I'm this one.
Well, comparing wind and solar power unfavorably with fossil fuels and an environmental basis
is like comparing the damage caused by a bicycle with the damage caused by a jet aircraft
or a diesel truck.
That's simply a false comparison and one that the mainstream scientific community would
flatly refute.
Okay, well let's go to another aspect of this.
Can you compare the costs of various fuels when the environmental costs of dirty air or
the loss of fisheries or logging really are not figured into the fuel prices?
Mr. Jeffreff, what do you think?
I think the answer is that you absolutely cannot compare them on a level playing field basis.
The fuel prices right now ignore the fact that air pollution kills more people every
year than drunk drivers do.
It ignores the fact that scientists around the world have reached consensus that global
warming caused by fossil fuel emissions is a very serious problem that will extend into
the next century for our children and for our children's children.
Mr. Bradley, I gather you would have a different view.
Yes, in my keto paper, I document how natural gas outcompetes wind and solar, even when
you add externality adders.
I use some adders that are used by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the California
Energy Commission and wind and solar still can't compete.
And ironically, wind and solar farms contribute to global warming in the short run because
of their massive use of steel, concrete and glass, much more than with natural gas infrastructure.
Mr. Jeffreff in response.
It's a ridiculous comparison to compare the one-time use of energy in producing the materials
for renewable plants with the ongoing use of fossil fuel throughout the year and throughout
the decades, in addition to which the global warming gas is that are you that results from
producing renewable energy equipment come from the fact that we use fossil fuel in the
first place.
All right, Mr. Bradley.
I guess yours is the last word.
Boy, if you think renewable energy is expensive now, imagine if we have a carbon tax, it would
increase electricity rates that go into all the cement, glass and steel that go into
solar and wind infrastructure.
It's with relatively inexpensive.
It's a very poor use of the environmental dollar.
Okay.
Quickly in summary.
Again, let's start with you, Mr. Jeffreff, as Director of Energy at the Union of Conservative
Science and Sciences.
How do you sum up where we are on this one?
Well, in addition to seriously distorting the truth about renewable energy, I think Mr.
Bradley is also picking the wrong fight.
He shouldn't be attacking renewable energy.
He should be attacking coal and oil and unsafe nuclear plants.
These are the real threats to our economy in our environment.
There is a place for natural gas and for renewables in the energy mix of the future.
And we have a great opportunity with bills now pending in Congress to support new technologies,
slow global warming, create jobs and mitigate health and environmental damage by a number
of means requiring old coal plants to meet emissions standards comparable to new plants.
We can follow Mr. Bradley's own suggestion that we impose a carbon tax.
The price impact from that would not come from the materials that go into producing nuclear
into producing renewable equipment.
The price increases would come from the fact that those taxes would be imposed on fossil fuels.
All right, Mr. Bradley, I think that would be a big deal.
That would be a big deal.
I think we result in a shift towards renewables.
We're going to ask you to sum up in our remaining few moments.
What is so interesting is that natural gas advances with natural gas technology has made
wind and solar obsolete.
Natural gas outcompanied to wind and solar in five of six environmental categories.
Noise, visual blight, land disturbance, wildlife disturbance, and frontier air pollution.
Okay.
Well, I want to thank you both.
We've heard Robert Bradley, who is president of the Institute for Energy Research in Houston
and a scholar for the Cato Institute.
And Paul Jeffreff, who is director of energy at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Boston,
which is a national environmental group.
We'd like to hear what you think about renewable energy.
Give us a call.
Our number is 1-888-49-Green.
This is the Environment Show, and I'm your host, Peter Burley.
As winter approaches, weather forecasts abound.
You can get the latest from the Weather Channel or your local radio forecaster, the National
Weather Service website, or the old Farmers Albinac, available at the bookstore or at your
convenience store.
While the National Weather Service and the old Farmers Albinac use different methods to
determine forecasts, this year they have similar long-range predictions.
The Environment Show's Rachel Phillips has more.
The National Weather Service says that from a temperature perspective, the northern half
of the continental United States will find it mild during December, January, and March.
Ed Olenic is a meteorologist and head of the Extended Range Forecast Operation for the
National Weather Service.
And our forecast for that three month period calls for above normal temperatures over
the northern half of the country, including New England.
The northern sections of the New Atlantic states the Great Lakes, the Central and Northern
Great Plains, the Northwest, and virtually the entire West, roughly, from Western Utah
and Western Arizona, Westward to the coast.
The National Weather Service lacks enough information about temperature to make predictions
for the South and the South-Eastern United States this year.
Olenic says the average climate might be your best bet for those regions.
Meanwhile, some regions will see more rain and snow December through February.
We're calling for above normal precipitation for California, the Southwest, Texas, up
into the Central Great Plains, the Gulf Coast states, and coastal regions of the middle
Atlantic states up through the Carolinans.
As we get deeper into the winter, cold temperatures show up in the southeast and the south.
Warm temperatures continue from New England across the Great Lakes into the West.
The precipitation signal that I described earlier is actually stronger during January, February
and March.
According to Olenic, Montana, Wyoming, the Tennessee Valley, Ohio Valley, and Western New
York state will be drier than normal, and it will be warmer than normal in New England
during the early part of the season.
Olenic says among all the variables involved in weather predictions, Al Nino is the largest
contributing factor this year.
Primarily because it's the difference in temperature between the poles and the equator that actually
drives the atmosphere and makes it move, causes the storms.
When you enhance that temperature difference by warming up the equator east of the
date line, such as this happening this year, you intensify atmospheric motions, the
energy and the atmosphere that's available for storms, and that's one of the reasons
why Olenic is so important.
Olenic also plays a role in weather predictions of the old farmers Olenic, according to managing
editor Susan Peary.
She sees a winter which will be one of the warmest on record, apparently agreeing with the
mild predictions of the weather service, but unlike the weather service, the Olenic predicts
some severe cold and some parts of the west later on.
We think from most of the west, the western half of the country, the winter is going to
start off mild in November and December and then turn quite cold in stormy January through
March.
In the northern part, from the Dakota south to Nebraska and Kansas and west all the way
to the Pacific Northwest, we're looking for really cold stormy temperatures particularly
in February.
Peary says the pattern will continue in the country's midsection.
The plains will have a lot of that very cold weather in January, February and March.
If you get a little closer to the Mississippi River into the Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan,
those kind of states that border the Mississippi, we're looking for increasingly milder winter,
we'll be starting off a little chillier and then being compared to heavily mild in what
are traditionally the very coldest stormiest months of January and February.
Like the weather service, the Olenic sees warm weather in the northeast in November, calls
for snowstorms in December, but less snow than usual in the mid-Atlantic states.
Apparently the Olenic and the weather service agree on more precipitation in the southeast
between January through March.
The twain once said, everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about
it.
When the weather service in the Olenic talk about this winter, they agree in some areas
and another they don't.
Peary says the Old Farmers Olenic has an 80% accuracy rate, not knowing quite what that
means, we can't compare it with the weather service, but we expect both forecasts for the
coming winter have some validity.
After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
For the Environment Show, I'm Rachel Phillips.
The Environment Show wants to hear from you.
Our email address is green at wamc.org.
That's green at wamc.org.
I'm Linda Anderson and this is Ear to the Ground with stories about people affecting
change in the environment.
This week, setting sail on the clear water.
The sail is up and the clear water heads south out of Albany, New York for a three hour
tour on the Hudson River.
There's not much of a wind and the boat, 106 foot wooden sailing slope, gently rocks on
the calm waters.
Designed after Dutch slopes of the 18th and 19th centuries, the clear water is the brain
child of focusing her Pete Seeger and friends.
Believing that individuals can make a difference, the clear water was created to focus people's
attention on the Hudson River.
Since 1969, the slup has served as a movable classroom, laboratory and stage, bringing
nearly 20,000 children and adults on board each year.
Christopher Bowser is the boat's environmental educator.
We have different kinds of programs, different kinds of groups, whatever people request.
We can sort of, we like to talk to the teachers and see what they want to teach.
We have a great program that we run called the classroom of the waves, which is centered
on, leave the dock, do little fishing and sampling to see what's in the water as far
as the aquatic life there.
Raise the sails, get the whole group, whomever has on to help raise the sails up and then
split up into five stations.
They might be planked in their water chemistry or mechanical advantage, the physics of sailing,
navigation, fish.
It can be a variety of different things.
The instruction happens all along the Hudson from his far north is Albany to New York
Harbor and Long Island Sound.
With help from volunteers and staff members, the Clearwater, which is more than just the
boat, is an organization which pursues strategies to improve water quality, protect critical
habitat, promote water conservation and clean up toxic waste so the Hudson River can be
safe for the millions who live along its shore.
Chris Bowser.
I think on the Hudson River, what it really was down to is that what's good for the Hudson
River is good for the people who live along the river because they depend on the river
for a lot of things.
A lot of people get their drinking water from the river still.
Still an extremely important avenue of transportation.
Unfortunately, the once prevalent fishing industry is now just a fraction of what it was due
to the level of PCBs in the water, which is too bad because in the 1970s this is a $40
million industry and now in the 1990s as we approach the 21st century, fishing is all
but unallowable.
PCBs remain the river's biggest source of contamination and the group supports the idea
of dredging.
In addition to its education and advocacy roles, the Clearwater is about celebration.
From its great Hudson River revival in June, a big waterfront festival that includes music,
dance, folk arts and crafts, to other events like a Shad and Pumpkin Festival, the Clearwater
brings many the message that the river is a place to enjoy, which is certainly a sentiment
shared by the crew of the ship.
As one member said, we do a lot of neat stuff.
Keeping with the tradition of women captains serving on the Clearwater is Joy Oblix.
She's been captained for around 20 months and describes the crew.
We have a great program with apprenticeship program, volunteers, interns and then some
paid crew.
We have about three paid crew on board at any time, plus a captain and a cook and an educator.
But as far as total, we can sleep about 18 people semi-comfortablely.
So with the volunteers and everyone else we might have as many as 15 on board.
A gentle breeze picks up as the sun sets.
Light from the galley below, glows through the boat's skylight, and long lines of light
reflect on the water that is now turning ink black with the night.
Along the shore, commuters rush on the highway, unsuspecting of another world that lies within
reach.
Come to the river, Chris Bowser says, and check it out.
Eard to the ground, I'm Linda Anderson.
On his town, work out the console and they did pretty much fine.
Thanks for being with us on this week's Environment Show.
I'm Peter Burley.
You can't go to Africa without a copy of this tape, called 1-888-49-Green,
in order show number 406.
The Environment Show is a national production which is solely responsible for its content.
Alan Shartock is the executive producer, producers of Rachel Phillips, and Stephen Westcott.
The Environment Show is made possible by the W. Alton Jones Foundation,
the Packard Foundation, the Turner Foundation, the J.M. Kaplan Fund,
the Oliver and Jenny Donaldson Charitable Trust, Bob and Marilyn Schumann,
and Heming's Motor News, the monthly Bible of the collector Carhavi,
1-800-CAR-HRE.
So long and join us next week for the Environment Show.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0